The OFFICIAL was Muhammad Ali a tad over rated Poll.

Failing to understand that 'great' can be used in more than one context is about as moronic as it gets.

First we need to define what 'great' means, in your world, Ali is the the greatest because of his cultural impact.

In my world Mike Tyson was the greatest due to his incredible combination punching, impregnable defence, savage aggression, dedication and fitness, concussive power and all round feeling of invincibility in his prime.

I know you're now going to go on about how Douglas beat him in his prime etc but I am talking about when he was on top and his mind was right, I believe Tyson of 86-88 would have beaten any fighter that ever lived.

 

So you are saying Mike has a better resume than Ali?

 

I think he is saying in his prime vs prime Tyson was better,not that his resume was better..

 

If u include outside the ring he is GOAT

 

Exactly. And if Tyson fought and beat Ali's opponents in the 80s they would be classed as bums. It's their competitiveness against Ali that made them 'great opponents', it's self perpetuating.

I like Ali, his fights were exciting, he was great whatever way you look at it, but I don't understand the hysteria around him.

I have Tyson at his best beating him handily, when he was focused he would not be denied.

 

Mike looked like a beast because of the trash he was fighting:deal

Soon as he fought somebody that wasn't scared of him he got KTFO..

 

Yeh, he is saying 86-88 Tyson, which fair enough, I agree was a beast.

But.. That wasnt Tyson, and to say someone is the greatest of all time because of how they fought in a 2 year period, and disregard the rest of his career is ludicrous

 

Foreman,Liston,Frazier,Patterson,Quarry,Shavers,Norton,Lyle,Williams,best heavyweight resume ever,was untouchable in the 60s,lost his best years and when he returned he was slower and still went on to beat great fighters,best heavyweight ever,top 5 ATG,most famous boxer of all time and one of the most famous people ever,not overrated one bit..

 

I have the same assessment. :deal

 

Nonsense, lots of his opponents trash talked him and refused to let him intimidate them and were promptly blown away.

I was waiting for the Douglas fight to be brought up!

Any objective person with half a brain can see that Tyson was not himself from the opening bell.

Are you saying that Douglas turned Tyson from an unbeatable wrecking machine with unparalleled speed, accuracy and power into the slug we saw in Tokyo?

Everyone knows Tyson was mentally in a mess in that fight and a million miles away from himself, so why would it be relevant when comparing two guys at their best?

 

:deal

Clay was out for 3 years, came back and was still on top

Tyson was out for 3 years, came back and didnt really do much in boxing terms

 

But if comparing peak with peak, the time scale is irrelevant. If Tyson peaked for one month I would use that when comparing him with the peak of others.

 

That dosnt change the fact that that was Tyson and that is the legacy he left behind

You cant disregard it because he didnt perform well

 

Again...what was so great about most of those guys?

Shavers would be a bum by today's standards, as would Quarry, Norton, Lyle, Williams. All lost early in their careers, all have resumes peppered with KO losses, I'm just not buying it, sorry.

 

Greatness isnt defined by one fight

Its defined by the legacy you leave behind.

Ali consistantly beat better oposition than Tyson and did so for a much longer period of time, in spite of all the troubles he had out of the ring.

They were both out for 3 years. And Ali was still stronger.

That must mean something when defining greatness?

What you are getting at is that you think H2H 1988 Tyson beats Ali, which you are entitled to think.

But that dosnt make him greater because he didnt accomplish nearly as much as Ali