Which do you rate higher. Ali's title reign 64 to 67 or tyson s 86 to 90?

Well the fight stunk on many levels and we will never know the truth. Liston was miles closer to devastating form than Holmes however. When you put it that way i guess it depends on how you perceive Liston's effort and motives.

 

Very close but,as previous poster said,Liston and Patterson were better than anyone Tyson fought 1986-90.

And yes,the 1964 Liston was better than 1988 Holmes.

 

Prime for prime Tyson vs.Ali, let's take a look at their title defenses in their prime meaning Ali in the 60s and Tyson in the 80s both guys had nine title defenses in there primes. Now the consensus will tell you that Ali fought better guys and bigger names in his prime but I really disagree, Liston and Patterson were big names but the other seven guys that he fought were C or C+ fighters at best. Ali didn't fight or beat any undefeated fighters during his title reign in his prime, Tyson beat 3 undefeated fighters during his prime reign in the 80's.



Ali 60's



Liston 35-2-0

Patterson 43-4-0

Chuvalo 34-11-2

Cooper 33-11-1

London 34-14-0

Mildenberger 49-2-3

Williams 65-5-1

Terrell 39-4-0

Quarry 74-7-4

-----------------------

372-60-11 overall winning % of 83.9



Tyson 80's



Smith 19-5-0

Thomas 29-1-1

Tucker 34-0-0

Biggs 15-0-0

Holmes 48-2-0

Tubbs 24-1-0

Spinks 31-0-0

Bruno 32-2-0

Williams 22-2-0

----------------------

254-13-1 overall winning % of 94.8



-Ali-



Liston 35

Patterson 31

Cooper 31

Chuvalo 29

Williams 34

London 32

Mildenberger 29

Terrell 28

Folley 36



Average 31.5 years old and only 3 of 10 under 30, ZERO were undefeated.



-Tyson-



Smith 33

Thomas 28

Tucker 29

Biggs 26

Holmes 38

Tubbs 29

Spinks 32

Bruno 27

Williams 29



Average of 30 years old and 6 of 9 were under 30, 3 were undefeated (tucker, biggs and spinks.) Tucker hadnt lost a fight professionally or as an amateur in over nine years when Tyson beat him. Spinks hadn't lost a fight professionally or as an amateur in over 10 years when Tyson beat him. And Biggs hadn't lost the fight professionally or as an amateur for over five years when Tyson beat him.



Ali's longest reign 3 years and 3 months

Tyson's longest reign 3 years and 2 months



Ali's most consecutive defenses- 10

Tyson's most consecutive defenses- 9



Ali v Tyson



Career W/L/D of each and their opponents at the time and which they faced them:



Ali 56-5-0 (37 KO's)

Winning % of 91.8

Opp W/L/D-1975-319-72

Opp Winning %-83.5

Overall Rating: 87.7



Tyson 50-6-0 (44 KO's)

Winning % of 89.3

Opp W/L/D-1334-213-17

Opp Winning %-85.3

Overall Rating: 87.3



Ali v Tyson Top 10 opponents



Tyson



Berbick 31-4-1

Smith 19-5

Tucker 34-0

Biggs 15-0

Holmes 48-2

Spinks 31-0

Ruddock (1&2) 25-1-1 & 25-2-1

Bruno (1&2) 32-2 & 40-4

Holyfield (1&2) 32-3 & 33-3

Lewis 39-2-1

--------------------------------------

404-28-4 overall winning % of 92.7





Ali



Moore 185-22-10

Liston (1&2) 35-1 & 35-2

Patterson (1&2) 43-4 & 55-7-1

Frazier (1&2&3) 26-0 & 30-1 & 32-2

Foreman 40-0

Norton (1&2&3) 29-1 & 30-1 & 37-3

Leon Spinks (1&2) 6-0-1 & 7-0-1

Lyle 30-2-1

Shavers 54-5-1

Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2

----------------------------------------

634-122-18 overall winning % of 81.9





Tyson beat 7 undefeated fighters in his career

Ali beat 3 undefeated fighters in his career



Tyson's opponents overall winning % in his career at the time in which he faced them is 1.8% HIGHER than that of Ali, the guys he beat in his prime title reign had a winning percentage that was 10.9% HIGHER than that of Ali. No one can logically tell me how Ali in his prime beat better guys and had a better prime 64-67 than Tyson did 86-89.

 

Tyson typically had odds unreasonably in his favor though.

Ali was underrated at first.

 

I'd like to add that Larry wasn't given much chance because Tyson was thought of as being THAT good. Nobody had done that to Holmes, before or since. And Holmes fought some big guys starting some 4 years later as he was older and fatter. Mercer, Holyfield, McCall - all couldn't to to Holmes what Tyson did. Could Bowe, Lewis, Foreman or Tua? I doubt it.

 

Ali won the true championship by beating Liston. Tyson did not win the true championship until he beat Spinks. So we are talking apples and oranges here.

 

But if winning % meant anything then for Tyson, Peter McNeeley's a far better with than James Bonecrusher Smith .... ?

 

The uninformed look to numbers and ignore ability.

 

I tend to agree. But it's not just winning percentage, it's age and how long a fighter's been through the washer. It's not the only justified analysis in determining whose competition was better, but it's a start.

What about height and weight? Tyson fought a plethora a really big heavyweights. During Ali's first reign he fought a smaller dose as well as older and more ring worn contenders. Ali's first reign is solid but not great. it's what he did after the layoff that really, really matters.

Of course anything that leans towards Tyson being a better fighter is irrelevant in your eyes.

 

Numbers don't lie.

 

Just looking at numbers is amateur level analysis. Many fighters build numerical records that is not an indication of ability.

 

Not true.
I said straight off in one of the first replies that Tyson's challengers 1987-89 were better on average than Ali's crop '65-'67. I think winning the title from Sonny Liston puts Ali ahead though.

I think everyone knows Ali was a better fighter than Tyson anyway, so that's obviously not an issue or the subject of this thread. It would never occur to me that Ali wasn't the better fighter or that anyone half-reasonable would question it - and I don't think even you would question it either.

 

I KNOW Tyson is the better fighter. Head to head. Fantasy match ups. Talent. Skill. Technique. Ali has a better resume than Tyson, but overall I think Tyson is the better fighter. I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Ali did incredible things, had some incredible wins throughout his entire career. He lost though, too. And he struggled against lesser fighters than the ones on Tyson's ledger. Overall Ali had the better career, no doubt.

I disagree that the win over Liston puts Ali above Tyson. It helps but it's not enough. Tyson was taking belts and beating former champions, guys that were huge and in tip top shape. Some were undefeated (Tucker, Biggs), others with disputable/close decision losses (Tubbs, Holmes). Most were coming off their best victories to date (Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Biggs).

Besides Patterson and Liston (and maybe Terrell), I'm not so sure Ali's challengers were all that. Chuvalo, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, Big Cat and Folley had all seen better days or weren't that good to begin with.