Why 87 Tyson beats 66 Ali...

I agree with those favoring Ali. While Tyson was truly formidable in his prime, his later struggles & admitted psychological issues that his team shored up would likely come out with the pre & actual fight psychological challenge against prime Clay/Ali (he changed his name in his prime). Prime Tyson never approached fighting the level of speed, skill & heart as prime Ali.

M.G., I do not feel Ruddock was far better than Ringo. Though arguably better. Also Ringo only floored a pre-prime Frazier, who beat him handily in the rematch. You could wonder if Frazier could take his shots, I just think Frazier gets inside to smother him better than against Foreman. I see it is if past prime Tyson could beat Ruddock both times, Frazier (tougher though not the phsyical wonder as a Tyson), likely would take him. Prime Frazier that is.

You have given me something to consider about Liston re: his opponents. He was not uncoordinated & had some real boxing skills, but Tyson's level of strength & speed was something great. Though the example of a post-prime Clay is not a good one, Liston was past it & not taking the fight seriously. Liston being under 220 (about the same weight as Tyson) is not the most important point, I think you overrate the importance of weight. Lean weight means something, but is not deterministic. Liston also had maybe the best jab ever, did have very good endurance, hit very hard & had 13"(!) of reach on Tyson. The biggest "ape factor" (reach greater than height) I have EVER seen, unless the 11" also credited to true (7' 7") NBA giant Manute Bol is correct. Still the largest % difference between height & wingspan, virtually 15%. While the avergae bloke is like Tyson, basically exactly a square.

I also think Foreman & Liston hit harder than Tyson, & whether ""push" or not it causes impact. Each guy does what he CAN to generate force, speed, strength, size of hands...Even if Foreman's form was imperfect, I do not believe that anyone could hit amongst the hardest ever with merely arm punches, no turning of the hips nor using the legs. I think Frazier just had a better chin & heart than Ruddock, but you could argue the chin thing...

Are you refrring to Frazier or Foreman here? "There were others aside from Shavers, he could have also caught Liston, Norton or Foster or Williams". Because each destroyed one of those guys in two rounds, & Liston was old/basically done by the time they were around.

I am really puzzled that you said Moorer & Lyle were the only credible opponents he beat Norton & even a bit of a past Frazier were very credible! You like Cooper a lot, Briggs was still very good, & in his 1st career, Peralta, Chuvalo, Wepnder, O'Hal;loran, Johnson were amongst the best he beat. And none were past prime, + recall it is rare for boxers to beat-or even face-others AS great as them in their primes.

Even if George's competition was not the best overall, most guys fight mostly "bums", because top quality fighters in their prime are usually hard to find. Lewis did well in facing these guys, but Louis fought some quite good guys in addition to his "bum of the month" club.

 

:huh

 

Ghost.

Please leave it now, as you are in danger of embarrassing yourself with statements like the above, and you are one of the better posters.

 

M.G, I gotta tell you that while some of what you say is debatable, other things are demonstrably waaaay of man!

1) Foreman did face generally weak opposition, but you said only 2 good fighters, & I mentioned a bunch. Most HWs & fighters face many "bums", as noted on this forum, it is part of the seasoning process. Olympic champion after having fought a short time, quite an accomplishment. How Tyson had some early fights FIXED (not his doing), & you say he faced better competition after he was champ & some after jail? That is a lot of not great competition, & some of the latter he fanously lost. tey we agree he was easily an ATG at his peak.

2) I recall Ruddock around 228, & checked my memory for Ringo: he came in at 218, fully modern bulk for his height! Frazier said it was like moving a refrigerator around the ring. See I am no extremist always favoring the older guys, & grant what seems reasonable. But both Ringo & Ruddock were top contender quality HWs in excellent eras with limitations. That Joe was dropped by him (before his peak) is not at all damning: you know how many fights dropped Joe Louis in his career? Nine, & except for Schmelling & when past it, he always won.

3) There are many ways to be great, & I ask you to consider your biases. Now een though Ringo had Tyson's bulk, there is some on average advantage in being bigger. BUT it is limited for the HWs, & you blow it out of proportion. Having a Liston & Lewis-like reach is an advantage, but you can be great with the small swarmer arms.

4) Liston is widely recognized as having some significant skills. More than Foreman, who could cut a ring & jab: Liston had amongst the greatest HW jabs ever, & patiently set up his other shows like the right & uppercut, not just a slugger.

5) Will you listen to reason if NOBODY here will agree that Ali "never had any reflexes to speak of"? That is completely the opposite of reality. I respect that you watch film of fights, & Ali compensated well for his boxing shortcomings with the greatest HW reflexes EVER in the '60's, & GREAT foot speed. Still very good in the '70's, except his foot speed had slowed the most. Man, announcers often remarked upon it, you can read about his opponents like Zora Folley saying how he was so fast & caught you from impossible angles.

Tyson was very fast too, but to say this about Ali's reflexes...It is like claiming Einstein was severely ******ed! I have never heard even a real Ali hater say something so absurd as this, & thus I wonder what could blind you so. How can anyone see, say, the Cleveland Williams fight where he was barely touched & say otherwise?

6) Ali was much better than Ratliff. A Spinks era Ali might lose to Williams, like Holmes basically did when past his prime.

7) Ali rarely did anything resembling "crumpling". Sure you can make a rational argument for Tyson vs. Ali, but you are too biased in favor of more recent fighters. I have never heard anyone say Ali's era was not at least a great if not the best one. And while I see size sometimes (being amongst many things) that make the difference, you overrate it as a factor at HW.

 

Well Merchant's you've really gave the game away with this one.
You're just another Troll.:-(

 

MERCHANTS GHOST STATED "Regarding Ringo, he was barely over the HW limit, sorry to have to bring weight into it, I feel Ruddock is a more skilled boxer as well, Ringo was not very skilled at all, but Razor weighed what 230 odd lbs to Ringo's 200. That's one of the big differences between the ages, the reality is most of the opponents that fought in the golden age would be knocked straight out in subsequent heftier eras simply by virtue of the fact that 30lbs is a massive advantage when taken over an entire population of boxers, if not just in individual circumstances."
Sorry to disagree again Merchants ghost but bonavena's weight was 218lb(same as tyson) at 5'10"(same as tyson).he was not skilled like a berbick,but awkward and very strong.though his training was questionable(he liked to party)he went 12 rounds with 6'3" 220lb tough,power punching Ron Lyle.15 tough rounds with Ali.beat 6'3" alvin lewis.as far as size relates to heavy's in modern times,Orlin Norris(5'10" or under,213lb)was actually ducked by many heavyweights,barely lost the title to Henry Akinwande(by running,easy at 6'7") and actually boxed from the outside behind a jab!

 

Bonavena did catch Frazier in their first fight but I believe too much has been made about this. Joe was in his 11 or 12th pro fight and Ringo was a solid contender. It was a step up for a young prospect maybe a shade too soon.

Who was Tyson fighting in his 11th pro fight? Not knocking Mike just saying Joe had an unusually fast rise to the top of the division.

As it was Oscar Bonavena has the misfortune of facing a close or closer to prime Joe Frazier and he took a pretty bad beating in 1968. Gotta give him credit he showed a tough chin and went the 15 rounds. He never had Frazier down or in trouble if Joe was supposed to be chinny it didnt look that way. Not in his prime.

Ruddock was a tough guy. He may go the distance with Joe. I don`t agree that he could box really at all. Razor had poor balance, was one handed and didn`t set up his shots at all with his jab being non existent.

His chances of beating a prime Frazier are pretty slim. Even Foreman couldn`t keep an overweight Frazier on the canvas no way Ruddock would be able to cope with a prime Joe.

 

Ali would k.o. Spinks.

 

MG, time to be big enough-& savor the irony that this partially involves your preocupation about aize-to admit further bias!


It is good to astutlely challenge contional wisom. But endless studies confirm how folks confirm their a priori bias, The '70's WERE a Golden Era of HWs, the '60's approached them. ARGUABLY the '90's were similar in quality, better if you assume bigger is better (sometimes, all other things being equal, it is).

Foreman was one of the very best ever. He had some skill,s a superb jab when he used it, uppercut, set up punches & cut the ring very well, great aggression & at keeping proper distance. Yet he was not & did not need to be a great technician. His slubbing power & confidence meant very few would be favored over him prime to prime.

You said Bonavena was 200 lbs., also that he was barely the HW minunum. Then you changed it to maxing out at 210., & see he & Tyson were the same in their prime. BTW, I met Tyson, I believe the 5' 11" 1/2. Thickness, a crouching style, + fighting taller men made him look shorter.

The critique of Ruddock above is correct, though he had some skills. But his punch helped him be a top contender. Frazier WAS somewhat better. Razor is unlikely to stand up to hsi work rate & inside game. Ruddock was no Foreman, though in his prime Joe would have done better-though lost.

Ali had SUPERB reflexes! As did Tyson. Totally distinct styles. Of COURSE Ali did not duck: we was much taller & fough on his toes. But just footspeed would NOT save him from all the pucnhes he escaped, via lateral movement & pulling his head back, if he could not react very fast indeed.

You are comparing how Holmes did against Spinks well after his prime to how Ali would do. The analogy is obvious: Ali would have trouble with either SPinks when ALSO past his prime. Like Ali, Holmes deserved one of those fights. Prime Ali easily beats Spinks. Ali just before, like against Doug Jones, would be close.

 

So now you have Michael Grant and Tommy Morrison beating Ali and view Michael Spinks better than Liston :rofl

Is it any ****ing wonder you have been banned 3 times this year :roll:

 

Actually i do have something to contribute....
I suggest the mods do an ip check on your location and make the ban permanent.

 

Being a pratt

 

Tommo, Glover, Collins, Merchants Ghost.
All the same person.

Your problem is you can't help yourself with the agenda you have with past eras.
Each and every time you reappear you pump out the same old spiel, rack up 500 or so posts then get found out and it all gets deleted again.
You clearly have far too much time on your hands or you are purely trolling

Lennox Lewis ?, sure he would have and excellent chance against Ali.

David Haye, Michael Grant, Tommy Morrison FFS and to top it all off you have Michael Spinks better than Sonny Liston.

Borrowed time my friend, borrowed time.

 

Anyone who says Chisora would beat Joe Frazier can't be taken seriously.

 

Amen brother.