@frozen: struggled but won meaning he has experience with that kind of tactic, Ali lost to Frazier's taking it and move forward first time around. They both been in similar situations, Tillis is no Ali Frazier is no Tyson, you also think Frazier punched harder or had better defence or speed? Ali is faster than Tyson but is he to the point it will make a difference?
Muhammad Ali vs. Mike Tyson
@frozen: @dbvse7: @frozen: @sheenlantern: gentlemen I'd like you to back up those claims somehow.
@dimitridkatsis: In movement yes, in striking not as much.
@frozen: struggled but won meaning he has experience with that kind of tactic, Ali lost to Frazier's taking it and move forward first time around. They both been in similar situations, Tillis is no Ali Frazier is no Tyson, you also think Frazier punched harder or had better defence or speed? Ali is faster than Tyson but is he to the point it will make a difference?
Tillis is nowhere near (emphasis on 'nowhere') Ali. He copied his tactics (control in the ring, etc) and he still gave Tyson problems due to styles. This is a man who copied Ali's styles yet had none of his graceful speed, defense or precision. Ali is a better version of Tillis who has beaten much better opposition.
Frazier's style is not the same as Tyson's. They are honestly very different. While both are 'short' --- Frazier was non-stop aggression from the mid rounds onwards. Tyson wasn't, by round 6-7 Tyson was tired and groggy. Tyson mostly relied on aggressive counter-punching (he says as much in his autobiography) whereas Frazier did not, Frazier was a swarmer who would exceed Ali's own ridiculous stamina and deliver crushing left-hooks to the body. Against Tyson, Ali would keep his range, clinch (Tyson struggled against clinchers) and land combinations.
Also just saying, Frazier had a much bigger heart, that's probably why he did so well in the latter rounds (in addition to fantastic conditioning). Tyson lost heart by the latter rounds.
@dimitridkatsis: Which ones lol.
@frozen: @dbvse7: @frozen: @sheenlantern: gentlemen I'd like you to back up those claims somehow.
Which claim? That Foreman hits harder? That is easily evidenced by his knockout rate against better fighters. Or Frazier having more stamina? Easily noticeable if you watch 'The Thrilla in Manilla'.
Ali is perhaps GOAT.
I don't think Tyson comes anywhere near.
@frozen: the clinching tactic was a bad idea for prime Tyson as he would still hit the other guy to the ribs or even use the elbow, penalty sure but it would make the other guy lose it.
@frozen: the clinching tactic was a bad idea for prime Tyson as he would still hit the other guy to the ribs or even use the elbow, penalty sure but it would make the other guy lose it.
Clinching against Tyson (especially if you're good at it, like Ali) worked with these fighters:
- James Tillis
- Buster Douglas
- Evander Holyfield (especially here)
- Lennox Lewis
The most relevant is Holyfield.
@frozen: Holyfield and Lewis fought after prime Tyson the other 2 lost, also what was the weight of Frazier, Foreman and Liston during their prime? I think it has to do with their punching power.
edit Douglas win was the one with the weird countdown?
Foreman and Liston both would have been knocked out in the first round. No heavyweight ever would win a majority trading punches with Tyson.
@frozen: Holyfield and Lewis fought after prime Tyson the other 2 lost, also what was the weight of Frazier, Foreman and Liston during their prime? I think it has to do with their punching power.
Buster Douglas did not lose. He beat Tyson, handily; jabbed his head off and clinched him in-close. Yes, Tyson was past his prime but that does not really address how Tyson responds to clinching. He was probably stronger after prison yet he still struggled against a strong clinch. Tillis on the other hand controlled Tyson that way and reduced his punch output (though Tyson eventually won).
In terms of those fighters at their prime weight - Foreman and Liston were 218lbs whereas Frazier was 205lbs.
Foreman and Liston both would have been knocked out in the first round. No heavyweight ever would win a majority trading punches with Tyson.
Utter nonsense. There is no credibility towards this silly statement.
A short, crowding fighter like Tyson has a horrible style to the likes of Foreman and Liston, who are large, heavy-handed sluggers. It is also reported that Cus D'Amato said no crowding fighter would beat George Foreman.
Holyfield and Lewis fought after prime Tyson
I'm tired of all this "prime" nonsense. Practically all of Ali's greatest accomplishments happened when he was past his prime. The 3-year layoff gave him a serious case of ring rust that he didn't recover from until he was well past 30. Mike Tyson became a laughing stock after returning, Ali conquered the most feared fighter in the division's history (Foreman), decisively fought off two guys who clearly had his number (Norton & Frazier) and dominated the division in it's golden age.
Foreman and Liston both would have been knocked out in the first round. No heavyweight ever would win a majority trading punches with Tyson.
LMFAO
Good god, the Tyson wanking never stops. Explain to me how Tyson beats two much taller, harder-hitting boxers, with longer reaches and granite chins?
@frozen: Buster Douglas fight was bull and how come you think Tyson would be stronger after prison? Prime Tyson was heavier which should make his punches harder, you've seen the guy uppercut
@frozen: that was because tyson was out drinking the night before and the time keeper had a different count than the ref according to time keeper tyson was only down for an 8 count and was up and ready to fight again and had the fight had continued tyson would have probably won.
@dimitridkatsis: The Buster Douglas fight was not bull. He wasn't afraid of Tyson, after his mother died, he vowed he'd beat Tyson, he stood up Tyson and 50% of the fight was over.
Tyson was heavier after prison - he was around 226lbs post-prison and it was mostly muscle due to weights, sure he lacked technique but he was physically stronger and more mature.
Just one point I want to mention is that people usually only mention the pre jail time Tyson in threads like these but always bring up Ali during the 70's despite the fact that when Ali had his boxing ban lifted and fought Frazier the first time he was coming off a three year lay off with only two fights under his belt and was 29 and by the time he fought Foreman in 74 he was 32 while when Tyson got out of jail(and was far out of his prime) he was still only 29. My point being that Ali was actually faster and more in his prime in the 60's then during his epic 70's fights. The Ali of the 60's was the best combination of speed, footwork and power that the hw division has ever seen.
@frozen: You count from the moment he falls and tell me that was 9 seconds
Exactly, Large heavy-handed slow fighters in comparison. Their striking power is similar but the speed is a mismatch. Keyword "reported" but lets look at an actual Cus qoute.
We always put a great deal of emphasis on our speed and combinations. He always told me "speed kills, speed is what kills, the speed kills".
About his height:
"It is to my advantage, because most fighters are used to fighting opponents 6-3, 6-2..the average heavyweight . And I feel I�m using it to my advantage, because I move my head, I'm very quick and I'm low to the ground so it's very difficult to hit me. I get a lot of leverage from my punches. And it doesn't matter if i punch up or straight or down or around...i have a good leverage.
Foreman and Liston have the power but lack the speed. 1st round KO
@dimitridkatsis: Let us not forget that Ali after his ban was also past his prime. This did not stop him from beating Foreman, Frazier and other great fighters to cement his legacy as the greatest.
@tragic_johnson: You did not read or understand my comment. Re-read it --- fighters of Tyson's stature and style (short, in-fighting aggressive boxers) cannot fight effectively against the likes of Liston and Foreman due to style. This was evidenced in Foreman vs Frazier --- stylewise, the short-aggressive fighter cannot overcome the superior power of the slugger.
Cus' quote was ''no swarming heavyweight who ever lived would ever defeat George Foreman''
Your height comment really has no relevance to style. Most Heavyweights by the 1970s were 6''2 - 6''3 yet all different styles. That honestly has no relevance to the slugger comment.
Ali 7/10.
I would want to see Muhammad Ali vs. Bruce Lee.
Why would you want to see that?
@dimitridkatsis: The long count is just bogus. Tyson admitted as much in following years. Douglas won fair and square, he bullied Tyson, kept his range and delivered a brutal knockout.
Sorry but that is a valid loss for Tyson.
@sheenlantern: Ali is the greatest boxer of all time, and Lee is the greatest martial artist of all time.
@frozen: difeerent people going through different situations. The best Ali can perform doesn't mean should be the best for everyone, getting him out of the sport the way they did was unfair everyone still loved him and he was motivated, Tyson lost his trainer father figure, had a gold digger wife was set up to keep the gambling interesting and sent to prison everybody saying he was a rapist and all that.
@sheenlantern: Ali is the greatest boxer of all time, and Lee is the greatest martial artist of all time.
Ah, you must have Bruce Lee confused with Anderson Silva. Easy mistake. You see, Bruce Lee was an actor with no actual fighting experience.
@sheenlantern: Yes, he was an actor. But that doesn't mean he didn't know how to fight. He invented Jeet Kune Do and trained Chuck Norris.
@dimitridkatsis: Most people, Tyson fans included rank Tyson's prime in 1988 (Spinks fight). Yet bringing up his father figure doesn't impact that, Cus died in 1985 when Tyson was only 19 --- Tyson's prime extended past Cus's death.
Ali's situation was quite obviously much worse than Tyson's. An entire nation hated him because of his anti-war stance, he had to stand by his belief and contributed to not only mounting opposition to the war in those specific years but was also involved with the Civil Rights movement. If you put Tyson's problems side-by-side comparatively, they look quite petty.
@sheenlantern: Yes, he was an actor. But that doesn't mean he didn't know how to fight. He invented Jeet Kune Do and trained Chuck Norris.
Pretty sure Chuck Norris was world-class before Bruce Lee...
@frozen: Your point is?
@frozen: " Frazier was a pressure-fighting swarmer. Tyson flat out admitted in his auto-biography that he is confused why people think of him as a swarmer - he isn't, he states himself that he's an aggressive counter-puncher and that is evidenced by his knockout montages."
So now Tyson is a swarmer because it fits your argument?
When did Cus make that qoute? give me a year.
His height does matter because it gives him leverage in any situation (especially rope-a-dope). Cus didn't want him to grow and used to make him carry weights on his shoulders.
@sheenlantern: Yes, he was an actor. But that doesn't mean he didn't know how to fight.
Absolutely, and Steven Seagal would beat Gene Lebell.
He invented Jeet Kune Do
See above; boxing and Judo are legitimate forms of fighting that really work, stuff like JKD and Aikido aren't and don't.
trained Chuck Norris.
Oh yes, Chuck Norris. The legendary MMA champion. Truly he is on par with Kazushi Sakuraba and Fedor Emelianenko.
@tragic_johnson: Wrong. Tyson was still an aggressive counter-puncher; that does not change the fact that he was a short, aggressive inside fighting counter-puncher. His stature and range is pitch-perfect for Foreman. Tyson is not a swarmer, but he still fought inside/crowding.
The quote is well-documented. Here is one source which has recorded it.
The difference between his quote is that Tyson was not a swarmer - this does not change the fact that his stature and fighting tendencies were somewhat similar to a swarmer, alebit he counter-punched.
Tyson's Peek-A-Boo style would be trash against Foreman's barrage of uppercuts. Style-wise, Tyson really has no ways of efficiently fighting Liston or Foreman.
If you want to talk street fighting, while Tyson was beating up old women on the streets, Liston was being hired by mobsters to beat up grown men (Liston was a kid while he did this).
@sheenlantern: Yes, he was an actor. But that doesn't mean he didn't know how to fight.
Absolutely, and Steven Seagal would beat Gene Lebell.
He invented Jeet Kune Do
See above; boxing and Judo are legitimate forms of fighting that really work, stuff like stuff like JKD and Aikido aren't and don't.
trained Chuck Norris.
Oh yes, Chuck Norris. The legendary MMA champion. Truly he is on par with Kazushi Sakuraba and Fedor Emelianenko.
Your first statement doesn't prove me wrong.
"stuff like JKD and Aikido aren't and don't" That is an opinion that can't be debated.
Regarding the third point, I think this is beginning to lean more towards who the greatest martial artist is/was.
When it comes down to it, all I'm really saying is that it's my opinion that Ali and Lee would be a good match up.
too many people in here dont understand the difference in gloves from the Forman Frazier Ali era, and the gloves that Tyson wore. If the same Tyson fought back in those days he would likely have killed someone.
You cannot dispute the fact that Tyson trained harder and was trained better then his predecessors. Would Usain Bolt beat Jessie Owens in a race?? Without a doubt, and thats because we have superior athletes today due to training, diet, incentive, etc. I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone up until Iron Mike, hit as hard as he did.
The amount of, and the manner in which his knockouts occurred speak for themselves. That level of power and violence had not been seen prior to him, and may not be seen again for some time.
Your first statement doesn't prove me wrong.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Show me Bruce beating a world class fighter.
That is an opinion that can't be debated.
Sure it can, you can show me a JKD or Aikido fighter winning in an MMA fight. Go on, I'll wait.
Regarding the third point, I think this is beginning to lean more towards who the greatest martial artist is/was.
Here's a little insight, if that question had a definitive answer (It doesn't) it would be someone like Rickson Gracie or Aleksandr Karelin. Not Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee.
When it comes down to it, all I'm really saying is that it's my opinion that Ali and Lee would be a good match up.
Well you are a reigning authority on martial arts, so I can't argue with that.
I bet you're the type of martial arts aficionado who knows who Jet Li is but has never heard of Cung Le.
@frozen: Tyson was an inside fighter and the best at it but even he admitted that he's a aggessive counter-puncher.
As strong as Foreman was, he was still far below in speed.
There was no year or validity to the qoute and was on a foreman fan page. Tyson even admitted that him being short was an advantage with his build/style.
Foreman should be more worried about Tyson's uppercut.
Would Usain Bolt beat Jessie Owens in a race?
What a silly comparison.
You are making a contrast between runners of the 1930s to the 2000's/2010's, to....boxers from the 1970s to the 1980s. A fat, old George Foreman returned in the 1990s and still knocked people out just fine, became Heavyweight champion of the world again, with Evander Holyfield proclaiming an older version of Foreman hit harder than both Tyson and Lewis.
Why does it always come to someone posting a video of Tyson knocking out a bunch of nobodies? Is this the be-all-end-all argument in every Mike Tyson thread?
Put that into contrast with the Heavyweights of the 1970s and there is a vast, clear difference. The competition which Ali faced, and Foreman, is much greater than that seen in Tyson.
@bullettimer: Well, people who know boxing obviously know that a fighter like Tyson isn't anything new to Ali.
The argument made for Tyson is simply, getting in close and using is raw striking power. Ali has been in close situations before.. he's not a new jack in boxing lol.
Ali has an advantage over Tyson (Tyson has advantages as well) that makes him a ring general in a sense.
When you add on Ali's height, speed, skill gap, and ability to get in an opponents head.. Ali is just as dangerous, if not more than Tyson.
With those advantages, experience, and rules placed.. Ali is bound to win a lot more than Tyson.
Isn't he? I'd say Tyson's raw speed and aggression are what would give him an edge in this bout
Sure, Ali has faced heavy hitters (Foreman comes to mind) but I don't think he's faced someone as fast and as powerful as Tyson
And in my opinion, Tyson's casual psychopathy would override Ali's psych-out abilities, Tyson is basically bloodlusted 100% of the time
1. Tyson's raw speed and aggression is related to competition. If all these amazing knockouts are mostly against stepping stones and lackluster competition, you must question the validity of comparing that to an all-time-great. The only great fighter a good condition Tyson fought was Holyfield and he lost. The excuse being ''he was past his prime'' --- the same holds true for Ali in his comeback (to which he had some of his greatest fights).
2. Ali has dealt with Tyson's tough guy image against both Liston and Foreman. It does not work against him.
3. On the subject of Tyson's much inferior roster of opponents, he actually struggled with a Muhammad Ali wannabe (James Tillis).
@sheenlantern: You obviously know nothing of Bruce Lee. He didn't compete in tournaments because he had a win-by-any-means mentality. He didn't believe in holding back during a fight but tournaments prohibited certain moves.
@frozen: Tyson was an inside fighter and the best at it but even he admitted that he's a aggessive counter-puncher.
As strong as Foreman was, he was still far below in speed.
There was no year or validity to the qoute and was on a foreman fan page. Tyson even admitted that him being short was an advantage with his build/style.
Foreman should be more worried about Tyson's uppercut.
Again, speed is irrelevant in a style matchup like that. He was far below Ali's speed (even in 1974) and it didn't mean a damn, he was effective at countering speed. In Tyson's case, fighting Foreman inside would really have no effect.
If you want more validity in that quote, here are a multitude of sources confirming it.
You are ignoring:
- Foreman's vastly superior competition / wins
- Tyson's style disadvantage
- Using Cus when it benefits you yet discarding him when it does not
@tragic_johnson: How very convenient.
Something people need to realize about Foreman also is that it wasn't just his punching power that made him the greatest puncher in boxing history, it was his accuracy with those punches which set him apart along with his reach. He could hit guys who were moving at full power which is what he kept doing to Frazier. He utterly destroyed a top 10 hw of all time due to his accuracy plus power.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment