Ali vs. Tyson: Who Would Win?

[Predicto]

Ali weighed less than Tyson when he won his heavyweight title. Great size for the era but Tyson was bigger and more muscular.

In Ali's prime he weighed 210-220, same as Tyson. But he had 8 inches in reach on Tyson, and a powerful jab.

[DM72]

Ali would have Tyson totally baffled.

[Predicto]

So basically everyone too young to remember Ali goes with Tyson, not shocking.

I think they all grew up playing Mike Tyson's Punch Out" on the NES.

[DM72]

Tyson.

Ali got hit a TON. And you don't just "absorb" shots from Mike.

He took Foreman's best shots and Forman hit harder than Tyson.

[abdcskins]

Tyson at 21 years of age would beat Ali to a pulp.

But yeah.....I never saw Ali fight I'm just going by the pure rawness of seeing Tyson clips. I'm sure Ali would outsmart him, not sure if he could hit like that though.

[Rocky21]

Ali would be waaay to smart to let Tyson get inside and work him with that brutal uppercut of his. Ever heard of rope-a-dope?

Ali all the way.

[Unforgiven]

People are going about this the wrong way and simply looking at the era and basically treating like this like a greatest of all time ranking. Obviously if you're simply doing a list then you put Ali ahead because of his era, but that is not the question.

[Sticksboi05]

He took Foreman's best shots and Forman hit harder than Tyson.

I'd actually rank Sonny Liston as a more devastating puncher because he had much better form than Foreman.

Ahh, summer days watching classic boxing fights on ESPN Classic.

Foreman vs. Tyson would be a better poll. Two pure heavy hitters.

[skinsfan07]

So basically everyone too young to remember Ali goes with Tyson, not shocking. Tyson's era was nothing compared to Ali's. You talk about Tyson's power, George Foreman was a TANK. This is the man who KO'd a 27 year old Michael Moorer to become heavyweight king at age freakin' 45. And he got beat by a past-his-prime Ali in his absolute prime. Ali also made a complete fool out of Sonny Liston. Going into that brutal beatdown (his name is Ali not Cassius) Ali was a 7-1 underdog. Liston, Frazier and Foreman were tougher than any opponent Tyson ever faced.

Foreman of course, relied solely on his raw punching power, his technique was sloppy but hey whatever works right?

Now the other side of the coin is Tyson was a physical animal much like Foreman but faster. Training before the match would've played a pivotal role. And as usual, the generational gap between them makes it hard to assess also.

I'll say this, Ali would have the crowd behind him. Lol.

but you're 21? /confused. lol Tyson fought guys with more reach than Ali. His defense is being severely underrated.

[DM72]

Tyson at 21 years of age would beat Ali to a pulp.

But yeah.....I never saw Ali fight I'm just going by the pure rawness of seeing Tyson clips. I'm sure Ali would outsmart him, not sure if he could hit like that though.

Foreman was Tyson before Tyson and Ali beat him. I was a kid of the Tyson era too, but now I'm smart enough to know Tyson looked great against average fighters. As soon as he fought guys that could box and weren't afraid of him, he had trouble.

[Sticksboi05]

People are going about this the wrong way and simply looking at the era and basically treating like this like a greatest of all time ranking. Obviously if you're simply doing a list then you put Ali ahead because of his era, but that is not the question.

You have to put it in perspective though. People are rambling about Tyson's power forgetting Ali handled Sonny Liston and George Foreman who were also devastating punchers. The problem with comparisons like these though always revolves around comparing eras of technology/competition. Tyson had better training technology for example. Ali though, had MUCH harder competition. Ali didn't beat up on scrubs which compared to the heavyweights of his era, Tyson's competition was.

But you also cannot ignore Tyson was a better raw athlete. But these debates are fun as long as people are open-minded.

[FanboyOf91]

With Kevin Rooney and Cus D'Amato?

Hard to say.

[DM72]

I'd actually rank Sonny Liston as a more devastating puncher because he had much better form than Foreman.

Ahh, summer days watching classic boxing fights on ESPN Classic.

Foreman vs. Tyson would be a better poll. Two pure heavy hitters.

Foreman and Liston's punching power is a push. Both are considered two of the hardest punchers of all time.

[Mr. Sinister]

Tyson simply did not have the ring IQ that would be necessary to take down Ali, not to mention that Ali was fast as hell, had great footwork, and would never allow himself to be a stationary target and take Tyson's vicious bodyshots. He'd use his height/reach to his advantage, and quickjab the hell out of him.

Anyone that could ever withstand Tyson's initial onslaught, and could counter, and not be intimidated, had a chance to do some damage, mentally and physically, ala Razor Ruddock and Evander Holyfield. Ali would outbox Tyson, and talk **** while doing so, and it would surely drive Tyson crazy, either to the point of a DQ, or causing him to lose focus and catch a quick, deadly hook.

[Warpath11]

Ali would win hands down, in his prime. Pre-1964 I dont think Clay was hit once in the face. He had the movement of a middleweight and handspeed of a lightweight it was incredible. Clay's movement would frustrate young Tyson whose boxing technique was poor at best. Not to mention Clay would get in his head and have a young Tyson out of his mind mid-way through the first round (actually before the fight even began).

[Unforgiven]

Tyson's speed is being underrated, as well as his defense.

People keep bringing up Foreman as a similar power puncher but Tyson had much better speed.

[Chump Bailey]

You have to put it in perspective though. People are rambling about Tyson's power forgetting Ali handled Sonny Liston and George Foreman who were also devastating punchers. The problem with comparisons like these though always revolves around comparing eras of technology/competition. Tyson had better training technology for example. Ali though, had MUCH harder competition. Ali didn't beat up on scrubs which compared to the heavyweights of his era, Tyson's competition was.

But you also cannot ignore Tyson was a better raw athlete. But these debates are fun as long as people are open-minded.

And Joe Frazier. I don't think this is even remotely close personally.

[Rodriggo]

Ali both for his height and reach advantage and the fact that he was just so much more of a man, a champion than Tyson that he would never have lost to him for anything. Mike Tyson wasn't strong enough upstairs or of the type of character it takes to beat a guy like Ali. Ali would have fought to the death, Tyson until he knew he couldn't win.

[Sticksboi05]

but you're 21? /confused. lol Tyson fought guys with more reach than Ali. His defense is being severely underrated.

Well, I meant besides myself obviously.

[Mr. Sinister]

Tyson's speed is being underrated, as well as his defense.

People keep bringing up Foreman as a similar power puncher but Tyson had much better speed.

Yeah, that's a good point, but I think Ali would make Tyson chase him around the ring, which would diminish that speed to a degree, as well as staying on the outside and making Tyson work hard for every shot.

[Unforgiven]

I think people that think this is totally one sided either way are being a bit naive. This is sort of an eternal debate though that gets brought up all the time, so I'm not surprised by this.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 04:06 PM ----------

Yeah, that's a good point, but I think Ali would make Tyson chase him around the ring, which would diminish that speed to a degree, as well as staying on the outside and making Tyson work hard for every shot.

I actually agree with that, Ali's footwork and foot speed in general was far superior.

[Mr. Sinister]

but you're 21? /confused. lol Tyson fought guys with more reach than Ali. His defense is being severely underrated.

Reach/height was all they had though. And they were big lumberers who were easy to hit. Ali was a far better ring technician, and would be able to match Tysons speed.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's kind of the problem with these kind of questions, you can't really compare them properly due to lack of common opponents. Obviously most people agree that during Ali's era atop boxing the Heavyweight division was stronger and deeper than during Tyson's time. That's not justification though to say Tyson couldn't have been just as dominant during Ali's time, it's all a matter of opinion.

True, but Tyson LOST to a lot of fighters that are not all time greats like those that Ali beat.

I don't think its a close call, in my casual boxing opinion.

[Sticksboi05]

I think people that think this is totally one sided either way are being a bit naive. This is sort of an eternal debate though that gets brought up all the time, so I'm not surprised by this.

---------- Post added September-24th-2012 at 04:06 PM ----------

I actually agree with that, Ali's footwork and foot speed in general was far superior.

He also has a 5 inch height edge and almost a foot longer reach. That plays into the smarts/speed argument for Ali.

I don't think either would win in a blowout, or knockout lol.

There are good arguments for both boxers. I still say Liston or Foreman vs. Tyson is better because they are more similar style wise.

[cactitle]

Sorry but reading this thread I can not stop thinking of this scene:

Saul: A man has the right to change his name to vatever he vants to change it to. And if a man vants to be called Muhammad Ali, godammit this is a free country, you should respect his vishes, and call the man Muhammad Ali!

Morris: His mamma call him Clay, imma call him Clay.

Saul: Then you're a putz. All of you are putzes. They should change the sign outside from My-T-Sharp to 'ze Three Putzes.

With that being said, I think Tyson before round 5 with a KO.

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