Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Ali vs. Tyson: Who Would Win?

skinsfan07

By skinsfan07
in The Tailgate

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Chachie

Chachie

Posted
Posted
I think you guys miss the entire point of Ali's pre fight press conferences. Ali got in his opponents heads. Some thought he was a clown early in his career and dismissed him. In his prime Ali's hyginks distracted and angered guys like Foreman, Norton, and Frazier. I don't care what you say. It added excitement to the sport, it was a tactic which influenced the fight, it was innovative and entertaining...

What was really key was ali's ability to take people out of their game, while he was totally in control of his own. People hated Ali for this. It's one of the things which made him unique.

I absolutely am not missing the point. His theatrical methods were another dimension to him that I idolized as a child. I just think he chose an unfortunate focus when he used a gorilla to embody Joe Frazier. I honestly don't even think he was going for the race card. how could he have been? However, the racial overtones that society took from that were never to be erased. Then there's the whole Uncle Tom thing that you already mentioned.

What he did to Foreman in Zaire was simply masterful. Getting there way ahead of Foreman, endearing himself to the people there... even postponing the fight so Foreman was stuck in a place he hated. Wow. He truly won that fight long before the opening bell ever sounded. (He also took a severe beating while waiting for George to tire out.) :)

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 05:12 PM ----------

I tried to embed the barbershop scene from Coming to America but I'm lame. Anyway, this thread is reminding me of that. Anyone who cares to make this happen, please do so. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DM72

DM72

Posted
Posted
No he really wasn't. Not according to his record..... records don't lie. Tyson was a very good and potentially going to be great before prison. After Prison he was nothing.

Tyson was the name. Tyson was the draw. But he stunk. The public was hoping he would regain his form. He never did.

Certainly. Frazier was a Great Fighter... Ali in my opinion was the Greatest.. Foreman was great too, could have been better than Ali...

Holyfield was not a great fighter. He was a good fighter who came up in a time when the heavy weight division was frankly terrible. So terrible that a guy like

George Foreman was able to win 4 title fights AFTER he turned 45... Good for George, terrible for the division.

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 04:04 PM ----------

I agree with that.

Wasn't Tyson undefeated after prison until he fought Holyfield? I think you need to go watch those fights again. Tyson wasn't this hasbeen you think he was. He just got beat by a guy that wasn't intimidated by him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DM72

DM72

Posted
Posted
No. He nearly won 3 out 3 with Ali and he simply was not the right kind of fighter to handle Foreman. Frazier could walk through anyone's punches...except George's.

Holyfield beat Tyson at a time when it seemed to matter' date=' but - later - I think we figured out that beating Tyson at that point was not difficult. He lost to Bowe twice and may have lost the second fight had a parachutists not nearly murdered Bowe's pregnant wife during the fight.

I also hold it against him that Michael Moorer beat him.

I mean, what are Holyfield's career highlights?

I'll give you the first Tyson fight.

I'll give you the second Bowe fight.

I guess I'll give you the Douglas fight though Buster could not have been less interested that night.

After that, it's bites and heart problems and John Ruiz.

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 03:00 PM ----------

Anyway...this thread is about Tyson.

I actually think Larry Merchant had the best take on this. Tyson should not be in the discussion of "Greatest of All Time" but should be off in his own little category with Sonny Liston. Call that "Most Feared"....."Should Have Been All Time Greats"....."Most Self Destructive"..........

I honestly think the biggest problem I have with Tyson is that I think he quit in the ring twice while either in his prime or trying to extend his prime. Great fighters do not just give up against Buster Douglas. And they do not try to get disqualified against Evander Holyfield.

I didn't care for him as a fighter, but Holyfield - to his credit - never gave less than 100 percent HGH-fueled effort.

Moore wasn't a bad fighter. At one time, he was greatly feared. Do you take anything away from Ali for losing to Norton? Just about all great fighters have lost to lesser opponents. Sugar Ray Robinson is considered the best p4p fighter of all time and he lost numerous fights in his prime. Holmes lost to Michael Spinks in his prime but we still consider him an all time great.

Why is Holyfield held to a different standard?

And one more thing. Which one of you said Holyfield was boring? I would definitely like to respond to that.

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 05:27 PM ----------

I'm surprised this poll is so lopsided for Ali. We're talking primes here, right? Tyson would've demolished Ali.

If there's one thing history has shown us in boxing. The boxer, almost always, beats the puncher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chachie

Chachie

Posted
Posted

And one more thing. Which one of you said Holyfield was boring? I would definitely like to respond to that.

Yeah I don't know what that person was thinking.

If there's one thing history has shown us in boxing. The boxer, almost always, beats the puncher.

At the highest level of competition, yes. Pretty much always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
I'm surprised this poll is so lopsided for Ali. We're talking primes here, right? Tyson would've demolished Ali.

Reading the thread might give you some insight into why the poll results are the way they are (and why the results mirror the overwhelming views of the boxing historians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
Punching hard is not enough to beat Ali. Boxer > puncher.

Especially when the boxer in question was remarkably hard to hit straight on, and never was knocked out a single time in his entire career until he gave up the match against Larry Holmes when he was 38. Ali rarely even bled in a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chachie

Chachie

Posted
Posted
Especially when the boxer in question was remarkably hard to hit straight on, and never was knocked out a single time in his entire career until he gave up the match against Larry Holmes when he was 38. Ali rarely even bled in a match.

Speaking of the Easton Assassin, how do you feel about his career? I always wanted him to lose in the early 80s but rooted for him every time he fought after Tyson destroyed him. Master boxer who I feel is way underrated because he was bookended by Ali and Tyson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsiaticSkinsFan

AsiaticSkinsFan

Posted
Posted
I disagree with this. There have been times when the best fighters in the world were professional and their was no disputing it. At other times it hasn't been nearly as clear.

Teófilo Stevenson for example, a cuban heavy weight, was a career amateur fighter, who arguable was the best heavyweight in the world in the late 70's early 80's. I would not say the amateur ranks were totally outclassed by the professionals when Leon Spinks was coming up.

the only people who considered Stevenson the best HW in the 70s were the people who are deluded about how good professional boxers are.

Also, his case was completely different to Spinks. Spinks fought 5 years, Stevenson fought for 15 years as an amateur.

I don't think Michael Spinks was a HOF'er as a heavy weight. He was a little bit like holyfield. He had a lot of heart, he was a skilled boxer, but he was out of his depth as a heavyweight.

He thrived only because of the "dearth of quality" in the division as you say. Tyson exposed him. I don't think Tyson was a great boxer, but he did have something which elevated him above average fighters.

Holyfield was not out of his depth as a HW no matter how much you type it.

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 11:08 PM ----------

I think you guys miss the entire point of Ali's pre fight press conferences. Ali got in his opponents heads. Some thought he was a clown early in his career and dismissed him. In his prime Ali's hyginks distracted and angered guys like Foreman, Norton, and Frazier. I don't care what you say. It added excitement to the sport, it was a tactic which influenced the fight, it was innovative and entertaining...

What was really key was ali's ability to take people out of their game, while he was totally in control of his own. People hated Ali for this. It's one of the things which made him unique.

man, get outta here with this, you dont call another black man a Gorilla and an Uncle Tom to a lot o white reporters who were probably racist themselves. No one is missing anything here except for Ali being a jerk.

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 11:10 PM ----------

I always found this to be a convenient narrative device.

Was D'Amato going to be able to control a 22-year-old Mike Tyson who had millions of dollars? A sick old man living in the mountains? Tyson was (and is) a sociopath and all I think D'Amato can be credited with is hiding him away for a while and giving him a job skill.

I don't even blame Don King that much. King's not the one who took Buster Douglas lightly or got arrested for rape. Tyson should have and would have beaten tomato cans three times a year for six years for hundreds of millions of dollars.

The problem with Tyson apologists is that they all want someone to care for Tyson. They infantalize him.

I wont even go this far because I like Tyson' date=' but yeah people want to make excuses for his boxing career an its disgusting. With Tyson apologists its always "could have" and "would have" and people want us to forget what did happen to him in the ring.

---------- Post added September-27th-2012 at 11:17 PM ----------

Wasn't Tyson undefeated after prison until he fought Holyfield? I think you need to go watch those fights again. Tyson wasn't this hasbeen you think he was. He just got beat by a guy that wasn't intimidated by him.

he was undefeated, and as you have repeated in this thread, was the favorite in the first Holyfield fight. Shoot, people thought Holyfield was the one who was a washed up has-been before that fight, not Tyson. Its just funny how the narrative changes after that fight.

Speaking of the Easton Assassin, how do you feel about his career? I always wanted him to lose in the early 80s but rooted for him every time he fought after Tyson destroyed him. Master boxer who I feel is way underrated because he was bookended by Ali and Tyson.

one of the best jabs ever. Like you said, a very underrated fighter because he was the guy post-Ali and pre-Tyson.

Im just happy he is one of the few guys to leave the sport without being broke even though Don King did rob him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
I tried to embed the barbershop scene from Coming to America but I'm lame. Anyway, this thread is reminding me of that. Anyone who cares to make this happen, please do so. :)

Link instead of imbed because of a couple of cuss words. Good call though. (BTW, pretty sure that's a young Cuba Gooding, Jr. in the barber's chair!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

Holmes was a great great great boxer. He just had the unfortunate fate of being the champ after Ali.

There is a great line in the HBO Don King movie where King says "People would rather watch Muhammad Ali watch Larry Holmes fight than watch Larry Holmes fight."

---------- Post added September-28th-2012 at 08:39 AM ----------

Moore wasn't a bad fighter. At one time, he was greatly feared. Do you take anything away from Ali for losing to Norton? Just about all great fighters have lost to lesser opponents. Sugar Ray Robinson is considered the best p4p fighter of all time and he lost numerous fights in his prime. Holmes lost to Michael Spinks in his prime but we still consider him an all time great.

Moorer was okay. My problem with Holyfield is that he lost to everyone. His heavyweight resume has two "good" wins on it - and those are over historical head cases in Tyson and Bowe. To be an all-time great, you need either great wins or great fights. It's hard to come up with either for Holyfield. The Bowe trilogy was pretty good.

The thing to remember is that whoever was fighting Buster Douglas after Tyson was going to be heavyweight champ. They could have put a ring girl in there and she was walking out with the belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsiaticSkinsFan

AsiaticSkinsFan

Posted
Posted
Moorer was okay. My problem with Holyfield is that he lost to everyone. His heavyweight resume has two "good" wins on it - and those are over historical head cases in Tyson and Bowe. To be an all-time great' date=' you need either great wins or [b']great fights.[/b] It's hard to come up with either for Holyfield. The Bowe trilogy was pretty good.

The thing to remember is that whoever was fighting Buster Douglas after Tyson was going to be heavyweight champ. They could have put a ring girl in there and she was walking out with the belt.

you dont think Holyfield had great fights? I cant agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DM72

DM72

Posted
Posted

Holyfield's a 3 time heavyweight champ. You don't win the heavyweight title 3 times being just an ok fighter. Dude was a straight up warrior in the ring and some of you are saying he wasn't exciting? I don't know what you were watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
Holyfield's a 3 time heavyweight champ. You don't win the heavyweight title 3 times being just an ok fighter. Dude was a straight up warrior in the ring and some of you are saying he wasn't exciting? I don't know what you were watching.

Naw, Holyfield was good. I'm not going down the road with JMS. I was just being snarky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted
Speaking of the Easton Assassin, how do you feel about his career? I always wanted him to lose in the early 80s but rooted for him every time he fought after Tyson destroyed him. Master boxer who I feel is way underrated because he was bookended by Ali and Tyson.

Super nice guy and still completely with it. I've met him a bunch of times, being near Easton. His old gym was a block over from my old town.

As far as boxing goes, Ali for sure. I'm not even sure how Tyson would have faired against Alis opponents. Could anybody from the Tyson era even compete with Frazer or Foreman? I doubt it.

Foreman is fun to watch box. Guy was just mean and tough. Probably hit as hard as Tyson too.

Earlier in this thread I said it would have been fun to see how Tyson could have done in that era, but imagine guys like Frazer, Foreman and Ali growing up with todays modern training and fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...