-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]
I'd love to say Tyson stacks up against the best guys who ever laced them up in the division. His actual career accomplishments don't allow me to do so.[/QUOTE]
That just sums up what I said.
I don't consider Tyson one of the best ever, and I don't ever put him anywhere near the top. And I never said anything about your previous post, or that calling him the 3rd best of his time was underrating him. I'm talking in general, your opinions about him.
Once again, he was a very special fighter, and a great young champion. I couldn't give a damn what happened in the Evander fights. If you actually believe Holyfield would stand a chance against Mike back in his prime, then good for you, but you need to reevaluate your passion and knowledge of boxing. I have no doubt Lennox beats Tyson at any point in his career, but Evander vs Tyson, both at their best, its not close.
And speaking of overrated fighters, Evander is very close to the top of that list.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
interesting arguments. so i'm much more of an MMA guy, but for all the accurate critique of tyson, isn't there another way of looking at him? i.e., as two separate fighters?
meaning, one guy who fought with the fury of the gods to make his surrogate father happy? and another guy, sometime after cus' death, who fought with wandering focus and little motivation from then on?
tyson #1's career had a shortish lifespan, but he did pretty much wreck everyone placed in front of him IIRC. that's all he could really do, right?
if he had merely been killed in a plane crash and not fallen apart after his father figure died, we wouldn't hold that against him, would we? we wouldn't say that tyson #2 was a disappointing fighter, therefore the greatness of tyson #1 was diminished by association?
would we?
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=GOBB]Ali could go 15 rounds. Could Tyson?[/QUOTE]
1986 Tyson? Easily
People are using past prime arguments to make a case against prime Mike Tyson
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=9erempiree]Go watch Tyson vs Ribalta. He went past the the 4th round for the very first time in his career I believe. Ribalata was a very good fighter and too bad how the fight ended but you can clearly see Tyson's skill as a technical fighter.[/QUOTE]
Tyson's defense and instincts are criminally overlooked. He was an absolute master of the science. He studied tape religiously at Cus's house and was as technically sound as any fighter in the history of the sport
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=plowking]
There isn't a heavyweight I'd take over Lennox to win a single fight apart from maybe Foreman.[/QUOTE]
You're joking right? Ali would murder Lewis
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
you have Paul Malignaggi in your avi :lol
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Ranking Tyson as the 3rd best hw of his era might actually be generous. Lewis and Holyfield are obviously ahead of him, but bowe has a solid argument too(though he has the same longevity issue that Tyson has)
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]Ranking Tyson as the 3rd best hw of his era might actually be generous. Lewis and Holyfield are obviously ahead of him, but bowe has a solid argument too(though he has the same longevity issue that Tyson has)[/QUOTE]
Lewis and Holyfield are the 90's. Tyson is the 80's. They are not of the same era. Lewis and Holyfield entered their primes in their 30's. Tyson hit his prime in his late teens.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=kNicKz]Lewis and Holyfield are the 90's. Tyson is the 80's. They are not of the same era. Lewis and Holyfield entered their primes in their 30's. Tyson hit his prime in his late teens.[/QUOTE]
You realize that both Lewis and Holyfield are older than Tyson right???
So his era in your opinion is from 1986 to 1989????
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Tyson might not have been the best HW in his era, but he was who everybody wanted to see. Same with Pacquiao, they are so popular because they were very fan friendly fighters. Tyson fought a lot of bums in his career but people didnt care. They just wanted to see somebody's head get knocked off. And that is what Tyson gave the fans.
You don't see many fighters, strike fear in their opponents like Tyson did. Some fights, he didnt even come to the ring with entrance music. But with horror movie sounds, which I thought was hilarious. :oldlol:
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Man... heavyweights today are so ploddingly slow, they bore me to sleep. :lol
Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay in his prime was so blazingly fast with his hands and quick with his feet. How I wish we could see another heavyweight boxer like him.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]You realize that both Lewis and Holyfield are older than Tyson right???
So his era in your opinion is from 1986 to 1989????[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he went to this place called prison after that. For 4 years he was the undisputed champion of the world ...
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=kNicKz]Yeah, he went to this place called prison after that. For 4 years he was the undisputed champion of the world ...[/QUOTE]
You know the buster Douglas fight was before he went to prison right?
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]You know the buster Douglas fight was before he went to prison right?[/QUOTE]
You're aware that Lennox Lewis was put to sleep by Hasim Rahman? LOL
We can do this all day
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]
So his era in your opinion is from 1986 to [SIZE="5"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][COLOR="Black"]1989[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]????[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=knickz]yea[/QUOTE]
[quote] Mike Tyson vs. Buster Douglas February 11, [SIZE="5"]1990[/SIZE] [/quote]
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]You know the buster Douglas fight was before he went to prison right?[/QUOTE]
Pretty obvious that that was established .
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Here's the issue for Tyson fans, if you discount all his losses, then you also have to discount his biggest wins. You can't count a win over a 39 year old Larry Holmes as a major victory if you discount your own losses because you were outside your prime when they started when you were 23.
Also you are aware that Tyson never had another big win after Douglas, Lewis did after losing to rock.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=gigantes]interesting arguments. so i'm much more of an MMA guy, but for all the accurate critique of tyson, isn't there another way of looking at him? i.e., as two separate fighters?
meaning, one guy who fought with the fury of the gods to make his surrogate father happy? and another guy, sometime after cus' death, who fought with wandering focus and little motivation from then on?
tyson #1's career had a shortish lifespan, but he did pretty much wreck everyone placed in front of him IIRC. that's all he could really do, right?
if he had merely been killed in a plane crash and not fallen apart after his father figure died, we wouldn't hold that against him, would we? we wouldn't say that tyson #2 was a disappointing fighter, therefore the greatness of tyson #1 was diminished by association?
would we?[/QUOTE]
Great point. I see too many people talk about Tyson's fights with Evander, Buster & Lewis as a reference to why he was overrated or just wouldn't stack up to former greats.
.....but he wasn't the same. He peaked way early, and fell apart mentally afterwards. Cus and to a point Rooney were his foundation as much as his actual boxing talents.
When we talk about Tyson vs. Ali and who would win.......we're suppose to debate the early Tyson vs. Ali, not the guy who lost to Buster, Lennox, etc when it was clear he wasn't the same boxer.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]Here's the issue for Tyson fans, if you discount all his losses, then you also have to discount his biggest wins. You can't count a win over a 39 year old Larry Holmes as a major victory if you discount your own losses because you were outside your prime when they started when you were 23.
Also you are aware that Tyson never had another big win after Douglas, Lewis did after losing to rock.[/QUOTE]
except for that one time when he became heavyweight champion again after he got out of prison ...
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=Carbine]Great point. I see too many people talk about Tyson's fights with Evander, Buster & Lewis as a reference to why he was overrated or just wouldn't stack up to former greats.
.....but he wasn't the same. He peaked way early, and fell apart mentally afterwards. Cus and to a point Rooney were his foundation as much as his actual boxing talents.
When we talk about Tyson vs. Ali and who would win.......we're suppose to debate the early Tyson vs. Ali, not the guy who lost to Buster, Lennox, etc when it was clear he wasn't the same boxer.[/QUOTE]
This is the nail that I have been trying to drive home. I don't give a **** if he lost to Lennox Lewis when he was 37 years old lol. 18 year old mike was a machine. People are talking about way past prime performances as arguments against him when the argument is prime vs. prime. Regardless of how short his prime was, it doesn't matter. 1986 Tyson is in the ring in this scenario. Using a fight that he lost 16 years after 1986 is not an argument to why he wouldn't perform well
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
So just for the record his prime ended before he turned 24?
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]So just for the record his prime ended before he turned 24?[/QUOTE]
He is the youngest HW champion in the history of the sport, he peaked very early. The longevity of his prime is irrelevant in this discussion. It's 1986 Tyson vs. Prime Ali in a boxing ring. Sadly it isn't the resume competition that you are currently trying to make happen.
When you compare Andre Berto to an undisputed heavyweight champion , you should probably stop watching and discussing the sport
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=plowking]That just sums up what I said.
I don't consider Tyson one of the best ever, and I don't ever put him anywhere near the top. And I never said anything about your previous post, or that calling him the 3rd best of his time was underrating him. I'm talking in general, your opinions about him.
Once again, he was a very special fighter, and a great young champion. I couldn't give a damn what happened in the Evander fights. If you actually believe Holyfield would stand a chance against Mike back in his prime, then good for you, but you need to reevaluate your passion and knowledge of boxing. I have no doubt Lennox beats Tyson at any point in his career, but Evander vs Tyson, both at their best, its not close.
And speaking of overrated fighters, Evander is very close to the top of that list.[/QUOTE]
Somehow, for all the talk about how unfair I am to Tyson, is this being fair to Evander Holyfield? Yes, I think the version of Holyfield that knocked Buster Douglas silly in under a round would beat any version of Tyson.
Here's the thing not often talked about when it comes to Mike. He exited prison and immediately got back to doing what he was doing in the mid-80s against inferior competition. I was deep into the sport at the time and the hype around Tyson going into that Holyfield fight was enormous. No one was talking about him being washed up or past his prime. He was a HEAVY favorite and few people were giving Holyfield a chance in hell.
Tyson was coming off of early stoppages against Bruce Seldon and Frank Bruno, two guys who maybe weren't great, but were comparable to many of the guys he was fighting early in his career, particularly Bruno. I mean, Bruno had beaten Oliver McCall the fight prior and Tyson just completely destroyed Bruno in under three rounds.
Until he fought Holyfield, no one had lasted three rounds with Tyson post-prison.
Then, suddenly, as soon as he's beaten, it means he is washed up and clearly not the same guy as he was in the 1980s and we shouldn't judge anything that happened after 1989.
It is not debatable that Holyfield was the best fighter Tyson had faced in his career up to that point. I guess it's just happenstance that his sudden decline from unbeatable to just very good happened at such a young age and became so crystal clear as soon as he fought another great fighter from his own era.
This is the selective reasoning I'm talking about when it comes to Tyson. There is no athlete who has ever lived that receives the amount of leeway as Tyson. And, if those excuses happen to come at the expense of another great fighter, so be it.
I feel like I rate Tyson exactly where he should be... A very good, ferocious fighter who was one of the hardest punchers to ever live, but not a guy who was going to be able to turn a fight around if it was going south. Often times when two great fighters go against each other, one will have to outwit the other by adapting during the fight. Tyson was never that guy. In fact, I saw him lose hope in several fights after falling behind early, despite his great natural gift of being a deadly puncher.
He was a modern day Sonny Liston (that would be a fight I'd love to see, Tyson-Liston). The kind of guy who will knock you into next week if you allow him to bully you and dictate the fight. However, a bit lost when a guy matched him.
The biggest difference is Tyson didn't beat a Floyd Patterson level champion in his career. For a guy as highly rated by many people as Tyson, he doesn't have the kind of wins to justify it. It's almost completely based on these "what if" scenarios.
We'll just have to agree to disagree if you don't see it that way.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=Carbine]For those of you saying Mike was in his prime when he lost to Douglas, that's really not anywhere near the truth. He very clearly was not.[/QUOTE]
That was only 2 years after he knocked out Spinks in 91 seconds. He was still in his 20s.
He would have had trouble with Douglas at any time because of Douglas' reach and lack of fear. Douglas didn't just win the fight, he punk'd Tyson.
Meanwhile Ali's loss against Frazier was after his 3+ year ban for refusing military service.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]... This is the selective reasoning I'm talking about when it comes to Tyson. There is no athlete who has ever lived that receives the amount of leeway as Tyson. And, if those excuses happen to come at the expense of another great fighter, so be it. ...[/QUOTE]
well-said, sir, but it seems you are also using a date of your choosing to make your big judgement of tyson. i.e. his first loss, i.e. when he went from a potential great to 3rd-best of his generation.
but i was trying to say earlier that his will had been departing earlier for various reasons. this also explains how someone that young could be washed up so quickly. and sure............ it's an unusual reason among athletes, but it does happen... like with shawn kemp and such. so isn't that just reality, and in the attempt to be fair, we call a spade a spade and make an exception in our ruleset?
i'll ask it again-- don't you think it's unfair to blame prime tyson for not beating better HW's? i mean, he DID knock off everyone placed in front of him, including all the precious belt-holders and such. tony tucker... pinklon thomas on top of the ones already mentioned.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
another thing- few fighters indeed made a career out of dismantling top-level competition like a predator tearing apart its prey. not even ali, lewis or the oldies were quite that good AFAIK.
i mean, the 'cans' may be a bit of a factor, but overall i would think the majority (or all) of his opponents were still top-5 / top-10 material.
so this is kind of an X-factor that you can't measure by numbers, but i don't think it should be left out of the discussion. nobody, but nobody, in sports doesn't have a measure of 'greatness' for owning this fairly rare quality.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
The issue is, never a single time in Tyson's career did he beat a great fighter. Not once. Nor to be honest was he ever even competitive with one. Saying he didn't beat all the greats is one thing, but he didn't even looked like he belonged in the same ring.
And as for him falling apart and others doing it to, the history of boxing is littered with guys who were going to be amazing and ended up not being special when they actually fought someone good. Were they dominant to the extent young Tyson was? No but then again his skill set was perfect for dismantling cans and looking great doing it.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=KyleKong]Tyson is just a smaller version of George Foreman.
I'd take Ali by TKO in round 10.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
Foreman and Tyson were nothing alike as fighters.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=gigantes]well-said, sir, but it seems you are also using a date of your choosing to make your big judgement of tyson. i.e. his first loss, i.e. when he went from a potential great to 3rd-best of his generation.[/quote]
See, I don't think I'm doing that. I'm looking at his career as a whole like we do with all other boxers. I'm not diminishing the first half of his career when he was dominant in the 1980s. That's why I call him a very promising young champion who was a ferocious puncher.
However, I'm also weighing that against what he did later in the late-80s and 1990s. He wasn't horrible in the '90s, that's the thing. Again, that's what isn't talked much about in these Tyson threads. I'd put his early stoppages of Seldon (1996), Botha (1999) and Golota (2000) as some of the most impressive performances of his career, including what he did in the 1980s.
Botha gave Moorer a competitive fight for 12 rounds before being stopped late, Seldon was coming off the best win of his career and Golota was Golota.
Mike dispatched all three with ease (even if Golota was more due to complete insanity). That's also part of the reason I think it's impossible to simply dismiss the Holyfield defeats. They came amidst some very impressive performances by Mike.
[QUOTE=gigantes]but i was trying to say earlier that his will had been departing earlier for various reasons. this also explains how someone that young could be washed up so quickly. and sure............ it's an unusual reason among athletes, but it does happen... like with shawn kemp and such. so isn't that just reality, and in the attempt to be fair, we call a spade a spade and make an exception in our ruleset?
i'll ask it again-- don't you think it's unfair to blame prime tyson for not beating better HW's? i mean, he DID knock off everyone placed in front of him, including all the precious belt-holders and such. tony tucker... pinklon thomas on top of the ones already mentioned.[/QUOTE]
I just don't think the reality backs up the claim that Tyson was washed up in his early-20s. It's not his fault the HW division was so bad in the mid-80s, but I think it's foolish to grade him based only on those years when he was facing good but not great competition.
Especially since, later in his career, he really did face great competition and they came among some really nice wins over guys comparable to those he was facing in the 80s. There's no reason for me to believe Tyson was a totally different guy or that the things Holyfield did to throw Tyson's game off wouldn't have been successful five years prior.
Part of Holyfield's successful plan was roughing Mike up and getting him mentally out of the fight. I don't see that approach being any less successful against Mike in 1988.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Its funny David Tua didn't get more love during his career.
Another short, powerful heavyweight, who was probably an even harder hitter (one of the hardest ever), had a better chin, and actually strung together some nice wins.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
So basically what people are saying is we can only compare them at a certain point In their careers since Tyson didn't age very well past his extremely short prime?
If that doesn't tell you anything then I don't know wtf will.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=plowking]Its funny David Tua didn't get more love during his career.
Another short, powerful heavyweight, who was probably an even harder hitter (one of the hardest ever), had a better chin, and actually strung together some nice wins.[/QUOTE]
Tua was talked about as a Mike Tyson clone for the first half of his career. He actually was getting a good amount of hype leading into the Lennox Lewis fight even though he had already lost (to my man Ike Ibeabuchi).
The biggest difference between Tua and Tyson early in their careers was Tyson would attack guys with hellacious combinations which would break ribs and crack skulls. Tua had the power, but tended to throw one punch at a time. That's what got him into trouble against Ibeabuchi.
You're right, though. Considering his knockout power, you'd think he would have captured the public's imagination more than he did. The fact that he was from New Zealand probably didn't help him in America.
His knocking out John Ruiz, one of the most annoyingly winning boxers of all-time, was among my favorite sports moments of the 1990s.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj5e7NPWnrY[/url]
Tyson had a fantastic chin, btw. That was never an issue. In all three of his most notable losses, he took a tremendous amount of punishment that would have finished most guys. Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis were teeing off on him and it took crazy punishment for him to finally give in.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Tua was talked about as a Mike Tyson clone for the first half of his career. He actually was getting a good amount of hype leading into the Lennox Lewis fight even though he had already lost (to my man Ike Ibeabuchi).
The biggest difference between Tua and Tyson early in their careers was Tyson would attack guys with hellacious combinations which would break ribs and crack skulls. Tua had the power, but tended to throw one punch at a time. That's what got him into trouble against Ibeabuchi.
You're right, though. Considering his knockout power, you'd think he would have captured the public's imagination more than he did. The fact that he was from New Zealand probably didn't help him in America.
His knocking out John Ruiz, one of the most annoyingly winning boxers of all-time, was among my favorite sports moments of the 1990s.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj5e7NPWnrY[/url]
Tyson had a fantastic chin, btw. That was never an issue. In all three of his most notable losses, he took a tremendous amount of punishment that would have finished most guys. Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis were teeing off on him and it took crazy punishment for him to finally give in.[/QUOTE]
Tua's weight really started to get the best of him right around the Ibeabuchi fight. I really would have liked to see what Tua could have done to Lewis if he was in his 225lbs best fighting weight.
Ibeabuchi is one of my favorite fighters too. After reading all the stories about him, and how much of a nutjob he actually was, it was hard not to get behind him. :oldlol:
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
oh c'mon, RBA... you can understand us better than that. you're hitting like 40% of what we're really trying to say.
[bah, suspended rant... later]
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
I think what we need to ask is did 86-89 Tyson had the power, speed, technique and skills to win against Ali. Tyson's old trainer Kevin Rooney recently said Mike would've won based on what he saw.
The mental part is very debatable since Tyson himself had said he wasn't focused after '89. Either you believe it or not.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Ali would outsmart him and win tactically.
Tyson, however, would destroy Ali in a straight up fight.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=Rondo]Ali would outsmart him and win tactically.
Tyson, however, would destroy Ali in a straight up fight.[/QUOTE]
LOL at the outsmart and win tactically.
Its clear those who have watched Tyson highlights, and those who actually watched his fights. He was a master technically and tactically in the ring. He knew exactly what he had to do.
People act as if he went in there and flailed his arms as hard as he could and connected. He had some of the best defense the heavyweight division has ever seen.
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=plowking]LOL at the outsmart and win tactically.
Its clear those who have watched Tyson highlights, and those who actually watched his fights. He was a master technically and tactically in the ring. He knew exactly what he had to do.
People act as if he went in there and flailed his arms as hard as he could and connected. He had some of the best defense the heavyweight division has ever seen.[/QUOTE]
This
equivalent to NBA forum children :
"Vince Carter never got a ring because all he could do was dunk!!"
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
Some of the best defense the division has "ever seen"? Come on, plowking. :oldlol:
In commemoration of this thread...
[URL="http://mashable.com/2013/08/22/mike-tyson-punch-out/"]Mike Tyson playing Mike Tyson's PunchOut for the first time ever.[/URL]
-
Re: Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Some of the best defense the division has "ever seen"? Come on, plowking. :oldlol:
In commemoration of this thread...
[URL="http://mashable.com/2013/08/22/mike-tyson-punch-out/"]Mike Tyson playing Mike Tyson's PunchOut for the first time ever.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Clearly you're intent on pushing the idea that Tyson was the same fighter when he fought Lewis and Holyfield as he was when he first won the heavyweight title. But whatever, I can see past that and realize its not so.
The funny thing is, I'm agreeing with you on almost everything. I don't get what your debate is? I agree that Holyfield and Lewis should be considered better fighers, that he is barely the 3rd best heavyweight of his time, that he is an underachiever, and that he is overrated.
I simply think he wasn't great early on just because he fought tomato cans (which is soo overstated for Tyson), but because he was a fantastic fighter early on.