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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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:

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]

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.

Tyson.

Ali would outsmart him and win tactically.

Tyson, however, would destroy Ali in a straight up fight.

[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.

[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!!"

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=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.