Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson

[Winston Barker]

You get no argument from me when it comes to Tyson's ability to stand on his own. He couldn't do it. He needed the right people behind him. So yes, Ali and plenty of people were way ahead of him when it comes to that.

But you simply are full of shit if you say Tyson was at his best against Lewis and Holyfield. That is objectively false. Go look at the fight with between Tyson and Lennox. Tyson was not the same fighter. No head movement at all, which would be essential against a fighter that had a reach advantage. The dude had loss two years of his life to jail and had to climb back and then he was was strung out when he fought Lewis. You can call those excuses if you want, but they are facts, and you can't deny the impact there. For goodness sake, they said Mike was mixing coke and anti-psychotics when he fought Lewis. Again call that shit an excuse if you want, but you really going to sit here and argue that a fighter is at his best when he's doing that shit?

But all those are what ifs. We have to go with what actually happened. Fighters , great fighters overcome turmoil . Ali lost 3 years of his career also. And still came back and beat the best of his era. Thats what makes him the greatest. A fighter like Ray Leonard sat for 4 years or so. Came back and beat the best P4P fighter at the time while moving up in weight to do so . If tyson didnt loss focus or if Cus didnt pass etc etc maybe he wouldnt have lost those fights. But again we have to go with what happened . And what happened he never beat a great fighter ever in his career . And lost to a Journeymen and lost to the best fighters with his own era. U say tyson wasnt in his prime cool. He was in his prime when he fought Mitch Green and Bone Crusher Smith.And went the distance with both. No way either one of those dudes last 5 rounds with Ali.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

But all those are what ifs. We have to go with what actually happened. Fighters , great fighters overcome turmoil . Ali lost 3 years of his career also. And still came back and beat the best of his era. Thats what makes him the greatest. A fighter like Ray Leonard sat for 4 years or so. Came back and beat the best P4P fighter at the time while moving up in weight to do so . If tyson didnt loss focus or if Cus didnt pass etc etc maybe he wouldnt have lost those fights. But again we have to go with what happened . And what happened he never beat a great fighter ever in his career . And lost to a Journeymen and lost to the best fighters with his own era. U say tyson wasnt in his prime cool. He was in his prime when he fought Mitch Green and Bone Crusher Smith.And went the distance with both. No way either one of those dudes last 5 rounds with Ali.

My nigga, Ali got put on his ass by a no name white boy. That's where the Rocky story came from. That would have never happened with Tyson at any point in his career. There is only so far you can push this "such and such fought so and so, so such and such is better." MMAth doesn't work and boxing math doesn't either. Again, you can look at the skills and abilities that Tyson exhibited and you know how good he was. I don't give a fuck who he fought. He destroyed the people before him. Mitch Green and Bone Crusher lasted against him, but they didn't put him in danger. Did you actually see the Mitch Green fight. Tyson clowned him. He put his hands down, laughed, and rushed forward dodging everything Mitch threw. You think Ali could do that. You act like Ali knocked out every bum he fought. That's not true.

I don't think Tyson was the greatest boxer ever. A lot of what you're saying is right, and those reasons are why Tyson isn't the greatest. But if we're talking about primes and how a fighter fought, none of that shit matters.

 

[Winston Barker]

My nigga, Ali got put on his ass by a no name white boy. That's where the Rocky story came from. That would have never happened with Tyson at any point in his career. There is only so far you can push this "such and such fought so and so, so such and such is better." MMAth doesn't work and boxing math doesn't either. Again, you can look at the skills and abilities that Tyson exhibited and you know how good he was. I don't give a fuck who he fought. He destroyed the people before him. Mitch Green and Bone Crusher lasted against him, but they didn't put him in danger. Did you actually see the Mitch Green fight. Tyson clowned him. He put his hands down, laughed, and rushed forward dodging everything Mitch threw. You think Ali could do that. You act like Ali knocked out every bum he fought. That's not true.

I don't think Tyson was the greatest boxer ever. A lot of what you're saying is right, and those reasons are why Tyson isn't the greatest. But if we're talking about primes and how a fighter fought, none of that shit matters.

Yea i watch all of the fights mutiole times. Again Tyson lost to a Journeyman in his prime . Tyson never beat a great fighter. Tyson is overrated . Now if u think he is better than Ali i have no choice but to respect your opinion. I just disagree . Tysons resume doesn't just doesnt match up. Yea he knocked cats out. But who are they ? No great fighters on that list. 2 good fighters he has as wins. The rest of his resume he lost to better fighters and bums . And has no great wins. Tyson couldnt hold Frazier , Ali , Foreman Lewis , Holyfield, Shavers , Norton jock strap. All have better resumes and are better fighter. Hell the only reason i dont put Bowe on the list is because he ducked Lewis . But he beat Holyfield twice so he gets a honorable mention being better than tyson. Good debate. But Tyson isnt a bum , but he is overrated and many fans rate him to high.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I think Tyson had a superior skill set than Ali, but he wasn't better. Under optimal conditions with the right team in his corner, I believe Tyson could have beat Ali. Under any other condition, I believe Ali wins.

Tyson isn't overrated. In the ring, he was a beast. Who he beat doesn't matter. How he beat them does. You can see his skill clearly. That said. You're right. His resume isn't that great, and he let things outside of the ring ruin his performance in the ring. That takes away from his greatness. I don't disagree with that. I just don't agree with this "He didn't fight anyone" as being the be all and end all of arguments against him. All boxers fight bums, but not all boxers crush bums like he did. So what does that tell you?

 

[Winston Barker]

I think Tyson had a superior skill set than Ali, but he wasn't better. Under optimal conditions with the right team in his corner, I believe Tyson could have beat Ali. Under any other condition, I believe Ali wins.

Tyson isn't overrated. In the ring, he was a beast. Who he beat doesn't matter. How he beat them does. You can see his skill clearly. That said. You're right. His resume isn't that great, and he let things outside of the ring ruin his performance in the ring. That takes away from his greatness. I don't disagree with that. I just don't agree with this "He didn't fight anyone" as being the be all and end all of arguments against him. All boxers fight bums, but not all boxers crush bums like he did. So what does that tell you?

He did fight someone , he just didnt beat then. Every fighter has bums on their resume but great fighters have great win or at least great performances against their peers . Tyson has neither

 

[The Lonious Monk]

He did fight someone , he just didnt beat then. Every fighter has bums on their resume but great fighters have great win or at least great performances against their peers . Tyson has neither

Tyson cleared out his division at the time. He beat who was there. We can get with this revisionist history and act like all his opponents were losers, but that's not true. Look at their records. His opponents weren't bums. Did he beat any all time greats? No, but does that take away from his skills and abilities? No. Roy Jones didn't really have any Joe Frasiers or George Foremans that he beat either. You going to say Roy Jones isn't an all time great? You look at how he fought and believe you can't call him great just because he didn't beat top tier talent year in and year out. Come on. If you saw Tyson fight, you know he was great. It doesn't matter that he didn't have the best competition of any heavyweight.

 

[Winston Barker]

Tyson cleared out his division at the time. He beat who was there. We can get with this revisionist history and act like all his opponents were losers, but that's not true. Look at their records. His opponents weren't bums. Did he beat any all time greats? No, but does that take away from his skills and abilities? No. Roy Jones didn't really have any Joe Frasiers or George Foremans that he beat either. You going to say Roy Jones isn't an all time great? You look at how he fought and believe you can't call him great just because he didn't beat top tier talent year in and year out. Come on. If you saw Tyson fight, you know he was great. It doesn't matter that he didn't have the best competition of any heavyweight.

Even Roy beat fighters that are considered greats. Bhop and James Toney. Tyson doesnt have that on his resume. And Roy's resume is questioned. But that more than Tyson has as far as beating quality opponents

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Even Roy beat fighters that are considered greats. Bhop ans James Toney. Tyson doesnt have that on his resume. And Roy's resume is questioned. But that more than Tyson has as far as beatung quality opponents

So when Roy was dancing around and knocking those other cats out, that didn't display his greatness? That's bullshit. Roy fought who he had to fight and so did Tyson. Those dudes cleared out their divisions, and nobody around them could fuck with them. Think about that shit. With Tyson, all these people you call greats didn't even get names until he fell from grace. If they were so great, how come they weren't bombing the industry when he was coming up. Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield...all of them were around when Tyson was on the come up. If they were so great and Tyson wasn't shit, how did he ever even get his name? They were fighting people of the same calibre as him, and not beating them as impressively. That's why he rose to the top. lol Holyfield fought Savarese and Botha it took him late rounds to beat them. Tyson crushed them easily. That was after Tyson's prime. That's why comparing fighters based on who they beat is silly.

 

[Winston Barker]

So when Roy was dancing around and knocking those other cats out, that didn't display his greatness? That's bullshit. Roy fought who he had to fight and so did Tyson. Those dudes cleared out their divisions, and nobody around them could fuck with them. Think about that shit. With Tyson, all these people you call greats didn't even get names until he fell from grace. If they were so great, how come they weren't bombing the industry when he was coming up. Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield...all of them were around when Tyson was on the come up. If they were so great and Tyson wasn't shit, how did he ever even get his name? They were fighting people of the same calibre as him, and not beating them as impressively. That's why he rose to the top. lol Holyfield fought Savarese and Botha it took him late rounds to beat them. Tyson crushed them easily. That was after Tyson's prime. That's why comparing fighters based on who they beat is silly.

Resumes matter. Also tyson didnt clear out the division. He lost to buster Douglas. Tyson gets so many passes . Its like how people just dont count when MJ lost to Orlando, it counts. No matter the circumstances it counts . Holyfield stuggled with Bert Cooper had a heart problem retired for a bit and still beat tyson ass. Yes styles make fights. But u just cant loss to everyone that is equal or close to equal . Tyson lost ALL of those fights . Every fight against a great opponent he lost . We can debate all night. U have your POV and I have mine. Neither of us is going to change. Again Tyson lost ALL his fights against the greats of his generation Ali didnt . So i roll with Ali.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Resumes matter. Also tyson didnt clear out the division. He lost to buster Douglas. Tyson gets so many passes . Its like how people just dont count when MJ lost to Orlando, it counts. No matter the circumstances it counts . Holyfield stuggled with Bert Cooper had a heart problem retired for a bit and still beat tyson ass. Yes styles make fights. But u just cant loss to everyone that is equal or close to equal . Tyson lost ALL of those fights . Every fight against a great opponent he lost . We can debate all night. U have your POV and I have mine. Neither of us is going to change. Again Tyson lost ALL his fights against the greats of his generation Ali didnt . So i roll with Ali.

No one denies Tyson lost to Buster or gives him a pass on that. That's just some shit you're making up to discredit him. People point out the fact that he wasn't the same fighter as when he lost to Douglas, and whether you want to admit it or not, that's fact. He just wasn't. Again, if you want to say that he wasn't great because his success was too dependent on who he had in his corner, that's fair. But to sit here and act like Tyson when he lost to Douglas or fought Evander and Lewis was the same as the Tyson that first won the title is ridiculous. Hell, when Tyson first came out of jail, some didn't even think he'd be a contender. Yet, he came back and became a champion.

Once again, it's fair to say Tyson isn't the greatest, but to look at him in action and act like wasn't great is bullshit revisionist history.

 

[SKPJR]

Man yall got to stop with the excuses. If Tyson was as great as yall claim he was he wouldn't need any. Miss me with that shit. I'm tired of hearing it.

 

[5 Grand]

Here's the bottom line;

Could the Mike Tyson, three days short of his 22nd birthday, that fought Michael Spinks on June 27, 1988 beat the 22 year old Muhammad Ali that beat Sonny Liston on February 25, 1964?

 

[SKPJR]

Here's the bottom line;

Could the Mike Tyson, three days short of his 22nd birthday, that fought Michael Spinks on June 27, 1988 beat the 22 year old Muhammad Ali that beat Sonny Liston on February 25, 1964?

No. Ali was a better on February 25, 1964 than Tyson ever was. And ftr the same is true of Liston and Spinks. Sonny Liston was the Mike Tyson of his era and Ali whooped him twice. Ali faced Liston, Frazier and Foreman, all in their prime and beat all of them. Ali spent his prime years in prison. He was still green when he destroyed the unbeatable Liston, rusty when he first faced Frazier and starting to age when he beat Foreman. Those are three all time greats in their prime and Ali went 5-1 against them. That doesn't even include his fights against Floyd Patterson and Leon Spinks who was at least as good and probably better than Michael Spinks. How many all time greats did Tyson face and what did he do against them?

Ali was years away from being in his prime when he knocked out the unbeatable HOFer Sonny Liston the first time and he only got better going forward. According to all of yall Tyson apologists he got worse shortly after beating Spinks. That says it all. A green Ali dominated the greatest fighter of that era twice while still learning how to be a champion. Tyson bullied an inferior opponent who doesnt compare on any level to the top notch competition that Ali faced. The Spinks fight was Tyson's high water mark and his decline began not to long afterwards. You can not say the same about the Ali of Feburary '64.

This question is laughable on multiple levels. Holyfield>>>>>>>>>Tyson and that is indisputable.

 

[Nobody]

This argument is the equivalent of saying a prime Prince Naseem beats a prime Pacman...
Smh

 

[Winston Barker]

The feeling of Nostalgia makes folks defend Tyson the same way bitches defend R. Kelly.

 

[5 Grand]

No. Ali was a better on February 25, 1964 than Tyson ever was. And ftr the same is true of Liston and Spinks. Sonny Liston was the Mike Tyson of his era and Ali whooped him twice. Ali faced Liston, Frazier and Foreman, all in their prime and beat all of them. Ali spent his prime years in prison. He was still green when he destroyed the unbeatable Liston, rusty when he first faced Frazier and starting to age when he beat Foreman. Those are three all time greats in their prime and Ali went 5-1 against them. That doesn't even include his fights against Floyd Patterson and Leon Spinks who was at least as good and probably better than Michael Spinks. How many all time greats did Tyson face and what did he do against them?

Ali was years away from being in his prime when he knocked out the unbeatable HOFer Sonny Liston the first time and he only got better going forward. According to all of yall Tyson apologists he got worse shortly after beating Spinks. That says it all. A green Ali dominated the greatest fighter of that era twice while still learning how to be a champion. Tyson bullied an inferior opponent who doesnt compare on any level to the top notch competition that Ali faced. The Spinks fight was Tyson's high water mark and his decline began not to long afterwards. You can not say the same about the Ali of Feburary '64.

This question is laughable on multiple levels. Holyfield>>>>>>>>>Tyson and that is indisputable.

Here's a Muhammad Ali fight from 1961. It went the distance




Tyson would have knocked this dude out in the first round

 

[5 Grand]

Here's that Marvis Fraizer fight I mentioned earlier. It came on regular TV on a Saturday afternoon. It only lasted 31 seconds. A young Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali wasn't knocking dudes out in 31 seconds.

 

[Winston Barker]

Anyone who says Tyson was anywhere close to Ali never comment on boxing again. Also Tyson must have had the shortest prime of any boxer known . Because by the time he lost to Buster people say he was already out of his Prime ?GTFOH. U dont get out of your prime because alienate everyone around u and decide not to work hard. Thats called being a undisciplined athlete and falling short of your potential

 

[SKPJR]

Here's a Muhammad Ali fight from 1961. It went the distance




Tyson would have knocked this dude out in the first round

This was Ali's 8th fight. His first 6 were all ko's none of which went past the 6th. This fight and the one before it both went 10. Ali was learning how to master his craft and dominate on all levels including out boxing his opponents, outlasting his opponent and winning on points. These are all great traits for a young fighter to develop.

Ali was one of the best conditioned fighters ever. Thst was part of his strategy against Foreman, who like Tyson, was known as an early round knock out artist. By the time they got to Zaire, Foreman hadn't seen the 5th round in 3 years. The rope a dope only worked b/c Ali was in excellent condition and Forreman wasnt. The fact that a 32 year old Ali was able to out train and out last a 25 year old prime Foreman speaks to Ali's dedication to his craft. That didn't happen over night. That was developed early in his career by challenging himself to train for going the distance and actually doing.

Ali was able to win fights in multiple ways. He could out box you, out last you, use his chin, win on points or knock you out. If Tyson wasnt able to knock a bum out early and actually had to box a quality opponent that he couldn't bully he would fold and do something stupid. He did it throughout his career. Ali was a complete fighter and could dominate his opponent on any and every level including out training and out lasting him. Being able to go the distance is one of the most important skills a fighter can have. You'll never develop that skill if you're knocking out inferior opponents in the 1st round. If you dont understand that than you don't understand boxing. This is a completely and utterly ridiculous argument.

 

[Nobody]

Yo, niggas is really saying his prime was 91 seconds and that was enough to make him better then ali. Think about that shit