Tyson age 20-23 vs Ali age 22-25 title comp head to head

[I Feel Fine]

BRR trying to equate Tyson losing his title in his prime to a damaged goods overweight 36 year old Ali losing his, robinson comparing a knockdown in a competitive fight against a prime Joe Frazier to a knockout loss to Buster Douglas... not good boxing knowledge being displayed here.

[dempseyfire]

Haha, glancing over the always dumb yet oddly humorous points of BRR in this thread, I did find a new nugget that Kevin frikkin' McBride would defeat Leon Spinks . . .

[Robinson]

I think 2005 McBride would defeat Leon. I think McBride's size would
be a drama for Neon Leon. I think Leon did better against a boxer
sort.

[dempseyfire]

I think 2005 McBride would defeat Leon. I think McBride's size would
be a drama for Neon Leon. I think Leon did better against a boxer
sort.

6'5 Bernardo Mercado was ten times the fighter McBride was and Spinks beat him.

McBride is a bum . . .his size . . give me a break. His punches were so slow and lack such snap I doubt even Neon who was no defensive wizard but had excellent head movement would take many punches from Kevin, and even those that landed wouldn't budge him. This was a guy who couldn't last the distance with Louis Monaco . . .

And yes the point remains someone is trying to compare a 23 year old guy in his prime to a fighter in his mid 30s who was clearly already suffering from slurred speech amid the early onstages of Parkinsons. One only has to watch Ali of Zaire in interviews to any footage of Ali post Norton III. The difference is shocking.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Love to place a bet with someone if we could build a time-machine & match the Spinks who beat Ali against the McBride who defeated Tyson, if that person is banking on McBride to win.

Easy money. C'mon, at least Spinks had some talent & a little fire in his belly at some point.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

BRR trying to equate Tyson losing his title in his prime to a damaged goods overweight 36 year old Ali losing his... not good boxing knowledge being displayed here.

- So, had Tyson lost both his feet in his infamous car accident in the middle of the Givens' divorce, and comeback to lose to Douglas, you'd call that version of Tyson prime, eh?

.....Not good boxing knowledge being displayed there. Made it clear the point of comparison, head to head first reign title comp matchups which come to an end at number 10.

You've studiously avoided the mismatches because it's embarrassing how weak Ali's overall title comp was from 64-67.

[Collins2000]

BRR trying to equate Tyson losing his title in his prime to a damaged goods overweight 36 year old Ali losing his... not good boxing knowledge being displayed here.

Tyson lost both his feet in his infamous car accident in the middle of the Givens' divorce.

[I Feel Fine]

This is the world of the Tyson fan, where Tyson, in his prime, is allowed excuses for poor preparation after getting badly knocked out; everyone is expected to forgive him and give his erratic ass a pass. Ali, on the other hand, according to Tyson fans, famously training very little, is not allowed excuses for his poor preparation for a fight where he lost a close decision, where he was also 36 and knocking on the door of Parkinson's disease coming off a Frazier trilogy and battles with Foreman, Norton and Shavers; and they of course forgetting what Tyson was like at 36.
This is the retarded logic that gives Tyson the dumbest fanbase in boxing, dumber than Tito Nation. It of course also ignores that Ali handedly avenged his loss in a rematch, which Tyson never did at any point in his career.
The idea that Tyson's losing his title in his 11th title fight should be erased from the conversation because it does not match up head to head with Ali's 10 title fights is the kind of idiot dodge that even Elmer or Robinson could see through.
Ali took on the best opponents available and they were generally as good or better than Tyson's, the exceptions being Cooper and London who were forced on him because of the U.S. boycott of his fights that forced him on a European tour. The other exception being Williams who, though still a contender, was to Ali what Holmes was to Tyson; shot fighter with a big name whom he took care of with little trouble. It was a coming home fight for Ali.
I would take Ali's wins over Liston and Patterson over all of Tyson's title wins. Terrell was as good or better than most of Tyson's title opponents. Folley could have possibly beaten probably half of Mike's names; Thomas, Smith, Biggs, possibly Tubbs and old injured and rusty Spinks. Chuvalo would have beaten a few of them. And, yes, Ali did not lose in his prime, which is certainly more than enough to settle the question. Nine defenses with a win over Liston to win the title > Nine defenses a win over Berbick and a KO loss.
Not to mention that we're being generous by counting Tyson's win over Berbick as a title win. One could easily say that Tyson did not become the real champion until beating Spinks or at least Tucker and that his number of true defenses is therefore much lower than nine.
My original points in that other thread were sympathetic to Tyson. I stated that his title opponent selection in the 80s was about as good as Ali's in the 60s. I also said that Tyson should be forgiven for losses like McBride. I thought that my saying this was quite generous. But this is not enough for borderline trolls, and I am forced to come out and say it; Ali's first title reign was better and Tyson's overall career shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Ali's. Ali in his prime lost to no one, Ali in his remaining good years only had close losses to Hall of Famers which he avenged, Ali in his declining years had controversial wins but only against a Hall of Famer and all time great contenders which he would have won much more clearly had he been in his prime, and Ali in his last years had bad losses but his last two fights showed his willingness to fight the best around under any circumstances. Tyson's losses, in out and beyond his prime, were embarrassing blowouts where he showed little heart and little ability to deal with pressure, he never had the ability to recover, and this would have revealed itself no matter what his personal life had been; Robin Givens or no Robin Givens, exploitation or no exploitation. If bad marriages, years of inactivity, and exploitation from promoters and hangers-on alone destroy a fighters ability to continue to stay on top and fight at the highest levels then Ali would have been killed in the ring. If fighters should be excused for all losses that come past their prime or when they are out of shape then Ali is undefeated.

[Robinson]

GI

I would like to do the same thing with a lot of these hypothetical match ups.
Wouldn't it be swell.

[BoxBuzz]

The picture help to tell this story of champions. Thanks for posting!!


Put Ali down and he gets back up and he's back in the fight. Long term or short term either one. Even in the fight he lost he gets back up with resolve. With Joe his actions seemed to say....maybe you get the best of the first 14 rounds, but the next 26 are going to be different.

Put Tyson down and .....well Tyson appears to go down. The law of gravity appeared to be one of the only laws he was willing to be somewhat compliant with.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

This is the world of the Tyson fan, where Tyson, in his prime, is allowed excuses for poor preparation after getting badly knocked out; everyone is expected to forgive him and give his erratic ass a pass. Ali, on the other hand, according to Tyson fans, famously training very little, is not allowed excuses for his poor preparation for a fight where he lost a close decision, where he was also 36 and knocking on the door of Parkinson's disease coming off a Frazier trilogy and battles with Foreman, Norton and Shavers; and they of course forgetting what Tyson was like at 36.
This is the retarded logic that gives Tyson the dumbest fanbase in boxing, dumber than Tito Nation. It of course also ignores that Ali handedly avenged his loss in a rematch, which Tyson never did at any point in his career.
The idea that Tyson's losing his title in his 11th title fight should be erased from the conversation because it does not match up head to head with Ali's 10 title fights is the kind of idiot dodge that even Elmer or Robinson could see through.
Ali took on the best opponents available.

- See, you're an Ali fan still studiously avoiding the header question.

Fine, so you're not the boxing fan I am, don't like boxing, and don't know much about boxing, pretty standard stuff for sports' hero worshippers. Ali certainly a great deal more likeable from a personable point of view than Tyson who was ugly, squat, foul tempered, foul mouthed and exceedingly threatening and even criminal in the congenital sense of the term.

You've found the softest intellectual base in boxing, the Ali fanbase that flocks together in the largest mass in all of boxing with easy to understand digestible bitesized homilies about his career to be studiously gummed, then passed along to be shared.

There are no excuses in boxing, just facts and mitigating circumstances that define the nature of every win, loss, draw, and career. Fan boys such as yourself lack the ability to understand the complexities and contextual qualities of boxing any more than they do about quantum mechanics, calculus, or cosmology.

Fine, after dozen of paragraphs of dialogue you've yet to address the obvious mismatches of head to head comp in this thread. You're not oriented in breaking down styles and talents of current and past fighters so there is no productive insight to be gleaned from you, no enlightening observations, just baah-baah sheeple platitudes like "must AVENGE", ignoring all the greatest fighters such as Eder Jofre who never avenged a single loss or Joe Louis who only avenged 1 of his 3 losses, and so on.

Hell, Ali only avenged 2 of his 5 losses, but then salient analytical points not your forte, because otherwise you'd recognize the ring genius of Tyson taking the judges out of most of his fights.

[wouter]

Hell, Ali only avenged 2 of his 5 losses, but then salient analytical points not your forte, because otherwise you'd recognize the ring genius of Tyson taking the judges out of most of his fights.

Shouldn't that be 3 of 5?

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Shouldn't that be 3 of 5?

- Leon simply cannot be avenged, ever, for any reason.

Ali the ONLY fighter ever attempting to erase the indelible stain............. 8)

[BoxBuzz]

When one deny's the physical manifestation of reality....he is then on spongy ground for any sort of reasonable dialouge.

[I Feel Fine]

There are no excuses in boxing

Except for when Mike Tyson is fighting. And Ali avenged three of his losses, not five. It really doesn't get lower than attacking a fighter for his last years. Ezzard Charles, Ray Robinson, all these guys had bad losses late in their careers. That is because they gave everything they had to the sport, so that people like you could sit in your armchairs and piss on their achievements to make yourself feel bigger for having achieved nothing in comparison. One need only watch twenty seconds of Ali-Spinks as opposed to Ali-Foreman or Ali-Terrell to see how much he had slipped. He wasn't the same person. But I suspect you haven't seen either of the three fights, probably just read something off the internet about how Ali "sucks" because he lost to Spinks. Very sophisticated analysis indeed.
And, on thet note, if you believe that what you were doing was an analysis of style matchups, you are even more lost than it first appeared.
I think my standing as a boxing fan is quite secure, and I do not need to justify it to a Mike Tyson fan who are, as you demonstrate, usually rather limited in their perspective.
And, no, I don't understand quantum mechanics because, as they say, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." And in your case that also applies to the sport of boxing.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

There are no excuses in boxing

Except for when Mike Tyson is fighting. And Ali avenged three of his losses, not five. It really doesn't get lower than attacking a fighter for his last years. Ezzard Charles, Ray Robinson, all these guys had bad losses late in their careers. That is because they gave everything they had to the sport, so that people like you could sit in your armchairs and piss on their achievments to make yourself feel bigger for having achieved nothing in comparison. One need only watch 20 seconds of Ali-Spinks as opposed to Ali-Foreman or Ali-Terrellto see how much he had slipped. He wasn't the same person.
If you think what you were doing was an analysis of style matchups you are even more lost than it first appeared.
I think my standing as a boxing fan is quite secure, and I do not need to justify it to a Mike Tyson fan.

- Don't have an armchair and not a Tyson fan, but I have done the job of soaking down your little Ali bandwagon parade.

One only need watch 20 sec of Ali/Spinks to know he is looking 100% better than he looked against Wepner, Young, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, wins he is not only credited, but greatly touted for in the pantheon of greatest fighters.

As the beltholder of record during this time, the nature of his career during this era is open to scrutiny just as much as Tyson's is during his 2nd "reign" when it was obvious Tyson was being fed fringe contender types recruited from the back of the short bus rather than the fine array of dangerous 90s heavies such as Mercer, Morrison, Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, ect.

Now, IF I was a Tyson fan why I'd adopt your Ali Fan Man strategy of ignoring the obvious blots and defend the indefensible.

[I Feel Fine]

Yes, Ali at an advanced age was taking on the best and fighting competitive fights, some of which he lost and some of which he should have lost. But when this happens I say, as an objective viewer, that he indeed lost or should have lost. I think Young, Norton III, and Shavers were losses, and I believe Ali should have retired at that stage. I also, as an objective viewer, point out that when we say that Ali was a great fighter that this post-Manila version of Ali is not the Ali that we are talking about, just as the Robinson who was fighting Paul Pender was not the same Robinson as the one whom we call arguably the best pound for pound. You on the other hand, as an internet scum bag looking for some frivolous attention, are here to tell us that Mike Tyson in the prime of his career should be excused for brutally losing to Buster Douglas because he was unfocused and that Ali at 36 after a career full of wars against fighters that were better than most of the guys who were knocking Tyson out should be ridiculed and demeaned for a late career close decision loss where he was also out of shape and which he avenged. Sure, say now that you're not a Tyson fan in an effort to look non-partisan, but it hardly matters one way or the other, you're as dim as the average Tyson bandwagon fan. Only a Tyson bandwagon fan would accept your reasoning.
Being objective is one thing. Plenty of posters here criticize Ali for things that I don't agree with but I can see where they are coming from. You're not here to objectively criticize Ali, you're here to play games and be disruptive and attack people for expressing opinions with some not-so-smart ass posts that no one finds particularly amusing... granberry was at least entertaining. You're the kind of guy who would get his nose broken if he did this at an actual meeting of boxing fans, so you do it behind a computer. Your posts aren't smart or witty, your ad hominem's are not clever or original, and your analysis is illogical and biased... you're a pure shit poster.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

You on the other hand, as an internet scum bag looking for some frivolous attention, are here to tell us that Mike Tyson in the prime of his career should be excused for brutally losing to Buster Douglas because he was unfocused and that Ali at 36 after a career full of wars against fighters that were better than most of the guys who were knocking Tyson out should be ridiculed and demeaned for a late career close decision loss where he was also out of shape and which he avenged. ................You're the kind of guy who would get his nose broken if he did this at an actual meeting of boxing fans, so you do it behind a computer. Your posts aren't smart or witty, your ad hominem's are not clever or original, and your analysis is illogical and biased... you're a pure shit poster.

- YEAH, say it like you feel it!!!!!

Oh, but my recommendation to you is you'd be better served keeping your schnozz well holstered around me lest it get needlessly knocked out of joint.

I never "excused" Tyson's loss to Douglas, that's your projection of yourself passing as a sickly representative of my position on that or any of Tyson's fights. That you can only see or claim the physical misfirings of a mid 30s Ali as proof he gave his all as a noble warrior yet are blind to a physically prime age Tyson looking like someone chained all four limbs in concrete and threw a gunney sack over him against Douglas defines your blatant bias against Tyson.

When the 80 yr old senator or company president has a heart attack that sends him to hospital, it's expected as the inevitable result of age, so respects are paid and allowances made, soliciting his votes, advice, and keeping him in the game until such time he recovers or passes.

When the 22 yr old whiz kid company president is felled by a heart attack, it's not expected but indicative of a very serious problem needing major corrective procedures. The whiz kid doesn't suddenly become irrelevant and useless now to be discarded in the scrap heap of humanity.

Prior to Douglas, Tyson had easily dismissed tall talented left handed jabbers with good right hands in Biggs, Tucker, and Holmes, nary breaking a sweat. Douglas presented no special problems than what they represented, yet Buster manhandled and dominated a plodding lethargic Tyson for 95% of that fight.

No, Tyson did not have a heart attack, that was a figurative example I have to spell out for the more challenged among you. Tyson had left the building before he even arrived in Japan, mentally succumbing and checking out many months before with the zombie like Walters interview, violent attacks on his soon to be divorced wife, and knocked out behind the wheel after running his Rolls off the road in a failed suicide attempt.

No, something terribly wrong with Tyson, a mental illness that sees him attempt to carry on his career in an inferior state of being. That Tyson lost to Douglas was no different than Pelkey knocking out Luther McCarty, killing the finest young talent of his era. Didn't make Pelkey a world beater any more than McCarty a bum. Tyson didn't die, but his stellar career took a nose dive and never fully recovered. How you claim that Tyson is needlessly granted excuses when he takes a huge career downgrade from that point forward defines your own limitations of what excused means.

Had Ali had a lobotomy in 1967 or otherwise finished his comeback fighting on prozac, coming off electroshock therapy, ect, I doubt he or any other fighter could do any better.

We all carry our burdens in this life, so perhaps I dismiss burdens that have blinkered you from context of colour and nuance. Yet you have cowered from the header matchups, dismissing one of the finest early records and talents in history as being of no account and nothing special.

[Collins2000]

you have cowered from the header matchups, dismissing one of the finest early records and talents in history as being of no account and nothing special.

No. That's what you tried to do with Ali's record.

But, as always, you failed to make any impression other than to confirm you are a witless jackass.

[I Feel Fine]

I never "excused" Tyson's loss to Douglas, that's your projection of yourself passing as a sickly representative of my position on that or any of Tyson's fights. That you can only see or claim the physical misfirings of a mid 30s Ali as proof he gave his all as a noble warrior yet are blind to a physically prime age Tyson looking like someone chained all four limbs in concrete and threw a gunney sack over him against Douglas defines your blatant bias against Tyson. .

Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. Pathetic poster.

Yet you have cowered from the header matchups, dismissing one of the finest early records and talents in history as being of no account and nothing special.

Never did any such thing. I simply pointed out that your method of comparing their title reigns is pedestrian and insufficient. And when you started this baiting thread you quoted me as saying "Tyson's opposition in his first title reign was average, as was Ali's in the 60s." I neither dismissed nor praised their opposition, I said it was average. And I did not say that it was nothing special, I said in the other thread that Tyson's opposition in the 80s was generally comparable in quality to the title challengers of Louis, Ali's in the 60s, and Holmes. That hardly shows me dismissing Tyson or over-eagerly praising Ali. Your posts are pure bullshit.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Yet you have cowered from the header matchups, dismissing one of the finest early records and talents in history as being of no account and nothing special.

Never did any such thing. I simply pointed out that your method of comparing their title reigns is pedestrian and insufficient. And when you started this baiting thread you quoted me as saying "Tyson's opposition in his first title reign was average, as was Ali's in the 60s." I neither dismissed nor praised their opposition, I said it was average. And I did not say that it was nothing special, I said in the other thread that Tyson's opposition in the 80s was generally comparable in quality to the title challengers of Louis, Ali's in the 60s, and Holmes. That hardly shows me dismissing Tyson or over-eagerly praising Ali. Your posts are pure bullshit.

- Ho-Ho, you've done gone full circle, regurgitating your little chewy gem to gum with gusto, claiming equivalency of title comp between Tyson, Ali, and Mr. Larry without addressing the head to head mis-matchups.

Whatever suffices nicely here. My pedestrian efforts run circles around your well marbled posterior that never seeks anything more original than a new spot to plop the beast in infinite stasis.

Iron Mike is actually on the lacking side of the ledger through his first ten, lacking a bloody red Mini-Cooper, London bridge falling down, straight from ER Williams and Patterson, Alfredo the Magnifico, Zorro of Zanon, Baby Ocasio, 19-8 WTF Weaver, LePhew Ledoux, and the shaky propped up Ali milking the golden goose. The latter actually sanctioned, much ballyhooed, and dutifully given as much coverage as a presidential state funeral.

Whatever, nothing special & average Iron Mike poised to enter the IBHOF in a huge ceremony based upon his first reign, because he sure didn't accomplish much after the loss of his original team, his best streak being the 4 consecutive years behind bars.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Haha, glancing over the always dumb yet oddly humorous points of BRR in this thread, I did find a new nugget that Kevin frikkin' McBride would defeat Leon Spinks . . .

- Actually the frikkin' McNugget you seek is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H-BIvR0VgI Leon LTKO in John Carlos debut.

Down 16 sec w/1st one punch KD and towel thrown after 2nd KD

[BoxBuzz]

How very relevant.....

[I Feel Fine]

Use all the attempts at distraction you like, the lies and contradictions in your posts are all there for anyone to see. All your posts are garbage. Cooper and London were forced on Ali, which you know, you have no other arguments to rest on so you attack Ali for taking the only available options left to him. His options were to either fight no one or to go to Canada and Europe, so he did, and he defended his title five times that year and would have been named fighter of the year had it not been for politics. And half of Tyson's title reign wasn't even really a title reign, he didn't become the legitimate champion until he beat Spinks or at least Tucker.
Bad move on your part to open this thread, poor display. You show why Tyson is perhaps the most overrated Heavyweight of all time, more so than Marciano.

[pringle]

Tyson could have very well slammed Ali into oblivion ( or Bolivian, in Tyson-speak) in a battle of undefeateds. Ali was knocked down by 191 lb Sonny banks, 185 lb Henry Cooper and 205 lb Joe Frazer. Tyson could hit a lot harder and was faster than any of these guys. That's right, harder than Joe Frazer, there I said it.
Of the discussion I've seen above, I've seen nothing about the mental side of this match up discussed. Mental toughness and ability to improvise Ali was head and shoulders above Tyson.
Tyson was not even in the same league with Ali in either department. In the fights that weren't going Ali's way he adapted and succeeded (with Frazer, in the rematches).
Tyson was great, unbeatable and unstoppable, but when there was resistance, he crumbled. He could never recover from a knockdown, I call this the Ken Norton syndrome. When given a chance to avenge his defeat to Holyfield, Tyson saw he was headed to another defeat, he panicked and made lunch out of Evanders ears. Ali adapted and was able to avenge his Frazer, Norton and Spinks losses, Tyson couldn't even avenge the one loss he had a chance to rematch.
Ali was able to get hurt hard enough to be on queer street and come back to win, Tyson...lost by KO every time he was dazed.

Tyson had exceptional skills and power, but Ali's mental and emotional strength would bring him trough a Tyson storm darned near every time.