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

[Robinson]

Patterson would decimate Fitz or most from that era. That is and has
always been my opinion free of rose coloured lenses.

Yes I do not like Patterson's chances and I match him and envision
the outcomes with as much Patterson favourtism as I could get away
with.

The matching of the challengers is a good one. I like such exercises
and I welcome it.

I think ALi proved more in his 'return' that he was a man who would
take on everyone above 175. He ducked no one and gave every
top and near top guy a challenge. That speaks alot of a man and
champion. I think as you stated, that his first reign is some what
over rated. But I also think that Ali from that era while youtful and
with a lot of athletic talent was a different fighter for better and
worse than his 1970s self. And I mean the better early 70s and
not the rapidly aging man who held on for too long post Foreman.

[Flump]

Patterson would decimate Fitz or most from that era. That is and has
always been my opinion free of rose coloured lenses.

Yes I do not like Patterson's chances and I match him and envision
the outcomes with as much Patterson favourtism as I could get away
with.

The matching of the challengers is a good one. I like such exercises
and I welcome it.

I think ALi proved more in his 'return' that he was a man who would
take on everyone above 175. He ducked no one and gave every
top and near top guy a challenge. That speaks alot of a man and
champion. I think as you stated, that his first reign is some what
over rated. But I also think that Ali from that era while youtful and
with a lot of athletic talent was a different fighter for better and
worse than his 1970s self. And I mean the better early 70s and
not the rapidly aging man who held on for too long post Foreman.

Absolutely, the best the Ali haters can come up with in regards to who he didn't fight, whatever your opinion on some of the decisions, are Eddie Machen and Randy Neumann. Says it all.

[raylawpc]

Patterson would decimate Fitz or most from that era. That is and has
always been my opinion free of rose coloured lenses.

I'm not sure why you brought Fitz into the discussion, but how do you see Patterson doing against "Fitz or most from that era" had Patterson been born in 1875 instead of 1935 and fought and trained under the same conditions?

[wouter]

Absolutely, the best the Ali haters can come up with in regards to who he didn't fight, whatever your opinion on some of the decisions, are Eddie Machen and Randy Neumann. Says it all.

Randy Newman only wanted to fight short people.

[Robinson]

Ray

BRR mentioned Fitz
That is a mute point. The scenario is and has always been, head
to head match ups.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Ray

BRR mentioned Fitz

- Think we can forget about ol' Ray. He's too busy in his coke bottle glasses ignoring me as he cluelessly posts in my own thread.

Patterson was not the subject of the original comparison of eras, but since his name was brought up as one of Ali's most formidable opponents, I thought it would be a good contrast of eras to pose a Fitz/Floyd match up to demonstrate how little the heavyweight division had changed in the 6 decades between their eras.

You pick Floyd which is fine of course, but seemingly have forgotten that Fitz beat a bigger man with more clever footwork than Floyd had who was as or near as quick moving in for offensive flurries. In a battle of equally sized sluggers, quite often it boils down to who has the better chin and balance, and that would be Ruby Robert who was also more experienced.

I see a much greater change in the heavy division between Tyson and Ali which span less than a decade.

[wouter]

I see a much greater change in the heavy division between Tyson and Ali which span less than a decade.

Good for you. Nobody cares.

[raylawpc]

Ray

BRR mentioned Fitz
That is a mute point. The scenario is and has always been, head
to head match ups.

That explains that. I have BroughtonRulesRefuge on ignore.

Let's change the scenario, then. How do you see an 1898 contest under my scenario playing out between Fitz and Patterson?

[I Feel Fine]

Robinson... saying that Ali's '60s reign is "over rated" is very silly. His opponent selection was at least as good as Holmes', he unified the titles which Holmes never managed to do, and Holmes never beat anyone as good as Liston. Not to mention that Ali was forced to go to Canada and Europe and then forced to end his reign early. He accomplished a lot in a very short time.
I don't see the short notice, flabby, rusty Holmes of '88 beating Patterson. Maybe the more active Holmes who beat Mercer does.
Tyson's title opponents were a bit bigger, but modern fans put too much stock in size. Tyson's opponents in his title reign were average, and the ones who were great were no longer great.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Robinson... saying that Ali's '60s reign is "over rated" is very silly. His opponent selection was at least as good as Holmes', he unified the titles which Holmes never managed to do, and Holmes never beat anyone as good as Liston. Not to mention that Ali was forced to go to Canada and Europe and then forced to end his reign early. He accomplished a lot in a very short time.
I don't see the short notice, flabby, rusty Holmes of '88 beating Patterson. Maybe the more active Holmes who beat Mercer does.
Tyson's title opponents were a bit bigger, but modern fans put too much stock in size. Tyson's opponents in his title reign were average, and the ones who were great were no longer great.

Ali did beat nine challengers in a three-year span. For a fellow battling considerable restrictions, that's not too shabby. You could maybe say Ali, the fighter, was over-rated in the 60's (though that, for mine, did not become an issue until the late-70's) but his title reign?

I think it's appreciated, but people mostly acknowledge it wasn't something truly spectacular.

[I Feel Fine]

I've come to the conclusion that the word "overrated" is rather meaningless, specifically on boxing sites, and I even regret having called Tyson that earlier giving the word legitimacy. It shouldn't matter to a serious fan what other people think, what matters is trying to rate it objectively for yourself. In my own personal opinion I think Ali of the 60s was the best Heavyweight of all time in terms of ability. As for the quality of his title reign in the 60s, which is more relevant here, I think it is a relatively great title reign. Not as good as Louis' or Holmes, though it wasn't given a chance to be. Better than Holyfield's three or Patterson's two or Charles' or Burns'. It is somewhere in the vicinity of Frazier's and Marciano's, better or worse, and close but clearly better than Tyson's first. Ali's first reign was more consistent than Ali's second reign due to his being in his prime, though the opposition was better the second time.
I suppose I rate Ali's second reign higher, though I think it is debateable

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I don't see the short notice, flabby, rusty Holmes of '88 beating Patterson. Maybe the more active Holmes who beat Mercer does.
Tyson's title opponents were a bit bigger, but modern fans put too much stock in size. Tyson's opponents in his title reign were average, and the ones who were great were no longer great.

- Pretty well established that you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

Point one, when was Mr. Larry not flabby looking during his title run?

Point two, there was no short notice or rust on Mr. Larry in 88. He trained SRLeonard style in his private gym an entire year for Tyson, scouting his fights and talking about the upcoming match in numerous interviews. There was your shortbus though, remember?

Point three, a pimply school boy could've beat brokeback Floyd that Ali beat the first time around. Really, don't be so silly.

Point four, size is the excuse given by Ali fans to dismiss the greats of previous eras like Louis and Dempsey, they were too tiny, too slow. What goes around comes back around to bite Ali fans on their dimpled designer derrieres. He's a mere cruiserweight now, remember?

Point five, it's great that you were never were great at being grateful for not being great at boxing.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Funnily enough, I was recently reading a Mag interview with Holmes, from an old Fist edition (Dated late-94).

Paraphrased...

"Look, I'm not making excuses for the Tyson fight, but I took it on a month's notice, & was doing a lot of travelling with my band at the time."

He makes similar excuses for his loss to Holyfield, & says, properly fit, he would have, "easily" won a rematch with the champ. In the Spinks bouts, he says for the first one he was out-&-out robbed, & claims he pulled punches in the second fight because, "I'd beaten him up so bad, I was getting tired battering his face." Also says in the interview he's, "damn jealous" Moorer is about to give Foreman a title shot --- a man he claims has, "no business" being in the ring at all.

In Larry's mind, he never lost a fight. Not once.

[I Feel Fine]

According to boxrec ST Gordon at 6'0" 202 beat Trevor Berbick, Marvis Frazier at 6'0" 206 beat Bonecrusher Smith, Mike Hunter at 207 beat Pinklon Thomas, Mike Weaver at 6'1" 213 beat Carl Williams. Liston was 6'1" 218 the first time, Chuvalo 6'0" 216, Williams 6'3" 210, Terrell 6'6" 212, Folley 6'1" 202. Hardly too small to beat these fighters, forgetting that I would pick Liston to beat all of Tyson's opponents about as easily as he did. Some fighters establish a great title reign on one or two great wins. Robinson's win over Gavilan for instance is more impressive than any of the wins that guys like Cuevas or Curry had. And forgetting, again, that Tyson was a paper champion for most of his time as belt holder, which you have not addressed for obvious enough reasons, and that he lost his title in the ring. To be kind I won't cite Douglas' losses to Ferguson at 211 and Holyfield at 208 since we know the circumstances.
GI... He certainly had been out for a long time before he fought Tyson, and he was on short notice. He clearly was better in later fights where he was more active. He was not robbed in the first Spinks fight, the second time he was in most people's opinions though, again, Spinks was also sick and threw up in that one. In turn, Holmes threw up after the Holyfield fight... odd.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It was indicative that Holmes' body was a long way removed from what it once was.

"Easily" beating Holyfield in a rematch? He's stone-cold delusional.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I would pick Liston to beat all of Tyson's opponents about as easily as he did. Some fighters establish a great title reign on one or two great wins. Robinson's win over Gavilan for instance is more impressive than any of the wins that guys like Cuevas or Curry had. And forgetting, again, that Tyson was a paper champion for most of his time as belt holder, which you have not addressed for obvious enough reasons, and that he lost his title in the ring.

- Never did figure out you get better results picking your nose than you do picking fighters, eh?

Indeedy, yes you have forgotten yet for the umpteenth time that Mike unified his WBC belt with the WBA in his 1st title defense against Smith. Already he's ahead of Mr. Larry, but to put a much finer point on the dead carcass known as Mr. Larry, he unified the IBF in his 3rd defense and the Lineal in his 7th defense. You should really stop papering your house of cards with Mr. Larry's soiled paper.

Moreover, you have a legacy fetish that lacks context. Robinson was held to a standoff by Gavilan but got the nod as the house fighter. Impressive and rare when two prime greats overlap in the same era and division, but not always impressive fights. Thinking SRLeonard/Benitez here.

As to Liston, I'll quote you:

...and the ones who were great were no longer great.

Maybe a prime Liston could handle most of Tyson's comp, but not Tucker or Spinks and Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs and Berbick could also cause some major problems. All a grade above Folley, Machen, Williams, DeJohn, ect. The Liston that Ali beat was an old man rusted out on the inside and poorly prepared and trained for a championship fight, not to mention the validity of the results are questionable.

It's fine and dandy that

In my own personal opinion I think Ali of the 60s was the best Heavyweight of all time in terms of ability.

but ability in the harse world of boxing don't pay the bulldog, results do. Ali in the 60s had many fragile, vulnerable moments and wasn't always looking a world beater, nor especially well regarded by boxing folk. Tyson in the 80s was simply the most invincible and impregnable heavy who ever existed, showing no weaknesses against any opponents and completely overwhelming them on the cards and onto the canvas splotto style.

That he made double or triple Ali's career ring earnings in those first 5 yrs alone pretty much says it all since his debut a mere 4 yrs after Ali's last fight. Tyson's fistic brilliance has blinded his critics who of course can't see to know it!

[I Feel Fine]

The first Robinson-Gavilan fight apparently was somewhat controversial, the second fight for the title that I was referring to wasn't from what I have read.
There is no basis for saying that Liston was an old man when Ali beat him the first time. He wasn't in his prime but he wasn't shot, and he was still by far the best Heavyweight in the world when Ali took his title. Liston never lost his big punch, and his jab landed in the fight and made it competitive. Questioning the legitimacy of the first fight is foolish. I have little doubt that Liston on that night in '64 beats Patterson or Williams or Folley; or Berbick and so forth, for that matter. On the other hand I have no doubt that the Holmes that fought Tyson in '88 loses badly to '78 Norton or '83 Witherspoon, maybe gets stopped. Furthermore by 1980 there was no basis for saying that Holmes wasn't the legitimate champion, even if he wasn't unified, he had no real rivals to the throne after he beaten Ali, and he had beaten Weaver who went on to take the WBA belt. Tyson had Spinks who until '88 held the linear title. Even if you wanted to say that his unifying the three alphabet titles should be enough, that maybe Spinks was taking too many soft touches and was too inactive to remain linear champion after the Holmes fights, I could see that argument if you tried to make it, but that still only leaves Mike with five defenses after winning the fight with Tucker. There is no legitimate way of saying that Tyson was the true Heavyweight champion after beating Berbick or Smith.
Calling Tyson in the 80s invincible shows where you're coming from, that's a baseless statement. And career earnings? Who the hell cares about that? It was a different era; PPV, for one thing. Ali made more than all of his Heavyweight champion predecessors combined, you do not see anyone saying that this suggests that he was better them all of them together. De La Hoya has made more than seemingly anyone, he is by no means the best of all time or even of recent years. Get serious...

Oh, forgot who I was talking to. Never mind.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

There is no basis for saying that Liston was an old man when Ali beat him the first time. He wasn't in his prime but he wasn't shot, and he was still by far the best Heavyweight in the world when Ali took his title. Liston never lost his big punch, and his jab landed in the fight and made it competitive. Questioning the legitimacy of the first fight is foolish.......
..........Calling Tyson in the 80s invincible shows where you're coming from, that's a baseless statement. And career earnings? Who the hell cares about that? It was a different era; PPV, for one thing. Ali made more than all of his Heavyweight champion predecessors combined, you do not see anyone saying that this suggests that he was better them all of them together..

- He was rusty, old as in his mid 30s most agree, and poorly trained from all accounts. Yes, he was considered the best, but such is the nature of primitive boxing rankings which tend to be one or two fights behind the true rank of a fighter.

When Mr. Monster mysteriously quits on his stool in a close fight after 6 nothing rounds, that would traditionally call into question a legitimacy of any fight. Liston was the last official mob controlled fighter to hold the title and was asked to appear in before the US Congress at least twice in his role as such.

Calling 80s Tyson the most invincible fighter ever seen is the epitome of the use of what the official statistical record shows. You simply cannot find a single weak point in the record from this time.

Yes, Mr. Potty, earnings are significant in this case, because the nature of the thread is the comparison of two specific time periods long cited by boxing experts as being the best ever examples of Tyson and Ali. Ali was never making big money in his first reign. Dempsey many decades removed from Ali's 60s era probably had made more money in his reign as champ. Tyson was making silly money never seen printed in such vast quantities before he had cleared his 21st birthday.

Before the close of the same decade as Ali last closed his official career earnings I might add. Unfortunately you got no such backing for your support of Ali save your well soiled opinion. He was a mighty fine, talented, charismatic one off talent, true enough, and that the world would be much poorer without a given, but not always plugged into the spectacular perfection in the ring as exemplified by young Tyson in his never seen before or since 80s reign of terror.

[Rocky Balboa]

As soon as Tyson defeated Biggs, which was in October 1987, both Tyson & Holmes spoke about a fight between the two, both were pretty sure about it happening earlu the following year!

If Larry didn't feel he should start preparing for the bout when he first knew of it being scheduled then that's his own fault! He could have had six months, a year, whatever to prepare for Tyson but it would not have made any difference!

To this day, Tyson remains the only man to TKO Holmes & that is some achievement, even if Larry was 38 at the time & had bene inactive for a considerable amount of time!

[I Feel Fine]

Mysteriously quits? His face was busted up and as far as he knew he had lost most of the rounds. We don't presume that Duran quit for any other reason than frustration; Clay hit Liston much more often than Leonard did Duran and Duran had no cuts or damage. This is your way of trying to muddy the waters, but it doesn't hold up.
As I said, Liston wasn't in his prime, Clay wasn't either he was still developing, but I have little doubt that on that night Liston would repeat his victories over his prior top opposition. Can't say the same for Larry in '88.
Tyson was statistically invincible in the 80s? Stupid comments. So was Ali in the 60s. Tyson did not have the best record for a Heavyweight before Douglas beat him, Foreman for one was 40-0 with 37 KO's before Ali beat him, Tyson's record was 37-0 with 34 KO's. Marciano retired 49-0 with 43 knockouts, does that make him the best Heavyweight of all time? You've spent most of your time on this thread knocking Holmes, who made it to 48-0. Everyone is perfect before their first loss. Tyson had a perfect record before losing to Douglas... which is just the point, he lost to Douglas, he in fact was not perfect. You are a true idiot.
Obviously if Ali or Louis or Marciano fight in Tyson's day they make about as much money as he did; Holyfield made hundreds of millions as well, does this make Evander a better fighter? I have not made reference to Ali or Tyson's personalities, it hardly makes a difference to me what Ali or Tyson were like outside of the ring, you however are the one suggesting that dollars and fan attention mean something; they do not. You are very good at bringing attention away from the many, many factual mistakes that you have made and at trying to hide the lack of realism in your comments by bringing up red herrings like "statistical perfection" and "earnings" but stats and earnings are just about the lowest measures of a fighter or of any athlete. Mayweather by this logic is probably ten times better than Arguello who had losses and fought in a lower money making era. But this is the shallowness that convinces one that Tyson in the 80s was "invincible." Many fighters would be invincible against Trevor Berbick.

Rocky Balboa... Johnson was the only man to beat or stop Jeffries. Charles was the only man to beat Louis in a title fight. Holmes was the only man to stop Ali. Am I seeing a pattern here about old fighters coming out of inactivity?

[Goodnight, Irene]

As soon as Tyson defeated Biggs, which was in October 1987, both Tyson & Holmes spoke about a fight between the two, both were pretty sure about it happening earlu the following year!

If Larry didn't feel he should start preparing for the bout when he first knew of it being scheduled then that's his own fault! He could have had six months, a year, whatever to prepare for Tyson but it would not have made any difference!

To this day, Tyson remains the only man to TKO Holmes & that is some achievement, even if Larry was 38 at the time & had bene inactive for a considerable amount of time!

I've said all along that Tyson stopping Holmes, early & spectacularly, no less, is under-rated. People completely write it off, & that isn't right.

I'd never call it something outstanding, but it does, in fact, stand out on Holmes' record. That's the only time. I don't write it off as a nothing-result on Tyson's part. It deserves more respect.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Mysteriously quits? His face was busted up and as far as he knew he had lost most of the rounds. We don't presume that Duran quit for any other reason than frustration; Clay hit Liston much more often than Leonard did Duran and Duran had no cuts or damage. This is your way of trying to muddy the waters, but it doesn't hold up.

- You're the muppet muddying up the waters with Duran. Last I checked Duran's legendary HOF reputation took a major hit that was years in recovery. His excuse was stomach cramps, code for needing to take a major crap after devouring two full steak dinners after the weighin hours before the fight, so "we" ain't me but only "you" and your glue brigade who insist upon talking about subjects they know nothing of.

As I said, Liston wasn't in his prime, Clay wasn't either he was still developing, but I have little doubt that on that night Liston would repeat his victories over his prior top opposition.

Liston was too old and and never recovered his career. He showed in the first fight he was unable or unwilling to go more than 6rds, and now you got him as an old man beating all his previous prime contenders in spite of never beating another contender of any persuasion again? Have you no shame, or is it simple intellectual capacity in short supply for you?

Tyson did not have the best record for a Heavyweight before Douglas beat him,

Who but you ever implied he did? Can you not read the thread header, the points of comparison that you shy away from? As part of developing that theme, I've stated emphatically that his first 5 yrs as a pro fighter are the most brilliant first 5 yrs in history in any division, not the blithering blather you make up to attribute to me.

Obviously if Ali or Louis or Marciano fight in Tyson's day they make about as much money as he did

Obviously Ali ended his career in the 80s and the alleged prime of Mr. Larry was in the 80s, as well as Spinks and the rest of the ABC champs, and none of their career earnings could match Tyson's 5 yr earnings as a professional fighter in the 80s. Obviously boxing knowledge ain't your forte any more than basic mathematics of time and finances.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

To this day, Tyson remains the only man to TKO Holmes & that is some achievement, even if Larry was 38 at the time & had bene inactive for a considerable amount of time!

- Larry was stone cold dead before he ever hit the canvas. He's literally nailed to a cross on the canvas as Cortez dives in desperation to get out the mouthpiece before tragedy can strike.

The NJ commish blew the call since Larry required assistance to ensure his safety for near a minute before being helped up. It's a minor point since commish and org officials routinely blow calls and fudge results. We saw what happened which is enough.

[I Feel Fine]

It hurt Duran's legacy, it hurt Liston's as well, I did not imply otherwise. But that Liston never recovered his career is irrelevant to his state in '64; he was neither old or shot when he fought Clay the first time. I know that you want me to keep repeating that Liston was not in his prime, and I have nothing to hide in that regard, but I can say very accurately that Liston was still a more formidable fighter than Holmes or Spinks when he fought Clay. To say that Liston's state was such that even Patterson or Williams might have beaten him on that night is nice revisionist history but like so much of your statements it does not hold up. Liston's jab was working and he landed a couple of punches on a fast moving Clay that a stationary Patterson would not have held up under.
I did not misrepresent your comments, I stated that your exaggerations about Tyson's first years before fighting Douglas are just that, exaggerations. If anything I underestimated this comment, because I now see that you are not simply referring to the Heavyweight division but are actually saying that he had the best first five years of any fighter in boxing history at any weight... Sugar Ray Robinson is not here to tell you that you are an idiot, but I will happily do it for him. But, even by Heavyweight standards, your comment is wrong. Foreman's first five years were more dominant and he had a better record. Not as many defenses but Foreman was the linear champion, Tyson was not until he beat Spinks; as far as linear defenses go they had the same number. And of course Frazier and Norton make Tyson's wins look like chicken feed. A prime Holmes barely beat an older Norton, imagine Holmes in '88 against a prime Norton. I'm pretty sure that Frazier would not have the same reaction to Smith or Thomas or Berbick or Biggs or Spinks that he had to Foreman's uppercuts, to say the least. Easy work for Smokin' Joe. George didn't lose his title to a journeyman, to say the least, as Tyson did.
Again, Ali had two fights very early in the eighties, the second where no one wanted to see him fight again, and Holyfield made hundreds of millions in his career as a contemporary of Tyson. No insult to Evander, but to say that he is not a bigger name than Ali or Joe Louis is clear enough, I think, without my having to say it. I believe that Ali had a better career than Louis, but while Ali in single fights made more money than Louis did in his entire career I would never be deluded enough to suggest that Ali was anything like that much better than Joe. Still, Ali and Frazier in their first fight alone made almost twenty five times as much money as the average American athletes of their era made in a whole season. And, as I said, Oscar De La Hoya (by no means the greatest of all time or even of his own time) has out earned seemingly everyone, Heavyweights included, fighters in the past had to fight full careers to make a tenth of what he makes today in one fight; this perhaps suggests something about different eras that your one dimensional mind is not sophisticated enough to comprehend. Earnings are the bottom of the barrel in terms of analyzing boxing, it is good to see you resort to it but even this red herring does not hold up. Surely you can do better than this one, if you are going to waste my time at least waste it with something more challenging.
I shied away from what? I stated that I believe that Ali's best opponents in the 60s would beat most or all of Tyson's. I think Ali's worst opponents, the Brits, who were forced on him because of the boycott, would beat few or any. I think it levels out and that their opposition was about even, though Ali had a better title reign thanks to his not having lost his title in the ring and because of the fact that Mike was not even a real champion until he beat Spinks or at best beat Tucker. I have said this from very early on.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I can say very accurately that Liston was still a more formidable fighter than Holmes or Spinks when he fought Clay. To say that Liston's state was such that even Patterson or Williams might have beaten him on that night is nice revisionist history but like so much of your statements it does not hold up. Liston's jab was working and he landed a couple of punches on a fast moving Clay that a stationary Patterson would not have held up under.
I did not misrepresent your comments, I stated that your exaggerations about Tyson's first years before fighting Douglas are just that, exaggerations. If anything I underestimated this comment, because I now see that you are not simply referring to the Heavyweight division but are actually saying that he had the best first five years of any fighter in boxing history at any weight... Sugar Ray Robinson is not here to tell you that you are an idiot, but I will happily do it for him. But, even by Heavyweight standards, your comment is wrong. Foreman's first five years were more dominant and he had a better record. Not as many defenses but Foreman was the linear champion, Tyson was not until he beat Spinks; as far as linear defenses go they had the same number. And of course Frazier and Norton make Tyson's wins look like chicken feed.

- Well, of course you probably look like chicken feet kicking up dust down at ye olde chicken lickin' good chicken coop.

Liston was obviously more formidable by reputation and legacy which have repeatedly fooled you. Liston was past the age when heavies would traditionally fall apart. He was rusty from being inactive mixed in with early KOs meaning he's barely spent more than a few minutes in the ring over 3 yrs time. He was no longer training like his next payday depended on results. He'd become a 4-6 rd fighter. If you think this version of Liston automatically beats prime Williams, Folley, Machen, or even Floyd, well, whatever dude. He never beat another prime contender after '63, so you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Foreman had a fine first start to his career, but he didn't face any fighter of note until his 2nd year, Peralta, and nicked a UD in a fight many thought Peralta jobbed in. It meant enough that he eventually rematches and knocks him out, but that was his first weak link as a fighter. By Mike's 2nd year he's WBC /WBA champ and goes on a tear through the division that last 3 more years.

No such minor Peralta blemish on his record. Moreover, George spent his last year and a half before winning the title coasting against journeymen fighters, not beating up prime past, current, and future heavy champs ducked by Holmes like Mike was doing. Beating prime Norton probably not as good as beating prime or near prime Spinks. Frazier a big legacy name, but we in the know know he was struggling with his eyesight and blood pressure to reinforce his struggles against Daniels and Stander. It's debatable if he could beat 88Holmes, esp in the fashion Mike did. In short, Frazier not the same fighter Ali faced. Beating Frazier don't make up for the volumes of fine work Tyson was doing in his 5 yr whirlwind.