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

[I Feel Fine]

Liston was at an age where most Heavyweights fall apart... this coming from someone who can't stop talking about Ali-Spinks. Such sophistry. Liston could still punch, little guy, punching power is the last thing to go. Clay's speed made him look bad, but he fought competitively, and Patterson and Williams would have been splattered. Liston was not finished in '64, regardless of what he did later.
Foreman had Peralta, Tyson had Tillis. Foreman accomplished more in the allotted time, the question was first five years not first two years. Frazier in '73 was not a shot fighter, whatever exaggerated problems he may have been having he was fighting with greater ability than the inactive under trained 38 year old Holmes. Joe would go through '88 Holmes pretty handedly, even if he doesn't stop him. '74 Norton would kick the hell out of that version of Larry.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Liston was at an age where most Heavyweights fall apart... this coming from someone who can't stop talking about Ali-Spinks. Such sophistry. Liston could still punch, little guy, punching power is the last thing to go. Clay's speed made him look bad, but he fought competitively, and Patterson and Williams would have been splattered. Liston was not finished in '64, regardless of what he did later.
Foreman had Peralta, Tyson had Tillis. Foreman accomplished more in the allotted time, the question was first five years not first two years. Frazier in '73 was not a shot fighter, whatever exaggerated problems he may have been having he was fighting with greater ability than the inactive under trained 38 year old Holmes. Joe would go through '88 Holmes pretty handedly, even if he doesn't stop him. '74 Norton would kick the hell out of that version of Larry.

- Why Mr. Potty, your words are empty as that jughaid you make noise with. There is nothing in the record showing Liston beating a ranked heavy from 64 on. If you had a single name, you could at least make a weak claim.

Why Mr. Potty, at the age Tyson was fighting, knocking down, and winning 20 of the 30 scored rounds against 80s contender Tillis, Foreman was in headgear fighting 3 rounders with pillow gloves. Again, nary a weak case nor more than a pip's squeak from you. Tyson's 5 yrs are better by most any account, he has no controversial Peralta, and no 1.5 yr walk in the park against unrated journeymen just before winning the title

I never said 73 Frazier was shot, but you just implied it, so congrats to YOU! 88 Holmes wasn't shot either as his much longer post Tyson career proved. Frazier went the distance winning a close decision over Bugner, a fight similar to what Holmes would wage, but Holmes with a bigger legacy than Bugner might nick the decision for that reason. So what if 74 Norton marches over Larry. You're grasping at strawmen arguments because that's all you got.

[I Feel Fine]

I haven't disputed that Liston was not the same after the first fight with Clay. For one he had a year absence after his training camp was delayed because of Ali's hernia (another disruption that Ali had in his first title reign aside from politics.)
I again agreee was not in his prime and was not getting any younger, but to say he was not still a dangerous fighter and the elite champion of the division is wrong. No one who saw him hit Patterson and then saw him hit Clay in the second round would believe that Patterson would have survived against '64 Liston. Williams would have been flattened again as well. The exception was this very mobile young opponent who was starting to come into his prime whom he could not catch up with and who was frustrating him and busting him up with shots which had a bit more pop than Liston would have expected. But if you want to argue against such a great win over a top ten all time Heavyweight champion like Liston on the basis that he did not go on to accomplish much after losing this first fight then that disqualifies almost all of Tyson's title opponents. Berbick did nothing after losing his paper title to Tyson. Likewise Smith, who lost two of his next three. Thomas was completely uncompetitive against Holyfield a year later, quitting in his corner. Angelo Dundee told Thomas something to the effect that "If this guy keeps hitting you like that he's gonna break his hands on your face" to paraphrase. Tucker wouldn't fight a significant fight again until losing just as lopsidedly to Lewis years later. Biggs went on to lose all of his big fights from then on, and lost his next two after his fight with Mike, including his next one to Damiani in a rematch of his victory in their Olympic meeting (Biggs' only real accomplishment going into the Tyson fight.) Holmes went on to beat an out of shape Mercer and gave Holyfield a semi-competitive fight, so that one plays out well for Tyson, though the more active Holmes who fought those two fights looked much more fluid and strong than he did in '88 coming off more than a year and a half long layoff. Tubbs' only achievement from then on was going the distance in a loss to Bowe. Spinks retired after losing to Mike, clearly finished. Bruno had a competitive loss to Lewis and beat McCall to win a belt so that is not terrible, though not great either. Williams did nothing after losing to Mike, losing about half his fights from then on.
So, by your logic, almost all of Tyson's title opponents were shot when he beat them, simply because they did nothing else after. Okay. As for one of those opponents, Holmes; I never said Holmes was shot, you misquote me- again- what I said was that he was old, flabby and inactive coming in on short notice. He might as well have been shot.
Many people found Tyson's fight with Tillis too close for comfort, don't kid yourself. You keep trying to shift your original argument, which is cute, but you'll have to try it on someone else. The red herring that you raised was that Tyson had the best first first five years, not first two, and not that he was better at a given age... keep to your original statement or pipe down. The Norton reference was in the context of this false assertion that Tyson had the best first five years of any fighter... nice to see you dodge my response about SRR, by the way, you do a lot of dodging, like my response to your other red herring about earnings, Nancy boy... but, yes, one of Foreman's big wins in those years was Kenny Norton in '74, and that version of Norton would have stomped the version of Larry Holmes that Tyson beat into the ground. It is risible seeing you bring a nonsense topic into the discussion and then moan about me responding. You are correct in saying "so what." You are indeed correct in suggesting that this topic is irrelevant. But you forget that you were the one who introduced it into the discussion. It is humorous watching you indict yourself, I don't have to do anything. I just have to sit back and watch you kick your own dumb ass.

[NazNaci1]

Some interesting points made, and I can also see BRR's logic, when comparing opposition and how they would fair against each other.

Cant say I'd agree with all of the outcomes even so I do agree with some of them.

Basing the age factor, the opposition (and hypothetically how they would fair against each other) and the mental and physical states of each boxer certainly gives food for thought.

Now, I no axe to grind with anyone and am one of Tyson's and Ali's biggest fans.

Tyson for his flaws, is an all time great fighter and one of the greatest heavyweights ever, but so is Ali :)

Considering all arguements, I would still favour Ali, for the simple reason he suffered numerous baptism's of fire, Frazier, Jones, Cooper, Norton, Lyle, Spinks etc....he suffered, lost some, won some but his experience and more so his fighting heart would not allow him to succumb.

Tyson was truly a blazing, vicious fighter - he also had heart and fantastic skills, comparable to Ali and indeed the finest ever heavyweights but his will was not as strong as Ali's and I think this is what this fantastic fight between 2 of my favourite fighters would decided on.

Just another opinion to add to the 10 pages :) Not saying anyone has to agree with it or anything, just my gut feeling and I tend to trust my instincts.....meh I dunno :)

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

But if you want to argue against such a great win over a top ten all time Heavyweight champion like Liston on the basis that he did not go on to accomplish much after losing this first fight then that disqualifies almost all of Tyson's title opponents. Berbick did nothing after losing his paper title to Tyson. Likewise Smith, who lost two of his next three. Thomas was completely uncompetitive against Holyfield a year later, quitting in his corner. Angelo Dundee told Thomas something to the effect that "If this guy keeps hitting you like that he's gonna break his hands on your face" to paraphrase. Tucker wouldn't fight a significant fight again until losing just as lopsidedly to Lewis years later. Biggs went on to lose all of his big fights from then on, and lost his next two after his fight with Mike, including his next one to Damiani in a rematch of his victory in their Olympic meeting (Biggs' only real accomplishment going into the Tyson fight.) Holmes went on to beat an out of shape Mercer and gave Holyfield a semi-competitive fight, so that one plays out well for Tyson, though the more active Holmes who fought those two fights looked much more fluid and strong than he did in '88 coming off more than a year and a half long layoff. Tubbs' only achievement from then on was going the distance in a loss to Bowe. Spinks retired after losing to Mike, clearly finished. Bruno had a competitive loss to Lewis and beat McCall to win a belt so that is not terrible, though not great either. Williams did nothing after losing to Mike, losing about half his fights from then on.
So, by your logic, almost all of Tyson's title opponents were shot when he beat them, simply because they did nothing else after. Okay. As for one of those opponents, Holmes; I never said Holmes was shot, you misquote me- again- what I said was that he was old, flabby and inactive coming in on short notice. He might as well have been shot.
Many people found Tyson's fight with Tillis too close for comfort, don't kid yourself.

- You never rated any of Tyson's opponents, so now you can admit that the version of Liston Ali beat was no better on a practical basis as what Tyson beat. Sweet, may be hope for you yet.

Still off on your facts though. Most at or near prime and not having ring rust. Some did have significant wins afterwards, and all in the mix against other contender types. In many cases, they took all time Ruddock style beatings at Tyson's hands, the kind that end careers. Smith would go on to beat Weaver. Tucker would go to beat Orlin Norris and McCall and give Lennox Lewis his toughest test to that date. Tubbs had a win over Norris overturned because of a positive marijuana test, but also beat Bruce Seldon, Jesse Ferguson, and many thought he deserved the win against Bowe. Bruno covered,

[I Feel Fine]

- You never rated any of Tyson's opponents, so now you can admit that the version of Liston Ali beat was no better on a practical basis as what Tyson beat. Sweet, may be hope for you yet.

Ha. Yet another BRR dodge, a true dead beat poster. Any half-literate poster who might happen to read my above post would not have come up with that interpretation of my comments. You don't seem to qualify as that.
It is nice to see the rose colored analysis of Tyson's opponents after their losses to Mike. Only in Tyson World are Bruce Seldon and Orlin Norris big wins. As for Tucker, Lewis beat him about as easily as Mike did.
To try to put it more simply for such a simple poster; you can't say that because Liston accomplished little after Clay in '64 that this hurts the victory while ignoring this same pattern with almost all of Tyson's title opposition. That would be like saying that Douglas sucked against Tyson because he sucked against Holyfield. That is not how it works. Poor logic, BRR, as always.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Only in Tyson World are Bruce Seldon and Orlin Norris big wins.

- You have been living in Tyson world, and post Tyson world for the past 25 yrs. Just you ain't smart enough to recognize reality.

Nobody ever made Seldon and Norris big wins for Mike, but they are beltholders on record in his era who served his purpose in the day. Beating Seldon today still a big deal for aspiring fringe heavy contenders, such is the way the prize fighting business model operates. You know, the model where faded legacy such as a 50 yr old Moore or brokeback Floyd or mobbed up ancient Liston plumps your panties more than a prime contender, thousands of which have been lost in the deep mists of time.

Sorta like your ilk commenting on the death of your sainted Teddy in the thread you created. His well documented personal failings perfectly trump anything good that could be said about him, leaving left brained libs and right brained fundis in permanent brainfart lock mode when discussing his relevance to this life he just passed from.

Must confess though, you got me adding Big George to my list of first reign holders who were better than Ali's along with Frazier and Tyson, so good job and good luck in your future muckings about on the board.

[I Feel Fine]

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure that none of Mike's title challengers had drug problems or weight problems or were old or shot, but of course something obvious like a back injury in the second half of the fight will be cited, as though Patterson would have ever beaten Ali in his prime. Citing Liston's mob connections is a nice way to muddy the waters, as though Liston never hit Clay hard... I get the sense that if Liston had been fighting Patterson for a third time on that night in '64 and had tried to throw the fight with Floyd that Sonny wouldn't have risked pumping his jab and landing some of those body shots and left hooks to the jaw that he managed to land on Clay while running full steam ahead trying to catch him, taking cuts and other facial damage in the process. He didn't show anything like that kind of choreography or acting ability or patience in the second fight, landing no hard punches and going down on the first real shot landed.
If Mike or Big George or Frazier had stopped Liston and Patterson and had went on to defend the title seven times in a one year span from March of '66 to March of '67, including a unification, before being stripped for political reason, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the dominance of such a reign. If Ali beat the fringe titlists and aged names that Tyson beat, capped off by a destructive loss to journeyman Douglas, you would be in here calling that reign "overrated." I, on the other hand, have said that Ali and Tyson both showed good opponent selection in their first title reigns, that they were Hall of Famers when their first reigns ended, and that Ali's was better only because he did not lose his title in the ring and because Tyson did not become linear champion until beating Spinks. I do not need to defend my objectivity.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

If Mike or Big George or Frazier had stopped Liston and Patterson and had went on to defend the title seven times in a one year span from March of '66 to March of '67, including a unification, before being stripped for political reason, we wouldn't be having this conversation about the dominance of such a reign. If Ali beat the fringe titlists and aged names that Tyson beat

-If you knew anything about boxing, I wouldn't have to school you so special school style.

It's called "Bum of the Month" club, coined by hysteric boxing scribes in desperate need of hysterectomies during the Louis era. Joe and Ali can be seen discussing the topic with Ali being the accuser and Joe allowing as how Ali could've easily been one of Joe's bums he disposed of............classic!

You claim Ali was stripped for political reason, but he was charged and convicted on a federal felony count like thousands of others who didn't have the financial and political muscle to scream "politics." Seems to me that Ali got plenty more justice than tens of thousands of other young men who were drafted and ended up in body bags to little acclaim.

Sure, it would be nice to live in a perfect world where we could endlessly match prime Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Tunney, Rocky, Frazier and Liston against each other, but nobody, not even Paris Hilton lives in such a world.

I don't care how many times you change the spin on the record as you do your best scratch hiphop DJ flash impersonation, it ain't music, it's just plain ol' boxing history that Liston was a mobbed fighter who quit after 6 rds in the first fight and went down from a nothing punch in the travesty known as the rematch. The video is clear as any of the estimated 90% of adult Americans who have been layed up with back problems would automatically know that in the first Patterson fight, Floyd was not healthy enough to fight, walk the dog, mow the yard, play with his kids, do the dishes, or diaper you.

The "fringe titlests" Tyson beat were several grades above any contenders Ali defended against in this period as I have shown in my head to head matchups.

[I Feel Fine]

Ali was stripped before he was even convicted. It was politics. And, the word "politics" aside, you can call it whatever you like, the underlying point is that he did not lose his title in the ring as Mike did. Suggesting that Liston threw the first fight is baseless, though I agree about the second fight. Saying that Liston quit for no reason in the first fight shows true tunnel vision and shamelessly ignores that fighters quit all the time when faced with frustration and defeat, especially when they have a bully complex; hence Tyson-Holyfield II. I acknowledged Patterson's back problem, I also say that he would have never beaten prime Ali whatever his condition and that his back wasn't too bad in the first five rounds or so when he was throwing leaping left hooks. Some of Tyson's challengers were addicted to drugs, Tubbs had obvious weight problems, and Holmes and Spinks were past their best and were no longer great fighters, so lets not pretend what the condition of his opponents was.
You haven't done any schooling here, though you've gotten plenty of undeserved attention. Perhaps you need a better hobby.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Ali was stripped before he was even convicted. It was politics. And, the word "politics" aside, you can call it whatever you like, the underlying point is that he did not lose his title in the ring as Mike did. Suggesting that Liston threw the first fight is baseless, though I agree about the second fight. Saying that Liston quit for no reason in the first fight shows true tunnel vision and shamelessly ignores that fighters quit all the time when faced with frustration and defeat

- Fighters quit ALL the time is it when faced with frustration and defeat, eh?

Last I checked, Ali was stripped before he was ever came before the draft board after his first Liston "win." Or maybe Liston was stripped before that fight for fighting a weak untested fighter. Was that "politics?"

Now Mr. Potty, I never stated "Liston quit for no reason in the first fight," that's you repeating that endless echo bouncing off the empty chambers of that bin you call your noggin. He could've quit for any reason under the sun, including the oft cited shoulder injury. What round do you reckon he was told to quit by his bosses?

Yet you agree with him quitting the 2nd bout. Sweet.

Ali never lost his "lineal" belt, so he was never more than partially stripped, just like he was partially stripped in every ring appearance like every other fighter in history, not to put too fine a feel fine point on it.

[I Feel Fine]

"Liston was told by his bosses to quit"... not a shred of evidence to support that, and we have the accounts of Liston's corner shoving his mouth piece in his mouth presuming that he was going to go on and Liston telling them that he had enough.
"What round do you think Duran's bosses told him to quit?" the conspiracy theorists love to speculate on unsupported claims. Glad to see you fall into their camp.
And yes, I have said many times that I do think that Liston took a dive the second time. Liston's acting was not very good, which is why it is foolish to believe that he choreographed the full first fight, including the left hooks to the jaw and the hard shots to the body against this "untested fighter". Sonny wouldn't have hit Patterson like that if he was told to throw a fight, he would have been real gentle... as he was in the second Ali fight, landing no hard shots and going down ASAP.
I do think Ali lost his linear title when he announced his retirement during his exile. If you can retire and still hold your linear belt then Gene Tunney will forever remain Heavyweight champion. The Frazier-Ellis winner carried on the linear belt, in my view, as Spinks did until Tyson beat him, which is why Tyson only has two legitimate defenses of the Heavyweight title in the 80s.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

"Liston was told by his bosses to quit"... not a shred of evidence to support that, and we have the accounts of Liston's corner shoving his mouth piece in his mouth presuming that he was going to go on and Liston telling them that he had enough.
"What round do you think Duran's bosses told him to quit?" the conspiracy theorists love to speculate on unsupported claims. Glad to see you fall into their camp.
And yes, I have said many times that I do think that Liston took a dive the second time. Liston's acting was not very good, which is why it is foolish to believe that he choreographed the full first fight, including the left hooks to the jaw and the hard shots to the body against this "untested fighter". Sonny wouldn't have hit Patterson like that if he was told to throw a fight, he would have been real gentle... as he was in the second Ali fight, landing no hard shots and going down ASAP.
I do think Ali lost his linear title when he announced his retirement during his exile. If you can retire and still hold your linear belt then Gene Tunney will forever remain Heavyweight champion. The Frazier-Ellis winner carried on the linear belt, in my view, as Spinks did until Tyson beat him, which is why Tyson only has two legitimate defenses of the Heavyweight title in the 80s.

- In your view is it now, eh?

In your view your eyeballs be floating in your pouty potty mouth if you think Duran was ever a mobbed up championship fighter quitting in the ring to be called before two blue ribbon congressional panels investigating organized crime in boxing.

Duran clearly dismisses Leonard for not fighting mano a mano, TKOs him by Panamanian street culture standards. In boxing only the ref can officially stop a bout, so Duran's 3rd world street instincts and poor training discipline worked against him in this fight. "No Mas" was a figment of Uncle Howie's imagination as was his hair and most of his announcing career. Never happened that way Mr. Potty, it was a simple breech of competing rules Duran operated under.

As mentioned, Ali stripped or withheld recognition by the WBA between the Liston fights, but your eyeballs floating in such odorous conditions that you can't smell the stink involved in the first fight. Mobbed up fighters don't just quit in the ring on their own volition, much less in fights where all the betting action is in the first few rounds.

The good fellas betting on an early exit by Sonny made a fortune and Sonny got to keep his day job.........for awhile anyways.

[I Feel Fine]

It wasn't withheld, it was stripped because Ali gave Liston an immediate rematch which was against some WBA rule. It was probably also to do with the sudden dislike of Ali due to his going public with his conversion and name change which occurred shortly after the fight. You're factually accurate, as always. Good to see a boxing fan take the side of the WBA against the legitimate champion rather than the other way.... but, of course, you're not really a boxing fan.
The conspiracy theories are unwarranted, there is no evidence other than contrived innuendo, and by watching the actual fight we do not see anything like the bad acting or the pulling of punches that we saw the second time, we see a champion trying to score an early knockout and then quitting... the way Tyson did with Evander.
As for your comments in regards to Leonard-Duran II, Duran had met plenty of runners before but he had never "dismissed" them, he would simply chase them down and stop them or win a decision. The difference between a Leonard and a Bizzarro is that Leonard could punch and Leonard was winning rounds, and if Duran couldn't knock him out in the stationary Montreal fight (where Duran was also indeed in better condition) he was certainly not going to stop him here with this style that Leonard was employing. Pretty much the same deal with Clay against Sonny. Big punchers often do not have a Plan B, and a busted up fighter who hasn't been in a competitive fight since the '50s is probably not going to react well. The conspiracy theorists make it sound as though Clay really was just some kid with no outstanding qualities, which is doubtlessly what Liston thought going into the fight but which he quickly learned was not the case. Hindsight is a bitch.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

It wasn't withheld, it was stripped because Ali gave Liston an immediate rematch which was against some WBA rule. It was probably also to do with the sudden dislike of Ali due to his going public with his conversion and name change which occurred shortly after the fight. You're factually accurate, as always. Good to see a boxing fan take the side of the WBA against the legitimate champion rather than the other way.... but, of course, you're not really a boxing fan.
The conspiracy theories are unwarranted, there is no evidence other than contrived innuendo, and by watching the actual fight we do not see anything like the bad acting or the pulling of punches that we saw the second time, we see a champion trying to score an early knockout and then quitting... the way Tyson did with Evander.

- Ahhhhh, Mr. Potty, mummy's allowed you early on into the daffy taffy candy jar today, eh?

Tyson never quit. He was a plodding one punch 6rd fighter at best by the time that he fought Mr. Evitamins Field, and after 6 rds he was done physically. However, he lasted on several more rounds by way of heart and went out on his shield after being butted down for the count to recover, only to be stopped later on by the ref after being knocked into the ropes when his motor was running on fumes.

Sweet Mother of Madonna and MJ, me noting the factual occurances in chronological order has nothing to do with me taking sides. The first fight stank and raised a HUGE public outcry and resulted in WBA apparently stripping Ali. Me also noting that young Clay announces his conversion to Cassius X and then abandons his friendship with Malcolm X who was then assassinated doesn't mean I support the assassination of Malcolm my silly soft potty lad.

Yes....."by watching the actual fight we do not see anything like the bad acting or the pulling of punches that we saw the second time, we see a champion trying to score an early knockout and then quitting..."

I merely asked, what round do you figure his mob bosses told him to quit in?