So essential these versions of both fighters:

Vs

So who wins that fight in your own opinion and why?


Larry Holmes hadn't fought in years when he fought Mike Tyson, and Ali is a lot better than Buster Douglas. Just sayin'adislav123 wrote: ↑10 Sep 2018, 19:53 TYSON, KNOCKOUT, Rd. 3 to 5. Maybe Ali is able to run, stick & move early on, but as soon as mike gets to him and there's no way that he doesnt, he knocks Ali around the ring like a human ragdoll, similiar to what he did to larry holmes. That said, in my opinion doesn't take away anything from Ali being the greatest heavyweight of HIS aera.
Who ever knocked out Prime Ali?adislav123 wrote: ↑10 Sep 2018, 21:05 Maybe ali could eventually get away and run for 12 rounds, just can't see him hurting prime mike.
Ali could and would of hurt Tyson. Once Tyson got peppered with jab after jab. Tyson punching at what he can't hit he will tire and Ali would drop him for a legitimate 10 countgilgamesh wrote: ↑10 Sep 2018, 22:15Who ever knocked out Prime Ali?adislav123 wrote: ↑10 Sep 2018, 21:05 Maybe ali could eventually get away and run for 12 rounds, just can't see him hurting prime mike.
Joe Frazier didn't do it, George Foreman didn't do it, Earnie Shavers didn't do it, Sonny Liston didn't do it. Huge punchers one and all.
Ali could outbox Mike whether he could hurt him or not.
I couldn’t cope with listening to the entire video, because it was unbearable, due to manner in which Tucker tried to convey his thoughts (i.e. his speech was slurred), coupled with the robotic tone of his voice (as a result of the dire phone line).adislav123 wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 07:51
Obviously not too many people heard this. It"s also really hard to understand. Maybe somebody with the interest and time at his hands could transcribe it. Thought i just post it in here. Hard to "watch", i couldn't.![]()
I think you've got the wrong guy; it was me whining about the use of Clay over Ali.BoxBuzz wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 12:58 Note to "enlightened one".
Ali was perfectly happy for folks to refer to him as Cassius during the time that Cassius was actually his name. He even would say...."That was Cassius not Ali" on occasion. In respect.....many of us often refer to him as Cassius when discussing his life before his name change....he seemed to take no offense to that. Ali was born when Ali was born which was the day (metaphorically) when Cassius passed, or at least "stepped aside".
Does that make sense to folks?
Syntax Error wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 16:08I think you've got the wrong guy; it was me whining about the use of Clay over Ali.BoxBuzz wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 12:58 Note to "enlightened one".
Ali was perfectly happy for folks to refer to him as Cassius during the time that Cassius was actually his name. He even would say...."That was Cassius not Ali" on occasion. In respect.....many of us often refer to him as Cassius when discussing his life before his name change....he seemed to take no offense to that. Ali was born when Ali was born which was the day (metaphorically) when Cassius passed, or at least "stepped aside".
Does that make sense to folks?
He became Muhammad Ali in 1964 and we're discussing him after that time.
He was Cassius Clay for a mere 22 years, whereas he was Muhammad Ali for 52 years.
The majority of his boxing career was as Muhammad Ali and all of his biggest fights, apart from Liston 1 were as Ali.
He hated being called Clay after 1964 & once virtually tortured an opponent for refusing to call him Ali, so I believe it was important for him.
Anyway, I don't wish to take the thread off topic anymore as this is a well documented issue.
Agree with everything here, including Ali being Ali in 1965, not Clay.Syntax Error wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 07:39 What's with Cassius Clay?
The man was called Muhammad Ali by 1965 and probably wouldn't take kindly to being called by his slave name (in his words).
Pedants aside, I favour Ali by late TKO.
Too elusive, too tough and too mentally strong for Tyson.
I agree with every word you wrote. Good postSenorPipino wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018, 19:43Agree with everything here, including Ali being Ali in 1965, not Clay.Syntax Error wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 07:39 What's with Cassius Clay?
The man was called Muhammad Ali by 1965 and probably wouldn't take kindly to being called by his slave name (in his words).
Pedants aside, I favour Ali by late TKO.
Too elusive, too tough and too mentally strong for Tyson.
He officially took the Ali moniker in late 1964.
In 1965, Ali wasn't at his peak. That probably came in late 1966 through the Folley bout in 1967.
Tyson was probably physically at his peak in 1987/1988.
But he was a mentally weak character at any point in his career, and would have melted down when confronted with Ali's speed and frustrating movement and general ring savvy.
The stinging Ali jab would have upset Tyson's rythym and kept him from ever getting untracked.
The easy to discourage Tyson would have basically quit by the 10th round, and it would only be a matter of time before Ali poured it on and sent Tyson to the showers as a TKO victim.
I'll take this a step further....the "winner" here is about the "who" and not the skillset. (Which is something I often mention here) Take these guys and swap their minds and bodies, and the fella with Ali's psyche is going to win either way. This is about mental and emotional/spiritual dominance. Not as much about the better fighter. NOTHING could defeat Ali mentaly, With the possible exceptions of the Holmes fight, Ali probably thought he won (or missed the opportunity to win) every fight he ever fought. He was that tough mindwise. Tyson was a snow flake in comparison, especially once he tasted defeat. Ali used his first "defeat" (which he was convinced he won) to become even more confident in his abilities.tiny_acres wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018, 22:36I agree with every word you wrote. Good postSenorPipino wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018, 19:43Agree with everything here, including Ali being Ali in 1965, not Clay.Syntax Error wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 07:39 What's with Cassius Clay?
The man was called Muhammad Ali by 1965 and probably wouldn't take kindly to being called by his slave name (in his words).
Pedants aside, I favour Ali by late TKO.
Too elusive, too tough and too mentally strong for Tyson.
He officially took the Ali moniker in late 1964.
In 1965, Ali wasn't at his peak. That probably came in late 1966 through the Folley bout in 1967.
Tyson was probably physically at his peak in 1987/1988.
But he was a mentally weak character at any point in his career, and would have melted down when confronted with Ali's speed and frustrating movement and general ring savvy.
The stinging Ali jab would have upset Tyson's rythym and kept him from ever getting untracked.
The easy to discourage Tyson would have basically quit by the 10th round, and it would only be a matter of time before Ali poured it on and sent Tyson to the showers as a TKO victim.![]()
SenorPipino wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018, 19:43Agree with everything here, including Ali being Ali in 1965, not Clay.Syntax Error wrote: ↑11 Sep 2018, 07:39 What's with Cassius Clay?
The man was called Muhammad Ali by 1965 and probably wouldn't take kindly to being called by his slave name (in his words).
Pedants aside, I favour Ali by late TKO.
Too elusive, too tough and too mentally strong for Tyson.
He officially took the Ali moniker in late 1964.
In 1965, Ali wasn't at his peak. That probably came in late 1966 through the Folley bout in 1967.
Tyson was probably physically at his peak in 1987/1988.
But he was a mentally weak character at any point in his career, and would have melted down when confronted with Ali's speed and frustrating movement and general ring savvy.
The stinging Ali jab would have upset Tyson's rythym and kept him from ever getting untracked.
The easy to discourage Tyson would have basically quit by the 10th round, and it would only be a matter of time before Ali poured it on and sent Tyson to the showers as a TKO victim.