Tyson

[Ambling Alp II]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

I think favoring Tyson over Wlad, Fury etc is based on nostalgia.. who did he beat as talented as either? He also never faced anyone as big as Fury. How would he land effectively?

Nostalgia?
No, it's about respecting the history of the sport. It's about knowing that sometimes guys that came before your time were better than guys who were in your time. It's about watching video, and using your brain.

Wald had a weak chin and poor stamina. Fury is a clown. Had a draw with a non-talented fighter who weighed 212, less than Tyson. Almost lost to a guy in his pro debut.
Tyson beat many better fighters than Glassjaw and Clown. for starters, Tony Tucker was a better fighter. Pinklon Thomas a better fighter.

Tyson was a great fighter. There were guys like Ali, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis who were better. He was better than guys like Baer, Walcott, Charles, Norton. A guy like Sonny Liston is about even with him.

[Ambling Alp II]

If you want to say that Holmes was better at the time that he fought Tyson as Tyson was when he fought Williams and McBride, Fine, who cares? Holmes was a decent fighter at the time. A great fighter beating a decent fighter is not worth mentioning.
It's not a big win. there are many wins that Tyson had that were against fighters who were more than decent. Tucker, Thomas, Berbick, Ruddock, Bruno, Tubbs etc. These guys were not legends, but they were more than decent.

[Controversial]

If you want to say that Holmes was better at the time that he fought Tyson as Tyson was when he fought Williams and McBride, Fine, who cares? Holmes was a decent fighter at the time. A great fighter beating a decent fighter is not worth mentioning.
It's not a big win. there are many wins that Tyson had that were against fighters who were more than decent. Tucker, Thomas, Berbick, Ruddock, Bruno, Tubbs etc. These guys were not legends, but they were more than decent.

I rate the win over Holmes more than his win over Bruno.

[NazNaci1]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

I think favoring Tyson over Wlad, Fury etc is based on nostalgia.. who did he beat as talented as either? He also never faced anyone as big as Fury. How would he land effectively?

Not sure I agree with the 'as talented as either' as I don't particularly rate either too highly (including AJ, Wilder etc).

I don't think prime Tyson 1986-1988, would have any trouble landing on those two. Hand speed, head movement, peek-a-boo defence. combinations. power etc.....not nostalgia at all. I am confident he would get close enough, without getting hit and pummel both.

He could take whatever they had (Fury is an average puncher, so he couldn't hold Tyson off - getting dropped by Cunningham, Ngannou, Pajkic and Wilder doesn't bode well. Difference is Tyson would finish him in any scenario like that).

Brewster, Purrity, Sanders and AJ dropping Wlad, again, as it does with Fury, show distinct differences in levels. There is not one recent HW, Wlad's era and after who I would favour to beat Tyson, let alone, Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield.

You obviously rate these recent guys quite highly, which is fair enough. Having watched these guys and others previously, as you probably have too, I am pretty shocked you feel Fury.....Fury?? and Wlad?? Beats prime Tyson??

For me, Tyson and his fellow peers were a different level, skill wise, mindset and just basic, pure talent.

So, as said in my previous comment, we can still disagree, which is also still fine.

[Cojimar 1946]

The Holmes fight is not seen as a big deal because plenty of guys would have beaten the 1988 Holmes. Nobody would have expected Holmes to win in the first place given his age.

And subsequently beating Ray Mercer hardly proves he had a lot left given Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson and drew with Marion Wilson.

I'm not sure how anyone can say plenty of people would have beaten Holmes in 1988. Tyson was at his peak and was like nothing Holmes had faced before, short, fast and powerful. He just blew Holmes away, that doesn't mean Holmes was incapable of beating others.

Also he fought Mercer in 1992 when Mercer was unbeaten, coming off the knockout of Tommy Morrison, he hadn't fought Ferguson or Wilson then but even if he did lots of fighters have occasional bad results, that doesn't mean they are useless.

Mercer has virtually nothing in the way of quality wins. His only win over a top 10 ranked opponent was a faded Witherspoon who most felt beat him. The fact that you are reduced to bringing up Tommy Morrison is indicative of how poor his resume is. We can't throw out the Ferguson and Wilson debacles given the lack of good wins that would show such fights were a fluke. Ferguson himself was past prime when he beat Mercer.

[Caractacus]

-2013-

[Controversial]

The Holmes fight is not seen as a big deal because plenty of guys would have beaten the 1988 Holmes. Nobody would have expected Holmes to win in the first place given his age.

And subsequently beating Ray Mercer hardly proves he had a lot left given Mercer lost to Jesse Ferguson and drew with Marion Wilson.

I'm not sure how anyone can say plenty of people would have beaten Holmes in 1988. Tyson was at his peak and was like nothing Holmes had faced before, short, fast and powerful. He just blew Holmes away, that doesn't mean Holmes was incapable of beating others.

Also he fought Mercer in 1992 when Mercer was unbeaten, coming off the knockout of Tommy Morrison, he hadn't fought Ferguson or Wilson then but even if he did lots of fighters have occasional bad results, that doesn't mean they are useless.

Mercer has virtually nothing in the way of quality wins. His only win over a top 10 ranked opponent was a faded Witherspoon who most felt beat him. The fact that you are reduced to bringing up Tommy Morrison is indicative of how poor his resume is. We can't throw out the Ferguson and Wilson debacles given the lack of good wins that would show such fights were a fluke. Ferguson himself was past prime when he beat Mercer.

That doesn't mean he was a walk over. Some fighters are inconsistent, Mercer was one of them. Buster Douglas was another and look what he did. Plus lots of fighters don't have a big name on their record. Mercer was good enough to give Lewis a tough fight, lost on a MD that some thought he won. At the time Holmes fought Mercer he was 18-0, in his three previous fights had beaten big punching Bert Cooper, knocked out the undefeated Damiani (27-0) and knocked out the undefeated Morrison (28-0). An undefeated fighter is usually a hard guy to beat.

[Cojimar 1946]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

I think favoring Tyson over Wlad, Fury etc is based on nostalgia.. who did he beat as talented as either? He also never faced anyone as big as Fury. How would he land effectively?

Nostalgia?
No, it's about respecting the history of the sport. It's about knowing that sometimes guys that came before your time were better than guys who were in your time. It's about watching video, and using your brain.

Wald had a weak chin and poor stamina. Fury is a clown. Had a draw with a non-talented fighter who weighed 212, less than Tyson. Almost lost to a guy in his pro debut.
Tyson beat many better fighters than Glassjaw and Clown. for starters, Tony Tucker was a better fighter. Pinklon Thomas a better fighter.

Tyson was a great fighter. There were guys like Ali, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis who were better. He was better than guys like Baer, Walcott, Charles, Norton. A guy like Sonny Liston is about even with him.

Fury was past prime and horribly out of shape vs Ngannou who was taken out easily by AJ in his very next fight. That fight has no bearing on what he could do at his best.

Tyson doesn't have Wilders height and reach. How is he going to land head shots effectively on a guy nearly a foot taller than he is?

[Jakub079]

In 1996 old Mercer beat prime Lennox Lewis, also...

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Brewster had a long reach for his height and still took a savage beating before stopping wlad. Tyson would have had a really hard time landing on wlad,and wlads style of hit and hold is exactly how fighters gave prime tyson hell

[Ambling Alp II]

Wow, we are actually using the first Brewster fight as example of how Klitschko would beat Tyson? How did that fight end for Klitschko?

Tyson beat many fighters who were much taller and had good jabs. His sheer sped and aggressiveness would enable to get to Klitschko or Fury for that matter.
btw- I loved cojimars excuse for Fury's embarrassing fight against a guy in his first pro fight. He was out o shape for that fight. Priceless

Klitschko never fought anyone remotely like Tyson. Height, reach, weight are just numbers. They don't win fight, in real life. If the other is a lot better than you, he is almost always going to beat you. Klitschko got humiliated by Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster, neither of whom any thought anything of until they crushed Klitschko. Tyson is light years better than those guys.

Tyson nails him one time and its over. Glassjaw isn't getting past the second round.

Again, I am not saying that Tyson was the best of all time or anything like that. I am between the two extremes of people who thing he was right up there and those who thing he was vastly overrated. The truth is in the middle.

[NazNaci1]

Agreed. He would crush both. His skillset, back then, was far, far superior to anything these two ever faced or anything these two possessed..

I am honestly struggling to understand how anyone who has watched a peak Tyson (1986-1988/9) and then watched Fury and Klistchko and their woeful opponents (particularly Fury's) can even consider these two have the beating of a prime Tyson.

Size, reach etc can be negated. Hand speed, head movement, combinations, moving in and punching, foot speed etc....make these physical advantages redundant and it has been proven, in boxing specifically, for decades, if not since its earliest recordings.

I think the title of thread certainly applies much more to Fury and Klitschko (Wilder and AJ inc).

However, we all have our own opinions, so I can / have to accept and respect that.

[Cojimar 1946]

Agreed. He would crush both. His skillset, back then, was far, far superior to anything these two ever faced or anything these two possessed..

I am honestly struggling to understand how anyone who has watched a peak Tyson (1986-1988/9) and then watched Fury and Klistchko and their woeful opponents (particularly Fury's) can even consider these two have the beating of a prime Tyson.

Size, reach etc can be negated. Hand speed, head movement, combinations, moving in and punching, foot speed etc....make these physical advantages redundant and it has been proven, in boxing specifically, for decades, if not since its earliest recordings.

I think the title of thread certainly applies much more to Fury and Klitschko (Wilder and AJ inc).

However, we all have our own opinions, so I can / have to accept and respect that.

Tyson wasn't able to go undefeated in his own era despite the fact that he missed out on a some of the most dangerous opponents like Lewis, Witherspoon, Tua, Bowe, etc. So it stands to reason that he wouldn't go undefeated today. There are clearly guys today more talented than Buster Douglas who actually beat a prime Tyson regardless of excuses. Like I would hope we could agree that Usyk is more talented than Douglas.

[Controversial]

Agreed. He would crush both. His skillset, back then, was far, far superior to anything these two ever faced or anything these two possessed..

I am honestly struggling to understand how anyone who has watched a peak Tyson (1986-1988/9) and then watched Fury and Klistchko and their woeful opponents (particularly Fury's) can even consider these two have the beating of a prime Tyson.

Size, reach etc can be negated. Hand speed, head movement, combinations, moving in and punching, foot speed etc....make these physical advantages redundant and it has been proven, in boxing specifically, for decades, if not since its earliest recordings.

I think the title of thread certainly applies much more to Fury and Klitschko (Wilder and AJ inc).

However, we all have our own opinions, so I can / have to accept and respect that.

Tyson wasn't able to go undefeated in his own era despite the fact that he missed out on a some of the most dangerous opponents like Lewis, Witherspoon, Tua, Bowe, etc. So it stands to reason that he wouldn't go undefeated today. There are clearly guys today more talented than Buster Douglas who actually beat a prime Tyson regardless of excuses. Like I would hope we could agree that Usyk is more talented than Douglas.

How many fighters in any division go undefeated? Even Marciano and Mayweather had dubious wins on their record and every other ATG lost at some point.

[Jakub079]

...

Tyson wasn't able to go undefeated in his own era despite the fact that he missed out on a some of the most dangerous opponents like Lewis, Witherspoon, Tua, Bowe, etc. So it stands to reason that he wouldn't go undefeated today. There are clearly guys today more talented than Buster Douglas who actually beat a prime Tyson regardless of excuses. Like I would hope we could agree that Usyk is more talented than Douglas.

In the 1980s, Tyson defeated 37 rivals, and in the 1990s, he defeated only 8. So why are the 1990s considered the era of Tyson? Tua, Lewis, Bowe would have beaten Tyson but only in the 1990s. in the 00s Walujew, Liachowicz, Ruiz, Brewster, Meehan, Peter would certainly have won against Tyson... but only Whitearspoon fits into your puzzle. But if Tim had won against Smith, he would have fought Tyson. But he lost in the first round and it's hard to assume that he would have done better than his defeaters.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

I think favoring Tyson over Wlad, Fury etc is based on nostalgia.. who did he beat as talented as either? He also never faced anyone as big as Fury. How would he land effectively?

Nostalgia?
No, it's about respecting the history of the sport. It's about knowing that sometimes guys that came before your time were better than guys who were in your time. It's about watching video, and using your brain.

Wald had a weak chin and poor stamina. Fury is a clown. Had a draw with a non-talented fighter who weighed 212, less than Tyson. Almost lost to a guy in his pro debut.
Tyson beat many better fighters than Glassjaw and Clown. for starters, Tony Tucker was a better fighter. Pinklon Thomas a better fighter.

Tyson was a great fighter. There were guys like Ali, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis who were better. He was better than guys like Baer, Walcott, Charles, Norton. A guy like Sonny Liston is about even with him.

- Now Alpsy, there you go yet again not understanding the sport of boxing.

Nothing wrong with Wlad's Chin and Stamina as a 64-5 record with a record number of title fights against a who's who top ten Boxrec ranked fighters. The few fights that went the distance had him winning wide with no stamina problems, so I take that you focus only on losses as the usual casual suspects do.

First loss vs Puritty he was making his homecoming, his 12th fight in 12 months time with 11 on the road, and do keep in mind both the Ks were new German citizens, not natives. His Ama coach who knew nothing of pro boxing let him keep punching when clearly he should've just boxed defensively to coast the last few rounds. Puritty pulled the oldest trick in the book that Bonecrusher pulled on young Tyson and Hayemaker pulled on Valuev. Mike Weaver used to pull on a host of fighters, ie just go through boxing motions playing possum before a sudden sucker punch strike, and that's what Puritty did and it was enough to panic an Ama trainer into stopping the fight. Later his trainer Sdunek made the monumental Ama mistake of pulling injured Vit from his shutout in the Byrd fight where all Vit had to do is stand ring center and let Byrd tee off to finish out the fight with a wide decision, but guess what, Alpsy? They all quickly learned the dirty ropes of boxing to pull off the most dominant heavyweight reign in boxing history that still has you squealing.

2nd loss vs Sanders who was the most ducked heavy of his generation due to a bad combo of being a fast starting Southpaw KO artist and white South African who were under a worldwide boycott. Brian Mitchell and very underated fighter defended his title 12x on the road, never having a title defense in South Africa. So again, an Ama mistake before the bell rang with a postage stamp of a ring. Looking at the Hell Lefty Mildenberger put on Ali that had Cosell choking on his toupee, it's a slam dunk that Sanders leaping in with an unintentional headbutt as happens in righty vs left fights followed by a straight left power punch, Ali would have suffered the same fate with multi KDs until Angelo pulled him.

The Brewster fight a DKing fixed fight as we summed up on the AOL forum. Betting was suspended the week before the fight when a huge WAD was being placed from the British site, the classic symptom of a fix. Brewster a horrible boxer with a poor background as he proved in his career was easily being not only manhandled, but jabbed to death in a low activity fight that had Roy Jones screaming from the announcer booth to STOP!!! the fight when Wlad started to knock Brewster down. Byrd was the crooked ref let the 2nd KD slide when Brewster going down tackled Wlad at the bell. When he came out for the next round he could barely hold his arms up and was in an off balance retreat into ropes until the bell sounded. Brewster only landed a single solid punch mid rounds was too wild to catch him clean, but bouncing off the ropes he collapsed and couldn't get up. I jumped up saying he was drugged. Later during the replay, couple of guys who were part of training teams of Mosley and JCChavez happened by with the same reaction. Vegas Commish drug test couldn't ID the drug, but showed gross physical abnormalities before, ahem, BADDABOOMSKY, losing the samples as expected in a fixed fight.

Shortly thereafter Wlad fought the 2nd most ducked Heavy, undefeated rampaging Sam Peter who had a curious leaping slugging style resulting in rabbits he wasn't penalized for. In spite of his dirty style and 3 KDs that included teeing off on a downed Wlad, who not only got up, but continued to pitch a masterclass that included a left hook that wobbled Peter at the bell. Now compare to one punch to Bolivia Lenny whom you doubtless worship.

The Blubber Fury fight the only decision Wlad ever lost, and Blubber had been on PEDs and ducked the rematch like the gutless coward he still is, now ducking the Ks through Usyk whom they promote.

AJ was on a tear when he gave the great champ a chance to regain his unified titles, and what a drag out knockdown pillar to post fight that was in spite of Wlad being 41 and two years inactive, and yet still he was on his feet ready to fight in the 11th round when the ref pulled the plug.

Mike was a great fighter in the mold of Dempsey, returning boxing to it's rightful place as a spectacle sport to rival the Roman Coliseum that now AJ has done by returning the Klitschko emasculated Americans and Brits to boxing as you have so ably been squealing about. The good news is you can still make way to Tuscaloosa, Alabamy to lay wreaths galore on Deyonce's TBA statue...yup...TU:

[Ambling Alp II]

I stopped reading after you said there was nothing wrong with Wlad's chin. Please.

[Jaywheel]

He can't reply, he still has Wlad's dick in his mouth.

[Cojimar 1946]

...

Tyson wasn't able to go undefeated in his own era despite the fact that he missed out on a some of the most dangerous opponents like Lewis, Witherspoon, Tua, Bowe, etc. So it stands to reason that he wouldn't go undefeated today. There are clearly guys today more talented than Buster Douglas who actually beat a prime Tyson regardless of excuses. Like I would hope we could agree that Usyk is more talented than Douglas.

In the 1980s, Tyson defeated 37 rivals, and in the 1990s, he defeated only 8. So why are the 1990s considered the era of Tyson? Tua, Lewis, Bowe would have beaten Tyson but only in the 1990s. in the 00s Walujew, Liachowicz, Ruiz, Brewster, Meehan, Peter would certainly have won against Tyson... but only Whitearspoon fits into your puzzle. But if Tim had won against Smith, he would have fought Tyson. But he lost in the first round and it's hard to assume that he would have done better than his defeaters.

Because Tyson was still prime in the 1990s and two of his 90s losses were due to facing Holyfield who matched up better with Tyson than his 80s opposition. Just because the competition got better doesn't mean Tyson was shot. He had plenty of good performances.

[Jakub079]

...

Tyson wasn't able to go undefeated in his own era despite the fact that he missed out on a some of the most dangerous opponents like Lewis, Witherspoon, Tua, Bowe, etc. So it stands to reason that he wouldn't go undefeated today. There are clearly guys today more talented than Buster Douglas who actually beat a prime Tyson regardless of excuses. Like I would hope we could agree that Usyk is more talented than Douglas.

In the 1980s, Tyson defeated 37 rivals, and in the 1990s, he defeated only 8. So why are the 1990s considered the era of Tyson? Tua, Lewis, Bowe would have beaten Tyson but only in the 1990s. in the 00s Walujew, Liachowicz, Ruiz, Brewster, Meehan, Peter would certainly have won against Tyson... but only Whitearspoon fits into your puzzle. But if Tim had won against Smith, he would have fought Tyson. But he lost in the first round and it's hard to assume that he would have done better than his defeaters.

Because Tyson was still prime in the 1990s and two of his 90s losses were due to facing Holyfield who matched up better with Tyson than his 80s opposition. Just because the competition got better doesn't mean Tyson was shot. He had plenty of good performances.

If the competition has improved, what did the leading player who was considered finished in the Tyson era, Larry Holmes, do? what did George Foreman do with the belt, whose face was smashed by the fighter completely destroyed by Tyson, i.e. Stewarts? how on earth did the broken and fat Tubbs give an equal fight to prime Bowe, and Bruno, who was knocked out three times in a weak era, became champion at the end of his career when he was prime? where is the logic here? Botha won the first four rounds against Tyson, no one did that in the 1980s. Was there no one as good as Botha in the 1980s? Berbick, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock, Biggs - Botha was the hardest of them

[Cojimar 1946]

In the 1980s, Tyson defeated 37 rivals, and in the 1990s, he defeated only 8. So why are the 1990s considered the era of Tyson? Tua, Lewis, Bowe would have beaten Tyson but only in the 1990s. in the 00s Walujew, Liachowicz, Ruiz, Brewster, Meehan, Peter would certainly have won against Tyson... but only Whitearspoon fits into your puzzle. But if Tim had won against Smith, he would have fought Tyson. But he lost in the first round and it's hard to assume that he would have done better than his defeaters.

Because Tyson was still prime in the 1990s and two of his 90s losses were due to facing Holyfield who matched up better with Tyson than his 80s opposition. Just because the competition got better doesn't mean Tyson was shot. He had plenty of good performances.

If the competition has improved, what did the leading player who was considered finished in the Tyson era, Larry Holmes, do? what did George Foreman do with the belt, whose face was smashed by the fighter completely destroyed by Tyson, i.e. Stewarts? how on earth did the broken and fat Tubbs give an equal fight to prime Bowe, and Bruno, who was knocked out three times in a weak era, became champion at the end of his career when he was prime? where is the logic here? Botha won the first four rounds against Tyson, no one did that in the 1980s. Was there no one as good as Botha in the 1980s? Berbick, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock, Biggs - Botha was the hardest of them

He wasn't losing to run of the mill contenders though just Holyfield. He was still bombing out everybody else. Him being past prime doesn't fit with him crushing everybody he faced bar Holyfield and looking good doing it. He looked good vs Golota, Savarese, Norris, Bruno, Stewart, etc.

Botha he was coming off a layoff so not really a good example.

[Jakub079]

Because Tyson was still prime in the 1990s and two of his 90s losses were due to facing Holyfield who matched up better with Tyson than his 80s opposition. Just because the competition got better doesn't mean Tyson was shot. He had plenty of good performances.

If the competition has improved, what did the leading player who was considered finished in the Tyson era, Larry Holmes, do? what did George Foreman do with the belt, whose face was smashed by the fighter completely destroyed by Tyson, i.e. Stewarts? how on earth did the broken and fat Tubbs give an equal fight to prime Bowe, and Bruno, who was knocked out three times in a weak era, became champion at the end of his career when he was prime? where is the logic here? Botha won the first four rounds against Tyson, no one did that in the 1980s. Was there no one as good as Botha in the 1980s? Berbick, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock, Biggs - Botha was the hardest of them

He wasn't losing to run of the mill contenders though just Holyfield. He was still bombing out everybody else. Him being past prime doesn't fit with him crushing everybody he faced bar Holyfield and looking good doing it. He looked good vs Golota, Savarese, Norris, Bruno, Stewart, etc.

Botha he was coming off a layoff so not really a good example.

He looked great with Stewart but it was 1990, 6 years before Holy!! Golota was hopeless, Norris was nothing special, both fights were no contest. Tyson's last solid win was against Ruddock. After prison, he did not do any fitness training, his pace dropped after just two rounds. Have you watched any of his fights??

[apollo creed]

The version of Fury that beat Wlad would beat any version of Mike Tyson. Wlad from the Haye and the Povetkin fights would do it too.

Usyk beats Mike too. Parker, AJ and Zhang would beat Mike too.

Boxers form this era are masters at using the distance and using the jab, plus they are very strong and conditioned.

Mike's best wins are Smith, Tucker and Ruddock.

[Jaywheel]

Yeah, the guys that got koed by Andy Ruiz and Corrie Sanders beat Mike anytime.

[Jakub079]

The version of Fury that beat Wlad would beat any version of Mike Tyson. Wlad from the Haye and the Povetkin fights would do it too.

Usyk beats Mike too. Parker, AJ and Zhang would beat Mike too.

Boxers form this era are masters at using the distance and using the jab, plus they are very strong and conditioned.

Mike's best wins are Smith, Tucker and Ruddock.

of course, Zhilei Zhang would also beat Ali and Foreman. He was too fast for the boxers of old