Muhammad Ali

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

Ay, remember Big Frank was over 16 stone of solid muscle that night and a good hit from him would have rocked any heavyweight! Besides, Tyson was already on the slide . . I think it was only two fights after he was beaten by Douglas.

 

I agree, I think a mentally jaded Tyson would have got knocked flat by Foreman, beaten by Ali and a host of other heavyweights . . But a prime Tyson at 20 years of age, I don't see heavyweight beating him.

 

I think both fights with Liston were rigged, the first fight Sonny was obviously pulling his punches for me and the 2nd, well that was a farce. Clay was involved with some sinister folk back then and let's be honest, he himself was not really a nice fella. Arrogant and outright disrespectful. Changing his name and regardless, it was his family name.

 

For sure Tyson lacked legendary names on his record, but you can only beat what's in front of you. For me it was the way he beat his opponents that impressed. Of course, Clay would moved like bluebottle fly, but did he face anyone with anything like the aggression of a young Tyson. I don't think so.

 

Of course, it's all speculation and opinion. Just my views. I suppose I'm sticking up for Tyson because I feel a lot of pity for the guy, I think his story is very sad and people still keep sticking the camera in his face "who would have won between you and Ali?!?" He concedes he would have been beaten. Not for me.

 

YIS

[bigmac 97kt 13,767]

 

 

No, all things taken into consideration DogFox . . If you pitted a 22 year old Clay, at his nimble float like a butterfly and sting like a bee best, lets say against Liston, Clay weighed around 15 stone . . Tyson from 20 years old was regularly over 15 and half stone come fight night. Look at the video I posted through minutes 6-7 .. frightening! Clay before his prison terms fought slow, pedestrian like heavyweights (compared to him) Tyson with that speed, strength, punch power, movement and angles . . I'm with nans pat "a young mike tyson would have sparked him" . .

 

If Cooper who was believed to have weighed only around 12 and a half stone at the time dropped Clay, I think "sparked" is spot on ! . . If you think of Ali later, against the likes of Frazier weighing under 14 and half stone. "biggest set of punchers the division has ever seen" no chance . . Ali playing "rope a dope" with Tyson I'll say no more !

 

I use to think Foreman and the way he threw from the floor would have caused Tyson trouble, but when I seen Foreman v Lyle, and the way Foreman was floored and hurt . . He would have been a sitting duck when Tyson's heavy artillery rolled in . . When fighters lose after their best, it really doesn't mean anything.

your rwmembering tyson as if he was fighting some #300 rank punchbag though, ali wouldnt stand there waiting to be hit hed be dancing all over and firin hes own shots in. MT would fold quickly from a foreman onslaught. Whose tysons best victory? Dont say holmes

frank Bruno hurt tyson lol

 

And hurt him good if he had of put another punch in he would of knocked him out

 

Tyson even say,d him self that he had not been hit that hard before

 

so Bruno and ally Ally all day long imop

 

atvbmac :thumbs:

[onion jonny 526]

thing is none of them are invincible they all have bad days or opponents who's style they find hard to deal with, ken norton had ali ect ect.

[j j m 6,525]

id go for ali

[gnasher16 29,944]

 

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Ali must have been shaking his head in disbelief at the recent Fury Klitscko fight. The standard of heavyweight boxing has plummeted so much it's almost unrecognisable. It's mostly about over-sized freaks desperately keeping their head out of range of the other guy's punches.

I totally agree.....to be able to class the 2 eras as the same sport let alone the same division is almost embarrassing.......ive said for many years there has to come a time when a super heavyweight division comes into professional boxing......to think that hypothetically Tyson Fury would more than likely beat Muhammed Ali surely emphasises my point.

But the thing is giants have been in the sport since the beggining, it's just got to a stage where now their skills are sufficient enough to see them beat the smaller yet more skilled opponents. It's far from exciting or action filled but that's the way it is ATM.

Who was the last 6 ft 9 heavyweight to fight for a world title then ?..........i remember sparring Jimmy Oyebola back in the ,s he was about 6ft 8 or 9 i was a better fighter than him,better conditioned and physically tougher yet i couldnt land a glove on him and he ended up winning a British title !.......a fighter of that size with even average boxing ability and reasonable athletic movement can go much further than normal sized fighters with the same ability.

There was a 7ft Heavyweight Champion not so long ago in Valuev...... Of course the size is an advantage, still didn't stop the likes of Joe Louis beating them to a pulp back in his hey day.

 

You only had to watch Valuev as a boxer to see what i mean......at 6 foot he wouldnt of won an area title !

[gnasher16 29,944]

At the end of the day we can only speculate, but I think mike Tyson at his peak was better offensively and defensively than any other heavyweight in history and he definitely had a solid chin. That is not to say he had the best career because he did not improve with age and experience.

I will never understand this logic its like watching West Ham beat Preston North End 4 - 0 every week and then just presume they would do the same to Man Utd and Arsenal !.....Ali would have played with Tyson to the point where Tyson would of hit the referee,pulled a gun out or plain leaped over the top rope rather than face the humiliation of an Ali beating.......look how he reacted to a Holyfield battering and that wasnt half as bad as Ali would of embarrassed him.

Edited December 4, 2015 by gnasher16

[DogFox123 1,379]

 

 

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Ali must have been shaking his head in disbelief at the recent Fury Klitscko fight. The standard of heavyweight boxing has plummeted so much it's almost unrecognisable. It's mostly about over-sized freaks desperately keeping their head out of range of the other guy's punches.

 

I totally agree.....to be able to class the 2 eras as the same sport let alone the same division is almost embarrassing.......ive said for many years there has to come a time when a super heavyweight division comes into professional boxing......to think that hypothetically Tyson Fury would more than likely beat Muhammed Ali surely emphasises my point.

But the thing is giants have been in the sport since the beggining, it's just got to a stage where now their skills are sufficient enough to see them beat the smaller yet more skilled opponents. It's far from exciting or action filled but that's the way it is ATM.

Who was the last 6 ft 9 heavyweight to fight for a world title then ?..........i remember sparring Jimmy Oyebola back in the ,s he was about 6ft 8 or 9 i was a better fighter than him,better conditioned and physically tougher yet i couldnt land a glove on him and he ended up winning a British title !.......a fighter of that size with even average boxing ability and reasonable athletic movement can go much further than normal sized fighters with the same ability.

There was a 7ft Heavyweight Champion not so long ago in Valuev...... Of course the size is an advantage, still didn't stop the likes of Joe Louis beating them to a pulp back in his hey day.

You only had to watch Valuev as a boxer to see what i mean......at 6 foot he wouldnt of won an area title !

Yeah but there's been giants since the start, it's just now they have more ability these days which makes them able to compete with much more skilled, smaller fighters.

[gnasher16 29,944]

Those " giants " were 6 ft 5 or 6 fighting good fighters ................todays giants are far bigger and fighting far inferior fighters.

[DogFox123 1,379]

Those " giants " were 6 ft 5 or 6 fighting good fighters ................todays giants are far bigger and fighting far inferior fighters.

Yeah and a 6ft 6 "Giant" has just dominated the sport for a decade so I don't get your point, if you're good enough you're big enough IMO.

[bird 9,790]

 

Those " giants " were 6 ft 5 or 6 fighting good fighters ................todays giants are far bigger and fighting far inferior fighters.

Yeah and a 6ft 6 "Giant" has just dominated the sport for a decade so I don't get your point, if you're good enough you're big enough IMO.

 

and yet haye fights same weight as m/t , and people say haye not a natural heavyweight , he pumped up cruiser .? so what does that make m/t, and I think I am right in saying haye was taller 6ft 2in to m/t 5ft 11 1/2 in , my height but I go around 12st 7-10 lb which is good natural weight for my height , not 3 st heavier like m/t was .

[DogFox123 1,379]

 

 

Those " giants " were 6 ft 5 or 6 fighting good fighters ................todays giants are far bigger and fighting far inferior fighters.

 

Yeah and a 6ft 6 "Giant" has just dominated the sport for a decade so I don't get your point, if you're good enough you're big enough IMO.

and yet haye fights same weight as m/t , and people say haye not a natural heavyweight , he pumped up cruiser .? so what does that make m/t, and I think I am right in saying haye was taller 6ft 2in to m/t 5ft 11 1/2 in , my height but I go around 12st 7-10 lb which is good natural weight for my height , not 3 st heavier like m/t was .

He was definitely big enough and physically capable of beating Wlad, trouble is he didn't have the minerals to give it a go. He'd rather have survived and lost on points than go for broke and risk getting knocked out.

[gnasher16 29,944]

 

Those " giants " were 6 ft 5 or 6 fighting good fighters ................todays giants are far bigger and fighting far inferior fighters.

Yeah and a 6ft 6 "Giant" has just dominated the sport for a decade so I don't get your point, if you're good enough you're big enough IMO.

 

Yes but thats very close to " if your big enough your good enough " and thats dangerous for the sport......my point is that those giants of yesterday were rarely able to beat the best fighters out there......today they can dominate them,you think its because those giants today are better fighters i dont agree i think its simply because the level of fighters these days is so poor that the saying can now be changed to " a very average biggun will beat a good littlun "

Edited December 4, 2015 by gnasher16

[gnasher16 29,944]

You have to look at the logic and purpose of what we are trying to achieve in a boxing match......since time began virtues such as strength/speed/durability/timing/toughness/guts/skill/power/intelligence/athleticsm/will to win etc etc all played their part......in a fight where 1 man can win even though he is far inferior to his opponents in many of those attributes you start to compromise on the essence of what sport is actually about.............or else why dont we do away with weight divisions altogether and lets see how Ray Robinson would fare against Ali or Mayweather would fare against David Haye........its just a silly concept but thats what we are at risk of doing with a heavyweight division that can cover a foot in height difference and 3/4 stone in weight.

[DogFox123 1,379]

 

 

Those " giants " were 6 ft 5 or 6 fighting good fighters ................todays giants are far bigger and fighting far inferior fighters.

 

Yeah and a 6ft 6 "Giant" has just dominated the sport for a decade so I don't get your point, if you're good enough you're big enough IMO.

Yes but thats very close to " if your big enough your good enough " and thats dangerous for the sport......my point is that those giants of yesterday were rarely able to beat the best fighters out there......today they can dominate them,you think its because those giants today are better fighters i dont agree i think its simply because the level of fighters these days is so poor that the saying can now be changed to " a very average biggun will beat a good littlun "

That's something that can't be proved though, true I don't think the smaller fighters of today could carry the likes of Joe Louis, Joe Frazier, Evander Holyfields jockstrap. I could imagine the Holyfield of 92 weighing 205lb clearing the division up now but who knows? The size difference could be too much but I doubt it, he did pretty well against 6"5', 235lb Riddick Bowe.

[DogFox123 1,379]

You have to look at the logic and purpose of what we are trying to achieve in a boxing match......since time began virtues such as strength/speed/durability/timing/toughness/guts/skill/power/intelligence/athleticsm/will to win etc etc all played their part......in a fight where 1 man can win even though he is far inferior to his opponents in many of those attributes you start to compromise on the essence of what sport is actually about.............or else why dont we do away with weight divisions altogether and lets see how Ray Robinson would fare against Ali or Mayweather would fare against David Haye........its just a silly concept but thats what we are at risk of doing with a heavyweight division that can cover a foot in height difference and 3/4 stone in weight.

What about the Cruiswerweight division? That is similarly unfair, 175lb to 200lb. If they did create a Super Heavyweight division than all the Heavyweights would just move up anyway. Wlad is around the same size has Primo Carnera, infact he's lighter. One ruled for a decade and one was Champion for a reason. The main reason is ability but also lack of top quality opponents, doesn't warrant a new division being created though IMO.