Muhammad Ali

[Silversnake 1,099]

Yes but AJ hasn't ironed out anyone, second rate or other the way iron mike ironed them out and nor has anyone else from what I have seen.

[shepp 2,285]

Yes but AJ hasn't ironed out anyone, second rate or other the way iron mike ironed them out and nor has anyone else from what I have seen.

George Foreman did, and he did it to better opposition.

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

Id say AJs start is more impressive myself the only reason he hasnt straight kod many yet is simply cos they cant wait to jump on the floor once theyve had a feel of his power the test though as in MT case will be getting to the top AND staying there.

[Silversnake 1,099]

Foreman, AJ, Ali none of them impressed me as much as mike Tyson at his best. If you or anybody else found them more impressive I don't wish to convince you otherwise I just call it as I see it.

[AKA-BRINDLE 879]

Ali used to call Sugar Ray Robinson "my king my master my idol"...Robinson was close to the young Cassius Clay and also long time friend of Joe Louis...he said that if Henry Cooper could knock Ali down...then Joe Louis would knock Ali out...maybe the same could be said about an in his prime Mike Tyson?

[bradus 311]

All top fighters with all different styles when Tyson was at the top of his game he deffostaed his opponents sit and watch his fights how many heavy weights had the speed and power what he had . Most heavy weights were big hitters but not much speed Ali was very fast and could move on his feet but for me lacked in power . I watched the interview were tyson said Ali would have beat him you could see how much respect he held for him . All different to each other but all good to watch atb

[onion jonny 526]

its great to be a big hitter but not all big hitters have what it takes look at big frank, but like gnash says the natural strength a lad the size of fury has the extra reach and the extra power that should go with the size makes it nearly impossible for you average sized heavy weight even the greats of yesteryear to make any headway against them unless the giants a waste of space, for the sake of heavy weight boxing their should be a limit to the size and a new division brought in for the giants of the sport, ps dont say size isint everything cos ive been dumped by my lady friends more than once because of it.

[staffs riffraff 1,068]

How good would bugner be in today's era without the fatality as looking at fights of him before and after he was totally different

[gnasher16 29,954]

 

Tyson only real notable win, was against a blown up light heavyweight.

Every other decent opponent beat him.

A case can be made many different ways for many different fighters as to who was the best of the best. I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me but I am yet to see someone who I think could beat mike Tyson at his best and there is no way to prove that wrong and no way for me to prove it right and I am very stubborn so it is pointless for me to continue posting on this thread...

 

Dont worry me ol son i say the same about my West Ham but no c**t believes me either

[gnasher16 29,954]

 

I am only saying the best Tyson would beat the best Ali. Obviously Ali and many others had a better career, fought better opponents, etc, etc. Tyson was on the slide well before buster Douglas, he was going down hill as soon as cus damato died, what he could have done with more guidance from damato we will never know but what he did when cus was there I haven't seen anything like it. Ali,foreman, Frazier, etc all would have been humiliated on their best day. People talk about Holyfield, Bruno and others but none of these fights happened against Tyson anywhere near his best.

 

Could of,would of,should of,if buts and maybes.....................has their ever been a professional athlete in the history of sport been given as many excuses for failure as Mike Tyson ?..............." what he did when Cus was there i havent seen anything like it ".......we can all look a million dollars against nobodies its what we look like at the highest level that distinguishes good from great thats not my opinion thats just the life and times of sportsmen !.............If we,re going to judge fighters eternal greatness on how they perform in their first few pro years shall we just call Joshua the greatest heavyweight in history now ? he hasnt been out of the 3rd round yet.

Edited December 6, 2015 by gnasher16

[gnasher16 29,954]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Again,you are talking about 6 ft 5 and 235 lb.......Tyson Fury is 6 ft 9 and 260 odd....more importantly he has an 85 inch reach !!.....i couldnt envisage Holyfield getting anywhere near him,and even if he did Fury would have the strength to wrap him up.......hence for me an all time great heavyweight that couldnt beat a very average heavyweight just because he,s not big enough is not a good position for the sport to be in.

I'd say being 6"5' and 235lb is big enough to be labeled a Super Heavyweight, funnily Fury only weighed 247lb against Wlad, hardly a massive difference there. Lennox Lewis had a 84 inch reach and Holyfield pushed him close in both bouts. Evander also fought someone much bigger than Fury in Valuev and was blatantly robbed, he was 46 years old as well.

 

So i ask you again.......do you think it right and proper that the greatest prize in professional sport should be so heavily influenced by physical size ?......me i think it go,s against the essence of what competetive sport is all about.....but where the line should be drawn size/weight wise im not too sure.

 

 

But when you change the weight classes 'super heavyweight' would be the biggest prize in boxing,they would be the men no-one else on earth could beat.

 

I think this is why cruiserweight was created.

 

We cant stop human evolution can you see a 205 lb fighter ever winning a world heavyweight title again ? me neither......so where do fighters whos best natural fighting weight is 205 lb fit into professional boxing they are too big for cruiserweight but nowhere near big enough for heavyweight meaning we could easily miss the greatest fighter in the history of the sport because he didnt happen to be the right size......thats not what sport is about surely.

 

Im not a great fan of mma/ufc etc.....but i think their weight categories are far more realistic within todays times.

Edited December 6, 2015 by gnasher16

[Silversnake 1,099]

 

 

I am only saying the best Tyson would beat the best Ali. Obviously Ali and many others had a better career, fought better opponents, etc, etc. Tyson was on the slide well before buster Douglas, he was going down hill as soon as cus damato died, what he could have done with more guidance from damato we will never know but what he did when cus was there I haven't seen anything like it. Ali,foreman, Frazier, etc all would have been humiliated on their best day. People talk about Holyfield, Bruno and others but none of these fights happened against Tyson anywhere near his best.

 

Could of,would of,should of,if buts and maybes.....................has their ever been a professional athlete in the history of sport been given as many excuses for failure as Mike Tyson ?..............." what he did when Cus was there i havent seen anything like it ".......we can all look a million dollars against nobodies its what we look like at the highest level that distinguishes good from great thats not my opinion thats just the life and times of sportsmen !.............If we,re going to judge fighters eternal greatness on how they perform in their first few pro years shall we just call Joshua the greatest heavyweight in history now ? he hasnt been out of the 3rd round yet.

Wondering what might have been is hardly making excuses. Why would I make excuses for Mike Tyson? you could probably break down some comment I made and interpret it as an excuse but that has never been my intention. I do not care for Mike Tyson, I see him as a low life psychopath and without boxing and early guidance, particularly from cus damato it is safe to say he would have been a scourge on whatever society he dwelled in. To say he is a failure is ridiculous as he was the champion of the world, the youngest ever to boot and undisputed. He met kings,presidents, prime ministers, dictators,etc who all sang his praises and made more money and bedded finer women than nearly anybody that ever existed.if that is failure I would like to experience it. And to say we would all look a million dollars fighting the people mike Tyson fought is about as ridiculous a comment as I have ever heard... I never said he is the greatest I said imo the best mike Tyson would beat the best anybody else. I emphasise IN MY OPINION. Joshua is very impressive but mike Tyson at the same stage in his career would have destroyed him in the first or maybe second round IMO.

[jukel123 7,932]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Again,you are talking about 6 ft 5 and 235 lb.......Tyson Fury is 6 ft 9 and 260 odd....more importantly he has an 85 inch reach !!.....i couldnt envisage Holyfield getting anywhere near him,and even if he did Fury would have the strength to wrap him up.......hence for me an all time great heavyweight that couldnt beat a very average heavyweight just because he,s not big enough is not a good position for the sport to be in.

I'd say being 6"5' and 235lb is big enough to be labeled a Super Heavyweight, funnily Fury only weighed 247lb against Wlad, hardly a massive difference there. Lennox Lewis had a 84 inch reach and Holyfield pushed him close in both bouts. Evander also fought someone much bigger than Fury in Valuev and was blatantly robbed, he was 46 years old as well.

 

So i ask you again.......do you think it right and proper that the greatest prize in professional sport should be so heavily influenced by physical size ?......me i think it go,s against the essence of what competetive sport is all about.....but where the line should be drawn size/weight wise im not too sure.

 

 

But when you change the weight classes 'super heavyweight' would be the biggest prize in boxing,they would be the men no-one else on earth could beat.

 

I think this is why cruiserweight was created.

 

We cant stop human evolution can you see a 205 lb fighter ever winning a world heavyweight title again ? me neither......so where do fighters whos best natural fighting weight is 205 lb fit into professional boxing they are too big for cruiserweight but nowhere near big enough for heavyweight meaning we could easily miss the greatest fighter in the history of the sport because he didnt happen to be the right size......thats not what sport is about surely.

 

Im not a great fan of mma/ufc etc.....but i think their weight categories are far more realistic within todays times.

 

We could well miss another Ali because of the rise of the lumbering, pedestrian giants. The damage has already been done. Fans have lost interest in the heavyweight scene but the whole sport relies on the heavyweights to keep interest in the sport as a whole.

Check out Ali in this video : poise, balance, timing. He'a bullfighter and a ballet dancer at the same time. Floatin like a butterfly, stinging like a bee. He couldn't have done this against Valuev etc. There needs to be appropriate weight divisions.

[desertbred 5,490]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Again,you are talking about 6 ft 5 and 235 lb.......Tyson Fury is 6 ft 9 and 260 odd....more importantly he has an 85 inch reach !!.....i couldnt envisage Holyfield getting anywhere near him,and even if he did Fury would have the strength to wrap him up.......hence for me an all time great heavyweight that couldnt beat a very average heavyweight just because he,s not big enough is not a good position for the sport to be in.

I'd say being 6"5' and 235lb is big enough to be labeled a Super Heavyweight, funnily Fury only weighed 247lb against Wlad, hardly a massive difference there. Lennox Lewis had a 84 inch reach and Holyfield pushed him close in both bouts. Evander also fought someone much bigger than Fury in Valuev and was blatantly robbed, he was 46 years old as well.

 

So i ask you again.......do you think it right and proper that the greatest prize in professional sport should be so heavily influenced by physical size ?......me i think it go,s against the essence of what competetive sport is all about.....but where the line should be drawn size/weight wise im not too sure.

 

 

But when you change the weight classes 'super heavyweight' would be the biggest prize in boxing,they would be the men no-one else on earth could beat.

 

I think this is why cruiserweight was created.

 

We cant stop human evolution can you see a 205 lb fighter ever winning a world heavyweight title again ? me neither......so where do fighters whos best natural fighting weight is 205 lb fit into professional boxing they are too big for cruiserweight but nowhere near big enough for heavyweight meaning we could easily miss the greatest fighter in the history of the sport because he didnt happen to be the right size......thats not what sport is about surely.

 

Im not a great fan of mma/ufc etc.....but i think their weight categories are far more realistic within todays times.

 

We could well miss another Ali because of the rise of the lumbering, pedestrian giants. The damage has already been done. Fans have lost interest in the heavyweight scene but the whole sport relies on the heavyweights to keep interest in the sport as a whole.

Check out Ali in this video : poise, balance, timing. He'a bullfighter and a ballet dancer at the same time. Floatin like a butterfly, stinging like a bee. He couldn't have done this against Valuev etc. There needs to be appropriate weight divisions.

 

Ali is the master of the art of boxing Fury my arse

[bird 9,796]

yep pure class above, and to powerful for bob foster as well, size deff made a difference in his fights , ali was proper heavyweight