Where does Iron Mike rank all time?

[Iron MikeyJ]

Lets not go nuts here, I know i been criticising Mike but I'm seeing the word 'average' thrown around here a lot. Average?!?! When was Mike Tyson average? The guy almost cleaned out the heavyweight division in 4 years...cleaning their clocks in the process, Mike is in no way shape or form average, never was. Quite the opposite, he was a prodigy, hence my criticising him so hard. Lets not re-write history here.

See thats the thing here, as some folks like me, perhaps overrate him based upon potential, others like to downgrade him too far IMO. I have an issue of Ring magazine that has Michael Spinks rated HIGHER than Tyson on their all time list. What??? To be fair, it is an all divisions type of rating, but still to put Spinks above Tyson is just plain sacrilidge, and it was freaking Ring magazine. Which gets me to my point, as many people that love him, just as many hate him, hence the "average" word getting thrown around. Also I feel many boxing so called "experts" really dislike Tyson as a man, so they tend to downgrade his career. Was his career perfect? No, not even close. But he also is the closest thing to Ali (in terms of popularity and name recognition) that we have gotten since Ali. Plus the lack of anyone even remotly close to that since, also bodes well to Tyson's actual impact IMO.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Iron MikeyJ

[Apollo]

Tyson fought the number one contenders of his generation.......just like Klitschkos are doing. Wlad just keeps beating up the number one contenders and mandatory opponents. And he has been doing it for a decade, and after another fight or two, he'll have done it better - record/time wise than any heavyweight in history. He has to receive credit for that.

The downgrading of them because they refused to fight each other might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a boxing forum.

But this just plain isn't true though, because the number one contender has always been the other brother. Why is this so "rediculous"? I don't understand your posisition here, because they are brothers? Well boo fucking who, man up and lets see who the real champ is. This might be the only time that its actually family members fighting, but its not the first time fighters had to fight someone that they were friends with or really admired. Marciano had to fight Louis on his way to a championship, and he fucking adored Louis. He always felt bad after for beating him, but it was ssomething he had to do. Holmes was friends with Ali, and yet he had to fight him. It's the name of the game man, their is only supposed to be one top dog, not two. Thats why I think its some BS that they never were forced to fight each other. As far as I'm concerned, Wlad ducked his biggest competition for his entire championship run. Yet his run is as legitimit as the great Joe Louis? I think not. I don't know how his fans don't see that...

Fighting - and trying to knock out - your brother is MUCH different than boxing a friend or somebody you respect. Not even in the same category. And no, his brother hasn't "always" been the number one contender or mandatory opponent.

Mayweather refuses to fight Manny. Does that mean Floyd isn't a man and shouldn't be recognized as one of the best ever?

All Wlad has done of the last decade and 20 fights is easily defeat the top contenders. Should he punished because you don't think the heavyweight division is as strong as it was in the past? What more can the guy do - start killing people in the ring?

I understand your love for Tyson. Steve Garvey was my favorite baseball player growing up and I know that I overrated his career because of it. But you seem to pick-and-choose and use different standards when judging boxers - depending on where you want to rank them.

So Ring mag rates Tyson lower, and boxing writers/historians rank him lower because they don't like him as a man? You are making excuses as to why most "experts" don't agree with you. I spent 15 minutes looking on the Web and found that most boxing experts don't even list Tyson in their top 10. So to argue that he might be the GOAT is an argument/debate that can't really be made.

Tyson brutally knocked out people as he rose up the ranks - that's the sign of a potential champion.

I think he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time.

He had some of the most devastating knock outs of his era.

He appeared to have the potential to be one of the GOAT for heavyweights.

But look who he beat, look at his "big" fights:

He beat Trevor Berbick, who had 11 career losses.

He beat Bonecrusher Smith - who had 17 career losses

And Tony Tucker, who only had 7 career losses

Beating Spinks was a huge quality win.

Beating a 39 year old Larry Holmes, who came out of retirement? Not really a quality win.

Beat Frank Bruno......a solid win. Lennox also easily disposed of Bruno.

Beat Razor Ruddick twice. Solid.

Beat Bruce Seldon?

Lost to Holyfield twice.

Lost to Lennox Lewis.

So really, in his four biggest fights, Iron Mike was 1 win and 3 losses.

And his quality wins, after Spinks, are guys like Frank Bruno and Bonecrusher Smith and his 17 losses?

Let's be honest here boys. The reasons boxing historians don't rate Mike in their top 10 isn't because they don't like his out of the ring behavior. It's because his actual career never reached the heights that his potential suggested it could have.

If he would have beaten Holyfield and Lennox - then you could put him up there on that top 10 list. But he didn't. Beating Trevor Berbick and Frank Bruno doesn't make you an all time great.

[Ace Nova]

Iron Mike Tyson, w/ Gus D'Amato = Unbeatable

Mike Tyson (without) Gus = Average

Pretty simple, really.

Mike Tyson was a completely different fighter under Gus, than he was with anyone else. With Gus, he was simply the BEST. Without Gus, he was average.

His name was Cus as in Costantino not Gus as in Augustus.

Touche...wasn't paying attention last night when I wrote it.

[Coma16]

Tyson would have destroyed Holyfield and Lewis pre-jail days. Obviously there is no proof but just my opinion.

Iron Mike Tyson, w/ Gus D'Amato = Unbeatable

Mike Tyson (without) Gus = Average

Pretty simple, really.





Mike Tyson was a completely different fighter under Gus, than he was with anyone else. With Gus, he was simply the BEST. Without Gus, he was average.

His name was Cus as in Costantino not Gus as in Augustus.

Touche...wasn't paying attention last night when I wrote it.

Many people named Costa are referred to as Gus. Not sure if that's the case here but just wanted to chime in about it.

[Len Cnut]

Trust me, its Cus D'amato, not Costa or Gus or Gus Tomato, Cus D'amato

[T.wa.T]

Tyson fought the number one contenders of his generation.......just like Klitschkos are doing. Wlad just keeps beating up the number one contenders and mandatory opponents. And he has been doing it for a decade, and after another fight or two, he'll have done it better - record/time wise than any heavyweight in history. He has to receive credit for that.

The downgrading of them because they refused to fight each other might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in a boxing forum.

But this just plain isn't true though, because the number one contender has always been the other brother. Why is this so "rediculous"? I don't understand your posisition here, because they are brothers? Well boo fucking who, man up and lets see who the real champ is. This might be the only time that its actually family members fighting, but its not the first time fighters had to fight someone that they were friends with or really admired. Marciano had to fight Louis on his way to a championship, and he fucking adored Louis. He always felt bad after for beating him, but it was ssomething he had to do. Holmes was friends with Ali, and yet he had to fight him. It's the name of the game man, their is only supposed to be one top dog, not two. Thats why I think its some BS that they never were forced to fight each other. As far as I'm concerned, Wlad ducked his biggest competition for his entire championship run. Yet his run is as legitimit as the great Joe Louis? I think not. I don't know how his fans don't see that...

Fighting - and trying to knock out - your brother is MUCH different than boxing a friend or somebody you respect. Not even in the same category. And no, his brother hasn't "always" been the number one contender or mandatory opponent.

Mayweather refuses to fight Manny. Does that mean Floyd isn't a man and shouldn't be recognized as one of the best ever?

All Wlad has done of the last decade and 20 fights is easily defeat the top contenders. Should he punished because you don't think the heavyweight division is as strong as it was in the past? What more can the guy do - start killing people in the ring?

I understand your love for Tyson. Steve Garvey was my favorite baseball player growing up and I know that I overrated his career because of it. But you seem to pick-and-choose and use different standards when judging boxers - depending on where you want to rank them.

So Ring mag rates Tyson lower, and boxing writers/historians rank him lower because they don't like him as a man? You are making excuses as to why most "experts" don't agree with you. I spent 15 minutes looking on the Web and found that most boxing experts don't even list Tyson in their top 10. So to argue that he might be the GOAT is an argument/debate that can't really be made.

Tyson brutally knocked out people as he rose up the ranks - that's the sign of a potential champion.

I think he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time.

He had some of the most devastating knock outs of his era.

He appeared to have the potential to be one of the GOAT for heavyweights.

But look who he beat, look at his "big" fights:

He beat Trevor Berbick, who had 11 career losses.

He beat Bonecrusher Smith - who had 17 career losses

And Tony Tucker, who only had 7 career losses

Beating Spinks was a huge quality win.

Beating a 39 year old Larry Holmes, who came out of retirement? Not really a quality win.

Beat Frank Bruno......a solid win. Lennox also easily disposed of Bruno.

Beat Razor Ruddick twice. Solid.

Beat Bruce Seldon?

Lost to Holyfield twice.

Lost to Lennox Lewis.

So really, in his four biggest fights, Iron Mike was 1 win and 3 losses.

And his quality wins, after Spinks, are guys like Frank Bruno and Bonecrusher Smith and his 17 losses?

Let's be honest here boys. The reasons boxing historians don't rate Mike in their top 10 isn't because they don't like his out of the ring behavior. It's because his actual career never reached the heights that his potential suggested it could have.

If he would have beaten Holyfield and Lennox - then you could put him up there on that top 10 list. But he didn't. Beating Trevor Berbick and Frank Bruno doesn't make you an all time great.

Exactly what I was saying a few pages back.

Tyson is in the higher half of the top 100 of some expert lists. I mean in the 75~100 range.

The dude was nasty, no doubt but fact is when got in the ring with bigger fighters, he couldn't handle them.

They need to create a Super Heavyweight Division and gives us fans the real heavy weight division back. 205 ~ 235. Something like that, idk.

How come all the other divisions are separated by a few pounds but a 220lb heavy can step into the ring against another heavy at 260?? It doesnt make any sense.

[Iron MikeyJ]

@Apollo,

I never argued that Tyson was or is the GOAT. I said top 5.

Yes if Floyd refuses to fight Manny it will be a black spot on his career, just like the Klitchko's never fighting is a black spot on their's. Look man, I know you cleary are big fans of their's, which is fine. But in a sport where it is set up so that only one person can be the top dog, they tried to make it a 2 man show. I don't agree with that, nor do I like it, and as a result I lost respect for both of them. I understand that it wouldn't be easy to fight your brother, but boxing is a brutal sport, we're not talking about soccer or track and field here, thats just how it goes. They knew what they were getting into before they started. I don't blame them for the division being the weakest its ever been, but I do blame them for not fighting their tuffest challenge, which is each other. I understand that would be a difficult thing for them to have to do, but boxing isn't supposed to be easy. To me this is no different than having two guys claim they are the fastest men on earth, but refusing to race each other. You can't have two guys claim that and not race, it just makes a mockery of the whole damn sport IMO. I understand Vitali retired, so clearly it will never happen. But because it never happened Wlad's record, if he breaks Louis's, will not be legit IMO. Thats just how I feel.....

[streak]

Top ten definitely.

[Len Cnut]

Top ten definitely.

Listen to this man when it comes to boxing, he knows a lot more than me.

Mayweather refuses to fight Manny. Does that mean Floyd isn't a man and shouldn't be recognized as one of the best ever?

YES YES YES YES YES, exactly that!

Edited December 17, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Sixes]

brother will kill brother, spilling blood across the land...

[wasted]

Tyson has the best image and lifestyle. When I play Fight Night 3 on Xbox Tyson always beats Ali.

[DieselDaisy]

Tyson would have lost to Ali. Ali would have picked him off with his jab and footwork in his heyday. In the early-mid 70s it would have been a more even contest but I feel, Ali would have found a way as he usually did; Tyson would not be prepared for Ali's chin. Prime time Foreman would have beaten Tyson also.

PS

What would you say was Tyson's style? He always seemed like an in-fighter to me, the way he gets close and takes opponents out with a series of uppercuts and bodyblows, but I have heard experts and such say that he was technically, a puncher. Perhaps a combo.

Edited December 18, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

Attacking fighter, come ahead, chin down, eyes up, peekaboo guard with a formula designed to knock people out and that formula was this, you come ahead, slip the jab and then (and this is the exact science part) at the point when the opponent throws the jab and MISSES, when his arm is fully extended, slip and counter...HARD, in one swift motion, slip, under and BANG. Then repeat. And the way he fucked them up is when he attacked, if you look, he never head-hunted exclusively in those early days when he had the style down. Body head, body head, body head, mixing em up. Cuz the shot that drops you is the shot you don't expect/see coming.

Two problems with that formula though, one if only works going forward and if you can't do nothing else then you ain't got a plan B and the moment you find a fighter who backs you up you're fucked. And secondly you can't ever stop practising cuz it is ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL about timing, timing timing timing, that aspect, of slipping the jab and countering, hitting the VERY moment the arm is fully out-stretched and the opponent is at their least well balanced and most open, that is a fuckin' art and it is so difficult to perfect, its like a fractions of a second thing and for a while Mike had it down cold. But that timing goes, that sharpness and you're fucked.

[DieselDaisy]

Tyson excelled at closing his opponents down fast, denying them a chance to back up. During his heyday he sort of, pounced in for the kill.

[Len Cnut]

And the method is foolproof really, if you got the head movement nailed i can't imagine how the fuck someone would back him up, the only person who i can fathom doing it is Ali in that classic way, stick out the left and just do that flicking/snake-licking jab he used to throw out to set up the right and disorientate him. Which by the way, that flicking jab, flicking out your hand in someones face, is illegal. I don't think it'll be too disimilar in principle to how the Rumble in the Jungle turned out although Mike would've had a lot less sloppier attack than George did but he'd start blowing at exactly the same point.

[wasted]

Tyson would have bitten Alis nose off. Or done too much hookers and coke and got knocked out in the first.

Could Rocky beat Ali? I bet Ali would kick Will Smiths ass.

[Iron MikeyJ]

And the method is foolproof really, if you got the head movement nailed i can't imagine how the fuck someone would back him up, the only person who i can fathom doing it is Ali in that classic way, stick out the left and just do that flicking/snake-licking jab he used to throw out to set up the right and disorientate him. Which by the way, that flicking jab, flicking out your hand in someones face, is illegal. I don't think it'll be too disimilar in principle to how the Rumble in the Jungle turned out although Mike would've had a lot less sloppier attack than George did but he'd start blowing at exactly the same point.

Great posts here, and your previous one. But I'll say this, I don't think 1973 Ali could have beaten 1988 Tyson. Tyson's style as you described, would have been effective against older Ali, just like it was effective against Holmes. Now prebanned Ali, thats a different story. Both Ali and Tyson were never the same fighters after they both lost 3 years of their prime. Yes Ali had a much better 2nd act, no argument there. But as you described, Tyson's timing was never the same post prision.

[Len Cnut]

Tyson didnt hit no harder that big George..or Ernie Shavers, Ali would take him. I mean what are you suggesting, that he'd knock Ali out? Muhammad Ali? Knocked out? You'd have to stab him in the heart first and there's a good chance you might bend a blade trying, no way on earth anybody is knocking Muhammad Ali out, thats anybody. So then points? Nuh uh. In fact i think early 70s Ali might've been able to work him a little better. Tyson never did handle getting tied up well, then the height difference, Ali pulling his head down, leaning his weight on him, Tyson dont have nothing Ali couldn't handle...and his lack of range and short hooking is tailor made for any era Ali. Obviously avoiding like, Larry Holmes era Ali.

I will say this for Mike, people dont give him respect for the defensive genius he was.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Iron MikeyJ]

Tyson didnt hit no harder that big George..or Ernie Shavers, Ali would take him. I mean what are you suggesting, that he'd knock Ali out? Muhammad Ali? Knocked out? You'd have to stab him in the heart first and there's a good chance you might bend a blade trying, no way on earth anybody is knocking Muhammad Ali out, thats anybody. So then points? Nuh uh. In fact i think early 70s Ali might've been able to work him a little better. Tyson never did handle getting tied up well, then the height difference, Ali pulling his head down, leaning his weight on him, Tyson dont have nothing Ali couldn't handle...and his lack of range and short hooking is tailor made for any era Ali. Obviously avoiding like, Larry Holmes era Ali.

I will say this for Mike, people dont give him respect for the defensive genius he was.

I agree that Mike didn't hit any harder than Earnie or big George, but those are most likely 1, 2,and 3 of all time hardest hitters. Add Rocky and either Dempsey or Louis to that list and that rounds out the top 5. As far as who was number 1? Doesn't really matter to me, its sort of splitting hairs isn't it? But what seperates Tyson from Foreman at least (I'm not knoweldegable enough on Shavers to add him to this) is Foreman was always just hooking away. He tried to chop you down with those big thundering hooks, which Ali was prepared for. Iron Mike on the other hand was the master of the uppercut. Which how do you get through Ali's rope a dope? Hook to the body then uppercut, Mike's pattened move. I'm sure you know that, he took out many a fighters with that very combo. Which is why I firmly believe the rope a dope would not have worked on Mike, because eventually Mike would get some of those uppercuts through Ali's defenses. Plus you can't deny that Mike was SO much faster than all the other big hitters. As you said, it's the punches you don't see that hurt the most. Also when you add the fact that Frazier gave 70's Ali so much trouble, and lets be real here, Mike was bigger, faster, and stronger than Frazier. Both of which had similiar attacks, they just kept coming at you. I have no reason to believe Mike wouldn't of given Ali massive fits.

Which brings me to another big difference between Mike and some of the other guys Ali fought, Mike was the master of getting guys out of there, once he hurt them. Frazier could have and should have knocked Ali out in their first fight, he hurt Ali many times during that fight. Norton, Shavers, and a few others also really rocked Ali during their fights, but just like Frazier, they thought Ali was faking it and never went in for the kill. Mike on the other hand, would not of played it that way, if or when he hurt Ali, he would have pounced on him, which is why I do believe Mike would have knocked Ali out. But again I'm talking about 70's Ali vs 80's Tyson, that match up I go 5 wins for Tyson and 5 wins for Ali. With all of Mike's wins coming by knockout, with 4 of Ali's wins coming by points, Ali might get Mike in 1 out of ten by KO. Now 60's Ali vs 80's Tyson I go 7 maybe even 8 out of 10 to Ali, but again Mike's wins do come by knockout. Just as revisionist history looks at Mike differently (myself included) Ali is also viewed this way. Some feel like he just couldn't be knocked out, which is so far from the truth, just because he wasn't, doesn't mean it couldn't happen. But as I said before, those that had him on the ropes, for whatever reason, stopped their attacks. Had they went in for the kill, Ali would have been ko'ed just like anyone else. The man was great, but he wasn't superhuman.

Also props for giving Mike props for his defense, in his prime, I also agree, he was a defensive master. Especially for the peakaboo style of fighting.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Iron MikeyJ

[DieselDaisy]

Ali would have found away. I could only envision a Tyson (1988 peak) victory over Ali, if it was Ali, post Thrilla in Manila.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Ali would have found away. I could only envision a Tyson (1988 peak) victory over Ali, if it was Ali, post Thrilla in Manila.

Sorry, but 80's Tyson takes out post Thrilla Ali 10 out of 10. Ali had nothing left after that fight....

[Len Cnut]

I agree that Mike didn't hit any harder than Earnie or big George, but those are most likely 1, 2,and 3 of all time hardest hitters. Add Rocky and either Dempsey or Louis to that list and that rounds out the top 5. As far as who was number 1? Doesn't really matter to me, its sort of splitting hairs isn't it? But what seperates Tyson from Foreman at least (I'm not knoweldegable enough on Shavers to add him to this) is Foreman was always just hooking away. He tried to chop you down with those big thundering hooks, which Ali was prepared for. Iron Mike on the other hand was the master of the uppercut. Which how do you get through Ali's rope a dope? Hook to the body then uppercut, Mike's pattened move. I'm sure you know that, he took out many a fighters with that very combo. Which is why I firmly believe the rope a dope would not have worked on Mike, because eventually Mike would get some of those uppercuts through Ali's defenses.

Joe Frazier was a master of the uppercut too...and Ali's one was not too shabby although not a knockout blow by any means. Ali on the ropes against Mike, Mike telegraphed his uppercuts, he simply had to, to get the power behind him like he did involves angling your body a certain way, now you come in with short hooks and uppercuts like that and Ali would just pepper you with shots, straight punches, straight punches that travel a short distance, with the most speed any heavyweight in the world ever, he would just be eating up Ali's shots man.

Plus you can't deny that Mike was SO much faster than all the other big hitters. As you said, it's the punches you don't see that hurt the most. Also when you add the fact that Frazier gave 70's Ali so much trouble, and lets be real here, Mike was bigger, faster, and stronger than Frazier. Both of which had similiar attacks, they just kept coming at you. I have no reason to believe Mike wouldn't of given Ali massive fits.

I don't agree, Mike would go full on attack and tire himself out perhaps even quicker than a George, Georges occasional bemusement at what Ali was doing and the breathers that offered him made him last til the 8th, Tyson would go balls to the wall and hit nothing. In the centre of the ring, against the ropes, Ali would pepper him. You don't leap into hooks against Muhammad Ali like you do against your Pinklon Thomases and Tony Tubbses, you'll hit nothing.

Which brings me to another big difference between Mike and some of the other guys Ali fought, Mike was the master of getting guys out of there, once he hurt them.

Against a certain kind of opponent, yes. The way to get Mike is to box him, ring guile, that shit. Lesser men than Ali had Mike looking kinda lost with that shit. Also, Mike is an easily frustrated kinda guy, can you imagine what Ali's constant talking would do, rile him up, have him swinging for the fuckin' fences and he'd be huffing and puffing quicker than you can say peek-a-boo. Ali had a LETHAL left jab and look at the way he fought other people who used the peek-a-boo style. Now granted, Floyd Patterson and Buster Mathis Snr ain't no fuckin' Mike Tyson but they had longer reaches and could stick in there, a mobile moving Ali, reseting himself, getting some distance in there and just pot-shotting Mike he would wear Mike the fuck out. You can't be a short person and then crouch in front of Muhammad Ali and expect to make it to the 12, he would've hit Mike with more shots than he took in his entire career.

Frazier could have and should have knocked Ali out in their first fight, he hurt Ali many times during that fight. Norton, Shavers, and a few others also really rocked Ali during their fights, but just like Frazier, they thought Ali was faking it and never went in for the kill. Mike on the other hand, would not of played it that way, if or when he hurt Ali, he would have pounced on him, which is why I do believe Mike would have knocked Ali out.

Frazier and Shavers didn't play it that way cuz they were stupid (not that you said that) they played it that way because they knew the man and they knew what he'd done to Big George, you won't get anywhere trying to steam through Ali and if Tyson didn't know that intrinsically like Frazier and Shavers he'd learn it pretty fuckin' sharpish.

As for the knockout thing, how can you even entertain that, there is literally no prescedent for that with Ali, there is no grounds whatsoever in any consideration for Ali getting knocked out. He fought in the best heavyweight era of all time, he fought the hardest punchers of all time and he still done em, it's honestly disrespectful of the mans talent to even go there.

Another reason why simply 'pouncing' on Ali wouldn't work is cuz....OK, these people he fought were champions of the ring, do you think that didn't occur to them, or that they wouldn't've been trying for that? By the time Frazier got to dropping Ali in the 14th he was exhausted himself. And Mike is a man that carried a lot of muscle. The reason nobody could pounce on Ali and finish him because he was too good a boxer. i mean Christ, if the Holyfields of this world can tie Mike up and frustrate him, what do you think an Ali would do?

Anyway, we can sit here now, after the fact and say things like some of the greatest boxers ever should've done this, this and this against Ali but I've seen the fights, I've seen the films, we can sit here and say what we like but the reality is what happened, nobody could knock him out, not George Foreman, not Joe Frazier, not Ernie Shavers. If he wasn't superhuman he was the next rung down, the man was the greatest to ever do it and, aside from skill level etc, Mike didn't have one iota of the heart Ali did. Do you think a Mike could've fought a Thrilla in Manilla or a Fight of the Century? No way on earth. No chance.

Just like you're saying this shit now about Ali in his day people were saying the same shit, against Liston, against Foreman, against Frazier, how could he defend against 'x', what would he do when 'x' did such and such. And he answer those questions in the ring like no man before or since.

Furthermore, and this you have to admit, Mike was one dimensional and there ain't no one dimensional fighters on this planet that could beat Ali. If you go by a standard, by a formula, Ali would crack that shit in his sleep, come in with a round for round gameplan and take you out of there. Whatever respect you might have for Mikes power and performances, he weren't a fuckin' mystery, his style weren't some kinda uncrackable code...actually it was quite the opposite.

One thing i will say though, the people that beat him all did so with an almost identical formula, your Douglases and Holyfields and Lewises were pretty much doing the same thing and they pulled it off because it weren't a prime Mike...now if it WERE a prime Mike the fights would've been a much more intriguing proposition but answer to the Mike question was always there. And people used to say this too, boxing insiders etc, y'know, whats gonna happen when he faces a boxer-boxer-boxer.

I remember watching 15 greatest rounds and they got this panel with Don Dunphy and Angie Dundee and Archie Moore and George Benton and they're talking about Tyson and Angie Dundee says 'i always thought that a guy, good reach, lock him up in close, steady jab could lick Tyson'. And a lot of people thought this and really, with the results of the L's he did take it's kinda hard to deny and it's mine and yourses (as Tyson fanatics) tough titty that we never had the privelige or oppertunity to see a prime Mike take on those styles.

Personally i think he would've shagged them sensesless Like really made love to em...but Ali? I don't see it. Impossible.

[DieselDaisy]

Ali would have found away. I could only envision a Tyson (1988 peak) victory over Ali, if it was Ali, post Thrilla in Manila.

Sorry, but 80's Tyson takes out post Thrilla Ali 10 out of 10. Ali had nothing left after that fight....

What a load of cack. He beat Norton, Shavers, Jimmy Young during that period and was third time world champion.

[Len Cnut]

Not that that means anything, other than Mike has a lot of respect for Ali

Edited December 18, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Iron MikeyJ]

I will say this to your points, Ali would have gotten in Mike's head for sure. So I do have to give you that. He'd have Mike so frustrated and pissed off, he probably would have tired Mike out, cause Mike would get mad and swing for the fences. I can hear Ali saying something like this to him "Strike 1 Mike, ohh, strike two Mike. What else you got?? Strike 3 Mike" Then Ali peppers him with jabs and crosses. So ya, Mike probably doesn't stand much of a chance.

I will say this though, 60's Ali, dancing and floating being quicker than shit is the recipe for beating Mike. The rope a dope shit actually favors Mike IMO. Even though Mike might spend extra energy trying to land one, its a lot easier to hit Ali when he is laying on the ropes, than it was when he danced around the ring. Honestly i feel Jack Johnson would have been 60's Ali tuffest opponent, out of all heavyweights. Even as great as Joe Louis was, I don't give him much of a chance against 60's Ali, he was just too fast and too elusive IMO.