Dr. Juicy asked in SportsBoxing · 1 decade ago

Is this true about Muhammed Ali? ( I'm not asking who would win between Tyson and Ali )?

" Let's drop the nut-hugging right here and be true to ourselves. It hurts only yourself to be in such denial. One was a true fighter who in his prime, persued his opponents relentlessly and never lived out his full potential due to the many tragic things that happened and people that robbed and took advantage of him. The other is an entertainer (an arrogant prick, at that), whose only skills were ballet, running, and clenching anytime anyone got a fair shot at getting passed his jab-and-run tactics.

Tyson's better at fighting, Ali's better at running away. It's been discussed many times before on here, so much so by me, that my argument used to be three pages long. But I've given up on explaining it so many times over.

Tyson (in his prime, and only his prime, pre-1989) had skill, speed, power, ferociousness, and one gear: forward. He had combinations and relentlessness displayed by none before him. Tyson (only 5 ft. 10 inches tall) faired well against everyone, especially considering all of his opponents fought based purely on height, reach advantage, and running away, like Ali did. All that and Tyson was nearly impossible to hit. The only thing Tyson lacked was experience (and he was getting there), and heart (usually due to the pressure of fans becoming angry and booing him for not sticking to his usual tradition of knocking out his opponent in the first round). Best of all, when an 80's Tyson fight was on, you knew you were going to see some action.

Ali had long arms and the ability to run. Nothing special. He had no real fighting skill at all and was mostly talk, and anyone true to themselves can admit that. If the shorter opponent ever did make it inside his range and try to go toe-to-toe, Ali would just clench them. For some reason, people hug Ali's nuts for this and treat him like he's a boxing version of Jesus and for that, he got away with breaking the rules many, many times over. If ANY other boxer fought even remotely like Ali did, they would be booed and hated non-stop for being so damn boring and stupid. But for some reason when Ali did it, he was the best fighter ever and everyone's looking for a drop of the golden sweat off of his nut sack to land on their tongue or something. I really don't know, I'm actually still trying to figure it out even to this day. There's this silly fad for everyone to say that Ali was the best boxer ever, but he was average at best. Ali's gameplan was simply run, jab, run, clench, run, jab, run, clench, and do a stupid little dance while you're doing all of it. Nothing anyone else couldn't do an certainly nothing I would pay to see.

The Tyson of 1988 still needed a little more experience but for the most part he would dominate anyone put in front of him (that didn't spend the whole time running). There's a misconception that Mike Tyson lost against Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, etc., but the real Mike Tyson died in 1988. The Tyson after Don King gained control and fired Kevin Rooney was nothing more than a small heavyweight softy, a complete joke. His only training consisted of screwing women, spending money, and eating fatty foods, etc. He abandoned the peek-a-boo style that made him so deadly and became just another half-assed boxer. But 1988 and before, Mike was the man.

So, if they fought, the fight could go two ways. One way would be prime Tyson in the first few rounds by knockout, the other would be Ali by lasting 12 rounds by running and clenching the night away. Tyson would easily outfight Ali, but Ali would run away from him all night (and somehow Ali's fans would call it a skill). Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you and themselves as well. The facts are there. It's up to you to accept them. "

Update:

How do you figure though? He was very light on his feet... he did have an impressive record... I'm not saying I disagree with you because I don't know too much about him. But I would like you to explain more. You have a very very interesting point of view, that's why I asked this question.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, that's true. I wrote it. There's nothing at all impressive about Ali other than his ability to take a punch. I respect him as a champion, training and what not, but he wasn't anything at all special in the ring. And he was incredibly boring and overrated with the whole "I'm going to fight entirely on my back foot for every match I'm ever in and if anybody gets passed my reach and tries to engage in a real fight, I'm going to hold them and I'm going to get away with it every time I do it because the referee and audience are all over my nuts for some unknown reason". Not to mention the way he disrespected true champions of that era, who had done nothing to provoke him. O to the V to the E to the R to the R to the A to the T to the E to the D.

    Edit - Light on your feet or not, the purpose of boxing is a fist exchange. Yes, he has an impressive record against some good opponents. Anyone can have an impressive record if they just spend the whole time running and scoring points with jabs, etc. Why do you think a majority of his wins were point-based decisions? Run, run, run, jab, run, run, jab-straight, run, run, hold, run, run, hold. No skills.

    Edit - Nick, I'm not bashing on him. I'm simply elaborating on the facts and why I don't think he needs the number one spot in boxing. Tyson was two years out of his prime (and his proper style) during the Buster fight and nowhere near 1/4 of the prime Tyson. More years out of his prime during the Holyfield fights. And Lennox Lewis? That's as low as me making the point that Ali was beat by Trevor Berbick. If you can't see the difference between the 1985-1988 Tyson and the joke that was Tyson during 1989-2005, I need not explain further.

    Edit - Matthew, that's my whole point. He beat every great- but he did it by running and scoring points, not by engaging in a real fight or by even giving any of his opponents a fair chance to hit him (running and his holding deal). Of course Tyson struggled with some crappy heavyweights, he was new to the game. That was Jim Jacobs' and Cus D'Amato's plan all along, to start him out easy and to gradually go against tougher opponents from there. You don't start out boxing by fighting a Joe Louis, you fight nobodies and gatekeepers before you fight the skilled. And alright, Tyson's division was poor during his reign. How is that his fault? How does that make him less of a champion? What would make his combinations and counterpunching any less effective against a prime Foreman, etc. What makes anyone else have the skill or methods to defeat a prime Tyson? What makes any great's hook any less weaveable for Tyson in his prime? It's like a lawnmower cutting up all the grass and people complaining that the lawnmower never proved itself against any flowers along the way.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Ali's peak years as a boxer were cruelly taken away from him. No one ever actually saw the very, very best of Ali in a competitive fight,in a boxing ring. The best of what we saw was some of the best ever. In contrast, the best of Tyson was seen 1986 -1989. The same amount of time Ali was denied.

    Yeah when Tyson burst on to the scene, he was a refreshing change to the often blubbery, slow, uncondtioned heavyweights of the mid 1980's, who'd replaced a Great Champion in Larry Holmes. Who lived in the shadow of Ali, and is only just begining to get the universal recognition he deserves. He got ripped of against Spinks twice! Marciano well too slow and crude to land with any authority against Holmes. Holmes all the way.

    Even a peak Mike Tyson struggled with 2nd tier heavyweights like Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith. For all his speed, power, head-movement and ferocity, and intimidating demeanour, Ali would have beaten him late KO. He would have been too elusive, too fast (Tyson was fast ,but Ali was faster, with his feet as well, not only his hands, and from a distance. Plus, unlike many of Tyson's opponents, Ali would not have been intimidated in the ring. He would have been totally fired up to tame the beast and expose the bully. Ali would have been taunting him for weeks in the press, prior to to the fight. Would have gotten to him psychologically. By the middle rounds, Tyson weary and out of ideas. A peak Mike Tyson never fought anyone remotely like a peak Muhammad Ali.

    Ali didn't knock out big, fearsome, powerful guys by being a ballarina! You may not be asking, but I'm telling ya!

    Nothing special? What the chuffing hell are you on about?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Who has Tyson beat in his prime? Ali beat Liston, Patterson, Foreman,Frazier,Norton, Archie Moore, and the list continues,

    Tyson LOST to Douglas,Danny Williams,HolyField,Kevin Mcbride, All of Tyson's lost were by KO , besides his one DQ loss to Holyfield,Muhammad Ali would of mopped the floor with all these guys Tyson lost 2, Ali only been stopped once, and it was a corner stoppage to a prime Larry Holmes, and an old fat Ali, the only fight that would give Ali trouble that Tyson fought was Lewis due to his height and jab, but i wouldn't even see Lewis beating a prime Ali,

    I like Tyson but how the hell can you compare him to Ali?

    Tyson never beat anyone GOOD, even guys he lost 2 where suspect.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    People didn't like what they thought Tyson represented. Its ok to like him, I'm not intending for Mike Tyson to marry my youngest girl child. Ali was a showboat. Its the difference between champion's like Pele, Maradonna and david Beckham. Some guys look that part, some guys are the real thing. Ali was talk and tactics. But I dont think he was kidding when he thought tyson would beat him.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Ali was one of the greatest fighters to ever put on a set of gloves. He showed that success in boxing, required brains more so than brawn.

    The goal of boxing is to hit and not be hit. If anyone says otherwise, they know very little about the sport. In order to achieve this goal, there is a scientific process that one must master. Lets just say that Ali has several Doctorate degrees in the "Sweet Science" of boxing.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    i think people like Ali so much because of his personality and his "i don't care who you are i'm better" attitude

    but you can't say that about Ali i mean there's a reason why he fought that way and its because it worked for him

    after losing his belt against frazier Ali came back to give George Foreman his first loss to regain his title and avenged his lose to Frazier

    i believe they say "a true champion is judged on how he comes back after a loss" well he did

    its called the sweet science

    i'm not saying he would beat tyson because i think tyson would win in his prime but yea think bout that.... boring but he got the work done

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If you wanna bash Legends of the sport, I can bash Mike Tyson easily. He participated in one of the biggest upset in SPORTS history when super-underdog Buster Douglas gave him a boxing lesson.

    He let his promoters f*ck him up, he fought a bunch of nobodies in the early stage of his career, Evander Holyfield gave him a boxing lesson TWICE- he even got pissed off and bit-off Evander's ear.

    Oh and did you see how Lennox KOed Mike Tyson? That was a classic!

    Source(s): Me.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    lol.....LOL....man you must be smoking the good stuff.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.