Mike Tyson was the best boxer of all time

[Yoopwat]

No Tyson was doing that against basically bums, not Muhammad Ali.

Also getting punched down on isn't an advantage, and uppercuts have diminished strength past your mouth or so.

That's gravity and body mechanics for you.

Tyson's whole game was body punches to drop his opponents head.

I'm telling you Tyson wouldn't get close to Ali.

The dude was GOAT at controlling distance.

I CBA to post vids but there are many great videos that break down his style.

You look at Ali and think he did things to appear flamboyant but there was layers upon layers of subtle strategy to it all.

This he fought bums to make himself look good, like RJJ. Dude couldn’t even last more than a couple of rounds or he’d be dead on his legs, any half decent defensive fighter would just jab him away for a few rounds then take him apart. How people can say Mayweather cherry picker then praise Tyson is beyond me, Mayweathers record destroys Tyson’s

[Lunatic]

LOL not even the best HW of all time

[MBisonSon]

Then how come Ali had trouble with Frazier?

FYI - Frazier was 5'11" and Tyson was 5'10.5"

Punching downward has less power than punching upward. Also Tyson's strategy wasn't to drop his opponents head he could reach their head just fine, it was quick body shots to distract them then go for a knock out hook or uppercut to head

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you're talking about.

The most power in an uppercuts or hook is right where you're both bends.

You're losing more power the higher or lower you connect from that level.

But out of punching up or down you'd rather be punching downwards to have gravity working with instead of against you.

Not only that but you can bend your legs to get low while still loading up.
If you wanna punch higher how do you do it effectively?

It's not possible unless you can circumvent physics or the limitations of the human body.

In any fights, battles etc. you always wanna have high ground, .

It's.why before modern warfare defenses were always in position where the attackers had to go up to them.

It's a disadvantage.

[Lunatic]

That would be a good fight, Foreman would be Mike's toughest opponent based on styles

Foreman would've destroyed Tyson, and you saying Tyson is the GOAT shows everyone just how little you know about boxing.

[MBisonSon]

This he fought bums to make himself look good, like RJJ. Dude couldn’t even last more than a couple of rounds or he’d be dead on his legs, any half decent defensive fighter would just jab him away for a few rounds then take him apart. How people can say Mayweather cherry picker then praise Tyson is beyond me, Mayweathers record destroys Tyson’s

They don't respect the strategy.

The guys are fighters, not two drunk morons brawling in some dark alley.

The main idea of boxing is to hit and not get hit.

KO's are great but what happens when it's not there?

Then it's about your head and your heart.

That's why Holyfield beat Tyson, twice.

He was smarter and had more heart, the Cus D'Amato excuse is cope.

You either find ways to win or excuse to lose.

You can't say Tyson didn't win cause his trainer passed, when the essence of the sport is will and perseverance.

[backinthegymbro]

I think Tyson in his prime is the goat boxer. I think he could've been even better if cus lived longer or if he stayed with kevin rooney longer.
However for the people hating on mayweather, the principle of boxing is ''hit without getting hit''. And that's exactly what he's best at.

That's why Holyfield beat Tyson, twice.

Pretty sure holyfield won thanks to headbutting. Not saying he couldn't beat tyson without it though, tyson was already declining and was fighting post prison.

[CommonPheasant]

Most serious boxing commentators don’t have Tyson in the top 3 heavyweights.

[Wamrage76]

Nope.
Everytime he fought a legit boxer he lost.
He ducked nearly everyone who was good in the 90s for a reason.

[maori-rap]

He was arguably the most DANGEROUS boxer of all time. However that does not for one moment translate as 'the best'. Sure, he had a mad combo of speed, defence and a brutally hard strike...which is more than enough to wreck all but the elite boxers. However against Ali, Foreman...it would not be an easy outcome to predict. Ali was very good at not getting hit and a better tactician than Tyson.

[tunafishha]

He was a great boxer no doubt. And if his style caters more to your likings, more power to you.

In my eyes Floyd is the best because he did really good in many different criterias- being undefeated is a major critia.

[MiniManletBrah]

I love Tyson but prime Holyfield beats prime Tyson.

Ali also beats Mike Tyson.

There is a reason Ali is called the Greatest.

Also to the haters, Mayweather is the GOAT of our era.

[Lunatic]

Most serious boxing commentators don’t have Tyson in the top 3 heavyweights.

Because he isn't top 3. Holyfield beat him twice ffs.

I think Tyson in his prime is the goat boxer. I think he could've been even better if cus lived longer or if he stayed with kevin rooney longer.
However for the people hating on mayweather, the principle of boxing is ''hit without getting hit''. And that's exactly what he's best at.



Pretty sure holyfield won thanks to headbutting. Not saying he couldn't beat tyson without it though, tyson was already declining and was fighting post prison.

Goat at hitting without getting hit? Do you even watch boxing? Just LOL

He was arguably the most DANGEROUS boxer of all time. However that does not for one moment translate as 'the best'. Sure, he had a mad combo of speed, defence and a brutally hard strike...which is more than enough to wreck all but the elite boxers. However against Ali, Foreman...it would not be an easy outcome to predict. Ali was very good at not getting hit and a better tactician than Tyson.

LOL no he wasn't. Stop talking about things you don't understand.

Liston hit harder than Tyson and Ali embarrassed him.
Foreman would also beat Tyson.

Jesus... even Tyson would probably say that he'd lose to them.

[Agent456]

Mike tysons my favourote boxer and he was the one that got me into boxing, but to call him the best boxer of all time is a no.

[DJKhaled]

He was a great boxer no doubt. And if his style caters more to your likings, more power to you.

In my eyes Floyd is the best because he did really good in many different criterias- being undefeated is a major critia.

Mayweather lost

[CaliSuperSport]

Also to the haters, Mayweather is the GOAT of our era.

Nope.

[LuckyAH]

He isn't even in most people's top 10...

[DJKhaled]

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you're talking about.

The most power in an uppercuts or hook is right where you're both bends.

You're losing more power the higher or lower you connect from that level.

But out of punching up or down you'd rather be punching downwards to have gravity working with instead of against you.

Not only that but you can bend your legs to get low while still loading up.
If you wanna punch higher how do you do it effectively?

It's not possible unless you can circumvent physics or the limitations of the human body.

In any fights, battles etc. you always wanna have high ground, .

It's.why before modern warfare defenses were always in position where the attackers had to go up to them.

It's a disadvantage.

Gravity? That makes no difference in a punch. That's why Frazier's leaping punch and Tysons was so effective because they got low and use their leg muscles to explode upward. You have no idea how punching power works. It starts from the ground up. Simply using your arms for punching power is a fail.

Do you box at all? Even my trainer agrees getting low is effective because it makes your opponent punch downward which inhibits their punching power. Sure, you have gravity but you also only have the arm to generate power. My hooks and uppercuts are my most powerful punch because I generate power from my feet, to hips, and up.

Punching power is all in leverage.

As far as height, the only advantage of being the taller fighter is reach and utilizing the jab to keep distance.

[DJKhaled]

They don't respect the strategy.

The guys are fighters, not two drunk morons brawling in some dark alley.

The main idea of boxing is to hit and not get hit.

KO's are great but what happens when it's not there?

Then it's about your head and your heart.

That's why Holyfield beat Tyson, twice.

He was smarter and had more heart, the Cus D'Amato excuse is cope.

You either find ways to win or excuse to lose.

You can't say Tyson didn't win cause his trainer passed, when the essence of the sport is will and perseverance.

People keep bringing up Tyson's later career fights as reason that he sucks. Holyfield was when Tyson was washed up. I don't think you know the Tyson story. I've studied his story and videos for hundreds of hours.

When Tyson first lost to Douglas, he wasn't training for years and had no one to push him, he fired Rooney his original trainer for Cus's camp, had a wife and mother in law trying to steal his money, and Don King who was using him and stealing his money. His head and heart wasn't there anymore and he was just fighting for money. You can tell from his style. Even the commentators on the Douglas fight were noting how Tyson didn't look the same and wasn't slipping or using his footwork. He was flat-footed and just head hunting. No more combos.

That's why I agree Tyson in his prime was unbeatable. He had it all.

[MikeLowrrrey]

People forget that George Foreman was a very hard hitter. If Ali can beat Foreman, he can beat Tyson. Did Tyson even fight against anyone with good footwork?

If I had my vote though, I'm going Sugar Ray Robinson

[Brandon874]

No doubt. 1. Tyson 2. Ali 3. Mayweather

[eod8989]

Tyson couldn't beat anyone taller than him though

But his prime was so short and he never really fought anyone good until he got older either so who knows

[DJKhaled]

People forget that George Foreman was a very hard hitter. If Ali can beat Foreman, he can beat Tyson. Did Tyson even fight against anyone with good footwork?

If I had my vote though, I'm going Sugar Ray Robinson

It comes down to styles. Ali had a huge difficulty in beating Frazier but he had no problem with Foreman. Frazier was the first to knock Ali down and beat him. On the contrary, Frazier had a problem with Foreman.

Frazier was an aggressive pressure fighter like Tyson with similar head movement and punches.

Tyson was more similar to Frazier when considering body, height, and style. IMO Tyson was an improved Frazier. His stamina wasn't as great but power and speed was so much better. Tyson's problem wouldn't be Ali, it would be Foreman.

Even Ali said he would have lost to Tyson.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/bo...nterview-video

"But, in a resurfaced interview from the 1990s, chat show host Arsenio Hall managed to ask both men their thoughts on what might have gone down had the pair met inside the ring.

Immediately pointing at Tyson, Ali said: “I was a dancer. I wasn’t that powerful but I was so fast."

“If he hit me,” he finished, before feigning being knocked out."

[DJKhaled]

Tyson couldn't beat anyone taller than him though

But his prime was so short and he never really fought anyone good until he got older either so who knows

Dude what are you talking about? Tyson was ALWAYS the shorter fighter in heavyweight

All of his opponents he beat were taller than him

[eod8989]

Dude what are you talking about? Tyson was ALWAYS the shorter fighter in heavyweight

All of his opponents he beat were taller than him

He never beat anyone worth a chit that was taller than him srs

Douglas whooped his ass and so did holyfield

[eod8989]

Lol at thinking a 5'10 Tyson was beating elite 6'2+ boxers

[DJKhaled]

Lol at thinking a 5'10 Tyson was beating elite 6'2+ boxers

Tyson's whole style (peekaboo) was geared to work against taller fighters

When Tyson was losing to good tall fighters he was washed up and stopped training. Only trying to rely on his single power knockout punch while ignoring slipping completely.

The whole point of slipping it to get on the inside of taller fighters and negate all of their advantages. If you take that away of course he's going to have trouble and lose.

[armies]

It's true, Mike was the goat

[Purfected]

Tyson was insanely gifted and had very high potential, but he is not the best boxer ever. In a perfect world if he had his original team around him his entire career could he have been? maybe, but no boxer ever had a perfect world to live in.


The problem with Tyson is he never adapted his style. The Peakaboo style is a young mans style of boxing that requires a ton of energy to execute properly. your legs are basically in a quarter squat the entire fight. although Tyson was exceptional at slipping punches and taking minimal damage, the Peakaboo style burns you out faster physically over the years.

Could Tyson at his Peak in the 80's beaten any boxer in history? Maybe, but when you are talking about fighters of that calibre most of the time it comes down to styles. Ever heard the saying styles make fights? If you watch Tysons fights vs fighters with good snappy jabs and lateral movement he struggled against them the same way every stalker fighter has. Even if he did knock them out he did struggle.

a great example is his fight with Tyrell Biggs. The first couple rounds Tyrell Biggs was jabbing Tysons head off and moving great around the ring so Tyson couldn't set anything up on him. Only problem is Biggs could only keep that up for a few rounds before slowing down and tiring out. Tyrell Biggs isn't even close to the level of Muhammad Ali. Ali could dance around the ring and snap jabs off for the entire fight in his prime.

Seen some other posers in this thread bring up the fact that Frazier beat Ali and Frazier is a swarmer / stalker etc.. Also remember that was Ali's first fight in like 3 or 4 years because he was stripped of his license. That version of Ali was pretty trash compared to his prime before that. He was much slower.


Tyson was great and had a very exciting style to watch and his life and how he got started in boxing is better than a hollywood movie script. He's not the best boxer ever. And it's pretty clear.


Having said all that Tyson is one of my favourite boxers and I love watching his fights in the 80's



Ricardo Finito Lopez might be the best boxer ever. only fighter in history to never lose a fight as an amateur or a pro. he had 1 controversial draw which he won the rematch easily etc.

[elterrible987]

agreed i always laugh at the cucks who are all nah man greatest was defensive fighter ect... ali even more laughable are the retards who claim paper hands mayweather is anywhere near that

Mayweather was on top for almost 20 years. His career and resume decimates Tyson's, its not even debateable for anyone who knows anything about boxing history.

Also prime Tyson was very skilled defensively so kind of ironic that you would downplay defensive skill in boxing.

Sorry but Ali would beat Mike Tyson's ass .

Only advantage Tyson would have had was power.

Ali was bigger, faster, smarter, tougher.

Tyson was physically gifted but Ali was brilliant.

Ali was taller, with a longer reach, better career longevity, better ring IQ, but disagree that he was "bigger" as weight wise that is not the case and speed is pretty debatable, I do not believe Ali had a significant speed advantage in their primes.

Ali fought at light heavy in the olympics. Tyson was a heavyweight in the amateurs in this later teens. That gives you an idea of their natural frames.

[BrightonBomber]

Tyson was undeniably the best heavyweight of the late 80's, what he did to a past prime Holmes was shocking, especially when you consider Holmes fought well into the 90's against a bunch of world class opposition and was never dominated like that again.

But best ever? Sure if he'd stayed more focused and kept with Jacobs and Cayton and if Cus had lived longer he might had beaten Douglas and reigned into the 90's. But I think Holyfeild showed in their first fight that Tyson while exceptional had a style with it's limitations. Tyson is great if he can push you back but if you can stand your ground, tie him up, push him back he becomes less effective as obviously Tyson couldn't fight on the back foot.

Smith too tied him up a lot and took him to points, Tyson never really learned to deal with clinching other than his power turning fights which it so often did. I think Holyfield with his durability, clinching, physical style and of course head butt would of always beaten Tyson as Tyson didn't know how to deal with these attributes, nothing Cus taught him could of seen him figure out Holyfield.

As for a fight with Ali. I think Tyson gives Ali real problems, fast, with a good left hook usually spells trouble for Ali, for example, Banks, Cooper and Frazier who all dropped Ali. Wouldn't shock me if Tyson beats Ali first time round, but Ali would win the rematch and the fight after that. He was durable enough to take Tyson's power, one of the few guys quicker than Tyson but more importantly Ali was simply smarter and more versatile in the ring. He'd figure Tyson out eventually, tie him up and lean on him when needed, get in his head in the build up, Ali was a master of the mind games and Tyson was mentally fragile, he'd take Tyson's best shots and talk back at him, Ali makes Tyson quit in the rematch.