PDA

View Full Version : Who would win



ABOMB_56
08-31-2009, 12:20 PM
I have been playing the newest Fight Night, and it got me thinking;
In their primes which fighter would win in a 12 round fight:
Ali vs. Tyson

Pick your winner, the round they win and how they won (KO, TKO, split decision,unanimous decision)

I think it would be:

Ali in a Split Decision

Saint Brian
08-31-2009, 12:23 PM
I think Ali would KO Tyson. Ali was just way too fast. Tyson wouldn't be able to land power punches cleanly and Ali would be able to land shots because of his hand speed. By the 9th or 10th round, Tyson would be a mess.

ABOMB_56
08-31-2009, 12:30 PM
I think Ali would KO Tyson. Ali was just way too fast. Tyson wouldn't be able to land power punches cleanly and Ali would be able to land shots because of his hand speed. By the 9th or 10th round, Tyson would be a mess.

I don't know if this is true but I've heard that Ali had very little will to get up when he was knocked down. IF he got knocked down hard he would just stay down, I've heard he had no desire to get back up. And IF that is true, I think Tyson would be able to make him hit the mat with one big shot and Ali would just lay on the ground.
Again, this is just what I've heard

NYKnickFanatic
08-31-2009, 12:37 PM
Boxing forum?

:D

behindmydesk
08-31-2009, 12:39 PM
Tyson in his heyday would have taken ali out. Ali's rope a dope wouldn't have worked against such powerful punches

alexander_37
08-31-2009, 12:39 PM
I think it would be a K.O, it could go either way Ali's smarts and speed vs. tysons knockout power if tyson got him with a good flurry it could be over.

I still prefer ufc.

Hustla23
08-31-2009, 01:05 PM
Ali is the GOAT so I'll go with him.

He was just too savvy, quick, and boxed in such a cerebral manner.

asandhu23
08-31-2009, 01:40 PM
Tyson. he is known for both his speed and power. he's also has had much better training.

I say Tyson in 6 rounds

BigSteve
08-31-2009, 01:41 PM
Ali is one of the most overrated fighters ever. He was barely the best HW of his era, let alone the greatest of alltime. Tyson's style was built to neutralize another fighters strength by forcing them to fight his fight. He constantly tied people up and pinned their back against the rope giving them no place to go. People love to talk about Tyson's power, but alot forget about his speed. I honestly don't even think a fight between the two would have been close.

asandhu23
08-31-2009, 01:42 PM
Ali is one of the most overrated fighters ever. He was barely the best HW of his era, let alone the greatest of alltime. Tyson's style was built to neutralize another fighters strength by forcing them to fight his fight. He constantly tied people up and pinned their back against the rope giving them no place to go. People love to talk about Tyson's power, but alot forget about his speed. I honestly don't even think a fight between the two would have been close.

i mentioned his speed. i remember watching him just dominate. and man he was fast

BigSteve
08-31-2009, 02:03 PM
i mentioned his speed. i remember watching him just dominate. and man he was fast

Yeah, your post went up as I was typing mine. Didn't get to see it. I agree though, Tyson was insanely fast and all his punches were potential knockout blows.

gatorbait
08-31-2009, 02:35 PM
I don't know if this is true but I've heard that Ali had very little will to get up when he was knocked down. IF he got knocked down hard he would just stay down, I've heard he had no desire to get back up. And IF that is true, I think Tyson would be able to make him hit the mat with one big shot and Ali would just lay on the ground.
Again, this is just what I've heard

you ever watched ali fight? he prob had the strongest will out of any fighter ever. tyson was the one that gives up.

gatorbait
08-31-2009, 02:39 PM
Tyson in his heyday would have taken ali out. Ali's rope a dope wouldn't have worked against such powerful punches

haha, i got 2 words for you. george foreman.

Macken
08-31-2009, 02:42 PM
tyson would over power Ali in bout 6-7 rounds. It would be a great fight none the less. but Tyson's power would wear down Ali in the long run.

behindmydesk
08-31-2009, 02:53 PM
haha, i got 2 words for you. george foreman.

tyson in his prime would have man handled foreman too

H.E.R.
08-31-2009, 04:07 PM
Tyson, had Cus D'Amato not die and had he not hung out with the wrong people, was supposed to be the greatest heavyweight champion of all time.

However, with the best we've seen from Tyson (which I'd probably say was pre-Buster Douglas, maybe even pre-Berbick), I'll say Ali had a much better career. As far as resumes go, Ali has the best resume of any heavyweight champion in history, some say the best resume in boxing history. He ruled in a time of boxing's best heavyweight competition in history. He defeated some very notable names in Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, George Foreman, and Leon Spinks. Look at Tyson's resume...the only notable wins he has are against Michael Spinks and Larry Holmes.

In a fight, I'd have to give the edge to Ali. The guy's reach is amazing and he knew how to use it, using the jab at will and using it to open a combination. He'd let Tyson chase him for half the fight and allow him to keep swinging and missing. His evasive moves were way ahead of his time so it's not like Tyson being aggressive would be the reason why Tyson would beat him. Ali was also built to last 15 rounds while Tyson's endurance and stamina have come into question, especially with the loss to Douglas.

Again, in the sport of boxing, speed kills. I'd have to give this one to Ali by late rounds KO.

gatorbait
08-31-2009, 04:47 PM
tyson in his prime would have man handled foreman too

:facepalm:

2009mvp
08-31-2009, 07:19 PM
Ali is one of the most overrated fighters ever. He was barely the best HW of his era, let alone the greatest of alltime. Tyson's style was built to neutralize another fighters strength by forcing them to fight his fight. He constantly tied people up and pinned their back against the rope giving them no place to go. People love to talk about Tyson's power, but alot forget about his speed. I honestly don't even think a fight between the two would have been close.

This post is laughable. Tyson's hand speed was incredible but his footwork was never great. He could slide and throw at angles with great speed but on the outside he was never a guy that would cut off a faster fighter. There's not a chance he's able to work Ali into the corner all night. Ali was two fleet of foot for that. You're also ignoring the ridiculous height/length advantage Ali had. He'd use the jab and control range all night, just like Douglas was able to do for the better part of ten rounds. Not to mention Ali was the better conditioned fighter. I say Ali would KO a tired and frustrated Tyson late, after outboxing him for a good ten rounds or so. As for Ali being overrated, I don't need to say anything because the resume speaks for itself.

BigSteve
09-01-2009, 12:08 PM
This post is laughable. Tyson's hand speed was incredible but his footwork was never great. He could slide and throw at angles with great speed but on the outside he was never a guy that would cut off a faster fighter. There's not a chance he's able to work Ali into the corner all night. Ali was two fleet of foot for that. You're also ignoring the ridiculous height/length advantage Ali had. He'd use the jab and control range all night, just like Douglas was able to do for the better part of ten rounds. Not to mention Ali was the better conditioned fighter. I say Ali would KO a tired and frustrated Tyson late, after outboxing him for a good ten rounds or so. As for Ali being overrated, I don't need to say anything because the resume speaks for itself.

The fact you would post this shows your knowledge of boxing is limited. Ali was worked in to the corner and ropes by many fighters in his career, many of which were lesser fighters than Tyson. He utilized his speed advantage to dodge and parry which drew applause from the crowd and built a reputation for making him an intereasting fight to watch. All that said, don't be confused; he was pressed against the ropes alot during his career. An overpowering fighter, that is far superior to possibly any other boxer to ever live at closing distance and neutralizing height advantage, would have been Ali's worst possible opponet. He has losses in his career to overpowering bruisers that were not even close to the skill set Tyson held. Ignore the obvious if you like, but look a little closer at Ali's resume. His losses were to power punchers that overpowered him during the fight.

As far as Ali's resume goes, don't buy the hype. Reporters and television station statisticians that know nothing about boxing claim he was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all-time. While I will gladly admit he was entertaining to watch as a fighter, he was not even close to being the most dominate. Thats why hes overrated. Everyone who wants to act like they know something about boxing will claim Ali was the greatest without actually watching classic fights. I question if he can even be considered top 5 honestly. Anyone that knows anything about boxing knows that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest boxer off all-time. If you question that you need to have your head examined.

2009mvp
09-01-2009, 01:55 PM
Frazier beat him because he knew exactly how to exploit Ali's biggest flaw, his unconventional hand placement. The fact that his right hand was so often out of position when he threw combined with Frazier's punishing left hook wrote the perfect recipe for a guy who could give Ali problems. Hell it was exactly that situation that dropped Ali in the 15th of the first fight. Norton also had an excellent left hook, and he had success jabbing with Ali where so many others failed. Watch both of those fights you'll see him constantly knocking down Ali's jab with his right hand and countering with a left of his own. That's how he was able to work Ali into the ropes. Not an overpowering fighter, a fighter who was able to deal with the jab. Tyson couldn't deal with a Douglas jab, at his height and with his style the jab and footspeed of Ali would keep Tyson at range all night. Bottom line, if anyone is to beat Ali you've got to be able to handle the jab. I don't think Tyson could do it. You say these guys who beat Ali were lesser fighters but it takes a special skillset to do it. He's not the perfect fighter, he's not the greatest p4p fighter ever (don't know where you read me saying that) but he certainly has the most impressive resume amongst heavyweights. I personally think Louis had the size and hand speed to deal with Ali's jab. He'd give Ali a lot of trouble but it's tough to tell how he'd adjust and if he'd be able to catch him. Johnson would give Ali fits just by forcing him to be the aggressor and then proving he could handle whatever Ali threw at him, especially the jab. I think that's the most intriguing heavyweight dream fight of all with both of them having such impeccable skills.

gatorbait
09-01-2009, 10:36 PM
The fact you would post this shows your knowledge of boxing is limited. Ali was worked in to the corner and ropes by many fighters in his career, many of which were lesser fighters than Tyson. He utilized his speed advantage to dodge and parry which drew applause from the crowd and built a reputation for making him an intereasting fight to watch. All that said, don't be confused; he was pressed against the ropes alot during his career. An overpowering fighter, that is far superior to possibly any other boxer to ever live at closing distance and neutralizing height advantage, would have been Ali's worst possible opponet. He has losses in his career to overpowering bruisers that were not even close to the skill set Tyson held. Ignore the obvious if you like, but look a little closer at Ali's resume. His losses were to power punchers that overpowered him during the fight.

As far as Ali's resume goes, don't buy the hype. Reporters and television station statisticians that know nothing about boxing claim he was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all-time. While I will gladly admit he was entertaining to watch as a fighter, he was not even close to being the most dominate. Thats why hes overrated. Everyone who wants to act like they know something about boxing will claim Ali was the greatest without actually watching classic fights. I question if he can even be considered top 5 honestly. Anyone that knows anything about boxing knows that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest boxer off all-time. If you question that you need to have your head examined.

no your a hater. 1 hes never been knocked out. 2, 2 of his losses was when he was around 40 which btw both were at one point champions themselves. 3 he lost to frazier once which lasted 15 rounds, then beat him twice afterwards. he lost ken norton then beat him around about 6 months later.

foreman would have beaten tyson, frazier would have beaten tyson. the stuff you said in that post is mindboggling and i could go on for ever basically proving you wrong but im not gonna waste my time.

gatorbait
09-01-2009, 10:38 PM
Frazier beat him because he knew exactly how to exploit Ali's biggest flaw, his unconventional hand placement. The fact that his right hand was so often out of position when he threw combined with Frazier's punishing left hook wrote the perfect recipe for a guy who could give Ali problems. Hell it was exactly that situation that dropped Ali in the 15th of the first fight. Norton also had an excellent left hook, and he had success jabbing with Ali where so many others failed. Watch both of those fights you'll see him constantly knocking down Ali's jab with his right hand and countering with a left of his own. That's how he was able to work Ali into the ropes. Not an overpowering fighter, a fighter who was able to deal with the jab. Tyson couldn't deal with a Douglas jab, at his height and with his style the jab and footspeed of Ali would keep Tyson at range all night. Bottom line, if anyone is to beat Ali you've got to be able to handle the jab. I don't think Tyson could do it. You say these guys who beat Ali were lesser fighters but it takes a special skillset to do it. He's not the perfect fighter, he's not the greatest p4p fighter ever (don't know where you read me saying that) but he certainly has the most impressive resume amongst heavyweights. I personally think Louis had the size and hand speed to deal with Ali's jab. He'd give Ali a lot of trouble but it's tough to tell how he'd adjust and if he'd be able to catch him. Johnson would give Ali fits just by forcing him to be the aggressor and then proving he could handle whatever Ali threw at him, especially the jab. I think that's the most intriguing heavyweight dream fight of all with both of them having such impeccable skills.

your being too nice man, you should have schooled him a little harder.

2009mvp
09-02-2009, 12:08 AM
The fact you would post this shows your knowledge of boxing is limited. Ali was worked in to the corner and ropes by many fighters in his career, many of which were lesser fighters than Tyson. He utilized his speed advantage to dodge and parry which drew applause from the crowd and built a reputation for making him an intereasting fight to watch. All that said, don't be confused; he was pressed against the ropes alot during his career. An overpowering fighter, that is far superior to possibly any other boxer to ever live at closing distance and neutralizing height advantage, would have been Ali's worst possible opponet. He has losses in his career to overpowering bruisers that were not even close to the skill set Tyson held. Ignore the obvious if you like, but look a little closer at Ali's resume. His losses were to power punchers that overpowered him during the fight.

As far as Ali's resume goes, don't buy the hype. Reporters and television station statisticians that know nothing about boxing claim he was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all-time. While I will gladly admit he was entertaining to watch as a fighter, he was not even close to being the most dominate. Thats why hes overrated. Everyone who wants to act like they know something about boxing will claim Ali was the greatest without actually watching classic fights. I question if he can even be considered top 5 honestly. Anyone that knows anything about boxing knows that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest boxer off all-time. If you question that you need to have your head examined.

Uhhhhh, no. Foreman, Lyle, Liston, Shavers. Those are big bruisers. Coincidentally, they also happen to be guys Ali disposed of quite easily. Frazier was far from an overpowering fighter, same goes for Norton. Holmes in his prime was just about as slick a fighter as Ali. Far from a bruiser.

BigSteve
09-02-2009, 01:10 AM
no your a hater. 1 hes never been knocked out. 2, 2 of his losses was when he was around 40 which btw both were at one point champions themselves. 3 he lost to frazier once which lasted 15 rounds, then beat him twice afterwards. he lost ken norton then beat him around about 6 months later.

foreman would have beaten tyson, frazier would have beaten tyson. the stuff you said in that post is mindboggling and i could go on for ever basically proving you wrong but im not gonna waste my time.

For those of you new to this site, when someone says "I could go on for ever basically proving you wrong but im not gonna waste my time", that means he can't hold his own in an arguement but he wants to make a bold statement so it looks like he knows what hes talking about. Please, feel free to debunk my post with actual fact the way I'm about to wreck yours. Post all the things I said that were "mindboggling".

I'm a hater? When did I deny Muhammad Ali was one of the greatest fighters ever? I said hes not the best, and anyone that thinks he is knows nothing about boxing other than what ESPN feeds you. Is the fact that makes him the greatest that hes never been knocked out and he avenged his losses? By that logic Rocky Marciano was a better boxer. He never lost, therefore he had no losses to avenge. In fact, if we want to look closer at Ali's losses one of the them was to Leon Spinks. Spinks was not a great fighter yet he holds a win over the guy your arguing to be the best. Foreman would have beaten Tyson? You need to quit man.

BigSteve
09-02-2009, 01:25 AM
Frazier beat him because he knew exactly how to exploit Ali's biggest flaw, his unconventional hand placement. The fact that his right hand was so often out of position when he threw combined with Frazier's punishing left hook wrote the perfect recipe for a guy who could give Ali problems. Hell it was exactly that situation that dropped Ali in the 15th of the first fight. Norton also had an excellent left hook, and he had success jabbing with Ali where so many others failed. Watch both of those fights you'll see him constantly knocking down Ali's jab with his right hand and countering with a left of his own. That's how he was able to work Ali into the ropes. Not an overpowering fighter, a fighter who was able to deal with the jab. Tyson couldn't deal with a Douglas jab, at his height and with his style the jab and footspeed of Ali would keep Tyson at range all night. Bottom line, if anyone is to beat Ali you've got to be able to handle the jab. I don't think Tyson could do it. You say these guys who beat Ali were lesser fighters but it takes a special skillset to do it. He's not the perfect fighter, he's not the greatest p4p fighter ever (don't know where you read me saying that) but he certainly has the most impressive resume amongst heavyweights. I personally think Louis had the size and hand speed to deal with Ali's jab. He'd give Ali a lot of trouble but it's tough to tell how he'd adjust and if he'd be able to catch him. Johnson would give Ali fits just by forcing him to be the aggressor and then proving he could handle whatever Ali threw at him, especially the jab. I think that's the most intriguing heavyweight dream fight of all with both of them having such impeccable skills.

While I do agree with alot of what you say, I disagree with your accessment on Tyson. Tyson never had problems dealing with the jab until he went into the Buster Douglas fight, and everyone knows his head wasn't right then. He was dealing with all kinds of personal problems that lead to him undertraining and all around being ill-prepared for the fight. In his prime he could close the distance on anyone with lightening speed. In fact, his size should have been more of an issue. The fact he dominated his competition so easily shows just how great he was.

I agree with your take on Ali's main flaw. Are you arguing Tyson didn't have a dominate hook? Every punch he had not only packed precision, but knockout power. Also, while you may not consider him to be, Frazier is considered by many boxing writers to be considered a "bruiser." Whether its a good description or not is irrelevant. You can see that he was not as much of abrute as a fighter like Foreman (which was obvious in their fight). Holmes was not as slick as Ali by any means, and while Norton may not have been built like a bruiser, his fighting styled mirrored the slugger mentallity in many ways. Spinks I'm not even bringing up because he was garbage and should have never won a fight against Ali. Watch all the classic fights of Ali you can and you'll see he liked being against the ropes. Not only was it "showy" which played into him being one of the most entertaining boxers of all-time, but he felt comfortable with his evasion skills while pressed against the ropes. He also believed that during hsi time spent evading on the ropes he would find openings in his opponets because of their over aggression, which was true. If you allowed a young and hungry Tyson to get on top of you like that, the fight is over. That plays into his hands perfectly. Tyson had possibly the greatest one punch knockout power boxing has ever seen. One uppercut could end any opponet.

I never said Ali was not a great fighter, although the fact people would come out of the wordwork to get mad shows they are either Will Smith fans or don't know a ton about boxing. He is the most overrated fighter ever. The reason I say this is because if you ask anyone on the street who was the greatest fighter of all-time 99% will probably say Ali. If you ask sportswriters and boxing historians he might garner about 25% to 33%. He was a great fighter, but he probably doesn't make my top 5 p4p of all-time.

gatorbait
09-02-2009, 02:23 AM
For those of you new to this site, when someone says "I could go on for ever basically proving you wrong but im not gonna waste my time", that means he can't hold his own in an arguement but he wants to make a bold statement so it looks like he knows what hes talking about. Please, feel free to debunk my post with actual fact the way I'm about to wreck yours. Post all the things I said that were "mindboggling".

I'm a hater? When did I deny Muhammad Ali was one of the greatest fighters ever? I said hes not the best, and anyone that thinks he is knows nothing about boxing other than what ESPN feeds you. Is the fact that makes him the greatest that hes never been knocked out and he avenged his losses? By that logic Rocky Marciano was a better boxer. He never lost, therefore he had no losses to avenge. In fact, if we want to look closer at Ali's losses one of the them was to Leon Spinks. Spinks was not a great fighter yet he holds a win over the guy your arguing to be the best. Foreman would have beaten Tyson? You need to quit man.

you said he was one the most entertaining not one of the best. im not gonna waste my time because like i said its ridiculous what you said. there is just no reason that you gave that would justify tyson being the best of the 2, if asked all the great boxers, all the great boxing analysts what would they say? im pretty sure its gonna be ali, tyson said it himself also. holyfield beat on mike tyson a lot more then he did on a 42 year old george foreman. and yes it actually means something when you avenge your losses, winning 2 out of 3 means your better, it also means something when you dont get knocked out, ali never, tyson 3 kos and 2 tkos. HOW ARE WE EVEN TALKING BOUT THIS, i feel so dumb trying to explain it. also ali has never been dominated tyson has. dude you can sit there and try to justify why tyson is better, it will never make sense.

gatorbait
09-02-2009, 02:30 AM
Tyson had possibly the greatest one punch knockout power boxing has ever seen. One uppercut could end any opponet.




your saying he hit harder then foreman?

Ragan
09-02-2009, 02:30 PM
Gotta say Ali. Though I admit Ali is probably slightly overrated and Tyson largely underrated when it comes to the masses and who they think are the best fighters ever, I still think Ali would win. He was just a much smarter fighter, would be able to use the jab at will to fend off Tyson enough, and would end up with a late knockout or the decision. Tyson is so powerful, but it's not like Ali has never taken a punch before...

BigSteve
09-02-2009, 08:08 PM
you said he was one the most entertaining not one of the best. im not gonna waste my time because like i said its ridiculous what you said. there is just no reason that you gave that would justify tyson being the best of the 2, if asked all the great boxers, all the great boxing analysts what would they say? im pretty sure its gonna be ali, tyson said it himself also. holyfield beat on mike tyson a lot more then he did on a 42 year old george foreman. and yes it actually means something when you avenge your losses, winning 2 out of 3 means your better, it also means something when you dont get knocked out, ali never, tyson 3 kos and 2 tkos. HOW ARE WE EVEN TALKING BOUT THIS, i feel so dumb trying to explain it. also ali has never been dominated tyson has. dude you can sit there and try to justify why tyson is better, it will never make sense.

Your problem is your comparing Ali in his prime to Tyson once he was past his. He was still dominate for years after losing Cus D'Amato, but it was a signalling of his decline. His mentor kept Tyson focused and provided superior strategy. After his passing Tyson slowly started to lose the strategic edge his mentor gave him, often just looking for the knockout in one punch. I'm not talking about the later Tyson, which is obvious who you are looking at. Mentally he was in no place to be boxing around the time of the Buster Douglas fight, but he did it anyway and it ended up costing him. You want to talk about the losses to Holyfield? They happened in 96 and 97. Six years after he hit rock bottom in his personal life. Not to mention during that stretch he went 4 years without a professinal fight. The fact you would bring up Tyson's career after prision shows how think your arguement is. Why didn't Holyfield or Foreman fight him during his stretch up until Buster Douglas? Because neither was even a contender. Holyfields rein during the 90's on top of Foreman getting the belt when he should have been collecting retirement shows how weak heaveyweight boxing was during that era.

Like I said, with your logic based on record and avenging losses, Rocky Marciano was the greatest fighter ever. Also, just because Tyson said Ali was better doesn't mean anything. Its his childhood idol. Of course hes going to say that and show him respect.

You said I didn't provide points as to why I think Tyson would win, here we go again. Try and read this time. in his prime Tyson could close the distance on any fighter. Couple that in with his combination of speed and power and you an unstoppable wrecking machine. His ability to work and opponets body from the clinch would have slowed Ali down by the later rounds. Couple that in with the fact that Ali liked fighting off the ropes at times makes for stylistically a bad match-up for him. Ali's effectiveness was dancing while keeping distance with his jab. Early in his career Tyson was not terriably effected by these kinds of fighters. His peek-a-boo style always had him moving forward and closing the distance. Making a single mistake against Tyson in his prime was all he needed to end a fight. He didn't out point people, he punished them.


your saying he hit harder then foreman?

Yes, I would. Tyson's uppercut is possibly the most dominate punch boxing has ever seen. While he wasn't built like Foreman, it didn't matter. His mechanics were flawless and his movements were compact with no wasted motion. It the same thing as why Ken Griffey Jr is one of the better homerun hitters during his prime. Flawless mechanics generate power in speed.

gatorbait
09-02-2009, 11:53 PM
who did mike fight when he was in his prime? who did ali fight when he was in his prime? your getting too technical, your prob know more boxing then me, but it doesnt take an expert to tell you ali was better. thats like saying shaq was better then kareem or hakeem, or wilt.

Lakersfan2483
09-04-2009, 03:02 AM
Ali would knock him out in the 8th round. He was too swift for Tyson and would have worn him down and put him down in the later rounds.

t-mac1nukka
09-11-2009, 11:32 PM
im aas big a tyson fan as the next, but no way was he better than ali. the best ali vs the best tyson...ali wins

jetsforever
09-12-2009, 12:36 PM
Iron Mike in a KO

INeedMyJays
09-25-2009, 11:06 PM
If Tyson hadn't lost Cus D'Amato, he wouldn't have done all the stupid **** in his life and definitely wouldn't have lost to Douglas. That of course is hypothetical and we don't know for sure. If Tyson faced Ali in their primes, it's kinda obvious. If Tyson doesn't knock out Ali in under 3 rounds, its over. Everyone knows Tyson is a machine early in fights but as he wears down, he's not the same whereas Ali gets better as the fight goes on. What Ali has done to opponents such as Foreman, Frazier, Liston and many other boxing GREATS cannot be compared to anyone else.