Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?

Ali may have foughten a quarter of the times that Robinson, but he fought 4 times better the opposition of Robinson who largely fought overrated guys like Basilio, Fulmer, etc. Only Gavilan and the natural feather weight Henry Armstrong were guys I really think were top knotch opponents that RObinson fought. I think because of his age, a lot of these guys are given more credit than they deserve for their talents, there is a reason Lamotta's record is basically 90-30. Robinson was unbelievably great , not question, but his opposition wasn't.

Holfield, the shape the guy still gets in today, is just freakish

I agree with Tyson maybe being the greatest physical specimen ever comed up in this sport.That guy is like an NFL player with his quickness and skills.his hands were real fast and heavy.Roy Jones is not that physically gifted.He's certainly not the hardest puncher but he surely is the most crafty and flashy in his time. Brock Lesnar i think is also a physical freak.the guy is unbelievably fast for this gigantic frame.give him a more fights and time to learn more disciplines and he would dominate the MMA world for sure. In the NBA, i think Allen Iverson would be a great middleweight if he was a boxer.also a genetic freak for his size he managed to dominate the league for some time.he got some fast hands.the guy's really strong and got some incredible heart.man he would have been a great boxer for sure.and Lebron James too i think he would be a great heavyweight.also a physical freak.an amazing athlete himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee number 1 groupie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zhubin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftylee number 1 groupie

But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.

So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.

He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.

And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?

As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.

---

These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.

---

It doesn't matter if he was old or not in good shape against Earnie Shavers/Jimmy Young, the fact is these were two gift decisions. That Muhammad Ali clearly lost in alot of peoples eyes, and had he lost both of these fights it would of for certain took away some of his greatness.

And he would of been ranked lower in the all time rankings. If i think he lost the fights i mentioned then i have the right to call him overrated. And rank him lower in the all time rankings, because like you said its our opinions and IMO Muhammad Ali is overrated.

Its just like when RJJ lost when he was past his prime, to Tarver/Johnson it hurt his legacy even though he was clearly past his prime. Had he retired after the John Ruiz fight, he would of probably been top 10 fighter of all time, but because he carried on too long. He is probably just outside the top 20 now possibly.

---

Signifigantly moot point,because alot of people also thought he WON those fights
Jones legacy is more hurt by who he didnt fight, then who he lost to late in his career
And going through to the original topic,even if you want to make the comparison to Tyson,the original topic if I recall, how'd he do at the end of his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper

Was looking at this guy's greatest fights on DVD an the combination of speed, power, agility, etc is insane. We all know his weakness was in between the ears but he was on another level when it came to god given talent, oh my goodness what that guy wasted.

---

Sugar Ray Robinson

Athleticism... Hmmm that's a toughie but a great question at the same time.
Because athleticism is something that IS entirely measurable, I think I might of devised a crude system of assessing & comparing a fighters Athletic ability.

To begin with... I could break this down into two main categories:

Hand Speed over Punching Power & Strength over Mobility which I shall name Balletic Ability (I think I'm naming my own abilities here :-\)

If you use these two categories to comprise separate lists of fighters and then cross reference those two lists, it should look something like this (these are just vague examples btw):



Hand Speed over Punching Power The amount of power delivered with speed or visa versa but with no bias to either
1. Mike Tyson
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Roy Jones Jnr
4. Shane Mosley
5. Naseem Ahmed
6. Sugar Ray Robinson
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Floyd Mayweather
9. Sugar Ray Leonard

Balletic Ability remember that this is my comparative assessment of a fighters strength over his mobility, no bias to either
1. Muhammad Ali
2. Roy Jones
3. Floyd Mayweather Jnr
4. Naseem Ahmed
5. Sugar Ray Robinson
6. Manny Pacquio
7. Sugar Ray Leonard
8. Shane Mosley
9. Wladimir Klistchko

I think becuase Boxing is primarily a combatant sport, in relation to cross-referencing the two categories, the bias should naturally favour ''Speed/ Power'' as supposed to ''Balletic Ability''. With that being said, a list of the top athletes in boxing (in no order) would appear to look something like this: (Again, this is very vague)

• Roy Jones Jnr.
• Naseem Ahmed
• Sugar Ray Robinson
• Shane Mosley
• Muhammad Ali
• Manny Pacquiao
• Floyd Mayweather

Now, where it becomes very interesting is where & how you establish the bias with regards to weight. By that, obviously I mean how you distinguish between fighters of different weight divisions.

This I would do by utilizing a new catagory; Stamina over Weight. This is simply because IMO it is acceptable to assume that the fighter who is able to consistently carry the highest level of Athleticism (consistency in form of any kind) while having to carry the highest amount of bulk on his frame should be deemed the most Athletic P4P.

So with that in mind, the most obvious picks for me would be:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Roy Jones Jnr.
3. Manny Pacquiao/ Sugar Ray Robinson can't separate the two

However, if were were speaking in terms of simple Speed over Power then Mike Tyson is your man :cool:

a bit off topic but since people have brought in athletes from other sports HERSCHEL WALKER how many people do u know who built up a frame like that by doing bodyweight excercises and to reply to an earlier posts saying that you need to be more in shape to play football than box is criminal. Football requires little more than the need for a slight ability to be able to recuperate in the 30 seconds between each play. Boxing is much harder because it taxes the aerobic system as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truth

a bit off topic but since people have brought in athletes from other sports HERSCHEL WALKER how many people do u know who built up a frame like that by doing bodyweight excercises and to reply to an earlier posts saying that you need to be more in shape to play football than box is criminal. Football requires little more than the need for a slight ability to be able to recuperate in the 30 seconds between each play. Boxing is much harder because it taxes the aerobic system as well.

---

Exactly. Boxing is an hardcore cardiovascular exercise. Let's stop comparing NBA or NFL players to boxers, it's two different sports. NBA and NFL players while being athletic for their sports also get significant rest time, with only playing half of the time, in spurts, having timeouts, halftime as in the case of the NFL and in the NBA it's not like they are running 48 minutes nonstop, they also get little bit of extended breaks like when a foul is called, timeouts, halftime, ball being out of play, etc. In boxing they are constantly moving with their hands held high and also throwing punches for 3 minutes, with a short 1 minute rest between rounds. IMO boxing is just more taxing when it comes to cardiovascular activity, not to mention the damage the body accumulates from the opponents blows.

Just because a guy does well in a particular sport does not mean he does well in another, you can speculate all you want, but that is all it is speculation. Everyone remembers when Michael Jordan tried to play baseball? Everyone was saying he's going to be greater than Babe Ruth or just as good and that baseball would be easy for him to play because it's not physically demanding as basketball, well how did that work out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Ali,Ali,and Ali
He had out of nowhere power,footwork that was so good you shouldnt try it, speed to beat the band, and longevity Tyson could have only hoped for.
They call him the greatest for a reason

---

Self proclaimed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookkeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eagle

Roy Jones comes to mind. Speed, power, agility.
Lennox Lewis had remarkable coordination and speed for such a big guy.

If u ever saw what Mundine did on a rugby field you'd see how athletic he was, blindingly fast over the turf. He used to do all sorts of back flips and shit when he scored.

---

Roy Jones was a great ( still is) athlete, but I have seen 175 guy's that hit harder than he ever did, his speed was blinding and he had great agility, but I never saw a HW with the physical attributes of a Mike Tyson and Mike carried around alot more weight than Roy. Mike was a better athlete. As far as Mundine I don't know who he is but over here in the states we had a guy by the name of Bo Jackson that played football ( American), I can't decide who was a better overall athlete him or Tyson but it's close and that's my top two in any sport.

---

Roy wasn't a natural 175 pounder, he was a natural 160-168 pound fighter, and his record was 22-0(21) ko's going into his championship fight. I wonder how far up Mike Tyson's power would have carried him in terms of changing weightclasses, most of the bigger guys who weren't just there to be knocked out handled his power in his prime.

James Tillis
Bonecrusher SMith
MItch Green(who hung on, but survived).

Please Bo Jackson definitely was up there, but not Mundine, he isn't as quick as Roy was in his prime, Mundine is a good athlete for sure, but Deon Sanders was a great athlete who excelled at 2 sports
Wilt Chamberlain
Lebron James, 6-8 240-250, 4.4 40 yard dash, 44 inch vertical jump, he would have been a monster at Football, which he was in highschool before he quit for a basketball career.
Antonio Gates: Great at basketball and football
same with Gonzalez for the chiefs.
Randy Moss: amazing speed, would have been an incredible basketball player, and was one.
Michael Jordan: 6-6, 220, 4.3 40 yard dash, 42 inch vertical, great athlete
Michael Vick: 560 pound bench press at 212 pounds!! 4.20-4.27 40 yard dash, great shuttle, 40+ inch vertical time as well, he was at least as good of an athlete as Bo Jackson.

To sum it up any NFL or NBA team has right now an athlete better then any boxer who has ever lived.

---

Just so you know Mundine was an awesome Rugby League player, a good basketball player (Australias basketball league tried to sign him after he left league) and an alright boxer. So id say thats pretty athletic.

Who got the stats that Vick benches 560 I call BS on that plus he never ran in the 4.2s his best official time (since coaches hand times are terribly innacurate) was a 4.36

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truth

Who got the stats that Vick benches 560 I call BS on that plus he never ran in the 4.2s his best official time (since coaches hand times are terribly innacurate) was a 4.36

---

I guess I'll join in the digression from boxing. I never trust timed sprints like they have in the combine. They're not wearing pads, etc and nobody is chasing them. It's like comparing what someone does on a bag to what they do in a fight.

Having said all of that, and despite Michael Vick's penchant for canine troubles, he is easily the the most athletic and fastest cat I have ever seen in football besides "Primetime". I'll never forget that Sugar Bowl when he basically ran through the entire Florida State defense.

As far as athleticism in boxing goes. I still feel like Sugar Ray Robinson is the archetype for the dancing/fluid fighter. I do agree. Tyson doesn't get nearly the credit for his athletic skills or his boxing skills by the general public that just sees K.O.s. He had a Frazier like slipping ability....and obviously the neck of a bull. I'm still new to boxing (Even at my old age of 42) so I am still learning. I still feel like we watch the evolution of fighters and can't compare them from different eras because of nutrition, training. Sugar Ray Robinson might have been the greatest of them all.

I think calling Tyson a great "Athlete" is probably a mistake by my definition, I would say at his best he was almost a perfect "fighting machine". When I think of Athletes I think of people who can do many things, where their skills can transend to many different sports. If it were not for boxing could Mike Tyson have played pro or semi-pro basketball ala Roy Jones Jr.? Mike had freakish handspeed, great endurance, a great chin and was a disciplined fighter...Mike Tyson was a fighter through and through, but I would hardly call him "athletic" although he had the physical gifts that translated into a great fighter....again my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danieladamsmith

he is easily the the most athletic and fastest cat I have ever seen in football besides "Primetime". I'll never forget that Sugar Bowl when he basically ran through the entire Florida State defense.

---

Michael Vick while a good "athlete" for whatever that means is a shit QB and when compared to other current and former NFL players his "athletic ability" is somewhat average. Look at Orlando Pace, sure he's not quick or fast or anything flashy but given his size he was extremely athletic, look at Julius Peppers, Javon Kearse, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, BO JACKSON! There are a number of guys I hold in much higher regard than Vick and that's not only because he's a piece of shit.


As far as boxers go I think athletic ability is only a piece of the puzzle because there have been incredible athletes who have been shit boxers: Ed "Too Tall" Jones, Mark Gastineau, etc etc. The mental/psychological ability to absorb punishment, to inflict punishment, and to be 1 on 1 in dangerous situations and not lose your head is a HUGE part of boxing. That ability to react/act without hesitation under pressure/danger is what seperates the All Time Greats from bums and journeymen....that's a thin line to walk and fighters like Ray Robinson and Ali pushed the envelope to the extreme with their styles of fighting.

I think some people are confusing natural athleticism with boxing ability?

Tyson was a true monster, but he wasn't a natural athlete ..... he was a fat kid, short arms and legs and not too much natural rythmn. Great hand/eye cordination and very well trained at the start of his career.

I think Ali was a better athlete - he had poor technique, no big punch but he was blessed with an abundance of natural gifts. Lennox Lewis' athleticism allowed him to overcome many of his faults ..... same with Roy Jones, once he deteriorated physically, he didnt have much left.

We've got really short memories ...... Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries were fabulous athletes. To get into their physical condition, to get to their size strength and also to read about their statistics (Jeffries was a 60 yard dash champion) shows how naturally gifted they were in an era when training/diet/conditionaing were almost unheard of.

Dont forget that natural athleticism wont always make you a good fighter, there are some wonderful physical specimens who end up being rubbish fighters as well.