Tyson's Lost 3 Years vs. Ali's Lost 3 Years

[diamonddavestafford]

There's a big difference.

Ali was just peaking when he was exiled from boxing. He was getting more and more dominant with each fight.
Tyson, on the other hand, was already on the downside when he was sent away. His skills were already eroding, his dedication to training was already non-existent.

Ali paid a far bigger price. If he continued fighting from '67-'70, he would've beaten everyone in his path. A young, mobile Ali doesn't lose to Frazier in the first fight.
Tyson would've lost fights during his 3 years. His inevitable downfall was simply delayed by three years because of the prison stint.

That about sums it up...

[cockey cockney]

Ali's legacy is still cemented as great, whereas Tysons is more shady, so in terms of who it would have been more beneficial too, i say Tyson.

Very good way of looking at it and i agree!

[_the_answer_]

Ali's legacy is still cemented as great, whereas Tysons is more shady, so in terms of who it would have been more beneficial too, i say Tyson.

Very good way of looking at it and i agree!

true. 3 years was a big big difference
he wont be hated and mocked like he is now
if they havent taken away those years
alright its tysons fault. but those years were big

[ross]

I dont think Mikes legacy is affected by anything, the fact we are talking about him in the same breath as Ali is proof.

There is a thread now about Marcianos record, well Mike as champion has a better resume than Marcianos, Mike only had to beat 1 former light heavy in Spinks to Rockys Charles and Moore but at least he didnt get out the first.

Mike wasnt on the slide as in loosing speed and power it was just neglecting all the things he was taught in training with Rooney.

I think if Mike had been forced to leave America for 3 years rather than prison he would have had a better chance of regaining his ferocity, he could have taken that time to just chill away from leaches then on his own terms made any come back, he was basicaly pushed to fight, rather than having the burning desuire he once did.

Ali wanted to prove he could still compete, Mike just wanted to be able to buy cars and houses, he still does

[tubbc]

i agree with every thing u said except for holy beating tyson 1992,tyson wasnt the same fighter he was in the80's but he was still fit to go hard for 12 rds,the only reason tyson lost to holy was cause he tired out,,,pre prison tyson was conventional but in good shape,he would have taken holy the distance and won a hard fought UD...IMO

I gotta disagree with you on this. Tyson didn't lose to Holyfield because he got tired. He lost because he got hit with every punch in the book for 10+ rounds. He wasn't tired at the end, he was beaten up and battered. Tyson landed some big shots in the 1st round and was always dangerous, but Holyfield assumed tactical command of the fight in Round 2 and never let go of it.
Holyfield would beat Tyson in 1992, 1997, 2007, 2027.......

i disagree and agree with the guy above. Tyson was on the score cards winning the fight untill the 6th round when holy started to take over and did hit him with everything but be honest he never really hurt tyson untill the 10th and when you say beat up? look at tyson's face at the end other than a tiny cut his face was'nt beat up at all if he had took everypunch in the book his face would of been swolllen, none of that really. Any one with any boxing knowledge, and i aint saying you aint got none but they would know Tyson's conditioning was a huge factor. Tyson was Tired to the point where he was outgunned. His tiredness was more a factor than holyfield throwing everypunch in the book. 10+ rounds of a beating you obviously watched a different fight it was close up to end of round 6 - 7 . the Mike Tyson of 1996 took Holyfield 11 rounds so the Tyson of 92 would of at the very least of gone the extra round and took it to a decision win or lose he was far far fitter and the 2 ruddock fights, more the 2nd are an example of his heart and stamina back then.

[SweetPea]

i agree with every thing u said except for holy beating tyson 1992,tyson wasnt the same fighter he was in the80's but he was still fit to go hard for 12 rds,the only reason tyson lost to holy was cause he tired out,,,pre prison tyson was conventional but in good shape,he would have taken holy the distance and won a hard fought UD...IMO

I gotta disagree with you on this. Tyson didn't lose to Holyfield because he got tired. He lost because he got hit with every punch in the book for 10+ rounds. He wasn't tired at the end, he was beaten up and battered. Tyson landed some big shots in the 1st round and was always dangerous, but Holyfield assumed tactical command of the fight in Round 2 and never let go of it.
Holyfield would beat Tyson in 1992, 1997, 2007, 2027.......

i disagree and agree with the guy above. Tyson was on the score cards winning the fight untill the 6th round when holy started to take over and did hit him with everything but be honest he never really hurt tyson untill the 10th and when you say beat up? look at tyson's face at the end other than a tiny cut his face was'nt beat up at all if he had took everypunch in the book his face would of been swolllen, none of that really. Any one with any boxing knowledge, and i aint saying you aint got none but they would know Tyson's conditioning was a huge factor. Tyson was Tired to the point where he was outgunned. His tiredness was more a factor than holyfield throwing everypunch in the book. 10+ rounds of a beating you obviously watched a different fight it was close up to end of round 6 - 7 . the Mike Tyson of 1996 took Holyfield 11 rounds so the Tyson of 92 would of at the very least of gone the extra round and took it to a decision win or lose he was far far fitter and the 2 ruddock fights, more the 2nd are an example of his heart and stamina back then.

If I remember correctly, Tyson's face was purple and full of mouses and welts at the end of that fight. He had taken a beating.
I don't remember what the scorecards were, but considering how suspect judging can be, I use my own eyes. Holyfield established by the 2nd round that he could take Tyson's punches, stand his ground, and land effective punches of his own. He was winning the fight at every point after round 2. Tyson was still fighting well up until the very end, but he was losing.
And to be honest, I think the "Tyson would've been better in '92" argument is rather fruitless, because that's completely ignoring the fact that Holyfield was better in '92 as well. Tyson fought a Holyfield in '96 who had already been in 3 wars with Bowe, had lost to Moorer, etc. As I said before, Holyfield beats Tyson in '92, '97, '07, '27, whatever.

[ross]

Holyfield was more likely to brawl back then not box and Mike was still throwing some sort of combinations and hadnt had 4 years out