Ok I have a few thoughts on the subject.

Firstly when comparing fighters of different era's you have to examine closely how each fighter fought and dealt with opponents of a similar style and build to whatever fighter you are hypothetically matching them with.

Tyson is one of the biggest punchers and most murderously aggressive men in the history of boxing. In order to judge accurately how a 70's fighter would fare against him we need to look at the other huge punchers around in the 70's.

Sonny Liston and George Foreman were without doubt two of the most feared men in the history of boxing, huge punchers and feared by everyone in the division, except Ali.

Ali, although a huge underdog against both men took on and destroyed them both.

Ali was a slick intelligent boxer the only modern fighter to compare in terms of skill and ability was Lewis.

Lewis kept Tyson at distance and jabbed his head off.

So I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that Ali would have beaten a prime Tyson.

It doesn't matter that Tyson in his prime had an aura of invincibility, so did Liston and so did Foreman. Foreman was destroying guys that Ali lost to but Ali was still completely unfazed.

Tyson in his prime was destroying everyone like Foreman. That's great when you are winning but when you face someone who does not fall down after 4 rounds you will inevitebly start to worry. Ali would beat Tyson just like Douglas or Lewis beat him, a long protracted beat down.


Another point is this. A fighter's prime only seems to last until they lose. Douglas beat Tyson in 1990 so we say that is when Tyson was no longer in his prime.

But what if the two had met two years earlier and Douglas fought the exact same fight? Would Tyson have beaten him them? I'm not sure, Douglas took everything Tyson had and was still there fighting Tyson. I think Tyson's pysche probably cracked and he started to run out of ideas. He was the same man two years earlier, with the same fragile mental state. It's quite conceivable that Douglas could have done the same thing two years before.


I personally think it's a kop out to say a fighter is past his prime when he loses. That way everyone is great until they get beat and then it was only because they either had a bad night or they are past their prime. It's a dodgy way of looking at things I think.

Take the Hatton fight. People are saying he had a bad night. No he didn't. He fought with exactly the same ferocity and aggression as he always does. He wasn't as strong at 147 than 140 that is what the problem was.

Maybe he will grow into the weight, maybe not, but he didn't have an off night.