In Tyson’s prime, I asked boxing trainer James Peters what he thought would be the outcome of Tyson/Ali. “Ali would knock him out” was his answer - Tyson was fast and powerful, but not more powerful than Foreman or Shavers, his feet were no match for the younger Ali’s, and his head was no match for the older Ali’s. Tyson had a huge talent for boxing, but he admitted he never loved it, hence the losses to other talented guys who just would never, ever give up.
Is there a single boxing expert who’d pick Tyson over Ali? Never heard/seen one.
Mike Tyson cleaned out a heavyweight division that had lost some outstanding boxers from the 1960s and 70s. The fighters of the late 1970s and early 1980s, from Gerry Cooney, to Holmes, to Spinks, were good, but they weren’t as good as the legends they replaced. The division became physically taller and bigger, but they were slower and not as skilled at boxing.
Mike Tyson was easily the most athletic fighter to enter professional boxing’s heavyweight division in at least the 10-year period prior to his arrival. The division consisted of tall, rangy fighters who had power, but they had never seen a fighter with the mobility, quickness, and crisp punching power that Tyson had.
Tyson was also a well-coached boxer who really understood and valued strategies of head movement, attacking the body to set up the head shots, and throwing combinations in clusters. In his prime, when he wasn’t too full of himself and listened to his coaches, he used his athleticism and quickness to his advantage, overwhelming his opponents. Some of his opponents were able to withstand his beating, but they looked pretty bad doing it.
Buster Douglas had flashes of brilliance but could never sustain success for more than a fight or two. But he had a great left jab and was a demonstrably good boxer when he used it to his advantage. I tend to think Tyson would have beaten him up good in a rematch, but what Douglas did that changed Tyson’s career was that he exposed Tyson’s weakness, which was his vulnerability to being picked apart by a good boxer with a tough chin. Douglas proved that if you could just be disciplined and box him over the course of 6-8 rounds, you could wear Tyson down and pick him apart, which is why I think Ali (or a 1980s version of him) would have defeated Tyson.
Tyson would have been made to order for someone like Foreman in his prime. You saw what he did to Smokin Joe Frazier, who is probably the closest to Tyson in terms of size and fighting style. I tend to think prime time Tyson was better prime Joe Frazier, but Foreman used his reach to his advantage against a shorter fighter. Foreman was also a really smart fighter. Look at some of his fights and how he cuts off the ring and traps fighters. That’s what people often misunderstand about Foreman. He knew the fight game on so many levels. He knew what his opponents wanted to do and he stayed one step ahead. The only fighter that truly beat Foreman in terms of executing a fight strategy was Muhammad Ali. Tyson, by contrast, had a tendency, even in his prime, to become erratic and undisciplined. Foreman would have made him pay for that.
Tyson Fury and Klitschko are interesting to consider because the fighters of this generation are just flat out bigger and stronger than the fighters of a generation or two ago, which is something that has to be taken into account when doing these hypothetical cross-generational comparisons. All of the heavies today are about, what, 6’6 or taller? They’re giants compared to the heavies of Tyson’s day or Ali’s day. When I analyze fighters across eras, I look at the skill set and evaluate how that would translate today. Muhammad Ali was 6’3" and about 215 pounds, which was probably an average or slightly above average size for a heavyweight back then. Today, though, that would be a small fighter.
Correction: Taller fighters today but not necessarily that much bigger. But they sure do look stronger, don’t they?