Greatest mismatches

we on here all like to go through the possible great match up over the generations that could/should/wished/dreamt to have happened and how the best of the match ups would have gone. we have gone through many a great match up but what match ups between the greatest boxers would have been all wrong? try to keep it to the best in the divison (top 20ish) and prime v prime, we all know that ali v valuev would have been a mis match!! few examples starting with the heavies:

george foreman v wlad klitshcko: just see foreman walking right through wlad, prime v prime wlad has a good defence but dont see his jab then grab tactics working on a bull like foreman, see foreman being strong enough to shake him off and hurt him, george might have been crued but he was effective and much better moving boxers then wlad were often caught by him. see a very early ko nearly all the time in this one. while wlad might not be the greatest heavyweight of all time would have thought he would be in most peoples top 20.

ali v tyson: people often use this one as their dream match up, but i only ever see a one sided beating for tyson. tyson was a bully and with ali you have one of the greatest chins around and fantastic recovery (if ali could recover from frazier left hook he could easily do the same with tyson, has to be one of the greatest non knock out punches of all time!) see ali frustrating tyson and tyson tiring to get stopped late. you also have to consider what mental state tyson would have been coming into the ring after ali had finished with him. tyson known to be weak mentaly would have been a mess before they even entered the ring.

so do people dis/agree with my couple of examples? im sure there loads more i can think of but i'll leave them to you!

Sugar Ray Robinson bt Henry Armstrong - most people's top 5 p4p fighters of all time. I think Armstrong would pay right into the hands of Robinson. Armstrong has a great chin, relentless pressure and is very skilled. Robinson was a beastly puncher at welterweight and if Henry tried to swarm him he would be out of there like hearns-Duran

Mayweather bt Chavez- most people think that Chavez would cause floyd a lot of problems but I think he will be there for the picking. Floyd can do what meldrick Taylor did but wouldn't get into a tear up and won't take silly shots.

Duran bt Pacquiao- Don't know why but I think Duran would be a nightmar edit manny. I heard a couple people (PAC fans) on website saying that he would bust him out using his speed. Duran is defensively very good, won't be deterred by pacquiaos power and after 4 rounds Duran would proud on him. An in regards to append I think Leonard was quicker than manny also and Duran managed to catch him enough.

Hatton bt Khan- even before Peterson, I thought hatton would give khan fits on the inside and would work him over. He was quicker and more skilled than maidana but had more power and a higher work rate than Peterson. However, I don't feel khans hit his peak yet

Roach said Duran would beat Pac - but didnt say how - ust that duran would win.

agree with you that hatton in his prime could really hurt khan, problem being is we have seen a prime hatton but have we seen prime khan yet? hatton at his best beats this khan more often than not imo as well.

dont really see mayweather v chavez and SRR v armstrong as mismatches, while i agree with the winner in both i see the fights being competitve

Don't think Robinson is taking Armstrong out at any point, even when he was past his best he managed to last the full distance and his comprehensive victory over Ross showed he could beat a very skilled boxer, Robbo wins but don't think it's easy.

Mayweather beats Chavez but he I don't think he's at all capable of doing what Taylor did, strange to say but his hand speed is a fair bit slower while his work rate and aggression isn't the same, uses his speed to outbox him but has some hairy moments along the way as Castillo showed is capable.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't think Robinson is taking Armstrong out at any point, even when he was past his best he managed to last the full distance and his comprehensive victory over Ross showed he could beat a very skilled boxer, Robbo wins but don't think it's easy.

Mayweather beats Chavez but he I don't think he's at all capable of doing what Taylor did, strange to say but his hand speed is a fair bit slower while his work rate and aggression isn't the same, uses his speed to outbox him but has some hairy moments along the way as Castillo showed is capable.

I said that floyd can do what Taylor can, not that he will. Floyd in his prime is as fast as Taylor with much better defence. Yes Chavez will cause problems, but I think that floyd will be too cute for him. Yes Castillo gae him problems, but if you want to bring that up then bring up how Whitaker boxed his head off. He will also tie Chavez up on the inside, he is a great spoiler and will keep him at long range for major of the fight.

Maybe robinson doesn't take him out, but stylistically I think he would be comfortable. It's just my view, we'll never know will we. He is a lot faster, can fight many ways i.e, countering, pressuring, backfoot front foot and with his size advantage I think it could also be like the Leonard-Duran 2 fight

I don't bring up Whitaker because it's at a division where I don't envisage the fight happening, while lightweight or light welterweight is a more reasonable weight where Taylor and Castillo are greater representations. Taylor used his sublime to throw non stop combinations, not something Mayweather has ever done so don't think it's realistic to say he could do a Taylor.

Stylistically Armstrong at his best is a nightmare for Robinson, something he always struggled with was non stop pressure even in his Welterweight days he by all accounts struggled more with brawlers than he did boxers, the size advantage isn't that big. I see Robinson winning but a mismatch it would not be.

Got to agree with Ghosty, if Robinson struggled it tended to be against brawlers and Armstrong is perhaps the greatest of them all. Inclined to favour SRR but it would be a helluva struggle.

Something like Corbett/Fitzsimmons vs Liston/Foreman/Tyson would have been very one sided I think.

I'd agree that Mayweather, anywhere between 130 lb and 140 lb, beats Chavez nine times out of ten. Great admirer of Julio, but he was never the same against counter-punching slicksters. If Randall and Whitaker are giving him such thorough working overs, and Taylor's giving him fits only to succumb to a lack of ring IQ (never a problem for Mayweather), then he's got little more than a prayer against Floyd.

Not sure Ali-Tyson would be as easy as you think, Compelling and Rich, though I'd still back Ali to win going away or, at his very best, force a very late stoppage. The only Heavyweights I really see having it pretty much their own way against Tyson, or making short-ish work of him, would be Foreman and perhaps Liston.

Would back Sanchez to have Saddler's number at Featherweight, too. Made to order for him, I think.

By all accounts Elorde beat the carp out of saddler in their first fight and then only lost the second due to saddlers persistent fouls. Think with that era - I see Sanchez getting ground down - but if its skill to skill - i'd agree with oyu

88Chris05 wrote:I'd agree that Mayweather, anywhere between 130 lb and 140 lb, beats Chavez nine times out of ten. Great admirer of Julio, but he was never the same against counter-punching slicksters. If Randall and Whitaker are giving him such thorough working overs, and Taylor's giving him fits only to succumb to a lack of ring IQ (never a problem for Mayweather), then he's got little more than a prayer against Floyd.

Not sure Ali-Tyson would be as easy as you think, Compelling and Rich, though I'd still back Ali to win going away or, at his very best, force a very late stoppage. The only Heavyweights I really see having it pretty much their own way against Tyson, or making short-ish work of him, would be Foreman and perhaps Liston.

Would back Sanchez to have Saddler's number at Featherweight, too. Made to order for him, I think.

i was half tempted to add a third which would have been foreman v small swarming fighters as frazier shows what happens there so agree on you with tyson agaist him.

with ali v tyson just dont see where tyson wins, stylewise he's similar to a frazier who ali has faced, but just feel tyson was much more reliant on getting them out of there quicker than a frazier and couldnt see tyson taking the amount of punishment frazier did in fight of the century or the thrilla. think tyson gets more frustrted than a frazier and loses his gameplan alot easier

then there the issue of power, tyson hits no harder than foreman thats for sure although perhaps with a bit better accuracy and speed. the one thing about george is you could see them coming. but foreman shavers etc were all around similar power and couldnt stop ali dont see how tyson does? knowing ali he probably gets hit along the way, he often did. so its wouldnt be a one sided beating type of mismatch but just cant see how tyson wins might give him 1 in 10. so mismatch in that sense imo.

All fair points, C&R. Like I said, I'd back Ali against Tyson, too. But Tyson would make a good go of it in the early stages. Every chance that, with Tyson's less than fantastic stamina and bully mentality, it becomes man versus boy once they get to the ten round stage or so, but Ali needs to be switched on early here. He was always vulnerable to the left hook - Tyson's best punch - and would be well advised to steer clear of the ropes in this one! The large majority of the time, Ali going away and utilizing his jab would be too much for Tyson, but if they fought enough times I wouldn't rule out a Tyson win at some stage.

Shah, the thing with Sanchez is that he was actually a far superior technical boxer to Saddler - and, dare I say it, Pep (who, like Roy Jones, relied on being an 'athlete' as much as a technician). Saddler's sheer physicality at 126 lb can't be underestimated, but his relentless march forward plays in to Saddler's hands. Sal was an outstanding counter-puncher, had limitless stamina and could take a shot, too. I think Saddler's in for a world of frustration against Sal, with the Mexican taking a wide decision or maybe a DQ win if Sandy's frustrations get the better of him.

Ali would have beaten Tyson before they got into the ring. If Tyson were mentally stronger and had more self belief, he would have had a better chance. He was a far better HW than Frazier and the type of boxer who would give Ali fits at his peak.

just out of intrest chris which ali do you think had the best chance, pre or post war?

Tyson (86-90) beats Lennox (any version).

compelling and rich wrote:just out of intrest chris which ali do you think had the best chance, pre or post war?

Definitely pre-war, for me. Trading on your toughness, which Ali often had to do in his 'second career' given that he was now a step or two slower, is all well and good, but not a particularly clever tactic against someone like Tyson. Against that version of Ali, a decision in favour of Tyson wouldn't be a shock at all.

The '64-'67 version of Ali, I believe, is a different story. The speed, the jab, the effortless back-peddling to take the legs from under an opponent in the latter stages - all the ingredients needed to dishearten, break down and ultimately beat Tyson were there. When imagining these kind of match ups I think it's always best to take each fighter at their very best, and I think pre-ban Ali fits that description.

Foreman bt pre-war Ali.

I believe the second coming was the more intelligent boxer and fighter and that lead to the win. Against a more fleetfooted Ali, Foreman (an expert in cutting the ring) would have caught up with Ali and finished him.

I think Duran hands Mayweather a beating.

Mayweather doesn't have the aggression of Ray Leonard, nor such a rounded skill set, in my opinion. Duran outworks and outhustles Floyd to a decent points win.

I hope for your sake that Truss has you on his 'foe' list, Fists!

Very debeatable fisty. One thing Floyd had over SRL was his accuracy. Assuming this fight took place at LW, I'd give Floyd a very good shout against Duran. At that weight Floyd was very fast with even more sublime defensive skills. Not just a pot shotting counterpuncher he has become, but a highly skilled operator. Look at his dismantling of Chico.

Plus he threw loads more punches than he does now. I still think Floyd can make LWW comfortably. He's fighting way above his prime fighting weight.

azania wrote:I still think Floyd can make LWW comfortably. He's fighting way above his prime fighting weight.

He couldn't make a 144 lb catchweight for Marquez the best part of three years ago, so can't really row with that one. He's definitely a fully-fledged Welterweight these days, even if he's not a particularly big one.

As most will know, I love Duran to death but I can't say with too much conviction that he'd beat Floyd. I think at Lightweight I'd make Duran a narrow favourite. Like everyone else, I'm amazed by what he did against Leonard first time out, but for me that actually wasn't his most complete performance; in my mind, Duran's all-round brilliance is showcased in the third fight with DeJesus more than any other.

Anyone who chucks the 'bar room brawler' label at Duran should take a look. He was disciplined, patient, accurate and lighter on his toes than ever before or after. It also highlights what an intelligent fighter Duran was when he wanted to be - he'd paid the price for rushing at DeJesus a couple of times before and was mindful not to make the same mistake this time. And typically, when the chance to close the show came, he was utterly clinical. You simply can't make a case for DeJesus sweeping any rounds outside of the eleventh, in my eyes. In fact, DeJesus having that success in the eleventh just seemed to wind Duran up even more and make him determined to close the show, which he promptly did in the very next stanza. It was a masterclass from start to finish.

Of course, DeJesus ain't Mayweather, but but all the same he was a very, very fine Lightweight titlist and I can't see too many at 135 lb upsetting Duran when he's in that kind of form and has his mind fully on the job. Best against best at Lightweight, I think Duran edges Mayweather by a couple of points but it's a closely contested fight, for my money.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:I still think Floyd can make LWW comfortably. He's fighting way above his prime fighting weight.

He couldn't make a 144 lb catchweight for Marquez the best part of three years ago, so can't really row with that one. He's definitely a fully-fledged Welterweight these days, even if he's not a particularly big one.

As most will know, I love Duran to death but I can't say with too much conviction that he'd beat Floyd. I think at Lightweight I'd make Duran a narrow favourite. Like everyone else, I'm amazed by what he did against Leonard first time out, but for me that actually wasn't his most complete performance; in my mind, Duran's all-round brilliance is showcased in the third fight with DeJesus more than any other.

Anyone who chucks the 'bar room brawler' label at Duran should take a look. He was disciplined, patient, accurate and lighter on his toes than ever before or after. It also highlights what an intelligent fighter Duran was when he wanted to be - he'd paid the price for rushing at DeJesus a couple of times before and was mindful not to make the same mistake this time. And typically, when the chance to close the show came, he was utterly clinical. You simply can't make a case for DeJesus sweeping any rounds outside of the eleventh, in my eyes. In fact, DeJesus having that success in the eleventh just seemed to wind Duran up even more and make him determined to close the show, which he promptly did in the very next stanza. It was a masterclass from start to finish.

Of course, DeJesus ain't Mayweather, but but all the same he was a very, very fine Lightweight titlist and I can't see too many at 135 lb upsetting Duran when he's in that kind of form and has his mind fully on the job. Best against best at Lightweight, I think Duran edges Mayweather by a couple of points but it's a closely contested fight, for my money.

I dont think he even tried to make 144. When he rehydrates he only weighs in at 150.

Duran remains one of my favourite all times so I'm being very objective here. I look at the DeJesus fight, the Benitez amd Laing fights and see that Duran has major issues with boxers who were evasive and slick. You dont get more evasive and slick that Floyd. Added his accuracy and Duran will have problems all night long.

Duran was never a bar room brawler. That he took very few clean punches is testimony to his superb defensive skills in moving his head slightly to take the effect of many punches away. But Floyd is just superb at everything. I've never seen a fighter fight in the 'pocket' as effectively as he does and counterpunching when moving forward with such accuracy.

Duran would be silly to rush him. He will try to instigate a vrawl and try to impose himself on a fight. But Floyd has supreme boxing IQ and will dictate the pace eventually.

Floyd wins the fight in the championship rounds (13-15) to a UD.

azania wrote:Foreman bt pre-war Ali.

I believe the second coming was the more intelligent boxer and fighter and that lead to the win. Against a more fleetfooted Ali, Foreman (an expert in cutting the ring) would have caught up with Ali and finished him.

That Foreman was an expert at cutting down the ring is widely held opinion, but one that I haven't really ever seen any evidence of-Az could you suggest any fights that would be worth watching to see this skill ? His biggest fights -Frazier, Norton,and Ali were against two fighter that moved in straight lines, and one that was happy to sit on the ropes, so cutting down the ring never came into it. I'm not doubting that he was good at it, but want to see more evidence before deciding that he could against a prime Ali.

horizontalhero wrote:

azania wrote:Foreman bt pre-war Ali.

I believe the second coming was the more intelligent boxer and fighter and that lead to the win. Against a more fleetfooted Ali, Foreman (an expert in cutting the ring) would have caught up with Ali and finished him.

That Foreman was an expert at cutting down the ring is widely held opinion, but one that I haven't really ever seen any evidence of-Az could you suggest any fights that would be worth watching to see this skill ? His biggest fights -Frazier, Norton,and Ali were against two fighter that moved in straight lines, and one that was happy to sit on the ropes, so cutting down the ring never came into it. I'm not doubting that he was good at it, but want to see more evidence before deciding that he could against a prime Ali.

Look at his second career. Look at many of his fights prior to Frazier. Chuvalo and Kirkman in particular.

Floyd at Lightweight is always a conundrum for me. It should be arguably his best weight with his developing that brilliant ring IQ to go with his being big at the weight and faster than he is now at Welterweight but his resume there is the worst at any stage in his career. All you have is 2 of his least convincing performances against a good but not great Castillo and wins against Sosa and Ndou who are hardly great fighters.

Also as far as mismatches go I think that Roy Jones Jr would win a very very comfortable decision against LaMotta, somewhere in the 120-108 120-108 120-108 region.

Holyfield vs Haye Evander embarrasses Haye at CW. Haye was obviously quick & a big hitter at the weight but Holyfields chin nullifies this which would be his only threat. Holyfield could fight every minute of every round, wasn't slow himself and was a decent puncher himself.

You don't beat Holyfield by circling and pot shotting him every now and then. Haye to receive a bit of a beating before being stopped anytime after halfway. Nightmare opponent for Haye.

Bruno Vs Haye Jabs him to death and maybe totals him later on.

Got to say I am in agreement Alma, I am far less convinced by the wrecking ball that is PRIME Mike Tyson than many others but I think it has been a bit fashionable of late to suggest any fighter who has a half decent jab and is not intimidated walks through him, there are guys I would back to beat Tyson at his best but nobody has an easy nights work with him and Mike would pick up more than his fair share of wins in any company.

Thanks for backing me up, Alma and Rowley. Granted, if Tyson were twice the fighter he actually was, he'd still only be half as good as some of his more insufferable followers claim he was. But nonetheless, he was a great Heavyweight force during his earlier career.

When calculating how Tyson would do against ten other elite Heavyweights, fighting under the conditions which he did (ie, twelve-rounders, neutral corner rule etc) with the ten being, for argument's sake, Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Jeffries, Foreman, Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey and Frazier, I usually have Mike going something like 5-5 against them. Not enough to make the almost-mythical 'prime' Tyson the greatest of them all, but still very good going all the same.

Posted a thread on a similar theme from a magazine I have at home which pitted him against ten of the better heavies which I am sure you have seen but think they had him going 3-7 or 4-6, although believe they had a different ten than you Chris, like you say does not speak of the mythical beast we so often hear but by no means a disgrace in pretty exhalted company.

Have to disagree there slightly Alma - No one would have thought that frazier would get mullered by Foreman even if they had known what a monster he was then. Tyson gets Under over rated bcause of varios reasons but its more than likely he gets battered by foreman- as would nearly every other swarmer - so its not uniue to him. Also this thing where anyone with a jab beats him might be ver exaggerated but Ali is not just anyone. Just a hint of it from larry holmes against Tyson but Ali could very well dance throughout the fight and take a wide ud.

Yeah, I think I do remember that, Jeff. I've probably been harsh on Tyson in the past (and I'm likely to be again the next time I hear someone proclaiming that he's the greatest fighter to have ever laced 'em up!) but to deny the force he was in the late eighties is silly really, even if he did conspire to lose the title in such bewildering style.

Ali, more often than not, is a little too slippery, canny and quick for him. Foreman would likely take him out early. Liston may have done the same in a couple more rounds. But I'd say that Johnson and Louis are pick 'ems, or at the worst the kind of fights where Tyson can be no more than the 60:40 underdog. And on the other side of the coin, I'd be totally confident of Tyson taking out Marciano and Frazier early, winning a decision over Jeffries (again, I'll stress that I'm talking about transplanting Jeffries in to Tyson's era here, rather than the other way round), getting the better of Dempsey more often than Dempsey gets the better of him, and simply being too big, robust and aggressive for most of the great Light-Heavyweights who stepped up to north of 175 lb such as Tunney and Charles. Others are a little bit up in the air, but he wouldn't lost all of them, I don't think.

https://www.606v2.com/t2125-tyson-vs-the-greats?highlight=tyson+vs

Found it, as I said has him going 4-6, can question some of the picks and am sure it does not represent many folks top ten but is still a pretty strong bunch and does suggest the idea he holds his own is not without support

Tyson for me beats Ali 7 times out of 10. For me Tyson's style is just all wrong for Ali. I can certainly appreciate that some people will naturally favour Ali and you have given some good reasons as to why you would envisage Ali as the winner in this hypothetical match-up. However, I cannot agree that this would be a mismatch in any way whatsoever. No matter who you think wins this one it would almost certainly be a close contest.

Agree with Wlad v Foreman. George would absolutely smash him. In fact, rumble in the Jungle aside, I actually would favour a prime, mean George to beat almost every Heavy in history on a face-to-face basis.

I think that Tyson is also absolutely anathema to both Klitschko's and handles them both fairly easily.

How do people see Hagler v Monzon? I've always had these guys pretty close in the all-time Middleweight rankings, for me they're almost interchangeable in this respect. However, I've always thought Marv would box Monzon's ears off in a head-to-head match up.

Gentleman01 wrote:How do people see Hagler v Monzon? I've always had these guys pretty close in the all-time Middleweight rankings, for me they're almost interchangeable in this respect. However, I've always thought Marv would box Monzon's ears off in a head-to-head match up.

Ah, now this is an interesting one, Gentleman - not least because I totally (but healthily) disagree with you!

Monzon the greatest Middleweight of all time, for me. On the basis of their careers, I find it hard to rank Marvin higher. Both were highly dominant for the most part, but Monzon just that little bit more for me, and against a better level of Middleweight opposition, too.

Head to head match ups are very different, of course, but I've always fancied that Monzon would have handled Hagler, though not with any ease - Hagler's the toughest of all tough nights for any 160 lb fighter who ever lived. Though Hagler sometimes gets labelled a clubber / brawler, he did in fact often prefer the other man to come to him and reply with his vicious counter punching. Monzon didn't mind letting the other man do what they wanted in front of him. If Hagler falls in to that trap and goes looking for Monzon regularly, I see him being jabbed all over the place by the tall, rangy Argentine.

Monzon was just so, so strong at the weight, too. No chance of a knockout or stoppage (barring cuts) either way, I'd think, but I can see Monzon winning a hard-fought decision here. Great match up, though.

88Chris05 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:How do people see Hagler v Monzon? I've always had these guys pretty close in the all-time Middleweight rankings, for me they're almost interchangeable in this respect. However, I've always thought Marv would box Monzon's ears off in a head-to-head match up.

Ah, now this is an interesting one, Gentleman - not least because I totally (but healthily) disagree with you!

Monzon the greatest Middleweight of all time, for me. On the basis of their careers, I find it hard to rank Marvin higher. Both were highly dominant for the most part, but Monzon just that little bit more for me, and against a better level of Middleweight opposition, too.

Head to head match ups are very different, of course, but I've always fancied that Monzon would have handled Hagler, though not with any ease - Hagler's the toughest of all tough nights for any 160 lb fighter who ever lived. Though Hagler sometimes gets labelled a clubber / brawler, he did in fact often prefer the other man to come to him and reply with his vicious counter punching. Monzon didn't mind letting the other man do what they wanted in front of him. If Hagler falls in to that trap and goes looking for Monzon regularly, I see him being jabbed all over the place by the tall, rangy Argentine.

Monzon was just so, so strong at the weight, too. No chance of a knockout or stoppage (barring cuts) either way, I'd think, but I can see Monzon winning a hard-fought decision here. Great match up, though.

Interesting analysis there Chris. You've actually made specific reference to a few factors that I think would be key in deciding the outcome here.

Firstly, I don't see Hagler hunting Monzon but rather boxing smart and utilising what is, in my opinion, his superior skill set. Monzon was a strong Middleweight, stronger even than Hagler, but Hagler was not wont to wilt under pressure, he was hard as nails, fit as an ox and had a cast iron chin. On the occasions that Monzon would be able to get close to Hagler I don't think he would be able to make his superior strength count definitively in his favour. I see Hagler as more than able to handle the pressure here. It is also worth noting that Hagler too could fight it out and was very adept at boxing on the inside and employing the darker tricks of the trade when required.

For Monzon to win here I see him needing to really establish his jab and really affirm himself as the boss in there. Against Hagler I just don't think he would be able to do this.

Agree though that it is a great match-up and one not likely to end with a K.O.

Everytime I have spotted this thread on the homepage I have misread it as "greatest moustaches".

So I suggest Evander Holyfield

Adam D wrote:Everytime I have spotted this thread on the homepage I have misread it as "greatest moustaches".

So I suggest Evander Holyfield

John L Sullivan, now there is a boxer who knew how to wear a soup strainer.

Adam, Jeff, you're both guilty of a ghastly oversight here; you didn't think they called Mike Spinks 'Jinx' because of his right hand, did you!? Greatest 'tache of the eighties.

No doubt Spinks is worth a shout Chris but in support of John L I give you the following

Spoiler:

Can I apologise for taking the thread off topic!

Sorry.

Roy Jones to comfortably beat Hagler.

Calzaghe vs Froch.

I like both fighters, but styles make fights and I think Froch would struggle with Calzaghe's particular way of fighting.

Can't really see a way Hagler beats Monzon.

Monzon is the more powerful and skillful fighter who would beat Hagler any which way the fight goes, would outbrawl him or outbox him, would be entirely down to Hagler how he chooses to lose. Of all the middleweights i've seen fight I wouldn't have anyone getting the better of Monzon who was a one off in that he was comfortable fighting any style of fighter at their own game. As a slight irrelevance to head to heads he's head and shoulders above anyone else at the weight with the exception of Greb.

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

azania wrote:Foreman bt pre-war Ali.

I believe the second coming was the more intelligent boxer and fighter and that lead to the win. Against a more fleetfooted Ali, Foreman (an expert in cutting the ring) would have caught up with Ali and finished him.

That Foreman was an expert at cutting down the ring is widely held opinion, but one that I haven't really ever seen any evidence of-Az could you suggest any fights that would be worth watching to see this skill ? His biggest fights -Frazier, Norton,and Ali were against two fighter that moved in straight lines, and one that was happy to sit on the ropes, so cutting down the ring never came into it. I'm not doubting that he was good at it, but want to see more evidence before deciding that he could against a prime Ali.

Look at his second career. Look at many of his fights prior to Frazier. Chuvalo and Kirkman in particular.

Thanks Az, will check them out next time I can get on youtube.

Gentleman01 wrote:Tyson for me beats Ali 7 times out of 10. For me Tyson's style is just all wrong for Ali. I can certainly appreciate that some people will naturally favour Ali and you have given some good reasons as to why you would envisage Ali as the winner in this hypothetical match-up. However, I cannot agree that this would be a mismatch in any way whatsoever. No matter who you think wins this one it would almost certainly be a close contest.

Agree with Wlad v Foreman. George would absolutely smash him. In fact, rumble in the Jungle aside, I actually would favour a prime, mean George to beat almost every Heavy in history on a face-to-face basis.

I think that Tyson is also absolutely anathema to both Klitschko's and handles them both fairly easily.

How do people see Hagler v Monzon? I've always had these guys pretty close in the all-time Middleweight rankings, for me they're almost interchangeable in this respect. However, I've always thought Marv would box Monzon's ears off in a head-to-head match up.

Would you care to expand a bit on why you think Tyson's style is all wrong for Ali? I think the opposite is true- Ali jabs and counters at range and ties him up in knots on the inside- Very similar fight to Ali- Frazier 2.

horizontalhero wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Tyson for me beats Ali 7 times out of 10. For me Tyson's style is just all wrong for Ali. I can certainly appreciate that some people will naturally favour Ali and you have given some good reasons as to why you would envisage Ali as the winner in this hypothetical match-up. However, I cannot agree that this would be a mismatch in any way whatsoever. No matter who you think wins this one it would almost certainly be a close contest.

Agree with Wlad v Foreman. George would absolutely smash him. In fact, rumble in the Jungle aside, I actually would favour a prime, mean George to beat almost every Heavy in history on a face-to-face basis.

I think that Tyson is also absolutely anathema to both Klitschko's and handles them both fairly easily.

How do people see Hagler v Monzon? I've always had these guys pretty close in the all-time Middleweight rankings, for me they're almost interchangeable in this respect. However, I've always thought Marv would box Monzon's ears off in a head-to-head match up.

Would you care to expand a bit on why you think Tyson's style is all wrong for Ali? I think the opposite is true- Ali jabs and counters at range and ties him up in knots on the inside- Very similar fight to Ali- Frazier 2.

The fact that Ali was always vulnerable to the left hook and that he was also a bit of a slow starter means he could well get taken out early by Tyson, who was devastating in the early rounds and had one hell of a left hook. If Ali can get through an early storm with a few shaky moments he'd go on to win a decision for me but I see it as being far from comfortable.

horizontalhero wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Tyson for me beats Ali 7 times out of 10. For me Tyson's style is just all wrong for Ali. I can certainly appreciate that some people will naturally favour Ali and you have given some good reasons as to why you would envisage Ali as the winner in this hypothetical match-up. However, I cannot agree that this would be a mismatch in any way whatsoever. No matter who you think wins this one it would almost certainly be a close contest.

Agree with Wlad v Foreman. George would absolutely smash him. In fact, rumble in the Jungle aside, I actually would favour a prime, mean George to beat almost every Heavy in history on a face-to-face basis.

I think that Tyson is also absolutely anathema to both Klitschko's and handles them both fairly easily.

How do people see Hagler v Monzon? I've always had these guys pretty close in the all-time Middleweight rankings, for me they're almost interchangeable in this respect. However, I've always thought Marv would box Monzon's ears off in a head-to-head match up.

Would you care to expand a bit on why you think Tyson's style is all wrong for Ali? I think the opposite is true- Ali jabs and counters at range and ties him up in knots on the inside- Very similar fight to Ali- Frazier 2.

I think this fight is going to be one where Tyson is the agressor and Ali boxes on the backfoot. The key to beating Tyson is not IMO, as is commonly believed, simply to have a good jab. The real key is footwork. When Douglas beat Tyson he did so by continually jabbing before stepping off and pivoting round to move out of the oncoming Tyson and by doing so avoided his punches. The Bull and the Matador. Biggs had a solid jab but when he jabbed he backed up in straight lines and as such was continually caught by Tyson right hands and allowed himself to become trapped on the ropes and backed into corners where Tyson was able to land his punches.

Ali backed up in straight lines. It was, and still is, an unorthodox technique. For Ali it worked very well against certain opponents. He obviously employed his now celebrated 'rope-a-dope' tactic to great effect in beating the wasteful Foreman. However, it is this exact reason that I think Ali struggled with Frazier and Norton. Both frazier and Norton were quick, swarming fighters, they pushed Ali back and were able to land fairly easily (think Frazier's left hook on Ali in FOTC). I appreciate that Ali had slowed after his enforced ring hiatus, however even the younger Ali had the tendency to simply back up and lean in order to avoid shots. Tyson was both quicker, stronger and heavier than Frazier / Norton and I also favour Tyson as the heavier puncher (not that Frazier couldn't bang of course). Due to the extra size and strength I think Ali would have trouble controlling Tyson on the inside (remember Tyson fought stronger men than Ali who attempted to hold and lean on him).

Were Ali to lie on the ropes I don't think Tyson would be as wasteful as Foreman, at his peak Tyson was a clinically accurate puncher. If Ali stays stationary on the ropes he gets battered IMO.

Ali just sruggled with this type of fighter, he didn't have an answer for Frazier's left hook and I also sse this as a weakness when facing Tyson who also had a formidable hook.

The psychology is a factor but I'm inclined not to give it too much emphasis. I see Tyson's mental fragility as something that was always likely to surface over time, but during his pomp Tyson never really seemed fazed by much. He seemed well conditioned, focused and supremely confident. Ali may well have unsettled him but I don't think a 1986 version of Tyson is as easily unsettled as some people believe. I certainly absolutely reject the idea that Ali has him beat before he even gets in the ring.

Of course Ali is hardly a no-hoper here, there is every chance he controls Tyson, ties him up and grinds him down. Certainly a 15 rounder is a better length for Ali. However, for the reasons highlighted above, I just think Tyson has Ali's number more often than not.

all good points there genetleman but the hardest thing for me is trying to find this supposed prime tyson. most people would agree that it was early tyson. but i watch all the fights backs and every fighter he fought was beaten before they entered the ring, they were all pertified of him. the first fighter that didnt show no fear was douglas. once that bubble was burst he showed how beatable he was. you needed to be agressive against tyson, he was a bully and he was allowed to bully all his oppenents in the late 80's. tyson also lacked a plan B something that ali didnt. the biggest thing agaisnt your point is i cant see tyson stopping him and after 4/5 rounds its going to be a one sided beating.

thought of another that might cause some debate:

holyfield beats marciano over 12 rounds by a wide UD. dont want to get az too exicted but i see holyfiled having the better skill set to win majority of rounds and his chin being able to get him through to points. over 15 rock has better chance of wearing him down but over 12 i think holy is tough enough to last more often than not.