In their prime...

[BoyBrumby]

1) don't really know
2) don't really know
3) Davis
4) Davis by 18-17
5) Hendry by 18-16

Is snooker big in Norway, or is it another semi-obscure British/Commonwealth sport you've arbitrarily taken an interest in?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Is snooker big in Norway, or is it another semi-obscure British/Commonwealth sport you've arbitrarily taken an interest in?

Eurosport covers it, but that's about all. As it's the only non-football sport available on TV in April and May, I got hooked.

There's about 10 players here. One is on the world tour and is Norwegian by merit of his girlfriend.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's about 10 players here. One is on the world tour and is Norwegian by merit of his girlfriend.

Don't suppose you get the weather for it, really.

 

[Burgey]

Spinks was unbeaten when he fought Tyson; hardly Iron Mike's fault he'd swallowed it completely before he climbed into the ring. That was Tyson's aura.

Tyson fought and beat everyone out there: Berbick, Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon (sp?) Thomas & even dear old Frank.

I considered Ali's prime before his ban; he fought Patterson (really a cruiserweight by today's standards) but none of the other names exactly trip off the tongue. He was flattened by dear old 'Enry before he ever won the title too and might've lost had Dundee not deliberately split his glove to give him longer to recover.

He fought everyone after he came back, true, but he lost to Frazier & Norton. And no, he wasn't a shot fighter by then unless you also consider the Ali who beat Foreman shot, as Norton's win was prior to the Rumble in the Jungle. Ali's last three defeats (Leon Spinks, Holmes & Berbick) were when he was gone.

Don't forget Ali's jaw got broken in the second round vs Norton and he still went the distance.
Tyson's aura would have meant nothing to Ali, who had a fair aura of his own. He fought Liston, Foreman and Frazier who all had auras about them (especially the first two). Ali also had one of the greatest hearts/ chins in history. How he ever got up when Frazier knocked him down I will never know. The ref turned around to show Joe the neutral corner, and by the time he turned back, Ali was already up. And we all know about Manilla and Zaire.
I think Ali was very tough mentally, and Tyson was fragile. He got lazy very early in his career (was out of shape by the Douglas fight) and got smacked by the first bloke who stood up to his bullying ways. Tyson did, however, have one thing which Ali was very vulnerable to, namely a good, close-in left hook.
Would have been interesting to say the least. I'd give it to Ali because of his speed and resilience.

 

[Matt79]

Ali
Woods

No idea who the last six are.

How about Tsyzu vs. Mayweather Jr.? (assuming their weights, promoters, networks, etc had lined up and brought us this fight)

 

[luckyeddie]

The Tyson aged 20-22 would've taken Ali apart IMHO. Ali struggled with awkward fighters like Norton & Frazier and Iron Mike had a bigger dig than either. In his prime Tyson was an absolute force of nature, crouched, short (for a heavyweight) and with that massive neck of his he rode punches so well. Fought on the front foot and wasn't a slow brawler like many of pugs who Ali was fed after he beat (possibly with the aid of fixers) Liston.

Don't care enough about any of the others to have an opinion.

Having watched every one of Ali's fights since he turned pro, I beg to differ, but not desperately so.

Ali in his prime was 10 years before he fought either Ken Norton or Smokin' Joe, and many say there was no-one on the planet before or since to better him.

The Clay of circa 1964 was a wonder to behold - not sure who it was against but he threw and landed 11 (ELEVEN!!!) punches in one second, to apply the coup-de-grace, and he threw his punches from very strange angles.


Tyson would have had a 'puncher's chance', of course - our 'Enery was within a split glove of inflicting Clay's first defeat in 63, I think it was.

 

[luckyeddie]

that's fair enough. but i don't buy this rubbish that buster was a supreme talent who normally couldn't be bothered.

Buster Douglas was a bum.

 

[luckyeddie]

Im prepared to get laughed at here but I dont mind.

Lewis with his size and ability to jab all day would have beaten Tyson or Ali.

All 3 have dubious losses on their records but Lewis would have too much for either

Lewis was the best of his era, just like Tyson was the best of his, Louis was the best of his, Braddock was the best of his, Marciano was the best of his. Ali was the best of his.

You could only beat what was put in front of you.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Ali
Woods

No idea who the last six are.

How about Tsyzu vs. Mayweather Jr.? (assuming their weights, promoters, networks, etc had lined up and brought us this fight)

this fight would have come off but tsyzu took the hatton fight because there was more $$$$$ in it.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Lewis was the best of his era, just like Tyson was the best of his, Louis was the best of his, Braddock was the best of his, Marciano was the best of his. Ali was the best of his.

You could only beat what was put in front of you.

braddock? he took the title off max baer and lost it straight away to joe louis.

 

[andmark]

Ali
Hard to compare these Woods and Nicklaus due to the advances in equipment.
Davis
Davis
Hendry

Fair point.

 

[Stefano]

Tyson is not in the class of Muhammad Ali. Ali is one of the greatest ever (he might be the #1). Tyson is not.

Tyson fought and beat everyone out there: Berbick, Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon (sp?) Thomas & even dear old Frank.

When Tyson emerged in the middle 80s, the HW were really in terrible shape. Berbick was mediocre: he defeated Ali in 1981, but at that time Ali was already struggling with Parkinson.

Bonecrusher Smith: another mediocre boxer. Tyson was not the only one who defeated him.

Pinklon Thomas: another mediocre boxer

Frank Bruno: OK boxer. Definetely a good boxer, but nothing special.

Tyson had that aurea! Of course! But when he faced someone who didn't care about that aurea, he lost. Buster Douglas was a mediocre boxer, but he defeated Tyson!

So, you can make comparison (or at least try to) between Ali and Joe Louis or Marciano, but Tyson does not belong to that class.

 

[UncleTheOne]

Tyson is not in the class of Muhammad Ali. Ali is one of the greatest ever (he might be the #1). Tyson is not.



When Tyson emerged in the middle 80s, the HW were really in terrible shape. Berbick was mediocre: he defeated Ali in 1981, but at that time Ali was already struggling with Parkinson.

Bonecrusher Smith: another mediocre boxer. Tyson was not the only one who defeated him.

Pinklon Thomas: another mediocre boxer

Frank Bruno: OK boxer. Definetely a good boxer, but nothing special.

Tyson had that aurea! Of course! But when he faced someone who didn't care about that aurea, he lost. Buster Douglas was a mediocre boxer, but he defeated Tyson!

So, you can make comparison (or at least try to) between Ali and Joe Louis or Marciano, but Tyson does not belong to that class.

tyson smashes both louis and rocky in a couple of rounds, times have moved on. they lack the footwork and defence to deal with an elusive monster like tyson. louis was the first ever boxer to experiment with throwing combos.

....and ali shouldn't be making anyones top 10 P4P rankings. greatest HW of all time? yes, just. greatest boxer of all time? not a chance.

 

[steds]

Joe Davis ftw against all of them tbh, the Bradman of snooker

No chance. If Bradman had only ever batted against a dozen or so bowlers, that would be a fair comparison.

Joe Davis was aided by snookers lack of popularity (a grand total of 12 different competitors took part in the first 5 tournaments) and the fact that he organised the World Championship during the years that he won it. For example, in 1928 he gave himself a bye to the final and in 1931 there was only him and Tom Dennis enter. Throw in that he lost 4 of his 8 World billiards finals - all to players he beat in the snooker championship, suggesting he could and possibly would have been beaten if snooker was considered a more serious sport in the thirties; and that after 1946 he continued to play snooker for 18 years but never once entered the World Championship because, so they say, he was scared of losing his unbeaten record to his brother. I don't think he looks that invincible at all.

 

[Tom Halsey]

in 1928 he gave himself a bye to the final.

Oh dear.

 

[grecian]

No chance. If Bradman had only ever batted against a dozen or so bowlers, that would be a fair comparison.

Joe Davis was aided by snookers lack of popularity (a grand total of 12 different competitors took part in the first 5 tournaments) and the fact that he organised the World Championship during the years that he won it. For example, in 1928 he gave himself a bye to the final and in 1931 there was only him and Tom Dennis enter. Throw in that he lost 4 of his 8 World billiards finals - all to players he beat in the snooker championship, suggesting he could and possibly would have been beaten if snooker was considered a more serious sport in the thirties; and that after 1946 he continued to play snooker for 18 years but never once entered the World Championship because, so they say, he was scared of losing his unbeaten record to his brother. I don't think he looks that invincible at all.

Fair enough, can't say I'm an expert. I only said it to dodge the three snooker match-ups, tbh. Should of just ignored them, like most others did I suppose.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

What about some others?

Rod Laver vs. Roger Federer (Tennis)
All Blacks 1995 vs. Wallabies 2001 (Rugby)
Australia 2000 vs America 1996 (4x100 swimming relay)
Robert Menzies vs. Paul Keating (Question Time)