View Full Version : Could Muhammad Ali lay on the ropes against Mike Tyson?


boxingbuff
04-01-2010, 03:39 PM
What do you think? Could Muhammad Ali lay on the ropes against Mike Tyson?

BG_Knocc_Out
04-01-2010, 03:45 PM
I'm not sure, that's where Tyson's boxing intellect and killer instinct intertwine as far as where he chooses his shots when his opponent is on the defensive.

QuietOne
04-01-2010, 04:03 PM
It wouldn't be a good idea. Tyson isn't someone you wanna take punches from, even if your goal is to make your opponent tire himself out.

I imagine that Ali would tie Tyson up, everytime he gets close. Just like Buster Douglas did.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 04:15 PM
HELL NOOOOOO. And a Prime Ali wouldn't. Only the post-exile Ali had to do that.

Tyson picks his shots unlike George Foreman and doesn't look to wear himself out. Tyson would even wait if he had to for you to do something so he could counter real quickly. The more you have to keep banging someone that is in the shell the more you might have to expend your energy. It's easier to hit a target that is open because you hurt them faster. If Ali tried to open up on Tyson while his back is against the ropes, with Ali nowhere to go and a bad habit to drop his hands...he'll get clipped hard because of Tyson's own speed and combination punching he can throw at the same time as Ali.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 04:17 PM
It wouldn't be a good idea. Tyson isn't someone you wanna take punches from, even if your goal is to make your opponent tire himself out.

I imagine that Ali would tie Tyson up, everytime he gets close. Just like Buster Douglas did.

Ali would tie Tyson up but the Buster Douglas fight was b.s. to use. Use the Smith fight at least. Are we talking about a trained Tyson or an untrained Tyson who looked lost?

Tyson was really only as good as his training camp.

BG_Knocc_Out
04-01-2010, 04:18 PM
Even Joe Frazier was working and hurting Ali against the ropes, and he was predictable (although masterful) with his left hook, and Ali barely did a thing about it. Tyson would do much of the same.

samir191
04-01-2010, 04:22 PM
Tysons favourite combo was the right hook to the body, followed by a right uppercut to the chin, which he loved using when he had his opponent on the ropes, therefore Ali couldn't. Plus in his prime Ali never used the rope-a-dope; he would have danced circles around Tyson for 15 rounds, outboxed him with his speedy combos and fast footwork, kept him at range with his jab, and tie up on the inside. Tyson would have become frustrated and lose his composure in the late rounds, which would have let Ali win by either late stoppage or UD!

QuietOne
04-01-2010, 04:23 PM
Ali would tie Tyson up but the Buster Douglas fight was b.s. to use. Are we talking about a trained Tyson or an untrained Tyson who looked lost?

Tyson was really only as good as his training camp.

Whether or not Tyson was in his prime had nothing to do with Douglas' game plan.

YoungJab
04-01-2010, 04:24 PM
none of us can predict fight outcomes, were all wrong

ull never know

samir191
04-01-2010, 04:25 PM
Tyson used short, stinging, accurate punches; even moreso than Frazier. He never threw wild, swinging shots like Foreman; so it would be ridiculous for Ali to lay on the ropes and take that punishment!

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 05:12 PM
Whether or not Tyson was in his prime had nothing to do with Douglas' game plan.

When you have a fighter that is small like Tyson and has to be at least near peak physical and mental condition to fight...ahhhh...yes it does make a difference because there is no way to off-set the opponents game-plan when that opponent is prepared to fight. Douglas didn't have to make big adjustments and could keep doing the same thing over and over again.

Tyson didn't prepare properly both mentally and physically for the fight so there was no way he could adjust. He was on his own. He had no proper trainer to not only prepare him for the fight but nobody in his corner to get on his ass to make sure he adjusts. Tyson looked completely lost and unsure of himself during the rounds.

His stamina was poor because he didn't do his road-work like he should have so he will burn out quicker. His timing was way off which most likely had to do with a change in how he prepared. Rooney had him do specific drills handed down to him by D'Amato that prepared Tyson's hand-speed, timing, and accuracy. Unlike others during that time with Tyson, Rooney would not let Tyson get away with anything. D'Amato was about making it "perfect." Rooney was the only one with balls to tell Tyson to do it again to make it perfect.

When you have a short reach like Tyson and don't have the height advantage...Timing and Accuracy make a Huge difference. Using the jab effectively is key. Using combinations is key. Moving your head is key...especially after you throw your last punch. Knowing and measuring distance properly is key.


To sum it up: Douglas was prepared to fight and had a game-plan...Tyson wasn't. That can make the difference.

QuietOne
04-01-2010, 05:34 PM
When you have a fighter that is small like Tyson and has to be at least near peak physical and mental condition to fight...ahhhh...yes it does make a difference because there is no way to off-set the opponents game-plan when that opponent is prepared to fight. Douglas didn't have to make big adjustments and could keep doing the same thing over and over again.

Tyson didn't prepare properly both mentally and physically for the fight so there was no way he could adjust. He was on his own. He had no proper trainer to not only prepare him for the fight but nobody in his corner to get on his ass to make sure he adjusts. Tyson looked completely lost and unsure of himself during the rounds.

His stamina was poor because he didn't do his road-work like he should have so he will burn out quicker. His timing was way off which most likely had to do with a change in how he prepared. Rooney had him do specific drills handed down to him by D'Amato that prepared Tyson's hand-speed, timing, and accuracy. Unlike others during that time with Tyson, Rooney would not let Tyson get away with anything. D'Amato was about making it "perfect." Rooney was the only one with balls to tell Tyson to do it again to make it perfect.

When you have a short reach like Tyson and don't have the height advantage...Timing and Accuracy make a Huge difference. Using the jab effectively is key. Using combinations is key. Moving your head is key...especially after you throw your last punch. Knowing and measuring distance properly is key.


To sum it up: Douglas was prepared to fight and had a game-plan...Tyson wasn't. That can make the difference.

You're trying to explain how Tyson could've fought differently, if a whole series of events were different. That's fine. But what does it have to do with what Douglas' strategy was? He didn't know how prepared Tyson would be. Douglas just walked into the fight with two things: no fear and a game plan.

Of course there would be a difference if Tyson was in his prime. But that doesn't change the fact that his strategy was the best way to beat to him.

All I said was that Ali would wanna do what Douglas did: tie him up every time he gets too close. For some reason, you found a need to explain how Tyson's training camp went.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 05:47 PM
You're trying to explain how Tyson could've fought differently, if a whole series of events were different. That's fine. But what does it have to do with what Douglas' strategy was? He didn't know how prepared Tyson would be. Douglas just walked into the fight with two things: no fear and a game plan.



All I said was that Ali would wanna do what Douglas did: show no fear, outbox him from the outside and tie him up if Tyson came too close.

All fighters have fear but I understand what you are getting at...but it still doesn't quite hold up because other fighters were willing to beat Tyson as well and they didn't. Things change when your game-plan doesn't quite work out like you prepared for in your head. Douglas didn't have to adjust like I think Tyson could have forced him to do if he himself was prepared.
Tyson forced other fighters to change up their game-plan plan because of the way he fought/attacked.

Douglas had a field day on Tyson's skull from round 1 because Tyson ability to react was off from not training correctly. That's what drills are for to help you prepare your reaction time. True speed with Tyson actually can in the form of his ability to react and counter. That was not there. That is trained into you and needs to be constantly trained every day in camp.

Take Baseball for instance and Albert Pujols: As great as he is as a hitter, he would not be nearly as effective if he didn't take the many swings in practice as he did. Not just in the months of spring-training but All Year Round. He practices for every single pitch. Throw him a fast-ball, and his reaction time is in peak form to hit the ball with accuracy and power. Throw him a curve-ball, and he knows how to adjust for it. Why? because he prepared himself all year long to do it.

Tyson's ability to make you miss and counter with his own shots forced fighters to think twice about what they were doing. That was missing.
There was little spring in Tyson's legs as well...which has to do with preparation.




Holyfield and Lewis both had no fear and the same game plan and it worked for them. Of course there would be a difference if Tyson was in his prime. But that doesn't change the fact that their strategy was the best way to beat to him.

It's a nice strategy but when you have a man in front of you that is ill-preprared to fight...it is a major bonus.


That strategy can work on anybody then because having no fear (which is overstated) and a game-plan is a bonus for any fighter...especially when that fighter is going up against an ill-prepared fighter.

I say "no fear" is overstated because Floyd Patterson was quoted as saying he needed fear to win. Tyson used fear as well. Fear helped them train and prepare to be at their best. It's actually when Tyson's fear level went down and his confidence over-inflated, that is he went to ****. He was on his own making poor choices, not preparing himself, fearing nobody on his team; and that wasn't good.

How about this: If you don't fear Ali's mouth, you'll beat him...as proven by Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes, and Trevor Berbick.

The Noose
04-01-2010, 06:13 PM
He would have tied him up.

Many of Tysons opponents were good at just tying him up and frustrating him.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 06:17 PM
He would have tied him up.

Many of Tysons opponents were good at just tying him up and frustrating him.

he needs to tie him up or else it will look like this

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mleMYUTABIQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mleMYUTABIQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jmc-cd0LyOY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jmc-cd0LyOY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Post fight interview

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nUOmVZ0lezg&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nUOmVZ0lezg&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

QuietOne
04-01-2010, 06:19 PM
All fighters have fear but I understand what you are getting at...but it still doesn't quite hold up because other fighters were willing to beat Tyson as well and they didn't. Things change when your game-plan doesn't quite work out like you prepared for in your head. Douglas didn't have to adjust like I think Tyson could have forced him to do if he himself was prepared.
Tyson forced other fighters to change up their game-plan plan because of the way he fought/attacked.

Douglas had a field day on Tyson's skull from round 1 because Tyson ability to react was off from not training correctly. That's what drills are for to help you prepare your reaction time. True speed with Tyson actually can in the form of his ability to react and counter. That was not there. That is trained into you and needs to be constantly trained every day in camp.

Take Baseball for instance and Albert Pujols: As great as he is as a hitter, he would not be nearly as effective if he didn't take the many swings in practice as he did. Not just in the months of spring-training but All Year Round. He practices for every single pitch. Throw him a fast-ball, and his reaction time is in peak form to hit the ball with accuracy and power. Throw him a curve-ball, and he knows how to adjust for it. Why? because he prepared himself all year long to do it.

Tyson's ability to make you miss and counter with his own shots forced fighters to think twice about what they were doing. That was missing.
There was little spring in Tyson's legs as well...which has to do with preparation.

It's a nice strategy but when you have a man in front of you that is ill-preprared to fight...it is a major bonus.

That strategy can work on anybody then because having no fear (which is overstated) and a game-plan is a bonus for any fighter...especially when that fighter is going up against an ill-prepared fighter.

Like I said, it's fine if you wanna explain how Tyson could've fought differently, if a whole series of events were played out differently. And not once, in this thread, did I talk about what stage of his career he was in. All I said was that Douglas went into the fight with the right strategy, and that Ali would wanna use that strategy.

Yes, the Douglas fight could've possibly played out differently, had things been different for Tyson. But are you gonna try and tell me that Douglas didn't have the right strategy for someone like Tyson? That he should've been scared? That he shouldn't haveboxed from the outside and to tie Tyson up every time he got close?

I say "no fear" is overstated because Floyd Patterson was quoted as saying he needed fear to win. Tyson used fear as well. Fear helped them train and prepare to be at their best. It's actually when Tyson's fear level went down and his confidence over-inflated, that is he went to ****. He was on his own making poor choices, not preparing himself, fearing nobody on his team; and that wasn't good.

Fear might've worked well for those fighters, but that doesn't mean it works well for all fighters.

Tyson looked for fear in his opponents, as that gave him a mental edge. If his opponent wasn't intimidated by him, he wouldn't have that mental edge.

He tried to play the bully and intimidate his opponents. Douglas and Holyfield weren't intimidated and they both ended up out-bullying the bully.

How about this: If you don't fear Ali's mouth, you'll beat him...as proven by Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes, and Trevor Berbick.

I don't see what this has to do with my original post, but I'll comment that Tyson wasn't as mentally strong as Frazier or Norton. If someone wasn't intimated by him, a big part of Tyson would crumble.

As for Spinks, Holmes and Berbick, I would say that Ali being very far past his prime and experiencing symptoms of Parkinson's had something to do with those losses.

boxingbuff
04-01-2010, 06:20 PM
All fighters have fear but I understand what you are getting at...but it still doesn't quite hold up because other fighters were willing to beat Tyson as well and they didn't. Things change when your game-plan doesn't quite work out like you prepared for in your head. Douglas didn't have to adjust like I think Tyson could have forced him to do if he himself was prepared.
Tyson forced other fighters to change up their game-plan plan because of the way he fought/attacked.

Douglas had a field day on Tyson's skull from round 1 because Tyson ability to react was off from not training correctly. That's what drills are for to help you prepare your reaction time. True speed with Tyson actually can in the form of his ability to react and counter. That was not there. That is trained into you and needs to be constantly trained every day in camp.

Take Baseball for instance and Albert Pujols: As great as he is as a hitter, he would not be nearly as effective if he didn't take the many swings in practice as he did. Not just in the months of spring-training but All Year Round. He practices for every single pitch. Throw him a fast-ball, and his reaction time is in peak form to hit the ball with accuracy and power. Throw him a curve-ball, and he knows how to adjust for it. Why? because he prepared himself all year long to do it.

Tyson's ability to make you miss and counter with his own shots forced fighters to think twice about what they were doing. That was missing.
There was little spring in Tyson's legs as well...which has to do with preparation.






It's a nice strategy but when you have a man in front of you that is ill-preprared to fight...it is a major bonus.


That strategy can work on anybody then because having no fear (which is overstated) and a game-plan is a bonus for any fighter...especially when that fighter is going up against an ill-prepared fighter.

I say "no fear" is overstated because Floyd Patterson was quoted as saying he needed fear to win. Tyson used fear as well. Fear helped them train and prepare to be at their best. It's actually when Tyson's fear level went down and his confidence over-inflated, that is he went to ****. He was on his own making poor choices, not preparing himself, fearing nobody on his team; and that wasn't good.

How about this: If you don't fear Ali's mouth, you'll beat him...as proven by Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Larry Holmes, and Trevor Berbick.

Muhammad Ali lost 3 out of his last 4 fights.He was old and washed up.

He got beat by Frazier and Norton after his 3 1/2 year lay-off.

It had nothing to do with fear of his mouth.Foreman and Liston did not fear his mouth,but both got KO'd.

The Noose
04-01-2010, 06:28 PM
I think Ali could have taken most of Tysons shots if he had to. He may of got hurt or even knocked down but Ali would have been a nightmare for Tyson.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 06:48 PM
Muhammad Ali lost 3 out of his last 4 fights.He was old and washed up.

He got beat by Frazier and Norton after his 3 1/2 year lay-off.

It had nothing to do with fear of his mouth.Foreman and Liston did not fear his mouth,but both got KO'd.

I was making a point. Think about it a little more and its important to keep what is said about Tyson. If you need me to clarify it more...let me know.

Sugarj
04-01-2010, 06:55 PM
I tend to agree with the opinion that it would be foolish for any version of Ali to retreat to the ropes and take peak Tyson's punches. Even with his fantastic chin it wouldn't be a wise move or a smart gameplan.

Frazier and Norton were precise punchers like Tyson, Ali didn't rope a dope these two very successfully. Only Tyson was so much faster with single punches and in combination.....arguably more powerful too. Foreman was wilder and slower....although very powerful. So Ali had far more success with George.

Ali was one of the most intelligent men in the ring. Whether we are talking about peak 1966 Ali or the ring wise Ali of 1974, theres no way he would have approached a fight with Tyson with a poor strategy.

I'd bet that the 1966 Ali's plan would be to jab and run frantically as he did early on in the first Liston fight. I think he would do this for 5 rounds or so, after which he would start laying down more on his punches as Tyson settled down in pace.

I think the 1974 Ali would also rely on movement as he did in Frazier 2, but would have worked well on his clinching, holding and leaning on.......again Frazier 2.

Would prime Ali have beaten prime Tyson? Probably, but by no means certain.

Would rope a dope be a good idea? No way!!

fight_professor
04-01-2010, 09:20 PM
I was pondering this thus yesterday. Now I pick Ali to beat Tyson 9/10 times. But a rope-a-dope is a no-no against Mike. Foreman was slow and telegraphed, a single shot puncher. Tyson had awesome speed and combination punching.

No one would take Tyson's precision shots like that.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 09:41 PM
Like I said, it's fine if you wanna explain how Tyson could've fought differently, if a whole series of events were played out differently. And not once, in this thread, did I talk about what stage of his career he was in. All I said was that Douglas went into the fight with the right strategy, and that Ali would wanna use that strategy.

Yes, the Douglas fight could've possibly played out differently, had things been different for Tyson. But are you gonna try and tell me that Douglas didn't have the right strategy for someone like Tyson? That he should've been scared? That he shouldn't haveboxed from the outside and to tie Tyson up every time he got close?



Fear might've worked well for those fighters, but that doesn't mean it works well for all fighters.

Tyson looked for fear in his opponents, as that gave him a mental edge. If his opponent wasn't intimidated by him, he wouldn't have that mental edge.

He tried to play the bully and intimidate his opponents. Douglas and Holyfield weren't intimidated and they both ended up out-bullying the bully.



I don't see what this has to do with my original post, but I'll comment that Tyson wasn't as mentally strong as Frazier or Norton. If someone wasn't intimated by him, a big part of Tyson would crumble.

As for Spinks, Holmes and Berbick, I would say that Ali being very far past his prime and experiencing symptoms of Parkinson's had something to do with those losses.

It was the right game-plan that Douglas used against Tyson...I don't deny that. But Tyson wasn't the same fighter that could counter that game-plan either let alone having his own proper game-plan to win. Tyson fought guys that were big, used the jab, used distance, even tied him up, etc...and still won.
Because Tyson wasn't particularly big, he relied heavily on his training to make him the fighter he was. Without that, he was closer to that same kid that just arrived in Catskill...which is important to note since with each fight away from Catskill, he kept going backwards to the point that it was mentioned in the Kevin McBride fight Tyson was biting his gloves...something he hadn't done since his amateur days (according to them). Each fight away you saw less and less of what he was taught and it was draining out of him.



Bully?
Are you telling me that if you weren't scared of Tyson and stood up to him you would win?
That is bull****.

Tyson's style was to be aggressive. He was always shorter than his opponents and many times he was given up a weight disadvantage as well...not to mention a reach advantage.
Tyson didn't have to rely on being a "bully" when he was properly trained. It wasn't until after he started to fall he relied on what he had built up in the past to help him get by because he was no longer that same skilled fighter. If anything, he became a bully but he wasn't a bully in his prime.
You can clearly see the difference in how Tyson performs in the ring as well as his interviews when he was with his original team compared to when King got a hold of him.


Listen, if Tyson is a bully then so is Ali. That's my point. Is it that simple? Stand up to Tyson and you win. Well, close your ears off to Ali and you will win. Frazier did; Norton did; Spinks did; Holmes did; Berbick did.

It's hard to tell because when Tyson fought Douglas, he wasn't the same fighter that won the title. Nor was he the same when he fought Holyfield. A little thing called a 3+ year layoff in Prison isn't to good for you...wouldn't you agree?
Plus...Tyson surely wasn't "back."

Brooks always held out hope for Iron Mike

http://espn.go.com/columns/wojnarowski_adrian/1317765.html

See my point?

And the Bully thing doesn't always work.
George Foreman was said to be a "bully" and Frazier wasn't. Guess who was scared in that match? Foreman was...not Frazier. And guess who got his ass kicked for trying to stand up to the bully? Frazier.

How is a 5'11, 215 pound man putting fear into these bigger men who tended to have more experience?

"I don't try to intimidate anybody before a fight," Tyson said. "That's nonsense. I intimidate people by hitting them."

res
04-01-2010, 09:54 PM
It was the right game-plan that Douglas used against Tyson...I don't deny that. But Tyson wasn't the same fighter that could counter that game-plan either let alone having his own proper game-plan to win. Tyson fought guys that were big, used the jab, used distance, even tied him up, etc...and still won.
Because Tyson wasn't particularly big, he relied heavily on his training to make him the fighter he was. Without that, he was closer to that same kid that just arrived in Catskill...which is important to note since with each fight away from Catskill, he kept going backwards to the point that it was mentioned in the Kevin McBride fight Tyson was biting his gloves...something he hadn't done since his amateur days (according to them). Each fight away you saw less and less of what he was taught and it was draining out of him.



Bully?
Are you telling me that if you weren't scared of Tyson and stood up to him you would win?
That is bull****.

Tyson's style was to be aggressive. He was always shorter than his opponents and many times he was given up a weight disadvantage as well...not to mention a reach advantage.
Tyson didn't have to rely on being a "bully" when he was properly trained. It wasn't until after he started to fall he relied on what he had built up in the past to help him get by because he was no longer that same skilled fighter. If anything, he became a bully but he wasn't a bully in his prime.
You can clearly see the difference in how Tyson performs in the ring as well as his interviews when he was with his original team compared to when King got a hold of him.


Listen, if Tyson is a bully then so is Ali. That's my point. Is it that simple? Stand up to Tyson and you win. Well, close your ears off to Ali and you will win. Frazier did; Norton did; Spinks did; Holmes did; Berbick did.

See my point?

And the Bully thing doesn't always work.
George Foreman was said to be a "bully" and Frazier wasn't. Guess who was scared in that match? Foreman was...not Frazier. And guess who got his ass kicked for trying to stand up to the bully? Frazier.

How is a 5'11, 215 pound man putting fear into these bigger men who tended to have more experience?



Why are you even using Holmes and Berbick as examples? That's like talking bout Tyson vs Kevin Mcbride. They had both been fighting for 20 years by that point.

Benny Leonard
04-01-2010, 10:01 PM
Why are you even using Holmes and Berbick as examples? That's like talking bout Tyson vs Kevin Mcbride. They had both been fighting for 20 years by that point.

Because it is simple: Stand up to Tyson and you win. That's why they all beat him.

So close your ears off to Ali and you will win.

Both relied on intimidation and psychological warfare. That's all they had. Take that away from them and you win.

So simple this boxing thing is.

I'm making a point. It's not always what it seems to be. People just like to stick to the simplest things possible to explain something but it doesn't always work.

I added some more to that post by the way.

QuietOne
04-01-2010, 11:05 PM
It was the right game-plan that Douglas used against Tyson...I don't deny that. But Tyson wasn't the same fighter that could counter that game-plan either let alone having his own proper game-plan to win. Tyson fought guys that were big, used the jab, used distance, even tied him up, etc...and still won.
Because Tyson wasn't particularly big, he relied heavily on his training to make him the fighter he was. Without that, he was closer to that same kid that just arrived in Catskill...which is important to note since with each fight away from Catskill, he kept going backwards to the point that it was mentioned in the Kevin McBride fight Tyson was biting his gloves...something he hadn't done since his amateur days (according to them). Each fight away you saw less and less of what he was taught and it was draining out of him.

Are you ****ing stupid or something? Why do you keep talking about Tyson's condition, training camp and fighting style? All I said was that Douglas had the right stategy against Tyson and that Ali would wanna use that same strategy. What does

Bully?
Are you telling me that if you weren't scared of Tyson and stood up to him you would win?
That is bull****.

Tyson's style was to be aggressive. He was always shorter than his opponents and many times he was given up a weight disadvantage as well...not to mention a reach advantage.
Tyson didn't have to rely on being a "bully" when he was properly trained. It wasn't until after he started to fall he relied on what he had built up in the past to help him get by because he was no longer that same skilled fighter. If anything, he became a bully but he wasn't a bully in his prime.
You can clearly see the difference in how Tyson performs in the ring as well as his interviews when he was with his original team compared to when King got a hold of him.


Listen, if Tyson is a bully then so is Ali. That's my point. Is it that simple? Stand up to Tyson and you win. Well, close your ears off to Ali and you will win. Frazier did; Norton did; Spinks did; Holmes did; Berbick did.

It's hard to tell because when Tyson fought Douglas, he wasn't the same fighter that won the title. Nor was he the same when he fought Holyfield. A little thing called a 3+ year layoff in Prison isn't to good for you...wouldn't you agree?
Plus...Tyson surely wasn't "back."

Brooks always held out hope for Iron Mike

http://espn.go.com/columns/wojnarowski_adrian/1317765.html

See my point?

And the Bully thing doesn't always work.
George Foreman was said to be a "bully" and Frazier wasn't. Guess who was scared in that match? Foreman was...not Frazier. And guess who got his ass kicked for trying to stand up to the bully? Frazier.

How is a 5'11, 215 pound man putting fear into these bigger men who tended to have more experience?

"I don't try to intimidate anybody before a fight," Tyson said. "That's nonsense. I intimidate people by hitting them."

Are you out of your mind or something? Why do you keep talking about Tyson's condition, training camp and fighting style? You've been replying with that since my first post, in which I stated that Douglas had the right stategy against Tyson and that Ali would wanna use that same strategy. What does bringing up all those things about Tyson have to do with it? Who cares whether or not he was in his prime against Douglas. The point is that Douglas had the right strategy.

I never said they would automatically win, if they weren't intimidated by Tyson. I said that Tyson wouldn't have that mental edge. Don't try and twist words around.

Tyson's fighting style is considered to be one of a bully's. Maybe he's not much of a bully verbally, but physically he is. And the physical part plays a mental note on his opponents.

Who cares if he was smaller? Just because you're smaller means you can't be a bully?

Please, tell me what exactly you're trying to prove. I still don't know. And please tell me why you bothered replying to me in the first place with something unrelated to the topic.

them_apples
04-01-2010, 11:10 PM
What do you think? Could Muhammad Ali lay on the ropes against Mike Tyson?

no. Tyson was too good when he got you on the ropes. Ali needs to try and do what he did to Frazier, grab and punch on the move and hopefully get him in the later rounds. He lies on the ropes Tyson finishes him and the ref steps in (can't see Ali actually getting koed).

Ali's real chance is the late rounds where he can either get a Ud or a Ko. wouldn't be surprised with either. I'd bank on Tyson hurting Ali early and even knocking him down though.

It's hard to tell what would go on though prime for prime, we never really saw Tyson lose heart in his prime, he had a great corner and made adjustments. In his comeback or later years It's a sure win for Ali in the late rounds when Tyson becomes frustrated and one dimensional.

them_apples
04-01-2010, 11:14 PM
Because it is simple: Stand up to Tyson and you win. That's why they all beat him.

So close your ears off to Ali and you will win.

Both relied on intimidation and psychological warfare. That's all they had. Take that away from them and you win.

So simple this boxing thing is.

I'm making a point. It's not always what it seems to be. People just like to stick to the simplest things possible to explain something but it doesn't always work.

I added some more to that post by the way.


good post. It's very true for both of them. Physically strong guys with mental strength could deal with Tyson. I have a strong feeling that if you never listened to Ali, he wouldn't have been as good as he said he was either. Especailly in his comeback.

but hey, boxing is very mental...it takes a special type of fighter with those kind of nerve's.

One more round
04-01-2010, 11:31 PM
Lying on the ropes with a guy like Mike would be too dangerous, he's too fast and explosive, plus he throws tight, short punches and moves his head well.

Ali got away with it vs George because while George was a huge puncher, he throws wide shots, isn't a fluid combination puncher, and is not that fast.

Ali would know this, and would have fought Mike the smart way, present a moving target, stick him with the jab and right hand, rough him up, push his head down, tie him up in close, taunt him, don't get caught pulling straight backwards, use the sides etc Then open up more and more as the fight wears on and Mike starts to get frustrated

Ali was a smart fighter.

DeepSleep
04-01-2010, 11:43 PM
Because it is simple: Stand up to Tyson and you win. That's why they all beat him.

So close your ears off to Ali and you will win.

Both relied on intimidation and psychological warfare. That's all they had. Take that away from them and you win.

So simple this boxing thing is.

I'm making a point. It's not always what it seems to be. People just like to stick to the simplest things possible to explain something but it doesn't always work.

I added some more to that post by the way.

I think your over-estimating Ali's mouth. There are quite a few fighter's who didn't play along with Ali's verbal antics and got smoked. Also I think Frazier didn't take Ali's verbal jousting very well and he did as good as any fighter did against the post-prime Ali.

neoaquino
04-02-2010, 12:10 AM
What do you think? Could Muhammad Ali lay on the ropes against Mike Tyson?

ohhh good question but i think tyson on his prime will kill ali, getting cornered by tyson is not a good idea for ali, hes rope a dope will not work, one solid punch and ali will go down

Verstyle
04-02-2010, 12:14 AM
Hell no he wouldn't. Tyson would choose his shots and rest just like Ali was, except his resting is tying up.

Benny Leonard
04-02-2010, 12:35 AM
Are you out of your mind or something? Why do you keep talking about Tyson's condition, training camp and fighting style? You've been replying with that since my first post, in which I stated that Douglas had the right stategy against Tyson and that Ali would wanna use that same strategy. What does bringing up all those things about Tyson have to do with it? Who cares whether or not he was in his prime against Douglas. The point is that Douglas had the right strategy.

I never said they would automatically win, if they weren't intimidated by Tyson. I said that Tyson wouldn't have that mental edge. Don't try and twist words around.

Tyson's fighting style is considered to be one of a bully's. Maybe he's not much of a bully verbally, but physically he is. And the physical part plays a mental note on his opponents.

Who cares if he was smaller? Just because you're smaller means you can't be a bully?

Please, tell me what exactly you're trying to prove. I still don't know. And please tell me why you bothered replying to me in the first place with something unrelated to the topic.

Strategy: Douglas's strategy wasn't so shocking that Tyson hadn't seen any parts of it before. Tyson was no longer trained to deal with it. Now if you want to say...so what...that strategy now works...OK; I'm cool with that. Douglas had the "right" strategy for what he could do which was smart and he was able to most likely get away with it because of what Tyson no longer could do. That's my point.
Although...another side to it which may be yours is that may be one of few strategies to use against Tyson and it is up to the talent of the fighter to use it against Tyson. That could be.

Tyson's mental edge for him is more about him knowing he is prepared to win. The opponent doesn't matter quite as much as people make it out to be. Tyson knew he would be met with an opponent that was bigger then him; stronger than him; even an opponent that could take his best shot and wouldn't back up. Tyson trained for that. He said it himself. That's why he trained as a "boxer" and not just some brawler. His attitude was eventually he would get to you no matter what you throw at him or how you feel; he'll get you.

Bully: he was aggressive. How else was he supposed to fight...especially fighters that are bigger than him?
Was Frazier a bully?
How about Jack Dempsey?
Rocky Marciano?
Roberto Duran?

I just want to see which fighters we want to just throw the "bully" label on.

Now if you want to give time periods of Tyson being a "bully"...OK...maybe I'm fine with that.

Point with size: These are PRO FIGHTERS. The problem I have with "bully" in boxing is that it is link to much with the school-yard bully who beats up on some small nerdy kid. Tyson was not only smaller than most of his opponents, he wasn't always stronger either. They were also trained Fighters so he wasn't taking advantage of them like the little old ladies Atlas said Tyson used to rob in the streets. That's why he trained. To beat other trained fighters ready to kick his ass.
He needed a certain edge to stand up to them since they usually were bigger, stronger, and fully matured. So he used a trained aggressive style.

If you want, I can even say Ali was a "bully" with the way he treated his opponents if we want to make the word so broad.


__________________________________________________ ____________

Benny Leonard
04-02-2010, 12:47 AM
I think your over-estimating Ali's mouth. There are quite a few fighter's who didn't play along with Ali's verbal antics and got smoked. Also I think Frazier didn't take Ali's verbal jousting very well and he did as good as any fighter did against the post-prime Ali.

I was over-stating it to make a point.

People believe to much of this crap that they are fed: Stand up to the bully and you will win. So I wanted to prove a point with Ali as well since he used words to influence how his opponents fought. Even if they became angry, the fought harder and when they fought harder, the made mistakes and burnt out quicker...like Foreman.

But would it be so simple to just close off your ears to Ali and you win?
HELL NO.

Ali can talk all the **** he wants to me and not let it effect me. I may even rip him back and I can be harsh with words. But would that change the fight if I would get in the ring with him?
HELL NO. He is 6'3, strong, solid chin, fast as lightning...and is a ****ing Great Boxer. He would beat the **** out of me. I'm more concerned with what Ali can do as a Boxer/Fighter than what he says before the damn match.

Same with Tyson. I can laugh right in the face of Tyson (even though it wouldn't be a good idea). Not care one bit of him trying to stare me down. And I can talk trash right back to his face. When the bell rings, go right after him and show him I'm not scared to fight him. Would that matter? Hell NO. He would **** me up.

"I don't try to intimidate anybody before a fight," Tyson said. "That's nonsense. I intimidate people by hitting them."

I'm not dismissing the psychological part to this all. It's a key part. The Mental side to it is something in boxing and in life in general. But for people to stick with easy lines like "He's a bully; stand up to him and you will win."

There is a reason why Teddy Atlas brought a gun when he threatened
a 15 year old Mike Tyson. Think about that.

T3dBundy
04-02-2010, 02:05 AM
peak tyson would beat the ali of the foreman fight, but it would be still competitive.
if ali fights the way he did against liston in the first fight, i just see tyson having a punchers chance in the early rounds.
i dont think tyson could do something liston couldnt, that version of ali would beat him 5/5.

sonnyboyx2
04-02-2010, 02:22 AM
What do you think? Could Muhammad Ali lay on the ropes against Mike Tyson?

Ali never lay on the ropes against Foreman, he used the ropes but never just stood there taking shots

Benny Leonard
04-02-2010, 02:34 AM
Ali never lay on the ropes against Foreman, he used the ropes but never just stood there taking shots

There were moments where he was up against the ropes and in a shell taking Foreman's shots in order to wear Foreman out.

QuietOne
04-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Strategy: Douglas's strategy wasn't so shocking that Tyson hadn't seen any parts of it before. Tyson was no longer trained to deal with it. Now if you want to say...so what...that strategy now works...OK; I'm cool with that. Douglas had the "right" strategy for what he could do which was smart and he was able to most likely get away with it because of what Tyson no longer could do. That's my point.
Although...another side to it which may be yours is that may be one of few strategies to use against Tyson and it is up to the talent of the fighter to use it against Tyson. That could be.

My first post, in this thread:

It wouldn't be a good idea. Tyson isn't someone you wanna take punches from, even if your goal is to make your opponent tire himself out.

I imagine that Ali would tie Tyson up, everytime he gets close. Just like Buster Douglas did.

I said Ali would tie Tyson up, every time he gets close. The majority of people seem to agree with me. Now, did Douglas or did Douglas not tie Tyson up every time he got close, as well? Try and answer that, without talking about how Tyson's training camp went (because it doesn't change the fact that he did).

Tyson's mental edge for him is more about him knowing he is prepared to win. The opponent doesn't matter quite as much as people make it out to be. Tyson knew he would be met with an opponent that was bigger then him; stronger than him; even an opponent that could take his best shot and wouldn't back up. Tyson trained for that. He said it himself. That's why he trained as a "boxer" and not just some brawler. His attitude was eventually he would get to you no matter what you throw at him or how you feel; he'll get you.

Tyson talking about how intimidation works for him:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9MtJ164XJI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9MtJ164XJI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Note the quote: "I knew how to beat these guys psychologically, before I even got into the ring with them."

Bully: he was aggressive. How else was he supposed to fight...especially fighters that are bigger than him?
Was Frazier a bully?
How about Jack Dempsey?
Rocky Marciano?
Roberto Duran?

I just want to see which fighters we want to just throw the "bully" label on.

Now if you want to give time periods of Tyson being a "bully"...OK...maybe I'm fine with that.

In boxing, a bully is someone who relies on intimidation and tries to hurt his opponent very quickly. Fighters like Liston, Foreman and Tyson are commonly labeled as bullies.

Who you wanna label as bully is up to you. But go ahead and ask everyone else on this forum whether or not Tyson should've been labeled as a bully. I think you'll find the results in my favor.

Point with size: These are PRO FIGHTERS. The problem I have with "bully" in boxing is that it is link to much with the school-yard bully who beats up on some small nerdy kid. Tyson was not only smaller than most of his opponents, he wasn't always stronger either. They were also trained Fighters so he wasn't taking advantage of them like the little old ladies Atlas said Tyson used to rob in the streets. That's why he trained. To beat other trained fighters ready to kick his ass.
He needed a certain edge to stand up to them since they usually were bigger, stronger, and fully matured. So he used a trained aggressive style.

Being a bully doesn't mean you have to be bigger than everyone else. Tyson was more intimidating, carried more power and was arguably stronger than most of his opponents.

If you were the victim, who would you be more intimidated by?:

1) a taller guy, who had less of a punch and didn't rely on intimidation
2) a shorter guy, who had more of a punch and did rely on intimidation

If you want, I can even say Ali was a "bully" with the way he treated his opponents if we want to make the word so broad.

Ali's fighting style was not one of a bullies, though. He's the one that would make his opponents come after him, while he was sort of trying to avoid them.

If you wanna call Ali sort of a verbal bully, then that's fine.. I guess.

boxingbuff
04-02-2010, 06:38 PM
I think Muhammad Ali would be talking to Tyson while laying on the ropes.

To make Tyson mad and throwing hard punches non stop.To make him punch himself out.Either it would work or Tyson would KO him.

Benny Leonard
04-03-2010, 11:49 AM
QUOTE=quietone;7965385]My first post, in this thread:



I said Ali would tie Tyson up, every time he gets close. The majority of people seem to agree with me. Now, did Douglas or did Douglas not tie Tyson up every time he got close, as well? Try and answer that, without talking about how Tyson's training camp went (because it doesn't change the fact that he did).

First off, let me start out by saying...Touche, my good man for a good conversation.
I am stretching my thoughts a bit more but there is a reason to that.

I agree with you with that; Ali would try to tie Tyson up when in close. But you have to remember that Tyson allowed the clinch to happen often if not out-right did it himself in order to get a rest...or even to get himself in close so that he could use sudden bursts of explosion combinations if he was able to. Depends on how tight the clinch was. He worked well at a mid-distance range. Clinching can be used as rest.

Most of his inside way of fighting where he out-right attacked the body was more early in his career before he won the title as far as a key attack. As he matured as a fighter and it was more likely the opponent was going to last longer because maybe they were a combination of being big, strong, and experienced; he adjusted his tactic and used pin-point shots to attack the body at certain key moments of the fight.

Tyson vs. Douglas: look at the fight again though...Tyson was looking to clinch early on and throughout the fight. Why? well I am not allowed to say because I would be repeating myself. But let's just say he did it more in this fight than any other fight to that point. There was even a video of his sparring session leading up to this fight (and not the famous knock-down one)...where you can see Tyson continually clinching.

In this fight, Tyson would punch and then jump in to clinch. Even a simple Jab from Tyson was often led by trying to clinch. What Douglas did in response was to prevent Tyson from getting his way. He wasn't allowing Tyson to dictate the terms/flow of the fight.

If Tyson threw a punch and moved in to clinch...Douglas made him pay. Look at the way Tyson positions himself, moves, and holds his arms after he throws a shot...it's to clinch...but Douglas is moving while throwing to prevent this. That's what was really beautiful about how Douglas fought Tyson on that night. Douglas used his athletic ability combined with the rest of his talent in order to not allow Tyson to do what he wanted. He didn't allow Tyson to rest which would happen in a clinch.

So for example: Tyson would throw his usual one punch and then try to get in and clinch...but Douglas would combo up and even move back and throw the combo as Tyson was coming in...and because Tyson's guard was no longer in a position of defense because he was now reaching for the clinch...Tyson paid every time.

Now if you want to use some examples where fighters would initiate the clinching as their tactic (and it was used to slow Tyson's attack and survive but it costs them their chance to win because there wasn't as much punching)...two fights would be that of the Bone Crusher Smith fight and Mitch Green.
If you clinch to much, you're not going to win. If you throw against Tyson, you open yourself up to being countered. What Douglas was able to do is a combination of everything.

So could you tie up Tyson? Yes. But he often allowed it. The one fight he was most disappointed in and didn't like the fight overall to the point of embarrassment when it was brought up, was the Bone Crusher Smith fight. Smith not only clinched up but refusing to open up pissed Tyson off. But Smith still lost a UD.

Quick note on that: At one point in another fight, Biggs fight, after Biggs had been knocked down and got back up...Biggs tried to clinch Tyson up while Tyson was on the attack...and Tyson refused to allow it and finished Biggs off. So I think he did have the capability to get out of the clinch if he chose to do it...but of course it was much easier to allow yourself to prevent the clinch when you have someone hurt because the fight is about to end right there so you can use up your energy to keep attacking.

Actually, that's a good fight to look at because of Tyrell Biggssize combined with how he fought. In that fight and I'm not sure who was not forcing the clinch of two arms so maybe Tyson was able to keep an arm free...but anyway...Tyson used elbows in that fight while in close.


Tyson talking about how intimidation works for him:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9MtJ164XJI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S9MtJ164XJI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Note the quote: "I knew how to beat these guys psychologically, before I even got into the ring with them."


Yes, seen it before. So how did he intimidate his opponents exactly?
What made them have fear???

He looked at them with a stern face and/or mean?
He really didn't do that all the time...not even that often.
Ribalta was one of the few times he did it while with Rooney.
Other times he had a relaxed approached to it.

Ever see Tommy Hearns?
The Klitschko brothers are steal when it comes to facial expressions. Wlad looks like Ivan Drago in a stare-down.

Maybe his aura of energy?

What was he doing before he got into the ring with them that made them scared?

Now Tyson does say a bit more on the matter in the interview which I can post up...but I want to know from you.

"I don't try to intimidate anybody before a fight," Tyson said. "That's nonsense. I intimidate people by hitting them." should still be taken into consideration since they are his words.

And here is something more to back it up:

In the past Tyson did not usually try to intimidate his opponents in prefight press conferences. "What he did was," explains Lott, "he used to hit them pretty hard."

This whole article is good...with some good points by Eddie Futch:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1139899/index.htm

Benny Leonard
04-03-2010, 11:49 AM
by quietone]In boxing, a bully is someone who relies on intimidation and tries to hurt his opponent very quickly. Fighters like Liston, Foreman and Tyson are commonly labeled as bullies.

Who you wanna label as bully is up to you. But go ahead and ask everyone else on this forum whether or not Tyson should've been labeled as a bully. I think you'll find the results in my favor.


How do they intimidate? What are they doing?

By "Hurting his opponent very quickly"...that's how?
Well, so did just about anyone that was able to.
Cus taught Tyson that if you can get a fight over quickly, do it; because anything can happen as the fight goes on. That's part of strategy if anything. You incorporate that into your style of fight.
Dempsey had the exact same way of doing things which most likely, Cus and Tyson got it from. He learned that it is better to get a fight over as quick as possible. And how do you do that? You hit the opponent hard and are aggressive. He learned that as a street-fighter prior to even picking up the gloves.


For someone on the smaller side, like Dempsey, like Tyson...if you had that ability...use it. Fighters tend to use every possible attribute that is at there disposal to win.

Being a bully doesn't mean you have to be bigger than everyone else. Tyson was more intimidating, carried more power and was arguably stronger than most of his opponents.

If you were the victim, who would you be more intimidated by?:

1) a taller guy, who had less of a punch and didn't rely on intimidation
2) a shorter guy, who had more of a punch and did rely on intimidation



Ali's fighting style was not one of a bullies, though. He's the one that would make his opponents come after him, while he was sort of trying to avoid them.

If you wanna call Ali sort of a verbal bully, then that's fine.. I guess.

It's Psychological warfare. Both Tyson and Ali used it. When Tyson was being trained out of Catskill with Rooney, Tyson wasn't about opening his mouth...while Ali opened his. Of course, as Tyson's skills eroded he relied on a new way of doing things. This is actually when he fit more of the "bully" character. I think it was Jerry Izenburg who brought that up. I don't want to mis-represent what he said but I also don't want to take his point and solely use it as my own. He wasn't a bully before he basically got with King...he became one when his skills eroded and he got away from his teachings. Tyson was able to rely on the mystique he built up from years of work he put in.

And now going back to one of my points: I still say "bully" should not be used in boxing. Tyson wasn't beating up some nerdy little kid who stood no chance while avoiding someone that did. Tyson was fighting in Pro Boxing against fighters that not only could defend themselves, but would. No matter what he did to knock them off their game mentally...they always had a chance to kick his ass...especially since they were Full Grown Men of large stature...more often than not...bigger than him with strength to back it all up.

Now a point for both Tyson and Ali was that they used their method(s) to enable them to get the upper-hand in the fight. If you can get that mental edge...yes...use it. That's war.
The key is to discourage the opponent and/or take him off his game. This happens in many different forms.



He is a quick thought

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gPAIFzsyqXo&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gPAIFzsyqXo&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



If you were the victim, who would you be more intimidated by?:

1) a taller guy, who had less of a punch and didn't rely on intimidation
2) a shorter guy, who had more of a punch and did rely on intimidation


So how is he "intimidating" me again?
What's he doing?

Staring me down?
So what...I laugh because a stare does nothing. He isn't hitting me yet.

I would be worried about the guy who had more ability than me and could kick my ass.

For me specifically; I'm worried about going up against a Prime Tyson (although not that it matters but play along)...because he is stronger than me; has incredible hand speed; throws in combination; is hard to hit and will make you pay when you try to hit him; when you do hit him, he takes your best shot; and overall...he is a Pro Fighters that is well trained/prepared to beat the living **** out of me.

With Ali: Same as Tyson.

Listen, I go to the Zoo and see the Gorillas. I go up to the glass they are behind and they stare me down. Sometimes they bang on their chest and roar with their teeth showing. I'm not scared. Why? Because so what...they are not attacking me...and they are behind glass.
Now take that glass away and let them come right after me...yes...piss and **** will be released from my body for those few seconds before I'm beaten to death. Why am I scared? because the Gorilla is attacking me and has every intent to kill me and I don't have the ability to fight them off.

Now what would boost my confidence? Being 35 feet back with a loaded rifle.

COOP407
04-03-2010, 04:29 PM
To answer the original question, No, I don't believe that Ali wins by laying on the ropes against Tyson. You don't want to get hit in the body by Tyson's left hook any many more times than you have to. Tyson was extremely powerful, and had hand speed that rivaled Ali's. Plus, unlike George, Mike knew how to pick his spots, and wouldn't typically flail away and burn himself out. I personally think a prime Ali is able to outbox Tyson, but not by laying on the ropes. Hell, Frazier gave Ali hell on the ropes, and Tyson is bigger,faster and more powerful than Joe, and hits like a bomb with both hands.