View Full Version : Ali vs. Tyson: out on a fragile limb.


Brassangel
05-11-2006, 10:55 PM
All right; I can't take it anymore. I watch Sabbath and Frazier's 15th make these ludicrous threads about great champions throughout history and how great they were NOT. While their research deserves credit, I have to say that it's moronic to use articles and statistics to assume that a fighter wasn't great; especially when the same logic could be applied to every single fighter in history.

Now, that aside...

I've noticed a lot of threads including posts regarding the myth of Muhammad Ali, and the myth of Mike Tyson: how they were both media hyped into being portrayed as invincible fighters in their prime, how good would they have been without layoff time, and so on. I think this is rediculous. Both were great, both suffered personal hardship, both got involved with the wrong people, both were repeat champions, etc. I think that their greatness should not be questioned. I think that the real question here is how a fight between them would have really turned out. While I am aware that this would be the 6984354986th post about Ali vs. Tyson, I am trying to look at it differently.

First of all, let's assume that Ali is the very slippery, fluid, hard to hit, feet rarely planted, and doesn't rely on his chin Ali that ruled the mid-to-late 60's. This is the Ali we know and love; the young Elvis, if you will. Clearly one of the two greatest heavyweight champions of all-time (perhaps only side-by-side with Joe Louis).

Next, let's also assume that Tyson is fast, accurate, very defensive, and full of the same heart he had when he was enroute to unifying the titles. Hungry, explosive, endurant. Not the sack of sand who showed up in Don King's corner and didn't mind getting hit while hoping for one big punch.

Okay, so we have two superfighters. Let's consider their styles and how they fair against each other based on what we know. For one, Tyson showed signs of struggling in fights where his opponents were tall with a good reach. This wasn't always the case, as we are considering the Mike Tyson who was determined. He still managed to win those tougher fights on points because of his ability to cut off the ring, throw combinations, avoid opposing jabs, and last for the length of the fight. One other thing Mike was good at was breaking his arms free in a clinch, and slamming at the body. This often took the legs away from his taller, agile opponents, thus making his usual disadvantage almost non-existent. Mike did come out a little too quickly from time to time, however, which could tire him out when he puts so much effort into every punch. Also, he never really went up against someone who could mess up a game plan quite like Ali.

Muhammad Ali was slippery, had a rock solid chin, a great left hand, and moved gracefully. It was difficult for opponents to catch him, as most heavyweights were used to plodding around the ring. If there's some criticism here, I would have to say that Ali was a poor defensive fighter. He didn't parry, and often times he just grabbed someone's head instead of clinching while waiting for the referee to come by and give him his reach back. Furthermore, Ali often waited a few rounds to get started while he felt out the pattern of his adversaries. Even so, Muhammad Ali was a great general in the ring and usually dictated the flow of each round.

Now I will site a few details that I think most people overlook, and this evidence is based on the studies I've done over the past few months. I have been watching prime Tyson and prime Ali fights on side-by-side screens, sometimes in slow motion. One observation I've made that most people aren't aware of is that Mike Tyson runs forward faster than Ali danced backward. Also, Tyson's hands fire off faster than anyone Ali faced, sometimes just as quickly (when timed) as Ali himself. Furthermore, fighters who gave Ali trouble usually did so by crowding him and/or countering the jab with their own jab or right hand. The two places they failed, however, were that they almost never attacked the body when given the chance, and they didn't work in the clinches. There's no better way to neutralize a fighter's speed than to attack the body and work the clinches. Mike generally combined these as well as anyone the biz. Ali wouldn't have had much in the tank without his legs. It's borderline annoying to watch fighters take swings at his face instead of ripping into the body which, for the most part, Ali left unguarded in close.

Finally, when people did manage to crowd Ali, they didn't maintain that pressure. Many times they would throw a punch or two and reset, giving Ali his reach advantage again. As far as I could see from watching them side-by-side, Tyson wasn't the kind of guy to relax from pressing an opponent; he also didn't give his adversaries 2-4 rounds to figure him out. He simply knew his gameplan and executed it before one could get comfortable.

With all of that being said, I will concede that Tyson's psychological state was always subject to frustration. I just think that, given what's been stated above, many of us, probably 95% or more, have written this match off without taking this information into consideration. Most people will say that Ali would dance around, flicking the jab until Mike gets upset, and then Ali wins a late round stoppage or decision. I even agreed with this when I wrote my "march madness + boxing" thread a while back. I am going to walk out on a teeny-tiny limb and say that this is a bad style matchup for both fighters, but it's clearly worse for Ali than it is for Tyson.

I would never place Mike Tyson above Muhammad Ali on my list of favorite fighters, or on an all-time greats chart. Even so, I think that given the different eras, the training, and the styles: based on how they approached similar opponents, I think that Mike Tyson would win this fight. Ali would likely come back and win any rematches, but not fight one. I've watched too many fights including these guys right next to each other to realistically give in to what the populace would have us believe. Ali will always be a better champion, a bigger name, a more stoic legend...but this is evidently an awkward match up.

Of the fighters who had styles and quirks that gave Ali trouble: what could they do that Tyson couldn't do better? When they failed to capitalize on an opportunity, Mike would have pounced on it. When they didn't have the ability to hurt (or especially finish), Tyson was one of the best at putting an exclamation point on his own momentum. When guys like Cooper, Jones, Folley, Chuvalo, that German guy I always forget, Quarry, and of course Frazier gave Ali trouble or even knocked him down, Tyson would have done much worse. Am I crazy? If these guys could win rounds or catch someone as swift as Ali, how could we think that Ali could run from Tyson all night while staying up? While no one truly stopped Ali, does that mean it was impossible given what we know here?

I hope to hear some real analytical views here based on the summarized study I've presented. None of this, "Ali would be too fast and Mike would get frustrated," or, "Tyson would knock Ali out because Ali hasn't faced anyone like Mike," etc. No closed comments, no biased opinions; just these two at their best.

More on this later, but I'm tired.

Heckler
05-11-2006, 11:51 PM
Tyson would not do better then Frazier did. Place Tyson in Fraziers shoes, 1971 the FOTC. Im absolutely definate with the amount of abuse Ali would throw at Tyson during pre-fight build up Tyson would go out trying to rip Ali's head off. Ali would only compound the problems he faced against Buster Douglas. Of course someone will retort with 'but he wasn't in his prime'... He would always struggle against Buster, watch him against James quick Tillis and you will realise he always had trouble against a boxer that had the ability to stick, move and attempt to fight Tyson.

Tyson was always able to capitalize when the oppurtunity arose? Mitch Green, Tillis, bonecrusher smith and tucker - He hurt all these guys atleast once during their matches yet he never finished them off?

'Of the fighters who had styles and quirks that gave Ali trouble: what could they do that Tyson couldn't do better?'

Frazier was a better inside fighter, unlike Tyson he was rarely muscled around on the inside and made a consistent attack on his opponents body. Sure Tyson threw quick combinations on the inside but he never made a consistent focused attack on the body throughout a fight and had a tendancy to go headhunting. Mike was a better mid-range fighter and had a tendancy to lunge in, if he did this against Ali he would eat right hands all night. Tyson although relentless never applied the same kind of pressure or achieved the same workrate as Frazier. Frazier was always on top of Ali, working his way on the inside and breaking him down regardless of the amount of punishment he had to withstand to do this - And here is the key difference, in the face of adversity where Joe would dig deep and persevere Tyson would crumble. It wasn't Joe's speed or profficency on the inside that defeated Ali, it was his relentless workrate and Iron will. Ali had all the tools to beat Tyson and there is no doubt in my mind that he would.

Tyson had the physical tools to beat any great fighter. What he lacked was the mental capacity. We often hear 'but under rooney he was stable' - I went back and watched Tysons fights when he was under Rooney, it was clear even then that Tyson had a short fuse and was fill of self doubt. He was still doing clownish **** like throwing punches after the bell, getting frustrated when he couldn't put an opponent away. He's a great fighter that never reached his full potential and would trouble all the greats of the past, but because he never showed the ability to dig deep and triumph in the face of adversity he will never be considered one of the very greatest.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 12:11 AM
Your choice of Jerry Quarry as a guy that gave Ali is trouble is amusing. No need to go into details. I take it you haven't seen those fights.

Chuvalo giving Ali trouble is only applicable to Chuvalo's strength and toughness. In their first fight Chuvalo won 1 round out of 15 on one of the judges scorecards and in their rematch Chuvalo won none of the 12 rounds on one of the judges scorecards. At best Chuvalo won a combined 4 rounds. My math says 1-4 out of 27 rounds isn't that troublesome.

Calling Folley trouble for Ali is laughable. Angelo Dundee predicted a 4th round KO so Ali and chose not no throw any meaningful punches until the fourth when guess what? Ali decided to throw a hard punch and knocked Folley down. Ali then toyed with Folley until Dundee told him to stop playing and promptly floored Folley again and ended it in the 7th.

Tyson against Ali would look similar to Ali-Frazier but Tyson could not absorb the same punishment as Joe, was not as mentally tough, allowed more breathing space and was nowhere near the in-fighter. Don't believe me? Watch Frazier against Mathis, Quarry, Ellis or the FOTC then compare it to Tyson against Ribalta, Green, Tillis, Tucker, Smith, Douglas etc...it's not even a comparison. Tyson often was content to hold and rest on the inside.

You won't want to talk about the Holyfield fight even though Tyson was younger than Ali was against Foreman, all 3 Norton fights and Frazier #2 and #3 and I'm sure you are factoring in Ali's performances in those fights to help you draw your comparisons. In any event Holyfield took Tyson to school fighting on the inside winning 9 of the 10 rounds befor stopping Tyson. Tyson is the only world class opponent I can ever recall Holyfield successfully using that style against. So much for Tyson being great on the inside.

Tyson had faster hands than Frazier, but not as fast as Ali's. Frazier had the better left hook while Tyson had the better right hand. Ali wasn't overly succeptible to right hands anyway. Frazier maintained his strength, power and determination as the fight progressed, but Tyson faded both stylistically and effictively after 5 rounds. Tyson holds the grand total of 1 KO win past the 7th Round, with his opponent Jose Ribalta still on his feet clear-eyed and complaining to the referee of the stoppage. The only other fighter he floored past the 7th round was Buster Douglas and we know how that one turned out.

One of the reasons Tyson didn't score late stoppages is because he was not a concentrated body puncher like Frazier was. While he did go to the body he had a tendency to head hunt more. Sustained body punchers break their opponents down, slow their feet and sap their strength. Did Tillis, Green, Tucker, Smith, Douglas or Holyfield (a fighter famous for fading against Moorer and Bowe) look worn down late in their fights against Tyson? Of course not. Why? Because if you could make it past the early rounds against Tyson even if you are a heavyweight with modest tools like the above mentioned fighters (Holyfield is the exception) you're likely not getting stopped.

George Chuvalo was trained by Joe Louis for the first Ali fight and had the Brown Bomber in his corner. In addition to Louis, the recently fired Bundini Brown was in Chuvalo's camp telling him how to beat Ali. Bundini was also near Chuvalo's corner during the fight yelling instructions. Louis mapped out the strategy and had Chuvalo concentrate exclusively on Ali's mid-section. By Chuvalo's admission 85 % of his punches landed were body blows. Now, with perhaps the greatest heavyweight of all time plus Ali's trainer in his corner you would think Chuvalo would have won more than 1 round. Anyway, did this 85% concentrated body attack sap Ali's strength late in the fight? Apparently not as Ali swept rounds 11-15.

To beat Ali, Tyson would have to get lucky in the first or second round. Ali defeated better punchers than Tyson and definitely tougher fighters than Tyson.

Abe Attell
05-12-2006, 12:12 AM
I think what people fail to realize is that Tyson with Rooney didn't slip up that much, and especially not with Cus and Jimmy Jacobs...the one problem is that when Cus died Tyson started to slip, and yes, even with Rooney, but of course it didn't get worse until after he won the titles.

It was said that Tyson's confidence was raised when he had "the right people" in his corner...people that had great egos about themselves, or better yet, confidence...Tyson was said to feed off of the people around him; so if he was around strong characters, he became strong, if he was around weak, he became weak...sounds a bit like a comic book hero, discussing a superheroes power and weakness:lol1:

When Tyson was in his "prime", with Rooney, Tyson at press conferences let his opponent talk all the **** he wanted to, just sitting there himself, with a look like, "You know what is going to happen to you, everybody here knows it, but I don't have to say a word"; he let his fists do the talking, he didn't need to talk ****.

If he fought Ali, just say Cus was there, I doubt Tyson loses it, nor does he fold emotionally like Liston did:
Cus used to say all the time that he knew how to beat Ali, but he just didn't have the person to do it...he even thought Patterson could have done it, but Patterson if I am not mistaken was not trained by Cus at this point, and wasn't healthy {he had a back problem, which is a big problem when you fight in such a style}

I remember reading an article as to why Tyson had a chance at Ali, and yes, even a young Ali, not the one that fought Frazier, the one that didn't have his legs back...in this article, one of Tyson's old friend, said that Tyson ability to move forward fast, to punch with two hands in combination, with speed and accuracy, would have been trouble for somebody like Ali who liked to keep his guard down, moving backwards to prevent the attack...with Tyson's speed, accuracy, timing, ability to punch with both hands, not afraid to be hit, etc. Ali would have been tagged.

Abe Attell
05-12-2006, 12:29 AM
Tyson would not do better then Frazier did. Place Tyson in Fraziers shoes, 1971 the FOTC. Im absolutely definate with the amount of abuse Ali would throw at Tyson during pre-fight build up Tyson would go out trying to rip Ali's head off. Ali would only compound the problems he faced against Buster Douglas. Of course someone will retort with 'but he wasn't in his prime'... He would always struggle against Buster, watch him against James quick Tillis and you will realise he always had trouble against a boxer that had the ability to stick, move and attempt to fight Tyson.

Tyson was always able to capitalize when the oppurtunity arose? Mitch Green, Tillis, bonecrusher smith and tucker - He hurt all these guys atleast once during their matches yet he never finished them off?

'Of the fighters who had styles and quirks that gave Ali trouble: what could they do that Tyson couldn't do better?'

Frazier was a better inside fighter, unlike Tyson he was rarely muscled around on the inside and made a consistent attack on his opponents body. Sure Tyson threw quick combinations on the inside but he never made a consistent focused attack on the body throughout a fight and had a tendancy to go headhunting. Mike was a better mid-range fighter and had a tendancy to lunge in, if he did this against Ali he would eat right hands all night. Tyson although relentless never applied the same kind of pressure or achieved the same workrate as Frazier. Frazier was always on top of Ali, working his way on the inside and breaking him down regardless of the amount of punishment he had to withstand to do this - And here is the key difference, in the face of adversity where Joe would dig deep and persevere Tyson would crumble. It wasn't Joe's speed or profficency on the inside that defeated Ali, it was his relentless workrate and Iron will. Ali had all the tools to beat Tyson and there is no doubt in my mind that he would.

Tyson had the physical tools to beat any great fighter. What he lacked was the mental capacity. We often hear 'but under rooney he was stable' - I went back and watched Tysons fights when he was under Rooney, it was clear even then that Tyson had a short fuse and was fill of self doubt. He was still doing clownish **** like throwing punches after the bell, getting frustrated when he couldn't put an opponent away. He's a great fighter that never reached his full potential and would trouble all the greats of the past, but because he never showed the ability to dig deep and triumph in the face of adversity he will never be considered one of the very greatest.


You notice the fights you chose to say "Tyson wasn't able to finish them offĒ were also the fights that those fighters chose to defend/cover up, preventing Tyson from landing any clean shots. If you haven't noticed, boxers tend to get knocked out when they have punches that actually land on them directly on a those spots that are not covered...Tyson has always been a fighter that is able to see and take advantage of those openings, those moments of opportunity that are there to expose.

For the Douglas fight, you have to consider the circumstances, why? Because that is what educated people that like to investigate "WHY" an event happens_happens. In this case it has been spoken many times before: he wasn't training properly, was not with Rooney, getting drunk and to much pie ;), was even having trouble in sparring leading up to the fight, basically, he wasn't motivated, didn't care, and wasn't "TYSON."
Should we not question why Napoleon lost at Waterloo?

Frazier was also not Tyson: Frazier was naturally a more motivated and determined person than Tyson, since Joe didn't need a trainer to tell him what to do or boost his confidence, but:
Tyson was stronger, had two fisted power, had a better arsenal of punches, was faster, had better head movement, was able to go forward faster, move to the side to setup his punches, and had a better chin...though of course the Ali that Tyson would be facing in a Fantasy matchup wouldn't be the one Frazier fought


With training with Rooney, I mentioned a bit above in my other post...that said, if you notice in his pro fights early on till the time he made it a full time into the black trunks, he was a better fighter...so he actually did continue to improve after the death of Cus D'amto, but he stopped progressing after he won the title...how do I know? just look at his fights before and after, he liked to attack the body more, but now, he was not throwing those combinations as much as he used to...he didn't seem to be as determined as he once was, even with Rooney in his corner...it seems that after he won the title he fulfilled his promise to Cus {that he would become the youngest Champion in history} after that, what else was there to do...I may have read it wrong, but I thought I read an interview that Tyson stated that he only fought to get out of the situation he was in, to fulfill what Cus wanted him to do, and he just liked that he was able to express his rage on his opponent, to make a name for himself, to be accepted.

Brassangel
05-12-2006, 12:39 AM
It's not that under Rooney all of his problems would be solved; it just happened to be that Rooney didn't fill his head with the same crap that Don King's camp did. Rooney didn't tell him he was invincible, nor did he say that no fighter could take his punch, nor did he say that these guys don't deserve to be in the same ring as him. He was more realistic in his approach.

While he hurt the aforementioned fighters without putting them away, he still outscored and generally outworked those fighters, despite his apparent lack of work ethic. Ali was excellent at sliding a right hand in the face of an oncoming attacker, but it didn't pack its usual disruption against a guy like Frazier who moved his head a lot. Granted, Frazier had a better work ethic than Mike did on the whole. I will not concede that Smokin' Joe was more hungry at all times than Mike was when he won his first title and proceeded to unify the belts. That was the last time Tyson looked mentally prepared for a fight or series of fights that counted. Also, Tyson's combinations to the body tended to have much more of a surprise factor than did Frazier's, as they came in from both hands effectively and with great speed. This often set up his ability to head hunt without too much difficulty; this would certainly pose a problem for Ali especially since he was reliant upon simply moving his head as a defensive maneuver.

James Douglas was a great opponent for Mike Tyson on that particular night in Tokyo, but it wasn't simply because his style and game plan would always pose such a problem for him. Tyson should have been in his prime during that fight, and I won't say that he wasn't. He didn't take advantage of his gifts, however, and often stood in place, throwing a telegraphed punch from a flat-footed position that Buster could counter without much effort. Also, I would have taken Douglas on that night against many fighters. That aside, way more factors than should be allowed in a fantasy consideration came into play to set up that particular result.

Since I'm assuming that this Mike Tyson is hungry, and there aren't any pre-fight hearings to give Ali his apparently psycho facade (which confused Liston soundly), this is purely the boxers at their game. Work ethic will usually perservere, but sometimes the physical advantages are enough to decide a match (a la Foreman vs. Frazier, Marciano vs. (Old) Louis, Liston vs. Patterson, etc.). The losers in each of these examples were generally more technically skilled with incredible heart, while the other had more in the physical department for one reason or another (age, size, reach, etc.). While this is not always the case, nor is the notion that work rate and heart will overcome physical disadvantage.

If Tyson's weak mindset at times was his largest weakness, the same ability to achieve this effect was one of Ali's greatest strengths; because of this, Ali would have an advantage. How good would he have been without the preliminary mindgames? If we just plop them in the ring, and the referees don't allow too much clowning around, what happens then? Tyson was uncertain at times because of his blurry mindset; but he did have those shining moments of heart before championships and hundreds of millions of dollars were in a 21-year-old boy's lap. Not to mention the poisoned whispers from manipulative women and crazy promoters. This is what I am suggesting: the ideal from both men. I sincerely believe that in our world of boxing theory, Ali would come up short in the most previously presupposed match in fantasy sports.

I said I was walking out on a thin limb; it's just that the more I watch of each, the less convinced I am that it would go how everyone assumes. I truly think that Tyson's lack of respect for Ali would be one of his advantages. It's how he overcame the savvy and experience of Holmes (whether or not he was old), how he crushed Micheal Spinks in less than two minutes, etc. While Tyson had rough moments in his prime, so did Ali. Everybody had difficult matches and moments where they even looked a little, dare I say, bad. Mike Tyson's flaws are often discussed or exposed before his gifts. His body work is overshadowed by his knockout blows to the skull. His speed is eclipsed in discussion by his power, and his hunger his never glorified because of his breakdowns.

*sigh*

I guess I'm nuts...

Abe Attell
05-12-2006, 12:44 AM
there was actually a fight when Tyson was younger where he was interviewd after the fight on how well he did, Tyson gave himself a "C" {something like that}...standing next to him was Rooney, who said, Tyson must feel he can always do better...that says it all.


For Douglas, there was not truly great what he was doing...he was acutally doing basically the same thing over and over...it was just that Tyson came in **** condition, thought he could land one punch and go home, had no head movement, etc.

If anybody doesn't think that if Rooney was training him that Tyson wouldn't have at least done better than what he did, has to be crazy...even if you take that particular Tyson, drive Rooney to the stadium to get in his corner for the 2nd round, Rooney still would of helped...yelling at Mike to go to the body, use combinations, head movement, etc.
In an interview, Kevin Rooney said Mike being in such bad physical shape, he should of just attacked to try to knockout Buster in the early rounds, that was his best chance.


Here is a great quote from Tyson's SportsCentury:
"Tyson was as good as the program you put into him"-{can't remember who said it"

Heckler
05-12-2006, 12:51 AM
Ali psyching out Tyson before hand or not Ali had the mental strength IN the ring that Tyson lacked

Sportswriter once wrote this: "Tyson exuded arrogance and self-confidence; but I submit it was the equivalent of a scared child whistling in the graveyard. If you look at the amateur Mike Tyson that cried before his bouts out of fear of losing, you will see an athlete filled with self doubt, a man, who as a professional had no answers when plan ďAĒ didnít work"

We can't suggest that we just LEAVE a fighters mindset out of the debate. Douglas would bother Tyson on any night and its quite possible he would beat Tyson on any night. Every time Tyson has been tested against a top notch opponent willing to fight he has failed and there is no denying this.

Brassangel
05-12-2006, 12:52 AM
You know what though? Even if Ali gets a hearing or a weigh in to mess with Tyson's head, he didn't allow himself to do much of the talking (or listening) when he was hungry. There's a good chance that Tyson would be business as usual. He knew his gameplan, and he used it, no matter what the opponent was talking about. While he was afraid of losing, there's no honest boxer in the world who could say otherwise. Ali said lots of crazy things to psyche himself out of being scared. He admits this in his biography when he talks about fighting Liston, Frazier, and Foreman. He looked confident, but so can any good actor. Tyson was very youthful in his peak, and this was more difficult to conceal for him. That doesn't mean he buckles to Ali, however.

Additionally, Tyson's punches did grow thin from rounds 7-10, but that's because he didn't need them past that point. His opponent was down and out before that mattered. Even when he had to go that long, he still won decisions because he was working harder than his taller, lengthier opponents. I guess this would mean that his work ethic was in place more often than he's given credit for. Joe Frazier usually gave up the earlier rounds in favor of taking the mid-to-late portion of the fight. That was just their respective preferences.

The big slide for Mike wasn't just Rooney leaving; it was before then. Winning the Undisputed bout against Spinks, who was terrified, was probably one of the reasons Mike believed himself to be (and everyone told him that he was) invincible. That's when he stopped caring.

This pleasant fiction is pretending we aren't at that stage yet.

Heckler
05-12-2006, 12:56 AM
"Even when he had to go that long, he still won decisions because he was working harder than his taller, lengthier opponents" None of these fighters were what i would consider EXCELLENT none of these fighters created a real situation of adversity which Tyson had to overcome. Your implying that Tyson was mentally stable Pre-spinks and under rooney, its simply ridiculous. Tyson throwing punches after the bell in many of such fights and loosing focus against Quick Tillis indicated otherwise.

Heckler
05-12-2006, 01:09 AM
Even from a completely technical point of view Joe Frazier matches up better to Ali then Tyson does. Frazier was always in top notch condition, he carried his power into the later rounds and never gassed. He was ontop of his opponent faster and cut off the ring better then Tyson ever did and without a doubt had a higher workrate.

Ali had incredible recovery and because of this he needed to be broken down over a number of rounds. Frazier was sucessful at doing this because he weathered the storm and and made a sustained attack on Ali's body at a furious pace. I have the Tyson career DVD set and although i have seen him use short, sharp body/head combinations on the inside i have never seen him make a sustained attack on the body in particular against an opponent that was putting up a half decent fight... in this case Tyson had a tendancy to go headhunting.

Ali had a brilliant comprehension of range and controlled the distance between him and his opponent better then anyone. From the periphery he would punish his opponents with well timed flurries and solid right crosses (the first 5 rounds of FOTC is a good example). Because of this Tyson would be punished more against Ali then he was against any other fighter. Would he have the intestinal fortitude to weather this storm and brake Ali down over a number of rounds? I suggest he would not. I dont believe Tyson could deal with the intensity and pace of an Ali attack when Ali was trying to keep a swarmer on the outside.

Brassangel
05-13-2006, 02:18 PM
Frazier didn't cut off the ring better than Tyson, he just managed to hang around longer once he did. Even so, we are trying to judge whose punches were more effective in close. Their work rate and style were different, however, as Tyson preferred clean, quick punches that found the most minute openings; while Frazier would pound and pound until he would win through sheer punishment. This would allow Ali to cover up from time to time which allowed him temporary recovery. Tyson would keep sticking a surprise shot into any crevice that was open, especially when Ali let his guard down to dance out of a corner. I see him getting caught in a moment like this and even being knocked down (a la Jones, Frazier 1, etc.). The difference being that Tyson feasted on a shaken opponent (other than Douglas) and did what he did before the knockdown with more intensity.

While I don't think this means Ali would be knocked out, as that was very difficult to accomplish for anybody, he might make the mistake of taking a round or two to coast and regain energy, which was also not effective against a fighter of this style. Mike wouldn't give him that resting opportunity, and Ali would have to step up his own work rate while being tired. Don't be fooled, there were times where Ali was out on his feet but he maintained the aura of a fresh fighter to confuse and stave off an aggressor. I also find it very hard to believe that Ali could develop a jab rhythm against a young Mike Tyson who bobbed and weaved at an incredible rate. He also managed to inflict 10 rounds worth of damage in a 4-5 round span. That shows an incredible work rate, regardless of how it's spread out.

While he did get frustrated at times, and did throw punches after the bell, it wasn't commonplay. Similar to the way Ali would simply dance and not throw punches until ten seconds to go in a round, or hold down the head of his opponents; both tactics that the referees wouldn't allow in a fight today. What we are excluding is their dirty tactics, since neither of them did it as often as they simply fought.

Furthermore, listing a single prime fight where Tyson was slightly off his game plan (but still won) in Tillis, doesn't forecast the matchup we're trying to analyze here. I guess if guys like Folley were able to win the majority of the rounds against Ali (even though Folley had a jaw made out of tortilla chips and was k.o.'d) do to his own flaws and goofing off, we should assume that Tyson would have demolished him given the same opportunities. It's not fair to base the outcome of this fight, or a series of fights, from a situation that exposed an off-night for either fighter.

I think many people forget that Tyson was very difficult to hit and had top-notch defensive skills. Ali's incoming 1-2's or straight right hands were often telegraphed by a slight raise of the gloves just above the hips. Mike's reflexes were good enough to see that and throw a counterpunch. While that doesn't define the fight, as Ali was a master at messing up game plans, it's still another hinge that could swing a giant door.

Example analysis:

Each fighter at ages 20-22
Tyson wins: he was far less green at a young age than was Clay.

Each fighter at ages 23-layoff
Ali wins: Tyson started caring less about defensive maneuvers and more about landing a bomb. Ali would eat this for breakfast.

Each fighter after layoff
Tyson wins: he showed less ring rust in his return than did Ali.

Each fighter ages 30-36
Ali wins: Tyson stopped moving and became a quitter, where Ali showed a great passion to be champion again.

Each fighter aged 38-40
Tyson wins: He took on a little more patience, and Ali had Parkinson's setting in badly by this point.

As we can see by these brief (and not complete) statements, a lot of this matchup would be dictated by the time at which we catch each fighter. If both were in their physical, mental, and working primes, I think we would need a best of 3 to decide the winner.

hemichromis
05-13-2006, 04:22 PM
excellent research its just a shame we wont ever see it unless ali comes back at 70 something!

Brassangel
05-13-2006, 05:39 PM
Yeah, a 70-year-old Ali who can barely walk and whose hands would be shaking going up against a guy who still has some fight left, but would quit anyway. Fight of the century. I'd bet that people would pay to see it anyway, as rediculous as that sounds.

Brockton Lip
05-13-2006, 09:54 PM
Yeah, a 70-year-old Ali who can barely walk and whose hands would be shaking going up against a guy who still has some fight left, but would quit anyway. Fight of the century. I'd bet that people would pay to see it anyway, as rediculous as that sounds.

I'd be one of them :confused:.
Excellent analysis by the way!

Heckler
05-13-2006, 11:11 PM
The folley fight is a bad example indeed... ali clowned when he knew he could and Tyson would not get these same oppurtunities. He didn't have much time to prepare at all because of the court case taking place at the time. When dundee told Ali to get his **** together he come out and dropped folley with a right hand, that fight isn't what i would call a great struggle for Ali at all. There is no exscuse for Tysons performance against Tillis, in his prime working the initial rounds with brilliant headmovement as always... Tillis simply exposed a flaw that would be Tysons downfall in his later years... Try to fight Tyson instead of surviving, move whilst agressively firing at him and you have a very good chance of neutralising him. Not because he didn't have the skills to deal with it but because tyson was discouraged. Even against Mitch Green Tyson showed that he was easily bothered when a fighter was stopping him from executing his gameplan as smoothly as he would like.

Ali grabbing fighters behind the head served a tactical purpose, Tyson throwing punches after the bell shows that he was a loose ****en cannon and was frustrated when things wern't going as smoothly as he would like.

You talk about Ali coasting and Tyson taking advantage of this. Ali pre lay-off was essentially always active especially in the first 5 rounds. Im certain that in those 5 rounds Ali would of built up a steady lead and Tyson would be crumbling as he realises Plan A isn't working. Mitch Green did essentially nothing the whole fight against Tyson, and yet Tyson could not put him away... whenever Tyson was on the inside Green would tie him up, Ali who was able to Tie up Liston, Foreman and Frazier would have no trouble doing the same to Tyson.

1967 Ali over any version of Tyson, 1971 Ali over any version of Tyson.

Tyson is possibly the most skilled and physically gifted of all the swarmers and boxers in general, yet i would give him the least chance of beating Ali. Yes he's faster then Marciano and yes hes more powerful then Frazier... but he misses those intangible qualities, the ability to dig deep which sets the likes of Marciano and Frazier apart from others.

I don't hate Tyson. I respect his abilities in the ring, acknowledge that he was incredibly hardworking in his prime. He is another example of a guy thats been ****edup as a result of his upbringing. The man should of been the greatest boxer of all time... biggest waste of potential ever. His skills alone would result in him beating most of the fighters considered all time greats but i personally do not believe he had that little bit extra required to take out Ali.

Verstyle
05-13-2006, 11:17 PM
all i gotta say is u guys write alot

Southpaw16
05-14-2006, 02:26 AM
This the exact type of thread that make people hate on Tyson. I can give credit to Tyson for being a great, exciting, and explosive heavyweight who revitalized the heavyweight division, but I can't stand even the suggestion that he could have beaten a prime Ali. They are seriously in a different class.

Regardless of how quickly he blew out his opponents in his best wins, Ruddock gave him trouble twice, Tillis gave him a lot of trouble, and Buster Douglas knocked him out, not to mention the other losses later in his career when many will claim he was "past his prime". This is not someone who could beat Muhammed Ali, there is just no freaking way.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-14-2006, 02:31 AM
Frazier didn't cut off the ring better than Tyson, he just managed to hang around longer once he did. Even so, we are trying to judge whose punches were more effective in close. Their work rate and style were different, however, as Tyson preferred clean, quick punches that found the most minute openings; while Frazier would pound and pound until he would win through sheer punishment. This would allow Ali to cover up from time to time which allowed him temporary recovery. Tyson would keep sticking a surprise shot into any crevice that was open, especially when Ali let his guard down to dance out of a corner. I see him getting caught in a moment like this and even being knocked down (a la Jones, Frazier 1, etc.). The difference being that Tyson feasted on a shaken opponent (other than Douglas) and did what he did before the knockdown with more intensity.

While I don't think this means Ali would be knocked out, as that was very difficult to accomplish for anybody, he might make the mistake of taking a round or two to coast and regain energy, which was also not effective against a fighter of this style. Mike wouldn't give him that resting opportunity, and Ali would have to step up his own work rate while being tired. Don't be fooled, there were times where Ali was out on his feet but he maintained the aura of a fresh fighter to confuse and stave off an aggressor. I also find it very hard to believe that Ali could develop a jab rhythm against a young Mike Tyson who bobbed and weaved at an incredible rate. He also managed to inflict 10 rounds worth of damage in a 4-5 round span. That shows an incredible work rate, regardless of how it's spread out.

While he did get frustrated at times, and did throw punches after the bell, it wasn't commonplay. Similar to the way Ali would simply dance and not throw punches until ten seconds to go in a round, or hold down the head of his opponents; both tactics that the referees wouldn't allow in a fight today. What we are excluding is their dirty tactics, since neither of them did it as often as they simply fought.

Furthermore, listing a single prime fight where Tyson was slightly off his game plan (but still won) in Tillis, doesn't forecast the matchup we're trying to analyze here. I guess if guys like Folley were able to win the majority of the rounds against Ali (even though Folley had a jaw made out of tortilla chips and was k.o.'d) do to his own flaws and goofing off, we should assume that Tyson would have demolished him given the same opportunities. It's not fair to base the outcome of this fight, or a series of fights, from a situation that exposed an off-night for either fighter.

I think many people forget that Tyson was very difficult to hit and had top-notch defensive skills. Ali's incoming 1-2's or straight right hands were often telegraphed by a slight raise of the gloves just above the hips. Mike's reflexes were good enough to see that and throw a counterpunch. While that doesn't define the fight, as Ali was a master at messing up game plans, it's still another hinge that could swing a giant door.

Example analysis:

Each fighter at ages 20-22
Tyson wins: he was far less green at a young age than was Clay.

Each fighter at ages 23-layoff
Ali wins: Tyson started caring less about defensive maneuvers and more about landing a bomb. Ali would eat this for breakfast.

Each fighter after layoff
Tyson wins: he showed less ring rust in his return than did Ali.

Each fighter ages 30-36
Ali wins: Tyson stopped moving and became a quitter, where Ali showed a great passion to be champion again.

Each fighter aged 38-40
Tyson wins: He took on a little more patience, and Ali had Parkinson's setting in badly by this point.

As we can see by these brief (and not complete) statements, a lot of this matchup would be dictated by the time at which we catch each fighter. If both were in their physical, mental, and working primes, I think we would need a best of 3 to decide the winner.
this is probably the best analysis in a while

prime to prime it would be interesting to see who'd win
all i'm gunna say is that style wise Tyson should win

RockyMarcianofan00
05-14-2006, 02:31 AM
Frazier didn't cut off the ring better than Tyson, he just managed to hang around longer once he did. Even so, we are trying to judge whose punches were more effective in close. Their work rate and style were different, however, as Tyson preferred clean, quick punches that found the most minute openings; while Frazier would pound and pound until he would win through sheer punishment. This would allow Ali to cover up from time to time which allowed him temporary recovery. Tyson would keep sticking a surprise shot into any crevice that was open, especially when Ali let his guard down to dance out of a corner. I see him getting caught in a moment like this and even being knocked down (a la Jones, Frazier 1, etc.). The difference being that Tyson feasted on a shaken opponent (other than Douglas) and did what he did before the knockdown with more intensity.

While I don't think this means Ali would be knocked out, as that was very difficult to accomplish for anybody, he might make the mistake of taking a round or two to coast and regain energy, which was also not effective against a fighter of this style. Mike wouldn't give him that resting opportunity, and Ali would have to step up his own work rate while being tired. Don't be fooled, there were times where Ali was out on his feet but he maintained the aura of a fresh fighter to confuse and stave off an aggressor. I also find it very hard to believe that Ali could develop a jab rhythm against a young Mike Tyson who bobbed and weaved at an incredible rate. He also managed to inflict 10 rounds worth of damage in a 4-5 round span. That shows an incredible work rate, regardless of how it's spread out.

While he did get frustrated at times, and did throw punches after the bell, it wasn't commonplay. Similar to the way Ali would simply dance and not throw punches until ten seconds to go in a round, or hold down the head of his opponents; both tactics that the referees wouldn't allow in a fight today. What we are excluding is their dirty tactics, since neither of them did it as often as they simply fought.

Furthermore, listing a single prime fight where Tyson was slightly off his game plan (but still won) in Tillis, doesn't forecast the matchup we're trying to analyze here. I guess if guys like Folley were able to win the majority of the rounds against Ali (even though Folley had a jaw made out of tortilla chips and was k.o.'d) do to his own flaws and goofing off, we should assume that Tyson would have demolished him given the same opportunities. It's not fair to base the outcome of this fight, or a series of fights, from a situation that exposed an off-night for either fighter.

I think many people forget that Tyson was very difficult to hit and had top-notch defensive skills. Ali's incoming 1-2's or straight right hands were often telegraphed by a slight raise of the gloves just above the hips. Mike's reflexes were good enough to see that and throw a counterpunch. While that doesn't define the fight, as Ali was a master at messing up game plans, it's still another hinge that could swing a giant door.

Example analysis:

Each fighter at ages 20-22
Tyson wins: he was far less green at a young age than was Clay.

Each fighter at ages 23-layoff
Ali wins: Tyson started caring less about defensive maneuvers and more about landing a bomb. Ali would eat this for breakfast.

Each fighter after layoff
Tyson wins: he showed less ring rust in his return than did Ali.

Each fighter ages 30-36
Ali wins: Tyson stopped moving and became a quitter, where Ali showed a great passion to be champion again.

Each fighter aged 38-40
Tyson wins: He took on a little more patience, and Ali had Parkinson's setting in badly by this point.

As we can see by these brief (and not complete) statements, a lot of this matchup would be dictated by the time at which we catch each fighter. If both were in their physical, mental, and working primes, I think we would need a best of 3 to decide the winner.
this is probably the best analysis in a while

prime to prime it would be interesting to see who'd win
all i'm gunna say is that style wise Tyson should win

Heckler
05-14-2006, 04:35 AM
Style-wise tyson should win? Boxing isn't that simplistic, there are loads of other factors that come into this... and in this case overrule the generalisations regarding how styles matchup.

osamabinwayne
05-14-2006, 06:52 AM
Boxing is a very unpredictably sport. Fighter A could be fighter B but fighter C could beat fighter A. Styles makes fights and there's no conclusive evidence on which fighter beats which fighter. Tyson DOES have the ability to knock out Ali. Anybody with a powerful punch has a chance against knocking out other opponents other elites. Tyson also had a harder chin than Frazier and better two fisted power. The chances of him TKO'ing Ali is very possibly.

Brassangel
05-14-2006, 11:33 PM
There are a lot of factors that come into play here, that's what makes it such an interesting topic. While it's true that Tyson got frustrated when things weren't going so smoothly, that doesn't mean this would be the case here. Ali was great at what he did, but we're trying to compare two eras where the fighters became faster, stronger, and also heavier than they had ever been.

Eras aside, there's nothing to say that Tyson's "plan A" wouldn't roll as smoothly as normal. Part of the reason it worked so well wasn't always because his opponents refused to fight...it just simply worked that well. I'm sure there were lots of fighters he faced with decent skills who studied his tapes and prepared themselves to exploit the visible flaw, but failed to do so because Mike had an on night.

The same could be said for any fighter whose gameplan worked for them. Just because there was a flaw in the gameplan, which there was in anybody's gameplan, doesn't mean that anyone could exploit it. Sometimes Ali's plan of attack could be flawed as well, giving Tyson, whose style works well in this matchup, an opportunity to make things difficult. I think that many people forget that he used to be a very studied fighter who researched the sport like a historian. On video he would explain how to work against each style and how to exploit it. He was less stable psychologically than some other champions, but that doesn't mean he couldn't put the pieces together.

As far as not putting some guys down who weren't that active during the fight: Nobody is going to knock out everybody. Considering who we are comparing here, I'm sure that Tyson knocked out guys who were better than a few fighters that Ali couldn't put away. But we're not trying to turn this into a "nuh uh!" "Yes huh!" thing.

Heckler
05-15-2006, 12:31 AM
There are a lot of factors that come into play here, that's what makes it such an interesting topic. While it's true that Tyson got frustrated when things weren't going so smoothly, that doesn't mean this would be the case here. Ali was great at what he did, but we're trying to compare two eras where the fighters became faster, stronger, and also heavier than they had ever been.

Eras aside, there's nothing to say that Tyson's "plan A" wouldn't roll as smoothly as normal. Part of the reason it worked so well wasn't always because his opponents refused to fight...it just simply worked that well. I'm sure there were lots of fighters he faced with decent skills who studied his tapes and prepared themselves to exploit the visible flaw, but failed to do so because Mike had an on night.

The same could be said for any fighter whose gameplan worked for them. Just because there was a flaw in the gameplan, which there was in anybody's gameplan, doesn't mean that anyone could exploit it. Sometimes Ali's plan of attack could be flawed as well, giving Tyson, whose style works well in this matchup, an opportunity to make things difficult. I think that many people forget that he used to be a very studied fighter who researched the sport like a historian. On video he would explain how to work against each style and how to exploit it. He was less stable psychologically than some other champions, but that doesn't mean he couldn't put the pieces together.

As far as not putting some guys down who weren't that active during the fight: Nobody is going to knock out everybody. Considering who we are comparing here, I'm sure that Tyson knocked out guys who were better than a few fighters that Ali couldn't put away. But we're not trying to turn this into a "nuh uh!" "Yes huh!" thing.

The boxers may have been stronger, although i think Ali in regard to functional strength is about as strong as anyone Tyson EVER fought. Did the fighters become better? I don't believe they did. Did Tyson ever fight someone as good as say a prime Jerry Quarry or Ken Norton? Possibly Buster Douglas on that particular night.. apart from that, i don't think so. The only competition he fought that was comparable to Jerry Quarry and Ken Norton beat him... Holyfield, Lewis, Douglas.

Brassangel
05-15-2006, 10:03 AM
Arguably Ali lost to Norton in at least two of their meetings anyway, so I guess I don't see the validity of your statement. Even so, my comment about the fighters of the different eras branches out into a spiderweb of comparisons.

Some of the simplest differences include the fact that styles became far less important as fighters were becoming counter-strategists and counterpunchers more than they were in the previous decades. That trend has continued to this day where more fighters will wait to perceive what an opponent is going to do before they attack with their own strategy. This can pose a lock up (or frustrating) scenario for someone like Mike Tyson, who always had an aggressive gameplan in place regardless of who he faced. Even so, he still walked away with a lot of solid victories, proving he could break these tactics down.

And who are we kidding? Ali was not a sound defensive fighter. If you consult any boxing trainer, historian, etc., you will hear the same thing: leaning back from a punch coming from a quick and powerful heavyweight is suicide. Many of these same professionals will tell you that had Frazier more speed and power in both hands, Ali would have been down far earlier and there likely wouldn't have been three fights. Had Liston been even just two or three years younger when he first met Clay, those bombs that missed by millimeters would have taken his head off. I don't know if this is true, but most critics and analysts, who know far more than we do, would suggest this is the case.

*sigh*

This will likely go on forever.

Yaman
05-15-2006, 10:11 AM
Style-wise tyson should win? Boxing isn't that simplistic, there are loads of other factors that come into this... and in this case overrule the generalisations regarding how styles matchup.

Arent you the same guy who went on and off about styles make fights? but when its about ali its a diffirent case right?

Brassangel
05-15-2006, 10:46 AM
Orignally Posted by Yaman

Arent you the same guy who went on and off about styles make fights? but when its about ali its a diffirent case right?

When defending the mystique of Ali and showcasing the flaws of Tyson this will often be the case. As someone who tries to look at every fighter as simply a man, who won overrated bouts at times and overcame others where they never should have triumphed, I'm a believer that style has a lot to do with it. Although Heckler is correct in assuming that there are a ton of factors involved here, that doesn't take away from the fact that, on tape (by comparison), this would be an extremely difficult style matchup for Ali.

Maybe I watch their films too often, but it's clear that neither Frazier, nor Liston, nor any of Ali's opponents moved with Tyson's speed, or attacked with such ferocity. Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson, he simply spread it out over the long rounds. That's in the category of preference more than it would be a liability. If a fighter concentrates that work rate, one can deny Ali his incredible ability to recover by crowding and constantly pressuring him. And don't compare this statement to the fight with Foreman, as Foreman's work rate was much slower than Tyson's, and it ran out of gas before Frazier's.

Once again, there were times when Tyson showed a (sad) lack of heart compared to the likes of Frazier, Marciano, etc., but not when he was going for the belt(s) the first time. He was focused, precise, and ready to go long rounds if necessary. He executed in the biggest match of his career by that point so well, however, that he walked away with a string of very short victories. How different would it be were Ali the champ, and Tyson was an up-and-comer hungry to be the youngest champion again? Yeah, I am nuts...

Yarrr...

LondonRingRules
05-15-2006, 08:49 PM
Don't believe me? Watch Frazier against Mathis, Quarry, Ellis or the FOTC then compare it to Tyson against Ribalta, Green, Tillis, Tucker, Smith, Douglas etc...it's not even a comparison. Tyson often was content to hold and rest on the inside.

** Tyson was bigger, stronger, faster, and had a more varied attack with both hands and better defense, so, no, few do believe you.

Past m' Prime
05-15-2006, 08:58 PM
You have made many valid points about both fighters and while I happen to agree with you, we will never know because it never happened. Never the less Great Job.

LondonRingRules
05-15-2006, 08:59 PM
The only competition he fought that was comparable to Jerry Quarry and Ken Norton beat him... Holyfield, Lewis, Douglas.
** Sabbath's dumber brother? Spinks was easily as good as Norton and many fighters Tyson beat are as good as Quarry and many better.

Holyfield, Lewis, Douglas are all after Tyson signed with King and additionally Holy and Lewis are post prison Tyson. Tyson was no longer a great fighter after signing with King. He had a 3 stooges corner working for him and wasn't training properly. He was just laying back and raking in the money that King confiscated.

Heckler
05-16-2006, 04:41 AM
When defending the mystique of Ali and showcasing the flaws of Tyson this will often be the case. As someone who tries to look at every fighter as simply a man, who won overrated bouts at times and overcame others where they never should have triumphed, I'm a believer that style has a lot to do with it. Although Heckler is correct in assuming that there are a ton of factors involved here, that doesn't take away from the fact that, on tape (by comparison), this would be an extremely difficult style matchup for Ali.

Maybe I watch their films too often, but it's clear that neither Frazier, nor Liston, nor any of Ali's opponents moved with Tyson's speed, or attacked with such ferocity. Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson, he simply spread it out over the long rounds. That's in the category of preference more than it would be a liability. If a fighter concentrates that work rate, one can deny Ali his incredible ability to recover by crowding and constantly pressuring him. And don't compare this statement to the fight with Foreman, as Foreman's work rate was much slower than Tyson's, and it ran out of gas before Frazier's.

Once again, there were times when Tyson showed a (sad) lack of heart compared to the likes of Frazier, Marciano, etc., but not when he was going for the belt(s) the first time. He was focused, precise, and ready to go long rounds if necessary. He executed in the biggest match of his career by that point so well, however, that he walked away with a string of very short victories. How different would it be were Ali the champ, and Tyson was an up-and-comer hungry to be the youngest champion again? Yeah, I am nuts...

Yarrr...

Frazier was not as skilled as Tyson and i am not denying this. What i do deny, and refuse to agree with is the notion that Tyson would be the harder fight for Ali over a 71' Frazier. In my opinion Frazier was tougher, Frazier was a superior inside fighter and i completely disagree with the notion that Tyson whom was all too willing to coast on the inside was better in this regard. Against a top opponent, in a situation of adversity Joe Frazier often thrived and triumphed... Tyson never did this ONCE in his career and frankly i don't believe he could. Even from a stylistic point of view i don't believe giving Tyson the nod is easily justified... even Rooney and Jacobs were quoted picking Ali over Tyson in a dream fight (Ali: Through the eyes of the world).

Heckler
05-16-2006, 04:45 AM
** Sabbath's dumber brother? Spinks was easily as good as Norton and many fighters Tyson beat are as good as Quarry and many better.

Holyfield, Lewis, Douglas are all after Tyson signed with King and additionally Holy and Lewis are post prison Tyson. Tyson was no longer a great fighter after signing with King. He had a 3 stooges corner working for him and wasn't training properly. He was just laying back and raking in the money that King confiscated.

What a complete load of bull****. Spinks may have been as good as Norton, i personally beg to differ. The fact of the matter is Spinks didn't fight, he lost the fight long before he stepped between those ropes. Please oh please list the fighters Tyson beat that are as good as Quarry and Norton?

Heckler
05-16-2006, 04:54 AM
Arent you the same guy who went on and off about styles make fights? but when its about ali its a diffirent case right?

Styles make fights... show me where i have said this... mmmm you might find that in GEORGE FOREMAN VS MIKE TYSON/ROCKY MARICANO related threads. In that i noted that Foremans strengths and thus his style built around such strengths would prove to be too much of a challange for any swarmer we have seen... george foreman vs joe frazier is probably the best example of styles making fights there is. There are exceptions and i have never denied this.

SABBATH
05-16-2006, 06:36 AM
Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson, he simply spread it out over the long rounds. Frazier-Ali vs Tyson-Tucker : Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson?

Frazier-Quarry I vs Tyson-Holmes: Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson?

Frazier-Ellis I vs Tyson-Thomas: Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson?

Three prime championship fights of Frazier's up against three prime championship fights of Tyson's .

One that went the distance each, two mid-round KO's each.

I won't even factor in how superior an opponent Ali is compared to Tucker. You can judge that fight at face value as to who has the higher work rate between Frazier and Tyson.

Shoot...

Brassangel
05-16-2006, 11:25 AM
Spinks gave up before he entered the ring with Tyson...probably true. But then Tyson entered the ring pretty nervous every time as well. Mike Tyson showed superior boxing ability, focus, and work rate by executing his game plan. Michael's game plan wasn't terrible either: he hoped to land right hands when Tyson came in, something that many have eluded would help Ali win this fantasy bout. Tyson didn't mindlessly slip inside, however, he kept his defensive wits about him and avoided the shots. It didn't take many of his own to end the fight, I suppose.

Ken Norton...yeah, this guy had dump butter running down his leg when he stepped into the ring with Foreman. I guess we can excuse him for giving up before the fight even started, and still consider him great. But any of Tyson's opponents who gave up before the fight had no right to be intimidated. He was only fast, powerful, explosive, hard to hit, blah blah blah... I would wager that Buster Douglas was intimidated going into their fight, he just managed to execute a fantastic fight plan, with incredible heart, and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances in his favor. Evander Holyfield, during an interview, said he was frightened going into both fights, saying, "I expected Mike to come out moving, avoiding my shots, and putting a lot of pressure on me, and that's intimidating. When the ball rang, however, he was flat footed, and he didn't do much to avoid my jabs. I knew then, it wasn't the Mike Tyson we all knew and I expected..." This is a great statement for what basically happened to Mike, not when he dumped Rooney, but once he unified the title. Even before this point, he still had lazy nights. Every fighter is bound to.

As far as what Rooney said about Ali vs. Tyson, Ali was quoted as saying about Tyson during the 80's, "He's a great champion; I don't think even I could have dealt with a fighter of his style and abilities...". That's one of the only times Ali ever said anything to that effect about a champion after his own career. When asked about Holyfield, Ali said he's too slow. When asked about Lennox Lewis and Bowe, Ali said he would have whooped them (he actually used the term "whooped"). I guess these statements show that it's just a matter of opinion.

This has clearly turned from an analytical thread into one where the proverbial regulars on both sides of Tyson's coin have come to duke it out. It's unfortunate that this has happened. I really hoped that it would be a continually informative and enlightening thread.

SABBATH
05-16-2006, 07:27 PM
Frazier-Ali vs Tyson-Tucker : Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson?

Frazier-Quarry I vs Tyson-Holmes: Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson?

Frazier-Ellis I vs Tyson-Thomas: Frazier didn't work harder than Tyson?

Three prime championship fights of Frazier's up against three prime championship fights of Tyson's .

One that went the distance each, two mid-round KO's each.

I won't even factor in how superior an opponent Ali is compared to Tucker. You can judge that fight at face value as to who has the higher work rate between Frazier and Tyson.

Shoot...Mr. Brassangel,

I've done a little legwork on your behalf. Here are some punchstat numbers from Heavyweight Champion Mike Tyson in his prime.

OPPONENT THROWN LANDED JABS LANDED
Tubbs ...........35.........16........14....... 3
Holmes.......... 33........ 16....... 11....... 3
Biggs.............38.........22........10........4

Now these punchats are on average per round. I chose 3 fights that Tyson competed in where fatigue had not set in, where he dominated and he won convincingly by KO. I'm sure the numbers in more competitive longer fights like the Smith and Tucker fights would be noticeably lower.

In any event, we can see that that the 'deadly accurate' Mike Tyson misses 50% of his punches. What is surprising is he misses Tony Tubbs so often, even though Tubbs, a big target and not known as an in-fighter stood flat footed and right in front of him.

The Mike Tyson jab that apparently had vanished by the time he lost to Douglas and was a factor in his decline is not really an effective offensive weapon at all for Tyson in his prime who averages only 3 jabs landed a round while missing a high percentage.

16-22 punches landed per round is by no means a high workrate against average fighters like Tubbs, Biggs and a diminished Larry Holmes.

To suggest that Tyson's workrate is superior to Frazier's is ludicrous.

To suggest that Tyson would land even the same much less more punches on a prime Ali at a higher % rate than he was able to land on average heavyweights like Biggs and Tubbs is also ludicrous.

Yogi
05-16-2006, 07:34 PM
I'm not 100% sure, but from memory I believe Tyson had a per round average against Smith of 16 of 26 in total punches landed to thrown...Something like that.

It's shown at the beginning of the Tucker fight anyways.

SABBATH
05-16-2006, 08:57 PM
I'm not 100% sure, but from memory I believe Tyson had a per round average against Smith of 16 of 26 in total punches landed to thrown...Something like that.

It's shown at the beginning of the Tucker fight anyways.Thanks, I'll pop the VHS in and verify. Tyson's punch rate is consistant then with his other prime fights at 16-22 landed per round.

Heckler
05-16-2006, 09:40 PM
Spinks gave up before he entered the ring with Tyson...probably true. But then Tyson entered the ring pretty nervous every time as well. Mike Tyson showed superior boxing ability, focus, and work rate by executing his game plan. Michael's game plan wasn't terrible either: he hoped to land right hands when Tyson came in, something that many have eluded would help Ali win this fantasy bout. Tyson didn't mindlessly slip inside, however, he kept his defensive wits about him and avoided the shots. It didn't take many of his own to end the fight, I suppose.

Ken Norton...yeah, this guy had dump butter running down his leg when he stepped into the ring with Foreman. I guess we can excuse him for giving up before the fight even started, and still consider him great. But any of Tyson's opponents who gave up before the fight had no right to be intimidated. He was only fast, powerful, explosive, hard to hit, blah blah blah... I would wager that Buster Douglas was intimidated going into their fight, he just managed to execute a fantastic fight plan, with incredible heart, and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances in his favor. Evander Holyfield, during an interview, said he was frightened going into both fights, saying, "I expected Mike to come out moving, avoiding my shots, and putting a lot of pressure on me, and that's intimidating. When the ball rang, however, he was flat footed, and he didn't do much to avoid my jabs. I knew then, it wasn't the Mike Tyson we all knew and I expected..." This is a great statement for what basically happened to Mike, not when he dumped Rooney, but once he unified the title. Even before this point, he still had lazy nights. Every fighter is bound to.

As far as what Rooney said about Ali vs. Tyson, Ali was quoted as saying about Tyson during the 80's, "He's a great champion; I don't think even I could have dealt with a fighter of his style and abilities...". That's one of the only times Ali ever said anything to that effect about a champion after his own career. When asked about Holyfield, Ali said he's too slow. When asked about Lennox Lewis and Bowe, Ali said he would have whooped them (he actually used the term "whooped"). I guess these statements show that it's just a matter of opinion.

This has clearly turned from an analytical thread into one where the proverbial regulars on both sides of Tyson's coin have come to duke it out. It's unfortunate that this has happened. I really hoped that it would be a continually informative and enlightening thread.

Quote Ali: 'Q: Do you think Tyson could beat you?
A: No - Ali in the 80's

'Now will people stop asking me if i could beat Mike Tyson' - Ali after the Buster Douglas fight

The quote you have provided is the only time i have ever come across Ali stating Tyson would beat him. But really, does it mean much? Does it make it true? No because fighters have a tendancy to be modest at times.

LondonRingRules
05-16-2006, 10:06 PM
What a complete load of bull****. Spinks may have been as good as Norton, i personally beg to differ. The fact of the matter is Spinks didn't fight, he lost the fight long before he stepped between those ropes. Please oh please list the fighters Tyson beat that are as good as Quarry and Norton?
** Please?

Go please yourself junior. Spinks had never even been knocked down as far as I know much less KOed. Like I stated, MANY fighters Tyson beat are as good or better than Quarry.

Heckler
05-17-2006, 02:05 AM
THEN LIST THEM AND JUSTIFY IT.... MANY... **** in that case there better be atleast 5. And 'Junior'?... is that right 'gramps'. I don't care how old you are, how long you have been watching and analyzing boxing for because it doesn't make your views any more valid.

SABBATH
05-17-2006, 03:20 AM
** Tyson was bigger, stronger, faster, and had a more varied attack with both hands and better defense, so, no, few do believe you.Frazier was a superior in-fighter, superior body puncher, threw more punches, carried his power into the later rounds, and was much better at cutting off the ring and trapping and keeping opponents pinned on the ropes. Frazier was also both mentally and physically tougher.

I'm not surprised you were educated in the same state that granted Anna Nicole Smith a high school diploma.

LondonRingRules
05-17-2006, 06:25 AM
Frazier was a superior in-fighter, superior body puncher, threw more punches, carried his power into the later rounds, and was much better at cutting off the ring and trapping and keeping opponents pinned on the ropes. Frazier was also both mentally and physically tougher.

I'm not surprised you were educated in the same state that granted Anna Nicole Smith a high school diploma.
** I'm not surprised you ain't figured out the great state of Texas could care less about what you think.

Obviously you need a smoke screen to cover up whatever hellhole you hide in. IBRO ranked Tyson 13th and Frazier 10th all time, so there ain't much difference between them. In a couple years from now the positions change, and at any rate the whole thing is a subjective beauty contest. Tyson could have retired at age 23 and would be widely regarded as the best ever.

Joe beat a better fighter than Tyson ever did. That's it. Max Schmeling beat a better fighter in Joe Louis than Frazier ever did, so that's hardly the basis for rating a prime Max over Joe or saying he'd have any chance against a prime Frazier.

Tyson had as many career bouts at age 23 as Joe finished his career with, 37, plus Tyson was undefeated with one more KO than Joe finished with victories, 33 KOs compared to 32 wins. All that by age 23 compared to Joe's entire career! Joe may have been the first to beat Ali, but Tyson was the ONLY fighter to ever knock down, KO, and beat Spinks and the ONLY fighter to ever KO Holmes and the ease in the way he brutalized them remains unchallenged to this day.

Facts: Tyson is bigger, stronger, faster, better defense, better overall power with both hands and more versatile offense at his best to best. Frazier might be tougher, but not any tougher than Tex Cobb who I'm sure floats your dress for you on cross days!

Mr. Ryan
05-17-2006, 06:37 AM
Prime Ali would box Tyson silly and keep him on the end of his jab all night and land hard right hands and hold him on the inside when Tyson tried to come in and do damage. Past prime Ali, the one that fought Norton and Frazier, would've had the fight of his life on any night against Tyson. Tyson would've been in his chest throwing body shots while Ali coasted on the ropes trying to regroup. That would be 15 rounds of absolute hell for Muhammad Ali.

SABBATH
05-17-2006, 06:51 AM
** Tyson had as many career bouts at age 23 as Joe finished his career with, 37, plus Tyson was undefeated with one more KO than Joe finished with victories, 33 KOs compared to 32 wins. All that by age 23 compared to Joe's entire career! Joe may have been the first to beat Ali, but Tyson was the ONLY fighter to ever knock down, KO, and beat Spinks and the ONLY fighter to ever KO Holmes and the ease in the way he brutalized them remains unchallenged to this day.You sho' is one big dumb Texan aint ya boy! Dang, me and you is fixin' to go to fist city!

Frazier was fighting tough ranked fighters (Bonevena) in his 12th fight while Tyson continued to feast on tomato cans and build his confidence and reputation for 27 fights against mainly walking corpses who shared 268 KO losses between them.

Frazier was a street tough and hardened fighter with a warrior's mentality. Not a mentally weak, insecure bully who had to be coaxed into fighting when he'd break down and cry before amateur fights like Tyson used to.

Having to compare Tyson's victories over light-heavyweight Spinks and 39 year old retired Holmes to Joe's win over Ali just shows how pathetic and weak your argument is.

You want to credit Tyson with stopping Holmes? Then give credit to Danny Williams, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield and of course Buster Douglas all who KO'd a Tyson that was younger than the inactive Holmes was, while Tyson was the same age as Holmes when he was stopped by Kevin McBride.

Frazier was only beaten by Ali and Foreman both after his prime (68-71) two top 10 ATG heavyweights, while Tyson was destroyed by journeyman Buster Douglas while he was 23 years old undefeated and in his prime.

There's only one opponent on Frazier's ledger he didn't beat unlike Tyson who has 5.

Give it up Redneck. Next time I'm in your state and I need a urinal, I'll head down to the Alamo and make like my Avetar did.

Have a nice day and don't forget to brush your tooth.
http://www.doheth.co.uk/funny/signs/Texas.jpg

LondonRingRules
05-18-2006, 06:18 AM
You sho' is one big dumb Texan aint ya boy! Dang, me and you is fixin' to go to fist city!

Frazier was fighting tough ranked fighters (Bonevena) in his 12th fight while Tyson continued to feast on tomato cans and build his confidence and reputation for 27 fights against mainly walking corpses who shared 268 KO losses between them.

** Wow, didn't know an Ozzy-wanna be would know anything about personal hygiene. No doubt your brush does double duty at both ends.

Frazier faced another young prospect in Oscar who had been upgraded with a win over Chuvalo. Frazier was lucky to win that fight which was in his 2nd year of boxing, being knocked down twice and on the ropes.

In Tyson's 2nd year of boxing, besides many others, he also beat Ferguson, Zouski, Tillis, Green, Marvis Frazier, Ribalta, all but 2 KOed early. Then he brutalizes Berbick in 3rds for his title. There is no way Frazier had a better 2nd year than Tyson except in a drug addled OzzyWorld.

Keep blowin' the crack out of both ends OzBoy.

SABBATH
05-18-2006, 07:55 AM
Frazier faced another young prospect in Oscar who had been upgraded with a win over Chuvalo. Frazier was lucky to win that fight which was in his 2nd year of boxing, being knocked down twice and on the ropes.

In Tyson's 2nd year of boxing, besides many others, he also beat Ferguson, Zouski, Tillis, Green, Marvis Frazier, Ribalta, all but 2 KOed early. Then he brutalizes Berbick in 3rds for his title. There is no way Frazier had a better 2nd year than Tyson except in a drug addled OzzyWorld.
Dag gumitt Gatemouth, now I know you must have an engine block in your front yard and a couch on yer dang front porch. Y'all say howdy to yer wife/cousin fer me too down 'ere in that ol' trailer park of yers!

Frazier was put in against Bonevena because his management wanted him tested, to give him some adversity which in turn would make him a better fighter and stronger mentally. See now, that's what you a critical step in developing a fighter.

Frazier faced a tough opponent who knocked him down and Joe responded by getting off the floor and winning the fight. Don't recall that 'ol yankee boy from The Catskills ever doin' that now can ya? Maybe if that dang 'ol yankee boy hadn't had his confidence inflated fightin' so many stiffs and got tested a little more early in his career, he wouldn't have folded like a Mule Shoe welfare cheque when he finally fought an opponent who stood up to him.

Come to think of it, maybe the same thing applies to that big ol' boy from Marshall that got his ass whooped over there in Kinshasa by that Clay feller'.

In Evander Holyfield's 12th fight he was matched with Dwight Quawi a skilled, tough, hardened and seasoned champion. In his second year as a pro, Holyfield dug deep and won a decision over 15 tough rounds. This is called putting your protege to the test early in his career and not being fearful of losing. It's also called developing a fighter. Holyfield passed the test and went on to dig deep many times throughout his career.

Shoot, I reckon if ya done yer learnin' ya would a known all that.....

Brassangel
05-18-2006, 11:53 AM
SABBATH and LondonRingRules have done exactly what I was saying this thread should NOT turn into...yikes!

Both have keenly twisted facts and observations like a crafty politician to make it sound as though their analyses of Tyson (and, for some reason, Frazier) are correct.

On the flip side of your coin, SABBATH, fighting a lot of fighters continuously, no matter what level they are gives a fighter confidence where they might not have had it before, and gives them a ring-readiness they may not have already had. Especially when your protege is a 19-year-old kid.

The real truth is, Ali vs. Tyson would be a matchup decided by when we catch each fighter. Niether fighter really got to showcase their true primes due to various circumstances. Ali made a much better comeback for himself, however, where Tyson lost the desire to fight.

And on a side note, Tyson wasn't stopped by McBride, he quit. While that doesn't make Mike any better in this situation, one should be reminded that he was winning on the cards. And he was 39 years old.

Side note #2: A fighter's statement about whether or not they believe they could take another fighter from a different era doesn't prove anything: that's exactly what I was trying to say, Heckler. The same applies to what Rooney felt about Tyson vs. Ali. Niether Ali's respectful comments (or disrespectful ones), nor Rooney's quote about his fighter losing to Ali hold any water. Since Rooney's quote was used earlier as a "see, I told you!" to defend Ali over Tyson, I figured I would list an example where the Lip himself said otherwise on one occassion. It's not as a counterpoint, but rather, an equilibrium of irrelevence if you will.

LondonRingRules
05-18-2006, 01:26 PM
Dag gumitt Gatemouth, now I know you must have an engine block in your front yard and a couch on yer dang front porch. Y'all say howdy to yer wife/cousin fer me too down 'ere in that ol' trailer park of yers!

Frazier was put in against Bonevena because his management wanted him tested, to give him some adversity which in turn would make him a better fighter and stronger mentally. See now, that's what you a critical step in developing a fighter.

** Yeah, Joe was tested alright and found out he needed to up his game. Tyson wasn't tested at all. No need to develop him, he'd already arrived and beat up everyone until he had a heavyweight title in his 2nd year. Ali didn't do that, nor Frazier, nor Dempsey, nor Louis, nor Rocky, nor Lewis nor Holy.

I'd tell you to study up, but you've misplaced your oxycontin again, maybe hidden in your old crackpipe or maybe you just forgot that you use the suppository drug delivery system!

SABBATH
05-18-2006, 03:14 PM
Yeah, Joe was tested alright and found out he needed to up his game. Tyson wasn't tested at all. No need to develop him, he'd already arrived and beat up everyone until he had a heavyweight title in his 2nd year. Ali didn't do that, nor Frazier, nor Dempsey, nor Louis, nor Rocky, nor Lewis nor Holy. Y'all one of them dim witted fellers ain't ya?

No need to develop that 'ol Yankee boy from the Catskills. He done real good against that there Douglas feller when a little mobility and some punchin' back from an average heavyweight done the 'ol trick any old how.

Dang Yankee never did figure out how to dig deep. Y'see cowpoke, that feller from the Catskills never did no learnin' on how do y'all say "a little adversity?"

I heard there was a boy by the name of Wilfred Benitez or sumthin'. Won a junior-welter title at 17 years of age against a hall of famer. Well I'll be a horned tooth jackass. He musta been better than that there Sugar Ray Robinson feller'!

Im just gald them fine taxpayers down in 'ol Muleshoe been puttin' money inta programs that allow the mentally disabled to learn a few computer skills.

Y'all type alright usin just yer thumbs country boy.

http://www.vex.net/~emily/pictures/muleshoe.jpg
COME ON DOWN TO WHERE IT'S LEGAL TO MARRY YER FIRST COUSIN!

Yaman
05-18-2006, 04:20 PM
Y'all one of them dim witted fellers ain't ya?

No need to develop that 'ol Yankee boy from the Catskills. He done real good against that there Douglas feller when a little mobility and some punchin' back from an average heavyweight done the 'ol trick any old how.

Dang Yankee never did figure out how to dig deep. Y'see cowpoke, that feller from the Catskills never did no learnin' on how do y'all say "a little adversity?"

I heard there was a boy by the name of Wilfred Benitez or sumthin'. Won a junior-welter title at 17 years of age against a hall of famer. Well I'll be a horned tooth jackass. He musta been better than that there Sugar Ray Robinson feller'!

Im just gald them fine taxpayers down in 'ol Muleshoe been puttin' money inta programs that allow the mentally disabled to learn a few computer skills.

Y'all type alright usin just yer thumbs country boy.

http://www.vex.net/~emily/pictures/muleshoe.jpg
COME ON DOWN TO WHERE IT'S LEGAL TO MARRY YER FIRST COUSIN!

Just shut the **** up with that bull****. Its NOT funny, and you will never be funny. If you can't post like a sane person, dont bother at all.

K-DOGG
05-18-2006, 04:47 PM
I might have posted this before. If so, sorry; but here's how I see a prime Ali vs a prime Tyson from an objective analytical break-down.

The Mike Tyson Iíll be using is the one who fought Michael Spinks in 1988. To refresh your memory, Mike was three days shy of his 22nd birthday, 34-0 (30), and weighed in at 218 ľ Lbs.

The first thing people think about when the name, Mike Tyson, comes up is his punching power; but I submit that it wasnít only his natural punching ability that made Mike as good as he was, it was a combination of talents. Mike was freakishly fast for a heavyweight, able to unload up to five punches in less than two seconds. In addition to his hand-speed and punching power, Mike had phenomenal head movement, making him extraordinarily difficult to hit while he bobbed and weaved looking for the opportunity to unload not just one; but a whole volley of power shots on his opponent.

Now, hereís the trick; obviously there were things about Mike we hadnít learned at the time of the Spinks fight that we know now. For example, with Muhammad Ali, his peak was arguably against Cleveland Williams, since weíll never know how good he could have been during the three years he was banned from fighting. At the time of the Williams fight, nobody knew how good Ali could take a punch because no one had really been able to hit him solid, with the obvious exceptions of Henry Cooper and Sonny Banks. It was only after we saw Ali fight in the second half of his career, that we knew he had a granite jaw. Since granite does not grow overnight and a fighterís chin does not get better with time, we have to presume Ali could take a punch just as well at 25 as he could at 35, if not better. Clichť, though it is, hindsight is 20/20, so we might as well use it.

On November 14th, 1966, a 24 year old Muhammad Ali climbed into the ring with Clevand Williams in Houston, Texas and showed us what a complete fighter looks like: blinding speed of hand and foot and with that speed, power that belied his frame. Ali would never look so good in the ring again as he did against Williams, so thatís the Ali weíll use. At the time, he had a record of 26-0 (21) and weighed in at a svelte 212 ĺ lbs. For those that do not know, Ali had a rapier-like jab, and had arguably the fastest hands of any heavyweight who ever lived and most assuredly the fastest feet. Ali could start throwing a punch when he was out of range and his feet would carry him in range to land the shot and out again before his opponent could get off a counter.

When the opening bell sounds, it has to be rung twice because neither fighter can hear it over the roar of the crowd. When the bout does get under way, both men rush to ring center, with Ali, at the last second sidestepping while pulling back to miss a murderous left hook. Tyson, while fast of hand, has to be within range for that hand-speed to amount to anything and Ali is quite content to keep him at the end of a blistering jab, which, to his surprise, isnít landing as often as heíd like. The whole round consists of Tyson bobbing and weaving very quickly towards Ali, only to be alone when he gets to where Ali was just a second before.

Every time Mike gets close, he is peppered with razor-sharp jabs and rights for his efforts and has no one to get revenge on when the punches stop. At the end of the first round, Tyson motions furiously at Ali, angry that he apparently didnít come to fight. By the third, Ali has Mikeís timing down and begins to rip in a few hooks of his own amid the jabs and rights. While nothing seems to be affecting Tyson, the points are piling up. When the bell rings for the 8th, there is a visible swelling around Mikeís left eye and he still has yet to connect with anything solid and is starting to swing wildly, lunging out of desperation and frustration at a target that is never in range.

At the start of the 10th, Mikeís right eye is also swollen with a good sized gash above the lid and his left eye is all but closed. Smelling the end, Ali suddenly plants his feet and unloads a blur of straight rights, hooks and uppercuts on a Tyson, who is totally caught off guard by this sudden offensive outburst. By the time he can fire off a counter, Ali is out of the way again. As soon as he thinks Aliís onslaught is over, Mikeís caught with a solid double hook off the jab, which causes him to visibly wobble.

Lunging for retribution with a whistling left hook, Mike catches nothing but air and is blasted for his trouble with a surprisingly powerful right cross, which knocks him off balance into the ropes. Before he can steady himself, Tyson is caught in a blizzard of punches that seem to be coming from every conceivable angle. Again he lunges forward with an uppercut that misses and catches a solid hook for his trouble, followed by another straight right and drops to the canvas as much out of confusion as out of hurt. Mike reaches his feet at the count of eight and affirms to the referee that he wants to continue. However the ref is now looking at Mikeís right eye, from which is flowing a cascade of crimson and waves the fight off, determining Tyson can no longer see incoming shots. Mike protests to no avail.

Here's my reasoning: Mike Tysonís career will ultimately be seen as incomplete. He never achieved his potential because something of finer quality was missing. If this weren't so, he would have had a better second career than he did....no, he'd never be able to be as good as in his youth; but it wouldn't have gone the way it did. He lost his hunger for the game in prison, Ali became famished for the sport in exile....that says something abou the drive of both men and the differences in them as men.

Once you got past the power and the extraordinary ability, there was a big gaping hole. Said hole, is why he never came back to win a fight he was behind in, said hole is why he bit off Holyfieldís ear when it became obvious to him that Evander was about to embarrass him again, and said hole is why he could never beat the gameís immortals.

Where he was empty as a fighter, Ali was overflowing with the intangible qualities of heart and will to win, or simply putÖ.belief in oneís self. Tyson exuded arrogance and self-confidence; but I submit it was the equivalent of a scared child whistling in the graveyard, especially in the second career; a man, who had no answers when plan ďAĒ didnít work....as he didn't in career 1, Rooney did.

Iím not hating on Tyson. Iím calling it as I see it. In the end, Mike was an incomplete fighter and no incomplete fighter can beat a complete one.

Finis'

Brassangel
05-18-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by K-DOGG
I might have posted this before. If so, sorry; but here's how I see a prime Ali vs a prime Tyson from an objective analytical break-down.

The Mike Tyson Iíll be using is the one who fought Michael Spinks in 1988. To refresh your memory, Mike was three days shy of his 22nd birthday, 34-0 (30), and weighed in at 218 ľ Lbs.

The first thing people think about when the name, Mike Tyson, comes up is his punching power; but I submit that it wasnít only his natural punching ability that made Mike as good as he was, it was a combination of talents. Mike was freakishly fast for a heavyweight, able to unload up to five punches in less than two seconds. In addition to his hand-speed and punching power, Mike had phenomenal head movement, making him extraordinarily difficult to hit while he bobbed and weaved looking for the opportunity to unload not just one; but a whole volley of power shots on his opponent.

Now, hereís the trick; obviously there were things about Mike we hadnít learned at the time of the Spinks fight that we know now. For example, with Muhammad Ali, his peak was arguably against Cleveland Williams, since weíll never know how good he could have been during the three years he was banned from fighting. At the time of the Williams fight, nobody knew how good Ali could take a punch because no one had really been able to hit him solid, with the obvious exceptions of Henry Cooper and Sonny Banks. It was only after we saw Ali fight in the second half of his career, that we knew he had a granite jaw. Since granite does not grow overnight and a fighterís chin does not get better with time, we have to presume Ali could take a punch just as well at 25 as he could at 35, if not better. Clichť, though it is, hindsight is 20/20, so we might as well use it.

On November 14th, 1966, a 24 year old Muhammad Ali climbed into the ring with Clevand Williams in Houston, Texas and showed us what a complete fighter looks like: blinding speed of hand and foot and with that speed, power that belied his frame. Ali would never look so good in the ring again as he did against Williams, so thatís the Ali weíll use. At the time, he had a record of 26-0 (21) and weighed in at a svelte 212 ĺ lbs. For those that do not know, Ali had a rapier-like jab, and had arguably the fastest hands of any heavyweight who ever lived and most assuredly the fastest feet. Ali could start throwing a punch when he was out of range and his feet would carry him in range to land the shot and out again before his opponent could get off a counter.

When the opening bell sounds, it has to be rung twice because neither fighter can hear it over the roar of the crowd. When the bout does get under way, both men rush to ring center, with Ali, at the last second sidestepping while pulling back to miss a murderous left hook. Tyson, while fast of hand, has to be within range for that hand-speed to amount to anything and Ali is quite content to keep him at the end of a blistering jab, which, to his surprise, isnít landing as often as heíd like. The whole round consists of Tyson bobbing and weaving very quickly towards Ali, only to be alone when he gets to where Ali was just a second before.

Every time Mike gets close, he is peppered with razor-sharp jabs and rights for his efforts and has no one to get revenge on when the punches stop. At the end of the first round, Tyson motions furiously at Ali, angry that he apparently didnít come to fight. By the third, Ali has Mikeís timing down and begins to rip in a few hooks of his own amid the jabs and rights. While nothing seems to be affecting Tyson, the points are piling up. When the bell rings for the 8th, there is a visible swelling around Mikeís left eye and he still has yet to connect with anything solid and is starting to swing wildly, lunging out of desperation and frustration at a target that is never in range.

At the start of the 10th, Mikeís right eye is also swollen with a good sized gash above the lid and his left eye is all but closed. Smelling the end, Ali suddenly plants his feet and unloads a blur of straight rights, hooks and uppercuts on a Tyson, who is totally caught off guard by this sudden offensive outburst. By the time he can fire off a counter, Ali is out of the way again. As soon as he thinks Aliís onslaught is over, Mikeís caught with a solid double hook off the jab, which causes him to visibly wobble.

Lunging for retribution with a whistling left hook, Mike catches nothing but air and is blasted for his trouble with a surprisingly powerful right cross, which knocks him off balance into the ropes. Before he can steady himself, Tyson is caught in a blizzard of punches that seem to be coming from every conceivable angle. Again he lunges forward with an uppercut that misses and catches a solid hook for his trouble, followed by another straight right and drops to the canvas as much out of confusion as out of hurt. Mike reaches his feet at the count of eight and affirms to the referee that he wants to continue. However the ref is now looking at Mikeís right eye, from which is flowing a cascade of crimson and waves the fight off, determining Tyson can no longer see incoming shots. Mike protests to no avail.

Here's my reasoning: Mike Tysonís career will ultimately be seen as incomplete. He never achieved his potential because something of finer quality was missing. If this weren't so, he would have had a better second career than he did....no, he'd never be able to be as good as in his youth; but it wouldn't have gone the way it did. He lost his hunger for the game in prison, Ali became famished for the sport in exile....that says something abou the drive of both men and the differences in them as men.

Once you got past the power and the extraordinary ability, there was a big gaping hole. Said hole, is why he never came back to win a fight he was behind in, said hole is why he bit off Holyfieldís ear when it became obvious to him that Evander was about to embarrass him again, and said hole is why he could never beat the gameís immortals.

Where he was empty as a fighter, Ali was overflowing with the intangible qualities of heart and will to win, or simply putÖ.belief in oneís self. Tyson exuded arrogance and self-confidence; but I submit it was the equivalent of a scared child whistling in the graveyard, especially in the second career; a man, who had no answers when plan ďAĒ didnít work....as he didn't in career 1, Rooney did.

Iím not hating on Tyson. Iím calling it as I see it. In the end, Mike was an incomplete fighter and no incomplete fighter can beat a complete one.

Finis'

While this is a repeat compilation of your previous dissertations on the subject, it's still believable; although I find it a tad dramatic. I don't think that the little "extra" that was missing from Mike's heart, or the incomplete state his career was always left in automatically determines the result of this fight. I do not believe that Ali would go unblemished from this fight, even if he did win in dominating fashion. It seemed that Ali, as granite as his chin was (at least later on), was still prone to fall down from shots that could have easily been avoided by someone with his footspeed. The problem with his technique was the very fact that simply dancing or backing up are not adequate enough against another fighter with trigger fast hands.

Yarr...maybe it's not worth continuing. The incomplete state of his career, his youth and therefore lack of heart, and the pillar at which the boxing community (including myself) have placed beneath Muhammad Ali are presupposed. They are fixed items that people have assumed will dictate the flow of this battle. Since these items were not always the case--which one can see by carefully reviewing each career--we can't drop them into the bucket before deciding what else to fill it with. We have to wipe the slate clean and give each fighter their ideal scenario, taking into account their strengths, and giving fair playing ground to each of their weaknesses. Let's be real here: Ali never faced anyone who could apply pressure in the early going the way Mike did, before a defense mechanism could be placed. On the other hand, Mike probably never faced anyone who he knocked down that would get up before the ref counts to 3, and then still move with impressive fluidity.

P.S. Your description of Tyson not finding anyone home when he cuts the ring off is probably inaccurate, as this was the case for Sonny Liston. He was usually less than 1/4 step behind Clay, and Tyson scooted around the ring with greater bounce in his step than Liston did at any age. While Ali was still a tad green at this point, that was an example of him running moreso than usual to avoid Liston's bombs. I think Tyson would find Ali in those spots and make something of it. Probably not all fight long, but it might take some wind out of his sails.

Great discussion guys! Let's keep it civil.

Brassangel
05-18-2006, 06:52 PM
Ali vs. Tyson I

Pre-fight poem courtesy of Ali...

"Mike Tyson ain't no champ
He's slow on his feet
If he tries to bite me
He'll see he's got nothing to eat
Cause I'm so fast
And I'm so neat
He'll swing at nothing
And then quit on his seat
I'm hitting him with lefts
I'm hitting him with rights
He's blind in both eyes
By the end of the night
After another embarassment
When he loses to me
He'll see he needs money
And sell his teeth
I'll whoop him up
I'll whoop him down
And prove once again
That I deserve the crown

I am the greatest!"

Fight 1 coming soon...

SABBATH
05-18-2006, 07:26 PM
Just shut the **** up with that bull****. Its NOT funny, and you will never be funny. If you can't post like a sane person, dont bother at all.Yo, stop being uh jerk. Theres mo' 411 on one o' ma posts than uh hundered o' yours! Brace yoself foo'! No wot I'm sayin' dawg? Don't hate the playah hate the game!

Brassangel
05-19-2006, 01:02 AM
@ SABBATH: Howz abat ur quit bein a ****kicker and we gets back ta biznuss ere?

Anyway...

SABBATH
05-19-2006, 02:44 AM
@ SABBATH: Howz abat ur quit bein a ****kicker and we gets back ta biznuss ere?

Anyway...Done deal.

LondonRingRules
05-19-2006, 07:19 AM
http://www.vex.net/~emily/pictures/muleshoe.jpg
COME ON DOWN TO WHERE IT'S LEGAL TO MARRY YER FIRST COUSIN!
** Well, Tarnation, I've heard of flying pigs, but ain't never heard of no piggy pinhaids. Yup, you just come on down to Muleshoe. We gots a Hog Hotel where's you can stay gratis, the slop is free, and plenty of Miss Piggys are already squealin' for ya. Come on down!

Frazier's 15th round
05-19-2006, 02:12 PM
Tyson KO1 Ali. The myth of Ali has been blown so far out of proportion. Ali never really beat anyone special in his career. Foreman was a caveman who anyone could beat simply by staying out of his pathetic swings. Frazier was fat and more concerned with music after he starched Ali the first time, and yet he still deserved the decision in fight two and nearly killed Ali in fight 3. Norton won all 3 times, even Ali admits that. Ali also got lucky breaks and gift decisions over Henry Cooper, Zora Folley, Doug Jones, Sonny Banks, Earnie Shavers (no skills at all), Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, and Leon Spinks. Tomato can Chuck Wepner nearly knocked Ali out! A motivated Sonny Liston would have dusted off Clay in about 4 rounds. Finally, when paired up with a much better fighter in Larry Holmes, Ali was battered and beaten all over the place until he quit in his corner.

K-DOGG
05-19-2006, 03:37 PM
Tyson KO1 Ali. The myth of Ali has been blown so far out of proportion. Ali never really beat anyone special in his career. Foreman was a caveman who anyone could beat simply by staying out of his pathetic swings. Frazier was fat and more concerned with music after he starched Ali the first time, and yet he still deserved the decision in fight two and nearly killed Ali in fight 3. Norton won all 3 times, even Ali admits that. Ali also got lucky breaks and gift decisions over Henry Cooper, Zora Folley, Doug Jones, Sonny Banks, Earnie Shavers (no skills at all), Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, and Leon Spinks. Tomato can Chuck Wepner nearly knocked Ali out! A motivated Sonny Liston would have dusted off Clay in about 4 rounds. Finally, when paired up with a much better fighter in Larry Holmes, Ali was battered and beaten all over the place until he quit in his corner.

:lol1: :haha: :rofl: :bsflag:

hemichromis
05-19-2006, 04:05 PM
:lol1: :haha: :rofl: :bsflag:

hey everyones entitled to their opinion if they happen to be idiots!

Brassangel
05-19-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Frazier's 15th round
Tyson KO1 Ali. The myth of Ali has been blown so far out of proportion. Ali never really beat anyone special in his career. Foreman was a caveman who anyone could beat simply by staying out of his pathetic swings. Frazier was fat and more concerned with music after he starched Ali the first time, and yet he still deserved the decision in fight two and nearly killed Ali in fight 3. Norton won all 3 times, even Ali admits that. Ali also got lucky breaks and gift decisions over Henry Cooper, Zora Folley, Doug Jones, Sonny Banks, Earnie Shavers (no skills at all), Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, and Leon Spinks. Tomato can Chuck Wepner nearly knocked Ali out! A motivated Sonny Liston would have dusted off Clay in about 4 rounds. Finally, when paired up with a much better fighter in Larry Holmes, Ali was battered and beaten all over the place until he quit in his corner.

While it's possible that Tyson could have KO'd Ali, I doubt heavily that it would have happened in round 1. Secondly, Ali wasn't given a decision against Folley, he KO'd him. While he was gifted some decisions later in his career, we aren't referring that Muhammad Ali. Perhaps a motivated Liston would have "dusted" Clay, but we didn't get to see that, now did we? Instead, we saw a Clay who put his money where his mouth was, and avoided Liston brilliantly. Not by much, but it was enough. Furthermore, a 38 year old fighter who was reliant upon speed, who had Parkinson's disease, hardly makes for a good match against Larry Holmes; probably another top 5 all-time heavyweight at the top of his game. Remember, speed is usually the first thing to go. Not to mention the brain and the reflexes once someone suffers an illness like the one he wakes up with every morning.

Finally, we are trying to discuss how this matchup would likely be better than most people suggest (on either side of the coin). Frazier gave Ali a marvellous three fights, possibly winning two of them. But it's clear that he didn't win fight three against Ali. Had the fight not been stopped due to Frazier's blindness and cuts, we may have witnessed an in-ring death of one of the sport's greatest heavyweights in Joe Frazier. Ali was destroying him in rounds 12, 13, and 14. Ali also won rounds 1-4, and 7 if I'm not mistaken. That's about 8-6 in Ali's favor, with Frazier clearly taking more punishment towards the end.

Now, I apologize if my earlier comment seemed rude, or childish towards SABBATH. I guess I was frustrated that I couldn't put my fiction writing skills to good use by writing a fantasy fight series to follow up the Ali poem due to the number of flames going back and fourth. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Frazier's 15th round
05-19-2006, 07:14 PM
Ali also won rounds 1-4, and 7 if I'm not mistaken. That's about 8-6 in Ali's favor

I give Frazier round 3, and rounds 7, 8, and 11 are very close, and can go either way.

Dempsey 1919
05-20-2006, 02:18 AM
Tyson KO1 Ali.

Muhammad Ali UD15 Ernie Terrel.(ali winning all 15 rounds.) :D

Brassangel
05-20-2006, 12:57 PM
I wondered how long it would take for butterfly to come on here and make something silly out of this thread.

Southpaw Stinger
05-20-2006, 04:40 PM
hey everyones entitled to their opinion if they happen to be idiots!

Fraziers15thround shouldn't be allowed to have his own oppinion, he shouldn't even be allowed to vote in any election.
He should just stay locked in his room and talk to his pet socks for the rest of his life.

Frazier's 15th round
05-20-2006, 06:51 PM
Says the guy with two criminally overrated fighters in his profile. 'Padded record' Foreman and 'overrated since 1980' LaMotta.

Heckler
05-21-2006, 03:51 AM
While it's possible that Tyson could have KO'd Ali, I doubt heavily that it would have happened in round 1. Secondly, Ali wasn't given a decision against Folley, he KO'd him. While he was gifted some decisions later in his career, we aren't referring that Muhammad Ali. Perhaps a motivated Liston would have "dusted" Clay, but we didn't get to see that, now did we? Instead, we saw a Clay who put his money where his mouth was, and avoided Liston brilliantly. Not by much, but it was enough. Furthermore, a 38 year old fighter who was reliant upon speed, who had Parkinson's disease, hardly makes for a good match against Larry Holmes; probably another top 5 all-time heavyweight at the top of his game. Remember, speed is usually the first thing to go. Not to mention the brain and the reflexes once someone suffers an illness like the one he wakes up with every morning.

Finally, we are trying to discuss how this matchup would likely be better than most people suggest (on either side of the coin). Frazier gave Ali a marvellous three fights, possibly winning two of them. But it's clear that he didn't win fight three against Ali. Had the fight not been stopped due to Frazier's blindness and cuts, we may have witnessed an in-ring death of one of the sport's greatest heavyweights in Joe Frazier. Ali was destroying him in rounds 12, 13, and 14. Ali also won rounds 1-4, and 7 if I'm not mistaken. That's about 8-6 in Ali's favor, with Frazier clearly taking more punishment towards the end.

Now, I apologize if my earlier comment seemed rude, or childish towards SABBATH. I guess I was frustrated that I couldn't put my fiction writing skills to good use by writing a fantasy fight series to follow up the Ali poem due to the number of flames going back and fourth. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

I think Ali won the second fight against Frazier rather clearly, even critics of Ali tend to admit he won.

Ali won the second fight against Norton and Frazier15thround if you bothered to do your own research instead of blindly believing those whom perpetuate such stories in order to discredit Ali's achievements you would find that Ali won the fight against Doug Jones... learn to ****en score a fight, better yet watch the fight. Ali beat Ron Lyle, 20 odd unanswered punches to the head... its boxing, not streetfighting and Ali gave the ref the oppurtunity to stop the fight and he did. He was robbed against Zora Folley? He ko'd him? Chuck Wepner nearly knocked him out? he didn't even come close. Sonny Banks was robbed? Sonny Banks was knocked out? George Foreman was a caveman? mmmm that sounds like something straight from Monte's joke anti-ali writings... infact it is. Instead of being a raging, uninformed retard why don't you actually watch these fights?

I will acknowledge Ali was beaten by Jimmy Young, Ali was beaten by Norton in the 3rd match, Earnie shavers deserved a draw at the least. The fact that you blindly believe anything Anti-Ali. because it suits your agenda is both funny and sad.

Im guessing you will claim that this was a mere Joke. I think being the deluded little retard you are you sincerely believe this ****.

Southpaw Stinger
05-21-2006, 09:01 AM
Says the guy with two criminally overrated fighters in his profile. 'Padded record' Foreman and 'overrated since 1980' LaMotta.

According to you every fighter is overated so it's not like anyone takes you seriously.

Keleneki
05-21-2006, 01:05 PM
What a great thread. While I tend to favor Ali, some of the pro Tyson posts are very thought provoking. I do recollect thinking many times, from after the Berbick fight until after the Spinks fight, who in the past, present or future would stand a chance against this dynamo? He sure appeared unstoppable to me during those few years. Those were definitely some thrilling times.

During the Holmes fight, right before the end, I actually thought that Holmes was shaking off that rust and that he was going to outbox Tyson. And I actually thought that Spinks' herky-jerky style was going to confuse Tyson and he was going to outbox him for the UD. o_O

Dempsey 1919
05-21-2006, 04:50 PM
I wondered how long it would take for butterfly to come on here and make something silly out of this thread.

that was just directed at frazier's 15th round.

Da Iceman
05-21-2006, 04:52 PM
Caterpillar = Racist Hoeeeeee :cool:

Dempsey 1919
05-21-2006, 05:02 PM
Caterpillar = Racist Hoeeeeee :cool:

did you forget to take your medication?

Da Iceman
05-21-2006, 05:54 PM
did you forget to take your medication?
actually i did, thanks for the reminder :D

Frazier's 15th round
05-21-2006, 05:55 PM
I see Heckler is being a little ***** again. Realistically, Ali lost about 15 fights in his career, not 5.

Heckler
05-22-2006, 03:41 AM
rofl... if you spent more time watching these fights instead of being the little pre-pubscent, ignorant homo you are you might conclude otherwise... i doubt it though, you are without a doubt a dribbling retard thus an accurate analysis is beyond you.

Da Iceman
05-22-2006, 09:14 AM
http://www.lmalla.com/storage/miscpics/tyson.jpg

Yaman
05-22-2006, 09:44 AM
http://www.lmalla.com/storage/miscpics/tyson.jpg

You are useless. Why the hell do you post a pic like that in this topic. All you do is fool around these forums. Useless.

Da Iceman
05-22-2006, 09:45 AM
You are useless. Why the hell do you post a pic like that in this topic. All you do is fool around these forums. Useless.
then how come i discuss boxing?

Yaman
05-22-2006, 10:04 AM
then how come i discuss boxing?


Not once have i ever seen you make a good longer post about boxing. Just short smart ass comments, and obsessive insults against Butterfly.

Brassangel
05-22-2006, 10:40 AM
Yeah, insulting butterfly in here doesn't make that much sense. I just expected him to make some rediculous comments about Ali, which he hasn't. So, please refrain from the flaming.

Ron Lyle may have had a slight edge on the judge's scorecards against Ali, but that didn't matter when Ali made him dizzy, and followed it with about a hundred shots to the head. The ref did the right thing.

Now, back to something that matters...

10 round fight: This scenario would be short enough to give Tyson the decision because he was generally busier than his opponents in rounds 1-6.

12 round fight: Ali wins by decision.

15 round fight: Ali wins by TKO/stoppage.

We may even see random mid-to-late-round knockdowns from Tyson. Since both fighters would be fatigued, and likely to get into frequent clinches, he was known to come out of nowhere with a shuffle to the side and uppercut. The more rounds there are, the worse the situation gets for Tyson, however, as he generally worked the same amount of time in any length fight. I could be completely wrong here; Ali may get greedy a la Doug Jones and try to go toe-to-toe with Mike in the shorter fight. This could cost him and he might get caught. Furthermore, while Joe Frazier may have attacked the body more often than Mike did, Mike caused quite a few knockdowns in his career from solo body punches. His gutshots were often unexpected, compact, quick, and devastating. Taking the wind out of a fighter, even momentarily can be just enough to make one's headhunting worthwhile.

Yarrrgh...it continues.

SABBATH
05-22-2006, 05:13 PM
We may even see random mid-to-late-round knockdowns from Tyson. A mid to late round KD from Tyson would be highly unlikely if you study Tyson's career and fight patterns. In his entire career Tyson only scored knockdowns over two opponents (Ribalta, Douglas) after the 7th round and only scored one TKO stoppage past this point. Ribalta wide eyed, alert and complaining to the ref, while Douglas was clearly alert while listening to the referee's count before getting up, and dominating Tyson in the the 9th before KO'ing him in the 10th.

Tyson did not carry his KO technique or power late in a fight that's a fact. There is absolutely not one supporting shred of evidence to support the likelihood of Tyson flooring Ali late in the fight. In Tyson's other fights that lasted past 7 rounds, Tillis, Green, Smith, Tucker, Ruddock, Holyfield etc...no KD's or even near KD's scored.

Tyson being a dangerous puncher late in a fight is yet another fallacy that lives in the heads of Tyson fans who ignore his career history and dream up these scenarios. If Tyson historically was unable to score late KD's against average heavyweight contenders, what makes you think he would against proven all-time-great heavyweights?

Brassangel
05-22-2006, 07:07 PM
I didn't. I just stated that it was a possibility. No need to rant about something just because you hate the guy. By the way, mid-to-late would consist of rounds 5-8 in a ten round bout. He knocked out guys in rounds 5 and 6 before, and I'm not suggesting a KO, just a knockdown because of a slip on Ali's part. Ali slipped up from time to time due to goofing around, and a fighter can't really slack off with someone who hits like Mike.

I'm not fabricating false evidence or suggesting that he would suddenly have more heart in this fight than in any other. I do know, however, that there were multiple occassions where Tyson did emerge victorious against fighters who presented resistance. This goes against many presupposed arguments which lack an in-depth knowledge of true career analysis. There are several people who have mentioned this already in the "most overrated fighter..." thread. That as a side note, I'm out.

Brassangel
05-22-2006, 07:11 PM
Just to let everybody know, I realize that this entire thread jeopardizes my credibility as an educated poster on this website, as very few individuals would make the arguments which I have made. Hence the reason I titled it, "..out on a fragile limb."

At any rate, this has been fun (most of the time), and educational for at least some of you/us. I hope that it can continue as such. :boxing:

SABBATH
05-22-2006, 08:55 PM
No need to rant about something just because you hate the guy. Please tell me where I have stated that I hate Tyson.

I have previously outlined the statistical aspects of Tyson which is not open for debate.

As stated earlier, Tyson on average in his prime had a punch output of 16-22 landed per round. This was documented 18 years ago and is nothing new for those who care to do any research to support their opinions.

This punch output contradicts your previous statements regarding Tyson being a pressure fighter who in your words put 10 rounds of damage on an opponent in 4 rounds.

16-22 punches landed a round is quite average. Tyson's multi fight average of 3 jabs landed per round was also documented 18 years ago.

Posters on these thread that speak of Tyson's decline as evidenced by his jab going absent after leaving Rooney is just pure bull****. Tyson's jab was not used as an effective offensive weapon once he began fighting top ten fighters.

Tyson was a hard hitting front runner whose deficiencies in inside fighting, sustained body attack, loaded punch head hunting and frustration tendencies combined with a lack of mental toughness were his downfall against better calibre opponents. Plain and simple. Watch the fights.

Regarding the records of Tyson's pre-title opposition that I previously illustrated, this is documented evidence in black in white. Drawing attention to the fact that these 27 fighters suffered 268 KO losses doesn't make me a hater. Prove that I am falsifying the documented proof or filling my posts full of dream scenarios that contradict the history of the fighter as you continue to do and you can feel free to call me a hater. Until then do your research.

Brassangel
05-23-2006, 11:26 AM
You don't have to say it plainly to make it obvious. You are quicker to point out Tyson's flaws on this website than butterfly1964 is to defend Ali or Liston. That and the fact that the majority of your threads are about "The Myth of Mike Tyson," or people whose flaws parallel Mike's (ie: Patterson), or point out the shortcomings of those who worked with Mike (ie: Rooney, etc.), or simply showcase what another great fighter (ie: Holmes) had to say to badmouth Tyson specifically....I don't know. You've made it clear from time to time.

Originally Posted by SABBATH
This punch output contradicts your previous statements regarding Tyson being a pressure fighter who in your words put 10 rounds of damage on an opponent in 4 rounds.

It doesn't contradict my analysis; while I admit, it was exaggerated, it still makes sense.

When one considers the fact that Tyson's blocked shots, or the punches that hit arms and gloves only, in his fights with Holmes, Berbick, Tillis, Green, Spinks, and Frazier, still pushed those taller, often larger men around the ring, I think it goes without saying that the amount of force exerted was moreso than that of the average fighter. I think that there are times when his power is actually underrated; just because he threw 1-2 body shots, or only fired off one combo to the midsection in a round instead of hanging in there like Frazier or Marciano, doesn't mean that he was doing less work.

Those 16-22 punches landed in a round, for example, from the fights you've listed, almost always forced a panicked cover up from his opponents. If he lands one solid shot to the ribs, and the fighter who was struck has to lower his elbows, and we can see that fighter thinking to himself, "Oh sh@#! I have to put up with this all night long?!", chances are, Tyson's doing a lot of work in a smaller amount of time and with less effort than the average fighter. This does mean, however, in the fashion of Shavers, Foreman, etc., that Tyson ran out of gas after 6-7 rounds. Clearly, at least with Foreman and Tyson, their records (and KO's vs. wins) speak for themselves regardless of the number of punches thrown. If Tyson would have been tested by more contender-quality opponents early on...well, that's a different can of worms all together.

As far as Tyson being or not being a pressure fighter: a fighter doesn't have to throw a million punches to be a "pressure" fighter. Simply crowding the other fighter's space and landing effective punches or combinations of punches are often enough to put the pressure on another fighter, sending him into a defensive mode. Couple this virtual aggression with the fact that he was difficult to hit and you can see where a lot of pressure was placed on his opponents. This was an intimidating tactic, though not always perfect, and showed that others didn't work harder than he did, they just worked differently. Joe Frazier, for example, liked to build up the damage over rounds, and save his power shots (against better fighters) for the moments when his opponents were physically exhausted. Tyson preferred to come forward quickly, ducking and weaving, incinuating a barrage (sometimes inflicting), which defeated an opponent mentally before they could establish a game plan. When his punches did land, they were usually tightly wound and powerful enough to move men larger than himself. While I believe that Joe's plan was more sound against a broader spectrum of opponents, that doesn't mean that this particular head-to-head encounter would fall in line as such.

The physical advantages Mike Tyson had are sometimes all it takes. Again, I list examples where Foreman was simply a finer physical specimen that Frazier and thus, demolished him(at least by your definition of "harder working," this shouldn't have happened). While this is not always the case, niether is the idea that heart, or one's mental state will overcome everything.

Heckler
05-23-2006, 10:33 PM
Unlike others you have presented a logical basis for your viewpoint. I agree with alot of what you say, but i disagree with the notion that Tyson would defeat Ali. You believe Tyson in his prime had the mental capacity to step up to a higher level of competition such as Ali, persevere through a situation of adversity and triumph like the great champs before him... i do not thus i will agree to disagree

No point having a 'WOULD SO!.... WOULD NOT!' Arguement.

Interesting debate regardless.

Yaman
05-24-2006, 05:32 AM
Unlike others you have presented a logical basis for your viewpoint. I agree with alot of what you say, but i disagree with the notion that Tyson would defeat Ali. You believe Tyson in his prime had the mental capacity to step up to a higher level of competition such as Ali, persevere through a situation of adversity and triumph like the great champs before him... i do not thus i will agree to disagree

No point having a 'WOULD SO!.... WOULD NOT!' Arguement.

Interesting debate regardless.

Ali was not invincible. He could lose. Deal with it.

Southpaw Stinger
05-24-2006, 07:19 AM
Ali was not invincible. He could lose. Deal with it.

True, Frazier and Norton proved that.

All I'm saying is, Tyson has a much greater chance of beating Ali than he does at beating Foreman. Stylewise that is.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 07:25 AM
Ali was not invincible. He could lose. Deal with it.

What the **** is your problem? Quote me stating Muhammad Ali was invincible. Because my opinion differs your going to have a little cry? Because i refuse to believe Tyson was some kind of unbeatable machine?

Tyson wasn't invincible, and he did lose... my opinion differs to yours... so how about you 'Deal With it' :)

People have different opinions, its what makes this message board interesting. Accept it instead of being a little girl about it and referring to anyone that doesn't agree with you as biased then resorting to childish **** when someone flames you or produces a better arguement. Yogi just made you look like a total dick on the other thread... why don't you learn and accept the fact that people may think differently.

This thread was going ahead nicely till you decided to be a ****en clown.

Brassangel
05-24-2006, 02:10 PM
This thread was indeed going along nicely.

Orginally Posted by Southpaw Stinger
All I'm saying is, Tyson has a much greater chance of beating Ali than he does at beating Foreman. Stylewise that is.

That's certainly a comparison worthy of a little research. I might have to do that analysis next time.

Orignally Posted by Heckler
You believe Tyson in his prime had the mental capacity to step up to a higher level of competition such as Ali, persevere through a situation of adversity and triumph like the great champs before him...

I don't know if his mental capacity would have been more up to it at this point than at any other point. What I am suggesting is that Tyson was, unquestionably gifted; skillwise and physically. He also had little respect for the power or skills of his opponents and thus was able to overcome what could/should have been awkward matchups (ie: Ferguson, Holmes, Spinks, Tillis, Ruddock, etc.). Given what we know about these scenarios, it's possible that Tyson could have pinned Ali in a corner with his speed and pressure, and landed a few uppercuts or combinations that sway the bout in a direction most people wouldn't expect. His angles were difficult to defend against, and Ali wasn't notorious for being a very sound defensive fighter. He simply tried to lean or slide away, and that's not fool-proof against a quick hitter.

Keep in mind, I only think that Tyson would have a good chance in their first meeting. After that, well...we know how Tyson is in rematches.

SABBATH
05-24-2006, 04:26 PM
His angles were difficult to defend against, and Ali wasn't notorious for being a very sound defensive fighter. He simply tried to lean or slide away, and that's not fool-proof against a quick hitter.BA,

I can always tell when you regurgitate someone else's drivel and try to pass it off as your own.

Don't confuse not being defensively sound with unconvential defence. Ali's style in his prime allowed him to win without getting hit plain and simple. Watch his fights and stop reading Monte Cox articles.

Not fool proof against a quick hitter? Henry Cooper fought both Ali and Floyd Patterson. Who do you think Cooper said had the faster hands? It was Patterson. When Ali fought Patterson Floyd couldn't lay a glove on him. Watch the first round. Ali purposely didn't throw a punch the entire round and Patterson couldn't touch him.

Ali was notorious in the 60's for sparring with welterweights like world champion Luis Rodrigues and seeing how long he could go without Rodrugues landing a single punch.

Sugar Ray Leonard borrowed alot of Ali's defensive techniques ie: dropping his hands and pulling back from punches. Would you suggest Leonard wasn't very sound sefensively? Hector Camacho and Pernell Whittacker also deployed less than conventional defensive manuevers, but in their primes were very extrememly difficult to hit. Were they not sound defensively?

It was their uncoventional defence that allowed for these guys who had below average punching power to reign as champions.

Defence is the art of not getting hit plain and simple. Ali in his first reign as champion was hardly hit and came out of 15 round fights with Terrell and Chuvalo facially unmarked. Ali wasn't cut, floored, staggered, or swollen in the face in ANY of his fights as champion from 1964-67. How can that be if he isn't a sound defensive fighter?

Cleveland Williams had scored 51 KO's in 65 wins when he faced Ali. I will now quote Ring Magazine: "His punching power was reputed to be the equal of any heavyweight in boxing-past or present..." Williams was the same as Ali in both height and reach. In 3 rounds Williams connected a grand total of THREE times. How can this be if Ali wasn't sound defensively???

Dempsey 1919
05-24-2006, 05:33 PM
BA,

I can always tell when you regurgitate someone else's drivel and try to pass it off as your own.

Don't confuse not being defensively sound with unconvential defence. Ali's style in his prime allowed him to win without getting hit plain and simple. Watch his fights and stop reading Monte Cox articles.

Not fool proof against a quick hitter? Henry Cooper fought both Ali and Floyd Patterson. Who do you think Cooper said had the faster hands? It was Patterson. When Ali fought Patterson Floyd couldn't lay a glove on him. Watch the first round. Ali purposely didn't throw a punch the entire round and Patterson couldn't touch him.

Ali was notorious in the 60's for sparring with welterweights like world champion Luis Rodrigues and seeing how long he could go without Rodrugues landing a single punch.

Sugar Ray Leonard borrowed alot of Ali's defensive techniques ie: dropping his hands and pulling back from punches. Would you suggest Leonard wasn't very sound sefensively? Hector Camacho and Pernell Whittacker also deployed less than conventional defensive manuevers, but in their primes were very extrememly difficult to hit. Were they not sound defensively?

It was their uncoventional defence that allowed for these guys who had below average punching power to reign as champions.

Defence is the art of not getting hit plain and simple. Ali in his first reign as champion was hardly hit and came out of 15 round fights with Terrell and Chuvalo facially unmarked. Ali wasn't cut, floored, staggered, or swollen in the face in ANY of his fights as champion from 1964-67. How can that be if he isn't a sound defensive fighter?

Cleveland Williams had scored 51 KO's in 65 wins when he faced Ali. I will now quote Ring Magazine: "His punching power was reputed to be the equal of any heavyweight in boxing-past or present..." Williams was the same as Ali in both height and reach. In 3 rounds Williams connected a grand total of THREE times. How can this be if Ali wasn't sound defensively???

amen, preach on brother.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-24-2006, 06:04 PM
Ali had a horrible defense.
But as Angelo Dundee has said, Ali's speed was so key we never developed his inside fighting or much of his defense, he was just that fast.

And infact Ali was very quick in his prime and notorious for not getting hit. Ali in a sense had the best defense which was to not get hit. I mean who needs a conventional defense when your not getting hit. He just danced around throwing jabs keeping his opponents off of him while scoring points.

So his defense wasn't as good as say Joe Louis' but it wasn't like he was somebody who just ran in without protection

Heckler
05-24-2006, 06:20 PM
I really can't see Tyson landing a couple of shots on the inside and putting Ali away. Ali's recovery was just too good not only was his recovery good you never know when the man had been hurt, he was brilliant at hiding this. If Tysons going to KO ali i believe hes going to have to systematically brake him down with body work, be a conscientious worker on the inside, keep the pressure on him and produce a workrate we didn't see too often from Tyson... Most importantly he would have to weather Ali's storm as Ali inevitably lays more leather on him as he tries to work his way on the inside then anyother fighter did. He would have to keep his composure, persevere and stick to his gameplan. Personally i don't see it happening at any time in Tyson's career.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 06:23 PM
The only time Ali had no defense is upon his return, when his speed and coordination had somewhat diminished.... he had no conventional defense to fall back on.

K-DOGG
05-24-2006, 06:34 PM
Tyson was a force of nature in the early rounds; but he wasn't consitant through the course of a fight, which is what he would need to be to defeat a prime Ali. Of course, this being boxing, anything can happen and a fight can be decided with one shot; but let's look at the odds of this happening.

Ali knocked down by Sony Banks, Henry Cooper, Joe Frazier, and Chuck Wepner (officially...though Chuck stepped on his foot when he landed the body shot). What does this say? Ali wasn't in his prime when Banks and Cooper dropped him. He was a young kid who got caught; but came back to stop Cooper on cuts the very next round, landing blistering punches....translation: Ali didn't become intimidated by being knocked down; it inspired him to kick some ass. Against Banks, same thing in essence. Against Frazier, Ali was in his third rushed fight after a 3 year exile and hadn't gotten his legs back. The hook that dropped him was an awesome shot that would have probably knocked out any man who had taken the kind of beating to the body Ali had taken all night by Frazier, yet Ali rose at the count of 2 to 4 and continued going at Frazier. Once again, not intimidated by being dropped with a hellacious punch; but inspired to show he wasn't hurt.

Murderous Punchers Ali fought:

Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams, Joe Frazier, Mac Foster, George Foreman, Ron Lyle, and Earnie Shavers.


None of these men stopped or ever dropped Ali, save Frazier in the first of 3 fights.

Mike Tyson in the early rounds was dangerous. Likewise, a prime Ali was very elusive in the early rounds utilizing continuous movement. Tyson was the type of figher that needed to get set to release his volleys. Mike couldn't get set if his opponent was in constant motion and blinding him with the jab. Unlike Frazier, Tyson slowed as the fight went on, picking moments to unleash...his head movement also slowed and he had a tendency to load up. Also, contrary to popular belief, Mike was horrible on the inside if tied up. He rarely fought his way out of a clinch as much as he allowed himself to be held. Ali was a master of manipulation on the inside when he chose to be, holding the man's head down by applying pressure on the back of the neck, forcing a man to fight himself. Also, this tactic prevents an uppercut or left hook from landing.

I'm not saying there's no way for Mike to win; but given the styles and the menalities of the two, it just appears too difficult a task. Not to mention Mike proved to be a mentally fragile individual, which would play right into Ali's mind games as did Foreman in Zaire.

Ali by TKO in 10 or somewhere thereabouts.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 06:51 PM
I agree, the only way i see Tyson winning is if Tyson catches him with a murderous punch... is able to drop Ali or hurt him and identify the fact that he's hurt, capitalize before he recovers. I just think Ali was too hard to find in the ring to take him out like that, Tyson wasn't able to get bonecrusher smith out of there nor Quick Tillis nor Mitch Green.. these fighters wern't willing to fight Tyson's game nor were they half as evasive as Ali. Quick Tillis tried using lateral movement and at times had his hands dangerously low.

An early round blowout is possible, not probable and in my opinion is Tyson's only chance of taking the bout.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 07:04 PM
People will be quick to point out that cleveland williams was shot, literally and had declined. Watch cleveland williams in his prime, then watch his fight against Ali. Did he ever get himself in a position or situation where a younger version of him could of capitalized? And this version of him did not? The answer is no... he was tailor made for Ali. Big, relatively slow slugger who Ali could pick apart. Ali was sharp on that night... and for the notion that Ali had no power, this is an occasion where we can see a pre-layoff plant his feet and throw right hands... he put Cleveland Williams flat on his back. Those trying to discredit Ali blame Williams going down on his decline, Really? It doesn't matter because when a fighter has reached a certain level of durability or ability to take a punch it stays that way. Foreman at the age of 45? was able to take a billion punches to the head via Holyfield and he was far past his physical prime, Ali was able to take murderous shots from Earnie Shavers and had clearly declined.

Brassangel
05-25-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally Posted by SABBATH
Watch his fights and stop reading Monte Cox articles.

I've watched every fight he has on film multiple times, and I have no idea who Monte Cox is. The natural defense mechanism of a person is to duck or back away from a punch, generally out of fear of getting hit. Ali just continued to use this as a trained professional fighter. It's weaknesses made itself clear when he started to lose his fluidity. Since part two of his career consisted of more quality matchups and a longer reign as champion, I think it's fair to include that in an analysis of Ali's defense. As a comprehensive analysis, it is fair to suggest that Ali wasn't a sound defensive fighter. It is true, however, that we should take into consideration the physically prime version of Ali who was difficult to hit. I guess I find this to be a pointless validation for Ali avoiding Tyson's shots, as Tyson spent the early portion of his career avoiding getting hit as well. He just managed to punish his opponents a lot quicker than did Ali on most occassions.

Originally Posted by Heckler
People will be quick to point out that cleveland williams was shot, literally and had declined. Watch cleveland williams in his prime, then watch his fight against Ali. Did he ever get himself in a position or situation where a younger version of him could of capitalized? And this version of him did not? The answer is no... he was tailor made for Ali. Big, relatively slow slugger who Ali could pick apart. Ali was sharp on that night... and for the notion that Ali had no power, this is an occasion where we can see a pre-layoff plant his feet and throw right hands... he put Cleveland Williams flat on his back. Those trying to discredit Ali blame Williams going down on his decline, Really? It doesn't matter because when a fighter has reached a certain level of durability or ability to take a punch it stays that way. Foreman at the age of 45? was able to take a billion punches to the head via Holyfield and he was far past his physical prime, Ali was able to take murderous shots from Earnie Shavers and had clearly declined.

This is very true, although it might be better reserved for a different thread. I do agree, however, that Ali's power was underrated. No one denies his ability to take a punch, although this wasn't tested very often in his younger days.

Now, to respond to all of the critics who say that Mike burnt out after the first few rounds: this was true on several occassions, but his corner (when interviewed after the fight with Ferguson) said that they were starting to work on Mike's patience to better prepare him for the higher ranking opponents. This was apparent even in that fight, where Mike didn't throw a whole lot of punches up through the early portions of the 5th round (other than some jabbing), still had tons of head movement by that point, and waited for the right opportunity to move in. When he did, he landed a series of viscious punches to the body, which did their job in a short amount of time, setting up angled shots to the head which were difficult to avoid from the corner. Mike ended up breaking his nose with that right uppercut, which would have even taken it's toll on any fighter, including Ali. The Greatest or not, a broken nose is more of a nuisance to fight through than a broken jaw, as the nose continues to bleed out. Often times this will prompt a ring doctor. If you watch Ali when he would actually put his arms up to defend instead of simply moving out of the way, they were parallel to each other, with about a 3-6 inch space running between them at any given time. In fights where he did this, his opponents never threw uppercuts in there, they tried instead to force hooks around the block, or throw to the body, usually hitting Ali's elbows. Well, the uppercut was Tyson's signature. While this doesn't mean that it automatically dictates what's going to occur during the fight, it is a little thing that most people don't observe. A five-hundred pound door is moved by hinges weighing a few ounces.

Back on topic: while Ferguson isn't 1/100th the fighter that Ali was, it was simply one example of a fight where Tyson showed patience, and still moved with great speed on offense, as well as head movement into the middle rounds. Plus, Ali was still a man, which makes him susceptible to the same occurrence. He could be dancing around, avoiding Mike early, which would allow Mike to patiently conserve some energy, weaving around the jab, and waiting for the right moment; like when Ali's legs start to slow down a bit in the mid-to-late rounds. It's not always the number of punches that determine the work rate. Again, this was one example where Tyson was actually working on becoming a long-term fighter. He still came out on fire in the 6th round as well, until Ferguson held onto Mike until he was disqualified.

Seeing as how both men were extremely difficult to hit at these stages of their careers, I doubt that we'd see a KO, unless it was early by Mike. I completely doubt that Ali would do enough damage to a guy who could take a beating like Tyson could, who was as hard to hit as he was early on, to earn a TKO in their first fight. Especially in today's world, where more fights are 10-12 rounds and not 15.

Even though this disciplined, patient, hard working and motivated Mike Tyson only appeared at brief moments during a short span of his career, it's safe to use this as an example since we are using a "prime" Muhammad Ali, which only existed for 3-4 fights as well.

And on and on... :boxing:

Heckler
05-25-2006, 05:01 PM
I think the notion that Ali could not TKO Tyson is incorrect. Ali could throw hard and fast flurries, catch fighters with that right lead as they come in and could hurt ANY man.. once hurt the sheer volume of punches and accumalative effect of Ali's assault is enough to put anyone away. If Ali could break Tyson down he stands a chance of getting a TKO in the later rounds when Tyson begins to fade.

I'll Admit Tyson was impressive against Jesse, but Jesse didn't create a situation of adversity. Jesse didn't punish him from the outside as i believe Ali would in the initial rounds. Tyson was a brilliant defensive fighter and especially in the early rounds, but Ali was an accurate puncher with a brilliant comprehension of range that would be quite capable of landing leather on Tyson. Would Tyson weather the storm? Would he maintain his composure? If so he could systematically brake Ali down over a number of rounds and score a late TKO.... but i tend to sway towards the school of thought that believes Ali would create an adverse situation for Tyson, and Tyson lacked the mental strength at any time of his career that would allow him to persevere and triumph.

Brassangel
05-25-2006, 09:27 PM
I wasn't comparing Ferguson to Ali, as there is no comparison there. Ferguson simply used his reach, and covered up in a similar fashion. While he didn't test the pressure cooker level of Mike, that's because Mike played his game well, and searched for the openings at the right time. It could very well be true that Mike created a difficult situation for his opponents at times, thus making it hard for them to do so to him.

While I'd like to avoid the "if Rooney was still his trainer" cliche, I think it's safe to assume that he was developing a better, more patient and endurant, boxing version of Mike. Once Tyson became champ, however, he probably felt like he didn't need to hone his skills anymore. I guess it will always come down to a "potential" version of Mike. For example, had he continued to develop these habits and persue his career with Rooney (in the pre-championship fashion), how good could he have become by 1991, 92, 95, etc? Then again, how good could Ali have been without a layoff come 1971?

That should be the fight. It'd be like two videogame fighters.

Brassangel
06-02-2006, 10:37 AM
I would just like to say that I have been pleased with the way this thread has turned out; save for a few moments in the middle where people were flaming each other. Unfortunately, much of this could probably have been discussed in "The Myth of Mike Tyson" thread. Oh well, I will save the pages for future dissertations.

Furthermore, my mind hasn't changed much on the subject, but I've gained a more detailed vision of the fantasy fight in question. I may actually photoshop a few pretend clips of them fighting, or do some artwork and post them on here. Also, I might write a fantasy matchup series similar to the Frazier vs. Holyfield one I did about six months ago.