Ali vs. Tyson: out on a fragile limb.

[Heckler]

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]

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]

excellent research its just a shame we wont ever see it unless ali comes back at 70 something!

[Brassangel]

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]

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 .
Excellent analysis by the way!

[Heckler]

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]

all i gotta say is u guys write alot

[Southpaw16]

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]

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]

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