Ali vs. Tyson: out on a fragile limb.

[Heckler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[BKM-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.