Ali vs. Tyson: out on a fragile limb.

[SABBATH]

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]

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]

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.

[SABBATH]

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]

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]

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.

[BKM-]

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]

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]

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 **** 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]

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.