Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
160 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
Tyson also had a brutal left hook, the punch Ali was vulnerable to his entire career. I still say Iron Mike wins, but it wouldn't be a cakewalk for either guy. I can't see Ali embarrassing peak Tyson.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Rosco
Tyson had a crushing left hook but not on the level of Joe Frazier. I do agree with you that Ali was suspect to that particular punch. George Chuvalo landed thousands on left hooks on Ali when they fought for the first time in the 1960s. So I'm sure Tyson would land on Ali from time to time. But I can't see him beating him although Tyson would win some rounds with the crowd gasping at the destructive blows he lands.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Bert Sugar
Tyson only had a five year prime. That was it. But during those five years he was a force to be reckoned with. But, after seeing him struggle against Mitch Green, Tony Tucker and some of the others, you get the inkling that he had problems with bigger men. Ali is a big man with more physical gifts than Mitch "Blood" Green and the like. I pick Ali but you never know what would happen when and if Tyson lands. Tyson was a great finisher. Only Joe Louis was a better finisher.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Kid Dynamite
In reply to this post by KB50MJ
KB50MJ wrote
ESPN did a little debate on this subject. Pretty interesting: http://youtu.be/ONnXnpk96Pk
I've seen that before. Intriguing matchup this is, although I don't know why this is the #1 fantasy matchup on everyone's minds. There are so many other fantasy fights that would be more exciting. How about Jack Dempsey-Rocky Marciano? Lennox Lewis-George Foreman? Evander Holyfield-Razor Ruddock? To name a few...

I don't get involved in these Tyson-Ali debates too often. Muhammad had an ATG chin. But as AJ said several times, the style of Mike Tyson would also give Muhammad some problems. The short guys that get under his jab and pressure their way to get inside could sneak those left hooks to his unprotected jaw. What year did George Chuvalo fight Muhammad Ali? 1966? 1967? Wasn't that during his prime? Well, George landed an assload of big left hooks on Muhammad Ali but could never finish the job or seriously hurt him. Mike Tyson would do even better. And this was the PEAK Muhammad Ali.

Joe Louis said in his article "how i would have clobbered clay" that George Chuvalo and Karl Mindenburger had Muhammad in position to finish him but didn't know what to do. There's truth to that. Muhammad had weaknesses even during his peak.

You also have to look at his opposition at his peak. Consider his best performances..

Sonny Liston--Was old and undertrained for both fights. He threw the rematch. Prime Sonny would have performed better and prolly hurt Ali because he had the two punches to ruin Ali, a crushing left jab and a left hook.

Floyd Patterson--Was old and had back problems in '65 when he lost to Muhammad

George Chuvalo-- Not in Ali's league..

Cleveland Williams-- He was washed up and was shot a year before facing Muhammad. Though he'd probably never beat Ali anyway

Zorra Folley?-- Please

Mike's competition wasn't the best either but the more I think about it the more I see Tyson hurting Muhammad bad when he gets close.



 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Zorro
I found this amazing documentary about a potential fight between Ali and Tyson. Eddie Futch, Bert Sugar, Teddy Atlas, Steve Lott, Angelo Dundee, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and a lot of others examine their styles and who would have won. It's three parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8jxmiXonfQ

http://youtu.be/GXRTT8vduBs

http://youtu.be/BcZoIka4fqw
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
This post was updated on .
Zorro wrote
I found this amazing documentary about a potential fight between Ali and Tyson. Eddie Futch, Bert Sugar, Teddy Atlas, Steve Lott, Angelo Dundee, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and a lot of others examine their styles and who would have won. It's three parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8jxmiXonfQ

http://youtu.be/GXRTT8vduBs

http://youtu.be/BcZoIka4fqw
This was great!! Brilliantly done. Two things that stand out..

They used the Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield fights to showcase Tyson's weaknesses. That's not fair because Tyson didn't train properly for Douglas and was 30 against Holyfield. Not only was he past his peak but Holyfield was his best opponent after serving three years in the slammer.

They proved a good point about something though. Tyson would "agree" to clinches with taller men when he lost interest. He wasn't as aggressive as Frazier--Tyson would throw a big combination and if you withstood it somehow, he'd stop punching and let you clinch him. Ali had to clinch Frazier because it was the only way to break his rhythm. Frazier wouldn't stop attacking. When Tyson slows down, Ali would let him have it.

I still say Mike wins but it is a difficult fight for both. Great documentary. I think everyone hear should take a look.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Friday The 13th...
In reply to this post by Zorro
Zorro wrote
I found this amazing documentary about a potential fight between Ali and Tyson. Eddie Futch, Bert Sugar, Teddy Atlas, Steve Lott, Angelo Dundee, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and a lot of others examine their styles and who would have won. It's three parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8jxmiXonfQ

http://youtu.be/GXRTT8vduBs

http://youtu.be/BcZoIka4fqw
Holy smokes that was a great documentary! Very sound analysis by all involved. I'm gonna pass this on, gentlemen.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

precious
In reply to this post by Zorro
Excellent documentary Zorro, looking forward to seeing part 4 which he says will be posted in a few days
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
I'm looking forward to part 4 as well. I wonder why this great documentary was never released? I can tell it's old, though. This has to be from the '90s.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

precious
In reply to this post by Kid Dynamite
Nice to see a bit of balanced criticism of Ali's opposition, you've made some valid points. Tyson detractors seem to imply a Unanimous points win is somehow a failure or a struggle, expecting him to knock everyone out, which is unrealistic.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
In reply to this post by Rosco
Rosco wrote
Tyson would win some rounds with the crowd gasping at the destructive blows he lands.
That's something I can absolutely see happening.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Zombies Ate Me
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
Entaowed wrote
VERY good part four, thank you.  

Mr. Duggerman would beg to differ with the analysis that Tyson "won every minute of every round" with those "weaker" fights uring his prime.  That seems like a big exaggeration, & AJ thought he LOST one of them.

OTOH, Tyson did not have "no jab".  
I admire Steve Lott for being the only one to routinely root for Tyson in this special. But I think he's right in a sense. In Tyson's "bad" performances, the other guy would spend most of the time clinching. Tyson would land bombs, then reset or get clinched. The only fight he lost in my opinion was the Tillis fight. Tyson threw less and less punches as the fight progressed but Tillis kept firing and running. Tyson deserved to win against Green, Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith though. He didn't have the workmanship of a Joe Frazier, but he forced the action and deserved the decision in those fights. Tyson wasn't busy enough, but the other guys did even less.

Angelo Dundee was so biased. Of course Tyson had a jab. He'd jab his way in as he bobbed and weaved. His jab was very effective in helping him close the gap. I also dislike how they kept focusing on the Buster Douglas fight to highlight Tyson's weaknesses. He didn't train for that fight, nor was he focused. If that's the case, then they should have focused on Ali's first fight with Leon Spinks when he was under-trained and overconfident going in.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Friday The 13th...
Was Ali ever hit by someone with a big uppercut? Tyson's uppercut was just as destructive as his hooks. Seeing Ali survive big hooks from Frazier and Shavers leads me to believe that perhaps he could take Tyson's hooks but it's the uppercut that worries me. I don't recall ever seeing Muhammad Ali take an uppercut.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

49-0
Man_Eater wrote
Was Ali ever hit by someone with a big uppercut? Tyson's uppercut was just as destructive as his hooks. Seeing Ali survive big hooks from Frazier and Shavers leads me to believe that perhaps he could take Tyson's hooks but it's the uppercut that worries me. I don't recall ever seeing Muhammad Ali take an uppercut.
Thats a good observation, actually. Of all his opponents I think its safe to say that Joe Frazier landed more punches on Ali than anyone else but his style was more hook-oriented. Yeah he threw jabs and uppercuts sometimes but those hooks of his were serious business.

Rocky Marciano had a great uppercut. If you watch his fight with Joe Louis, he set up the finishing right hand with a left uppercut. But against Ali in the computer fight most of the head punches were pulled, so I doubt Rocky landed his uppercut on Ali. Very good point you have there. Tyson's uppercut came right up the middle inbetween your gloves and smashed through your chin. Ali had a terrific chin but would Tyson's uppercut rattle him? Possibly, and then Tyson would throw a left hook for the finish.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Zorro
Ali was tough. He might have his brains shook up if Tyson landed that uppercut. But if Holyfield could withstand it, so could Ali. Now if Tyson landed a hook or two right after the uppercut, he stands a chance of knocking Ali out. But the uppercut wouldn't do it alone against Ali.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Alexander
In reply to this post by Duggerman
Duggerman wrote
That's right. Put them both in their peak years. How does this one go?

Iron Mike. He used to get inside and devastate guys.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Zorro
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
Ali thumbed Terrell on purpose. They went into great detail about it in the Facing Ali documentary. In the first fight with Henry Cooper, Cooper had Ali's nose bleeding early in the fight. I think it was the second or third round. Henry boasted about this in the Facing Ali book. I thought he was being delusional but sure enough when I re-watched the fight he was telling the truth; You can clearly see Ali bleeding around the nose. Evidently Henry was getting inside on Ali and landing, because he had his nose bleeding and eventually knocked him down.

As guys like Chuvalo and Cooper proved, it was more than possible to get inside on Ali and land your shot, though timing is essential. Both of them stung him with good shots, as did Karl Mildenburger. But none of them knew how to follow up or finish him. Cooper timed his punch perfectly, as he cornered Ali against the ropes with his hands down and threw it at the precise moment. Chuvalo and Mildenburger got lucky. For Tyson, it wouldn't be luck. He'd work for it and take advantage when the moment arrived. I'd love to see Ali's reaction to Tyson's body punch-uppercut-left hook combination. That would be the ultimate moment of truth: Would Ali survive a combination of bombs from Iron Mike? I doubt it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
Entaowed wrote
OK, thanks AJ.

The question & challenge remains: would Ali's lack of fundamentals-but still elusive style-get him KOed when other less skilled tall boxer-types did not in his prime?  If you think so, you are forced to argue that Ali would do worse against prime Tyson that fighters you believe he is significantly better than & would beat head to head.

I don't know about that.
Styles make fights. For example, imo Floyd Patterson was a better fighter than Henry Cooper. (He even knocked him out when they fought). But Henry Cooper was more of a threat against prime Ali than Patterson ever was. Both men fought Ali twice but Cooper, though not as skilled as Patterson, came closer to beating Ali.

It doesn't matter whose "better." What matters is your style, and what your opponent's reaction is to it. Sure Ali was better than the guys Tyson failed to knock out in his prime. But they didn't lean back from punches or fight with their hands down either. They had better defense. They knew how to block jabs. They lacked Ali's overall talent but knew how to defend themselves from the knockout blows. Ali knew Frazier's left hook was coming. He knew Ken Norton would counter his jab. But he had no answer to either.

Also, Tyson was a swarmer. Swarmers are at their best against boxers like Ali. They close the gap and make the out-fighter uncomfortable. The Frazier fights do nothing but further confirm that Tyson would beat Ali. And if you compare Tyson and Frazier, Tyson was stronger, faster, punched with both hands, and threw more combinations. Frazier had more heart, aggression, and stamina, but overall Tyson was more talented.
Tyson had really quick hands on the inside and would rock Ali hard.

If George Chuvalo and Henry Cooper could land on (prime) Ali so much, what do you think a peaking Tyson would do?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Zorro
Duggerman wrote
Entaowed wrote
OK, thanks AJ.

The question & challenge remains: would Ali's lack of fundamentals-but still elusive style-get him KOed when other less skilled tall boxer-types did not in his prime?  If you think so, you are forced to argue that Ali would do worse against prime Tyson that fighters you believe he is significantly better than & would beat head to head.

I don't know about that.
Styles make fights. For example, imo Floyd Patterson was a better fighter than Henry Cooper. (He even knocked him out when they fought). But Henry Cooper was more of a threat against prime Ali than Patterson ever was. Both men fought Ali twice but Cooper, though not as skilled as Patterson, came closer to beating Ali.

It doesn't matter whose "better." What matters is your style, and what your opponent's reaction is to it. Sure Ali was better than the guys Tyson failed to knock out in his prime. But they didn't lean back from punches or fight with their hands down either. They had better defense. They knew how to block jabs. They lacked Ali's overall talent but knew how to defend themselves from the knockout blows. Ali knew Frazier's left hook was coming. He knew Ken Norton would counter his jab. But he had no answer to either.

Also, Tyson was a swarmer. Swarmers are at their best against boxers like Ali. They close the gap and make the out-fighter uncomfortable. The Frazier fights do nothing but further confirm that Tyson would beat Ali. And if you compare Tyson and Frazier, Tyson was stronger, faster, punched with both hands, and threw more combinations. Frazier had more heart, aggression, and stamina, but overall Tyson was more talented.
Tyson had really quick hands on the inside and would rock Ali hard.

If George Chuvalo and Henry Cooper could land on (prime) Ali so much, what do you think a peaking Tyson would do?
Good post AJ. I too, have always believed Tyson would beat Ali. I saw both in their primes.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Duggerman
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
I don't think Ali would get in prime Tyson's head. At his peak, Tyson was just an arrogant as Ali. He once said, "In that ring, I'm a god. How dare they challenge me!" 20 year-old Tyson was a focused warrior. 30 year-old Tyson was insecure, washed up, and faded if he couldn't knock you out early.

I think Tyson would beat Ali post-Kevin Rooney. But at their peaks, I still favor Tyson. It's not because I grew up with Tyson--it's just because I pick his style to beat Ali's. Tyson was hard to hit on the chin in his prime. In fact, Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith only landed one great punch against him in 12 round fights.

Ali was great with his speed and reflexes, but Tyson would slip that jab and before Ali knows it, he's trapped in a corner or against the ropes with his hands down. Tyson's blows were swift, hard, accurate and they came in big numbers; hooks and uppercuts to the body and chin, no way to defend against them all.

We're probably just gonna go in circles. I see Tyson knocking out Ali. The only way he doesn't is if Ali goes into survival mode the way Mitch Green and some of the others did. Speaking of which, it's kind of funny that when Ali ran and held all night in the Frazier rematch, he got the decision. When Mitch Green used those same tactics against Tyson, he (deservedly) lost the fight. Larry Holmes was using the same strategy against Tyson before he got caught during the 4th round. In my view, Tyson would likely knock out Ali late, after attacking his body for a large number of rounds. Or, Ali goes into survival mode and the biased judges would give him the victory.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
Entaowed wrote
 But you did not answer anything about the fighters who gave Tyson such trouble, including the one I named you though BEAT a prime Tyson.  IF Tillis really won, it makes a better case that a much better Ali, even with his deficits, could win.  
In the thread about the Tillis-Tyson fight, I admitted that I felt Tyson lost the fight. (Tyson felt the same way). But I also said that Tyson was green. Tillis was one of the first ranked opponents he fought. The fight was a learning experience. Tyson had never fought a big man that could move that way before, and Tillis kept attacking as he ran. Tyson became frustrated and his punch output decreased as the fight progressed. It wasn't Tillis' "talent" that beat Mike. It was the fact that Mike didn't know how to solve the puzzle and basically stopped attacking. Tillis did most of the work in the fight. Likewise, Ali got knocked down by Sonny Banks in 1962 when he was getting seasoned. Do we bring that up? No, because Ali was not yet in his prime. It's debatable if he was in his prime when Cooper knocked him down a year later.

I've already explained in this thread and others how the other guys Tyson failed to KO had better fundamentals than Ali. Like I said, we're just gonna go in circles. We'll never convince each other. But keep in mind that it isn't just Tyson I'd pick to beat prime Ali. I also back Frazier, Marciano and Louis to beat Ali because of their styles.

The computer involved in the Computer Fight with Marciano and Ali picked the style of Rocky to beat Ali. Is it a coincidence that the fantasy computer fight played out almost exactly the way The FOTC did against Joe Frazier? Ali would always have trouble with that swarming style, and Tyson was the most talented of the four great heavyweight swarmers. (Tyson, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier). If we're talking head to head, he beats all of them. And imo he would knock out Ali too...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Entaowed
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Shane
In reply to this post by Zorro
Zorro wrote
Ali was tough. He might have his brains shook up if Tyson landed that uppercut. But if Holyfield could withstand it, so could Ali. Now if Tyson landed a hook or two right after the uppercut, he stands a chance of knocking Ali out. But the uppercut wouldn't do it alone against Ali.
Not fair to compare the chin of Ali to the chin of Holyfield. Holyfield was weak in the body but could take punishment to the head as well as anyone.

It wouldn't be an easy fight for either guy but Tyson would come on strong and knock him out late or get that decision. If Ali thought Frazier was tough...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Duggerman
Administrator
In reply to this post by Entaowed
Yeah. I pick Louis to beat Ali for different reasons, but that's a whole 'nother thread right there! But the swarmers definitely give Ali fits.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Hit Em' Hard
Ali had too many tools for Tyson. Tyson was great with his style but that's all he could do. Muhammad was well-equipped to handle Tyson.

As for the Frazier comparisons, Frazier fought at such a fast pace. To see a heavyweight fighting at a pace like Henry Armstrong was an amazing feat. Even the announcers in the Fight of The Century commented on it. Ali couldn't keep up with Frazier's constant pressure and aggression. Tyson was ruthless and had a left hook right on par with Frazier but it was Frazier's unyielding pressure and frantic pace that overcame Ali in the first fight and almost beat him in Manilla. Mike couldn't bring it like Joe.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Urban Legend
Hit Em' Hard wrote
Ali had too many tools for Tyson. Tyson was great with his style but that's all he could do. Muhammad was well-equipped to handle Tyson.

As for the Frazier comparisons, Frazier fought at such a fast pace. To see a heavyweight fighting at a pace like Henry Armstrong was an amazing feat. Even the announcers in the Fight of The Century commented on it. Ali couldn't keep up with Frazier's constant pressure and aggression. Tyson was ruthless and had a left hook right on par with Frazier but it was Frazier's unyielding pressure and frantic pace that overcame Ali in the first fight and almost beat him in Manilla. Mike couldn't bring it like Joe.
Tyson came right @ you, threw his assault and would reset. This would give Ali a chance to escape, clinch or fire back. If Mike constantly swarmed and attacked like Joe he could win. But Mike wasn't aggressive enough to beat Ali. Those resets after throwing punches would cost him.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

Shane
The "Reseting" would not matter. Ali would be on the ground by the time Tyson would "reset." It's amazing that during his whole career, Ali never fought anyone that feints or threw combinations. He never dealt with the kind of beast Tyson was.
12345