Muhammad Ali (1967) Versus Mike Tyson (1988)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
159 messages Options
12345678
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
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.
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
Entaowed wrote
Huh, Frazier, Norton (more counterpunching) & others did not throw many combinations?!  And feinting-I have seen Ali move his head back from an unthrown blow, though cannot recall who feinted much.
Come on, bud. When was the last time you saw Norton or Frazier throw dynamite combinations like Tyson or Louis?

Frazier would sometimes throw a double left hook (which would have dropped Ali if not for the ropes catching him) but that's it. Frazier only threw two-punch combinations with his left hook. You tell me one time when you saw Frazier, Norton, or anyone else that Ali fought throw a 5 punch combination consisting of hooks, uppercuts or jabs to the body and the head all at once, at blinding speed and each punch landing accurately? Tyson and Louis would. Lucky for Ali he never fought them.

Jack Johnson and Joe Louis feinted quite often and would time Ali perfectly. Tyson didn't feint much but his timing was impeccable. I know you're rooting for Ali but there are some guys out there that would take full advantage of his fundamental errors.
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)

Shogun of Harlem
 Ali was better than anyone Tyson faced in his prime. I'd still pick Tyson to win, although Tyson has on numerous occasions bowed to Ali and said he was the best ever. Cus D'Amato said the same. Both of them were really modest regarding the subject when they appeared on the Arsenio Hall show. Ali said Tyson would put him to sleep if he caught him and says he hit harder than Shavers. But Tyson said Ali was the greatest of all time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIIqgr1XO8M
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Shane
Muhammad sparred with Jose Torres. Unfortunately Jose did a horrible job here. Not a good representation of the peekaboo. The real Tyson would not crouch and eat all that leather.
12345678