88 Tyson vs. 67 Ali, who wins?

I quite enjoyed that.

An exaggeration yes, but this basically echoes how I feel. Ali was a master at the mind games. I think he'd take Mike to places he'd rather not go.

 

Two things:

1. Yes, in critical, decisive moments your cornerman can make a difference. But that's not what we talking about here, we're talking about the fighter as a whole.

2. You can't compare with Lewis before Steward. Because Tyson had had Rooney for several years and been taught by him, and all of a sudden he forgets everything? If Steward and Lewis had parted way in the early 2000's I don't think it would have made any real difference. And the Rooney-excuse is not concerning losses in tight contests against very tough opponents, it's primarily used for Tyson getting a pasting from journeyman.

 

1. They make a difference, period. I think you're underestimating the value of a good cornerman.

2. Look at it like this: A football team plays a certain way under one coach for years and years. Another guy comes in and suddenly they play differently. Same team, but a different coach.
It's the same way with fighters.

We can speculate on Steward, but the point remains that he fought differently under Correa and Davenport than he did under Steward. That's a fact, and it reinforces what I said earlier: trainers have their own ideas about doing things, and what they want their fighters to do.

The fact is that without Rooney, Tyson didn't have a gameplan, or one that he followed. He stopped moving his head, stopped setting up his punches. His combinations were mostly gone.
Refer to any magazine from the period and you will see everyone was saying that. (Better yet, just watch post Rooney fights.)

 

I think I'd pick a young hungry Tyson. His power and hand speed where amazing, if Henry Cooper could pretty much KO Ali then Tyson could have knocked his head off.

 

I agree with Presscot.

Ali would have beat Tyson before they ever got in the ring.

 

An absolute peak Tyson beats any version of Ali pre-1964 or post-exile IMO. That's how highly I rate Tyson head-to-head. However, a peak Ali takes Mike, and possibly even stops him over 15. That's how highly I rate a peak Ali. That's not to say Tyson is in any way inferior to Terrell for example, who lasted the distance against a peak Ali (albeit, in one of the most one-sided title fights you'll ever see, and Ali probably carried him), it's just that Tyson's come-forward style would work against him in the later rounds when his upperbody movement slowed, and he wasn't the toughest fighter mentally.

In 1967, he had some pretty good power, his body had filled out, his speed was at it's peak, and he was just simply breathtaking to watch. That version of Ali beats every other heavyweight who has ever lived.

 

No, it's not. A football team is about that how a large number of individuals relate to each other on the field more than their own technical characteristics.

A better comparison would be how mature players change under different trainers. They mostly don't. Maradona was Maradona, no matter the trainer, same with Ronaldo, Ronaldinho etc. etc.

I have of course. And yes, he seemed a bit more lazy, but he wasn't a different fighter. I think he still had head movement and good combos at times.

Do you mean that his new trainers told him to do away with them? That they tried to undo evrything Rooney taught him? Rather I think it was just a case that he started to believe he only had to show up to win. But that seems pretty natutal for someone who's that dominant.

He seemed a bit less sharp and focussed, but I don't think he changed fundamentally as a fighter. He himself named the fight against Stewart as one of his best (even though I personally disagree) and that was post Rooney.

 

Well, fair enough. But still don't you think that different trainers bring out different styles or attributes of a fighter, at least occasionally?

"At times" being the key words here. Yes at times Tyson showed flashes of his old self, but those were mostly fleeting. He had the speed and power as before, but the hallmarks of his style, the explosiveness, combinations and head movement, were downgraded from before.

What I'm saying (and have been saying since the start) is that Tyson didn't listen to Giachetti or anyone else other than Rooney. That's been the crux of my argument all along.
Rooney was the last link to Cus and the guy that had trained Tyson since the start of his pro career, so they had formed a very close bond, until Tyson pissed the relationship down the toilet.
Giachetti was obviously a good trainer, but no matter how good he was, if the fighter wasn't listening to him, he could have had me in the corner for all the difference it would have made.

Why didn't Tyson listen to instructions?
I believe it was partly because he was in that "I hate the world" phase of his life and was distrustful and resentful of pretty much everyone.
He also was trying too hard to be "bad" again and eschewed the finer points of his game in lieu of a more direct, simplistic approach of just trying to bomb the other guy out with one shot.
Of course, he also became notorious for skipping training sessions (or not completing them) during this time, so that's another factor. It all boils down to the situation where his new trainers were not in control of Tyson. He was the boss and they towed the line, not the other way round.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like Tyson suddenly fell apart at the seams or anything. Nothing of the sort. He at worst was still the 2nd best fighter around prior to his incarceration. He was still in his physical prime and had enough meanness and desire to get the job done against most guys, but there were more than a few mutterings from those "in the know" that he wasn't vintage Tyson anymore.
Most blamed it on him forsaking the hallmarks of his style, others simply thought his skills were slowly eroding.

The thing is, most of his fights ended quickly so everything looked rosy. A lack of proper training, a lack of a decent fight plan or of neglecting certain skills doesn't usually manifest itself until after a few rounds, and knocking out guys in one or two rounds didn't give skeptics much to go on.

 

Ok. It seems we're more or less on the same page here. I agree that Tyson was somewhat less formidable after demolishing Spinks. He probably felt that he had nothing left to prove. And I do think that his axing of Rooney was in a way a bi-product of this. He probably didn't want anyone nagging at him and telling him to do this or that. He felt himself too big for that.

But Frazier was further removed from his very best against Foreman than Tyson was against Douglas IMO. And the loss to Foreman is often used as an example of how Frazier would fare against this or that fighter, so Tyson's loss to Douglas could very well be used similarily.

 

A press conference would not have lasted, Tyson would do what no one else did--attack Ali. He's beat Ali in ring too.

 

you dont think tyson would find a way to make ali uncomfortable was well. he bit a man on the leg. although it didnt help in the fight.

 

Joe Frazier did attack Ali in a get together before their second fight. And lost in the ring, just like Tyson would. (Except Tyson probably wouldn't have done as well).

 

Ali was ko'd by a Joe Frazier who had a similar style to Mike Tyson. Tyson in the 80's was unstoppable and I believe he let his personal life affect his legacy.

Tyson by ko in the middle half of the fight.

 

Ali was never knocked out.

 

So a peak Tyson couldn't stop the likes of Tucker and Smith (who had been stopped before and was KO'd not long after), but he would knock out a man who was never knocked out, had the best recuperative powers of any HW, an iron jaw and a style that made him extremely hard to hit?

Hmmm..