How does Tyson beat Ali?

okey doke. Care to elaborate?

 

Thanks. Such a shame

 

Look no further than Ali vs Frazier. Frazier gave Ali hell. Norton also beat Ali.
Ali always had trouble with pressure boxers. Fighters with quick hands always caused him technical problems. Against Tyson, Ali would be facing one of the fastest and most powerful and technically sound boxers in history.
Tyson is twice the boxer Frazier and Norton were. The man was as close to boxing perfection as it gets: fast, powerful, had KO power in both hands, threw combinations, had an incredible defense and and iron chin.
Tyson will exploits Ali's lack of fundamentals.

People always mention the fact that Ali survived Foreman and Shavers, boxers who could hit harder than Tyson. It's funny they never mention the fact that both of these men had stamina issues and they barely threw combinations.
Foreman never caught Ali with a clean punch. - Shavers managed to land a few proper shots, but failed to go after Ali after he had him hurt.
Tyson was a constant knockout threat throughout a fight, while Ali only had to make it through the early rounds against Shavers and Foreman, who threw a lot of wild haymakers, wasting their limited energy.

Some "analysts" never bother to study films and therefore don't see the technical flaws in Ali's style. Instead they make a pointless argument about the quality of Ali's opposition as compared to Tyson. It doesn't matter. Styles make fights. Ali was tailor made for Mike.
This is how the fight would go down:
- Ali tries to stay on the outside and time Tyson. He can't and gets frustrated
- Tyson applies constant pressure on Ali, pushing towards the ropes;
- Ali switches tactics and tries a "rope-a-dope", hoping for Tyson to get tired - the “rope-a-dope” does not work against Tyson, in much the same way it didn’t work against Frazier in Manila or against Lyle;
- Tyson pounds the body and hurts Ali, then he lands his favorite combo : right body shot, right uppercut, left hook. Down goes Ali. The end.

 

Every single mention of Ali or his opponents involved the 70's past peak Ali. Are you aware he had a career in the 60's?

So here you are making all your comments per a 70's Ali but i bet no-one's allowed to mention Douglas or Holyfield.

 

To go over some of your points, i'll counter with;
Tyson had trouble with boxers
Regarding norton and frazier, Ali was past peak. Is Tyson (whom i loved) the only one that gets to be prime?
Saying tyson is twice the boxer frazier was, is innacurate, opinion based, and does frazier a serious disservice.
In your description of tyson as boxing perfection, Ali beats him in every department you cite for tyson, except power
If you think tyson wins, thats cool, its your opinion and its quite possible, but at least be a bit even keeled and judge BOTH in their prime

 

He won their second fight by cheating, with excessive holding and pushing down on Frazier's head.
Plus Frazier's eye sight was close to gone by then.

Two bull**** stereotypes that couldn't be further from reality.

First of all, it was prime Ali that never faced any good boxers. Patterson and Liston are the exceptions, but neither was at 100%:
- Patterson had a back injury.
- Liston was way older than stated, did not train properly and injured his shoulder in the first fight. Took a dive in the rematch.

Second of all, Ali had too many flaws for Tyson to exploit. He did not know how to par of block a jab, he leaned back and was vulnerable to the left hook, he did not even know how to throw a proper uppercut.
A modest and small HW in Jones was successful against him, a limited HW like Chuvalo managed to land on him.
Cooper sent him to dream world.

 

Tyson dismantled boxers. His style was designed for that. Slipping the jab and countering

Ali looked as good as ever against Frazier, but let's say he was past it. My point wasn't that he lost to them, I was just showcasing his limitations/vulnerabilities. He always had those, even when he was younger. Boxers with fast hands and/or good jabs always gave him trouble.

Actually, it's fact. Tyson was faster and stronger. He had KO power in both hands, unlike Frazier, who only had in his left.
Tyson could use a wider variety of shots. Tyson had a superior defense.
The only thing Frazier has in his favor is superior stamina.

No, Ali doesn't. Tyson was way more skilled and has better fundamentals.
Tyson matches Ali's hand speed. Tyson was stronger. Tyson had a better defense.
Ali has better footspeed, reach and stamina.

I think Tyson wins due to the stylistic advantage. And I do judge both in their prime. Ali always lacked fundamentals. He got away with many things due to his incredible physical attributes, but he was prone to mistakes and Tyson will capitalize on that.

 

Tyson certainly had the boxing skills to beat up Ali, his style was designed for that, for ****s sake

 

I wanted to - but I refrained - as soon as I saw "Rope-a-dope" - 7 years after his prime in the ring - well - if we are looking at Foreman, Shavers and Lyle, might as well compare Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis and McBride considering relative physical capability.

I've ventured an opinion on how Tyson beats Ali - he's not twice what FOTC Frazier is (nobody is literally twice an ATG such as Frazier) and Frazier with his excellent head movement still shipped career changing punishment in that fight and showed a will to win that Mike arguably never did. I am not going to superman Tyson or Superman Ali to fit an agenda of who I think is going to win.

I happen to think absolute prime for prime, Ali should be favoured. The breadth of the intangiables he showed througout his career, plus his skillset, chin and will should be enough to get past a Tyson - Tyson more than has enough skills, power, speed and aggression to seriously trouble Ali. I struggle to envisage prime Ali being stopped early, when he's focused and one thing that Ali did, despite his boasting to the contrary, he was focused against notorious punches. See Liston I when he stops bouncing around the ring, controls ring centre and boxes off the jab and pivot - patient, sound defence, ring generalship and picks his spots to open up.

If anyone stops Ali, it's likely Tyson, Louis, Lewis and on a horrible night, someone like a Tua (height, power and hooking style) - I wouldn't bet on it.

 

This is a stupid debate. Tyson was majorly flawed and beat no one of note during his prime years. Ali beat the best of two decades. He was so good they had to make up ways to try and stop him. You can not pick all you want. But no one beat more hall of fame boxers than Ali. So get over it. He will always be the greatest. Also, he beat a young Foreman. And Holyfield couldn't KO an older Foreman. Same Holyfield that beat Tyson

 

Most times i just laugh LOL

Agree with all your points. I probably wouldn't make Tyson favorite over the one that beat Foreman either. He sizzled in the first round and was so calm against a monster like Foreman. He'd make different adaptions against Tyson on the fly if he had too. He'd be pulling his head down on a regular basis among other things too. He wouldn't be an easy beat.

 

He could do it. Tyson had the power to KO anyone.

But if Mike couldn't get the job done in 3-4 rounds, I think ALI would eventually find a way to KO Mike in 8-9 rounds.

It could go either way.

 

There's two really crucial things to this outside of just who's faster, who's got a better career/calibre etc for me?

Prime Ali's likely got the best defensive radar of the ATGs, as in his distance negotiation, headmovement and ability to roll with shots is ridiculous and Mike's defensive ability, jab to get inside and ability to explode and shift mid-combination is a serious threat to any fighter that's not braced and ready to negotiate the threat. Of course, you have to be brave, strong, skilled and mount your own offence to beat the very best Mike we saw. Prime Ali was simply a busy fighter - not the weight drained, last years' mess that I think people use as comparison in these hypotheticals, nor the boy-man clowning in the ring with Cooper, who then stepped up in his very next fight.

Ali's first round versus Foreman is an example of excellent footwork, handspeed, distance negotiation and winningness. I think this Ali could likely beat a Tyson, but I do worry about his relatively inability to move consistently, obviously, allowing for the ring conditions on that night. Ali's elbows, forearms and higher guard stood him in good stead, as did his straight shooting - wouldn't be able to do that versus Mike as much perhaps, but the grappling and head control - he could do that, do it well and I'm not sure that Mike has the discipline and emotional control to avoid frustration.

One thing that Mike did that I like and dislike at the same time but I also see fighters like Ali, Holyfield, Liston, prime Holmes and Foreman being able to take advantage of is the standing square when close and dropping his hands somewhat. It's okay when he's mid-combo or shift and ready to tee off, but not okay, when he's there and not busy. I can see Tyson being pushed off balance and tagged everytime he does that.

 

Can't use that logic of fighter A, fighter B and fighter C.

Foreman destroyed Frazier and Norton - they both beat Ali. Ali beat him and Foreman seriously lost his mental edge as a result.

Tyson was more technically sound than Ali in many ways and Ali was greater than Tyson in many ways. There's nothing to be gained in tearing down one to build up the other. This would be an extremely tough fight for both of them as they would likely be in with the best H2H fighter stylistically to test them.

 

At last, a simple, concise opinion !
It could definitely go either way. I didn't or haven't seen enough of Ali to heavily back him.
I saw plenty of Tyson. Most of us know he was a monster when focused, hungry & without distractions.
I'd probably back Tyson inside 6 if l was a betting man. After 6 it's a toss up.