How exactly does Tyson beat Ali...?

No way in hell Tyson beats the Ali of 1964-1967 vintage--no chance! Even the FOTC version of Ali would be too much for Mike. I think you'd almost have to go post Zaire for Tyson to have a decent chance against Ali.

(Maybe the 1973 version of Ali who didn't look good against Ken Norton might also be vulnerable against Tyson but part of that was Norton's style always gave Ali fits.)

 

Jerry Quarry could also shoot in and under, closing abruptly, yet he barely laid a glove on Ali in their rematch.

Now, I'm not comparing them in terms of fighter quality, but logistics. Muhammad's combination of height, reach and foot speed is crazy. Nat Fleischer saw them all from Jeffries to Foreman in person, and stated in 1969 that Ali was the fastest heavyweight off all time, hand and foot speed combined. He could well have been the fastest man in boxing regardless of size.

Again, whenever Tyson was able to get in and under, he'd also get neutralized with clinching. Mike can't get in and under before getting tied up.

 

Do you actually believe this? The guy that had to be pulled by his corner against Holmes where he stood zero chance of winning would surrender his championship against his fiercest rival, who he had pummelled for the last two rounds, when all he had to do was survive the remaining three minutes?

Not a chance for me, whatever Ali felt or said in the corner. Inconceivable that he would quit on his stool so close to winning.

Or du you mean to say Joe would have stopped Ali in the 15th if Futch would have let him out? I don't think he would have, but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Ali quitting pretty much is imo.

 

He’s a man, not a wizard. I favour Ali myself, but I refuse to get carried away watching him beat Ernie Terrell or Cleve Williams’ ghost. I’m not saying this applies to you, but I feel people often kind of merge 60’s & 70’s Ali in a way we’re told not to do with the two Foreman’s. Prime Ali did not have to call on getting hit regularly or hard as he adapted to in the ’70’s. I am skeptical of giving him his later toughness to his earlier speed. I suspect that’s something that developed with necessity, rather than being something innate.

But the real point of contention here is speed. Leaning back from punches is never a good idea. Not ever. You can get away with it, but the faster & more precise the opponent, the greater the risk. It’s a lot of risk with a Mike Tyson or a Joe Louis. I think Ali wins it most likely, but you seem as though you’d be shocked to see Ali knocked senseless. I can’t say I’d feel the same way.

Fleischer didn’t see Tyson.

 

I think the Foreman/Ali comparison is worlds apart. Just because Ali didn't have to rely on toughness in the 60's doesn't mean he didn't have it. Ali was a fully matured man who had defended the worlds heavyweight title 9 times by the time he went into exile. I don't think he suddenly developed intestinal fortitude and toughness out of no-where at that point. In his last three fights of the 60's he'd settled on about 212 pounds and was very close to this in his first three comeback fights before hitting 215 for the FOTC. In the 60's pre title he came back from knockdowns and got off the canvas to win. It's the sort of warrior he was. It's incredibly rare for someone to have A+ toughness allied to A+ flash which is why he was what he was.

Foreman on the other hand was 14 years older by the time he fought for the title again comparative to his last fight first career. He was both a totally different fighter in style and a totally different physical specimen which is why he changed the way he did.

That's my take anyway.

 

Yes, and its's funny how forgotten the instances are when he showed toughness in the 60's. People love a "but if Jones and Cooper almost beat him, what would X do to him?" but say nothing about the grit and toughness he showed to turn those fights around. Not to mention surviving a round virtually blind against Liston.

When he needed to tough it out, he did.

 

Nobody contended Ali got tough, “all of a sudden.” It’s extremely well-documented he spent many a day in the early 70’s laying on ropes & allowing sparring partners to hit him. It was a gradual, consistent process.

Why go to so much trouble with that if you were innately that capable of taking extreme punishment?

 

To answer the TS - I love Ali, but just don't know. That's pretty much always the case in fantasy match-ups, since I'm so frequently wrong about those that actually take place, but there are strong arguments for both imo. Tyson was just so ****ing deadly at his peak and Ali did play with fire defensively. On the other hand, Ali was a master who found a way. As tough and smart as he was fast.

The only thing that would surprise me here really would be if Ali won by early KO, apart from that everything is quite possible as fars as I'm concerned.

I love that that the poll results are so lopsided in Ali's favour, though, since I know how much that will **** off some posters here.

 

Exactly mate, exactly.

 

I don't think lazing around letting people tee off on you does much of anything at that career stage personally, certainly nothing positive. If anything it can erode your ability to take a punch if you're an individual it catches up with as it did with many. He never had any trouble taking punches while taking and defending the title multiple times thru the 60's.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ali thought and claimed it helped. He thought a lot of things, not all of them good.

 

Ali & I will have to disagree with you that it weakened him.

 

You've taken my reply out of context. I never remotely said it weakened him.

The bolded "If anything it can erode your ability to take a punch if you're an individual it catches up with as it did with many."

There's countless examples of boxers suddenly losing their ability to take a punch after years of taking punishment in the boxing ring. O'Grady and Hamsho are two such examples. Obviously some guys would be affected by getting pounded on a regular basis in sparring.

No doubt it didn't help Ali's later mental deterioration either and i dare say he believed all would be just fine on that front. He was wrong of course.

 

This content is protected

 

When I think of one-handed Frazier bludgeoning Ali in the first and most meaningful fight, and Chuvalo sending Ali to the hospital and going dancing himself that night, I can't see how Tyson loses this. Sure, Ali has a great chin and movement. Not good enough to avoid near KO losses against Banks and Cooper though. Ali is very mentally tough complaining constantly about rabbit punches against Chuck Wepner all night. I'm not sure he's going to hold up to the strain of Tyson's fouling. Boy scouts are more dangerous than ordinary boys. That's how training works.

 

There’s been some very poor comments on here regarding Mike.

Yes, he’s massively overrated by many.

Yes, he had no longevity.

However, giving him absolutely no chance, when Frazier gave Ali hell in 3 fights, really is being ignorant and disrespectful.

I too would have favoured Ali, for sure.

But we saw Frazier starve Ali of time and space. We saw that Ali couldn’t keep him on the end of his jab or have the power to deter or stop him from coming in. We saw Joe suffocate him on the inside.

Yet Mike Tyson was a better fighter than Joe Frazier. Absolutely. He didn’t have the longevity and he wasn’t as liked. He also doesn’t have any win that compares to Joe’s win over Ali in the FOTC. But he was much more of a dynamic fighter than Frazier was. He was two handed. He was more powerful. He could switch hit. He threw better combinations to the head and body. He was much more of a complete fighter.

So I’d like to hear opinions on whether people think that Frazier could have beaten or troubled a PRIME Ali.

Because if they think that he could have, then it would be nonsensical to have not given Mike a reasonable chance of also beating him.

They were both small pressure fighters, of a similar build and with a similar style, where again, Mike was more dynamic.