If Frazier could beat Ali...why cant Tyson? Just sayn....

This thread just reminded me of one of my all time favourite video game trailers:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACLrHUih0w[/ame]

Excellent intro for Tyson might I add.

 

I think this would be a great "styles make fights" hypothetical example and I'm actually quite surprised how underated Mike Tyson's skills and legacy (pre-jail) are getting on ESB.

I won't argue Tyson was mentally strong, but under the guidance of Rooney he could stick to a solid gameplan over 12-rounds. Against James Smith's negative clinching, the mental help from Tyson's corner was probably what kept him from deviating from the gameplan and not slugging and fighting stupid out of frusteration.

Tyson's style was tailor-made for outfighters like Ali, and he had more trouble with fighter's who stood their ground and pushed him back. If you watch Douglass or Holyfield, you'll notice the best way to beat Tyson would be is to stand your ground, push him back and punch while he is backpeddling. If he is moving forward, is in close and in position clinch.

Again using James Smith as an example; alot of people use him as an example of an out-fighter Tyson couldn't KO so they think thats the style that troubles Tyson yet they conveniently forget that Smith clinched and tangled up Tyson's arms almost as much as he actually boxed. This strategy also worked against Smith on the cards. Ali was never know to be an excessive clincher and certainly didn't regurarily try to tangle up opponents arm including his three fights with Frazier.

In terms of Ali's weakness, it was in-fighters and left-hooks to the body (due to the low right hand). Decent-puncher George Chuvalo worked the body which caused kidney damage to Ali and resulted in him pissing out blood as Ali's stance opens him to left hooks. Yes Ali went on to win the fight, but Tyson is far more accurate, stronger, and threw some of the fastest combinations in the history of the heavyweight division. Even Henry Cooper was able to land his wayward left-hooks on Ali with regularity.

Joe Frazier was always known as a one-handed fighter yet still gave Ali absolute hell with that left hook, so it makes me wonder what a faster and accurate two-handed fighter, with a jab, and beater defense could do. In terms of power, Frazier and Tyson probably hit as hard as one another, but I may lean slightly to Frazier as he relied on beating down opponents with semi-accurate hooks wheras Tyson set up angles and caught opponents flush with almost pin-point accuracy.

This would have to be a tactical fight from Tyson over 12-rounds, and would need to work his underated jab on the way in, force the action to the ropes and throw controlled combinations. Rope-a-dope doesn't work as well against varied combinations.

This would be a close fight, and I see Tyson scraping through on a close decision. Skillwise he was superior, but to stay mentally-focused he'd need his corner like no other fight before. The only way Ali could win, is by going the Smith route and tangling up the arms, and trying to steal points by using his reach and speed to land flash combinations before Tyson gets on the inside. Easier said than done.

 

My thoughts exactly mate!

 

I'm not saying I believe everything in the thread, but check out this thread which gives some food for thought on the quality of opposition Muhammad Ali faced in his prime: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272123

 

Let's be sensible here, Mike Tyson's quality of opposition after Berbick (87-90) is slightly better than Muhammad Ali's opposition after Liston 1 (65-67). Ali obviously has the much better record overall.

The problem is people just glance over a record but don't put the fights into perspective:

Liston II: There was a fix in this fight and you would be hard-pressed trying to prove this was legitimate. As far as I and most people are concerned this fight is a NC. This is by no means Ali's fault but it's just the way it played out.

Chuvalo: Was nothing more than an exceptionally tough but limited B-classer at best (with most in boxing circles at the time refering to him as a journeyman). Comes in with 2 losses in 3 fights (including against the average Terrell) then pushes Ali to the limit, before being annihilated by Frazier the following year.

Patterson: It's well documented he fought with an injured back against Ali and was cherry-picked for no other reason than a marketable name. If you've ever watched his fights you can clearly see his mobility just isn't there. And for his particular style he was almost a sitting duck.

Williams: Granted he was a top contender pre '64, but gets shot and almost dies. He comes back fights a bunch of nobodies with a combined 29 losses on their resumes and gets a title crack. Again not that big a win. Check out out the top fighters he faced pre 64 and the average-opponents he faced after Ali. Chuvalo was probably the best name but as I said before he was a B-classer at best.

Cooper: Was nothing better than a British-level fighter. He has one notable upset win against Zora Folley in 58, but nothing of note on his resume. Even Floyd Patterson well past his prime and after a short layoff to get his back right was able to take him out in 4 rounds.

An old Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks were a higher class than any of the opponents Ali defended his title against after Lison I from 65-67.

Even if you compare the rest of Ali's average opponents: Folley (well past his best), London, Mildenberger, and Terrell and compare to Tyson's average opponents: Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno, and Thomas, it appears Tyson fought the better opposition.

And let's put the Douglass fight into context: Tyson had fired his long-term trainer Rooney after he became the linear champ in 88 and he barely trained for the fight (spending most of the time partying in Japan) wheras Douglas was on an emotional high (after his mother died) and came into the fight in the best shape in his career, ever. The fact Tyson was still able to drop Douglas and withstand vicious haymaker's which would have KO most heavyweights over 9 rounds was testament that he was still good, even if he wasn't at his best.

Nobody ever wins fantasy matchups against Ali as people romaticize he was the perfect fighter and could just rope-a-dope every single opponent.

 

Frazier NEVER beat a prime Ali, he beat a past prime Ali, Tyson could probably beat 71 Ali, but a PRIME 67 Ali would be too much for Tyson.

 

Also I would like add this mental strength/Tyson was a bully stuff is Bull ****, In his prime when he gave a damn and wasn't just fighting for money, he showed plenty of heart, Tucker, Ruddock, and Bruno all tagged him hard and he kept coming, Douglas beat the **** out of him all night long, but Tyson came back to put him down for 14 seconds which should've won him the fight. He loses to Ali because it's a bad style match-up not due to heart.

 

I'm Ali's biggest fan,but of course a prime time Tyson has a chance.Tyson at his peak is a problem for any heavyweight in history.I don't think he wins this one though.The comparison with Frazier is a false one they're two completely different fighters.Frazier was the ultimate swarmer,probably the greatest pressure heavyweight ever,and there's no doubt that was a style that gave Ali problems.Tyson's best work on the other hand was from mid range,those lethal combinations were very rarely from right inside,he wasn't a great inside fighter.Someone above mentions that Ali wasn't an excessive clincher well he needs to watch some more Ali fights.Ali would almost certainly tie Tyson up on the inside and be able to negate Tyson in there because he simply wasn't that effective in there.
I see Tyson being very dangerous early on and Ali simply sticking and moving and keeping him at arms length.Although Mike had good stamina his intensity definitely dropped after around 4 or 5 rounds and I simply think Ali would take charge and inflict a bit of a boxing lesson on Mike and take a UD or even a late stoppage.

 

Offensively, Tyson is probably better than Frazier, where I think they differ and why I think Tyson wouldn't beat Ali is because I don't know that Tyson has as high a threshold for pain and punishment as Frazier had. Tyson feasted in situations where he was allowed to impose his will virtually unchecked by his opponents, but when challenged or when someone stood up to him and took what he could dish out he seemed to wilt. Frazier and Ali were going 15 rounds, I just don't know that Tyson could go that long, that hard, and be able to absorb the punishment that Frazier did, to be able to win a fight with Ali.

 

I'm in the camp that believes Tyson could certainly win this fight but more likely than not Ali takes it.

 

Tyson is not nearly as mentally weak as people are making him out. Buster Douglas was sorry underachiever, but he was talented and when motivated like he was against Tyson he could've given anybody hell. Mike was undertrained and under prepared for that fight. He was eating shots all night, his eye was closed, yet he never stopped looking fo that one punch and almost ended the fight in the 8th. Even when the fight was stopped, he had climbed back to his feet to continue. He was in some wars with Ruddock as well, so i don't know why everybody is acting the like the first time he gets hit back, he's gonna tuck tail and run.

 

the only possible informed response to this thread.