Totally disagree. I think both versions might beat Tyson, but the Ali from around Williams would beat Tyson for sure IMO. Different fighter, but hell look what a lesser than Williams Clay did to the monster that was Liston.
You say his KO ratio in fights that go over 5 rounds is low. Who was he supposed to knockout but didn't? A big part of it is not many of Tyson's fights went very long in the first place---and that's a bad thing? It's also a style thing too. If a guy plays a defensive game and never leaves himself open to a KO, Tyson's best solution is to win rounds. Pretty much all of Tyson's decision wins can be attributed to this. I guess my whole point here is Tyson had no trouble winning rounds all the way to the end of a fight if needed.
A prime Tyson was a fearsome fighter. But nobody kayoed Muhammad Ali (ah, I know all about the Larry Holmes stoppage). The point is, could Tyson accomplish something that no one ever did. And regardless of the arguments put forward, Mike would have to do it within 4-5 rounds. Anything beyond that and the chance of a kayo becomes remote. That being said, I believe that, what fighters like Frazier, Shavers, Lyle and more pertinent, monsters like Liston and Foreman could not achieve, Tyson would also have not been able to achieve. I also believe that Ali, anytime between 1964 to 1975-76 would have the combination of speed, skill, chin, determination and ring generalship to survive Tyson's onslaught for 4-5 rounds. After this, unlike Tucker or Bonecrusher Smith, Ali wouldn't be inside the ring to survive only. It would turn into a long, hard and frustrating night for Tyson. A night like he had never faced before. Really dreamin' it up for Ali? Not really. I point you all to the what James Douglas, trying to be a 'Ali wannabe', did to a near peak Tyson . And Muhammad would have been the real thing, far better than Douglas.
You can hardly claim with any certainity that he had late effectiveness when he seldom showed it. His number of KO's after round 5 is very low. That doesn't necissarily 100% disprove your position, but it hardly supports it, does it? Not when the guy was only trying to survive, no.
The only times he wasn't effective were against Holyfield and Douglas, where, like I already mentioned, he was losing rounds right from the beginning. His late match effectiveness had nothing to do with it.
On the Ali Tyson front there are some points to consider. Tall rangy fighters who held a lot generaly took Tyson the distance. In Ali's case this would mean a points win. Ali never faced a puncher in the same zip code as Tyson as a finisher. It is not a given that he will take Tysons best combos if he gets caught on the ropes. Ali would be absolutely remorseless in his psychological attack on Tyson and it would probably be a factor. If Ali dosn't phase you then nobody will.
Sure, he didn't lose any effectiveness at all, his failure to score late KO's was just sheer bad luck. Sounds good to you?
so Frazier easily beats Tucker Biggs and Thomas? or does anyone see any trouble for Joe from these guys?? I think Williams gets Kayoed by his nemesis the left hook..but some of these boxers give Joe some problems along the way....
That wasn't what I was saying at all. Holyfield and Douglas found/exploited other weaknesses in Tyson, as they were winning right from the beginning. This, by definition, rules out Tyson "tiring out in the late rounds" as the reason for those losses.
Frazier would have gone undefeated in Tyson era until he had to meet either Holyfield or Bowe. But Frazier would'nt have been as dominant as Tyson was even though he most likely would have gone undeafeated, I can't imagine him putting the same fear of God that Tyson put in Spinks. And even though Larry Holmes was past his best in 1988, I don't think Frazier would have been able to knock him out, Holmes would have a much easier time setting his pace against Frazier though he would have likely lost.