Ali vs. Tyson: out on a fragile limb.

[Brassangel]

I wasn't comparing Ferguson to Ali, as there is no comparison there. Ferguson simply used his reach, and covered up in a similar fashion. While he didn't test the pressure cooker level of Mike, that's because Mike played his game well, and searched for the openings at the right time. It could very well be true that Mike created a difficult situation for his opponents at times, thus making it hard for them to do so to him.

While I'd like to avoid the "if Rooney was still his trainer" cliche, I think it's safe to assume that he was developing a better, more patient and endurant, boxing version of Mike. Once Tyson became champ, however, he probably felt like he didn't need to hone his skills anymore. I guess it will always come down to a "potential" version of Mike. For example, had he continued to develop these habits and persue his career with Rooney (in the pre-championship fashion), how good could he have become by 1991, 92, 95, etc? Then again, how good could Ali have been without a layoff come 1971?

That should be the fight. It'd be like two videogame fighters.

[Brassangel]

I would just like to say that I have been pleased with the way this thread has turned out; save for a few moments in the middle where people were flaming each other. Unfortunately, much of this could probably have been discussed in "The Myth of Mike Tyson" thread. Oh well, I will save the pages for future dissertations.

Furthermore, my mind hasn't changed much on the subject, but I've gained a more detailed vision of the fantasy fight in question. I may actually photoshop a few pretend clips of them fighting, or do some artwork and post them on here. Also, I might write a fantasy matchup series similar to the Frazier vs. Holyfield one I did about six months ago.

[QueensburyRules]

All right; I can't take it anymore. I watch Sabbath and Frazier's 15th make these ludicrous threads about great champions throughout history and how great they were NOT. While their research deserves credit, I have to say that it's moronic to use articles and statistics to assume that a fighter wasn't great; especially when the same logic could be applied to every single fighter in history.

Now, that aside...

I've noticed a lot of threads including posts regarding the myth of Muhammad Ali, and the myth of Mike Tyson: how they were both media hyped into being portrayed as invincible fighters in their prime, how good would they have been without layoff time, and so on. I think this is rediculous. Both were great, both suffered personal hardship, both got involved with the wrong people, both were repeat champions, etc. I think that their greatness should not be questioned. I think that the real question here is how a fight between them would have really turned out. While I am aware that this would be the 6984354986th post about Ali vs. Tyson, I am trying to look at it differently.

First of all, let's assume that Ali is the very slippery, fluid, hard to hit, feet rarely planted, and doesn't rely on his chin Ali that ruled the mid-to-late 60's. This is the Ali we know and love; the young Elvis, if you will. Clearly one of the two greatest heavyweight champions of all-time (perhaps only side-by-side with Joe Louis).

Next, let's also assume that Tyson is fast, accurate, very defensive, and full of the same heart he had when he was enroute to unifying the titles. Hungry, explosive, endurant. Not the sack of sand who showed up in Don King's corner and didn't mind getting hit while hoping for one big punch.

Okay, so we have two superfighters. Let's consider their styles and how they fair against each other based on what we know. For one, Tyson showed signs of struggling in fights where his opponents were tall with a good reach. This wasn't always the case, as we are considering the Mike Tyson who was determined. He still managed to win those tougher fights on points because of his ability to cut off the ring, throw combinations, avoid opposing jabs, and last for the length of the fight. One other thing Mike was good at was breaking his arms free in a clinch, and slamming at the body. This often took the legs away from his taller, agile opponents, thus making his usual disadvantage almost non-existent. Mike did come out a little too quickly from time to time, however, which could tire him out when he puts so much effort into every punch. Also, he never really went up against someone who could mess up a game plan quite like Ali.

Muhammad Ali was slippery, had a rock solid chin, a great left hand, and moved gracefully. It was difficult for opponents to catch him, as most heavyweights were used to plodding around the ring. If there's some criticism here, I would have to say that Ali was a poor defensive fighter. He didn't parry, and often times he just grabbed someone's head instead of clinching while waiting for the referee to come by and give him his reach back. Furthermore, Ali often waited a few rounds to get started while he felt out the pattern of his adversaries. Even so, Muhammad Ali was a great general in the ring and usually dictated the flow of each round.

Now I will site a few details that I think most people overlook, and this evidence is based on the studies I've done over the past few months. I have been watching prime Tyson and prime Ali fights on side-by-side screens, sometimes in slow motion. One observation I've made that most people aren't aware of is that Mike Tyson runs forward faster than Ali danced backward. Also, Tyson's hands fire off faster than anyone Ali faced, sometimes just as quickly (when timed) as Ali himself. Furthermore, fighters who gave Ali trouble usually did so by crowding him and/or countering the jab with their own jab or right hand. The two places they failed, however, were that they almost never attacked the body when given the chance, and they didn't work in the clinches. There's no better way to neutralize a fighter's speed than to attack the body and work the clinches. Mike generally combined these as well as anyone the biz. Ali wouldn't have had much in the tank without his legs. It's borderline annoying to watch fighters otake swings at his face instead of ripping into the body which, for the most part, Ali left unguarded in close.

Finally, when people did manage to crowd Ali, they didn't maintain that pressure. Many times they would throw a punch or two and reset, giving Ali his reach advantage again. As far as I could see from watching them side-by-side, Tyson wasn't the kind of guy to relax from pressing an opponent; he also didn't give his adversaries 2-4 rounds to figure him out. He simply knew his gameplan and executed it before one could get comfortable.

With all of that being said, I will concede that Tyson's psychological state was always subject to frustration. I just think that, given what's been stated above, many of us, probably 95% or more, have written this match off without taking this information into consideration. Most people will say that Ali would dance around, flicking the jab until Mike gets upset, and then Ali wins a late round stoppage or decision. I even agreed with this when I wrote my "march madness + boxing" thread a while back. I am going to walk out on a teeny-tiny limb and say that this is a bad style matchup for both fighters, but it's clearly worse for Ali than it is for Tyson.

I would never place Mike Tyson above Muhammad Ali on my list of favorite fighters, or on an all-time greats chart. Even so, I think that given the different eras, the training, and the styles: based on how they approached similar opponents, I think that Mike Tyson would win this fight. Ali would likely come back and win any rematches, but not fight one. I've watched too many fights including these guys right next to each other to realistically give in to what the populace would have us believe. Ali will always be a better champion, a bigger name, a more stoic legend...but this is evidently an awkward match up.

Of the fighters who had styles and quirks that gave Ali trouble: what could they do that Tyson couldn't do better? When they failed to capitalize on an opportunity, Mike would have pounced on it. When they didn't have the ability to hurt (or especially finish), Tyson was one of the best at putting an exclamation point on his own momentum. When guys like Cooper, Jones, Folley, Chuvalo, that German guy I always forget, Quarry, and of course Frazier gave Ali trouble or even knocked him down, Tyson would have done much worse. Am I crazy? If these guys could win rounds or catch someone as swift as Ali, how could we think that Ali could run from Tyson all night while staying up? While no one truly stopped Ali, does that mean it was impossible given what we know here?

I hope to hear some real analytical views here based on the summarized study I've presented. None of this, "Ali would be too fast and Mike would get frustrated," or, "Tyson would knock Ali out because Ali hasn't faced anyone like Mike," etc. No closed comments, no biased opinions; just these two at their best.

More on this later, but I'm tired.

- -Quite a bit research here, mor than the average bum fan can absorb.

Best to best I always favored Tyson, Louis, and Dempsey over Ali.

Who knows how a three fight series would turn out, but I'd favor them 2-1 over Ali.