Obviously it could never of happened. But what predictions would people have for this fictional match up? Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson. Both at the peak of their ability.
Nope. Tyson in round 1. Overwhelming power and tenacity. (this hasn't been done to death, lol. I really have no opinion, just thought I would disagree with you)
I am watching "Clay vs Liston" 1 right now, I need to watch a lot more Tyson to really have an informed view. That said, I see Tyson having a lot of trouble getting inside Ali the way he does other fighters. I see Tyson eating a lot of left jabs. If Ali makes even a few mistakes he could be in a lot of trouble. But Ali has won against those odds before.
My money would be on Ali without a doubt. He's a smarter fighter and he's very hard to predict. Tyson would get him good a few times and think he has him then bam, all of a sudden Ali would look like it's round one again.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ian-in-depth-analysis-of-who-would-really-win This article goes into detail about why tyson just couldn't win. Ali had all the characteristics of fighters that tyson lost to. If he couldn't knock Ali out I. The early rounds (nobody else could, not even foreman) then he'd have to go the distance and that's just not how tyson fought
Ali, Tyson may have had speed and power and very solid fundementals. Ali had all of that plus something special that you only see in few great boxers, Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, even to the modern day greats. I don't think Tyson would beat Roy Jones in his prime pound for pound, wouldn't beat Whitaker, Floyd, Sugar Ray Leonard, any really good boxer he can't beat. That's why he got his ears boxed off vs. Douglas. Holyfield beat him because of his heart. Tyson was ultimately a quitter IMO. When he couldn't intimidate you, or get into your head, he already had lost the fight.
At the peak of his ability, Tyson was still an unbalanced person who (in my opinion) was not cut out to be a boxer. He had all the physical traits to be one, which is pretty much the only reason he ever had any success as one, but he was lacking some very important fundamentals as a boxer, as a person and as a celebrity. I also never got the feeling he actually enjoyed boxing, at all. And when the going gets tough, this kinda stuff shows. Ali on the other hand was a purebred boxer. Born for his craft and looked like he enjoyed the hell out of it too. He had a granite chin and an iron heart and Tyson wouldn't even make a dent, even with all his punching power and aggression. Ali had better boxing skills, same (if not more) speed and he had a reach advantage of 9 inches (23 cm). He was no slouch on the inside either, but with the massive gap in ring intelligence I doubt he'd find himself fighting on the inside all that much. Unless of course, it was part of his plan or something. :hail: I can see him destroying Tyson with just his uppercuts. Nah, this match up would be an unfair one with Tyson getting a one-sided annihilation. A more interesting one would be Muhammad Ali vs Lennox Lewis. imo
No matter what Tyson would have thrown at Ali, Ali would have worked out some strategy to deal with the big hits.
When Ali was in his prime all the guys were big tough guys with long reach, Tyson was then taught to fight against that type of fighter and it was incredible what he achieved being so small for a heavyweight, but Ali was the best of the bunch by a mile, he influenced so many fighters and still does to this day. I prefer to watch tyson myself or smaller lighter fighters, I haven't really taken the fight game seriously since Haglar was beaten by sugar ray Leonard, I thought that Haglar should have won. But Tyson V Ali, it would be Ali by a mile
Yep! Tyson if it was a short fight and Ali if it went more than a round. People underestimate what Tyson was able to do and achieve. Though Ali was so very, very special. Hannibal is right though that Joe Louis would have beaten them both.
People undersell the mental ability of Tyson at his hight, the nonsense out of the ring came later, the man was a boxing historian and a master of in ring psychology, far more than just aggression speed and power.
But he could also be frustrated by anyone that wasn't scared or was a bit cagey...James Smith for example
I want to say Tyson; however, Ali was so good at analysing different boxers and their respective styles and coming up with the 'antidote'. He was so adaptable to all sorts. Tyson, not to be trifled with, I love to watch him fight - he's one of my top 5 boxers; but he was often a plodder in later rounds whereas Ali ... look at him dancing around late in a fight. Tyson was good the first few rounds whereas Ali seemed to get better with each successive round and one combines that with chin, the adaptability ( true Tyson had trouble with tall opponents ) and more than anything else, Ali was an absolute master at getting inside the heads of opponents - regardless of power or size and, as it has been pointed out already in the thread, Tyson could be troubled by that mindset ( thinking of the Buster Douglas fight - Douglas had recently lost his beloved mum and didn't gaf anymore - and we know Ali could bring that mental attitude time and time again - without havin to loose his mum. Ali {sigh} Also, as been pointed out, Tyson' ready-made for Ali. I think a better, less obvious boxer-comparison would be Tyson - G. Foreman !
Either one could win it. On the right day it would be Tyson, but on another day it would be Ali. If they had fought ten times (in their respective primes) then they'd have both won at least a couple. But Ali would probably win more times than Tyson, so if they only fought once then it's statistically more likely that it would be Ali. The reason I think that is because Ali was a more adaptable fighter. Tyson was awesome, but he basically imposed his style onto his fights and blew his opponents away. He had one way of fighting. Whereas Ali could adapt to get around an opponent's style. Having said that, Ali wasn't invincible. Joe Frazier busted him up.
I echo this but Smokin Joe Frazier, would wipe them all out. 32 win 27 by KO and only 4 defeats two to Ali (whom he beat) and 2 to George Foreman (who he couldn't beat). Intersting fact though. Muhamid was beaten by Trevor Berbick circa 81 whom tyson destroyed. Ali was on the slide at this point though. Then theres the mighty Rocky Marciano with the left hand devestator known as Suzy Q. Fight of the century Joe Frazier vs Rocky Marcianno. I'd give a kidney for a ticket to that one. Baza
Michael Spinks, all 6ft 2" might disagree with that. Spinks was a classy boxer KO'd in round 1 by Iron Mike. The fantastic Trevor Berbick was over the 6ft mark as well and was taken out in round 2 to make Iron Mike the youngest heavyweight champ of all time. It must also be noted that Mike Tyson was the smallest heavyweight champ of all time at 5,10" so almost all of his opponents had height advantage. Tall opponents weren't an issue for him. Tyson was a fast ferocious machine. In the fight it would have to go to later rounds for Ali to win because Tyson on his game could finish anyone inside of 5 rounds. In many ways tyson reminds me of Sunny Liston. Baza
