GorDoom
03-16-2012, 01:18 PM
Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson: Who Wins? (Part I)
Written by Lee Wylie/Sweet Science
Everybody loves a debate.
There are few debates in boxing that can evoke opinion from the general public, the way Ali versus Tyson can. It is the fistic equivelant to Elvis or The Beatles? Coca Cola or Pepsi? Dogs or Cats?
At one time or another, boxing fans, both casual and hardcore alike, will have pondered as to who would have came out on top in a fantasy matchup between boxing's biggest ever attractions. Imagine the hype surrounding a Mayweather versus Pacquiao fight [if ever it comes off]. Ali versus Tyson would reduce that fight to an undercard attraction.
It is no exaggeration to say Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson are pop cultural phenomenoms.
This is why non-boxing fans are drawn to them as well. Just ask any passerby to give the names of any two boxers, past or present. There's a strong chance their answer will correspond to the subjects of this article. Ali and Tyson's popularity transcended the sport of boxing.
Now, we know who was greater. If this were a debate as to who has the superior legacy, it's a mismatch. Regardless of what some people may think, Muhammad Ali is THE greatest heavyweight of all time [sorry Joe Louis fans] period. Ali dominated the STRONGEST era in heavyweight history when he was PAST his prime while defeating other great heavyweights, who were still in their prime. Tyson on the other hand, is a questionable top ten heavyweight. Tyson was IN his prime when he dominated one of the WEAKEST eras in heavyweight history. Tyson defeated only one great heavyweight in Larry Holmes, who was past his prime at the time.
As a result then, it seems to follow that because Ali was indeed " The Greatest " he would have been able to master Tyson?
In the history books, on paper, yes. Head to head, maybe not.
During his prime, which unusually for a fighter came before his 23rd birthday, Mike Tyson was one of the most feared fighters of his or any generation. There are few fighters in boxing history who have truly looked unbeatable. Roy Jones looked it in the nineties, Ray Robinson looked it in the fourties and Mike Tyson looked it in the eighties.
While dominating the latter part of the decade, Mike Tyson was not only the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, but he was also considered the best fighter, pound for pound in boxing. This was very unusual for a heavyweight. With Eder Jofre being around in the sixties and Carlos Monzon in the seventies, the pound for pound title was never held by Ali.
Such was Iron Mike's dominance during his prime, the question was not who can beat him, but more like, who can even take him more than a few rounds? Many thought Michael Spinks - the undefeated former light-heavyweight and lineal world heavyweight champion - would be the ultimate litmus test for the young phenom. In the performance of his career, Tyson passed the test before the end of the first frame. With his utter destruction over his toughest opponent to date, and youth on his side, it was looking like Mike Tyson was the heir to Ali's throne.
And then the wheels came off.
The second Michael Spinks' head bounced of the canvas, for the second time, Mike Tyson's prime was over. Immediately following the Spinks fight, Tyson's problems outside of the ring started to emerge. Yes, there were other wins, but there was something missing. At the time nobody seemed to notice, we were hypnotised by Tyson's aura, but on reflection, he had lost a step. A defeat to Buster Douglas [in what remains the biggest upset in sporting history] soon followed.
Disturbingly, at 23 years-old, Tyson's best years were behind him. Gone was the aura of invincibility, gone was his trainer, Kevin Rooney [Tyson never lost a fight under the guidance of Rooney], gone were the assets that made him great.
Ali never experienced the same rise and decline Tyson did. From the time of his first title win against Sonny Liston, up until his last against Leon Spinks, Ali had established himself as one of boxing's greats. Even a defeat at the hands of Trevor Berbick, who Tyson steamrolled, could not tarnish Muhammad's legacy.
That's their story... How about their styles?
Much has been written about Ali's social impact and behaviour outside of the ring, but not much in terms of his behaviour inside the ring. Despite how highly he is regarded, Ali was basically a two punch fighter. Heavyweights like Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles were far more layered than Ali. He never went to the body, could not fight on the inside and had no use for technical defense. His attack consisted of a jab and a straight right hand. Muhammad occasionaly selected other punches, but those two were his bread and butter. It's actually amazing how much he accomplished with such a limited offensive arsenal.
So how was it that Ali went on to become one of the greatest fighters of all time?
There were two phases to Ali's career.
During the first phase, Ali's speed and reflexes were almost supernatural compared to other heavyweights competing at the time. With his blinding hands and dazzling footwork, Ali was so much faster than his opponents. Add to this the fact that Ali was generally a lot taller than most of his opponents, and it's easy to see why he made world class opposition look second rate.
Because of his superb footwork and longer reach, Ali was able to keep his shorter, less athletically gifted opponents on the end of his jab. Such was his unique talent for a heavyweight, Ali got away with doing things the wrong way. Ali lacked an inside game and he leaned away from punches instead of blocking or parrying them. Ali's gifts such as speed, reflexes and punch anticipation, masked out any flaws within his craft.
We all knew how GOOD Ali was during the first phase. We found out how GREAT he was in the second.
In this phase, with his physical gifts fading, Ali utilised an improvised style to dominate the now younger opposition. Ali was no longer the dancing master of old. Instead, he learned how to stand his ground and sit down on his punches. While he still neglected the body and could not mount offense on the inside, Ali became a master at tying the opposition up in close. Because of his fading physical gifts, we learned that Ali had a great chin. He was never knocked out, despite facing serious punchers like Earnie Shavers throughout his career. Ali's brain over- took his athleticism as his greatest asset during this time.
Mike Tyson was often misinterpreted as a one dimensional knockout artist - a plodding fighter, looking to load up his right hand.
Following his knockout of Spinks, Tyson started believing in his own hype. Seeking the knockout by just loading up with the right hand, Tyson began neglecting the traits that allowed him to score the knockout up in the first place.
Prior to the Spinks fight, Tyson was the epitome of a boxer-puncher. He came foward, moving side to side behind his peek a boo defense, closing the distance on his opponents. Once there, Tyson would unleash a two fisted attack, to the body and head.
Technically, Tyson was more than proficient. A sensational body puncher, Tyson could jab, feint his way inside and utilise intelligent footwork. Defensively, Tyson was very underrated. His head movement, combined with his parrying skills, made him very tough to tag during his peak.
At his best, Tyson was probably the most impressive blend of speed and power ever seen in the heavyweight division. He threw combinations with the speed and rate of a welterweight. Only Joe Louis could rival him in that department.
But Ali was the greatest!
It's about now,where Ali's followers are probably thinking aloud that Tyson would not be able to lay a glove on Ali. Because of his speed, height and reach advantage, frustration would take over at the mid-way stage, and Ali would retire him late in the fight.
When dissecting fights and the styles of fighters, we have to use logic and evidence, as opposed to heart and folklore. With regards to Ali versus Tyson, there are some myths that need addressing.
* Ali could "rope a dope" Tyson like he did to George Foreman.
Against George Foreman in Zaire, Ali spent most of the fight with his back to the ropes, allowing George to rain down on him with blow after blow after blow. Eventually, with George punching himself out, Ali scored an eighth round knockout.
This strategy would be suicide against Tyson. Take a look at Foreman's attack in that fight. With his feet stationary and shoulders square on, he is throwing nothing but wide punches in close. Ali's guard is wide open, he is not like Floyd Mayweather in there, he is not using shoulder rolls. Because Foreman is throwing nothing but body shots and the occasional wide looping and easily telegraphed head shot, Ali could afford to stand there with his hands by his ears, and his elbows wide apart.
Ask yourself this....Why did Foreman not throw uppercuts?
Replace Foreman with Tyson, and it's an entirely different fight in that situation. Tyson was superb on the inside, wheras Foreman was better fighting at a distance. Tyson's signature attack, with a fighter's back to the ropes was his right hook to the body, followed by a direct right uppercut upstairs. Tyson could also perform this combination with his left hand too. The speed and power in which Tyson delivered his combinations made him very difficult to defend against in close. With his elbows wide apart, Ali would have been available for Tyson's signature combination straight up the middle.
Ali does deserve a lot of credit for how he managed to tie up and maneuver George at close range. However, because Tyson was shorter than Foreman, had faster hands than Foreman and was a much more advanced in the grill than Foreman, it's hard to envision Ali allowing himself to use the same tactics and surviving eight rounds up against the ropes with Tyson, like he did with Foreman.
* Ali could keep Tyson at a safe distance by moving and dancing.
Floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee.
Many believe that was Ali against Cleveland Williams. In what was probably the most iconic and visually stunning display of his career, Ali perfectly demonstrated the superior athleticism that made him untouchable during the first half of his career.
Look at the film, Ali must have covered every inch of the ring, as his lateral movement and footwork completley befuddled the slowly advancing Williams. (Williams apparently had a bullet lodged inside his leg).
Now, take a look at Ali's fights with Doug Jones in 1963 and Joe Frazier in 1971. Because of their footwork, Jones and Frazier were successful in forcing Ali to the ropes by cutting the ring off. Many thought Jones should have been awarded the decision in '63. Meanwhile Frazier was awarded the decision in '71.
As well as being the owner of very fast hands, Tyson also had very fast feet. Against James Tillis, who's style was a lot like that of Ali in his early days, Tyson closed him down using his excellent footwork.Tillis, in survival mode, could not mount any serious offense. Looking at the styles of both fighters, you get an idea of what Ali would have been up against. Granted, Ali was quicker than Tillis, but Tyson was quicker than Jones and Frazier.
* Ali defeated Frazier, therefore...
One of the biggest assumptions people make when talking about Ali versus Tyson, is that Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier are near enough the same fighter. Yes, they were both short, stocky pressure fighters and while there are obvious similarities, they are clearly not the same fighter.
- Frazier came foward bobbing and weaving behind a crossed armed defense. Tyson closed the distance behind a high guard, moving side to side, not up and down as Joe did. This allowed Tyson to always remain in perfect punching position.
- Mike could slip a punch whilst advancing. Joe remained more flat footed when slipping punches.
- Offensively, Frazier was a straight line attacker wheras Mike came in at angles by stepping around and moving to the side of his opponents. Tyson's footspeed was far superior to Frazier's.
- Primarily a one handed fighter, Joe's left hook was one of the best single punches in boxing history. He could rip an opponent to the body or to the head as Ali found out over the span of forty-four rounds with him. In contrast, Mike was naturally a two handed attacker. He could hurt an opponent to the body or head, with either hand. The speed and variation of Tyson's attack made him a lot less predictable than Frazier.
* Muhammad Ali defeated Floyd Patterson, who used the same peek a boo defense as Tyson.
Cus d' Amato, the original mentor of Mike Tyson, also happened to train former heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson. Agreed, both fighters employed the same peek-a-boo style, but it is the fighters BEHIND that style that make the difference. Floyd Patterson's hand speed may have been on equal terms to Tyson's, but his power and footspeed on the other hand,were not. Patterson also lacked Tyson's killer instinct.
Patterson may have employed the same side to side head movement as Tyson, but he could not combine the motion with his footwork, as Tyson could.
Ali, standing flat footed after the second round, was able to hit the stationary Patterson as often as he liked with jabs and straight right hands. Ali would be awarded no such luxury against Tyson. Advancing at a furious pace, Tyson would be closing the distance a lot quicker than Patterson would. Unless Ali wanted an inside fight, he would have to be on his toes and moving away.
*Tyson collapsed mentally against Douglas and Holyfield.
This is not accurate. Douglas and Holyfield fought a very aggressive fight against Tyson. By moving foward, they were able to back Mike Tyson up. Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield bullied Tyson onto the back foot. Forced into retreat mode, Tyson was defeated stylistically, not mentally.
Holyfield combined boxing skills with a very rough and physical inside game against Tyson. He was an entirely different fighter than Ali.
Physically, there are similaraties between Douglas and Ali. But again, their styles differ.
Some may point to Douglas' jab as something Ali could replicate. Sure, Ali was the owner of a great jab, but Douglas' jab on that night was an authoritive ram rod-like jab, wheras Ali's was a flicker jab. Yes, Douglas defeated Tyson by using his height and length. Douglas also backed and beat Tyson up, by widening his legs, planting his feet and throwing power shots. It's hard to imagine Ali standing flat footed with Tyson and forcing the action.
Besides, would anyone consider the version of Tyson that succumbed to James Douglas and Evander Holyfield to have been the best version?
Its's a style thing:
Regardless of how much mystique and hype surrounds Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson, the truth is they were both essentially one dimensional fighters. Mike could not fight backing up and Ali could not fight going foward.
Against Jimmy Young in 1976, Ali looked lost going foward as Young forced Ali to take the lead. There are moments in the fight,where Ali appears to be begging Young to advance on him. Again, it's a fight many felt Ali lost.
Written by Lee Wylie/Sweet Science
Everybody loves a debate.
There are few debates in boxing that can evoke opinion from the general public, the way Ali versus Tyson can. It is the fistic equivelant to Elvis or The Beatles? Coca Cola or Pepsi? Dogs or Cats?
At one time or another, boxing fans, both casual and hardcore alike, will have pondered as to who would have came out on top in a fantasy matchup between boxing's biggest ever attractions. Imagine the hype surrounding a Mayweather versus Pacquiao fight [if ever it comes off]. Ali versus Tyson would reduce that fight to an undercard attraction.
It is no exaggeration to say Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson are pop cultural phenomenoms.
This is why non-boxing fans are drawn to them as well. Just ask any passerby to give the names of any two boxers, past or present. There's a strong chance their answer will correspond to the subjects of this article. Ali and Tyson's popularity transcended the sport of boxing.
Now, we know who was greater. If this were a debate as to who has the superior legacy, it's a mismatch. Regardless of what some people may think, Muhammad Ali is THE greatest heavyweight of all time [sorry Joe Louis fans] period. Ali dominated the STRONGEST era in heavyweight history when he was PAST his prime while defeating other great heavyweights, who were still in their prime. Tyson on the other hand, is a questionable top ten heavyweight. Tyson was IN his prime when he dominated one of the WEAKEST eras in heavyweight history. Tyson defeated only one great heavyweight in Larry Holmes, who was past his prime at the time.
As a result then, it seems to follow that because Ali was indeed " The Greatest " he would have been able to master Tyson?
In the history books, on paper, yes. Head to head, maybe not.
During his prime, which unusually for a fighter came before his 23rd birthday, Mike Tyson was one of the most feared fighters of his or any generation. There are few fighters in boxing history who have truly looked unbeatable. Roy Jones looked it in the nineties, Ray Robinson looked it in the fourties and Mike Tyson looked it in the eighties.
While dominating the latter part of the decade, Mike Tyson was not only the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, but he was also considered the best fighter, pound for pound in boxing. This was very unusual for a heavyweight. With Eder Jofre being around in the sixties and Carlos Monzon in the seventies, the pound for pound title was never held by Ali.
Such was Iron Mike's dominance during his prime, the question was not who can beat him, but more like, who can even take him more than a few rounds? Many thought Michael Spinks - the undefeated former light-heavyweight and lineal world heavyweight champion - would be the ultimate litmus test for the young phenom. In the performance of his career, Tyson passed the test before the end of the first frame. With his utter destruction over his toughest opponent to date, and youth on his side, it was looking like Mike Tyson was the heir to Ali's throne.
And then the wheels came off.
The second Michael Spinks' head bounced of the canvas, for the second time, Mike Tyson's prime was over. Immediately following the Spinks fight, Tyson's problems outside of the ring started to emerge. Yes, there were other wins, but there was something missing. At the time nobody seemed to notice, we were hypnotised by Tyson's aura, but on reflection, he had lost a step. A defeat to Buster Douglas [in what remains the biggest upset in sporting history] soon followed.
Disturbingly, at 23 years-old, Tyson's best years were behind him. Gone was the aura of invincibility, gone was his trainer, Kevin Rooney [Tyson never lost a fight under the guidance of Rooney], gone were the assets that made him great.
Ali never experienced the same rise and decline Tyson did. From the time of his first title win against Sonny Liston, up until his last against Leon Spinks, Ali had established himself as one of boxing's greats. Even a defeat at the hands of Trevor Berbick, who Tyson steamrolled, could not tarnish Muhammad's legacy.
That's their story... How about their styles?
Much has been written about Ali's social impact and behaviour outside of the ring, but not much in terms of his behaviour inside the ring. Despite how highly he is regarded, Ali was basically a two punch fighter. Heavyweights like Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles were far more layered than Ali. He never went to the body, could not fight on the inside and had no use for technical defense. His attack consisted of a jab and a straight right hand. Muhammad occasionaly selected other punches, but those two were his bread and butter. It's actually amazing how much he accomplished with such a limited offensive arsenal.
So how was it that Ali went on to become one of the greatest fighters of all time?
There were two phases to Ali's career.
During the first phase, Ali's speed and reflexes were almost supernatural compared to other heavyweights competing at the time. With his blinding hands and dazzling footwork, Ali was so much faster than his opponents. Add to this the fact that Ali was generally a lot taller than most of his opponents, and it's easy to see why he made world class opposition look second rate.
Because of his superb footwork and longer reach, Ali was able to keep his shorter, less athletically gifted opponents on the end of his jab. Such was his unique talent for a heavyweight, Ali got away with doing things the wrong way. Ali lacked an inside game and he leaned away from punches instead of blocking or parrying them. Ali's gifts such as speed, reflexes and punch anticipation, masked out any flaws within his craft.
We all knew how GOOD Ali was during the first phase. We found out how GREAT he was in the second.
In this phase, with his physical gifts fading, Ali utilised an improvised style to dominate the now younger opposition. Ali was no longer the dancing master of old. Instead, he learned how to stand his ground and sit down on his punches. While he still neglected the body and could not mount offense on the inside, Ali became a master at tying the opposition up in close. Because of his fading physical gifts, we learned that Ali had a great chin. He was never knocked out, despite facing serious punchers like Earnie Shavers throughout his career. Ali's brain over- took his athleticism as his greatest asset during this time.
Mike Tyson was often misinterpreted as a one dimensional knockout artist - a plodding fighter, looking to load up his right hand.
Following his knockout of Spinks, Tyson started believing in his own hype. Seeking the knockout by just loading up with the right hand, Tyson began neglecting the traits that allowed him to score the knockout up in the first place.
Prior to the Spinks fight, Tyson was the epitome of a boxer-puncher. He came foward, moving side to side behind his peek a boo defense, closing the distance on his opponents. Once there, Tyson would unleash a two fisted attack, to the body and head.
Technically, Tyson was more than proficient. A sensational body puncher, Tyson could jab, feint his way inside and utilise intelligent footwork. Defensively, Tyson was very underrated. His head movement, combined with his parrying skills, made him very tough to tag during his peak.
At his best, Tyson was probably the most impressive blend of speed and power ever seen in the heavyweight division. He threw combinations with the speed and rate of a welterweight. Only Joe Louis could rival him in that department.
But Ali was the greatest!
It's about now,where Ali's followers are probably thinking aloud that Tyson would not be able to lay a glove on Ali. Because of his speed, height and reach advantage, frustration would take over at the mid-way stage, and Ali would retire him late in the fight.
When dissecting fights and the styles of fighters, we have to use logic and evidence, as opposed to heart and folklore. With regards to Ali versus Tyson, there are some myths that need addressing.
* Ali could "rope a dope" Tyson like he did to George Foreman.
Against George Foreman in Zaire, Ali spent most of the fight with his back to the ropes, allowing George to rain down on him with blow after blow after blow. Eventually, with George punching himself out, Ali scored an eighth round knockout.
This strategy would be suicide against Tyson. Take a look at Foreman's attack in that fight. With his feet stationary and shoulders square on, he is throwing nothing but wide punches in close. Ali's guard is wide open, he is not like Floyd Mayweather in there, he is not using shoulder rolls. Because Foreman is throwing nothing but body shots and the occasional wide looping and easily telegraphed head shot, Ali could afford to stand there with his hands by his ears, and his elbows wide apart.
Ask yourself this....Why did Foreman not throw uppercuts?
Replace Foreman with Tyson, and it's an entirely different fight in that situation. Tyson was superb on the inside, wheras Foreman was better fighting at a distance. Tyson's signature attack, with a fighter's back to the ropes was his right hook to the body, followed by a direct right uppercut upstairs. Tyson could also perform this combination with his left hand too. The speed and power in which Tyson delivered his combinations made him very difficult to defend against in close. With his elbows wide apart, Ali would have been available for Tyson's signature combination straight up the middle.
Ali does deserve a lot of credit for how he managed to tie up and maneuver George at close range. However, because Tyson was shorter than Foreman, had faster hands than Foreman and was a much more advanced in the grill than Foreman, it's hard to envision Ali allowing himself to use the same tactics and surviving eight rounds up against the ropes with Tyson, like he did with Foreman.
* Ali could keep Tyson at a safe distance by moving and dancing.
Floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee.
Many believe that was Ali against Cleveland Williams. In what was probably the most iconic and visually stunning display of his career, Ali perfectly demonstrated the superior athleticism that made him untouchable during the first half of his career.
Look at the film, Ali must have covered every inch of the ring, as his lateral movement and footwork completley befuddled the slowly advancing Williams. (Williams apparently had a bullet lodged inside his leg).
Now, take a look at Ali's fights with Doug Jones in 1963 and Joe Frazier in 1971. Because of their footwork, Jones and Frazier were successful in forcing Ali to the ropes by cutting the ring off. Many thought Jones should have been awarded the decision in '63. Meanwhile Frazier was awarded the decision in '71.
As well as being the owner of very fast hands, Tyson also had very fast feet. Against James Tillis, who's style was a lot like that of Ali in his early days, Tyson closed him down using his excellent footwork.Tillis, in survival mode, could not mount any serious offense. Looking at the styles of both fighters, you get an idea of what Ali would have been up against. Granted, Ali was quicker than Tillis, but Tyson was quicker than Jones and Frazier.
* Ali defeated Frazier, therefore...
One of the biggest assumptions people make when talking about Ali versus Tyson, is that Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier are near enough the same fighter. Yes, they were both short, stocky pressure fighters and while there are obvious similarities, they are clearly not the same fighter.
- Frazier came foward bobbing and weaving behind a crossed armed defense. Tyson closed the distance behind a high guard, moving side to side, not up and down as Joe did. This allowed Tyson to always remain in perfect punching position.
- Mike could slip a punch whilst advancing. Joe remained more flat footed when slipping punches.
- Offensively, Frazier was a straight line attacker wheras Mike came in at angles by stepping around and moving to the side of his opponents. Tyson's footspeed was far superior to Frazier's.
- Primarily a one handed fighter, Joe's left hook was one of the best single punches in boxing history. He could rip an opponent to the body or to the head as Ali found out over the span of forty-four rounds with him. In contrast, Mike was naturally a two handed attacker. He could hurt an opponent to the body or head, with either hand. The speed and variation of Tyson's attack made him a lot less predictable than Frazier.
* Muhammad Ali defeated Floyd Patterson, who used the same peek a boo defense as Tyson.
Cus d' Amato, the original mentor of Mike Tyson, also happened to train former heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson. Agreed, both fighters employed the same peek-a-boo style, but it is the fighters BEHIND that style that make the difference. Floyd Patterson's hand speed may have been on equal terms to Tyson's, but his power and footspeed on the other hand,were not. Patterson also lacked Tyson's killer instinct.
Patterson may have employed the same side to side head movement as Tyson, but he could not combine the motion with his footwork, as Tyson could.
Ali, standing flat footed after the second round, was able to hit the stationary Patterson as often as he liked with jabs and straight right hands. Ali would be awarded no such luxury against Tyson. Advancing at a furious pace, Tyson would be closing the distance a lot quicker than Patterson would. Unless Ali wanted an inside fight, he would have to be on his toes and moving away.
*Tyson collapsed mentally against Douglas and Holyfield.
This is not accurate. Douglas and Holyfield fought a very aggressive fight against Tyson. By moving foward, they were able to back Mike Tyson up. Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield bullied Tyson onto the back foot. Forced into retreat mode, Tyson was defeated stylistically, not mentally.
Holyfield combined boxing skills with a very rough and physical inside game against Tyson. He was an entirely different fighter than Ali.
Physically, there are similaraties between Douglas and Ali. But again, their styles differ.
Some may point to Douglas' jab as something Ali could replicate. Sure, Ali was the owner of a great jab, but Douglas' jab on that night was an authoritive ram rod-like jab, wheras Ali's was a flicker jab. Yes, Douglas defeated Tyson by using his height and length. Douglas also backed and beat Tyson up, by widening his legs, planting his feet and throwing power shots. It's hard to imagine Ali standing flat footed with Tyson and forcing the action.
Besides, would anyone consider the version of Tyson that succumbed to James Douglas and Evander Holyfield to have been the best version?
Its's a style thing:
Regardless of how much mystique and hype surrounds Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson, the truth is they were both essentially one dimensional fighters. Mike could not fight backing up and Ali could not fight going foward.
Against Jimmy Young in 1976, Ali looked lost going foward as Young forced Ali to take the lead. There are moments in the fight,where Ali appears to be begging Young to advance on him. Again, it's a fight many felt Ali lost.