Mike Tyson vs Joe Frazier

[dmt]

15 rounds, who wins?

[jonesjrp4p1]

tyson ko pretty early if we are talking prime 4 prime

[My dinner with Conteh]

Tyson, early TKO. But I wouldn't put a penny on it.

[ironchamp]

Tyson.

Tyson on athleticism alone would pretty much batter Frazier.
His speed, power and defense would prove too much for Frazier early enough that Joe's intaginbles won't even come into play and by the mid rounds Mike would have put up an assault that Joe doesnt recover from and is eventually stopped.

Tyson mid rounds KO.

[mightyd40]

almost everything frazier did, tyson did a little better......tyson ko before 6

[ChrisPontius]

If think Tyson pulls a Foreman on Frazier early. I don't think Frazier would make it out of the second round.
Tysons best work is before the 6th, Fraziers best work is after the 6th. Tyson won't have to look for him.

[dmt]

Tyson has a completely different style from Foreman.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Tyson has a completely different style from Foreman.


I think Chris just means he'd steam into Joe early before the 'smoke' takes effect.

[janitor]

I don't think that this would be a Foreman style blowout.

Tysons reach is actualy shorter than Fraziers so he would have to stand within convenient punching distence to land unlike Foreman. There is also a big question about how Tyson would handel Fraziers infighting technique. If Frazier goes under and gets inside on Tyson (who was esentialy a mid range fighter) can Mike adapt to it?

Frazier generaly needed a couple of rounds to warm up to his task but it is not a universal rule. He got off the starting line prety fast against Machen and nearly had him out in the first round.

It is likley that Tyson will get Frazier out of there early as some have predicted but I can see other scenario's unfolding.

1. Fraziers infighting might completely take away Tysons game in the early rounds.

2. Frazier might come out on top in an early round slugfest against the odds.

3. Frazier might simply weather the early storm and take over in mid fight due to his workrate.

[ChrisPontius]

He has two essential factors in common with Foreman:

-He is one of the fastest starters in history. Even faster than Foreman in my opinion
-He is one of the hardest punchers in history. He has more one punch knockouts than Foreman, better delivery and faster hands. Maybe a bit less power.

This would spell doom for Frazier. Frazier is one of my favorite fighters, but Tyson, Dempsey and Foreman are the worst matchups for him in my opinion.
There would be some similarity between this fight and Tyson-Marvis Frazier. Of course Joe is lightyears better than Marvis, but Tyson simply eats that slow starting come-forward style up.


Edit: Of course, if Frazier is still standing by the 6th, Tysons chances of winning are as much as Michael Jackson turning into a intellectual member of society giving lectures on "how to deal with mass media attention & child abuse".:good

[Sweet Science]

Could go either way. Tyson, would most likely win early, but if it went over 5 rounds or so Frazier would wear Tyson down, frustrate him and knock him out late. You can't discount Fraziers' big heart, or Tyson's distinct lack of heart when things aren't going his way.

[Bad_Intentions]

tyson TKO 12th round.

[Sonny's jab]

Frazier would beat him up BADLY.

KO or TKO within 5 - 9 rounds.

[Muchmoore]

A very good fight, but Fraziers defense wasnt excellent and against punchers he struggled. Bonavena dropped him twice early and almost won, and Foreman bombed him out. Of course, we are talking about the peak Frazier here that fought Ali in FOTC, but even that Frazier would find that Tyson is just too much. Tyson would be able to land his big hooks and uppercuts and stop Frazier within 5 rounds. Frazier is also a well known slow starter, and Tyson is known as being the most explosive and fast starter in heavyweight history.

[Sonny's jab]

Frazier got hurt badly and decked by Bonavena and Foreman, but NEVER counted out.

Tyson got beat crap out of and KO'd by Buster Douglas, never got off the deck to win a fight, and showed signs of losing confidence and/or momentum whenever he was in a really tough fight.

It's odd that so many people seem to see Frazier as the "vulnerable" one in this match up. His ability to withstand the rigours of battle is far more proven that Tyson's.

Using all proven form as evidence, Frazier's got to be favoured here.

[Stonehands89]

He has two essential factors in common with Foreman:

-He is one of the fastest starters in history. Even faster than Foreman in my opinion
-He is one of the hardest punchers in history. He has more one punch knockouts than Foreman, better delivery and faster hands. Maybe a bit less power.

This would spell doom for Frazier. Frazier is one of my favorite fighters, but Tyson, Dempsey and Foreman are the worst matchups for him in my opinion.
There would be some similarity between this fight and Tyson-Marvis Frazier. Of course Joe is lightyears better than Marvis, but Tyson simply eats that slow starting come-forward style up.


Edit: Of course, if Frazier is still standing by the 6th, Tysons chances of winning are as much as Michael Jackson turning into a intellectual member of society giving lectures on "how to deal with mass media attention & child abuse".:good
Good stuff.

I agree that Tyson doesn't "hit as hard as Foreman." In terms of punching prowess I rank Tyson over Foreman due to the speed factor that he combined with power like no one I have ever seen.

Frazier's chances increase only after enough time has elapsed where the intangibles kick in.

[Duodenum]

Before answering this, I viewed one complete round, and four quick kayos. The first clip was the opening three minutes of Frazier/Quarry I. The second and third replays were Tyson's rapid demolitions of Mike Spinks, and Frazier's kid Marvis. Finally, Smokin' Joe's one round 1969 blowout of Dave Zyglewicz, where Joe drops Ziggy 13 seconds after the opening bell with his sixth hook of the contest.

Tyson would be in a world of trouble here. Mike wouldn't be facing an intimidated opponent in Smoke, and he couldn't bank on pre FOTC Frazier getting off to a slow start. Jimmy Ellis did well for two and a half rounds by staying the hell away from Joe, hardly Tyson's style.

If Mike did manage to hurt Joe, Smoke wouldn't stop coming, wouldn't stop getting up if Tyson did manage to floor him for an instant. For every right uppercut Mike attempted, Joe would produce three economically devastating hooks to Mike's head and body. Tyson's overhand right would simply go sailing over Joe's bobbing head. No matter how good Mike's head movement was, that wouldn't prevent Joe from nailing him downstairs. Joe would also be a lot more relaxed than Mike. It helped Tyson that Spinks was tense. Joe wouldn't be wrapped so tight.

Quarry started fast against Joe, in their title fight following the Zyglewicz massacre, pouring in nearly a hundred punches in that opening round, and Jerry could hit. Over 50 of Jerry's hooks went downstairs. But Joe returned fire, with over 60 of his own shots in that opening frame. After just two rounds, Jerry was already tiring. With Ziggy, Joe would take a little step back, and let fly with that hook.

Tyson didn't have the awesome shoving strength of a Foreman, and we're not talking about a post FOTC Frazier here. Frazier could very definitely get out of the opening rounds against Mike, then watch out! Unlike Joe, once Tyson went down, he wouldn't be able to beat the count.

Frazier KO 13 Tyson

[hobgoblin]

I don't think that this would be a Foreman style blowout.

Tysons reach is actualy shorter than Fraziers so he would have to stand within convenient punching distence to land unlike Foreman. There is also a big question about how Tyson would handel Fraziers infighting technique. If Frazier goes under and gets inside on Tyson (who was esentialy a mid range fighter) can Mike adapt to it?

Frazier generaly needed a couple of rounds to warm up to his task but it is not a universal rule. He got off the starting line prety fast against Machen and nearly had him out in the first round.

It is likley that Tyson will get Frazier out of there early as some have predicted but I can see other scenario's unfolding.

1. Fraziers infighting might completely take away Tysons game in the early rounds.

2. Frazier might come out on top in an early round slugfest against the odds.

3. Frazier might simply weather the early storm and take over in mid fight due to his workrate.

This is an excellent post I agree with most of it. I didn't think it necessary to point out similar reach because that always WAS a best case scenario for Tyson.

While I pick Tyson to win (but I'm not putting money her), I will also say that Joe Frazier was a far greater fighter than Mike Tyson as indicated by his achievments and also with the greater success I think he'd achieve against fellow ATGs. Infighting, work rate, ability to fight back when hurt, CONSTANT bobbing and weaving is superior to sporadic bobbing and weaving, STRATEGY (simple: he'd work the body and get your head later). Joe Frazier would have KO'd Tokyo Douglas by round 11, decisioned Evander Holyfield, and let's not irrelevantly argue this one but just accept it as me dishing out my opinion - Joe Frazier would have worn down Lennox Lewis and stop him late into the fght. It isn't that Tyson wasn't great, Joe Frazier was just greater.

Head to head: Tyson wins (not everything is straightforward as in A>B C>B, C>A etc).

[janitor]

A very good fight, but Fraziers defense wasnt excellent.

I disagree.

Fraziers uper body movment was among the best of any fighter on film and that includes guys in the lighter weight clases. His slip and duck rate per round is off the scale for a heavyweight.

[hobgoblin]

Mike wouldn't be facing an intimidated opponent in Smoke

It'd been nice, but hey, Tyson can deal with that.

If Mike did manage to hurt Joe, Smoke wouldn't stop coming

That is a SERIOUS sytle problem for Joe. Remember, when Holyfield was hurt in round 5, he kept clinching and smothering Tyson rather than brawling. Douglas and Lewis did not brawl with Tyson but kept a distance. Joe Frazier makes himself available? Bad idea.

For every right uppercut Mike attempted, Joe would produce three economically devastating hooks to Mike's head and body.

Tyson was always a sucker for uppercuts - something Joe was not known for nor was it part of his style. Also, Joe Frazier's blind eye meant that he couldn't use the right hand very well - the single punch that all three of Tyson's worthy conquerors exploited to beat him. The cards are just not properly lining up for Joe Frazier!

Tyson's overhand right would simply go sailing over Joe's bobbing head.

I don't know, Tyson was a pretty good puncher. Incredible handspeed (of course, Frazier has dealth with Ali) and many angles. I do see him tagging and hurting Joe, even with only a few shots that do land.

But Joe returned fire, with over 60 of his own shots in that opening frame.

This is why I'm not putting money here. This is daunting.

Over 50 of Jerry's hooks went downstairs.

Just a few of Tyson's punches upstairs would do more damange IMO. And he was a superior puncher to Quarry with better accurcy.

[Dempsey1238]

This is an excellent post I agree with most of it. I didn't think it necessary to point out similar reach because that always WAS a best case scenario for Tyson.

While I pick Tyson to win (but I'm not putting money her), I will also say that Joe Frazier was a far greater fighter than Mike Tyson as indicated by his achievments and also with the greater success I think he'd achieve against fellow ATGs. Infighting, work rate, ability to fight back when hurt, CONSTANT bobbing and weaving is superior to sporadic bobbing and weaving, STRATEGY (simple: he'd work the body and get your head later). Joe Frazier would have KO'd Tokyo Douglas by round 11, decisioned Evander Holyfield, and let's not irrelevantly argue this one but just accept it as me dishing out my opinion - Joe Frazier would have worn down Lennox Lewis and stop him late into the fght. It isn't that Tyson wasn't great, Joe Frazier was just greater.

Head to head: Tyson wins (not everything is straightforward as in A>B C>B, C>A etc).

Not sure on all that. Tyson that lost to Lewis was not prime Tyson though. And had lets say the later Fraizer, post 3rd Ali fight came in vs Lewis, I expect Joe to lose.

I think Holyfiled vs Fraizer would be close. I think Tyson in regards to Fraizer for Holyfiled 1 was the post Ali 1 fight. So Fraizer would perhaps beat Holyfiled.

[McGrain]

Mike Tyson = fastest starter in heavyweight title hitory

Joe Frazier = slowest starter in heavyweight title history

= Quick finish in favour of Tyson. I would be up for betting on it.


Interestingly, many of the guys I think would do Tyson - Ali, Lewis, Hollyfield, Jeffries - Frazier would do really well against.

[heerko koois]

:bbb :smoke Tyson ko 1 frazier......no doubt in my mind ....

[hobgoblin]

:bbb :smoke Tyson ko 1 frazier......no doubt in my mind ....

If Foreman couldn't do it in 2 rounds of straight punching, how do you expect Tyson too? I say Tyson wins in 5 right before Joe gets smokin'.

[heerko koois]

If Foreman couldn't do it in 2 rounds of straight punching, how do you expect Tyson too? I say Tyson wins in 5 right before Joe gets smokin'.

Marvis lasted about 28 seconds ...his father could double that ..

[MachineGunMitch]

Prime Frazier beats Tyson every time....Easily.
Frazier,better hook,better stamina,better inside fighter
beat the Ali once and went the distance 2 other times w Ali
took multiple punches to the floor from Forman
whom I regard as one of the meanest badest punchers in the
business and he got right back up after every punch...
Tyson dont hit like Forman,Dont move like Ali and certainly
Tyson has his troubles with every opponent he fought that hit back.
Frazier gets up every time he gets knocked down,the guy is a wrecking
machine with a jaw that is iron steel....
Tyson looses in Tokyo to a so so puncher,Tyson looses to Evander a light heavy twice and he looses
to Lennox a hard hitter as well slow and lathargic
Tyson Frazier would be an awsome bout but to say Tyson wins
would be just plain poor judgment

[MachineGunMitch]

BTW this has been covered 10000000 times

[joe the great]

Frazier TKO 11 Tyson.

[heerko koois]

BTW this has been covered 10000000 times

10000001 times ............:D

[ironchamp]

Before answering this, I viewed one complete round, and four quick kayos. The first clip was the opening three minutes of Frazier/Quarry I. The second and third replays were Tyson's rapid demolitions of Mike Spinks, and Frazier's kid Marvis. Finally, Smokin' Joe's one round 1969 blowout of Dave Zyglewicz, where Joe drops Ziggy 13 seconds after the opening bell with his sixth hook of the contest.

Tyson would be in a world of trouble here. Mike wouldn't be facing an intimidated opponent in Smoke, and he couldn't bank on pre FOTC Frazier getting off to a slow start. Jimmy Ellis did well for two and a half rounds by staying the hell away from Joe, hardly Tyson's style.

If Mike did manage to hurt Joe, Smoke wouldn't stop coming, wouldn't stop getting up if Tyson did manage to floor him for an instant. For every right uppercut Mike attempted, Joe would produce three economically devastating hooks to Mike's head and body. Tyson's overhand right would simply go sailing over Joe's bobbing head. No matter how good Mike's head movement was, that wouldn't prevent Joe from nailing him downstairs. Joe would also be a lot more relaxed than Mike. It helped Tyson that Spinks was tense. Joe wouldn't be wrapped so tight.

Quarry started fast against Joe, in their title fight following the Zyglewicz massacre, pouring in nearly a hundred punches in that opening round, and Jerry could hit. Over 50 of Jerry's hooks went downstairs. But Joe returned fire, with over 60 of his own shots in that opening frame. After just two rounds, Jerry was already tiring. With Ziggy, Joe would take a little step back, and let fly with that hook.

Tyson didn't have the awesome shoving strength of a Foreman, and we're not talking about a post FOTC Frazier here. Frazier could very definitely get out of the opening rounds against Mike, then watch out! Unlike Joe, once Tyson went down, he wouldn't be able to beat the count.

Frazier KO 13 Tyson

Let me tell you a couple of three things;

Forget Tyson post prison

Forget that Tyson had the better chin and is more likely to handle Frazier's shots than vice versa

Forget than Tyson had better handspeed, power and accuracy.

Joe Frazier can be stopped early. The fact that he's relentless and has a massive heart means absolutely nothing considering the calibre of fighter that Mike Tyson is. You don't beat Tyson by slugging with him. And if you are to beat Tyson you at some point going to need a weather his storm. Considering thier two styles, I dont think Joe weathers the storm, he just won't match up well.


Also:
Hobgoblin puts more stock in the constant bob and weaving as opposed to the sporadic bob and weaving. which is fine if you prefer Joe's style and the aesthetic quality in seeing a fighter execute that style. But in terms of effectiveness it should be noted that Tyson suffered far less Knockdowns during his prime than Frazier did and was additionally more difficult to hit than Frazier.

[ChrisPontius]

I favor only two fighters in history to beat Tyson when they come at him from the first bell: Foreman and Louis.

[janitor]

I favor only two fighters in history to beat Tyson when they come at him from the first bell: Foreman and Louis.

Not Liston?

[McGrain]

I favor only two fighters in history to beat Tyson when they come at him from the first bell: Foreman and Louis.


Why not Hollyfield? I feel Hollyfield has the tools to give peak Tyson clean hell, he's a miserable match up for Mike.

And Ali?

[hobgoblin]

Hobgoblin puts more stock in the constant bob and weaving as opposed to the sporadic bob and weaving. which is fine if you prefer Joe's style and the aesthetic quality in seeing a fighter execute that style. But in terms of effectiveness it should be noted that Tyson suffered far less Knockdowns during his prime than Frazier did and was additionally more difficult to hit than Frazier.

If Mike Tyson had Joe Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave, he would have whipped James Douglas (who had a fantastic jab that night) rather than get repeatedly tagged with the jab to the point that his eye closed. Mike Tyson's sporadic defense (when did he ever CONSISTENTLY bob and weave for more than 5 rounds - even in his prime) would be useless against Muhammad Ali. Had Tyson fought Muhammad Ali 3 times - he'd been KO'd three times because his defense was not up to par with Frazier's. Pointing KDs is unfair here because 8 of those KDs come from George Foreman and I'm not sure if Tyson would have fared better against Foreman (just my hunch).

I strongly believe that Frazier's constant defense was much better against traditional boxers than Tyson's. I'll tell you where Tyson's was better - against someone who throws just a FEW punches at a time like Razor Ruddock. When someone throws 60 punches at a time at the speed that Douglas or Ali could do (sorry to include both in same sentence) reflexes alone (Tyson's method) were not enough.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=ironchamp]Let me tell you a couple of three things;


Joe Frazier can be stopped early. The fact that he's relentless and has a massive heart means absolutely nothing considering the calibre of fighter that Mike Tyson is. You don't beat Tyson by slugging with him. And if you are to beat Tyson you at some point going to need a weather his storm. Considering thier two styles, I dont think Joe weathers the storm, he just won't match up well.


If you're basing this commentary on the fact that Frazier was stopped early by Foreman, then you're comparing apples to oranges. Tyson and Foreman were nothing like each other. What's more, by 1973, Joe Frazier was showing noticable signs of deterioration. At one point you also, mentioned Joe having to weather the storm against Mike. I find this ironic given that Frazier went 15 rounds with one of the greatest fighters of all time, whereas Tyson didn't !!!!!!

Just for the record, I would probably favor a 1987 Tyson to take a 1970 Joe Frazier, but definately not for the same reasons that you provided.

[Muchmoore]

I disagree.

Fraziers uper body movment was among the best of any fighter on film and that includes guys in the lighter weight clases. His slip and duck rate per round is off the scale for a heavyweight.

He got hit more than most of other great heavyweights. His weaving style looked impressive and worked well no doubt but he could be hit more than other great fighers. He had the mindset of I'll take 3 to land one punch.

[Silver]

Prime Frazier beats Tyson every time....Easily.
Frazier,better hook,better stamina,better inside fighter
beat the Ali once and went the distance 2 other times w Ali
took multiple punches to the floor from Forman
whom I regard as one of the meanest badest punchers in the
business and he got right back up after every punch...
Tyson dont hit like Forman,Dont move like Ali and certainly
Tyson has his troubles with every opponent he fought that hit back.
Frazier gets up every time he gets knocked down,the guy is a wrecking
machine with a jaw that is iron steel....
Tyson looses in Tokyo to a so so puncher,Tyson looses to Evander a light heavy twice and he looses
to Lennox a hard hitter as well slow and lathargic
Tyson Frazier would be an awsome bout but to say Tyson wins
would be just plain poor judgment:nono frazier may beat tyson but you wrong that it would be easy.

[ChrisPontius]

Not Liston?

I forgot about Liston, not really sure about that one. I think Liston is a bit overrated. I think Tyson looks better on film, more skilled, much much faster and his opposition is better and larger.


Why not Hollyfield? I feel Hollyfield has the tools to give peak Tyson clean hell, he's a miserable match up for Mike.

And Ali?

Note that i was talking about a fighter coming at Tyson here.
What Holyfield mostly did was wait till Tyson gets his punches off, make him miss or block the shots, tie him up (about 15 times a round) and push him backwards.... throw in the occasional headbutt and you have the perfect style to beat Tyson.

Holyfield fought him extremely smart. But like another poster said, if Holyfield kept coming forward when he was hurt like in the 5th, he'd have a good chance of losing. He held on a LOT the first 4/5 rounds after which Tyson slows down (especially post prison) and got his better work after that.

Not saying that Frazier comes forward without defense, but he is pretty hitable early on and taking 3 to land 1 is not a good idea against Tyson at all. Frazier has too much heart and pride to take a step back or clinch and it will cost him.


As for Ali.... i'm confident that he can beat Tyson, but if he's gonna mix it up then he may well lose.

[McGrain]

Note that i was talking about a fighter coming at Tyson here.


Ah, quite right, I read your post backwards.

I feel calmer now.

[MagnificentMatt]

15 rounds, who wins?

Stylistic nightmare for Frazier, Tyson Stoppage in 3-4..

Frazier starts WAY to slow for Tyson...bottom line.

[Jear]

Ironically I think an element of prime Tyson that is largely forgotten is the way he fought off the back of a very effective jab. This made him very hard to counter and allowed him into that mid-range where he was most effective relatively safely for a short fighter. Frazier was effective at close range and Im not convinced he would get in there without paying dearly.

Too say Joe took a large number of shots to be put away by Foreman is irrelevant Tyson was systematically beaten down by Douglas, Lewis and Holy before even going down at all, Frazier was down early on more than one occasion and badly shaken by Ali early.

As tough and great as Joe was for me the more feasible result is Tyson TKO 3-5

[rekcutnevets]

Tyson's jab would bother Joe, and his uppercut would land regularly. If Tyson can hit you over and over with his uppercuts, you are done.

Tyson wouldn't beat him as quick as he did Marvis, but it wouldn't take a lot longer. Tyson inside of 3.

I rank Frazier several spots higher all time, but he can't take Mike head to head.

[JIm Broughton]

Tyson early/Frazier late but I think it would probably be Tyson early. If Bonavena could drop Joe and hurt him then Tyson, who was a hell of alot fater, would do it too. Tall rangy fighters gave Mike trouble like Douglas, Tillis and Tucker and Joe was not tall and rangy. Mike would have no trouble reaching him. If Joe could weather the storm and bring Mike into the later rounds then his chances improve greatly as Mike was prone to getting discouraged whereas Joe was'nt. Mentally speaking, Joe was the more complete fighter. I don't know if Joe could weather the early storm though. That's the big question. Either way one things for certain, this fight does NOT go the distance and it would be one helluva brawl.

[josak]

Tyson by discombobulating devastation.

[la-califa]

Tyson would start fast but Frazier would be smart enough to know this is Tyson's greatest strength. and keep away for a couple of rounds. If Frazier can survive the early rounds he can start to apply pressure & Tyson slows way down after about round five or six. Then the two are pretty much on an even playing field the rest of the way. It would come down to conditioning & managers. Frazier had Eddie Futch & he always had a great gameplan & conditioning. If Tyson had Cus D'Amato & Jimmy Jacobs he would make the ajustments needed & pull it out. He was the better boxer in his prime. But if he was King's puppet like against Douglas, then he would be deadmeat against Frazier. ( He was still in his prime going into the Douglas Bout).

[C. M. Clay II]

For Tyson to win, he will have to go to work early. If he sets up the jab well, and follows up with crisp hard fast combos, topped off by constant head movement and unsettled footspeed, Frazier could be stopped early. For Frazier to win, he will have to get inside Tyson's jab and other punches, and bury his head in Tyson's chest and unload wicked body shots from start to finish. Once this thing goes past ten rounds, I expect Frazier to win by a knockout or stoppage. Physically, Frazier may be stronger than Tyson. I think Tyson's power and speed would get to him early, and it would set up a mid round stoppage. Frazier would go down at least twice.

Mke Tyson TKO 7 Joe Frazier:good

[Denny Cruser]

Tyson KO 1-2.
Frazier can move only forward, so it will be massacre

[hobgoblin]

It is silly to talk about Frazier having to deal with Tyson's jab. He's dealt with a far superior jab from Muhammad Ali (yes, I'm aware that Tyson's has more power but that is relevant ONLY if it lands) and so he can certainly handle Tyson's. Especially when you consider that Tyson never used the jab CONSISTENTLY. Tyson sporadically used the jab in the Tucker fight but the purpose was to use the jab to get inside. I don't recall Tyson CONSISTENTLY using the jab in a CONVENTIONAL MANNER like the way Larry Holmes would use it. Unless Tyson is throwing 50 jabs a round (this is NOT his style), I see Joe Frazier having an EASY time dealing with the sporadic jabs Mike throws. This fight will be inclose, no room for jabs.

I also laugh at people suggesting that 1971 Joe Frazier would be "smart" and keep away from Tyson in the early rounds. That is NOT his style either. In the words of Captain Hook, "NEEEVVVVEEERRR!"

Tyson has never had CONSISTENT strategy. He just doesn't know the meaning of the word consistent and that is why he'd lose to other ATGs that he has the natural talent to beat. Too bad.

In this case, as I said before, I pick Tyson to win before round 6.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tyson, by mid-round stoppage. Frazier is too slow a starter and Mike would pounce on this fact. Frazier could possibly weather the storm for a while, however it's only a matter of time before 'Iron Mike' gets to him.

[janitor]

He got hit more than most of other great heavyweights. His weaving style looked impressive and worked well no doubt but he could be hit more than other great fighers. He had the mindset of I'll take 3 to land one punch.

I think you need to look at some of the numbers here. Against Ali in the FOTC Frazier averaged a slip and duck rate of 23 punched per round. Against Bonecrusher Smith Tyson only averaged 12 punches slipped and ducked per round.

I think Frazier was at least the equal of Tyson in his ability to slip punches. Where he got hit more it had a lot to do with the people he was fighting.

[ChrisPontius]

I think you need to look at some of the numbers here. Against Ali in the FOTC Frazier averaged a slip and duck rate of 23 punched per round. Against Bonecrusher Smith Tyson only averaged 12 punches slipped and ducked per round.

I think Frazier was at least the equal of Tyson in his ability to slip punches. Where he got hit more it had a lot to do with the people he was fighting.

Take into account though, that Ali averaged over 60 punches a round whereas Bonecrusher Smith averaged over 60 clinches a round.

[hobgoblin]

Take into account though, that Ali averaged over 60 punches a round whereas Bonecrusher Smith averaged over 60 clinches a round.

No, but even more important, we're talking about slipping against the lightning fast punches of Muhammad Ali versus the punches of Bonecrusher Smith...:nut

[Sonny's jab]

It's threads like this that really tell me how over-rated Tyson really is.
(and how under-rated Frazier is.)

Often repeated here is "Tyson's style is just wrong for Frazier, he'll get Joe early" ...... "Frazier was a slow starter and could be stopped early"

Truth is, I strongly doubt Tyson's style to be effective against a short pure pressure fighter like Frazier. The only guy Tyson fought of remotely that style was Buster Mathis Jr., and Tyson was pushed back and made to miss by Buster, crowded and confused.
Now of course, people are gonna object to that example because Tyson was fresh out of jail and inactivity, but I say, well, it's only Buster Mathis Jr., a mediocre fighter, so the style itself is relevant.
In his very next fight Tyson swarmed all over 6-3 240 pound upright Frank Bruno in his "Tyson style".

Tyson stood too square-footed on the inside, had poor balance to deal with a bull-like Frazier, and was just not a natural fighter on a par with Frazier. Seriously, I cannot fathom how Tyson beats Frazier.

Tyson was a faster starter than Frazier but against fighters who fought back he could be caught early too. I mean, guys who offered token resistance like Tucker and Bruno, on the back foot, had Tyson nailed.
And Frazier's repuatation as a "slow starter" is undeserved. Most the fighters he fought were good boxers and very cautious in the first round and Frazier sensibly stalked.
As Duodenum points out, against a mediocrity like Dave Zigiwicz, Frazier was blazing at the opening bell. Fighters who could whack a bit like Ramos were responded to with ferocious retaliation within the first round, and even Jerry Quarry - who was probably better than anyone Tyson ever beat - was pushed back from his attempt at an early surprise attack. Bob Foster was mashed by Frazier in 2 rounds.
It was mostly Frazier's intense output in the mid-to-late rounds that made him look slow in the early going. Either way, Tyson cannot beat a prime Frazier by early round KO. Score a knockdown, maybe, but KO, no way.

Tyson's not big enough to keep Frazier off him, like Foreman could. Tyson and Frazier have roughly the same reach. Both guys are gonna land, and Frazier's gonna land more. When Frazier gets knocked down he gets up and fights back harder, when Tyson starts getting hurt he's nowhere near as reliable. Plus he's gonna find the close-range fighting too difficult, with Frazier's head in his chest. Tyson would be looking to the referee for help after a round or two of frustration.

Tyson beating Frazier is la-la-land fantasy that perpetuates due to the ongoing mistake that Tyson was once "invincible" or close to it.

Compare the two fighters at any stage in their careers, Frazier was always fighting better opposition, kicking butt or when get his butt kicked it was against great opposition and he never quit or got counted out.

Tyson's the lesser fighter. And there is nothing to suggest Tyson could deal with Frazier's style better than Frazier could deal with Tyson. That's just ridiculous. Tyson beat inferior fighters who's styles were NOTHING like Frazier's, and there is some evidence to suggest his style isn't as effective against anything resembling Frazier's style.
On the other hand, Frazier never beat a fighter who fought like Tyson, but he fought (and beat) greater fighters and he was never bothered by fighters who came to rumble in the trenches. Even Foreman could not keep him down. Frazier could grit out anything Tyson throws at him in the first couple of rounds and make his own deadly presesnce apparent. If Tyson still wants to know after 3 or 4 rounds, he's entering a whole world of pain, and I dont see him getting to the 10th.

Frazier beats Tyson up BADLY.

[MachineGunMitch]

good post Sonny's......I concure
Tyson's is over rated,I think its also because most
posters werent alive when Frazier fought and never got to see the
man live and in action,I was just a tyke when Frazier was champ....
While as Tyson is relitivly fresh in everyones mind

[Denny Cruser]

No, but even more important, we're talking about slipping against the lightning fast punches of Muhammad Ali versus the punches of Bonecrusher Smith...:nut
So you deduce that Joe would slip Tysons punches? :yikes Swarmer will slip punches of counter-puncher/slugger? :nut We saw how Joe slip those punches from slugger Foreman :yep So I can deduce that it is easier to slip Ali`s punches than Foreman ones. :D :D :D

[Denny Cruser]

Tyson's the lesser fighter. And there is nothing to suggest Tyson could deal with Frazier's style better than Frazier could deal with Tyson. That's just ridiculous.
In the clash of raging bulls Frazier was almost crashed by Bonavena. Tyson NEVER was crashed by attacking bulls. So in such clash a winner will be a more physically strongest boxer with more versatile attack with more strong chin with more strong punch. Its all about Tyson.

[Sonny's jab]

In the clash of raging bulls Frazier was almost crashed by Bonavena. Tyson NEVER was crashed by attacking bulls. So in such clash a winner will be a more physically strongest boxer with more versatile attack with more strong chin with more strong punch. Its all about Tyson.

Tyson never fought a strong bull-like fighter. He was pushed back by the weak fat-man Buster Mathis Jr.
His stance is all wrong. Look at his square-on footwork. Tyson is mediocre on the inside.

There's no way he beats Frazier.

Frazier could win VERY TOUGH FIGHTS, for example against Bonavena, Quarry and Ali.
Tyson was beaten up by the first fighter who really laid it on him.

[McGrain]

Frazier could grit out anything Tyson throws at him in the first couple of rounds.


You really think so?

I think you may be being a bit optomistic, I feel. Surley you don't see a sitiation where Tyson doesn't at least hurt Frazier during the first couple of rounds? If not, Tyson always had the look of the divisions greatest finisher- it's hard to see a sitiation where a referee between 1970 and 20007 wouldn't need to step in, assuming Frazier was able to keep his feet.

If you do see a sitiation where Frazier doesn't get seriously hurt in the first couple how does he counteract Tyson's speed and power? Or do you see Tyson as significantly less powerful than Foreman?

[mr. magoo]

Tyson never fought a strong bull-like fighter. He was pushed back by the weak fat-man Buster Mathis Jr.
His stance is all wrong. Look at his square-on footwork. Tyson is mediocre on the inside.

There's no way he beats Frazier.

Frazier could win VERY TOUGH FIGHTS, for example against Bonavena, Quarry and Ali.
Tyson was beaten up by the first fighter who really laid it on him.

You make some very good points Sonny, and I agree with most of them. I will say however, try not to judge Tyson by his performance in the Douglas fight. This was not a usual Tyson at his best.

That's coming from a guy who's not even a fan of him either...

[Sonny's jab]

You really think so?

I think you may be being a bit optomistic, I feel. Surley you don't see a sitiation where Tyson doesn't at least hurt Frazier during the first couple of rounds? If not, Tyson always had the look of the divisions greatest finisher- it's hard to see a sitiation where a referee between 1970 and 20007 wouldn't need to step in, assuming Frazier was able to keep his feet.

If you do see a sitiation where Frazier doesn't get seriously hurt in the first couple how does he counteract Tyson's speed and power? Or do you see Tyson as significantly less powerful than Foreman?

I think it most likely that Tyson hurts Frazier in the first round or two, perhaps drops him once or twice.
But I also think it most likely that Frazier gets up and hurts Tyson almost immediately.

The general thinking on this thread is so biased towards what Tyson's gonna do to Frazier that there seems to be a complete blank over what Frazier is gonna do back to Tyson.

The unrealistic optimism on this thread is for Tyson, IMO. The idea that he's gonna just take Frazier's best shots and cope with the trauma of Frazier's will-to-win in his face whatever he throws at Frazier. This is unrealistic.

Tyson is capable of shocking and shaking Frazier, of course, and it is LIKELY, but it would not spell the end for Frazier, Smokin Joe was too tough. So even if he's caught he'd get up and fight back, driving hooks into Tyson's body and head, driving his head into Tyson's chest, using his inside stance to crowd Tyson - and the onus seems to be on Tyson's supporters to prove Tyson would deal well with what Frazier could do back to him.

Foreman beat Frazier by shoving him back with his immense strength and teeing off with long uppercuts. He also scored with a long ramrod jab. Foreman had long arms and long looping punches, he fought tall. His strengths were nothing that Tyson could repliacte. And if it only proves that Frazier could suffer knockdowns it also shows Frazier could get back up and throw punches.
Against Tyson, Frazier would have his opponent in range and he'd have an opponent that was inferior as an inside fighter and an opponent that could not take it as well as he could dish it out.

Frazier's just too good as a fighter. He'd beat the crap out of Tyson.

[Denny Cruser]

Tyson never fought a strong bull-like fighter. He was pushed back by the weak fat-man Buster Mathis Jr.
His stance is all wrong. Look at his square-on footwork. Tyson is mediocre on the inside.

There's no way he beats Frazier.

Frazier could win VERY TOUGH FIGHTS, for example against Bonavena, Quarry and Ali.
Tyson was beaten up by the first fighter who really laid it on him.
Tyson fought against Buster Mathis NEVER was prime. We compare prime for prime. While prime Frazier took some bad beating from mediocre boxer but good athlete Bonavena. Tyson punch on the next level as Bonavena did. So Frazier going to Mike to die because they both would go to zone where they both can landed and Mike has more solid chin, more power in his shot, significantly more variative attacks and more physical raw power.

[Sonny's jab]

Tyson fought against Buster Mathis NEVER was prime. We compare prime for prime. While prime Frazier took some bad beating from mediocre boxer but good athlete Bonavena. Tyson punch on the next level as Bonavena did. So Frazier going to Mike to die because they both would go to zone where they both can landed and Mike has more solid chin, more power in his shot, significantly more variative attacks and more physical raw power.

Actually, Frazier was in his 12th pro fight when he fought Bonavena in 1966 and got shook up. Bonavena was a big step up. Why not use the Bonavena rematch, where Frazier beat his awkward opponent over 15 rounds and never got seriously hurt or decked ?
In fact, Frazier was bothered mostly by Bonavena's crude awkwardness and not by his aggression, so it is meaningless to say Tyson was better boxer.

Tyson was not in his prime against Buster Mathis Jr but that's the only fighter who even slightly fought short and crowded Tyson, so the example is valid. Also, Tyson was still good, and Mathis Jr. was not 5% of the fighter Frazier was, so unless Tyson was less than 4% of his prime then I think it should be noted.
But we can forget that.

Frazier was a better fighter than Tyson, with a lot more TOUGHNESS, that's why he's beat the shit out of Tyson.

Tyson could not take it. You can talk up his chin and his power and his skills all you like, fact is Tyson got his assed kicked by "lesser" fighters.

People hate to face reality on Tyson. He got busted up, beaten timid, and quit on more than one occassion. Sure, he had great skills and strengths to wipe out some very good fighters but against someone as tough and as mean and great as Frazier, Tyson would get beaten up badly.

[McGrain]

The general thinking on this thread is so biased towards what Tyson's gonna do to Frazier that there seems to be a complete blank over what Frazier is gonna do back to Tyson.

.


I'd agree with the above statement and i've enjoyed reading your posts on Frazier-Tyson. But I still think you're being optomistic when you say Tyson may have Frazier down and hurt and then bet on Frazier to get out of the round.

Do you think Tyson's finishing skills are overated? I have him at number one in that department.

Do you really think Joe is that tough?

I would agree with your surmise about the fight if Frazier could somehow get passed being hurt, put down, stunned - but I don't understand why you think Frazier wouldn't be there to get hit when he gets up - as he clearly was before you went down.

If Frazier is coming back at him (I agree with you) he's either going to finish Mike early or get it again, no?

[Sonny's jab]

You make some very good points Sonny, and I agree with most of them. I will say however, try not to judge Tyson by his performance in the Douglas fight. This was not a usual Tyson at his best.


OK.
And similarly Frazier was not at his "usual best" in the 1st Bonavena fight, or against Foreman, Bugner, or Ali 2 & 3.

[mr. magoo]

Frazier was a better fighter than Tyson, with a lot more TOUGHNESS, that's why he's beat the shit out of Tyson.

Tyson could not take it. You can talk up his chin and his power and his skills all you like, fact is Tyson got his assed kicked by "lesser" fighters.

People hate to face reality on Tyson. He got busted up, beaten timid, and quit on more than one occassion. Sure, he had great skills and strengths to wipe out some very good fighters but against someone as tough and as mean and great as Frazier, Tyson would get beaten up badly.
[/quote]

If you're going to compare these fighters, then you have to make the comparison when both men were at their best. A lot of people claim that Joe was past it by the age of 29 against Foreman. I actually agree with this claim. Tyson by the age of 23, was also past it, but for different reasons. Everyone from his original team, who were also like family to him was out of the picture. Cus' D Amato was dead.. Jim Jacobs was dead. His mother was dead. Kevin Rooney was gone. Bill Cayton was gone. He had recently gone through a horrible divorce with Robin Givens, and was reported to be suicidal at the time. Don King hired trainers and managers who a lot of experts felt were less than compitent. This became evident during the Douglas fight, when they used a disolved bag of water to reduce swelling over Mike's eye, rather than using an inswell device. Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancey were both interviewed some time later, to give their opinions on the fight. Both of them said that this was the worst display of corner work they had seen in their 50 years in the game.

I have often heard you make references to the Douglas loss, and how Tyson " got his ass kicked, " as you so often like to point out. Did you see this fight? And if so, have you compared Tyson's level of activity to that of his previous or later fights? Frankly, I thought Tyson was extremely sluggish and appearing to be unmotivated. I never saw him get off to such a slow start. People including yourself have said " it's because he couldn't fight back, cause' someone stood up to him" Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno and Razor Ruddock, all started off early standing up to Tyson, and in fact were better fighters than Douglas, yet Mike wound up beating them. Tyson vs Douglas was not even remotely a clear indication of what types of fighters these guys were. It was a rare instance in which one man showed up giving his best performance, while the other gave his absolute worst.

Joe Frazier Won the heavyweight title at age 25, by beating ex-middleweight Jimmy Ellis, who hadn't fought in 17 months. Tyson Won his first of three titles at age 20, against a full fledged heavyweight in Trevor Berbick. Trevor was coming off the best win of his career against previously unbeaten Pinklon Thomas. Tyson would also beat 35-0 Tony Tucker, and James Smith ( both were big heavyweights ) for the other versions of the title. Tyson had good career wins against Spinks, Thomas, Biggs, Ruddock, and numerous others. Frazier's biggest career win was against Ali, which was indeed a legacy fight. Most people however, fail to acknlowledge that Ali had only fought twice in nearly four years. Frazier had incredible upper body movement, but personally, I think that his bobbing and weaving against an under 6 ft opponent, would get him in more trouble than it would do good. I see him catching a lot of hooks and uppers from Mike. What's more, Tyson had handled bigger stronger fighters such as Bruno, Ruddock, Tucker, and smith, meaning that he would not be so easily over powered by a smaller Frazier as you have already claimed..... Although Tyson had the tendency to crumble in some of his later fights, this was not the case between 1985-1989. In addition, most of these issues didn't come until the later rounds of the fight. Frazier's chances of surviving Tyson's power and onsloughts for 8-10 rounds are remote...

[Denny Cruser]

Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancey were both interviewed some time later, to give their opinions on the fight. Both of them said that this was the worst display of corner work they had seen in their 50 years in the game.
I remember that Dundee`s team in Foreman-Stewart even go far away in such nomination :lol:

[mr. magoo]

I remember that Dundee`s team in Foreman-Stewart even go far away in such nomination :lol:

????????

[Minotauro]

I actually think Frazier would win in a war. Frazier is one of the few fighters to put Tyson on the backfoot where he was uncomfortable also joe has the better cardio and despite being hurt or even knocked down he won't loose heart unlike Tyson. Frazier KO 10.

[Denny Cruser]

????????
I am just remembered as Foreman corner ignored his haematomas and start to work when Big looked as chinese beekeeper :D :D

[mr. magoo]

I am just remembered as Foreman corner ignored his haematomas and start to work when Big looked as chinese beekeeper :D :D

Frankly,

I think his corner did the best that they could given the circumstances. George was 44 years old, and taking a lot of shots froma very hard hitter. He had multiple cuts, and was bleeding everywhere. Although George looked atrocious, Dundee and his men kept him in the fight, resulting in Foreman taking a respectable decision.

[Denny Cruser]

Frankly,

I think his corner did the best that they could given the circumstances. George was 44 years old, and taking a lot of shots froma very hard hitter. He had multiple cuts, and was bleeding everywhere. Although George looked atrocious, Dundee and his men kept him in the fight, resulting in Foreman taking a respectable decision.
Hmm, maybe I dont remember correct but Foreman corner doesnt use enswell etc at first few round altough George clearly need in such help. It is well known that enswell (or other cold and preferable solid materials) effective if used after each rounds where boxer take some beating, due to possible latent periods of haemotomas developing. IMO

[mr. magoo]

Hmm, maybe I dont remember correct but Foreman corner doesnt use enswell etc at first few round altough George clearly need in such help. It is well known that enswell (or other cold and preferable solid materials) effective if used after each rounds where boxer take some beating, due to possible latent periods of haemotomas developing. IMO

Angelo Dundee has worked hundreds of corners, and with some of the greatest fighters of all time. Whatever, he did with George against Alex Stewart, I'm sure he had good reason for it....

[Duodenum]

Along with a misleading "Frazier was a slow starter" mantra, a lot of people are citing Tyson's speed as a key factor in this outcome. FOTC Joe was hardly a slow-poke. His short jarring uppercuts and hooks inside couldn't always reach Foreman, but Mike wasn't George. Although at the end of the line in the Foreman rematch, a completely shot Frazier was still able to survive in fine shape, beyond the opening rounds, up until the fatal fifth. Joe missed some hooks in that encounter because George was too far away. Mike would have no choice but to get within Joe's range to land his own vaunted artillery. If Tyson did have a handspeed advantage on Frazier, it might be offset by Joe delivering shorter punches. Smoke's hook wouldn't have to travel as far as Tyson's cross, which Joe would probably be inside of anyway. Frazier's hook was a low risk weapon which he could safely use to quickly find the range on Mike. Whenever Tyson tried his uppercut, he'd expose himself to Joe's meal ticket. With Joe's cross armed defense, his right would be positioned to block Mike's uppercuts.

Like Frazier, Tyson's a converted southpaw, but the maxim against hooking with a hooker favors Joe.

Many of you are mentioning the belief that Tyson had superior physical strength.

In Joe's final match, he drew with weight trained muscleman Jumbo Cummings. Even though Frazier was rusty, badly overweight, and over ten years past peak, Cummings couldn't use his physical strength and size to decisively crush Smoke. If Floyd couldn't do it then, what would FOTC Frazier have done to Cummings? Bonavena was also strong as an ox, yet Joe had him retreating by the end of their 15 rounder. Even if Tyson was as strong as Foreman, he'd still have to get within Joe's punching range to try bulling him backwards. Mike simply didn't have the height or arm length needed to neutralize Joe's hook.

In Frazier's rematch with Quarry, Joe demonstrated fine use of his right, and showed he was perfectly capable of boxing well with somebody his own size. Against Jerry in 1974, Smoke actually had a reach advantage, and on Futch's instructions he used it, along with his unexpected right. Quarry was favored to win their second bout, but Joe screwed him up a bit with his change in tactics. Against Tyson, Joe would be facing a shorter opponent with a shorter reach. Would Futch have Joe pull a Quarry II with Mike?

Don't forget that Quarry blew out Bodell and Shavers in one, and tried to get the jump on Joe in their 1969 tussle. There's no guarantee Mike would succeed where Jerry failed. Neither was Mike a perfect finisher, although a very good one.

Bonecrusher Smith proved that peak Tyson could be rocked, and would have kayoed Mike as he did Bruno, if he'd gotten himself uncorked in time.

[Muskyrat]

very similar styles
for me either tyson catches him early or he gets knocked out later.
tyson looked the part against a lot of guys but struggled when he fought the best around and frazier was a class act.

[Muskyrat]

an thats one hell of an avatar mr magoo

[mr. magoo]

In Joe's final match, he drew with weight trained muscleman Jumbo Cummings. Even though Frazier was rusty, badly overweight, and over ten years past peak, Cummings couldn't use his physical strength and size to decisively crush Smoke.

Although Frazier was well past his prime, Jumbo Cummings was hardly world class. One of Floyd's limiting factors, is that he couldn't finish people when he had them in trouble, as was evident in the Frank Bruno fight among others. He possesed tremendous strength, but couldn't use it to the best of his ability..

[janitor]

A lot of people here are picking Tyson to win by early blowout on the asumption that any big puncher who is a fast starter will take Frazier out before he warms up to his task.

I do not think that this is necisarily the case as it hangs on a number of asumptions.

A lot of people have made tha analogy of Foreman. Big George was able to destroy Frazier as decisively as he did in part because he wasshopworn but more crucialy because he had a large reach advantage and could therfore push Frazier back to create punching room working within a substantial safety zone.

"That left hook he threw at me was like a bulet pinging past my head"

George Foreman

If George had a 71" reach then it would have been like a lot of bulets pinging into his head.

I also challenge the asumption that Frazier was necisarily a slow starter. I could point to footage where this is clearly not the case.

The pivotal question is how Tyson would cope with Fraziers infighting ability.

Tyson operated as a mid range fighter and always had problems when sombody clinched him on the inside. Say Frazier fighting out of a crouch starts working tysons body on the inside. I can se a situation where Tyson is having trouble landing and get's backed up. Tyson never really fought anybody with quite this style and it is hard to say how well he would cope with it.

[Sonny's jab]

I'd agree with the above statement and i've enjoyed reading your posts on Frazier-Tyson. But I still think you're being optomistic when you say Tyson may have Frazier down and hurt and then bet on Frazier to get out of the round.

Do you think Tyson's finishing skills are overated? I have him at number one in that department.

Tyson had very good finishing skills but he did not always finish off hurt fighters. He had Frank Bruno hurt within 10 seconds of their first fight, the very same first round Bruno comes back to wobble him, and lasts until the 5th.
Pinklon Thomas, another guy who was battered in the opening round, actually got back into it and lasted until the 6th. Razor Ruddock, same thing, got hurt or decked early and kept getting back into the fight. These guys were all upright lumbering statues.

I'm not convinced Tyson will even have Frazier is any real difficulty before Frazier has imposed himself, but I'm conceding that Tyson might have some success in the first round or two, and possibly have Frazier stunned or floored.



Do you really think Joe is that tough?


Yes. The earliest defeat he suffered was against Foreman, where he got up 6 times and didn't look close to being down for a "10" count, and he's willing to fight on. That's Frazier at his absolute worst, getting battered, and proving his toughness. And no way can Tyson replicate that kind of showing against Frazier.
Truth is, Tyson has none of the strengths that allowed Foreman to dominate Frazier, and I doubt Tyson could have lasted out of the first round against a young Foreman.

I would agree with your surmise about the fight if Frazier could somehow get passed being hurt, put down, stunned - but I don't understand why you think Frazier wouldn't be there to get hit when he gets up - as he clearly was before you went down.

I'm not saying Frazier wouldn't get hit. I'm not saying he'd go down and be badly hurt either. I'm not convinced Tyson's style would even allow him to do his usual first round stuff. I think Frazier might just crowd Tyson from the opening bell.
I'm emphasizing that Tyson would get hit too, and I doubt he could take it.
Frazier was stopped only by Foreman and by Ali in that war in Manila. He finished on his feet twice against Foreman and was pulled out by his corner against Ali.
Tyson would never have been able to cope with what Ali dished out in Manila or with Foreman's onslaught.

Frazier proved he was extremely hard to stop. He was tougher than Tyson. I'm conceding that Tyson was very powerful and capable of hurting Frazier, but I know Frazier was very powerful and capable of hurting Tyson too. Who takes punishment better and fights back better when hurt ? The answer is obviously Frazier.


If Frazier is coming back at him (I agree with you) he's either going to finish Mike early or get it again, no?


No, he's going to put Tyson into his shell, have Tyson fighting timid, and grind his way through Tyson. Tyson lasts 4 - 9 rounds, IMO, before he's beaten into submission.

[Sonny's jab]

Although Frazier was well past his prime, Jumbo Cummings was hardly world class. One of Floyd's limiting factors, is that he couldn't finish people when he had them in trouble, as was evident in the Frank Bruno fight among others. He possesed tremendous strength, but couldn't use it to the best of his ability..

He would have stopped the Tyson who fought McBride. :D

[Sonny's jab]

If you're going to compare these fighters, then you have to make the comparison when both men were at their best. A lot of people claim that Joe was past it by the age of 29 against Foreman. I actually agree with this claim. Tyson by the age of 23, was also past it, but for different reasons. Everyone from his original team, who were also like family to him was out of the picture. Cus' D Amato was dead.. Jim Jacobs was dead. His mother was dead. Kevin Rooney was gone. Bill Cayton was gone. He had recently gone through a horrible divorce with Robin Givens, and was reported to be suicidal at the time. Don King hired trainers and managers who a lot of experts felt were less than compitent. This became evident during the Douglas fight, when they used a disolved bag of water to reduce swelling over Mike's eye, rather than using an inswell device. Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancey were both interviewed some time later, to give their opinions on the fight. Both of them said that this was the worst display of corner work they had seen in their 50 years in the game.

I have often heard you make references to the Douglas loss, and how Tyson " got his ass kicked, " as you so often like to point out. Did you see this fight? And if so, have you compared Tyson's level of activity to that of his previous or later fights? Frankly, I thought Tyson was extremely sluggish and appearing to be unmotivated. I never saw him get off to such a slow start....


Yes, Douglas outboxed him from the opening bell. Yes, Tyson looked bad. I always say it's hard for you to look good when someone's beating the shit out of you.

People including yourself have said " it's because he couldn't fight back, cause' someone stood up to him"

I dont say that. I say Douglas had the style to beat him and IMPOSED it from the opening bell. That's what happened, as I see it.

Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno and Razor Ruddock, all started off early standing up to Tyson, and in fact were better fighters than Douglas, yet Mike wound up beating them.

They weren't "better fighters", they were on about the same level. Bruno and Ruddock were slow-footed sluggers, statues, a bit one-dimensional. I think Douglas boxed better. He moved.
Tubbs went out from one punch. Tucker fought with a broken hand.

Your argument is pointless. Douglas BEAT Tyson, and, yes, no one expected it precisely because Tyson had consistently beaten men who were apparently on the same level as Douglas.
So, does that mean we have to conclude that Douglas was somehow lucky and could not beat the real Tyson ?
The fact is Douglas BEAT Tyson. 40-1 odds were WRONG. The fight was on the level.
You want everything to fit neatly into "logical" categories -
"Douglas was really no better than Tubbs, therefore Tyson would mashed Douglas - but Douglas beat Tyson, so Tyson must have not been Tyson and Douglas must not have been Douglas"
Hey, I dont believe boxing works like that. It's pure favouritism and prejudice.


Tyson vs Douglas was not even remotely a clear indication of what types of fighters these guys were. It was a rare instance in which one man showed up giving his best performance, while the other gave his absolute worst.


OK, but do you say the same thing about Tyson-Spinks ? When discussing Tyson-Spinks do you go on about what an apalling version of Spinks turned up that night ? Or Tony Tucker's broken hand ? Do you concentrate so much on the state of Tyson's opponents when they showed up unprepared ?

Joe Frazier Won the heavyweight title at age 25, by beating ex-middleweight Jimmy Ellis, who hadn't fought in 17 months. Tyson Won his first of three titles at age 20, against a full fledged heavyweight in Trevor Berbick. Trevor was coming off the best win of his career against previously unbeaten Pinklon Thomas. Tyson would also beat 35-0 Tony Tucker, and James Smith ( both were big heavyweights ) for the other versions of the title. Tyson had good career wins against Spinks, Thomas, Biggs, Ruddock, and numerous others. Frazier's biggest career win was against Ali, which was indeed a legacy fight. Most people however, fail to acknlowledge that Ali had only fought twice in nearly four years. Frazier had incredible upper body movement, but personally, I think that his bobbing and weaving against an under 6 ft opponent, would get him in more trouble than it would do good. I see him catching a lot of hooks and uppers from Mike. What's more, Tyson had handled bigger stronger fighters such as Bruno, Ruddock, Tucker, and smith, meaning that he would not be so easily over powered by a smaller Frazier as you have already claimed..... Although Tyson had the tendency to crumble in some of his later fights, this was not the case between 1985-1989. In addition, most of these issues didn't come until the later rounds of the fight. Frazier's chances of surviving Tyson's power and onsloughts for 8-10 rounds are remote

Frazier would beat the shit out of him.
All the excuses in the world wont help Mikey. :D

[McGrain]

Some lovely posts Sonny's Jab. When your in your own areas of expertise your as enthralling as anyone on this site. Good work.

Still wrong though ;)

[mr. magoo]

Frazier would beat the shit out of him.
All the excuses in the world wont help Mikey.



That's a rather bold prediction in my opinion. I myself make no convictions of that nature, except that I'd favor Tyson, but who knows. You on the otherhand, continue to make the strong statement that Frazier would " beat the shit out of him," and do it primarily on the basis of one bad performance, and against a fighter who was totally dissimilar to Frazier in just about every way.

But hey, That's probably just your MEDIOCRITY detector, kicking in again...

By the way, I can tell by some of your other statements in the above paragraphs, that you're not very familiar with some of the history nor circumstances of Tyson's career between 1988 and 1990. He was starting to take a turn for the worse, at least a year before the Douglas fight, as was seen by his performance against Bruno, as well as his behavior outside the ring. Of course these facts , don't convieniently play into your argument, therefore I won't be surprised if you ignore them entirely.

[MachineGunMitch]

Frazier KO 8.............

[Sonny's jab]

That's a rather bold prediction in my opinion. I myself make no convictions of that nature, except that I'd favor Tyson, but who knows. You on the otherhand, continue to make the strong statement that Frazier would " beat the shit out of him," and do it primarily on the basis of one bad performance, and against a fighter who was totally dissimilar to Frazier in just about every way.

No, you are completely mis-reading my arguments. I'm not saying Frazier beats Tyson because of the Douglas fight.
I dont think I actually mentioned the Douglas fight much at all until you brought it up.
I mentioned the Tyson-Buster Mathis Jr fight when trying to decipher how Tyson's style matches with a short pressure fighter who crowds him.
I tried to argue analytic points about the match of styles and the proven performances of both fighters. I'm not basing anything much on the Tyson-Douglas fight except I might bring it up when I'm being told how vulnerable Frazier was, and when it's implied that Tyson would be impervious to his punches.

The form book tends to show that Frazier was more reliable. In my opinion at least. Quite clearly I think Frazier should be favoured, and in this timeless realm of imaginary fights I would expect Frazier to beat the shit out of Tyson.



But hey, That's probably just your MEDIOCRITY detector, kicking in again...


:huh


By the way, I can tell by some of your other statements in the above paragraphs, that you're not very familiar with some of the history nor circumstances of Tyson's career between 1988 and 1990. He was starting to take a turn for the worse, at least a year before the Douglas fight, as was seen by his performance against Bruno, as well as his behavior outside the ring.

I am familiar with the history. Tyson looked a bit rusty and less sharp versus Bruno, a little sloppy, after the longest layoff of his career. He wasn't 100%, but he was still close to it. No big deal. He followed the Bruno fight up with a superb first-round TKO of Carl Williams, one of the world's best fighters. His slip-duck-hook against Williams was among the best moves of his career, vintage Tyson.

Tyson was 40-1 favourite to beat Buster Douglas. That's the history. Expected to reign for another ten years. This is what people were saying. No one on the horizon to beat him.
If his "decline from prime" was so obvious, why would he be held in such regard to be such a massive favourite over anyone. I guess Las Vegas bookies would have made a "prime" Tyson a 250-1 favourite over Douglas ! :lol:


Of course these facts , don't convieniently play into your argument, therefore I won't be surprised if you ignore them entirely.


The facts are the facts. TKO 5 Bruno, TKO 1 Carl Williams ........ look how far he had slipped from the "prime" days !!! He was only 40-1 to beat Douglas.

As for his life outside the ring, I dont care.

[ironchamp]

Along with a misleading "Frazier was a slow starter" mantra, a lot of people are citing Tyson's speed as a key factor in this outcome. FOTC Joe was hardly a slow-poke. His short jarring uppercuts and hooks inside couldn't always reach Foreman, but Mike wasn't George. Although at the end of the line in the Foreman rematch, a completely shot Frazier was still able to survive in fine shape, beyond the opening rounds, up until the fatal fifth. Joe missed some hooks in that encounter because George was too far away. Mike would have no choice but to get within Joe's range to land his own vaunted artillery. If Tyson did have a handspeed advantage on Frazier, it might be offset by Joe delivering shorter punches. Smoke's hook wouldn't have to travel as far as Tyson's cross, which Joe would probably be inside of anyway. Frazier's hook was a low risk weapon which he could safely use to quickly find the range on Mike. Whenever Tyson tried his uppercut, he'd expose himself to Joe's meal ticket. With Joe's cross armed defense, his right would be positioned to block Mike's uppercuts.

Like Frazier, Tyson's a converted southpaw, but the maxim against hooking with a hooker favors Joe.

Many of you are mentioning the belief that Tyson had superior physical strength.

In Joe's final match, he drew with weight trained muscleman Jumbo Cummings. Even though Frazier was rusty, badly overweight, and over ten years past peak, Cummings couldn't use his physical strength and size to decisively crush Smoke. If Floyd couldn't do it then, what would FOTC Frazier have done to Cummings? Bonavena was also strong as an ox, yet Joe had him retreating by the end of their 15 rounder. Even if Tyson was as strong as Foreman, he'd still have to get within Joe's punching range to try bulling him backwards. Mike simply didn't have the height or arm length needed to neutralize Joe's hook.

In Frazier's rematch with Quarry, Joe demonstrated fine use of his right, and showed he was perfectly capable of boxing well with somebody his own size. Against Jerry in 1974, Smoke actually had a reach advantage, and on Futch's instructions he used it, along with his unexpected right. Quarry was favored to win their second bout, but Joe screwed him up a bit with his change in tactics. Against Tyson, Joe would be facing a shorter opponent with a shorter reach. Would Futch have Joe pull a Quarry II with Mike?

Don't forget that Quarry blew out Bodell and Shavers in one, and tried to get the jump on Joe in their 1969 tussle. There's no guarantee Mike would succeed where Jerry failed. Neither was Mike a perfect finisher, although a very good one.

Bonecrusher Smith proved that peak Tyson could be rocked, and would have kayoed Mike as he did Bruno, if he'd gotten himself uncorked in time.

Smith would have never KO'd Tyson that night and had he opened up earlier to try to get Mike outta there then he himself would have been another Tyson victim (In the ring)....

Anyways the notion that Frazier was a slow starter has more to do with his style than anything. Frazier never started fights intentionally slow; he pretty much uses the opening rounds to sync his bob and weave with his opponents timing so he can catch a rhythm. If he is able to do so immediately then you have fights like Bob Foster, Quarry II, etc. where he shows early success.

HOBGOBLIN stated that Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was more effective than Tyson's SPORADIC Bob and weave.

Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was actually quite predicatable which is why early on in fights he would seldom win the first round mostly to adjust his timing on his bob and weave. Its effectiveness didnt lie in that method rather it relied on the consistency of that method to truly work. Consistent pressure followed by perputual motion forced fighters to eventually fight Joe's fight and it made them uncomfortable doing so (to Joe's credit). Joe was never known for his right hand, he was notoriously known for his left hook yet despite this knowledge oppenents were seldom able to stop him. As rounds progressed Joe doesnt necessarily get better or do anything spectacular rather he continues to apply the
SAME constant pressure that he's been applying from the start that DOES NOT allow his opponents to rest or change the pace of the fight without getting nailed often which is what eventually breaks down his opponents and see's Joe to victory.

Good example of that is the Miguel Cotto Zab Judah fight. We all know that Zab is the more skiled of the two but Cotto's consistent pressure is what Zab couldnt handle, he could have thrown more punches but Cotto's pressure and relentless aggression made Zab think twice about opening up and taking advantages of the openings there in the same manner that Frazier does to his opponents.

Tyson on the other hand uses his SPORADIC bob and weave which I find more effective because; its economical (he only bobs and weaves when he needs to). It always leaves him in a position to punch and to counter (hence the impeccable accuracy) and eliminates the need for a feel out process which is why Mike always started Fast. Most importantly it allows him to create openings rather than to take advantage of them.


The problem with Joe's constant bob and weave is that it takes time depending on the opponent to become very effective. With Foreman he didnt have that time he needed to get Foreman's timing down. If he did or if George started out a bit slower it would have been George laying on the the canvas in Jamaica. Fortunately for George, his superhuman punching power kept Frazier occupied and hurt long enough to get a stoppage before Joe started to get insync and "smoke."

Now, Tyson never fought a guy that resemebled Frazier in style, well no one significant anyway. So if these two met it comes down to how their styles are going to mesh.

The bob and weave loses its effectiveness when fighting someone who's similar in height so Joe would have to adjust his style.

So what it comes down to is;

you have a fighter on one corner who had successive pressure and relentlessness coupled with the mental strength of an imprisioned future leader facing a fighter in another corner whose combination of speed and power is almost unparallel, has the ability to endure physical punishment beyond reason and in his prime had confidence that bordered on arrogant.

That being said neither fighter is going to back off.

I tried thinking about this objectively. I didnt want think about what Frazier would do to Mike without taking into account what Mike would do in return and vice versa. And the more I think about it; I think Tyson would hurt Joe and finish him off before Joe gets a chance to "smoke."
Frazier just won't weather the storm.


Tyson KO inside 4.

[mr. magoo]

I mentioned the Tyson-Buster Mathis Jr fight when trying to decipher how Tyson's style matches with a short pressure fighter who crowds him.


The Mathis fight doesn't tell us much. The only fight that Tyson had within 4 years prior to meeting Mathis, involved a single round against Peter Mcneeley, yet Mike managed to destroy Buster with little trouble. Although Mathis was not even remotely the same level of fighter that Frazier was, this is still a somewhat weak example.


I'm not basing anything much on the Tyson-Douglas fight except I might bring it up when I'm being told how vulnerable Frazier was, and when it's implied that Tyson would be impervious to his punches.


A fair enough defense on your part, except I never said Tyson would be impervious to Frazier's punches, or any of his skills for that matter. In fact, I'm not even trying to guarantee that Tyson would even beat him.. I'm simply stating that I would have to give Mike the edge.



The form book tends to show that Frazier was more reliable. In my opinion at least. Quite clearly I think Frazier should be favoured, and in this timeless realm of imaginary fights I would expect Frazier to beat the shit out of Tyson.


To each his own I guess. I however, find it difficult to make such strident claims, given that neither of these men ever really fought someone of the other's description.






He followed the Bruno fight up with a superb first-round TKO of Carl Williams, one of the world's best fighters. His slip-duck-hook against Williams was among the best moves of his career, vintage Tyson.


Agreed,

nice performance on Tyson's part. You have to take into consideration, however that Carl Williams was highly suseptible to being floored by the left hook. In fact, the vast majority of the knockdowns, or knockouts, that he sustained throughout his career, were left hook induced. Tyson hit him at the right time with a monster punch, and that was all she wrote. While I'm not taking anything away from Mike's performance that evening, I firmly believe that most fighters with a reasonably good left could have done that to Carl. Look at how an aging Weaver demolished what was possibly an even better version of the Truth, 3 years earlier...



Tyson was 40-1 favourite to beat Buster Douglas. That's the history. Expected to reign for another ten years. This is what people were saying. No one on the horizon to beat him.


Sonny,

Give me a break will ya?? Buster Douglas had a notorious reputation for quitting and had losses to Ferguson, White, and Bey, plus a draw with Tangstad. His only decent wins were primarily decisions over a few pastprime fighters, and his activity levels hadn't been much prior to the Tyson fight.

If you were a bookie in Vegas, what kind of odds would you have given the guy, even you saw Tyson past out drunk on a park bench two days earlier?


If his "decline from prime" was so obvious, why would he be held in such regard to be such a massive favourite over anyone. I guess Las Vegas bookies would have made a "prime" Tyson a 250-1 favourite over Douglas ! :lol:


See the above statement...



As for his life outside the ring, I dont care.


I don't give two shits about his personal life either, in fact I've always viewed the guy as one of boxing's biggest assholes. The sad fact of the matter, however is that a fighter's life outside the ring has every bit as much to do with how successful he is, as what he does inside the ropes. Seeing as how you grew up in the 80's as did I, we both saw a lot of these morons mess up their lives with bullshit that we can't even begin to imagine. While I hold them entirely responsible for their actions, I still have to pick the better versions of themselves, when sizing them up in these fantasy matchups.

[C. M. Clay II]

Smith would have never KO'd Tyson that night and had he opened up earlier to try to get Mike outta there then he himself would have been another Tyson victim (In the ring)....

Anyways the notion that Frazier was a slow starter has more to do with his style than anything. Frazier never started fights intentionally slow; he pretty much uses the opening rounds to sync his bob and weave with his opponents timing so he can catch a rhythm. If he is able to do so immediately then you have fights like Bob Foster, Quarry II, etc. where he shows early success.

HOBGOBLIN stated that Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was more effective than Tyson's SPORADIC Bob and weave.

Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was actually quite predicatable which is why early on in fights he would seldom win the first round mostly to adjust his timing on his bob and weave. Its effectiveness didnt lie in that method rather it relied on the consistency of that method to truly work. Consistent pressure followed by perputual motion forced fighters to eventually fight Joe's fight and it made them uncomfortable doing so (to Joe's credit). Joe was never known for his right hand, he was notoriously known for his left hook yet despite this knowledge oppenents were seldom able to stop him. As rounds progressed Joe doesnt necessarily get better or do anything spectacular rather he continues to apply the
SAME constant pressure that he's been applying from the start that DOES NOT allow his opponents to rest or change the pace of the fight without getting nailed often which is what eventually breaks down his opponents and see's Joe to victory.

Good example of that is the Miguel Cotto Zab Judah fight. We all know that Zab is the more skiled of the two but Cotto's consistent pressure is what Zab couldnt handle, he could have thrown more punches but Cotto's pressure and relentless aggression made Zab think twice about opening up and taking advantages of the openings there in the same manner that Frazier does to his opponents.

Tyson on the other hand uses his SPORADIC bob and weave which I find more effective because; its economical (he only bobs and weaves when he needs to). It always leaves him in a position to punch and to counter (hence the impeccable accuracy) and eliminates the need for a feel out process which is why Mike always started Fast. Most importantly it allows him to create openings rather than to take advantage of them.


The problem with Joe's constant bob and weave is that it takes time depending on the opponent to become very effective. With Foreman he didnt have that time he needed to get Foreman's timing down. If he did or if George started out a bit slower it would have been George laying on the the canvas in Jamaica. Fortunately for George, his superhuman punching power kept Frazier occupied and hurt long enough to get a stoppage before Joe started to get insync and "smoke."

Now, Tyson never fought a guy that resemebled Frazier in style, well no one significant anyway. So if these two met it comes down to how their styles are going to mesh.

The bob and weave loses its effectiveness when fighting someone who's similar in height so Joe would have to adjust his style.

So what it comes down to is;

you have a fighter on one corner who had successive pressure and relentlessness coupled with the mental strength of an imprisioned future leader facing a fighter in another corner whose combination of speed and power is almost unparallel, has the ability to endure physical punishment beyond reason and in his prime had confidence that bordered on arrogant.

That being said neither fighter is going to back off.

I tried thinking about this objectively. I didnt want think about what Frazier would do to Mike without taking into account what Mike would do in return and vice versa. And the more I think about it; I think Tyson would hurt Joe and finish him off before Joe gets a chance to "smoke."
Frazier just won't weather the storm.


Tyson KO inside 4.

Wow, great post ironchamp! Spot on!!!!:good :good

[Duodenum]

Wow, great post ironchamp! Spot on!!!!:good :goodAgreed. You produced a very thoughtful, insightful, well-articulated analysis, ironchamp. Sonny's jab, I will defer to your superior expertise to make any further rebuttals on behalf of Frazier. I'll just sit back and enjoy whatever exchanges you and ironchamp might have remaining.

This dialogue between Sonny's jab and ironchamp represent the Classic Forum at it's very best, the reason I was able to lurk on this site for so long before joining as a participant. Reading name-calling and insults can be funny, but I come to this forum to read intelligent discussion.

If the two of you continue producing such well-considered analysis and counterpoints like this, I'll be perfectly content to remain a hidden spectator.

[Sonny's jab]

The Mathis fight doesn't tell us much. The only fight that Tyson had within 4 years prior to meeting Mathis, involved a single round against Peter Mcneeley, yet Mike managed to destroy Buster with little trouble. Although Mathis was not even remotely the same level of fighter that Frazier was, this is still a somewhat weak example.



A fair enough defense on your part, except I never said Tyson would be impervious to Frazier's punches, or any of his skills for that matter. In fact, I'm not even trying to guarantee that Tyson would even beat him.. I'm simply stating that I would have to give Mike the edge.




To each his own I guess. I however, find it difficult to make such strident claims, given that neither of these men ever really fought someone of the other's description.







Agreed,

nice performance on Tyson's part. You have to take into consideration, however that Carl Williams was highly suseptible to being floored by the left hook. In fact, the vast majority of the knockdowns, or knockouts, that he sustained throughout his career, were left hook induced. Tyson hit him at the right time with a monster punch, and that was all she wrote. While I'm not taking anything away from Mike's performance that evening, I firmly believe that most fighters with a reasonably good left could have done that to Carl. Look at how an aging Weaver demolished what was possibly an even better version of the Truth, 3 years earlier...




Sonny,

Give me a break will ya?? Buster Douglas had a notorious reputation for quitting and had losses to Ferguson, White, and Bey, plus a draw with Tangstad. His only decent wins were primarily decisions over a few pastprime fighters, and his activity levels hadn't been much prior to the Tyson fight.

If you were a bookie in Vegas, what kind of odds would you have given the guy, even you saw Tyson past out drunk on a park bench two days earlier?



See the above statement...




I don't give two shits about his personal life either, in fact I've always viewed the guy as one of boxing's biggest assholes. The sad fact of the matter, however is that a fighter's life outside the ring has every bit as much to do with how successful he is, as what he does inside the ropes. Seeing as how you grew up in the 80's as did I, we both saw a lot of these morons mess up their lives with bullshit that we can't even begin to imagine. While I hold them entirely responsible for their actions, I still have to pick the better versions of themselves, when sizing them up in these fantasy matchups.


All fair points, mr magoo. :good

If I'm being a bit over-zealous in my insistence on a Frazier win I guess it's because I entered this thread against an over-whelming amount of picks for Tyson. With the majority saying "Tyson, early KO" I get the impression that Frazier's strengths are being overlooked and his weaknesses exaggerated, and the opposite being applied to Tyson. That's just the impression I get. Personally, it's not a fight I'd expect Tyson to win at all.

BTW, keep up the good work with the avatars. You've uncovered some real jaw-droppers in recent weeks. :shock:

[MachineGunMitch]

Tyson by an ear.........

[mr. magoo]

All fair points, mr magoo. :good

If I'm being a bit over-zealous in my insistence on a Frazier win I guess it's because I entered this thread against an over-whelming amount of picks for Tyson. With the majority saying "Tyson, early KO" I get the impression that Frazier's strengths are being overlooked and his weaknesses exaggerated, and the opposite being applied to Tyson. That's just the impression I get. Personally, it's not a fight I'd expect Tyson to win at all.

BTW, keep up the good work with the avatars. You've uncovered some real jaw-droppers in recent weeks. :shock:

Understood and agreed.

Frazier unfortunately, is too underrated on this forum, and I'm not exactly sure why. Personally, I think he's one of the greatest fighters of all time, I just feel however that against certain men, he matches up poorly from styles point of view.

I'll try to carry on with the avators as well :good

[MachineGunMitch]

I like your avatar Mr Magoo.......
Frazier is very much underrated on the forum,maybe because Forman had his number?
Tyson is very much overrated in the forum,I cant even think of
any fighter Tyson beat that was really even in the league of the fighters Frazier fought - Frazier fought many top ten ATG's,Tyson hasent fought 1 ATG ,well maybe Holyfield but Holy kicked his ass....

[jasonrhodes]

Tyson has a completely different style from Foreman.
the point isn't about styles...the point is that while frazier's willingness to take leather in order to land leather worked with just about everyone in the game, foreman brought power to the table that frazier (and just about everyone else) couldn't cope with. tyson's power is in the foreman category, and frazier would find himself unable to trade with tyson. frazier was also typically a slow starter--he often lost the first round of fights he went on to win, while tyson, of course, was one of the most dangerous first round fighters of all time. but hell, frazier was a warrior. and do you remember the moment in the first tyson-ruddock fight where ruddock nailed tyson with a few good shots & it was clear that with one or two more similar shots, tyson would be ready to go? you can be sure that if frazier put tyson in a similar position, he'd be able to finish him. i think tyson's speed and power would overwhelm frazier, but i must say that frazier was mentally tough and one of the fiercest competitors in the history of the sport, whereas tyson was never much for overcoming adversity in the ring. if frazier could survive the early rounds, he'd have a real shot, but that's a big if if we're talking about mike tyson at the top of his game. joe frazier would definitely have been far and away the biggest challenge a young mike tyson ever faced.

[Sonny's jab]

Anyways the notion that Frazier was a slow starter has more to do with his style than anything. Frazier never started fights intentionally slow; he pretty much uses the opening rounds to sync his bob and weave with his opponents timing so he can catch a rhythm. If he is able to do so immediately then you have fights like Bob Foster, Quarry II, etc. where he shows early success.

HOBGOBLIN stated that Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was more effective than Tyson's SPORADIC Bob and weave.

Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was actually quite predicatable which is why early on in fights he would seldom win the first round mostly to adjust his timing on his bob and weave. Its effectiveness didnt lie in that method rather it relied on the consistency of that method to truly work. Consistent pressure followed by perputual motion forced fighters to eventually fight Joe's fight and it made them uncomfortable doing so (to Joe's credit). Joe was never known for his right hand, he was notoriously known for his left hook yet despite this knowledge oppenents were seldom able to stop him. As rounds progressed Joe doesnt necessarily get better or do anything spectacular rather he continues to apply the
SAME constant pressure that he's been applying from the start that DOES NOT allow his opponents to rest or change the pace of the fight without getting nailed often which is what eventually breaks down his opponents and see's Joe to victory.

Good example of that is the Miguel Cotto Zab Judah fight. We all know that Zab is the more skiled of the two but Cotto's consistent pressure is what Zab couldnt handle, he could have thrown more punches but Cotto's pressure and relentless aggression made Zab think twice about opening up and taking advantages of the openings there in the same manner that Frazier does to his opponents.

Tyson on the other hand uses his SPORADIC bob and weave which I find more effective because; its economical (he only bobs and weaves when he needs to). It always leaves him in a position to punch and to counter (hence the impeccable accuracy) and eliminates the need for a feel out process which is why Mike always started Fast. Most importantly it allows him to create openings rather than to take advantage of them.


The problem with Joe's constant bob and weave is that it takes time depending on the opponent to become very effective. With Foreman he didnt have that time he needed to get Foreman's timing down. If he did or if George started out a bit slower it would have been George laying on the the canvas in Jamaica. Fortunately for George, his superhuman punching power kept Frazier occupied and hurt long enough to get a stoppage before Joe started to get insync and "smoke."

Now, Tyson never fought a guy that resemebled Frazier in style, well no one significant anyway. So if these two met it comes down to how their styles are going to mesh.

The bob and weave loses its effectiveness when fighting someone who's similar in height so Joe would have to adjust his style.

So what it comes down to is;

you have a fighter on one corner who had successive pressure and relentlessness coupled with the mental strength of an imprisioned future leader facing a fighter in another corner whose combination of speed and power is almost unparallel, has the ability to endure physical punishment beyond reason and in his prime had confidence that bordered on arrogant.

That being said neither fighter is going to back off.

I tried thinking about this objectively. I didnt want think about what Frazier would do to Mike without taking into account what Mike would do in return and vice versa. And the more I think about it; I think Tyson would hurt Joe and finish him off before Joe gets a chance to "smoke."
Frazier just won't weather the storm.


Tyson KO inside 4.

Good points. :good

I think your analysis of the styles is correct. Where I differ from you is in that I think Joe Frazier's bob-and-weave would be less of a factor in his overall defense against Tyson than it normally was.
Frazier would never stop bobbing and weaving, and I broadly agree that he took a round or two to sync its timing to be most effective against the tempo of his opponent, but against a similarly short and stocky fighter I believe his ABILITY TO CROWD will come into play.

I think a large part of George Foreman's success against Joe Frazier was his brute shoving strength. Being tall and throwing long powerful punches would not have won Foreman the fight if he hadn't the overwhelming brute strength to push Frazier back a foot or two whenever Frazier got through.
Mike Tyson lacked the strength - or more specifically, the strength and body mechanics - to do this.
So I think it's fair to assume Frazier would get to lay on the inside from time to time.

On the inside I think Frazier is the better fighter. Tyson liked a bit of daylight between himself and his opponents to land his bombs. Tyson also used a weak stance on the inside, standing with his feet square-on and often too upright. Frazier had his right leg back and bent when at close quarters, OR he had his upper body bent right over and leaning down, his head pinned on his opponent's chest. Frazier was very relaxed on the inside, and very busy, in his element. I'd actually expect him to render Tyson almost completely uneffective at such close quarters, and Tyson would be straining to keep his balance with Frazier pushing him back. Maybe Tyson could clinch and wait for "break!" but that doesn't win fights.

At their best, both these men are under-rated as far as their ability to box and jab and I think Frazier's footwork and footspeed especially is over-looked, Tyson's less so. Obviously I feel Tyson's best chances lie on him producing the right moves on the outside and at mid-range but I dont think he could out-jab Frazier even if he attempted to. I can imagine him scoring with devastating hooks from mid-range and his punches may well carry more explosives than even Frazier's, but the greater volume of left hooks flying through the air would be coming from Frazier's end of the field - same with body shots. So, while I imagine this mid-range fighting to be the area where Tyson can stun and hurt Frazier early, and get through Frazier's initiatially "predictable" bob-and-weave, I see the risk of Tyson getting caught and momentarily stunned coming in as very high too. Unlike Frank Bruno and Tony Tucker, who both seemed a little startled as they caught Tyson while retreating on their back foots, Frazier's on a hurt Tyson in an instant.

And like I said, Frazier's getting through to crowd and punish Tyson on the inside is NOT reliant on him catching Tyson at all at mid-range. In fact, if I were to imagine Tyson having complete dominance at mid-range, I still imagine a hurt Frazier getting in close enough to first nullify and then dominate Tyson.
Tyson hasn't the strength and levers to do a Foreman-esque shoving technique.

Tyson's defense/offense (a slick gliding weave-and-weave with a bob or two and topped with a combo) may well eliminate the need for a feeling out process, and create openings, but his rhythm could be disturbed. I think Frazier's ability to crowd would cause major interference to Tyson's method. And when the going gets messy, Frazier's proven toughness and temperament is bankable against Tyson's.

This is the way I see it, objectively.

After 3 or 4 rounds it becomes painful for Tyson, and I'd expect Frazier to be showing no mercy. Rounds 5 - 9 are all Frazier, if Tyson gets that far, and I wouldn't expect it to last into the 10th.

[ChrisPontius]

If I'm being a bit over-zealous in my insistence on a Frazier win I guess it's because I entered this thread against an over-whelming amount of picks for Tyson. With the majority saying "Tyson, early KO" I get the impression that Frazier's strengths are being overlooked and his weaknesses exaggerated, and the opposite being applied to Tyson. That's just the impression I get.

I think that's because of the following reasons:

-Fraziers weakness is that he takes 2 or more punches to land one of his own. This works against most boxers but is less succesful against someone with absolute top shelf power, which make no mistake about, Tyson has. Frazier won't take a step back or clinch.
-Frazier is a slow starter and has shown this in most of his fights. Ali threw 80 punches during each of the first four rounds yet Frazier kept his cool and started to "smoke" only after that
-Fraziers strengths: determination, stamina, heart, pressure only come in after the 5th.
-Tyson's weakness was when jabbed at, being tied up early on often, being shoved back and tended to fade a bit in the later rounds. Frazier does none of those.
-Tysons strengths were an extraordinairy fast start, great handspeed and power, excellent chin during the first 5 rounds.


In other words, because of the nature of Fraziers fight game, Tyson will be coming on strongest at the start when Frazier is at his weakest, and what's more, Fraziers tendency of taking some licks to get in, not tie him up etc will cost him.
Fraziers strengths will only come into play after the 5th or so and frankly i don't see him getting there because of the reasons lined out above. If he does then certainly he will win, because that's when Tyson will break down.

[godking]

Tyson very bad style matchup for Frazier.

And no Frazier is not going to win because he is menatlly stronger or Tyson has no heart ect.

To discourage Tyson you have to stop him from landing on you and frustate him.

Frazier with his style cannot stop Tyson from landing consistently

as long as a peak Tyson can hit you cositenly he is not going to get discouraged.

[ironchamp]

Agreed. You produced a very thoughtful, insightful, well-articulated analysis, ironchamp. Sonny's jab, I will defer to your superior expertise to make any further rebuttals on behalf of Frazier. I'll just sit back and enjoy whatever exchanges you and ironchamp might have remaining.

This dialogue between Sonny's jab and ironchamp represent the Classic Forum at it's very best, the reason I was able to lurk on this site for so long before joining as a participant. Reading name-calling and insults can be funny, but I come to this forum to read intelligent discussion.

If the two of you continue producing such well-considered analysis and counterpoints like this, I'll be perfectly content to remain a hidden spectator.

Thank you

[ironchamp]

accidental post

[ironchamp]

accidental post

[ironchamp]

Good points. :good

I think your analysis of the styles is correct. Where I differ from you is in that I think Joe Frazier's bob-and-weave would be less of a factor in his overall defense against Tyson than it normally was.
Frazier would never stop bobbing and weaving, and I broadly agree that he took a round or two to sync its timing to be most effective against the tempo of his opponent, but against a similarly short and stocky fighter I believe his ABILITY TO CROWD will come into play.

I think a large part of George Foreman's success against Joe Frazier was his brute shoving strength. Being tall and throwing long powerful punches would not have won Foreman the fight if he hadn't the overwhelming brute strength to push Frazier back a foot or two whenever Frazier got through.
Mike Tyson lacked the strength - or more specifically, the strength and body mechanics - to do this.
So I think it's fair to assume Frazier would get to lay on the inside from time to time.

On the inside I think Frazier is the better fighter. Tyson liked a bit of daylight between himself and his opponents to land his bombs. Tyson also used a weak stance on the inside, standing with his feet square-on and often too upright. Frazier had his right leg back and bent when at close quarters, OR he had his upper body bent right over and leaning down, his head pinned on his opponent's chest. Frazier was very relaxed on the inside, and very busy, in his element. I'd actually expect him to render Tyson almost completely uneffective at such close quarters, and Tyson would be straining to keep his balance with Frazier pushing him back. Maybe Tyson could clinch and wait for "break!" but that doesn't win fights.

At their best, both these men are under-rated as far as their ability to box and jab and I think Frazier's footwork and footspeed especially is over-looked, Tyson's less so. Obviously I feel Tyson's best chances lie on him producing the right moves on the outside and at mid-range but I dont think he could out-jab Frazier even if he attempted to. I can imagine him scoring with devastating hooks from mid-range and his punches may well carry more explosives than even Frazier's, but the greater volume of left hooks flying through the air would be coming from Frazier's end of the field - same with body shots. So, while I imagine this mid-range fighting to be the area where Tyson can stun and hurt Frazier early, and get through Frazier's initiatially "predictable" bob-and-weave, I see the risk of Tyson getting caught and momentarily stunned coming in as very high too. Unlike Frank Bruno and Tony Tucker, who both seemed a little startled as they caught Tyson while retreating on their back foots, Frazier's on a hurt Tyson in an instant.

And like I said, Frazier's getting through to crowd and punish Tyson on the inside is NOT reliant on him catching Tyson at all at mid-range. In fact, if I were to imagine Tyson having complete dominance at mid-range, I still imagine a hurt Frazier getting in close enough to first nullify and then dominate Tyson.
Tyson hasn't the strength and levers to do a Foreman-esque shoving technique.

Tyson's defense/offense (a slick gliding weave-and-weave with a bob or two and topped with a combo) may well eliminate the need for a feeling out process, and create openings, but his rhythm could be disturbed. I think Frazier's ability to crowd would cause major interference to Tyson's method. And when the going gets messy, Frazier's proven toughness and temperament is bankable against Tyson's.

This is the way I see it, objectively.

After 3 or 4 rounds it becomes painful for Tyson, and I'd expect Frazier to be showing no mercy. Rounds 5 - 9 are all Frazier, if Tyson gets that far, and I wouldn't expect it to last into the 10th.


Good analysis,

I agree with the fact that as a busier fighter Frazier's best move would be to crowd Tyson and smother his shots while wearing Mike down. I can't help but picture a scenario where Frazier gets caught on the way in and given how accurate a puncher Tyson is its really not out of the question.

Your analysis suggests despite the punishment, Frazier will dictate the pace of the fight. Its plausible and it actually does illustrate your point of how Joe crowding Mike will disrupt Tyson's rhythm. That is true after all Tyson and most swarmers are best suited for beating boxers not necessarily other swarmers and the more I think about it, the fight probably wouldnt have the same visual beauty that Ali Frazier produced simply because I can easily see an ugly fight with some brilliant highlight reels.

My question is at somepoint Frazier, on the way in, will get hit- and not just hard but Mike Tyson hard. At some point Tyson is most likely going to step to the side or take a step back to generate space to unleash a combination. Do you honestly see Frazier going 4 rounds without being rocked?

I dont. And because of that I think that not only will Tyson rock him but he'll probably smell blood and finish him off.

[Sonny's jab]

I think that's because of the following reasons:

-Fraziers weakness is that he takes 2 or more punches to land one of his own.

I dont think this is accurate. Obviously it depends on the skill, style, speed and reach of the opponent. Maybe Frazier took 2 or 3 punches at times from Muhammad Ali to land 1 of his own, but that's against Muhammad Ali only.


This works against most boxers but is less succesful against someone with absolute top shelf power, which make no mistake about, Tyson has. Frazier won't take a step back or clinch.


I dont think he's going to take more punches from Tyson than he's going to land.
Again, I think it is being implied that Frazier's defense was shit, (whereas Tyson's was brilliant ?). I think this an unfair assessment.


-Frazier is a slow starter and has shown this in most of his fights. Ali threw 80 punches during each of the first four rounds yet Frazier kept his cool and started to "smoke" only after that


First of all, Frazier was drilling Ali's body with hard hooks from the get-go in reality.
Ali was Ali : he threw long laser-guided straight punches from long range in barrages of 4,5,6 before Frazier was even close enough to land his body shots.
Tyson is Tyson : he's a short-armed fighter, it would be physically impossible for him to replicate the method by which Ali landed that much on Frazier.
Also, I think people overlook how much Frazier actually slipped in his prime fights.


-Fraziers strengths: determination, stamina, heart, pressure only come in after the 5th.


That's basically saying anyone who was battered or beaten by Frazier earlier than the 6th round was struggling against an "average" fighter ??
Jimmy Ellis, George Chuvalo, Jerry Quarry (1974) were all beaten in the 4th and 5th rounds and were good fighters.
Frazier was a class act and had immense talent and strengths from the opening bell onwards.


-Tyson's weakness was when jabbed at, being tied up early on often, being shoved back and tended to fade a bit in the later rounds. Frazier does none of those.


I've already covered in depth how I think this match-up of styles pan out. I think Tyson had a weak stance on the inside and was not comfortable as an infighter. I think he would be pushed back by Frazier who would have his head pinned on Tyson's chest. The last thing in the world Frazier would want to do is clinch in close - that's exactly where he needs his hands free for punching.


-Tysons strengths were an extraordinairy fast start, great handspeed and power, excellent chin during the first 5 rounds.


Right. And the rest. Tyson had plentiful array of strengths and skills, as did Joe Frazier.


In other words, because of the nature of Fraziers fight game, Tyson will be coming on strongest at the start when Frazier is at his weakest, and what's more, Fraziers tendency of taking some licks to get in, not tie him up etc will cost him.


I disagree. Frazier would pose more puzzles for Tyson's style than Tyson poses for Frazier's, IMO.
Tyson's fast start would rock Frazier, but Frazier's drive forward and infighting superiority would disturb Tyson's rhythm terrible.
Frazier doesn't need to clinch or tie Tyson up - in fact, Tyson would be better advised to do that, and i dont see it winning him the fight.


Fraziers strengths will only come into play after the 5th or so and frankly i don't see him getting there because of the reasons lined out above. If he does then certainly he will win, because that's when Tyson will break down.


The 5th round is where I think Tyson would begin to wilt, he'd be lucky to last much longer, IMO, and wouldn't make it to the 10th.

[Sonny's jab]

Good analysis,

I agree with the fact that as a busier fighter Frazier's best move would be to crowd Tyson and smother his shots while wearing Mike down. I can't help but picture a scenario where Frazier gets caught on the way in and given how accurate a puncher Tyson is its really not out of the question.

Your analysis suggests despite the punishment, Frazier will dictate the pace of the fight. Its plausible and it actually does illustrate your point of how Joe crowding Mike will disrupt Tyson's rhythm. That is true after all Tyson and most swarmers are best suited for beating boxers not necessarily other swarmers and the more I think about it, the fight probably wouldnt have the same visual beauty that Ali Frazier produced simply because I can easily see an ugly fight with some brilliant highlight reels.


Agreed. It would be messy.



My question is at somepoint Frazier, on the way in, will get hit- and not just hard but Mike Tyson hard. At some point Tyson is most likely going to step to the side or take a step back to generate space to unleash a combination. Do you honestly see Frazier going 4 rounds without being rocked?


I see him getting rocked. I dont see him getting rocked and prevented from retaliating though, as Foreman could do. Foreman had him up and down like a yo-yo but Frazier was still closing on Foreman, only to be shoved back. When Frazier closes on Tyson - which he could do however much you can imagine Tyson hurting him - he's going to pin Tyson and put some serious hurt back on Mikey.

This will become a pattern. Tyson could step back or to the side to unleash a bomb, as he did at times to the likes of Thomas & Berbick, but it will be a hell of a lot more difficult against Frazier, and all the while Frazier is up close he is doing real damage, to Tyson's body and soul.

Frazier's gonna grind it out.


I dont. And because of that I think that not only will Tyson rock him but he'll probably smell blood and finish him off.


Foreman smelled blood, and had all the physical attributes to bludgeon Frazier without much risk of being hurt himself, and used the shove whenever Frazier closed, and STILL he didn't have Frazier finished quickly after initially flooring him.
While Tyson sees red and attempts to "finish him", (if indeed he gets Frazier that hurt) Frazier's going to close on him and when he does you better believe he's gonna hurt Mikey. I cant see it any other way. Joe Frazier was Joe Frazier after all. He's not going to pass up a chance of hurting a guy back, a guy who isn't too comfortable or well-balanced on the inside, Frazier's gonna rip some in of his own.

[hobgoblin]

Sonny's jab: I agree with your scenario about Frazier overcrowding Mike Tyson and dominating on the inside fighting. Only a fool would overlook the returns of consistent body punching but I do think Frazier will have trouble getting to Tyson's chin - and this is problematic for Smokin' Joe.

As you know, Joe Frazier had very bad vision on one eye particularly and this is why he relied so much on the left hook. Mike Tyson was pretty good at avoiding left hooks and all of Tyson's conquerors got to him with either a right hand or an uppercut - not the left hook. So with what punches will Joe catch Tyson's chin with? I don't see the left hook, don't see much of the right or the uppercuts?

Body punches would slow down Tyson to make him susceptible for the hook later on - but we need to slow him down quickly before the damage he does early is too great. Tyson IMO had the superior arsenal of weapons and he could use his punching power as stopping power too.

[prime]

Both come in feeling out with the jab, and then:

Tyson's two-handed attack, with greater power, one, two, three, four, five swift, murderous, VARIED punches gets to Joe's solid chin before his one dimensional attack (swift, powerful left hook) begins to get to Mike's iron-cast jaw. Mike blows Joe out before other factors can come into play.

I greatly admire Joe Frazier, but, simply, Mike Tyson was the greater wrecking machine.

[la-califa]

Mike's Iron cast jaw!? Holyfield knocked him into next week & he's a blown up Cruiserweight! When was the first time Tyson really got tagged?

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Sonny's jab]Agreed. It would be messy.



LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry Sonny, but I can't believe after three days, you're still at it with this thread...

Carry on old chap!!!!!!! :good

[hobgoblin]

Mike's Iron cast jaw!? Holyfield knocked him into next week & he's a blown up Cruiserweight! When was the first time Tyson really got tagged?

Tyson was tagged many times and showed again and again that his chin was 8/10. Not one of the best of all time- but granite nevertheless. Chin was never his limiting factor - it was something else. Remember, Holyfield also decked the granite chinned Ray Mercer and hurt iron chinned George Foreman. Though Foreman was 76 years old at the time, he did have 43 years of rest and still retained his chin at the time.

No offense, but as soon as someone refers to Holyfield as a "blown up cruiserweight" to imply that Holy wasn't the Real Deal - I begin to question if the chap is legit or not.

[tommygun711]

I think Frazier outlast Tyson and ko's him late.

[leverage]

Frazier gets ko'd early. In tyson "smokin joe" would be going toe to toe against someone bigger, faster, and stronger. Frazier was not a one punch ko artist like tyson was, contrary to what many believed. He wore his opponents down through through steady pressure until they had nothing less, then he took them out.

Tysons power, however, was downright frightning. And what made him even more scary was the speed with which his bombs were delivered. Fraziers style was to take three punches to deliver one but that would spell suicide against "kid dynamite".

Based on these facts, i couldn't see frazier lasting past the third round, perhaps not even the 2nd.

[PetethePrince]

Frazier is so open to that uppercut, just like how his son was. Mike knows that and will capitalize. My prediction is the same as Iron Champ. A KO inside 4 rounds.

[ATP]

Frazier gets ko'd early. In tyson "smokin joe" would be going toe to toe against someone bigger, faster, and stronger. Frazier was not a one punch ko artist like tyson was, contrary to what many believed. He wore his opponents down through through steady pressure until they had nothing less, then he took them out.

Tysons power, however, was downright frightning. And what made him even more scary was the speed with which his bombs were delivered. Fraziers style was to take three punches to deliver one but that would spell suicide against "kid dynamite".

Based on these facts, i couldn't see frazier lasting past the third round, perhaps not even the 2nd.





:good Great Post



Simple, to the point

[madballster]

Prime Frazier would be KOd by even the 90s version of Iron Mike. Joe is simply outmatched in all departments: chin, punch, accuracy, footwork. What advantage does Joe have over Tyson? None. No reach, no specific punch, no weight/range control. Nothing.

In fact I don't think Frazier would last through round 2.

[Kalasinn]

Frazier is so open to that uppercut, just like how his son was. Mike knows that and will capitalize. My prediction is the same as Iron Champ. A KO inside 4 rounds.
I agree with this, as much as I rate Frazier this just seems to me like a match-up from hell for him, with only Foreman being worse.

[duran duran]

tyson at his peak wins early too big too fast too skilful it will be foreman all over again probably quicker yet joe always would have given ali a seriously hard fight same with larry holmes he was better against boxers than punchers.

[round15]

If super cruiserweight Evander Holyfield can bully Tyson around and beat him twice, albeit the second time illegally with the HolyHeadButt, why wouldn't Frazier, who was an actual heavyweight with a heavyweight punch be able to do the same? Too many people here righting off Joe as if he would fight with his face and crumble under Tyson's power in the early rounds. What evidence suggests Tyson would be able to survive the pressure and pace of a prime Joe Frazier? Sure, Milke could have Joe down on the canvas once or twice early in the fight because Joe is vulnerable than most heavyweights in the early rounds. I'd also bet on prime Frazier putting Tyson's butt on the canvas early in the fight too, just like the Holyfield counter shot to the chest that dropped Mike in their first fight. What's forgotten is the fact that there's a big difference between the conditioning of the late 60s - FOTC Frazier vs the 1973 version that George destroyed. Tyson doesn't have the size advantage that Foreman brought when they fought, and any smart boxing fan will know that George didn't fight the same fighter that Ali and others did previously.

Tyson probably stops the 1973 Frazier that George beat, maybe inside 5 rounds. Prime for prime, I'd take Frazier to outlast Tyson's early power and grind him down with body shots, ultimately stopping Tyson before the bell for round 10. Frazier had strong legs and shoulders in his prime and he wasn't going to get pushed around as easily. Foreman probably would have still been able to push this version of Frazier around like he did in1973, but I'd bet on Frazier fighting Foreman like he did Chuvalo, with more circling, countering and pressure in spurts when he was pressured himself.

[Unforgiven]

Frazier got up six times against Foreman and was still coming in, and Foreman outmatched him immensely in strength and size. Foreman's about 6'4 and can keep Frazier off him with his shoving.

Even if Tyson has the firepower and aggression to begin to overwhelm Frazier early, how's he going to react when Frazier just piles back in and lands his own vicious shots ?

For a start Tyson just never proved himself against this caliber of opponent, and got KO'd by less intense fighters.

Frazier was just better in a brawl. Sure, he could be shook up early, but Tyson was no Foreman, nothing close. Tyson was a short-armed guy who looked great taking apart guys like Mikey Spink and Tony Tubbs, but in a knock-down drag-out brawl with Joe Frazier I think he'd fade and fold after a few rounds.

No evidence whatsoever to suggest that Tyson can do a quick job on Frazier like Foreman did. Foreman was a different style, different animal altogether.

[lefthook31]

Frazier got up six times against Foreman and was still coming in, and Foreman outmatched him immensely in strength and size. Foreman's about 6'4 and can keep Frazier off him with his shoving.

Even if Tyson has the firepower and aggression to begin to overwhelm Frazier early, how's he going to react when Frazier just piles back in and lands his own vicious shots ?

For a start Tyson just never proved himself against this caliber of opponent, and got KO'd by less intense fighters.

Frazier was just better in a brawl. Sure, he could be shook up early, but Tyson was no Foreman, nothing close. Tyson was a short-armed guy who looked great taking apart guys like Mikey Spink and Tony Tubbs, but in a knock-down drag-out brawl with Joe Frazier I think he'd fade and fold after a few rounds.

No evidence whatsoever to suggest that Tyson can do a quick job on Frazier like Foreman did. Foreman was a different style, different animal altogether.

Tyson punched harder than Foreman and was a far better finisher. Frazier wouldnt be getting up six times if Tyson hurt him.

[itrymariti]

Tyson punched harder than Foreman and was a far better finisher. Frazier wouldnt be getting up six times if Tyson hurt him.

That makes no sense.

[lefthook31]

That makes no sense.
Why not, please explain..

[mcvey]

Frazier got hurt badly and decked by Bonavena and Foreman, but NEVER counted out.

Tyson got beat crap out of and KO'd by Buster Douglas, never got off the deck to win a fight, and showed signs of losing confidence and/or momentum whenever he was in a really tough fight.

It's odd that so many people seem to see Frazier as the "vulnerable" one in this match up. His ability to withstand the rigours of battle is far more proven that Tyson's.

Using all proven form as evidence, Frazier's got to be favoured here.
Frazier met one real puncher ,he used Joe as a yo yo.Bonavena was a decent clubbing puncher ,but nothing special, he dropped Joe twice.
Tyson hits harder , is a two fisted puncher,has faster hands, absorbed the punches of heavy duty punchers like Bruno,Ruddock ,and Smith, without going down,he would be the favourite here ,and prove why on the night.

[lefthook31]

Frazier met one real puncher ,he used Joe as a yo yo.Bonavena was a decent clubbing puncher ,but nothing special, he dropped Joe twice.
Tyson hits harder , is a two fisted puncher,has faster hands, absorbed the punches of heavy duty punchers like Bruno,Ruddock ,and Smith, without going down,he would be the favourite here ,and prove why on the night.
:deal Not to mention Tyson was one of the best finishers in heavyweight history once he had his opponent hurt.

[spion]

I don't believe that Tyson hit harder than Foreman. Crisper and faster but not with the impact of a Foreman shot. Not to belittle Tyson whom I feel was one helluva fighter, much of those early round KO's came against dubious competion in the beginning of his career or against fighters overmatched like Mike Spinks or an unprepared and older Larry Holmes.

Tyson would indeed start fast as he only had one style and if he couldn't force his will and his stlye on you, he was in trouble and pretty much the same for Frazier. Joe might catch a shot early and hit the deck but I don't see Tyson being able to stop him for good. The longer the fight goes the better it is for Frazier. Not only is it styles but the fighters mental attitude that matters and Joe has no quit no matter if a guy keeps firing or not. (I don't see Tyson getting up five or six times against Big George that kept putting Frazier on the mat). I think it is a close pitched battle in a ring that wouldn't need to be more than 18 feet! Fortitude wise Joe would come out on top. He was used to being in a shitstorm of punches and wouldn't back away from the trenches. Fraziers willpower was stronger than Mikes.

[lefthook31]

I don't believe that Tyson hit harder than Foreman. Crisper and faster but not with the impact of a Foreman shot. Not to belittle Tyson whom I feel was one helluva fighter, much of those early round KO's came against dubious competion in the beginning of his career or against fighters overmatched like Mike Spinks or an unprepared and older Larry Holmes.

Tyson would indeed start fast as he only had one style and if he couldn't force his will and his stlye on you, he was in trouble and pretty much the same for Frazier. Joe might catch a shot early and hit the deck but I don't see Tyson being able to stop him for good. The longer the fight goes the better it is for Frazier. Not only is it styles but the fighters mental attitude that matters and Joe has no quit no matter if a guy keeps firing or not. (I don't see Tyson getting up five or six times against Big George that kept putting Frazier on the mat). I think it is a close pitched battle in a ring that wouldn't need to be more than 18 feet! Fortitude wise Joe would come out on top. He was used to being in a shitstorm of punches and wouldn't back away from the trenches. Fraziers willpower was stronger than Mikes.
Those two words equate to harder in my opinion (maybe not the force of one blow), and why next to noone made it once they were hurt by Tyson.
Will means little when your unconscious. What makes people think Frazier gets up if he gets hurt and flattened with a Tyson combination?

[Unforgiven]

Tyson punched harder than Foreman and was a far better finisher. Frazier wouldnt be getting up six times if Tyson hurt him.

I disagree.

[spion]

Larry Holmes, after his loss to Tyson said that Earnie Shaver hit harder but that Tyson's punches were faster and sharper. I know what he means. I've been caught with both kinds of punches. The fast ones stun you and some people get stiffed. Other heavier shots put you temporarily in another world. No sound, everything is in black and white and you are on autopilot. Now granted if Tyson caught you with several in a row it is more likely he could stop somone. Joe was only stopped by Foreman and as I mentioned I don't see Tyson being able to withstand that onslaught the way Frazier did. Joe was mentally tougher and I think in this instance his willpower would overcome Tyson. He would outlast Mike in my opinion.

[Unforgiven]

Will means little when your unconscious. What makes people think Frazier gets up if he gets hurt and flattened with a Tyson combination?

What makes you think he doesn't ?
Frazier always got up.

Tyson rarely put good opponents down and out with one punch or one combination. Even most of the tomato cans got up (and Tyson fought his fair share of them).
And Frazier was no upright statue just standing there to get drilled by Tyson's best shots. Frazier's bobbing underneath and hitting Tyson with hooks while all this is going on.

[lefthook31]

Larry Holmes, after his loss to Tyson said that Earnie Shaver hit harder but that Tyson's punches were faster and sharper. I know what he means. I've been caught with both kinds of punches. The fast ones stun you and some people get stiffed. Other heavier shots put you temporarily in another world. No sound, everything is in black and white and you are on autopilot. Now granted if Tyson caught you with several in a row it is more likely he could stop somone. Joe was only stopped by Foreman and as I mentioned I don't see Tyson being able to withstand that onslaught the way Frazier did. Joe was mentally tougher and I think in this instance his willpower would overcome Tyson. He would outlast Mike in my opinion.
Yes, you know whats it like to get hit, as I do. I agree with what you said, and I think that explains it very well. Thats why I added Tyson was a tremendous finisher once he hurt someone. He had the ability to put his punches together to stop his opponents and thats why you rarely saw his opponents survive one or two knockdowns. He didnt really knock guys out like George did, he stopped them with multiple shots as they were frozen.

[lefthook31]

What makes you think he doesn't ?
Frazier always got up.

Tyson rarely put good opponents down and out with one punch or one combination. Even most of the tomato cans got up (and Tyson fought his fair share of them).
And Frazier was no upright statue just standing there to get drilled by Tyson's best shots. Frazier's bobbing underneath and hitting Tyson with hooks while all this is going on.
I explained my point a little better above. Guys did get up, but rarely more than twice. I believe Ruddock was the only one who got up twice, to finish a fight with Tyson, but he was never hurt badly in those knockdowns.
Frazier was stopped by Foreman what makes you think Tyson doesnt stop him if he hurts him?

[spion]

So then it all comes down to you think Tyson wins and I believe Frazier wears him down like Holyfield did after a big firefight in the early going. Cool. I'm not out to force my opinion on anyone, just present a scenario that I think would happen from what I have witnessed and experienced. Thanks for discussing it and reading what my thoughts are.

[lefthook31]

So then it all comes down to you think Tyson wins and I believe Frazier wears him down like Holyfield did after a big firefight in the early going. Cool. I'm not out to force my opinion on anyone, just present a scenario that I think would happen from what I have witnessed and experienced. Thanks for discussing it and reading what my thoughts are.
Yeah its all good. This is a boxing forum, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We are discussing fights that anything could have happened right? Historically boxing has been full of upsets and unexpected outcomes especially on this level of skill.
I would venture to guess you are above 45 years of age??

[spion]

Nope, not yet but I have always enjoyed the sport and began watching when I was a kid. Finally got into the ring as a teenager and been off and on since. Had the fantastic fortune to meet many great fighters (amongst them Joe Frazier ironically) and have been very impressed with their generosity, humor and perspectives on life. Other sports are so different from boxing. I played football for years. You go into a great training facility, clean and nice. You get out onto the field that is trimmed and marked with bright colors. Then you get into boxing. You walk into a gym where either hip hop or rhythm and blues is blaring. The rhythmic sound of the speed bag and jump ropes. The smell of sweat , leather and vaseline. Unless you love the sport you wonder what the draw is lol.

[mcvey]

Yes, you know whats it like to get hit, as I do. I agree with what you said, and I think that explains it very well. Thats why I added Tyson was a tremendous finisher once he hurt someone. He had the ability to put his punches together to stop his opponents and thats why you rarely saw his opponents survive one or two knockdowns. He didnt really knock guys out like George did, he stopped them with multiple shots as they were frozen.
The way he finished Pinklon Thomas was clinical execution.

[lefthook31]

Yes it is strange how appealing that is. The first gym I ever spent a lot of time in was my favorite. It was at the top of an old two story building, no windows, no a/c, just an open door with an iron staircase leading to the ground. It was hot as hell, and I had to spray myself down to keep the mosquitos off, but it was the best gym I ever worked out in.

[spion]

Amazing isn't it? I started in a Salvation Army gym. Not glamorous at all but still the draw is there for some of us to keep coming back. :good

[leverage]

Tyson and foreman were both terrific punchers but tysons punches were sharper and had more snap because of the speed factor. Foreman, on the other hand, was more of a clubbing type of puncher who moved his opponents with the strength of his punches. Rarely did you see foreman kayo an opponent with one punch, although he certainly put them on queer street.

[leverage]

<P>Tyson was a sharper puncher than foreman and had more snap due to the speed factor. Foreman was a great puncher but was more of a clubbing type of puncher who moved his opponents mostly by the strength of his punche. Unlike tyson, he rarely kayod his foes with one punch, even though one was usually all it took to put them on queer street.</P>

[itrymariti]

Why not, please explain..

If Foreman knocks a guy down and he keeps getting back up, and Foreman keeps knocking him back down, surely that's the sign of a good finisher?

[itrymariti]

<P>Tyson was a sharper puncher than foreman and had more snap due to the speed factor. Foreman was a great puncher but was more of a clubbing type of puncher who moved his opponents mostly by the strength of his punche. Unlike tyson, he rarely kayod his foes with one punch, even though one was usually all it took to put them on queer street.</P>

:huh

[Azzer85]

This would spell doom for Frazier. Frazier is one of my favorite fighters, but Tyson, Dempsey and Foreman are the worst matchups for him in my opinion.
There would be some similarity between this fight and Tyson-Marvis Frazier. Of course Joe is lightyears better than Marvis, but Tyson simply eats that slow starting come-forward style up.


You touched a point right there, i dont know if anybody has ever noticed this, ive got Tysons biography by Peter Heller and in it, Mike states (about Marvis) when you jab, he bows down like this, when he does that im going to plant him with an uppercut....which is what he does when he has Marvis in the corner....watch that fight people.

Second point watch Foreman-Frazier 1 - Foreman starts off the same way...he throws a jab and frazier ducks as soon as he does that George swings a massive uppercut (i cant remember if it lands...but u get my point)

Tyson has Fraziers number all the way

[Azzer85]

If Foreman knocks a guy down and he keeps getting back up, and Foreman keeps knocking him back down, surely that's the sign of a good finisher?

A good finisher puts people to SLEEP....like Mike Tyson
Foreman used to club his opponents to submisison
Tyson used to turn peoples lights out

[Azzer85]

Frazier got hurt badly and decked by Bonavena and Foreman, but NEVER counted out.

Tyson got beat crap out of and KO'd by Buster Douglas, never got off the deck to win a fight, and showed signs of losing confidence and/or momentum whenever he was in a really tough fight.

It's odd that so many people seem to see Frazier as the "vulnerable" one in this match up. His ability to withstand the rigours of battle is far more proven that Tyson's.

Using all proven form as evidence, Frazier's got to be favoured here.


Maybe because Frazier had crap defense which led him into wars, where as Tysons defense was light years ahead which means he rarely gets hit?

Strong guy with heart vs strong guy whose faster with better chin and better defense?????

Using all proven form as evidence, TYSON'S got to be favoured here

[leverage]

If super cruiserweight Evander Holyfield can bully Tyson around and beat him twice, albeit the second time illegally with the HolyHeadButt, why wouldn't Frazier, who was an actual heavyweight with a heavyweight punch be able to do the same? Too many people here righting off Joe as if he would fight with his face and crumble under Tyson's power in the early rounds. What evidence suggests Tyson would be able to survive the pressure and pace of a prime Joe Frazier? Sure, Milke could have Joe down on the canvas once or twice early in the fight because Joe is vulnerable than most heavyweights in the early rounds. I'd also bet on prime Frazier putting Tyson's butt on the canvas early in the fight too, just like the Holyfield counter shot to the chest that dropped Mike in their first fight. What's forgotten is the fact that there's a big difference between the conditioning of the late 60s - FOTC Frazier vs the 1973 version that George destroyed. Tyson doesn't have the size advantage that Foreman brought when they fought, and any smart boxing fan will know that George didn't fight the same fighter that Ali and others did previously.

Tyson probably stops the 1973 Frazier that George beat, maybe inside 5 rounds. Prime for prime, I'd take Frazier to outlast Tyson's early power and grind him down with body shots, ultimately stopping Tyson before the bell for round 10. Frazier had strong legs and shoulders in his prime and he wasn't going to get pushed around as easily. Foreman probably would have still been able to push this version of Frazier around like he did in1973, but I'd bet on Frazier fighting Foreman like he did Chuvalo, with more circling, countering and pressure in spurts when he was pressured himself.
What you must realize is that holyfield and frazier were almost completely different fighters aside from the fact that they both had warriors heart. Evander had physical advantages that frazier didn't have as well as being a more skilled fighter who knew how to effectively use those advantages against tyson (even though i doubt he could have done this against a prime tyson).

[janitor]

A lot of people have this down as virtualy a foregone conclusion in favour of Tyson but I don't.

If I was actualy watching the fight, I would not know what was going to hapen in the early rounds, and if it got past round four I would know that anything was on the cards.