Tyson Vs Frazier

[Lunny]

Who wins this one and how?



Sorry if it's been done before.

[andy]

I think at his best Tyson is better in every area and I think he has the punch to stop Frazier. The only thing that Joe has over him is fighting heart but I can see Tyson finishing this before that became a factor.

[McGrain]

Joe is a slow starter, Mike is a fast starter. There is a more ridiculous element on the forum that thinks every puncher ever blows Frazier out quickly; obviously that is mong, but at the very least Frazier is going to have some serious ground to make up.

Frazier always fancied the job, if that makes any difference.

[andy]

I dont think Frazier gets blown away easy, but he has got the brutal losses to Foreman. Tyson isnt the puncher that Foreman was but he is more precise and much better combination puncher. In anyones book Tyson has a good chin and I think he can take what Joe has to offer. So to sum up IMO Tyson has the better chin and the better punch, I just cant see Frazier winning this one. As for him fancying the job, I think he is the sort of bloke who would fancy his chances against anyone, he was a proper hard bastard!

[Duodenum]

Joe wasn't always as slow a starter as he's frequently stereotyped as being. He was not Michael Spinks or Duane Bobick in that respect. He fired off 64 shots in the opening round of Quarry I, decked Ziggy 13 seconds after the opening bell en route to a first round knockout, dropped Daniels in the opening stanza, and only the ropes prevented Ramos from going down towards the end of the initial three minutes. Against this opponent, I'd expect the Smoke of 1969 and 1970 to be ready to go from the outset. Still, Tyson should have the early advantage.

I'm assuming the three knockdown rule would be waived, as it was for Foreman-Frazier I. Mike could drop Joe early, but keeping Smoke floored was impossible without rendering him unconscious. Tyson was not a true infighter, while Frazier was the greatest infighter of all the heavyweight champions. (Gibbons neutralized Dempsey in part by smothering him in close, and Charles took away Marciano's punching room the same way in their 15 round initiation. Nobody did this to Smoke though, and I consider him the best infighter to hold the heavyweight title.)

Frazier's cross armed defense could afford some protection from Tyson's uppercuts. Mike's head movement and peek a boo guard would not deter Joe's hooks from going into the right side of his body.

Tyson did not have the size and freakish physical strength Foreman used to neutralize Frazier. Most of Mike's opponents were taller and longer armed than he was. Dealing with a first rate adversary of Joe's stature would be something of a novelty. Smoke dealt with foes his own size all the time.

My belief is that Joe would weather his usual early rocky moments to start coming on late in the second round or early in the third. Mike would get discouraged, and then begin to wilt. Tyson was physically durable, but relentless punishment would see him succumb sometime after the eighth round. The first knockdown Frazier scored on him would end the match.

[McGrain]

That's true, Doud, about Frazier sometimes starting faster, but he's got 60 punches in a minute in some of the later rounds of some of his pre FOTC fights. So even at his hottest in round one he wasn't even approaching his hottest later in the fight.

[PetethePrince]

Tyson early KO/TKO. Stylistic trouble.

Same ordeal with Marciano, except I think it could last longer.

Dempsey might get taken out first.

Remember the announcer for the pre-fight against Tyson vs Marvis? Nobody is picking Tyson because we think Marvis is a bad fighter. He's a good fighter, but we believe a swarmer against a puncher with Tyson's speed is a bad style matchup for Marvis.

It's possible Joe could weather the storm and win, but I think it gets stopped before he could.

[itrymariti]

Who do we think is physically stronger?

[ironchamp]

Joe wasn't always as slow a starter as he's frequently stereotyped as being. He was not Michael Spinks or Duane Bobick in that respect. He fired off 64 shots in the opening round of Quarry I, decked Ziggy 13 seconds after the opening bell en route to a first round knockout, dropped Daniels in the opening stanza, and only the ropes prevented Ramos from going down towards the end of the initial three minutes. Against this opponent, I'd expect the Smoke of 1969 and 1970 to be ready to go from the outset. Still, Tyson should have the early advantage.

I'm assuming the three knockdown rule would be waived, as it was for Foreman-Frazier I. Mike could drop Joe early, but keeping Smoke floored was impossible without rendering him unconscious. Tyson was not a true infighter, while Frazier was the greatest infighter of all the heavyweight champions. (Gibbons neutralized Dempsey in part by smothering him in close, and Charles took away Marciano's punching room the same way in their 15 round initiation. Nobody did this to Smoke though, and I consider him the best infighter to hold the heavyweight title.)

Frazier's cross armed defense could afford some protection from Tyson's uppercuts. Mike's head movement and peek a boo guard would not deter Joe's hooks from going into the right side of his body.

Tyson did not have the size and freakish physical strength Foreman used to neutralize Frazier. Most of Mike's opponents were taller and longer armed than he was. Dealing with a first rate adversary of Joe's stature would be something of a novelty. Smoke dealt with foes his own size all the time.

My belief is that Joe would weather his usual early rocky moments to start coming on late in the second round or early in the third. Mike would get discouraged, and then begin to wilt. Tyson was physically durable, but relentless punishment would see him succumb sometime after the eighth round. The first knockdown Frazier scored on him would end the match.

I vehemently disagree.

Frazier although he had heart lacked the durability to withstand an accurate and devastating puncher of Tyson's caliber. Where as Tyson has fought bigger punchers than Frazier and withstood their punishment. The initial advantage as you and I both agree would be Tyson's and that is all he would need to close the deal. Mike Tyson has never lost a fight in which he was able to land his shots with regularity. He would never wilt in frustration because his opponent is still standing. In addition if you look at all his fights his losses were determined within the first 3 rounds. Holyfield, Douglas and Lewis all had the advantage in terms of momentum going in to round 4 of their respective fights. It was never a situation where Tyson had the early lead and then lost it because he was "outwilled" Never works that way except in fantasy matches. He fought Ruddock and Donovan took some pretty mean shots in their second fight yet he was never discouraged. Even if you think Frazier would provide greater resistance than Razor, it doesn't take away the fact that Frazier would have to take serious artillery to get his point across. Artillery which historically Frazier could not withstand.

Tyson TKO4



(I realize that he lost to Williams and McBride but at that point he was not very relevant)

[McGrain]

Who do we think is physically stronger?


In functional terms, Frazier.

[andy]

In functional terms, Frazier.

I doubt that Frazier was stronger in any terms than Tyson

[itrymariti]

In functional terms, Frazier.

Presumably, that's going to be hugely significant, especially for those posters who think that Frazier's going to look to fight inside and that Tyson's not.

[ripcity]

Tyson is too big, strong and most importantly too fast. Tyson by t/ko with in 4 rounds.

[Ted Stickles]

Tyson was faster and had 2 fisted power

[PetethePrince]

If you pick Frazier you need a serious leap in faith. I'm not going to jump with the Mendoza extreme that Frazier had a glass jaw. But his durability wasn'5 incredible, and it's not like he has a way around going forward against a two-fisted explosive fighter like Tyson. It's a near suicide style, in which I just can't see Frazier winning. He would have to get very lucky to make Tyson miss his best shots consistently.

[he grant]

If you last past three rounds with Tyson, even in his prime, he is beatable and while it is a dangerous match up for Frazier I actually like Joe. Half the reason he was ambushed by Foreman was utter overconfidence. No one knew what Foreman was capable of before that bout. If Frazier was to fight Tyson I will take a leap of faith that he would know his opponent and be properly warmed up and ready ...

Carefully watch the Tyson bouts, even at his best, and see his weaknesses. Joe's power, his strength, his speed and volume of punches could give Tyson huge fits. While the smart pick is Tyson I would not bet this one ... no way. Definately not a leap of faith pick either way.

[MRBILL]

Who wins this one and how?



Sorry if it's been done before.


Tyson KO'd Marvis Frazier in ONE round back in '86.......:deal:bbb

MR.BILL

[Osceola]

I love how everyone crows about how tyson wasn't as "big" or as "strong" as foreman when infact "big" george foreman weighed about a pound less than tyson at their respective peak fighting weights.

[MRBILL]

I love how everyone crows about how tyson wasn't as "big" or as "strong" as foreman when infact "big" george foreman weighed about a pound less than tyson at their respective peak fighting weights.

I think Mike Tyson was very strong and powerful in his peak years of 1987 to 1989........ Christ, Tyson was still pumped and psyched even in 1991, but his skills were fading out of site by then......... Tyson was strong........

Holy had Tyson's number cuz Mike Tyson never fought a man who was willing to eat a few punches by standing in the pocket looking to return blows with sharp counters.....

BUT! Holy was friggin' juiced in them fights of 1996 and '97.... Tyson may have been experimenting with 'Roids' at the time, but Holy's roid bill must've been insane.......

Notice how Holy actually appeared to be bigger and stronger than Tyson was in both of their fights...... Freaky.... That ain't natural.........

MR.BILL:deal:bbb:rasta

[djanders]

Iron Mike would be too much for Joe...in my opinion.

[Bummy Davis]

The early rds are the key and how effective can Joe be with the hook to the body and head. Frazier was vulnerable early but Tyson was still a good puncher for 8-10 rds depending on the pace....Frazier was still a good puncher till the 15th. Key here is how much does Frazier get hit early? How well does he pressure Tyson and fight in close to negate Tyson power? How does Frazier survive Tysons punch? If Frazier can hurt Mike early or stay close like he vs Quarry and smother Mike. I like Mikes ability to take a punch better than Joe but I like Joes ability to get up and fight back with heart. Frazier got off the floor to win but that is something Tyson never did. I am going to pick Mike by a stop but I have to say I picked him to KO Holyfield also and the battle of the hearts was a big issue in that one. Could be an issue here.

[TBooze]

To quote Harry Carpenter during the first round of Bruno/TysonI; when it is fair to argue Tyson had already jumped the shark:

"Some people have said to me Tyson is as good as Frazier. But watching him live, it is clear to me he is much better."

[PetethePrince]

I love how everyone crows about how tyson wasn't as "big" or as "strong" as foreman when infact "big" george foreman weighed about a pound less than tyson at their respective peak fighting weights.

Foreman drained himself. Foreman was much stronger.

[SteveO]

Frazier gets stopped by the 4th.

He's still game, getting up from the knockdowns, but the ref saves him.

[PetethePrince]

If you last past three rounds with Tyson, even in his prime, he is beatable and while it is a dangerous match up for Frazier I actually like Joe. Half the reason he was ambushed by Foreman was utter overconfidence. No one knew what Foreman was capable of before that bout. If Frazier was to fight Tyson I will take a leap of faith that he would know his opponent and be properly warmed up and ready ...

Carefully watch the Tyson bouts, even at his best, and see his weaknesses. Joe's power, his strength, his speed and volume of punches could give Tyson huge fits. While the smart pick is Tyson I would not bet this one ... no way. Definately not a leap of faith pick either way.

The double standards continue. Good to see nothing has changed.

But how could Joe... he can't overcome that 15 lbs of muscle against a two-fisted puncher with better power, speed, accuracy, and durability. :D

[he grant]

Princess, still whining ? You're the Board Broad !

[ricardoparker93]

Frazier will smother Mike on the inside and push him back. I expect to see him knocked down a few times but get up and continue to pressure Mike and put him on his heels. Fraziers chin is actually very good, getting knocked out by George Foreman isn't an indication of a bad chin and he would overwhelm a discouraged and tired Tyson by the 10th; after taking over from the sixth onwards.

[Joe E]

Joe is a slow starter, Mike is a fast starter. There is a more ridiculous element on the forum that thinks every puncher ever blows Frazier out quickly; obviously that is mong, but at the very least Frazier is going to have some serious ground to make up.

Frazier always fancied the job, if that makes any difference.Absolutely Mac. Frazier would hit the canvas a couple times within the first 4rds. but after that he would warm to the task and methodically cut Tyson down for a close but unanimous dec. or late KO.

[junior-soprano]

stylewise this is trouble for joe. i like frazier more then tyson but one has to be honest. tyson is gonna take this one quit easy.
the only thing joe has over mike is heart (a lot of it) but that ain't enough. tyson is faster then frazier, tyson has more power then frazier, tyson has better defense then frazier. frazier has one way to fight and that is forward.
i don't think that joe can do that against mike, at least not without being KO'ed

[he grant]

This is why I'm not so sure ... unlike Foreman, Tyson is not pushing Frazier off to get room to land bombs. Watch the 73 bout and you will see Frazier was still firing deadly bombs with frequency that just missed the much taller Foreman but would have landed hard and often against the much smaller Tyson. Mike could also get tagged early and rocked as he was against Bruno and Tucker ... I really feel if Frazier fights smart he could get past the opening 90 second blitzkrieg and make it a war ... in a war Frazier has the tools to win ...

Smart money on Tyson but it's no lock to me ...

[PowerPuncher]

Frazier takes a punch to land a punch and has the inferior skill set. Against a puncher that is bad news, as is the fact he'd have trouble getting his own shots off. You could argue Frazier walks through fire and brings it on late like Holy managed, but Tyson was a shadow of himself there and a 5round fighter, plus Holy used straighter punches to do the job, hooking with a hooker like Tyson is far less effective

[he grant]

Tyson was not a shell of himself. He was the younger man by four years and had been active going into the bout. He looked very good against Bruno. He was not the focused man of 86 - 88 but Holyfield was the one with more mileage and wear n tear ...

[guilalah]

Joe could win, but I pick Mike.

[PowerPuncher]

Tyson was not a shell of himself. He was the younger man by four years and had been active going into the bout. He looked very good against Bruno. He was not the focused man of 86 - 88 but Holyfield was the one with more mileage and wear n tear ...

Tyson had like 7rounds in 4years, that means he isnt even a fighter anymore basically, boxers need rounds to fight for rounds, 3years inside ruined him physically too

[techks]

Frazier started off bad as proven in the 3rd fight against Ali and others but I can't remember other examples. If my memory serves me right I think he started bad against Bonavena too? But anyways I'd have to say Tyson by tko stoppage in the early rounds.

[Joe E]

Frazier takes a punch to land a punch and has the inferior skill set. Against a puncher that is bad news, as is the fact he'd have trouble getting his own shots off. You could argue Frazier walks through fire and brings it on late like Holy managed, but Tyson was a shadow of himself there and a 5round fighter, plus Holy used straighter punches to do the job, hooking with a hooker like Tyson is far less effective
People speak as if Frazier had a glass jaw because he was knocked out 2 in his career by one of the hardest punchers in Heavyweight history. Nothing could be further from the truth. At his best Frazier had very good recuperative powers as evidenced by the Bonavena and Quarry fights. Tyson rarely fought a Man like Frazier who was entirely fearless. And I think we all understand that Tysons' resolve wasn't the best. Tyson would put Frazier down early no doubt, but by the 4th rd. IMO, Fraziers found the range with his left, and bests Tyson on the inside, and begins to pound Tyson with a viscious body beating, systematically wearing him down. I like Frazier by a close but unaminous decision or possible late KO in a vicious brawl.

[round15]

Tyson is too big, strong and most importantly too fast. Tyson by t/ko with in 4 rounds.

Tyson 5'10 3.75 - 5'11, Frazier 5'11 3.75. Tyson was not bigger than Frazier, and a lot of people on this Forum are underrating Frazier's leg strength related to his punching power. No doubt, Tyson had the chest and arm factor in his favour size-wise, and overall power, but I'd give the legs to Frazier. Both men had very strong shoulders too.

Still too much immediate comparisons to George Foreman and what he did to Frazier in 1973. Tyson would barely hit the FOTC conditioned Frazier and IF he doesn't stop Joe inside 6 rounds, Tyson won't make it to round 10 against a prime Joe Frazier. Compared to Ali, anyone is a slow starter, but Frazier is not a slow as people say he is on this forum which I find quite rediculous.

Either way, this would be a non-stop action fight with Frazier perhaps visiting the canvas once or twice within the first few rounds. Tyson visits the canvas a couple times after the middle rounds and I wouldn't bet on him getting up if he's still in the fight at round 10 against Frazier.

[PetethePrince]

Tyson 5'10 3.75 - 5'11, Frazier 5'11 3.75. Tyson was not bigger than Frazier, and a lot of people on this Forum are underrating Frazier's leg strength related to his punching power. No doubt, Tyson had the chest and arm factor in his favour size-wise, and overall power, but I'd give the legs to Frazier. Both men had very strong shoulders too.

Tyson had stronger legs. Frazier had trouble military pressing 90 or so pounds I've heard.

Tyson would barely hit the FOTC conditioned Frazier and IF he doesn't stop Joe inside 6 rounds,

Yet, Quarry was landing frequently. So was Ellis. Tyson is faster, and more explosive.

Either way, this would be a non-stop action fight with Frazier perhaps visiting the canvas once or twice within the first few rounds. Tyson visits the canvas a couple times after the middle rounds and I wouldn't bet on him getting up if he's still in the fight at round 10 against Frazier.

Do you work for Joe Frazier?

I'm just wondering because 90% of your posts deal with propping him up. You don't even try to examine the other said. You basically think a 1968-1970 Frazier beats any HW... he even might beat Foreman.

[abraq]

The generally held view is that if Tyson catches Frazier early he wins by knockout, but if Frazier weathers the storm and gets past the first few rounds he had the stamina and heart to stop Tyson later in the fight.

So it all boils down to whether you believe that Tyson will be able to finish the job early or not. Or from Joe's perspective, whether he will be able to survive the opening rounds or not.

Though both scenarios are possible, personally I don't think Joe gets past the dangerous (for him) early rounds.

[TommyV]

What I will say is I don't agree with the view of some that this would look necessarily look like Foreman v Frazier. Now I'm not saying Tyson isn't strong, but Foreman was arguably in my eyes the strongest HW of all-time and had huge presence. Tyson is intimidating, but I think Frazier is equal to or perhaps even slightly stronger, and he's intimidating in his own right, more so in my eye's than Tyson. I think Mike would be a bit un-nerved by Frazier like he was vs Holyfield.

Frazier has a real chance if he can get to Mike mentally, and try to limit his punch output by ruling on the inside with his strength. However, Tyson is obviously quicker and has a better variety of weapons on the offense along with obviously power. If Frazier can make Tyson miss and dig deep and take any big punches that do land, he can eventually start to grind Tyson down and stop him around 9 or 10. Could he whether the first 2, 3 or 4 rounds though? That's a big, big if.

[PowerPuncher]

People speak as if Frazier had a glass jaw because he was knocked out 2 in his career by one of the hardest punchers in Heavyweight history. Nothing could be further from the truth. At his best Frazier had very good recuperative powers as evidenced by the Bonavena and Quarry fights. Tyson rarely fought a Man like Frazier who was entirely fearless. And I think we all understand that Tysons' resolve wasn't the best. Tyson would put Frazier down early no doubt, but by the 4th rd. IMO, Fraziers found the range with his left, and bests Tyson on the inside, and begins to pound Tyson with a viscious body beating, systematically wearing him down. I like Frazier by a close but unaminous decision or possible late KO in a vicious brawl.

When did I say Frazier had a glass jaw? He doesnt but neither did Larry Holmes, Spinks, Thomas etc etc. Frazier is easy to hit, and Tyson is a faster more accurate puncher than Foreman and just as devastating

Why do you think Frazier beats Tyson on the inside, given he has slower hands and Tyson has an equally good body attack and used a brutal uppercut far more frequently? How would Frazier get inside without being smashed on the way in?

Also Tysons skill is far far better than Fraziers

[Kalasinn]

This should be a highly entertaining fight while it lasts, but as much as I respect Frazier it probably wouldn't be a good night for him. So lets say this is 1969-1971 Prime Frazier vs. 1986-1988 Prime Tyson, or indeed for absolute Primes: 1971 vs. 1988. Tyson is the 'bigger train' perhaps not in height but certainly in other body measurements. Mike is stronger in upper body and legs, has an iron chin which could take a brutal left hook from Frazier if one were to land, on the other hand Frazier would likely be in trouble from an power uppercut or hook from either of Tyson's hands. His left is a more potent than Frazier's and his right is considerably so, his hand speed is significantly faster, his foot work is also better, his head movement is superior as is his defence and accuracy. For Frazier, he has amazing stamina and a heart that is only equalled by Marciano - however he will not enjoy the benefits of either of these, well other than the heart of course allowing him to keep getting up until the referee stops it.

The deciding factor though is that Frazier is a slow starter and Tyson will take advantage of this to hurt him early, overwhelming him with rapid combinations of 3,4,5 punches. My bet is that Frazier fights bravely but is beaten by TKO within 6 ferocious rounds. Although I must say that I give Frazier* (*not after Manila) increased chances of success with a post-Rooney Tyson and particularly his chances multiply greatly against a post-prison Tyson. I can definitely see him wearing down the body and stopping in late rounds for instance the 1996 Tyson that fought Holyfield; the poor conditioning making for low stamina, the lack of elusiveness, ragged defence, along with reliance of head-hunting with singular power punches; will mean Tyson gets tried after round 5, Frazier can easily land punches and Tyson will have big trouble landing his own, wild shots lacking his previous accuracy.

[RockysSplitNose]

Frazier against fellow sluggers of a similar stature to himself (I'm thinking Quarry, Stander, Bonavena) would literally lock horns - he'd be literally head down over his opponents shoulder (literally ear-to-ear with them) - sometimes burying his head in his opponents chest or tucked in close to one or the other of his opponents biceps to keep safe and minimise the amount of punching room - but still Joe did get shaken a couple of times in the first round by Jerry Quarry, and Quarry was physically muscling Joe back. Ron Stander buckled Fraziers knees in the first round and Frazier did find himself having to back up often for punching room, Bonavena also was forcing Frazier back physically in the first couple of rounds and bounced him off the canvas twice in the 2nd round (in fact Frazier was perilously close to going down for a fight-ending third time in that one) - but then I guess if you were being super critical you could say that in a similar way even say Peter McNeeley - in his ridiculously charge across the ring - was hustling and bustling Tyson back for a brief shining moment, forcing him back onto the ropes where (I think) Tyson looked genuinely surprised and a bit rattled - like he wasn't expecting to be punched back like this into a defensive shell? McNeeley muscled Tyson back (sounds ridiculous I know - but if you watch the fight again - it's what happened for 30 seconids or so) Obviously as soon as Tyson executed some short sharp compact shots McNeeley suddenly realised he was way way out of his depth.

I'm not really sure what Tyson's true height is to be honest (I know he's listed as 5'11 3/4") but I have a work friend who met him in an all night clothes store in Vegas and had a picture with him and this work mate of mine is six foot and Tyson was quite a bit shorter than him - I'd guess in reality he probably no more then 5'9". I asked that work mate and he said "probably 5'8"/5'9" (but he also said his head and his hands were massive!!).

Anyways I see Frazier and Tyson certainly locking horns and I also see both of them doing their fair share of backing up for punching room aswell - and I see both men being shaken and punched back on their heals - both will have their moments of looking like they might have the other one going - (funnily enough I see Frazier being the one more likely to be refusing to back off - I think he was that kind of macho type to want to prove that above all else he was the toughest) but I don't think it would be a very wise thing - Tyson I think in his heyday would simply try to be elusive and fast and his greater hand speed and more devastating power through actual body-to-head combination punching would shock Frazier and have have him bouncing up and down glassy eyed - Tyson in 4.

[round15]

Tyson had stronger legs. Frazier had trouble military pressing 90 or so pounds I've heard.



Yet, Quarry was landing frequently. So was Ellis. Tyson is faster, and more explosive.



Do you work for Joe Frazier?

I'm just wondering because 90% of your posts deal with propping him up. You don't even try to examine the other said. You basically think a 1968-1970 Frazier beats any HW... he even might beat Foreman.

I think the Frazier of 1968 - 1970 has a legit shot at beating every heavyweight, contender or champion, important heavyweight or anyone else that has boxed professional as a heavyweight. Not same he would, but based on who he was as a champion, I'd give him every chance. Why wouldnt he be able to? Who would KO the FOTC version of Frazier with the relative ease that Foreman did to a depleted Frazier two years later? Nobody IMO.

Foreman readilly acknowledged Frazier's greatness and the fear he had for the man in two different interviews. Frazier's head movement is faster and more frequent than Tysons. In fact, as Tyson stood up a lot more in his career as opposed to Frazier. I think you underestimate him Pete, perhaps with more thoughts of Marciano in the back of your mind that you're hesistant to use examples from.

Joe gets underrated on this board and I don't believe Tyson would have the endurance or toughness to last an entire fight with Frazier coming after him. I think you tend to look at the Foreman fight and conclude like most that Joe would get whupped by Tyson which is wrong. If a blown up cruiserweight in Holyfield could put Tyson down witnout much head movement, basically countering, why wouldn't a FOTC conditioned Frazier who was one of the greatest pressure heavies be able to do the same damage if not more?

Both fighters would land bombs, but I don't believe Mike would beat FOTC or the Joe Frazier of 1967 - 1970. Your throwing his toughness, endurance and heart for nothing if you write a prime Frazier off against Tyson that quickly.

No I don't work for Frazier, but I've met and talked to George Chuvalo, Larry Holmes and Shavers, who give Joe a lot more respect than people on this forum do.

[Osceola]

Frazier against fellow sluggers of a similar stature to himself (I'm thinking Quarry, Stander, Bonavena) would literally lock horns - he'd be literally head down over his opponents shoulder (literally ear-to-ear with them) - sometimes burying his head in his opponents chest or tucked in close to one or the other of his opponents biceps to keep safe and minimise the amount of punching room - but still Joe did get shaken a couple of times in the first round by Jerry Quarry, and Quarry was physically muscling Joe back. Ron Stander buckled Fraziers knees in the first round and Frazier did find himself having to back up often for punching room, Bonavena also was forcing Frazier back physically in the first couple of rounds and bounced him off the canvas twice in the 2nd round (in fact Frazier was perilously close to going down for a fight-ending third time in that one) - but then I guess if you were being super critical you could say that in a similar way even say Peter McNeeley - in his ridiculously charge across the ring - was hustling and bustling Tyson back for a brief shining moment, forcing him back onto the ropes where (I think) Tyson looked genuinely surprised and a bit rattled - like he wasn't expecting to be punched back like this into a defensive shell? McNeeley muscled Tyson back (sounds ridiculous I know - but if you watch the fight again - it's what happened for 30 seconids or so) Obviously as soon as Tyson executed some short sharp compact shots McNeeley suddenly realised he was way way out of his depth.

I'm not really sure what Tyson's true height is to be honest (I know he's listed as 5'11 3/4") but I have a work friend who met him in an all night clothes store in Vegas and had a picture with him and this work mate of mine is six foot and Tyson was quite a bit shorter than him - I'd guess in reality he probably no more then 5'9". I asked that work mate and he said "probably 5'8"/5'9" (but he also said his head and his hands were massive!!).

Anyways I see Frazier and Tyson certainly locking horns and I also see both of them doing their fair share of backing up for punching room aswell - and I see both men being shaken and punched back on their heals - both will have their moments of looking like they might have the other one going - (funnily enough I see Frazier being the one more likely to be refusing to back off - I think he was that kind of macho type to want to prove that above all else he was the toughest) but I don't think it would be a very wise thing - Tyson I think in his heyday would simply try to be elusive and fast and his greater hand speed and more devastating power through actual body-to-head combination punching would shock Frazier and have have him bouncing up and down glassy eyed - Tyson in 4.


Tyson is 5'11 3/4. There's a video of him next to a ruler painted on a wall, he's over 5'11 barefoot.

[ironchamp]

I think the Frazier of 1968 - 1970 has a legit shot at beating every heavyweight, contender or champion, important heavyweight or anyone else that has boxed professional as a heavyweight. Not same he would, but based on who he was as a champion, I'd give him every chance. Why wouldnt he be able to? Who would KO the FOTC version of Frazier with the relative ease that Foreman did to a depleted Frazier two years later? Nobody IMO.

I think Joe is a competent fighter, who conceivably has a shot against any HW in history, but there are some that just work match up well with him. Tyson is one of them.


Foreman readilly acknowledged Frazier's greatness and the fear he had for the man in two different interviews. Frazier's head movement is faster and more frequent than Tysons. In fact, as Tyson stood up a lot more in his career as opposed to Frazier. I think you underestimate him Pete, perhaps with more thoughts of Marciano in the back of your mind that you're hesistant to use examples from.Frazier's head movement was more consistent than Tyson but not necessarily faster.

Frazier has a pattern that he bobs in and it remained consistent throughout the fight. Consistent and patterned headmovement from a come forward fighter will always add pressure to any opponent.

Although Tyson's head movement was also patterned his tended to be a little more arbitrary possibly because his reaction time was faster and it always put him in a punching position.

I used to feel that Tyson was the digital version of Frazier or rather Frazier was the analog version of Tyson.

Joe gets underrated on this board and I don't believe Tyson would have the endurance or toughness to last an entire fight with Frazier coming after him. I think you tend to look at the Foreman fight and conclude like most that Joe would get whupped by Tyson which is wrong. If a blown up cruiserweight in Holyfield could put Tyson down witnout much head movement, basically countering, why wouldn't a FOTC conditioned Frazier who was one of the greatest pressure heavies be able to do the same damage if not more?Because Frazier's not a counter puncher and his style does not resemble Holyfield in any way. Holyfield used lateral movement, tied Mike up and and was able to block his left hook throughout the fight. Frazier wouldn't fight Tyson going backwards and if he did he'd be ineffective and victimized. Tyson is no Foreman for better or worse but the comparison is used only to denote Tyson's punching power and how a big puncher like Foreman was able to put Frazier away quickly and how Tyson has the punching power to do the same.


Both fighters would land bombs, but I don't believe Mike would beat FOTC or the Joe Frazier of 1967 - 1970. Your throwing his toughness, endurance and heart for nothing if you write a prime Frazier off against Tyson that quickly.This is a forum so everyone is entitled to their opinion but if toughness and heart is what Joe has to offer then he's a dollar short and a day late. Toughness and heart are intangibles that are often overused to compensate for a fighter's short comings. Those intangibles didn't disappear when he fought George Foreman, they were there but it didn't seem to matter; George beat him all the same.

[PetethePrince]

I think the Frazier of 1968 - 1970 has a legit shot at beating every heavyweight, contender or champion, important heavyweight or anyone else that has boxed professional as a heavyweight. Not same he would, but based on who he was as a champion, I'd give him every chance. Why wouldnt he be able to? Who would KO the FOTC version of Frazier with the relative ease that Foreman did to a depleted Frazier two years later? Nobody IMO.

It's asinine to think Frazier has a legit shot against Foreman when seeing only 2 years after FOTC considering how devastated he was by him. Yes, maybe he lasts longer. And yes Frazier wasn't at his best. But he wasn't shot. A little past it, and a little overconfident. Sure, but let's no crazy. Christ Sake he was almost KOed by Oscar Bonavena. I know I know... Frazier was green. Yet you'll jump on the 66-70 time frame as if Frazier was actually better before FOTC. Limiting the gap doesn't do anything but highlight your fanaticism. It's almost as bad as what Tyson fans try to do. Stop the hero worship.

Foreman readilly acknowledged Frazier's greatness and the fear he had for the man in two different interviews. Frazier's head movement is faster and more frequent than Tysons. In fact, as Tyson stood up a lot more in his career as opposed to Frazier. I think you underestimate him Pete, perhaps with more thoughts of Marciano in the back of your mind that you're hesistant to use examples from. I know, I'm a big fan of both. He also recently said that if the fight happened 2 years earlier it would have happened a lot different. I believe that too... but in the end Joe just can't take George's bombs. And he's vulnerable to the uppercut.

This has nothing to do with Marciano. I'm at realistic. I don't think Marciano has a legit chance of beating every HW.

I don't need to list examples. Frazier is second favorite fighter of all time. You glorify him... everyone can see it. When you post, 90% it's about Frazier.

And you're wrong... Tyson's head-movement was much faster. Frazier's was just much more limited. He moved his head up and down mostly, and his bob & weave was done with much less movement. It may look faster, but the reality is he's easier to hit. Tyson moves mostly horizontally, although his head-movement is more varied, less predictable, and faster at a greater length. Any film comparison would show this.

Joe gets underrated on this board and I don't believe Tyson would have the endurance or toughness to last an entire fight with Frazier coming after him. I think you tend to look at the Foreman fight and conclude like most that Joe would get whupped by Tyson which is wrong. If a blown up cruiserweight in Holyfield could put Tyson down witnout much head movement, basically countering, why wouldn't a FOTC conditioned Frazier who was one of the greatest pressure heavies be able to do the same damage if not more?I don't think Frazier gets underrated. Plenty of people pick him against the Klits (Me included). Plenty people have him over Holmes, and many think he still beats a prime Ali. I think that's enough to show how much respect he gets.

The Holyfield knockdown on Tyson was a flash knockdown. It was an off-balance thing. How many times was Tyson dropped from just one punch due to being hurt? Never. Frazier? More than a hand full times. And that's not just including Foreman. Check Mike Bruce (Second fight), and Oscar Bonavena.

Both fighters would land bombs, but I don't believe Mike would beat FOTC or the Joe Frazier of 1967 - 1970. Your throwing his toughness, endurance and heart for nothing if you write a prime Frazier off against Tyson that quickly.

No I don't work for Frazier, but I've met and talked to George Chuvalo, Larry Holmes and Shavers, who give Joe a lot more respect than people on this forum do.Frazier is my second favorite HW. I think he has a chance, but a slim one against Tyson. How is he going to handle Tyson's explosiveness out of the get go? The fastest starter against one of the slowest starters. It's bad news. Tyson is more accurate than Foreman, faster, and throws much better combination. I just think it's a bad stylistic matchup.

This has a lot more to do with you overestimating Frazier since he's your favorite fighter then me discrediting him. You actually believe Frazier's stamina equals Marciano. That's crazy talk to me. To me, it's like saying Frazier hits harder than Tyson. Clearly, Tyson hits just a little harder.

And the reason why it's crazy to me is not because of what the film shows. Not just what testimony, and historians say... but their actual documented training regimes show a vast different in intensity and longevity.

I hate to bring up Marciano here because he has nothing to do with this thread, but I needed an example to prove my point about you just wanting to always think the best out of Frazier. You like to compare and just prop Joe up. It's fine, but you have to admit that Frazier HAS to be the underdog in this fight. No? I think that's the bottom line.

[round15]

No Pete, early Mike Tyson didn't use his head as frequently or as fast as Frazier. Granted he's the only fighter aside from Marciano that used the double slip effectively. I say this because my trainer showed me tapes of Marciano dipping his left shoulder without throwing a punch, only to immediately rotate back and drop his right shoulder on the other side and follow up with a right hook to the body and head. Tyson didn't do this as much as Marciano but Tyson's was faster. Compared to Frazier, yes Joes movement was more of a bob and weave, ducking style as opposed to shoulder slipping, but I'd say it was faster and more frequent than Tysons. Tyson used his jab more than Frazier on the outside with less head movement and used his head more to set up his double hooks when he was inside.

I'm not the only one who's puts Frazier's stamina on par with Marciano. Let's just agree to disagree on this one because there's no winner in this argument. But let it be said, Marciano never fought as fast, moving forward like prime Joe did, and if he did, he'd slow down over the late rounds too. We can probably argue who slows down faster after the middle rounds, but that's another argument that leads to a draw.

How many times do we have to talk about Frazier as a slow starter, especially when compared to Ali? It's almost like your saying Frazier would be slower than the slowest fighter Tyson fought and get bombed out quick which is wrong? Yes Joe was a slow starter, but compared to Ali, anyone is, and it's not like Joe is turtle slow to Tyson which your almost making it sound, fairly bullet proof.

Again, I believe Joe could survive Tyson's early explosiveness mainly because he doesn't bring the size and jab factor that Foreman brought to the fight, and the fact that Tyson is the shorter fighter which doesn't give him any advantage against Frazier. How hard is it for you to see the FOTC or earlier version of Frazier lasting more than the early rounds against Tyson and hurting him later. Probably not from your post, but I can see it happening.

The films really say SDFA if you know what I mean. Why, because they fought in two different eras against different fighters. I will agree with you though on the premise of comparing punch power in both fists, handspeed, endurance and chin. It sounds like your writing off Frazier and expecting the prime version of him to lie down against Tyson and gets stopped in 3 or 4, not as quick as what Foreman did in 1973.

[RockysSplitNose]

Tyson is 5'11 3/4. There's a video of him next to a ruler painted on a wall, he's over 5'11 barefoot.

Hi there Osceola, yeah think I have the same video, but you know, I always thought that was a bit sus - like it really mattered to his managers that people got that whe was 5'11 3/4" (I know managers and stuff like to pump up certain things, stats etc) - its like the thing with Holyfield - when he was cruiserweight champ he was always 6'1" but then as soon he moves up to heavyweight and the hype machine starts about how he's built himself up with computer training and specialist coaches and everything he suddenly also grown an extra inch to 6'2"??!! I remember a number of journalists making a few humourous growbag comments about how silly that was etc - suppose its the modern obsession with size in the heavyweight division - 5'9" or 5'11 3/4" Tyson was awesome whatever and so for that matter was Holyfield.

for all we know they could have shaved a couple of inches off the bottom of that ruler so it didn't look so small

[PetethePrince]

No Pete, early Mike Tyson didn't use his head as frequently or as fast as Frazier.

Yes, his head-movement was faster. Frazier's bob & weave had less range of motion so it's gives an allusion that Frazier's bob & weave was faster. This is just not true. If they had a contest of moving their slipping & bobbing their head a certain distance back and forth, I'm sure Tyson would win.

but I'd say it was faster and more frequent than Tysons.

Less of a motion of range and more predictable. Defensively, Tyson was superior. Most would agree with this. Even the Frazier diehards.

Tyson used his jab more than Frazier on the outside with less head movement and used his head more to set up his double hooks when he was inside.

You could say because his jab was more effective, and because Tyson was so elusive, and so fast with his head-movement that he didn't need to be as repetitious. Or were his reflexes just better? Either way.

I'm not the only one who's puts Frazier's stamina on par with Marciano. Let's just agree to disagree on this one because there's no winner in this argument.

It's intellectual dishonest. And you made a poll out of a result of our first argument which had more people agreeing with me. Besides, Frazier has shown great fatigue in his late rounds against Bonavena and Ali. You can press on as much as you want about middle rounds or moving forward faster but there's no way it makes up enough in comparison to Marciano's output. On Marciano's Ringside, Brian Kenny is just in awe of Rocky's workrate. And the reality is he could've gone 5 more rounds at the end of the day if he wanted to. Frazier could not. He just burned out more.

But let it be said, Marciano never fought as fast, moving forward like prime Joe did, and if he did, he'd slow down over the late rounds too.

It's really not his fault he wasn't faster on his feet. And your statement is beyond erroneous and uneducated. Rocky moving 1 mph faster wasn't going to tire him out. He could've went 5-10 more rounds if he had to. He threw 100+ punching in the 15th round against Ezzard Charles. I really wonder what his punches per round was against Moore. Something sensational. The guy fought at a MW pace. Period.

We can probably argue who slows down faster after the middle rounds, but that's another argument that leads to a draw.

You could argue. Rocky could go 20-25 rounds. Frazier was very dead at the end of the match against Ali and Bonavena. As a boxing fan said after the end of the FOTC "Frazier was so tired he could barely raise his arm."

How many times do we have to talk about Frazier as a slow starter, especially when compared to Ali? It's almost like your saying Frazier would be slower than the slowest fighter Tyson fought and get bombed out quick which is wrong?

It's not wrong, not when Frazier's the come forward fighter. That and being a slow started is the combination that makes all the difference. It's bad trouble.

Yes Joe was a slow starter, but compared to Ali, anyone is, and it's not like Joe is turtle slow to Tyson which your almost making it sound, fairly bullet proof.

I was comparing him against Tyson... the man he fights in this fantasy matchup.

Again, I believe Joe could survive Tyson's early explosiveness mainly because he doesn't bring the size and jab factor that Foreman brought to the fight, and the fact that Tyson is the shorter fighter which doesn't give him any advantage against Frazier. How hard is it for you to see the FOTC or earlier version of Frazier lasting more than the early rounds against Tyson and hurting him later. Probably not from your post, but I can see it happening.

I think Tyson should be like a 3:1 favorite or something.

The films really say SDFA if you know what I mean. Why, because they fought in two different eras against different fighters. I will agree with you though on the premise of comparing punch power in both fists, handspeed, endurance and chin. It sounds like your writing off Frazier and expecting the prime version of him to lie down against Tyson and gets stopped in 3 or 4, not as quick as what Foreman did in 1973.

No, definitely not as quick as Foreman. I see a TKO around 3-5. You don't think stylistic Mike has the edge? And that Frazier is at a disadvanatge. You are in the minority. I wonder if any matchup is a stylistic disadvantage with Frazier for you? Nobody except Foreman since you saw that fought in front of you. And in the end you still think FOTC Frazier could win.

[latineg]

Joe is a slow starter, Mike is a fast starter. There is a more ridiculous element on the forum that thinks every puncher ever blows Frazier out quickly; obviously that is mong, but at the very least Frazier is going to have some serious ground to make up.

Frazier always fancied the job, if that makes any difference.

i dont think that makez any difference tyson with MUCH quicker punchez that may not has been as hard but were in the same league of hardness and frazier simply getz stunned early his fighting heart getz him back up, hez facing the wrong way looking into the tyson corner wondering why his trainerz facez are changing ref comez up to him not payin attention and askz him if he is ok frazier sayz yez and ref has to turn him around so as he can find tyson and frazier basically flopz out a few more timez on close punchez that he floped away from at the last second rather then try to walk through them and be knocked completely unconscious by tyson, much like spinks tyson but frazier at least would pretend not to be terrorfied when he waz hurt

no offense and i dont have a clue about it myself as i dont watch the sport but i happened to hear god over talking and she said anyone that believed frazier would take it waz most likely a complete moron due to tfact hat would have tore frazier to peicez with his speed, his anglez and hiz devestating power

dont even reply to me unless your planing on thanking me

[Cheese]

You all bring up good points. I automatically thought of the heart factor, so I gave it to Frazier. But Tyson had accuracy, speed, and power in both hands. And the fact that Joe has the get inside to do damage, that's gonna be bad. I do think it would take Joe to long to slow Tyson down to wear Frazier could win. Tyson might not of hit quite as hard as Foreman but he's close and a far more accurate puncher.

But I do think if Frazier could stretch Mike past round 6 or so I'd give it to Frazier. But Mike would begin with a relentless attack that I'm not sure Frazier could handle.

[round15]

Yes, his head-movement was faster. Frazier's bob & weave had less range of motion so it's gives an allusion that Frazier's bob & weave was faster. This is just not true. If they had a contest of moving their slipping & bobbing their head a certain distance back and forth, I'm sure Tyson would win.



Less of a motion of range and more predictable. Defensively, Tyson was superior. Most would agree with this. Even the Frazier diehards.



You could say because his jab was more effective, and because Tyson was so elusive, and so fast with his head-movement that he didn't need to be as repetitious. Or were his reflexes just better? Either way.



It's intellectual dishonest. And you made a poll out of a result of our first argument which had more people agreeing with me. Besides, Frazier has shown great fatigue in his late rounds against Bonavena and Ali. You can press on as much as you want about middle rounds or moving forward faster but there's no way it makes up enough in comparison to Marciano's output. On Marciano's Ringside, Brian Kenny is just in awe of Rocky's workrate. And the reality is he could've gone 5 more rounds at the end of the day if he wanted to. Frazier could not. He just burned out more.



It's really not his fault he wasn't faster on his feet. And your statement is beyond erroneous and uneducated. Rocky moving 1 mph faster wasn't going to tire him out. He could've went 5-10 more rounds if he had to. He threw 100+ punching in the 15th round against Ezzard Charles. I really wonder what his punches per round was against Moore. Something sensational. The guy fought at a MW pace. Period.



You could argue. Rocky could go 20-25 rounds. Frazier was very dead at the end of the match against Ali and Bonavena. As a boxing fan said after the end of the FOTC "Frazier was so tired he could barely raise his arm."



It's not wrong, not when Frazier's the come forward fighter. That and being a slow started is the combination that makes all the difference. It's bad trouble.



I was comparing him against Tyson... the man he fights in this fantasy matchup.



I think Tyson should be like a 3:1 favorite or something.



No, definitely not as quick as Foreman. I see a TKO around 3-5. You don't think stylistic Mike has the edge? And that Frazier is at a disadvanatge. You are in the minority. I wonder if any matchup is a stylistic disadvantage with Frazier for you? Nobody except Foreman since you saw that fought in front of you. And in the end you still think FOTC Frazier could win.

First of all, Marciano was not as fast as Frazier and never fought with the same pace attacking forward.

I believe FOTC conditioned Joe Frazier or just prior to the FOTC has a solid and legit chance at surviving Foreman and Tysons early outbursts and the fight goes in his favour if the either men are still in the ring with Frazier in the middle rounds.

I don't see Foreman or Tyson, KO'ing the FOTC or earlier conditioned Frazier with the relative ease that you suggest. Your basically saying, prime for prime that Frazier wouldn't see round 4 against either man which is seriously underrating him as a fighter. First of all, I do agree with you that Tyson was more accurate and deadly in the early rounds like Foreman, but you make it sound as if Joe would simply be there to be hit and fall down early which I highly doubt. The fastest heavyweight in history, Ali, did hit Joe with a lot of punches, but he missed a lot of shots too? Tyson doesn't bring any size advantage into a fight prime for prime against Frazier and I think you underestimate Joe's speed. Again, too much emphasis on the Foreman fight in 1973, so in fairness why not use the best version of the champion rather than leaning towards conclusions based on what happened in 1973.

Either way, I don't think Tyson, the 1986 version, if he were to be put in a time capsule against Frazier, FOTC 1971, would knock Joe out early. Yes, I can see Joe hitting the canvas early, but Mike is not stopping him and I'd bet on Joe getting closer to Mike and landing some serious body shots. Mentally, Mike Tyson gets frustrated and he's never fought another heavyweight fighter that would put the same pressure and speed on him.

[PetethePrince]

First of all, Marciano was not as fast as Frazier and never fought with the same pace attacking forward.

I believe FOTC conditioned Joe Frazier or just prior to the FOTC has a solid and legit chance at surviving Foreman and Tysons early outbursts and the fight goes in his favour if the either men are still in the ring with Frazier in the middle rounds.

I don't see Foreman or Tyson, KO'ing the FOTC or earlier conditioned Frazier with the relative ease that you suggest. Your basically saying, prime for prime that Frazier wouldn't see round 4 against either man which is seriously underrating him as a fighter.

We might as well be done. Everything I do is underrated Frazier. Everybody in the world underrates Frazier according to your standards. And when we deal with the truths of things - you try distorting things for Frazier's favor.

You act as if Frazier was invincible from 67-71 yet the one in 73 was just shot. Foreman bounced him around like a bowling ball. In 1971 he would last longer, maybe. Against Tyson, I think he gets TKOed by round 4... maybe 5-6. I just think it's a bad style matchup. How is it not a style disadvantage for Frazier? If it isn't... what would be? Tyson is better than Foreman in so many ways.

First of all, I do agree with you that Tyson was more accurate and deadly in the early rounds like Foreman, but you make it sound as if Joe would simply be there to be hit and fall down early which I highly doubt.

Foreman did, and Bonavena had him hit somewhat early. Right?

The fastest heavyweight in history, Ali, did hit Joe with a lot of punches, but he missed a lot of shots too?

Yep, with the 1-2. Joe can avoid a jab, even the straight. His bob & weave was designed for it. He's much more vulnerable to the hook and uppercut. Tyson knew this and he knew the uppercut would be open... he knew it for Marvis and HE and Rooney know it for Joe. Joe will get hit with uppercut. And that's when the fight turns.

Tyson doesn't bring any size advantage into a fight prime for prime against Frazier and I think you underestimate Joe's speed.

Tyson is bigger and stronger. In fact, in weight Tyson may only be 10-13 lbs more. But he's stronger. A worse in-fighter. Granted, but I think Joe gets bombed out when coming forward. I don't underestimate Joe's speed. In terms of hand-speed, Marciano was closer to Joe's then Joe's was to Tyson's. That's how much faster Tyson is.

Again, too much emphasis on the Foreman fight in 1973, so in fairness why not use the best version of the champion rather than leaning towards conclusions based on what happened in 1973.

Yes, because Joe was shot here?

I am using the best version. The best version never fought a Tyson. When he fought some puncher, he got hurt and rocked. Frazier was hurt and rocked OFTEN.

Ramos caught him with a uppercut (Not anywhere near the puncher of Tyson). And Joe buckled in the 1st round. Quarry was stinging back in a phone booth fight. Standler had Frazier reeling toward the other end of the corner. Ellis was landing, Ali stunned Frazier in the 9th round. Bonvena almost KOed Frazier... this is what the history tells us.

Either way, I don't think Tyson, the 1986 version, if he were to be put in a time capsule against Frazier, FOTC 1971, would knock Joe out early. Yes, I can see Joe hitting the canvas early, but Mike is not stopping him and I'd bet on Joe getting closer to Mike and landing some serious body shots. Mentally, Mike Tyson gets frustrated and he's never fought another heavyweight fighter that would put the same pressure and speed on him.

Your rhetoric gets annoying. Frazier never fought someone with the speed and power of Tyson. You can say that sort of rhetoric for any fighter in an H2H matchup.


Answer me these questions.

Who was better defensively?

Who was had faster hands?

Who hit harder?

Who was more accurate of a puncher

Who had the better two-fisted attack?

Who was more durable?

Who had superior stamina?

Who had more heart?

Who has intangibles?

I'm not implying Tyson wins all categories, but he wins most of them. And important ones. This should tell us he's at least favorited. Stylistic nightmare.

[he grant]

"This is what history tells us ?"

Listening to your crap one would think Frazier had a glass jaw. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Very clear. Good for laughts though.

[PetethePrince]

"This is what history tells us ?"

Listening to your crap one would think Frazier had a glass jaw. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Very clear. Good for laughts though.

Then don't listen. Simple solution.

... or let the stalking continue. Always fun.

[mr. magoo]

In a long distance battle, Frazier might have a chance at stopping him late, but I don't see it happening.. In order for Tyson's weaknesses to come into play, Joe would have to weather an extremely dangerous storm early, and that's a bad situation for Frazier to be in. Tyson was a very fast and effective starter, while Joe was often slow to get warmed up, and even got into trouble early as seen in the Bonavena, Ellis, Ali, Quarry and Foreman fights. While all of those men had styles that were very dissimilar to Tyson's, the one thing that I feel would still be a factor, is that he was far more ferocious out of the gate than just about any of them......

On paper, this looks a great match-up between two of the very best heavyweights of all time, but when I look at the career patterns of both men, in multiple fights and not just a few, it starts to look more and more like a mismatch.

NOTE: Around 1990, Ring Magazine had a battle of the legends match-up between both of these men. Among the people involved were James Bonecrusher Smith and Bert Cooper - two men who were both trained by Joe Frazier at one point.. when asked their opinions, both men picked Tyson to beat Frazier..

[PetethePrince]

In a long distance battle, Frazier might have a chance at stopping him late, but I don't see it happening.. In order for Tyson's weaknesses to come into play, Joe would have to weather an extremely dangerous storm early, and that's a bad situation for Frazier to be in. Tyson was a very fast and effective starter, while Joe was often slow to get warmed up, and even got into trouble early as seen in the Bonavena, Ellis, Ali, Quarry and Foreman fights. While all of those men had styles that were very dissimilar to Tyson's, the one thing that I feel would still be a factor, is that he was far more ferocious out of the gate than just about any of them......

On paper, this looks a great match-up between two of the very best heavyweights of all time, but when I look at the career patterns of both men, in multiple fights and not just a few, it starts to look more and more like a mismatch.

NOTE: Around 1990, Ring Magazine had a battle of the legends match-up between both of these men. Among the people involved were James Bonecrusher Smith and Bert Cooper - two men who were both trained by Joe Frazier at one point.. when asked their opinions, both men picked Tyson to beat Frazier..

Interesting, you wouldn't happen to know what the other experts/boxers opinions were on the subject from that RM?

[mr. magoo]

Interesting, you wouldn't happen to know what the other experts/boxers opinions were on the subject from that RM?

I really don't recall.. It was probably 20 years ago that I saw the article, and the only reason those two testimonies stood out from memory, was because I found it interesting that two men who were trained by Frazier himself, picked him to lose in a fantasy match-up..

[PetethePrince]

I really don't recall.. It was probably 20 years ago that I saw the article, and the only reason those two testimonies stood out from memory, was because I found it interesting that two men who were trained by Frazier himself, picked him to lose in a fantasy match-up..

Ah, that makes sense. I'll try searching for it online. Hopefully someone can dig it up. I bet TheGreatA has his sources... he always seems to.

[mr. magoo]

For the record, I do NOT consider Joe Frazier as having a "glass jaw." In fact, I often think that this is an overstated misconception. I do however feel that against the very hardest of punchers, Frazier's chin might prove to be a bit shaky at least. More importantly, I think that his fighting style made him more susceptible to getting hit by the types of punches that big hitters tend to throw, ie. Uppercuts, hooks, overhand rights, etc.... Joe was very, very good at slipping punches such as the jab, right cross, and was a pain in the ass to try and counter due to all that upper body movement.. But when standing at close to midrange, he was wide open for some of the more power generating shots, and this is why I am often hesitant to pick him against some history's more effective sluggers...

[mr. magoo]

Ah, that makes sense. I'll try searching for it online. Hopefully someone can dig it up. I bet TheGreatA has his sources... he always seems to.


If I recall ( and I stand to be corrected ), Smith actually picked Tyson to win the fight early.

[PetethePrince]

For the record, I do NOT consider Joe Frazier as having a "glass jaw." In fact, I often think that this is an overstated misconception. I do however feel that against the very hardest of punchers, Frazier's chin might prove to be a bit shaky at least. More importantly, I think that his fighting style made him more susceptible to getting hit by the types of punches that big hitters tend to throw, ie. Uppercuts, hooks, overhand rights, etc.... Joe was very, very good at slipping punches such as the jab, right cross, and was a pain in the ass to try and counter due to all that upper body movement.. But when standing at close to midrange, he was wide open for some of the more power generating shots, and this is why I am often hesitant to pick him against some history's more effective sluggers...

I've been trying to say this. But when you say this to round15 it's underestimating Frazier, and over-weighing the Foreman fight. Was Frazier's chin so much worse for that one fight... and I just don't factor in that one fight. The answer to that question is a little, because he wasn't in peak condition. You said it though. It's a style thing too.

[mr. magoo]

I've been trying to say this. But when you say this to round15 it's underestimating Frazier, and over-weighing the Foreman fight. Was Frazier's chin so much worse for that one fight... and I just don't factor in that one fight. The answer to that question is a little, because he wasn't in peak condition. You said it though. It's a style thing too.

Round 15 seems like a nice a guy, and obviously a very loyal fan of Joe Frazier.

I will say however, that after having these kinds of arguments with him before, it certainly seems as though his preference is very biased. He firmly believes that Frazier was "shot" by the Foreman fight, and that if Joe had been 3 years younger, that he might have turned the tables from losing in two rounds, to winning the fight all together.. No amount of disputing him on my part has swayed his opinion on this.. Additionally, he believes that Frazier's prime began in 1966 when he hardly had 12 pro fights and few notable wins, and stops at 1970 before the FOTC, and only at the age of roughly 26...... For the life of me, I have never met anyone who shares this view. Anyone else that I've ever talked to or read about, believed that his first meeting in 1971 against Muhammad Ali was when he was at the peak of his powers. He fought Foreman maybe a year and a half later, and still only at the age of 29.

[he grant]

Overestimating the punching power of a prime Foreman in his greatest performance ever? Was Frazier's chin so much worse for that one fight ? Who do you think could have withstood those bombs if they landed ? What jibberish ...

Frazier's prime was 68 - March of 71. It is fair to say he was never again the man he was that night. Age is not relevant when you consider the style ... Frazier fought a brutal style and fought tough men from pretty early in his career ...

Foreman was a stylistic nightmare for Frazier as he would have been for Dempsey, Marciano and likely Tyson ... However there are moe than a few that feel a younger, prime Frazier might have turned the trick. Look how the older, fatter but wiser Fraizer managed to last longer in the rematch ...