How bad would Mike Tyson beat Joe Frazier?

Tyson-Haters like to pretend that sloppy Rustbucket with the timing of a broken watch resembled something close to a Peak Tyson. :nut

 

I don't know about that, he timed Mathis good. And nothing you can do about stupid slappy punches except walk through them to land your own as Mike eventually did. I can't see him doing much better in the late 80s, I mean he KOed Mathis in 3. In 88, would he KO him 2 rounds or 1 round? Mathis is trickier than Tubbs who lasted two.

To be honest, Tyson is one of the few fighters I don't see a ton of variance in..despite years, lay offs, what have you. He had some off nights to be sure like Douglas or Ruddock II, but his conditioning, execution, and approach is remarkably consistent until his total crap out before Lewis. He could throw those combinations and hook off the bob n weave in his sleep.

For instance, Mike may have been slightly better in Bruno II than Bruno I. I posted the fights side by side some time ago.

 

Well, I'm a huge Tyson fan and I don't think the guy who knocked out Mathis, Bruno, and beat up Holyfield for a few rounds was a sloppy rustbucket.

After Mathis Jr and Bruno II, lots of talk of Tyson returning to great form. I think Mike's most out of character performance up to that point was Ruddock II, looked very sluggish and was clearly not there mentally.

 

He looked like a sloppy rustbucket against Mathis, McNeeley & Seldon... but not against the other two, i agree.

Tyson looked "very sluggish" & "not there mentally" in Ruddock II? :nut I strongly disagree.

You must be thinking of that lethargic & listless lump of weight-drained & starved **** who fought Douglas. :deal

Now back to Gears of War 3... stop distracting me with your posts Goose!

...wooooh Big Head Mode! :rasta

 

:nono

Tyson was terrible in Ruddock II.

 

Threads been done. Frazier's my all-time fav. Can't see him winning. **** You.

 

The Tyson of '88 takes out any version of Joe Frazier inside 6 rounds. Tyson starts fast and is very dangerous for at least 6 rounds. And Joe starts slow which makes this a very bad stylistic match-up for Frazier.

There certainly are heavyweights who could have pushed Tyson hard, weathered the early storm and beaten him - Ali, Lennox and Vitali all have a good chance to do this - but Frazier has no chance at all IMO.

H2H the Tyson of '88 is the best small heavyweight in history in my book. The brutal stoppage of Larry Holmes - past-prime or not - spoke volumes.

 

Frazier is getting sold a bit short here. People keep talking bout Tyson of 88, and i can understand that, he was a very good fighter then, but aint nobody talking bout the Frazier of march 71. Guy would have given anyone an argument that night.

 

Not as bad as his comeback. Tyson could still find the openings pretty well and counterpunch, something that was nonexistent in his comeback.

 

This would be an epic struggle, but Frazier would eventually come out on top, in a similar way to Holyfield. Frazier had the ability to put himself in a different place in his mind, which Tyson never had. Joe was a dawg of all dawgs. Tyson's attributes and style would be right down his street. Firstly, it's tough for guys of Tyson's dimensions to back Frazier up. That's half the battle lost when you're facing Joe Frazier. I don't believe Tyson would be able to back him up. Secondly, Frazier fought harder as the fight went on and NEVER got discouraged, Tyson did. Frazier was also very strong physically, fought better under fatigue, plus he was a better in-fighter than Tyson. In short, he would win a war of attrition and was just too consistent for Mike.

 

Its funny how all these Tyson fanatics love to talk about how powerful and great he was, but they can provide virtually no examples. They just shout out the names of the same bums over and over. The only names on his record worth mentioning are Larry Holmes, who is an ATG but he was 38 ****ing years old people.
And Mike Spinks, who looked like he had seen a ****ing ghoul. Guys i just want to know, how do Tysons balls taste?

 

This^^^^....... '88 Tyson smokes '71 Frazier in about 4 rds...... Styles make fights.....
:deal

MR.BILL:hat

 

You think of all the cans who lasted well into the fight against Tyson, or even the good fighters who went the full 12..yet somehow one of the greatest HWs who ever lived wouldn't survive 3 rounds. Kind of ****ed, if you ask me. Tyson would have never, ever faced the pressure and assault that Frazier would have brought. Ever. Tyson might have prevailed, but damn, it would be a war.

 

I think you're also prescribing to the theory that Tyson had no skills or defense when in fact he had a lot of upper body movement, fast hands, okay defense and needless to say a ton of power... He could jab, knock a guy out with a left hook, uppercut or right cross.. He was a fast starter and did his best work in the early rounds ( something Frazier didn't or wasn't ). In fact, Joe often got in trouble or fell behind on the cards early.. He could not afford to do this against Tyson. The closest opponent that Frazier fought in terms of power and starting ability was Foreman who absolutely destroyed him ( albeit with different styles.. ) Oscar Bonavena was a 5'10" opponent who fought in a crouching position, and took Joe the distance both times they fought and even decked him at least twice.