How bad would Mike Tyson beat Joe Frazier?

We both know that Douglas was the one who was ahead at the time of scoring in terms of who was winning the fight. Those judges are crazy. Tyson Holyfield was competitive without being close. In spite of this, Holyfield was winning going into round 5. Though Tyson took the 5th, he gave up his momentum in round six with the off balance knockdown. The point is Holyfield wasn't subjected to an early barrage as he stayed on even ground from the onset. If Frazier is to win it's because of consistency not attrition.

Douglas was consistent, and so was Holyfield.

I just don't see Frazier evading Tyson enough being right in front of him.

 

Actually he's not. Tyson can bring out the best and the worst of both sides but overall he's rated pretty fairly.

What he did before Douglas was more that what many fighters do in their entire careers. To be fair post 1990 Tyson did more than post 1973 Frazier.

 

Gotta say, im impressed with Mongoose here and not just because i agree with most of what hes saying. :good

 

I have over 5000posts you're not allowed to make looney emoticons at me NOOB! :twisted:

 

Yeah Tyson looked horrible winning a one sided UD atsch WTF, Tyson haters take his one sided wins and use that as an example of him being exposed. Lets take any atg and talk about their wins and not one was as consistently dominant as Tyson no matter what the level of opposition was.
You fail to see the difference between a fighter like Tucker and Holmes and how they performed against Tyson? Holmes had the balls to try and fight Tyson off. Tucker went the other route of holding to safely finish. It was pretty common with Tyson, but he still won all his fights one sidedly. I dont think that exposes anything of how any other fighter would face Tyson. I think what separates it is that other fighters of the past would have fought Tyson similar to what Holmes did and I think a lot would take the route Tucker took. There was noone who was outfighting Tyson in the late 80's and his dominance was pretty clear that he would be formidable against anyone who stood with him.
Now if your matching Tyson of the 90's vs Frazier at his prime, theres a big difference.

 

-Crap comments like this is why I'm really struggling to continue with this debate and have already been tempted to bail. How does exposing certain limitations to a particular fighter equal a horrible performance? Am I trashing Tyson with the Tucker fight? All I initially did was shoot down the weird notion that this was Mike's greatest opponent and performance.

And yes, it was a very one sided win but that doesn't mean it can't show me things Tyson couldn't do and keeping it on topic, things that Frazier could. The difference between Mathis and Tucker in those fights is marginal, the difference in strategy, focus, and composure between Tyson and Frazier..is immense. Perhaps there is something to the assumption that on the inside...Tyson settled, while Frazier took. Could this be a factor in a match up between Tyson and Frazier? I think it's relevant and hardly "hate", yeeeesh.

-Why would you say I fail to see the difference when I described the difference between Tucker and Holmes in almost the exact same terms. I can't even figure out what your arguing here, what's your side, what's your take? It doesn't seem much different from mine if you think Holmes fought while Tucker survived. What do you think defines the positive aspects of Mike more...cutting the ring off against Holmes after getting outboxed for two rounds or accepting Tucker's clinch as long as he can score with the occasional jab and win the rounds?

I think Tyson/Tucker falls into the "cut your loses, win now, look better another night" attitude. Hardly what we would use to define Mike's greatness, and certainly a fair look at his apparent limitations in contrast to a fighter like Frazier.

 

Your point is fair and well argued. However, Holyfield/Tyson I was close going into the 5th. And Evander did take a Tyson barrage in...think it was the 4th? Got rocked by a few combos I believe. I need to revisit that one.

 

Maybe your spinning it into that. I never said it was his best performance. But time after time people come into Tyson threads and say he was overated, and use one sided winning performances as an example how how Tyson would struggle with certain fighters. I think your leaning towards that in a lot of your posts.
As far as Tucker its hard to tell. Its like the opposite of a fighter like Evander Holyfield for example. He could have taken an easier way to beating certain fighters. Using his boxing ability and not slugging as much. Evander matured and started to fight more like that as he progressed as a championship fighter. I think the same could be said for Tyson. He was learning how to find more openings against slick fighters who could hold and move well and trying not to submit to a one sided waltz. He had a very difficult style to succeed like he did against tall mobile opponents. He just never fully completed himself as a fighter before going downhill.

Sometimes guys dont want to fight, it happens to Pacquaio all the time, and his opponents are always blamed for it. Mosley ran from him, Clottey held, even Cotto tried to run in the later rounds. It doesnt matter how good you are, if you cant land shots and your getting hit over and over and cant do anything about it, you look to hold or run. It goes against how most people are inately programmed to stand and trade with someone and get knocked out when you feel you have little chance. Thats why you saw some of the guys I mentioned above fight uncharacteristically. I dont believe a guy like Holmes for example was equipped to fight like Tucker did against Tyson even if he wanted to. For a short period of time this was the deal with Tyson, he broke guys down mentally quickly because he couldnt be hit cleanly enough, and often enough, to keep him off, and thats what made him the force he was.
Im not trying to be some Tyson nuthugger, I think he was total **** in the 90's, far from the fighter he was when he came out of Catskill, but for a short period of time, he was a fighting machine that would have given any fighter in history a tough time and I dont think you can definitively pick against him in any mythical matchup, he stands a good chance against all of them at his best.

 

If frazier stepped into the ring with tyson he would bully him just like holyfeild did.

 

Probably the 1997 version of Tyson.

 

-Kal said it was Tyson's best performance, I was responding to that.

-Its not fair to bash Tyson or call him overrated over something like the Tucker fight. But it is fair to use it as an example of potential struggles in fantasy match ups. Why wouldn't it be?

-I really don't see what Tucker did that was so special, Holmes couldn't. Just let Tyson jab at his face, and grab him? Holmes had too much pride for that though, he always went out there to win, even if he was intimidated.

-I agree, Tyson was never a finished product and was still learning before he declined. Yet when I point this out I'm a hater, go figure.

-Nobody blamed Tyson for Tucker's spoililng either at the time but as you recall on the heels of the Bonecrusher disappointment, there was certainly questions rightfully being raised about Tyson's in fighting ability. If Mike stayed focused and developed a better body attack against taller fighters....it would have benefited him down the road against fighters like Ruddock, Douglas and Evander.

Well, Pacman used Clottey as a punching bag at will. But I certainly think Pacman's inability to get to Mosely at points is certainly cause for some concern, supposed leg cramps or not. I mean look at Pavlik/Taylor II, sure Taylor was just surviving but I don't doubt that Hopkins was confidently grinning ear to ear after he watched that.

-Absolutely. But the same can and should be applied to other all time greats. Frazier didn't lose his first fight until he showed up against an all time great puncher out of shape and unfocused after a half assed training camp that consisted of partying and touring with a funk band. Yet, Tyson gets considerable slack for losing to Douglas and Frazier is written off as never standing a chance against Big George. Makes you think, doesn't it? :think

 

If it's a prime for prime matchup, Tyson's not KOing Frazier and I'd bet on Joe grinding Tyson down and stopping him late like Holyfield did. He'd probably have Tyson down once or twice in the middle rounds. If Holyfield could put Tyson on the mat with a hook to the chest, certainly Frazier's left hook could put him down.

Tyson could probably KO the same Joe that showed up out of shape against Foreman in 73, but not in two rounds. Maybe four or five. Tyson doesn't present the size advantage that Foreman had and he's actually the shorter fighter.

Gotta love how people are writing Frazier off in this thread. Sure seems like Frazier would leave his arms and gloves in the dressing room, fight with his face and Tyson never gets hit with one punch? Too funny.

 

I was waiting for ya man.
You probably make the most sound arguments for Frazier whenever he's matched up with someone.

 

I will admit, sometimes slightly biased but I try to be fair and reasonable and use as much factual info on him.

I just think the Frazier haters want to remember him more for the beatings his took against Foreman when everyone knows George didn't fight the same fighter that gave Ali hell in 1971.