why do people think tyson has a better chin than frazier?

both Tyson and Frazier were face first fighters, difference is Tyson was more of an aggressive counter puncher, making you miss and making you pay, whereas Frazier basically tried to bulldoze and outmuscle everything in his path

 

its delusional.

Norton fought Ali, three times as well and never came close to being stopped

 

to my knowledge, they have 2 mutual opponents, Frazier was stopped by both.

 

Well, Quarry, but he's irrelevant as they both beat him without being dropped or hurt.

 

Fraziers chin simply isn't what they try to make out.

that's no disrespect to Frazier who was a great fighter.

Tyson at his peak was the closest thing to a perfect fighter. And that despite the fact that he had a huge size deficit

 

playing devils advocate, Ali hurt Frazier, but couldn't hurt Norton!

 

It's easy.Frazier was a glass-chinned fighter.

 

Bob foster,Chuvalo,Quarry,Bonaven were chicken fighters.
Just a not too intelligent 70s fan can say these guys were stronger
and harder punchers than the muscle men like Golota,Bruno,Ruddock,Seldon
etc.
Stupid argument.The big quality muscle mass is important.
The most successful modern heavyweights are muscular (Tyson,Holyfield,Lewis,w.klitschko) guys.
The chickens haven't place on the top in the modern era.
"Sad but true."

 

Tyson takes bomb after bomb for 8-10 rounds from the likes of douglas, holyfield and Lewis but is said to have a weak chin but frazier who keeps getting up only be knocked like a child again and again till it got so boring for Foreman is said to have a better chin and heart?

The hating here for Tyson is incredibly ridiculous.

 

I am pretty sure a good chin also is ability to stay on your feet.

I believe more think Tyson's chin is better, though what is popular is not necessarily right.

Though Frazier could absorb great punishment & was tougher mentally, I think Tyson & his massive neck had a netter chin overall, & certiably for power shots.
Though Frazier was no slouch.