Mike Tyson vs Joe Frazier

And Tinkerbell was damaged goods at 23 after feasting on bums for the majority of his career... :rofl

 

Frazier doesn't need an excuse.
Foreman is an ATG. :deal

It's just a fact, if you want to get into details, that Frazier was out partying and doing all that celebrity stuff that apparently ruined Tyson ... AS WELL AS having actual boxing-related damage due to having tougher fights against ATG competitor and a tougher road to the title.

We can ignore it all, and call Frazier "prime", and he doesn't need any excuses.
Tyson's not in such a good position though, he desperately NEEDS his excuse, because he lost to Buster Douglas, who's never been mistaken for an ATG.
And this is why we are all so familiar with the hilarious excuses for Tokyo. :good

 

yeah, it takes it out of you.
Chasing Alfonso Ratliff around the ring for 2 rounds and going 93 seconds against the granite jaw of "The Truth" Williams, that would ruin anyone.

 

My miscalculation I was thinking of FOTC which was in 71.

Taking punishment isn't the only way a fighters skills erode.

And where was Tyson at 29? Just coming out of prison.

I never directly compared the two, however stylistically both Frazier and Tyson had a weakness there, the difference is, Tyson fought more of them whereas Frazier only fought the one puncher (albeit twice).

 

We know who was running in Kingston.

 

Foreman wasn't an ATG that night in Kingston, he was a guy tailor made for Frazier to mow down according to a lot of the experts of the time

Foreman became an ATG later


Tyson beat fighters as good if not better than Douglas so his excuses when losing to a guy the caliber of Douglas have some merit.

Whereas Frazier, how many punchers did he face again?

 

That's true.
But Frazier matches by any standards as a fighter who was way off his best. Punishment, history of injury, spending less time in the gym, more time in bars and with women. Frazier has the same "excuse box", and more.
He was an eroded fighter. No one doubted it at the time.

Regardless, he lost to Foreman who he probably never could have beaten.

yeah, he was getting ready to face the ATG Peter McNeeley.

I think Frazier faced some pretty good punchers.
Quarry and Bonavena were no cream-puffs.
Tyson never faced Foreman, or anyone as good as that.

 

Like Tyson was running from Holyfield in the 11th round??

 

Foreman was at the peak of his powers AKA an ATG.

 

Well, Foreman was in his prime. I'm talking about quality. Technically, no he wasn't yet an ATG based on accomplishments, but he was quality.

It's like saying Tyson wasn't an ATG against Berbick. If he wasn't an ATG quality against Berbick, he never was one.

Well, almost anyone half-decent can make excuses for almost all their losses then.
They just have to say "look, I beat these other guys, so the loss to these guys must be flukes".
Or whatever.
Either way, Frazier never lost to Douglas-caliber opponent.
And, again, he doesn't need an excuse for Foreman. If Foreman was Frazier's daddy, so be it.

Depends what you call a "puncher" .
I suspect the standards for "puncher" are such that allow Tyson to have wins over loads of "punchers", right ?
List Tyson's punchers, and I'll have an idea of where you're coming from.

 

Tyson may not have faced a Foreman, but he fought plenty of punchers and was never bounced around by any of them.

You just had to mention McNeely didn't you?

Well at that same age, Frazier was fighting the legendary Jumbo Cummings. A guy who's lost to Snipes, and would go on to Mitch Green, Frank Bruno and Tim Witherspoon

 

You might have miscalculated again.

 

Oops wrong again, at the same age Tyson was getting flattened by China chinned Danny Williams and quitting against legendary Kevin McBride... :rofl

 

To be fair, Azzer might have mistaken McNeeley for McBride.
Tyson fought so many bums it's hard for his fans to remember them all, even if he lost to some of them.

 

Yeah, Tyson fought soooooooo many bums. Nice way to disrespect the professional fighter. :-(