Mike Tyson vs Joe Frazier

You both have fixed opinions Mcvey, but he is more one sided.
Also constant long statements in CAPS sound like overheated shouting.
He could have just noted how important he felt KO's were compared to other stoppages, an honest difference of opinion. No need to call you an "intellectual racist", applying stigma where none should accrue.

It is a big mistake to confuse later with prime Tyson.
He showed plenty of heart again Bruno, Ruddock, Douglas...

I agree he had too many advantages for Joe to be able to really start smokin'.
Size, speed, punch variety, defense, chin...

I would love Frazier to be able to take him, but if you took them at the same ages when both were training...Hard to see Frazier winning more than 10% of the time.

 

Frazier is by far the more admirable character, but I don't see him overcoming the natural advantages we both mentioned.

 

I wonder how Joe would have gone against Mike if he had access to Evander’s “medications “ .....

 

Gotta go with Tyson. More power, better defense, better jab, better hand speed.

 

Okay Mcvey, first let me apologize if you think i was insulting you. Your entitled to your opinion, which is exactly
what we BOTH have. No one really 'wins' this argument but that what 'dream fights" are really all about isn't it.
We both unloaded and I think presented some strong points. I also want to clarify two other things.
When I used the term "intellectual racist", that had nothing to do with skin color or anything like that.
I use the term only regarding a person who seems to use remarks clearly prejudice to there position
regardless of the facts presented to them. For example comparing Bruno with Foreman and Frazier is just shouting words into the air for substance when none exists. Bruno is nothing like Foreman or Frazier in any way. Both would have destroyed him. Of course if you want to turn this into a Bruno vs Frazier column I will turn you down
because that would prove I am wasting my time. Second, I was not using BOLD CAPS to shout. If that was the impression again I apologize. I recognize some people would assume that. The ONLY reason I used the caps was to distinguish your statements from mine for anyone reading it. Otherwise people reading would be confused about when your comments ended and mine began. So hey man no hard feelings. I just don't think your points lead to a sure fire win for Tyson, but I understand. 15 years ago I would have picked Tyson but through gradual and continued analysis of them over the years and watching old videos of fights, reading a number of books and having been a boxing fan for 35 years I have come to a different conclusion and have stated why. Its an opinion, just as yours is an opinion and that's the fun in it. The mental part plays a role here. For example I don't think any version of Mike Tyson ever beats Evander Holyfield because Evander had no fear of Tyson and that with Mike was 75% of the battle. This goes back to a pool hall confrontation they had as amateurs when Tyson wouldn't give up his pool stick after losing a game as he was supposed to and other fighters in line let Tyson keep playing. But when it was Evander next in line when Tyson lost he went over and yanked it out of his hand. Tyson backed down. My point is I think the mental factor plays bigger in this matchup than most people think. And the image of Tyson rolling over Spinks (who nobody doubts Frazier would have also beaten), and Foreman bouncing around Frazier (which most people concede he would have done also to Tyson), is using two fights that shouldn't be used in this comparison. Could Tyson have KOed Frazier? Absolutely. But weighing everything together. I no longer would pick Tyson like I would have 15 years ago. I bought into a Tyson mystique. Many people still do. Frazier would not have.

 

My thinking is along the lines of what Larry Merchant said in comparing Frazier and Tyson. His quote:
"Joe Frazier was a mile long and a mile deep. Mike Tyson was a mile long and an inch deep."

 

The Frazier who beat Ali would have been knocked around, but would have kept landing the hook until Mike fell. Mike wasn't the same after six rounds... and would've been put to sleep there or right after. More interesting would have been Joe vs Liston.


..

 

Pretty much this ^^^^^^

 

2 scenarios

1) Fraizer can't take the Tyson pressure and crumples before 6 (where Tyson fades and Fraizer tends to pick up the pace)

2) Frazier takes Tyson's best and manages to last 6 rounds, uses body hooks and constant pressure to hurt and stop Tyson late, out of exhaustion if not pure power

Personally i think the first is more likely but it's close, either could. But that's how I see the fight going

 

I like the scenarios, but Tyson's style changed so much to the negative after six I just can't see him lasting from the accumulated hooks of the rounds before. Tyson would be over in seven tops imo. He just couldn't take it, first knockdown and he's done. He was like Liston, a no-hearted quitter.

If we examine the styles, Tyson was a bit more mid-rangey, and Joe was so good at getting under punches from there. Even worse for Mike, Joe could be quite the counterpuncher, and that hook would have landed solidly an easy six or seven times by the sixth round....Tyson would be screwed.

Let's consider the fighters' temperaments as well. Tyson at his peak was a mean, ugly, nasty, hateful ***** (which often worked great for him)...but look at what Joe did when he was easily as pissed off (Ali I). Tyson would undoubtedly provoke Joe, and goodnight Mike.

Just musings, I could be totally wrong.

 

This is one of my favourite fantasy fights, it's too close to debate with any certainty tho. I like Tyson just based on power and speed, but Joe's left would seriously hurt almost any Heavyweight ever. I could definitely see Frazier landed and slowing Tyson before 6, after all if anyone could, it probably was Fraizer

 

Joe's hook (in a way like Holmes' jab) was a bit like Fate: once it started landing with any kind of regularity the question became: how much longer will this go on, the end is nigh.

I don't care what anyone says, the Ali who lost to Frazier might not have been the unbelievably fast and borderline perfect 60s boxing god. But he was still GREAT (look what he did to Foreman several years later). Joe beating him at that time (and keep in mind this was also NOT a ring rusty Ali) might have been the greatest victory in heavyweight history. It's an accomplishment by Joe that can not be understated imo. I don't think anyone could have stopped him that night, I even think he would have beat Holmes and Foreman that night (though I tend to see both of those fighters as greater from the ATG perspective).

Tyson certainly never had a victory anywhere near as significant imo. He beat a grandfatherly Holmes and a spent Pinkie and Berbick. Wow.

 

Imo Frazier holds the 3rd best win ever in boxing history, after Greb and Tunney 1&2. That win over Ali is out of this world even looking back. Great point about his hook, it was force of nature, imagine how much damage he'd do to some one with it after 20 rounds!
I don't think he'd of ever beaten Foreman just based of styles, but he mightve taken Holmes.

 

Tyson is capable of beating anyone h2h...ANYONE. That being said if you have crazy heart a great chin and no fear and are capable of controlling distance with Tyson you can win. Frazier’s got the heart and no fear and a decent chin but can he control the distance enough for a win? All boils down to if Frazier could survive 6. Probably have the same line as a commenter above I’d take Tyson but I wouldn’t put a dime on it.

 

How in the world is Tunney Greb either one the greatest HW win? To me it is clearly Frazier Ali with Schmeling Louis and Douglas Tyson right on its heels? Any reason for your picks?