Tyson or Frazier? Who ranks higher on your heavyweight ATG list?

I've seen the fight. All 3 of them actually. Doesn't make what I said untrue.

Yet slower, less powerful and not as good on his feet. FOTC Ali was the best Ali we ever saw in the 70s, that or RiTJ Ali. He was also clearly past it for the third fight with Norton, underprepared and poorly conditioned for the first and Norton lost the 2nd.

Joe's win over Ali is better than Norton's.

Are you trying to argue Norton as a better chin? If so, please stop. If not, your logic is inherently flawed and very strange.

Either way, Frazier wasn't even badly hurt from that punch. He proceeded to demolish Stander himself.

Bobick. Oh my- well done to him. What a win!

Young is controversial. If you're using your own scorecards for the Ali fights, you should for the Young fight too.

Holmes clearly beat him. It's there on film. 10/5, 9/6 type fight. Norton may have fought the better competition, but he didn't beat it. Forgive me for not being impressed.

Okay? Other posters and the judges had Frazier ahead. I've not seen the whole fight, just most of it. I had Frazier ahead myself.

I didn't mention Cooney for that exact reason, but Shavers? Any version of Frazier up until Foreman 2 beats him.

Again, flawed logic. If Frazier ducked Liston, it'd have had to have been before he fought Foreman, yet the reason you use is the Foreman fight. This whole thing falls apart. Foreman was a noted puncher going into the Frazier fight, and they still fought him. Twice.

And remember, Frazier did better vs Foreman. Twice.

 

As a rule, I'll always go with the guy whose greatness is less dependent on a single win/opponent.

 

It's not though...

 

Frazier has good resume outside of Ali fight.

 

Interesting point, I can definitely see where you are coming from, but for me it’s not because of the Ali win that he is up there, it’s what he did before FOTC, hence why Ken Norton wouldn’t be anywhere near my top 10.

 

Frazier

 

Tyson was more dominant, but not for longer. Tyson, in his prime, was a champion for the best part of 3 years (November '86 to January '90), Frazier was a champion for the best part of 5 years (March '68 to January '73). He was undisputed champion for 3 years, and Tyson was undisputed for two.

How did Tyson rule for longer?

Why does Tyson have the better résumé?
Pinky, Tucker, Rudduck and an old Holmes isn't exactly better than Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis and Mathis. Hell, a prime Foster > past prime Spinks.

And Frazier has the Ali win.

 

Frazier.

 

Frazier had a ferocious rise to the top after winning the gold medal, beat the skilled quick buster mathis for the NY title, unified the titles by destroying Ellis (who won the HW tournament), and cleaned out the division. Amongst the names were quarry 2x, Bonavena 2x, a faded Mathis, and George Chuvalo. He beat a rusty close to prime Ali in am amazing battle that lived up to the hype. He lost the title in a shocking upset to the powerful young foreman, then racked up a few decent wins before losing to Ali and Foreman in rematches but not before beating the tall Joe bugner and crushing the light heavy champ Bob foster in a rematch and ellis again. Solid resume and only had a few names missing. He had tons of heart and fought every minute of every round.

Tyson had an impressive team of boxing minds guiding his career. After a seven amateur career, he went on a rampage demolishing the low tier fighters and journeyman with stunning early round KO's. His first big test was james tillis whom he narrowly pinpointed due to a knockdown. He beat a few other decent c level fighters like Mitch green (needing to settle for a points win in a dull fight) and it seemed like the momentum had slowed down but then he shocked the world with a brutal 2 round destruction over the rugged Trevor Berbick for his 1st title. He unified with james Smith in an ugly bout full of clinching and finally became undisputed with his decision win over the tall cagey tony Tucker. Along the way he had some decent defenses over the pinklon Thomas who had a powerful jab, the massive hulking British champion Frank Bruno, gold medalist rookie Biggs, an out of shape unmotivated Tony Tubbs, and possibly his 2 best wins in undefeated former light heavy spinks and a past his prime but still highly skilled holmes (tyson being the only man to stop him). He was unexpectedly dethroned by contender buster Douglas. He had 2 thrilling wars with the hard hitting #2 contender razor ruddock before going to prison.

Once out of prison he beat Bruno for the 2nd time and wiped out Bruce Seldon in a very unconvincing and disappointing fight for 2 belts. He challenged Holyfield and put up a good fight but was stopped late. The rematch was an ugly dq loss but it was pretty clear he wouldn't win this bout. His last decent performances were over young contenders like botha, savarese and nielson before being brutally KO'd by Lennox in his last significant fight with a name opponent.

Looking at the list of opponents, Frazier faced the more skilled and talented fighters (overall) while Tyson faced more tall athletic movers and sluggers. Frazier's best opponents were often in their primes while Tyson's were often past their prime. Tyson's best win is undoubtedly a rusty older Holmes coming off 2 losses while Frazier's is a rusty near prime Ali coming off 2 wins.

It's closer when you look at the rest of the resume. Spinks is better than foster, faded Machen is slightly better than Tillis, Berbick is slightly better than Bonavena, Ellis and Quarry you can compare to Thomas and Williams. Mathis was better than Tubbs or Biggs. Chuvalo was better than Smith. 2 wins over Ruddock are excellent and Frazier has no sluggers on his resume on that level (who he beat anyway). Joe Bugner was comparable to Tucker.

Overall I think Frazier has quality and Tyson has quantity. Frazier doesn't have as many embarrassing losses and only lost to 2 other atgs. Tyson's skills rapidly eroded and he slacked off more and more while Frazier, even with his body breaking down, was always in shape and was competitive with every opponent until he retired. When Frazier lost his title, the opponent went on to become an all time great. Douglas did nothing significant after he beat Tyson. In terms of skill, Frazier had a limited arsenal and less talent yet he made the most of it and is arguably the greatest swarmer of all time at heavy. Tyson had loads of speed, power, and defense yet be fizzled out rather quickly once the going got tough. When he was on top, for a brief moment, he was on of the most formidable fighters of all time. I don't think a single signature win over Ali is enough to say Frazier is 100% better, it's very close.

Err, about that, I don't think head movement would be a factor when both guys are 5'11 with short arms at close quarters. Tyson's head movement was designed for getting past the long jabs if opponents like Holmes, Williams, and Thomas. If he tried that against an inside fighter like Frazier he would probably swing his head right into a jolting punch from Frazier or clash heads.

Quarry was way past his prime when he fought Norton and took the match on a very short notice for the money. Frazier fought a prepared in shape prime version of Quarry and won 2x. It's obvious you have an agenda using this fight to bump Norton up a notch especially when he has nothing to do with this thread. You could make an argument for Norton having a comparable resume but using a washed up quarry and Ron ****ing stander makes you look really silly.

 

Well, I wanted to take some BF24 abstinence, but rubbish likes that brings me back.
In what world can you take this serious? Random pairing them against each other in fantasy fights? Making polls for these guys here on BF24? What else? Any parallel universe left? In what world are Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis and Mathis ahead of iron chinned Pinklon, Tucker (35-0), former ATG Holmes, plus that 230lb powerhouse Ruddock?

It is as it is. "Frazier has the Ali win." And thats about it.
But stop pathetically making Frazier a world beater for one night in Square Garden, fighting a clowning and tiring Ali (even after round 12 on the cards!), but taking away Nortons 2/3 against a still young seasoned Ali in 73.
What about celebrating Schmeling for this one hurrah of Louis? Where is he? Frazier clearly lost the other bouts swith Ali, while looking like a jojo against Foreman. Compare that to Tyson getting stopped in 11 on his feet against Holyfield? Which young ATG would look that way running again and again into George Foreman?

Frazier profited from fighting a stylwise taylor made past it #1 HW ATG. And still lost the other two meetings, beeing two years younger than his rival.

 

Oh, poor you.

This one.

Tucker's record is complete filler. He has a win over a green, unmotivated Douglas. Rudduck not only loses to Quarry, but wouldn't even be in his top 3 wins. That "former ATG" was 38 and coming out of a two year retirement. Hardly a top shelf win. Ellis is more proven, and is no less than 50/50 with Pinklon Thomas.

And that's enough. Especially when Frazier has a comparable résumé without the Ali win.

Stop acting like Tyson didn't get his ass kicked by Buster Douglas...

Stop acting like Tyson has a win which is in the same ****ing galaxy as this one.

Stop acting like Tyson's best wins are either old men or coke addicts.

Top 15-20 HW. He has a good Résumé outside of that win too, but not enough to say that he's as good as Frazier. Poor comparison.

Tyson.

Ali was past it? He'd go on to get his best wins years later... He was still prime and still in his 20s. Frazier beat Ali and it eclipses Tyson's entire résumé.

Lost one which was a disgusting performance on the referees part, and one where he was obviously past prime too? Yeah, like a past prime Tyson would do better.

 

Did you watch the fights. Norton Blew out Quarry. Quarry ALWAYS had issues. He was 29 for Norton and won his next match with a name fighter.

Stander was a joke of a title pick, yet he had moments vs Frazier. None vs orton.

And We know who did better vs Ali.

Nothing silly, just facts

 

Who are you going to fool? It its not only about Tyson, its about Ken Norton too!

Thats a copy straight from wiki when both won their title and before they lost path, excluding Ali as you stated:

29 Win 29–0 Ron Stander RTD 4 (15)
28 Win 28–0 Terry Daniels TKO 4 (15)
26 Win 26–0 Bob Foster KO 2 (15), 0:49
25 Win 25–0 Jimmy Ellis RTD 4 (15)
23 Win 23–0 Dave Zyglewicz KO 1 (15)
22 Win 22–0 Oscar Bonavena UD 15
21 Win 21–0 Manuel Ramos TKO 2 (15)
20 Win 20–0 Buster Mathis TKO 11 (15)

vs.

42 Win 41–1 Donovan Ruddock UD 12
41 Win 40–1 Donovan Ruddock TKO 7 (12)
37 Win 37–0 Carl Williams TKO 1 (12)
36 Win 36–0 Frank Bruno TKO 5 (12)
35 Win 35–0 Michael Spinks KO 1 (12)
34 Win 34–0 Tony Tubbs TKO 2 (12)
33 Win 33–0 Larry Holmes KO 4 (12)
32 Win 32–0 Tyrell Biggs TKO 7 (15)
31 Win 31–0 Tony Tucker UD 12
30 Win 30–0 Pinklon Thomas TKO 6 (12)
29 Win 29–0 James Smith UD 12
28 Win 28–0 Trevor Berbick TKO 2 (12)

Who beat better, more athletic and more durable boxers here in a more dominant fashion? You´re telling me its Joe Frazier beating 188 Foster, 190 Zyglewicz, MW Ellis or Manuel Who?

"Stop acting like Tyson's best wins are either old men or coke addicts."

Who are you going to fool?

It is as it is. He got the holy cow of boxing for 1 win in three trials on his resume. And again, we´re still missing unlucky Ken Norton....

Think about this

 

Everything you wrote is silly.

Quarry was 29 but he had been in wars. 2 fights with Ali, 2 with Frazier, duels with Ellis and Patterson, fought dangerous sluggers like Shavers, Lyle, and Foster, dropped by Chuvalo in a war before being counted out. Quarry also fought George Johnson 3x, London 2x, and Eddie Machen. He fought damn near everybody and was becoming punch drunk with worse reflexes and lots of bad cuts and stitches before he fought Norton.

He took the fight on a TWO WEEK NOTICE and had to be enticed with extra money. This is all well documented, he was damaged goods with worse reflexes and motor skills by the time he fought Norton and his best wins and performances were behind him. You are simply an idiot if you think Quarry was the same guy who fought Frazier. Nobody ever blew him out because he had an iron chin and was usually stopped on his feet due to bad cuts. His chin held up against way bigger punchers than Norton in his prime, oh and he fought on a TWO WEEK NOTICE.

Stander didn't do jack vs Frazier. It was like watching someone practice on the heavybag. I repeat: using stander as a measuring stick to prove Norton was better is pretty idiotic and desperate. You yourself said he's a joke opponent so what's the point of comparing who looked better against a joke opponent? Nonsense.

Frazier knocked down a near prime muhammad Ali and no one made him miss and look bad like fight of the century Frazier. It was an action packed performance. Norton's 1st fight with Ali was rather dull and Ali didn't seem to be giving it his all. He was very lethargic and just goin through the motions in some rounds.

 

In h2h term:
Ali>Spinks
Ellis<Tucker
Quarryx2<Ruddockx2 (Quarry was past it for the rematch)
Bonavena<Thomas
Old Machen<Old Holmes
Mathis<Tubbs
Chuvalo>Berbick (close)
Bugner>Bruno
Ramos<Williams
Stander<Bonecrusher
Foster<90s Bruno
Doug Jones<Biggs
Zygielwicz<Golota
Terry Daniels<Stewart

Frazier's resume is pretty much finished by this point. He has the Thrilla in Manilla loss which helps him more than hurts, but Tyson still has wins over Botha, Seldon, Mathis Jr., Tillis, Green, and Marvis Frazier.

Loses: Frazier took two bad L's to Foreman. I would call these worse than Tyson'a loses to Holyfield because Tyson turned in a competitive performance in the first Holyifeld fight. Tyson's loss to Douglas was unexpected and his fault but he still almost won. Frazier also lost to Ali in a boring second fight. Cummings and Lewis dont count for much.

Tyson is ahead based on opposition beaten and it really shows how he blew in with the prison stint and post prison career. Hs could've been consensus top 3 or better.