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

Excellent post as always. I'd also like to mention that despite facing a worse version of Ali, Norton didn't beat him nearly as decisively as Frazier did, having to settle for an SD. The UPI scorecard actually scored it for Ali.

 

First off there was less than a year between Quarry vs Frazier 2and Quarry vs Norton. Are you saying Quarry was shot only vs Norton, I find that hilarious! Secondarily Quarry beat Lorenzo Zanon in the same year after losing to Norton, who was a contender type, which signifies Quarry at age 29 was not shot.

Stander buckles Frazier's knees! It's on film. Norton Savaged the same guy. If Stander was a heavybag, then why the heck did Frazier pick him for a title shot? Do tell. I'm not saying he was very good, I'm saying hurt Frazier with what little he landed. Fine you don't want to use Quarry or Stander as a measure stick, how about Ali? Now you're in trouble as Norton clearly did better vs Ali.

Norton broke Ali's jaw and had him hurting. If it was a 15 round match there's a good chance Norton stops Ali. Frazier didn't damage Ali this badly. Other-way around Ali had him swollen up and Frazier was in such bad shape after the 1971 fight, he could not make it to his dressing room without help and didn't even had the energy for an interview! Norton, oh he was just fine after all 3 fights with Ali, who is the only really big win on Frazier's resume.

I find it odd that Ali could not hurt Norton, but had Frazier in trouble or stunned a few times.

My point that Norton did better than Frazier vs the same competition stands.

I guess the point of the thread is Tyson was better and would crush Frazier head to head.

PS: Yes, Quarry fought the Punchers Frazier did not. So did Norton for the most part.

 

Anyone who scores Norton vs Ali 1 for Ali doesn't know how to score a fight, period. Norton won that fight by at least 2-3 round, and beat the **** out of Ali in the final rounds. Norton easily out landed and hurt Ali. " Norton landing 233 total punches to Ali’s meager 171."

[url]https://www.thefightcity.com/ali-vs-norton-broken-jaw-san-diego/[/url]

Ali got lucky on lots of judges cards. The Jimmy Young fight for example.

 

NFW

 

Ali wasn't known to receive gifts back then. Anyways my point stands, Frazier beat Ali more decisively in TFOTC than Norton ever did despite facing the best version.

 

And keeping Joe´s chin against punchers in mind, Bugner>Bruno is more than generous.
If I had to bet on Frazier beating the punchers gang Smith, Bruno and 2x Ruddock in four fights, I´d hide behind a sofa for sure.

A serous thread would be:

"Is there´s any HW in history getting more credit out of single win than Joe Frazier?"

Included:

- Max Schmeling
- Ken Norton
- George Foreman
- James Douglas
- Riddick Bowe
- Olver McCall
- Hasim Rahman

Especially Riddick Bowes 2/3 against Holyfield vs. Joes 1/3 against Ali, checking the other wins and losses of both of them, would be worth a thread. I´ve never seen Bowe ranking anywhere close to Joe Frazier, so....

 

Head movement, bobbing and weaving is designed to avoid punches as opposed to stand right there in front of the opponent, asking to get hit. It also enables a fighter to get in a position to thrown his own punches.

If you think having a 6 or 7 inch longer reach means being out of range instead of clashing heads then you're massively overestimating the advantage it creates.

 

Tyson fan girls are so funny.

In my mind I imagine their posts in a high pitched girly voice (sort of like Mikes) as they get more emotional for daring to compare anyone to their pinup.

You have to laugh.

 

So Smith, Ruddock, Bruno = George Foreman now?

Bonecrusher lol! He couldn’t even beat Marvis Frazier. Joe would beat him more impressively than Tyson (who was happy to waltz around clinching with Smith instead of bothering to do any inside fighting which was Joes bread and butter).

To offer a counter to your alternative thread “Has Any HW In History Benefitted From Two Losses As Much As Ruddock?”
Ruddocks fearsome reputation is based purely on the two Tyson fights (which he lost) and beating up some has beens and never were’s. Lewis showed where he really stood in the scheme of things, reinforced by Tommy Morrison of all people. Tyson gets huge credit for beating Ruddock and Ruddocks reputation gets inflated by being beaten by Tyson, it’s totally circular logic.

And I don’t think you even reckon Bruno beats a prime Frazier. A guy with stamina issues against arguably the best endurance heavyweight of all time? This only ends with Bruno beaten into exhaustion unless he pulls a Foreman which is unlikely because Frank Bruno isn’t and never was George ****ing Foreman and neither were any of these examples of “threats” to Joe Frazier.

 

What the **** are you talking about now? Please at least try to make sense.

No. I'm telling you it's Joe Frazier with his two wins over Jerry Quarry and a prime, heavyweight Jimmy Ellis.

You can pick holes, but do you really want me to pick holes in the coke click of the 80s? That whole fiasco is gonna make you look like an idiot, since under the strict standards you're trying to push in Frazier's wins, Tyson's would look like complete ****.

You want to push losses? How about when Tyson lost the two biggest fights of his life when he was expected to obliterate Holyfield? How about when he was bashed around by Buster Douglas?

And Tyson lost to a cheap imitation of that Holy Cow in Buster Douglas, smack bang in his prime. It is as it it.

Tyson and Frazier are close in terms of their résumés if you remove the Ali win, with an edge arguable to Tyson. Then when you add the Ali win, it eclipses Tyson.

 

What he said is fine. Witherspoon had three fights total against two of them. He walked away with a first round tko loss. He had never been stopped before that and wasn't stopped again until 1999.

Odds are cumulative. Frazier would be favored over all of them individually. Make him fight Ruddock twice, Bruno twice, and Smith, and suddenly the odds become very good that someone stops him.

 

Douglas held a win over Greg Page. Tucker's best win was James Broad. Douglas weighed 228 lbs against Tucker, he weighed 231 against Tyson. That was a prime and motivated Douglas.

That's arguable. Quarry's top 3 wins would be Patterson, Lyle, and Shavers. Ruddock was better than Lyle and Shavers imo. Shavers lost to Bob Stallings who had a record of 21-24. This was a year after Quarry beat him. Lyle was still inexperienced having turned pro less than 2 years ago. These guys were not better wins than a prime Ruddock who was considered the 3rd best heavyweight on the planet.

As for Quarry beating Ruddock, that's just your opinion.

It wasn't even a 1 year retirement. Holmes hadn't fought in 1 year and 8 months. He was training for a fight when he retired and started training for Tyson after watching his fight against Tucker. Holmes dominated a prime Ray Mercer 4 years later, at the age of 42.

Who did Ellis beat that was better than a prime, in-shape Tim Witherspoon? Thomas vs Ellis is not 50/50. Thomas would've outboxed Ellis and probably stopped him. Thomas threw 46 jabs per round against Witherspoon. Witherspoon had a good jab himself but more importantly, he possessed a devastating overhand right. But that didn't stop Thomas from jabbing his face all night long. Ellis had problems with Patterson's jab, Thomas would be a nightmare for him.

You said "Frazier beat Ali and it eclipses Tyson's entire résumé". If we take away Ali, wouldn't Tyson's win over Spinks eclipse Frazier's entire resume? Because Spinks beat Holmes. Sure it was an old Holmes, but Ellis and Quarry arguably lost to an old Patterson. Spinks was levels above Quarry and Ellis. Bonavena wasn't even as good as Berbick. Tyson stopped Berbick and Spinks in less than 3 rounds combined. You can't make a case for Frazier without the Ali win.

When Frazier wasn't focused or motivated, he defended his title against Ron Stander and Terry Daniels. I'm pretty sure Tyson would've won had he fought Seamus McDonaugh instead of Buster Douglas.

The only HWs who can match Frazier's win over Ali are Ali and Schmeling. Why isn't Frazier the 2nd greatest HW? At the end of the day, he went 1-2 against Ali. I think Ali is the greatest heavyweight ever, but he wouldn't go 3-0 against Tyson. Tyson could've gone 1-2 against 70s Ali.

Tyson loved coke too. That evens it out. As for old men, there's just Holmes.

 

In June 1975, Frazier beat up Quarry. He tore up his body, dropped him in the 4th and snapped his head like a speed bag with a barrage of of shots and sliced his skin which created a bad cut that led to a 5th round stoppage as he pounded away. It was 1 sided affair, with 2 judges giving Frazier all 4 of the previous rounds.

Yes the Norton fight was 1 year later, but you're conveniently for getting 2 things:

-quarry fought a gruelling 10 round bout with George Johnson February 25th before the Norton fight.

-Quarry did not have a full training camp. And no he was not the same fighter you cannot gloss over Quarry's years and years of built up damage from all the wars he had been in. The 2nd Frazier fight undoubtedly made him even more shopworn, he got battered.

Norton could not drop an even older and more shopworn version of Quarry who fought on a 2 week notice and also took the same number of rounds to stop Quarry as Frazier (5). Yet somehow with your bizarro logic Norton looked better against Quarry.

Beating a contender doesn't mean you aren't shot. Joe Louis beat some ranked opponents when he was way past it and severely shopworn. Beating Lorenzo Zanon didn't change the fact Quarry had been in brutal wars and was stopped multiple times. That was his last decent performance. You're also conveniently forgetting Quarry retired immediately after his loss to Norton and didn't fight again for 2 years! Is it common for fighters who have a lot left in the tank to suddenly retire at 29?!?

Frazier beat a 27 year old prime Ron Stander who was 23-1-1. Norton beat a 31 year old Stander who was 28-8-2. Frazier stopped Stander in 4, Norton took 5 rounds.

Let me guess, you think it's more impressive for Norton to take 1 round longer than Frazier to stop a 31 year old shopworn version of Stander with 8 losses than for Frazier to beat a fresher and younger 27 year old version of the same guy with only 1 loss? Did You forget to take your medicine?

Norton did not do better against Ali. Norton won a split decision over a 31 year old Ali. Frazier won a unanimous decision over a 29 year old Ali and dropped him. Ali was also undefeated and the lineal champion.

So we now see in all 3 of your idiotic examples, Frazier faced a younger more prime version of the exact same opponent. Frazier dropped 2 of those opponents (Quarry and Ali) Norton couldn't drop any of the 3 opponents. Yet somehow Frazier did worse than Norton??? You're not smart enough to troll so I guess this is just more of your weird agenda pushing.

 

You don't have to explain what head movement is designed for. It's pretty obvious reading my posts I know what it is.

If You think Tyson's head movement would look exactly the same against a 5'11 opponent with short arms throwing short sharp punches on the inside vs a 6'4 opponent throwing long snappy punches then you're the one who needs to do their homework. Tyson vs Frazier wouldn't have nearly the same amount of head movement as some of their other fights once they met in ring center at close range. Both of their styles were meant for dealing with taller men with snappy jabs and getting inside. That strategy would be meaningless if they fought each other.

I'm not saying there would be no reason to use any head movement at all, Im saying the dramatic rapid left right motion Tyson is known for, he wouldn't have had as much room to work with to use it in the first place with a guy like Frazier.

 

I love both of these fighters and go back and forth on ranking one over the other. There is however one thing I have to say in Tyson’s defense... while he might not have a win as good as Frazier’s over Muhammad Ali, he also never defended against anyone as bad as Dave Zyglewicz, Ron Stander, Manuel Ramos or Terry Daniels... I realize these men don’t make up the cornerstone of Joe Frazier’s resume... But that’s still a lot of crap defenses... Even the 38 year old retired Holmes would have easily schooled that woeful bunch... in fact he’d probably outbox Buster Mathis too.