Keeping it simple Tyson couldn't fight going backwards and Foreman is one of very few in history that would have dictated him on this front. Foreman by stoppage inside 5.
I agree, John. Mike shared that inability with Norton, though of course Mike was a better fighter overall than Kenny (it's debatable in regard to who had the bigger heart, though)
I agree with the premise of what you’re saying. But Frazier had some easy nights to show off a little too, I.e. Manuel Ramos, Terry Daniels, Dave zyglewic, Ron Stander and Bob Foster. In the event he was in with a great fighter he either lost or struggled so it works both ways.
that is a little debatable. Yes Foreman and Ali are undoubtedly the 2 best A level opponents Frazier faced, with his official record being 1-4 against them. However, 2 of those losses were when he was past his prime (especially the 2nd Foreman fight). Against Ali, Frazier was extremely competitive from start to finish in all 3 fights--the 3rd fight ending tragically due to damage to both eyes (one eye that was already impaired before the bout even began). It doesn't completely excuse his record, but it's worth bringing up. And for his 1 signature win against Ali, it was one of the most marvelous performances in HW championship history with him sealing the deal with the final knock down and ensuring his victory. What about the level below that for upper B to lower B level? One of only 2 people to stop the durable Chuvalo in a blood bath of a fight, demolished the undefeated huge Buster Mathis, steam rolled Jimmy Ellis in what was supposed to be a competitive fight on paper for a unification bout, battered seasoned veteran Jerry Quarry twice, knocked down the much taller defensive Bugner and took a convincing decision, etc. In other words, if you weren't A level, he beat the dog crap out of you and took a clear decision (there are no SD's or dodgy gifts on his record) or he knocked you out. He was exceptionally good at overwhelming people with his pressure style and if you couldn't adjust, you got run over eventually. Very few guys could adjust, and only Foreman took him out of his comfort zone. So with that context, it is a bit different from Tyson's run in some ways. Tyson, in spite of his great fundamentals and good ring IQ, wasn't all that great at imposing his style on people or making adjustments in the middle of the fight. He was a machine with pre programmed instructions from the Cus school--which was a blessing and a curse. It meant Tyson had zero hesitation with his fluid combinations and head movement but it also made him predictable and wasn't prone to thinking outside the box. Tyson often either blasted you out of there at some point or his fights became ugly clinch fests with only about 30-40 seconds of action in a round. This is the case for prime, post prison, and washed up Tyson. Rarely do you see him in any sort of back and forth evenly fought bouts or fights where he has to change things up and go to plan B or C. And it's because of this weakness that Tyson could look ugly even when he was in there with B or C level guys. The Mitch Green bouts is the most egregious example as he was right in the middle of his prime and almost every round looked exactly the same. Tucker was somewhat similar and he borrowed a little bit from Green along with Tucker to at least last the distance and get Tyson to not go for murderous haymakers over and over. Douglas finally found the winning formula and he got completely dismantled. He never against looked like he did in the mid to late 80's and that cannot be solely attributed to the loss of Rooney or his exile, it was a fundamental flaw in his style that was going to be exposed at some point. Holyfield added some of Smith's rough physicality and refusal to back off to the formula to make an even more frustrating night. As Flash24 pointed out, he became unraveled and lost his cool in the rematch realizing he was bound for the same fate again. It was all downhill from there. Bruno and Seldon didn't prove much in the 90's other than showing that when matched up against the right guys, Tyson would always have a nuclear bomb to land at some point whether early or late no matter how sloppy his technique was getting. But against nearly any remotely cagey opponent that had great finesse or a tough strong guy that could tie him up, his style didn't mesh well. Many B and even C level fighters made Tyson look ugly and/or went the distance with him when they had no business doing so. So in other words, the difference between the two is: -Frazier put all B and C level guys in their place and made you pay for thinking you could be in the ring with him. He was competitive with the best opponent he faced in all 3 bouts while losing badly to he 2nd best. -Tyson mostly put bums and D level guys in their place in spectacular fashion, with very mixed results against C and B level guys (some he blasted out early like Tubbs, Berbick, Williams, etc while others he went life and death with or looked really bad against like Tillis, Ruddock, Douglas, etc), and overall poor results against A level guys (2-3, with the 2 wins being old inactive Holmes and terrified Spinx moving up from LHW and the 3 losses being to Holyfield and Lewis). You could cut Tyson some slack for the Lewis fight since he was way past it by then, but you would also have to cut Frazier slack for the 2nd Foreman fight. Either way, their overall records are somewhat comparable with Frazier being more dominant for his brief run and then slowly fizzling out while Tyson being able to consistently take out guys of certain styles with early KO's all throughout his career, but heavily struggling with other styles whether they were A, B, or C level.
Excellent post, but small nitpick. I wouldn't say Frazier was in his prime for any of his losses. He had already showed signs of deterioration against Daniels, and Stander, when he was still undefeated. He'd clearly lost a step. F.O.T.C was his greatest hour, but the one that cost him the most.
I think so, too. Just as I thought Bowe's first victory against Holy kind of wiped him out for the rest of his career.
Some very good arguments here. There were many toptics in the last day which contains Foreman and Tyson. I wouldn't say "tailor made". Pure pressure fighters like Leon Spinks and Frazier were tailor made. But Big George is favorite. I can imagine Tyson shocking Foreman with a wild attack from early on but despite his short reach i see a larger possibility Tyson outboxing Foreman. He is able to do that...based on his skill set. But it isn't his natural or let's say his usual approach.
Tyson can't fight going backwards, & he can't push George forwards, Tyson quits around the 8th round if he's still conscious by then.
True. But Ali was past his prime for all three Frazier fights and took him 2 out of 3. The first fight he had only fought two times in four years. Foreman was an all time great but absolutely demolished him when Joe was still 29 years old and the reigning champion.. Frazier didn’t exactly beat the dog **** out of Bonavena who took him the distance on two occasions and floored him twice. Jimmy Ellis was a good fighter who I admire but he was off for 17 months and arguably lost to an aged Patterson in his last outing, not to mention being a former middle weight. Tyson was 19 years old when Tillis took him the distance... and while the loss to Douglas will always be a huge scar in Tyson’s record, let’s not forget the huge change in management and circumstances that occurred leading up to that match. Besides Douglas had nothing in common with Foreman OR Frazier anyway. Sure they were all time greats and he wasn’t but the styles aren’t even close
Yeah, he's worse. If anything Tyson was MORE succeptible to uppercuts than Frazier. A similar bobbing head swarmer style but none of Frazier's cardio, heart or chin. I think the heart is the real difference maker. Frazier got up 5 times against Foreman, Tyson never once got up in his entire career. He was so easy to break.
The young foreman would put the fear in Tyson ! A bigger stronger meaner bully.Every bullys great fear .
