Who ranks higher as a heavyweight, Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson?

Responded like a man out of answers. I used facts. You're out of logical reasoning.

 

This is a very cool list, @Sangria

 

Interesting analogy.

Only to his diehard fans.

Most people are seeing the win over Ali as the difference, sufficient enough to place Frazier above him.

Your view of the rest of Tyson's resume is hyperbole. But nothing new there, I guess.

 

Or actually as someone, who simply doesn't have the inclination to argue with a dribbling, Klitschko flag-waiver...

Do you ever read the **** you write?

No - Mendoza - I am out of patience, when it comes to you and your half-witted Klitschko agenda.


Good day.

 

1. Tenure as Champion:

Both Frazier and Tyson have very similar paths to the extent that they both cleaned out the division in their title runs (late 60s/late 80s) and they both met the man who was expected to challenge their reign on their 7th title defense (Ali/Spinks) and they were successful in their endeavors. They both were able to reach a record of 9 straight title defenses before losing the title to men who they were both favored to beat. While Frazier's pinnacle of beating Ali dwarf's Tyson's pinnacle of beating Spinks, Tyson's title run until losing to Douglas was far more dominant. In addition, Tyson post Douglas, was more successful than Frazier post Foreman I as Tyson was able to recapture a portion of splintered titles that he once unified whereas Frazier never won another title fight after losing to Big George.

ADVANTAGE TYSON

2. Quality of Opposition:

Frazier's Top 15 Names (in no order)

1) Muhammad Ali (undefeated lineal Champion)
2) Jerry Quarry X2
3) Jimmy Ellis X2
4) Oscar Bonevena X2
5) Joe Bugner
6) Ron Stander
7) Terry Daniels
8) George Chuvalo
9) Bob Foster
10) Manuel Ramos
11) Buster Mathis
11) Doug Jones
12) Eddie Machen
13) Dave Zyglewicz
15) George Scrap Iron Johnson

Tyson's top 15 Names (in no order)

1) Micheal Spinks (Undefeated Lineal Champion)
2) Tony Tucker (Undefeated IBF Champion)
3) Razor Ruddock (#2 Ranked Contender All 3 Bodies) X 2
4) Pinklon Thomas (Fmr WBC champ/#1 Rank WBC)
5) Larry Holmes (Fmr Lineal Champion)
6) Bonecrusher Smith (WBA Champion)
7) Frank Bruno (#2 Ranked All 3 Bodies/WBC Champ) X 2
8) Trevor Berbick (WBC Champion)
9) Tony Tubbs (#2 Ranked All 3 Bodies + Fmr WBA Champ)
10) Carl Williams (#1 Ranked IBF)
11) Andrew Golota (#9 Ranked Contender WBC)
12) Frans Botha (#1 Ranked IBF Contender + Fmr IBF Champ)
13) Tyrell Biggs (#1 Ranked Contender All 3 Bodies)
14) Bruce Seldon (WBA Champion)
15) Alex Stewart (#3 Ranked Contender All 3 Bodies)

ADVANTAGE TYSON

3. Ability as a Fighter

Both Frazier and Tyson have very similar styles; when Tyson was coming up he was often compared to Frazier. Frazier was the better infighter and was typically throughout his career better conditioned and often fought with greater determination and had better intangibles. Tyson had the faster hands, better KO power, better chin and at his best, better defense. They are both successful heavyweight champions, but if were to take them and face one after the other, what you believe to be a Top 10 Heavyweight list (excluding the two in question) who would fare better?

ADVANTAGE TYSON

4. Notable Losses/Omissions

Frazier has losses to Muhammad Ali (2) and George Foreman (2). Tyson has losses to Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield (2), Lennox Lewis, and later Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. The post-Lewis losses were really past his prime but the Douglas loss was in his prime.

In terms of omissions and fights that should have happened? Frazier never fought Norton, Lyle or Shavers. I don't think he ducked them, I think reasonable explanations can be made why they never fought. Tyson never fought Bowe, Moorer, Mercer or Morrison. Again I don't think there was any ducking, there are some reasonable explanations that can be made. So while omissions is a wash. Notable losses is not.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is Frazier overall lost to a better class of fighters than Tyson.

ADVANTAGE FRAZIER

5. Historical Significance

Joe Frazier's was involved in two of the most iconic fights in the past 100 years; FOTC and Thriller in Manila. He still to this day boasts what is arguably one of the greatest single wins in history (regardless of weight class) in Muhammad Ali.

Tyson on the other hand still holds the record as the youngest ever Heavyweight Champion. He is a cultural icon that has transcended the sport in a way that only Muhammad Ali can rival. He has essentially become a benchmark for Heavyweights and is probably the most talked about fighter ever.

ADVANTAGE TYSON


This is why I rank Tyson firmly ahead. Tyson had a better reign as champion with more wins in title fights and a more dominant reign. While Frazier had the better signature win, Tyson has much better depth over a wider variety of styles. Tyson's H2H ability was largely celebrated by Ring Magazine placing him at the top of the p4p list in 1987, 1988 and 1989. This was a feat that was unusual for heavyweight.

Frazier's losses are far more respectable than Mike's and while his intangibles are a celebrated part of his character I don't believe it's enough to put him over the top. Yes you can argue that Tyson never got off the floor to win a fight, well neither did Jim Jeffries or Lennox Lewis. Frankly, the counter argument here is that it was much harder to drop Tyson than it was to drop Frazier. In any case, it's not enough for a deciding factor. Not by a long shot.

I rank Tyson at number 6 (below Marciano and above Lewis)

I rank Frazier at number 10 (below Holyfield and above Wlad Klitschko)

 

I agree with most of the individual points, but your conclusion is suspect for a couple of reasons.
Although Tyson might well be a little better overall.

First, although yes Tyson would be better head to head, mostly due to superior speed & genes...
When you give NO advantages to Frazier in comparing them, think about admitting at least subconscious bias.

Frazier had a greater workrate.
Frazier was a *much* superior inside fighter. Not even in the same ballpark.
Fraizer had greater stamina-& heart.

Which leads me to a point many have said.
The comparison of their fighting styles as very similar is simply wrong.
Both short & very aggressive, that is very broad.
Frazier was a high-volume, inside pressure & rhythm fighter.
Tyson was a semi-swarmer, somewhat of a counter-puncher, & while he had to come closer to LAN against taller & longer opposition, he was a mid-range fighter.

Lastly, as pros I think Tyson rates a little higher. Likely.
But the question is who was a greater *heavyweight*.
So Frazier's extensive amateur success & Gold Medal in Tokyo means you can easily give him the nod.
Or at least at most it is neck & neck unless you discount the amateurs.
At best for Tyson, but this is dubious.

 

I think adding amateur careers is quite the reach. But ultimately, you seem to be focusing on just one aspect; intangibles. I happen to like Joe Frazier, Jack Dempsey, Marciano and Floyd Patterson. I find their style to be aesthetically pleasing. No bias against Joe, I used what I believe to be objective criteria that doesn't place too much emphasis on thing and rather examines the whole picture.

I have nothing to add to what I have already said in post.

 

Frazier never fought Norton cuz they were friends and shared Eddie Futch as their trainer. Read somewhere that Joe wanted a bigger payday against Shavers when the fight was offered, not sure how true that story is.

As for listing opponents names you could have mentioned the significance of the rest of Frazier's opponents as most of them were ranked contenders. Also in the 80s-90s with all the different sanctioning bodies it was much easier to get ranked in some way or get a belt whereas in the 70s the rankings were more or less straightforward and the champion was always lineal/unified the belts.

 

I'm aware that Eddie Futch trained both Norton and Frazier. Norton's managers forced him to make a choice and he chose Frazier. Stander stopped Shavers 2 years prior and Quarry had beaten both Lyle and Shavers on his run up to the rematch with Frazier. He could have still faced them (Lyle/Shavers) but it was high risk and low reward and the path he took got him the title shots he wanted anyway.

My initial post got deleted when listing the rankings of Frazier's opponents; I got a bit lazy so I left it as is. Feel free to add context to the opponent name (as the time he was facing Frazier).

I should add that there was WBA, the WBC and NABF titles during the 70s in addition to Ring Magazine/Lineal title.

 

Buster Mathis Sr would have have fit into that group fairly well. He was big, quick and talented. Big Bus showed uncommon coordination and footwork for a 250lbs heavyweight. Ofcourse he was lacking in discipline, a little light on the left side.

 

In the context of Tyson's resume, Tucker is the only one to really fight tall and use his reach to his advantage. Thomas did it to a lesser extent with his heavy jab.

I don't recall Williams throwing blistering 3, 4, 5+ punch combinations but if you can show me fights where he does that consistently show me please.

Tubbs having fast hands does not equate to him being a great combination puncher. He did that in spurts but as he got fatter and lazier he threw less combinations.

2 years into a decade means you fought in that decade so you can't dismiss Patterson. He had a whopping 10 bouts in that decade alone including his prolific last hurrah against Ali where he did better than the first fight. If he only had, say, one fight in early 1970 against a tomato can and then retired you'd have a better case.

What does the size of the 80's boxers have to do with assessing the speed of both eras? Speed is speed, you either have it or you don't, just like power.

I would not classify Thomas as a complete fighter. He was not great on the inside and was a very straightforward 1-2 puncher (although he was excellent at it). Greg Page was all over the place and couldn't make up his mind if he wanted to be a counter puncher or a boxer puncher and sometimes forgot to stick to his own game plans. Tucker was talented but oftentimes one dimensional, didn't go out of 1st gear and lacked heart.

They all had many flaws that would keep me from classifying them as well rounded boxers. Don't even get me started on guys like Bruno or Smith or Cooney.

Douglas and Witherspoon at their peaks were the exception. They were very well rounded complete fighters.

 

Good work

 

But it is.

 

Williams as well with his 85" reach and quick, jolting jab.

Williams's fights with Berbick and Cooper are his best showcases, off the top of my head. If you want to see how fluid he was, I recommend a highlight video. It's tough to single out individual fights for heavyweights, as most of them are plodding and jabby with only short spurts of action.

I agree with your latter statement, but we're talking primes here. Tubbs when he was fit, focused and game could really throw 'em. Unfortunately the buffets and booger sugar eroded his skills.

That's fair enough. It's just that he didn't fight very many major contenders in the '70s, and was only ranked (by The Ring) in '71 and '72. It'd be like calling the Orioles a contender in the '90s despite only doing well for two seasons, in my opinion. Good point about his fight with Ali, though.

Speed is speed, but when you consider that a guy like Ellis was essentially a blown-up middleweight, it puts things into perspective. The fact that guys like Dokes and Tubbs could out-speed such a smaller guy says a lot about them.

I didn't necessarily say they were 100% complete, but rather they were MORE complete than their '70s contemporaries. The '70s players were good, but they always were missing something for me. Ellis was slick but lacked meaningful power, Quarry didn't have a great jab, Lyle and Bugner were fair boxers but lacked speed and finesse, and Bonavena, Shavers, Wepner, etc. were just crude. The only "contender" from the '70s era that I'd place with guys like 'Spoon, Thomas, Douglas, Page, Dokes, etc. in terms of pure talent is Norton.

Hey, I didn't say *all* of them. There's a reason I didn't mention those guys.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The guys I mentioned previous were tremendously talented at their peaks. Flawless, no, but compared to the '70s class, they were considerably more skilled, in my opinion. It's so fun to compare eras, I must say.

 

True. Had a brain fart and forgot to mention him for some reason.

I'll check them out

So your sticking to the claim that he threw 4,5,6+ punch combinations? Went to the head and body and used angles, not just quick little flurries then backing off?

But being ranked for 2 years out of a decade means he did better than 99% of the boxers in that decade out of a sample size of presumably hundreds.

So you're docking points for the smaller guys in the 70's for being fast primarily due to their smaller size? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Lyle lacked speed but he was a very good boxer for someone who started very late and got most of their education in prison and turned pro with little amateur substance. He could box as well as slug. Could bang inside or use his jab to try to win rounds at mid range. Lacking speed is oftentimes simply biology, he wasn't lacking in overall ability.

Young was very well rounded. He could use his legs and outslick guys or he could mix things up in the clinches at close range. He had a good jab and was a superb counter puncher. His only weaknesses were that he utterly lacked punching power and could sometimes be a little too defensive and could drop decisions due to a lack of work rate.

True Quarry could have jabbed more but he was an excellent boxer. Gil Clancy helped revive his career and he became much more well rounded switching between being a great counter puncher and being able to slug.

Not really fair to being up shavers, Bonavena, and Wepner but ignore guys like Bruno, Smith, Cooney, Cobb, etc.

I do agree that on average the 80's contenders were a bit more well rounded, but surely the more scientific guys like the aforementioned Young, Ali, Holmes, Norton, etc paved the way for them? Before these two decades it was rare to see men that size dominate the rankings.

I can guess why!

"Considerably" more skilled is a bit of a stretch. In which ways specifically? As another poster mentioned, I think it was 70'sfan, simply being big and throwing long jabs with lateral movement doesn't make you the greatest thing since sliced bread and superior to all forms of fighting.

Even a crude guy like Bonavena is probably a better inside fighter than the vast majority of guys in the 80's. Inside fighting is a skill. I don't think any of them were as good at defensive fighting as Young at his peak.