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

Haven't we all?

Like I say, I'm really not at all bothered if people rate Tyson higher than Frazier. But that doesn't mean some arguments are not better than others.

 

What have I accused ironchamp of doing?

Do you not think it was a heroic effort?

He could have, but he didn't. Not sure what your point is, to be honest.

Either way, I also think it would be fair to call Frazier's effort against Foreman as "heroic".

And, let's face it, Foreman is leagues above Douglas.

And, Frazier just kept coming, no matter how many times he was knocked down.

Good. For a minute there, I thought you might not have known which side of the argument I was on.

 

In his prime he was very capable of doing that. The best fight that demonstrates his speed and combination skills that I can recall is the one against Page. He really showed his slickness in that fight. Unfortunately there aren't many highlight fights of Tubbs because, as you said earlier, he got really fat and lazy. But still, during his very short peak, he was a tremendously talented and multi-faceted fighter who could indeed throw good combinations.

Fair enough. Can't argue with that.

No, my point was to highlight how big guys like Dokes, Tubbs and to a lesser extent Page could match or outmatch speed with someone like Jimmy Ellis, who was a natural middleweight. It's a testament to their talent.

There's not much to argue with here as I agree with most of this. Keep in mind that I am a fan of the '70s heavies as well, but simply think that skill wise they were not as impressive as the subsequent groups. Lyle was good but rather lumbering in footwork and handspeed, Quarry lacked a good jab and had primitive defensive skills and Young was defensively brilliant but offensively dull and gun shy. In other words, they were good but not *that* good, in my opinion.

True enough, although I mentioned those guys because I legit couldn't think of any other contenders from that era that were notable.

No question that they paved the way. Once again, I am a fan of the '70s era. It was a groundbreaking decade for the heavyweight division and brought us some of the greatest and most legendary fights in boxing history. I just think that the division evolved in terms of skill and fight standards in the '80s, and then evolved even more in ensuing eras. The '80s brought us bigger, rangier guys who could mix speed, power and technical ability.

Good points, although many of the '80s heavies didn't need to utilize inside fighting as they preferred to keep their opponent at a distance with their jabs. Inside fighting wasn't their style. Tyson was the one guy from that era who utilized inside fighting to great success, and that was mainly due to his smaller height and reach. One thing you could definitely say about the '80s class is there was very little diversity in terms of styles -- mostly everyone used the same 'stick, move and throw the occasional flurry and power punch' technique. As a fan of scientific, technical boxing though, I ain't complaining.

 

I will say this. After reading so many quality posts with varying opinions on this subject, one thing is clear. Whether Frazier or Tyson is better, they are closely ranked in style, accomplishments and overall ranking

 

If you don't understand the points I made above then I can not help you.

Mike Tyson 50-6-0 (44ko's). Opponents combined Wins/Losses/Draws: 1334-213-17.
Joe Frazier 32-4-1 (27ko's). Opponents combined Wins/Losses/Draws: 942-196-36.

If you would like to do some homework, please find out how many Top 10 rated fighters Tyson and Frazier each fought. Tyson destroys Foreman in that category so I'm sure he'd destroy Frazier as well. Look it up for yourself and you'd be amazed at the disparity.

 

You claimed I had accused ironchamp of doing something - What did I accuse him of doing?

You must know what you meant. I don't. So yes, you can help, by answering the question instead of deflecting.

What does this^ mean in real terms?

Tyson has a few more wins over Ring-Rated opponents, which isn't a lot, when you consider Tyson had 50% more fights than Frazier. I wouldn't use words like "destroy", for emphasis here. It's a factor, but not a huge one, in the scheme of things.

 

Objectively, did Mike Tyson beat anyone better than Jimmy Ellis?

 

Appreciate your thoughts. Boxing is inherently subjective which is why chose to examine a more holistic approach that focuses on title reign, head to head ability, overall resume, nature of losses (if applicable) and historical significance. I think it provides more balance and fairness for fighters who fought in different eras.

A few things here, both Frazier and Tyson were favored to beat Foreman and Douglas at the time they fought. The fact that Foreman went on to become a legend and Douglas remained a "one hit wonder" was reflected in my overall assessment. I gave Frazier more credit for at least losing to a better class of fighters than Tyson. So it never went unnoticed.

And while I gave Frazier more credit for beating Ali than I did for Tyson beating Spinks, I also felt it was necessary to acknowledge that Ali aside Tyson had the better title reign especially when you consider his path:

1) Mathis < Berbick (for the title)
2) Ramos < Smith (1st defense)
3) Bonavena < Thomas (2nd defense)
4) Zyglewicz < Tucker (3rd defense)
5) Quarry > Biggs (4th defense)
6) Ellis = Holmes (5th defense) I personally think Holmes but with Ellis's youth lets call it a wash.
7) Foster < Tubbs (6th defense)
8) Ali > Spinks (7th defense)
9) Daniels < Bruno (8th defense)
10) Stander < Williams (9th defense)

I defer to you for any rebuttals you have on the above.

Post Foreman the Top 10 Ranked Fighters that Frazier beat were: Bugner, Quarry and Ellis
Post Douglas the Top 10 Ranked Fighters that Tyson beat were: Stewart, Ruddock X2, Bruno, Seldon, Botha, Golota, Etienne.

Again, these are the facts insofar as they exist. And yes I agree you're right, had Tyson managed to unify the titles again post prison it would have been an incredible feat that would assure him a place in the Top 3 (with Ali and Louis) but that's not what is being discussed here. We're comparing his career and legacy against that of Joe Frazier. I have demonstrated why he should compare favorably against Joe but quite frankly it seems as though you would prefer that I place more emphasis on Frazier's level of effort in both his wins and losses conveniently discounting that fact that Tyson himself put in a heroic effort when he dropped Douglas in the 8th round trying to turn the tables and save his titles.

Effort and intangibles go a long way but we also have to factor in things that are quantifiable otherwise these comparisons become far more subjective than they need to be.

They both fought (win or lose) equally great fighters. Frazier has the best win between the two but when you look past Ali, Tyson has the better wins overall.

A matter of opinion indeed. Schmeling's win over Louis is an incredible feat, but that alone isn't enough to place him above a fighter like Jersey Joe Walcott.

The win over Ali is a great victory, probably one of the greatest Heavyweight victories ever; this win is the primary reason (along with his body of work) why Frazier is in The Top 10 ATG Heavyweight list. But even with Ali, his collective body of work falls short compared to Tyson.

Tyson's superior hand speed, chin, and fight ending power in either hand pretty much gives him the edge. Are there fights that Frazier could conceivably win that Tyson would lose? Sure, it's very possible. But I also believe the opposite to be more true and in a round robin tournament against any Top 10 Heavyweight list Frazier would pick up more losses than Tyson would.

Glad you found something you like.

Let's eliminate pop culture for a moment (even though Jack Dempsey seems to benefit the most from it). Tyson is the youngest ever Heavyweight Champion. This is a record that remains unbroken 35 years later. What record does Frazier have in comparison?

What gives him the edge in historical significance?

Seems to me that simpler = subjective. You're placing a significant amount of emphasis on Frazier's win over Ali whilst simultaneously placing lots of emphasis on Tyson's loss to Douglas. You do this while brushing aside the fact that Frazier lost 2 out of 3 against Ali.

My rationale was fair and after thoughtfully reading your response, I find your rebuttal to be without merit.

 

You answered that question for one with the paragraph above. I don't believe Mike would have beaten 1971 Ali...shoot, I don't think he'd make it against Zaire Ali.

FOTC Frazier had a better chance against Louis, Liston, 1980 Holmes than Mike did. Frazier's superior endurance, willing-to-win-or-die attitude, and courageousness would have stood him especially well against Holmes, for instance. Mike tended to back off after five rounds if he didn't knock out his opponent, which would be candy for Holmes (the latter being a far better fighter than Douglas on his best day, and certainly superior to a past-it Holyfield). Frazier wouldn't have slowed down and become cautious, he would have been up Holmes the whole time, something Larry tended to have trouble with (Norton, Weaver, Witherspoon).

 

A few? Hardly. Ok I'm done here.

I threw in their overall records to help you in your thirst for knowledge...and to find out for yourself the disparity in rated fighters both men fought. If I were to reply with the number you still wouldn't believe it. So do the research yourself. And if you don't want to, I'll understand why.

And if Tyson had 50% more fights than Frazier, and fought better competition overall, and beat more rated fighters, and beat them more handily...wouldn't that place Tyson higher in your eyes?

 

Yes

 

Ellis was a blown-up middleweight who had no legitimate wins over great heavies (Patterson deserved the nod in their fight). Spinks was a blown-up light heavyweight who had a legitimate win over an ATG heavyweight, and was undefeated before Tyson obliterated him.

 

Michael Spinks.

 

The part in bold font above was my the point exactly, but one you seem to have taken to heart. You do understand that I was generalizing about the subjective interpretation of facts, do you not?

Your response here and throughout tells me that you are fine with acknowledging a subjective assessment, as long as it is your own, or it concurs with your own.

Your “holistic approach” of “fairness” really means that you get to subjectively decide on which categories/factors of assessment matter; which intangibles are relevant or not; which data and numbers are valid, as well as how they are used - all to supplement your opinions, which you seem certain should be obvious to everyone - Only to then provide a binary outcome for each factor, i.e. Advantage Tyson or Frazier.

You have devised a convenient framework of silos and absolutes - the very antithesis of an holistic approach.

I did not suggest it had gone unnoticed.

But you did not think to actually include either of the losses, as part of the assessment of “Tenure as Champion”. That you pick this up elsewhere, does not mean it doesn’t have a bearing under this factor. As mentioned above, you have attempted to silo your factors, without realizing how they might be interrelated in some way.

You explicitly refer to Tyson’s title run as “far more dominant” (up until his loss to Douglas), but fail to incorporate this title defense, the scale of the upset and how it might impact one’s view of Tyson’s tenure.

You simply sum up Frazier’s and Tyson’s first losses as “men who they were both favored to beat”, as though they are comparable. They are not.

The variance between Frazier and Tyson is considerable, here. Tyson losing to Douglas was unthinkable and, to this day, places a big question mark over him, in terms of his ‘Greatness’. Conversely, Frazier’s loss to Foreman has aged very well, given what Foreman went on to do.

You can say the above is without merit, but I think you might find that most impartial observers would consider it reasonable to, a) integrate these losses into an assessment of respective Championship Tenure (and dominance) and, b) deem there to be a gap worthy of note.

The above is a clear example of you presenting data in a way, which you must believe serves your purpose, because you presumably expect it to speak for itself.

I could just as easily state that I categorically believe Ali is greater than all the fighters on the list; Quarry and Ellis are greater than all of Tyson’s title run opponents, bar Holmes (who was way past his best when he fought Tyson). Bonavena is at least as good a scalp as Berbick and a better scalp than Spinks and Tucker.

Moreover, this approach you have taken does not, in any sense, speak to the height of performance reached by each fighter, during their Championship. Alongside each other, the level of Frazier’s peak performance and Tyson’s peak performance are contrasted by night and day and should be acknowledged, by more than just a tip of the hat.

Sure - You can think there is a matter of difference in their level of opposition and consider it as being of great significance and that is fine. As I have maintained from the outset, I don’t see that there is an impressive gap between Frazier and Tyson here. Most would agree that there is more volume in Tyson's body of work. The question is: Does that disparity in the middle ground make up for the more glaring differences between their records?

- When was Stewart ever Ring-Rated Top-10?
- When was Botha ever Ring-Rated Top-10?
- When was Etienne ever Ring-Rated Top-10?
- The Golota bout is a No Contest.

By my reckoning, Tyson officially went 4-3 against Ring-Rated opposition, over 18 bouts and 11 active years, following his loss to Douglas,

Frazier went 2-3 against Ring Rated opponents, over 6 bouts in 3 years, following his first loss to Foreman - before retiring in ’76. (This, save for the one bout he came back for, in ’81).

Again, why does this count favorably towards Tyson’s Championship Tenure and how are these respective stages of their careers, even comparable?

I am not sure you have the facts right, as questioned above. But, either way, I do not see how any of this adds credence to Tyson’s Championship Tenure.