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

Tyson was 29 years old, on his release from Prison, and it was well within his reach to unify the Championship and the Lineal Championship, but it never happened. As mentioned in my prior post, but not picked up on by you in yours, Frazier had no such luxury. He was further along in his career (and, in terms of his ring age, he was done) and could only go through Ali to get to the title.

Also - I am not sure that unifying or even regaining the lineal Championship provides the type of rating elevation you describe. It didn’t by itself take Patterson, Holyfield or Lewis to a Top-3 ATG rating, by default.

Nevertheless, it would have been a significant achievement and certainly noteworthy, when referring to Championship Tenure.

No. We were discussing Championship Tenure, at this stage, but you have merged a number of other aspects into your response, in relation to this.

That’s fine, though. As I have alluded to in a previous post and above, the middle ground is closely blended and blurry. There is a lot of grey.

No. You have provided some factoids, which in a ‘genuinely holistic approach’ need to be assessed on balance with all other factors.

And, I have been clear that I do not think that, even when putting Ali and Douglas to one side, there is a huge gap between Frazier and Tyson. In other words, when we put Ali and Douglas back on the table, Tyson's record doesn't cover enough ground to get past these facts.

You are mistaking a focus on a clear, distinctive factor for discounting lesser factors.

And, just in case you were not deliberately misreading into my use of a single word (do you and Sangria tag-team, by the way)…

…Effort = Achievement - and Frazier’s achievement in ’71 is not an intangible.

Tyson lost to Douglas, despite a brief moment of success. Not an achievement and, again - not an intangible.

He might have. But not by a great margin; not enough to either match or take him past Frazier’s best win.

Yes, but Frazier’s feat is not alone and it is also the case that Frazier didn’t get hammered inside a round, in either of his rematches with Ali (unlike Schmeling).

Perhaps more important, is that Walcott’s body of work probably outshines Schmeling’s sufficiently enough to clear the deficit for Schmeling’s remarkable win. All of that said, Schmeling is not far of from Walcott at all, in my book, and might still even have a case for being ahead of him.

I get it!

You value the volume of a body of work, against over-matched competition, more highly than a peer-to-peer performance between the greatest heavyweight of all-time and the man, who might have been under his shadow for all eternity, had it not been for his extraordinary effort (= achievement/accomplishment ); a display of skill, guts and relentless determination.

I look at it the other way around and don’t think the rest of Frazier’s record is all that bad, either.

Yes - This is where we could go into a speculative world, in which outcomes are based on individual perceptions of any given fighter.

While it does well to explain your position here, it is about as far away from scientific as it gets.

I am actually trying to work out what, if anything, is particularly significant about Tyson being the youngest ever Heavyweight Champion. I mean, it’s not like he was the first and only ‘youngest ever Heavyweight Champion’; someone had gotten there before him, but only because they happened to be younger than the person that had, before them, been the Youngest Heavyweight Champion - and so on and so forth.

I guess someone has always had to be the youngest Heavyweight Champion, at any point in the sports history.

I wonder if Floyd Patterson’s career record became less significant, once Tyson came along?

Nah - Nice factoid; perhaps its an orange color question in trivial pursuit, as well as being a Guinness Book entry.

Simpler = Simpler.

Funny that you are making a big deal out of this ‘subjectivity’ thing, when I declared upfront that “one's interpretation of the facts is subjective”, meaning everyone’s interpretation of the facts is subjective.


Yes - I am placing a significant amount of emphasis on Frazier’s win over Ali because, a) it is significant and, b) it is more significant than any win on Tyson’s ledger. Therefore, it is a fact that distinguishes Frazier from Tyson.

Yes - I am, at the same time, placing a significant amount of emphasis on Tyson’s loss to Douglas because, c) it is significant and, d) it is more significant than any loss on Frazier’s ledger. Therefore, it is a fact that distinguishes Tyson from Frazier.

Not mentioning a fact that you yourself have already explicitly mentioned and which I have factored in to Frazier's post-Foreman numbers, is not brushing his two losses to Ali aside, is it?

I haven’t explicitly examined the losses; no more than I have done so for Tyson’s twin losses to Holyfield - the first being when Holyfield was a massive underdog (sound familiar?).

Your rationale was your interpretation of the facts that you chose to discuss. Don’t take this the wrong way, but it’s really not your place to state categorically that your rationale was fair. Especially, since you are a blatant Tyson fan.

Whether you find merit or not in what I have posted is of no consequence. I have explained my position clearly enough. In short, Tyson's best day is a long way from Frazier's best day and Frazier's worst day is nowhere near as bad as Tyson's. The bit in the middle is debatable, but ultimately academic, when all things are considered, re the subject.

 

Tyson's 8th round knockdown of Douglas I wouldn't necessarily call it a "heroic effort", he was thoroughly getting dominated throughout the fight and only was able to capitalize on an opening, which Douglas admits in interviews that he dropped his guard at that moment cuz he thought the fight was in the bag by that time. In round 9 you saw a more aggressive Tyson trying to finish the fight but didn't expect Douglas to fight back even harder.

Joe on the other hand got up every single time he was dropped by George and he had that mentality of fighting to the death. Even George was concerned that Frazier was still able to keep getting up. And for Manila Joe fought as a warrior till the end, most saw the fight as even till Joe's blindness got him in rounds 13 and 14, and he still wanted to go out for the final round which I still believe a miracle knockout was possible as Ali was on the verge of collapsing.

 

Forgive me, but I completely fail to see what is heroic about trying to beat a law abiding citizen unconscious in a sporting event for a large purse.

 

Who are you replying to?

 

Maybe.

 

But Ellis beat three leading young heavyweights (Leotis Martin, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry) to win the WBA tournament, before the Patterson fight. (Whereas Spinks was avoiding young top 10 contenders at HW.)
&
(Spinks's 2nd fight with Holmes was controversial as Ellis's win over Patterson)

I think it is arguable both ways.

 

Tyson

Frazier defended his title against two unranked puddings.Mathis was also not Ring ranked and neither was Ziggy.
I don't consider Frazier champion until he beat Ellis,that gives him 5 defences ,4 of them successful Foster ,Ali, and joke defences against Daniels and Stander,before being bounced around by Foreman.

Tyson has the better resume,Frazier the better single win.=Tyson

 

M. Spinks flags up, as a bit of a red herring, for mine, as far as his time spent at Heavyweight goes.

There were plenty of contenders, capable of taking a decision off Holmes, by the time Spinks got to him. Although, Spinks does deserve props for coming up from LHW to earn those rounds.

That he was gifted the decision in the rematch makes him look a bit of a fluke, however. Tangstad and Cooney do not compensate, while Spinks' ring walk to meet Tyson and the carnage that ensued, swiftly thereafter, will live long in the memory - for all the wrong reasons.

Spinks doesn't match-up well, on a historical, head-to-head basis, in my view. There's a crowd of heavyweights, throughout the divisions history, who I'd expect to beat him.

 

Tyson in his prime years pre prison was better than Frazier ever was. Bigger, faster, hit harder, more versatile in attack and the better defense. If Tyson fought Daniels and Stander, ( who buckled Frazier knees ) it would be over in two rounds or less. Oh he had then better chin too.

 

Yes he take the shots better than Frazier and dishes it out better. Tyson vs.Foreman could go a number of ways including Foreman gassing. The Lyle fight showed us a guy who hits as hard as Lyle could hurt and almost take out Foreman. Tyson hit harder and was a better finisher.

Foreman would be the one gassing first in 120 degree heat. What fight did Frazier win in 120 degree heat?

Tyson hits on the level of Foreman.

 

The heat is talking about the third Ali fight.

 

Ellis was good, no doubt, but in my opinion Michael's win over the unbeaten ATG Holmes supersedes his entire heavyweight resume. Jimmy also couldn't last a round against a limited but extremely powerful puncher in Shavers, whilst Spinks thoroughly whooped Cooney. Ultimately I think Spinks proved his worth at heavyweight more despite fighting much fewer guys. No disrespect to Ellis though -- he was a very good fighter whose success after moving up in weight is laudable.

You're right though that it is debatable. Also, that second Holmes-Spinks decision was pure BS, so no argument from me there.

 

It's heroic to risk your life to try to win and achieve your dream despite the fact you're literally getting beaten to death. It was courage in the face of almost certain defeat. He wouldn't be able to enjoy said purse if Foreman kept hitting him and he was permanently put to sleep.