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

Holmes' peak ended with Tex Cobb in late '82, though he still looked better than anybody else during the Smith and Bey defenses imo.

The Williams fight indeed showcased how far he'd fallen. The reality is, he could have retired after the Cooney fight and probably been ranked even higher.

As more than one scribe has noted, Michael Spinks' performance in the first fight was pretty goofy and not easy to full heartedly commend. He basically just foozled Larry for the whole fight by being intentionally awkward and mostly neutralizing the jab. I've tried to watch it as objectively as possible (being perhaps the biggest Holmes fan here), and even I have given it to Michael by one point every time. He certainly did more than Williams (especially in terms of staying consistent throughout the 15 rounds) to beat Larry. But the way he did it will always breed contention, because Holmes was in fact the aggressor throughout the fight, not to mention the fact that he was the only one to cause actual harm.

Had the fight been even two and a half years earlier Spinks would have been stopped in 5. Easy.

 

1) https://www.ringtv.com/410833-bill-caplans-20-greatest-heavyweights/
2) https://www.ringtv.com/488242-ring-greatest-heavyweight-time/
3) https://www.boxingaction24.com/the-greatest-heavyweights-of-all-time/
4) https://www.thefightcity.com/top-12-greatest-heavyweights-boxing/
5) https://www.givemesport.com/1547377-the-50-greatest-heavyweights-of-all-time-have-been-named

Frazier is ranked ahead of Tyson in 3 of the 5 rankings, so according to the "so called" boxing historians and experts, smokin' joe outrank Iron Mike.

 

Here’s why it’s Frazier for me:

Best win: Frazier over Ali. Tyson over … Pinklon? Tucker? Spinks? Really?

Worst loss: Frazier to … Ali or Foreman, take your pick. Tyson to Buster Douglas (in Mike’s physical prime).

And that’s if we don’t count Mike’s declining years. Joe came back well past it and got a draw with Jumbo Cummings, who was above the level of a couple of guys who punched out post-prime Tyson.

That’s basically it. Joe basically cleaned out his division (til Foreman came along) and Tyson more or less did the same (til he got busted by Buster).

Not to mention Joe smoked the best Buster of his day while Tyson blustered against his, and Douglas wasn’t regarded as nearly as much of a threat in his era (before beating Tyson … or after really) as Mathis was in his.

I really don’t see it being all that close.

 

Ellis had never been knocked off his feet as a heavyweight until he met the fists of Frazier. Just sayin Jimmy was good.

 

I would have to give Ellis the edge over Spinks. Especially the version of Spinks that Tyson faced in 88.

 

That's basically it?

You forgot to mention Tyson becoming the youngest world heavyweight champion of all time (Tyson still holds the record). And Tyson unifying the championship one belt at a time (Tyson still the only heavyweight to do this). And also Tyson winning back a portion of the championship 10 years after first winning it (something only Ali and Foreman have done).

You're right, it's not all that close. Tyson is the greater fighter by a lot.

 

What age someone won the title has no bearing on their greatness vs. someone who won it at an older age. It’s a footnote, just like Joe being an Olympic gold medalist.

Joe won his title as recognized by the New York State Athletic Commission (which made him ‘the’ champion in Ali’s exile in most peoples’ eyes) and then unified it with the WBA and WBC belts by beating Jimmy Ellis and then solidified the entire thing by winning lineal recognition by beating Ali.

You’re basically trying to give Tyson credit for the fact that the title was fractured by various money-grubbing organizations and ignoring what Joe did that was more impressive: Buster Mathis was probably on par with the Berbick/Bonecrusher/Tucker crew, but Ellis was more accomplished than any of those guys and the crowning achievement to become lineal comes down to Michael Spinks and Muhammad Ali … which if you want to compare those two go right ahead.

“Winning back a portion 10 years after first winning” is another nice bit of trivia, but that’s all it is.

I ask you:

What is Tyson’s best win and how does it compare to Joe beating Ali in the FotC?

How does who Tyson lost his championship to (Buster Douglas) compare to who Joe lost to (prime George Foreman)?

 

So then Foreman winning the title at 45 means absolutely nothing either, since age means zilch in your opinion?

Why record anything then? It's all a waste of time.

Tyson >>> Frazier

 

First of all, someone doing it at an age where most people in the sport have been retired for 10 years and to do it after a layoff as long as George’s and to win it for a second time is IMO a greater achievement than saying ‘I won it at a year younger ago than Floyd Patterson’ or whatever.

Patterson was younger than Ali when he won it but that doesn’t make Patterson a greater fighter or champion than Ali was.

But all forms of art and athletics have prodigies who do things at a younger age than others. But a pianist headlining at Carnegie Hall at age 14 isn’t necessarily a better pianist than one who gets his first Carnegie gig at 31 — their overall talent and what they accomplish in their careers determines that.

Wilfred Benitez is not a greater fighter than Sugar Ray Robinson just because he was the youngest fighter to ever win a world title.

But doing something grand in the athletics realm at an age 15 or more years past prime after disappearing from the sport completely so long is more of an accomplishment than being a prodigy and flaming out early. If Joe Montana came back at 45 and won a Super Bowl without playing competitively for many years, I’d rate that accomplishment higher than Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest QB to win the Super Bowl. But I’d rate Joe a better overall QB without the comeback even though he was older when he won his first Super Bowl than Big Ben.

Ultimately, like I said, we’re talking about using trivia question answers in determining who’s greater.

 

Tyson

 

If Spinks did the same thing as Holmes; took a break then went on a comeback trail and upset Micheal Moorer in '93 to get earn a shot at Holyfield's title how would we view him?

Spinks should have taken another big fight to ride out the sunset.

 

I think he had a bad knee. Spinks really shouldn't have been the champion in 88. He benefited from Larry Holmes being an unpopular champion. Holmes most i think would agree won the rematch. He was lackluster should have got it back.. Michael was a hell of a fighter at 75.
I got respect for Spinks because he knew he didn't belong in there with Tyson. He faced it though.

 

He was one of the top three greatest light heavies imo. He had excellent power at that weight.

 

I have Liston, Frazier and Tyson tied at 7,8 and 9 all-time.

The order changes from time to time.

I think Frazier's win in the FOTC nicks it for him.

So, Frazier.

 

Oh man, you Tyson haters are something else. When did I say Tyson being youngest champ meant he was greater? FFS! That is an accomplishment though and still a world record.

"I won it a year younger ago than Patterson"...or whatever? Whatever? Frazier has 1 win over Ali that bests Tyson's wins. After that, Frazier falls way off because his next best win is probably against Quarry. Other than that his wins are...whatever. Ho hum. Average at best.

And of course you place more emphasis on Foreman's feat when comparing it with Tyson. OF COURSE you do.

Exposed another one.

So let's see, off the top of my head - these are the members of the Teddy Atlas prodigies for Mike Tyson Hate: Man_Machine, RulesMakeIt, Saintpat, Wass, and Unforgiven. I'm sure I've missed a lot more people in that group.

Now are you going to pick apart everything I say with a reply that takes up half the page?