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

Just ask people around the world to name 3 boxers. 99% of them will have Tyson in there. That's all one needs to know in order to see who ranks higher.

 

Yes it does. Impact on the sport is one of the factors taken into account when determining greatness. Not the most important one (that's achievements), but a factor nonetheless.

Stop confusing "the greatest ever" with "the best ever", they are entirely different things.

 

This might be the worst take I've seen here in a while. I guess that people picking Allen Iverson over Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is also a proof of AI being superior. Or, to use boxing analogy, most people would say that Joshua is better than Sonny Liston - does it matter?

 

Frazier beat Ali and almost beat him two other times. He also beat Jimmy Ellis, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, and Bob Foster

Tyson beat a much older Holmes, an inactive and terrified Spinks, Tony Tucker, and Razor Ruddock.

I think Frazier has the better overall resume. He beat the best of his era, Tyson wasn't competitive against Holyfield or Lewis.

 

Lol no.

Let’s erase Frazier’s loses to Foreman. He probably was scared so they shouldn’t count.

 

Let's look at their title reign:

Frazier /Tyson
vs Buster Mathis /Trevor Berbick (for the title)
vs Manuel Ramos /James Bonecrusher Smith (1st defense)
vs Oscar Bonavena /Pinklon Thomas (2nd defense)
vs. Dave Zyglewicz /Tony Tucker (3rd defense)
vs Jerry Quarry /Tyrell Biggs (4th defense)
vs Jimmy Ellis /Larry Holmes (5th defense)
vs Bob Foster /Tony Tubbs (6th defense)
vs Muhammad Ali /Micheal Spinks (7th defense)
vs Terry Daniels /Frank Bruno (8th defense)
vs Ron Stander /Carl Williams (9th defense)

This content is protected

Outside their Reign other Notable victories:

Frazier: Jerry Quarry II, Oscar Bonavena II, Jimmy Ellis II, George Chuvalo, Doug Jones, Eddie Machen, Joe Bugner, George Johnson

Tyson: Donovan Ruddock I, Donovan Ruddock II, Frank Bruno II, Bruce Seldon, Frans Botha, Andrew Golota, Alex Stewart, Cliff Eitienne, Lou Savarese, Brian Nielson

Frazier has the better signature win during their reign, but Tyson has the better wins overall.

Not sure why you needed to qualify Spinks as inactive and terrified, what bearing does it actually have on the actual fight? Whether he was afraid or not wasn't going to make a difference. Should we discredit the Patterson wins because Floyd was afraid of Sonny?

Also if you're going to say Tyson wasn't competitive with Holyfield and Lewis then shouldn't you also point out that Frazier wasn't competitive with Foreman and Ali considering he had a 1-4 record with 2 stoppage losses including being knocked down 8 times in those fights?

Frazier didn't beat the best of his era, Ali did, but Joe was able to clean out the division in the late 60s much in the same way Tyson cleaned out the division in the late 80s.

 

I go back and forth. The rivalry with Frazier and fights with greats gives him what he gets, but Tyson had that great dominance. It is hard to say. I think at this point I give it to Tyson barely.

 

I lean towards Mike Tyson. Better set of skills and fool and overall resume. Fraizer had the best win of the 2 beating Ali. Mike has him in longevity and beat more top 10 contenders.

 

Good breakdown and I agree with your conclusion, but it should be said that Tyson also has a much worse loss in Douglas.

Frazier wasn't competitive with Foreman, that's true, but he certainly was with Ali. Won the first and pushed Ali to the absolute brink in the third.

 

In your opinion, my argument fails to demonstrate why Frazier should rank higher than Tyson. I care for this no more than I care that you (or anyone else) rates Tyson higher than Frazier, the latter part of which I have made clear, throughout.

We have established that subjectivity in assessing this kind of 'ATG listing' is unavoidable. However, there are some, who value certain criteria more than others and vice versa. It really is that simple.

The still quite amusing part of all this, is the belief you have that:

• "[your] argument...articulates a better rationale that adds context."

The above statement and its implications, about those who have put forward an opposite view, are patently untrue.

Plenty of facts and context have been provided for Frazier, in counter to your case for Tyson. You really have not been able to refute these facts or truly invalidate any of the context given. Instead you rely on some numbers to provide a greater volume of xyz for Tyson, as well as whatever that fight-for-fight comparison you produced was all about.

More importantly, you have not addressed any of the problems raised in relation to your own approach to this assessment, including some of the data you used, and have again failed to do so in your latest response to me, which says it all.

It doesn't matter that you have used the same criteria to compare other fighters before. All this means is that you are as likely to have produced a warped outcome in those cases, as well.

 

Where does Jake Paul rank?

 

Nowhere, he`s a joke

 

Now THAT'S easy to agree with.

 

Frazier:
- Jerry Quarry II - (Ring-Rated #4)
- Oscar Bonavena II - (Ring-Rated #9) Should be referred to as fight I; their second meeting was during Frazier's reign.
- Jimmy Ellis II - (unranked)
- George Chuvalo - (Ring-Rated #8)
- Doug Jones - (unranked)
- Eddie Machen - (unranked)
- Joe Bugner - (Ring-Rated #8)

Tyson:
- Donovan Ruddock I - (Ring-Rated #3)
- Donovan Ruddock II - (Ring-Rated #3)
- Frank Bruno II - (Ring-Rated #7)
- Bruce Seldon - (Ring-Rated #6)
- Frans Botha - (unranked)
- Andrew Golota - NC
- Alex Stewart - (unranked)
- Cliff Eitienne - (unranked)
- Lou Savarese - (unranked)
- Brian Nielson - (unranked)


Not a massively wide gap here, in real terms.