Tyson Vs Frazier

I think Joe is a competent fighter, who conceivably has a shot against any HW in history, but there are some that just work match up well with him. Tyson is one of them.

Frazier's head movement was more consistent than Tyson but not necessarily faster.

Frazier has a pattern that he bobs in and it remained consistent throughout the fight. Consistent and patterned headmovement from a come forward fighter will always add pressure to any opponent.

Although Tyson's head movement was also patterned his tended to be a little more arbitrary possibly because his reaction time was faster and it always put him in a punching position.

I used to feel that Tyson was the digital version of Frazier or rather Frazier was the analog version of Tyson.

Because Frazier's not a counter puncher and his style does not resemble Holyfield in any way. Holyfield used lateral movement, tied Mike up and and was able to block his left hook throughout the fight. Frazier wouldn't fight Tyson going backwards and if he did he'd be ineffective and victimized. Tyson is no Foreman for better or worse but the comparison is used only to denote Tyson's punching power and how a big puncher like Foreman was able to put Frazier away quickly and how Tyson has the punching power to do the same.

This is a forum so everyone is entitled to their opinion but if toughness and heart is what Joe has to offer then he's a dollar short and a day late. Toughness and heart are intangibles that are often overused to compensate for a fighter's short comings. Those intangibles didn't disappear when he fought George Foreman, they were there but it didn't seem to matter; George beat him all the same.

 

It's asinine to think Frazier has a legit shot against Foreman when seeing only 2 years after FOTC considering how devastated he was by him. Yes, maybe he lasts longer. And yes Frazier wasn't at his best. But he wasn't shot. A little past it, and a little overconfident. Sure, but let's no crazy. Christ Sake he was almost KOed by Oscar Bonavena. I know I know... Frazier was green. Yet you'll jump on the 66-70 time frame as if Frazier was actually better before FOTC. Limiting the gap doesn't do anything but highlight your fanaticism. It's almost as bad as what Tyson fans try to do. Stop the hero worship.

I know, I'm a big fan of both. He also recently said that if the fight happened 2 years earlier it would have happened a lot different. I believe that too... but in the end Joe just can't take George's bombs. And he's vulnerable to the uppercut.

This has nothing to do with Marciano. I'm at realistic. I don't think Marciano has a legit chance of beating every HW.

I don't need to list examples. Frazier is second favorite fighter of all time. You glorify him... everyone can see it. When you post, 90% it's about Frazier.

And you're wrong... Tyson's head-movement was much faster. Frazier's was just much more limited. He moved his head up and down mostly, and his bob & weave was done with much less movement. It may look faster, but the reality is he's easier to hit. Tyson moves mostly horizontally, although his head-movement is more varied, less predictable, and faster at a greater length. Any film comparison would show this.

I don't think Frazier gets underrated. Plenty of people pick him against the Klits (Me included). Plenty people have him over Holmes, and many think he still beats a prime Ali. I think that's enough to show how much respect he gets.

The Holyfield knockdown on Tyson was a flash knockdown. It was an off-balance thing. How many times was Tyson dropped from just one punch due to being hurt? Never. Frazier? More than a hand full times. And that's not just including Foreman. Check Mike Bruce (Second fight), and Oscar Bonavena.

Frazier is my second favorite HW. I think he has a chance, but a slim one against Tyson. How is he going to handle Tyson's explosiveness out of the get go? The fastest starter against one of the slowest starters. It's bad news. Tyson is more accurate than Foreman, faster, and throws much better combination. I just think it's a bad stylistic matchup.

This has a lot more to do with you overestimating Frazier since he's your favorite fighter then me discrediting him. You actually believe Frazier's stamina equals Marciano. That's crazy talk to me. To me, it's like saying Frazier hits harder than Tyson. Clearly, Tyson hits just a little harder.

And the reason why it's crazy to me is not because of what the film shows. Not just what testimony, and historians say... but their actual documented training regimes show a vast different in intensity and longevity.

I hate to bring up Marciano here because he has nothing to do with this thread, but I needed an example to prove my point about you just wanting to always think the best out of Frazier. You like to compare and just prop Joe up. It's fine, but you have to admit that Frazier HAS to be the underdog in this fight. No? I think that's the bottom line.

 

No Pete, early Mike Tyson didn't use his head as frequently or as fast as Frazier. Granted he's the only fighter aside from Marciano that used the double slip effectively. I say this because my trainer showed me tapes of Marciano dipping his left shoulder without throwing a punch, only to immediately rotate back and drop his right shoulder on the other side and follow up with a right hook to the body and head. Tyson didn't do this as much as Marciano but Tyson's was faster. Compared to Frazier, yes Joes movement was more of a bob and weave, ducking style as opposed to shoulder slipping, but I'd say it was faster and more frequent than Tysons. Tyson used his jab more than Frazier on the outside with less head movement and used his head more to set up his double hooks when he was inside.

I'm not the only one who's puts Frazier's stamina on par with Marciano. Let's just agree to disagree on this one because there's no winner in this argument. But let it be said, Marciano never fought as fast, moving forward like prime Joe did, and if he did, he'd slow down over the late rounds too. We can probably argue who slows down faster after the middle rounds, but that's another argument that leads to a draw.

How many times do we have to talk about Frazier as a slow starter, especially when compared to Ali? It's almost like your saying Frazier would be slower than the slowest fighter Tyson fought and get bombed out quick which is wrong? Yes Joe was a slow starter, but compared to Ali, anyone is, and it's not like Joe is turtle slow to Tyson which your almost making it sound, fairly bullet proof.

Again, I believe Joe could survive Tyson's early explosiveness mainly because he doesn't bring the size and jab factor that Foreman brought to the fight, and the fact that Tyson is the shorter fighter which doesn't give him any advantage against Frazier. How hard is it for you to see the FOTC or earlier version of Frazier lasting more than the early rounds against Tyson and hurting him later. Probably not from your post, but I can see it happening.

The films really say SDFA if you know what I mean. Why, because they fought in two different eras against different fighters. I will agree with you though on the premise of comparing punch power in both fists, handspeed, endurance and chin. It sounds like your writing off Frazier and expecting the prime version of him to lie down against Tyson and gets stopped in 3 or 4, not as quick as what Foreman did in 1973.

 

Hi there Osceola, yeah think I have the same video, but you know, I always thought that was a bit sus - like it really mattered to his managers that people got that whe was 5'11 3/4" (I know managers and stuff like to pump up certain things, stats etc) - its like the thing with Holyfield - when he was cruiserweight champ he was always 6'1" but then as soon he moves up to heavyweight and the hype machine starts about how he's built himself up with computer training and specialist coaches and everything he suddenly also grown an extra inch to 6'2"??!! I remember a number of journalists making a few humourous growbag comments about how silly that was etc - suppose its the modern obsession with size in the heavyweight division - 5'9" or 5'11 3/4" Tyson was awesome whatever and so for that matter was Holyfield.

for all we know they could have shaved a couple of inches off the bottom of that ruler so it didn't look so small

 

Yes, his head-movement was faster. Frazier's bob & weave had less range of motion so it's gives an allusion that Frazier's bob & weave was faster. This is just not true. If they had a contest of moving their slipping & bobbing their head a certain distance back and forth, I'm sure Tyson would win.

Less of a motion of range and more predictable. Defensively, Tyson was superior. Most would agree with this. Even the Frazier diehards.

You could say because his jab was more effective, and because Tyson was so elusive, and so fast with his head-movement that he didn't need to be as repetitious. Or were his reflexes just better? Either way.

It's intellectual dishonest. And you made a poll out of a result of our first argument which had more people agreeing with me. Besides, Frazier has shown great fatigue in his late rounds against Bonavena and Ali. You can press on as much as you want about middle rounds or moving forward faster but there's no way it makes up enough in comparison to Marciano's output. On Marciano's Ringside, Brian Kenny is just in awe of Rocky's workrate. And the reality is he could've gone 5 more rounds at the end of the day if he wanted to. Frazier could not. He just burned out more.

It's really not his fault he wasn't faster on his feet. And your statement is beyond erroneous and uneducated. Rocky moving 1 mph faster wasn't going to tire him out. He could've went 5-10 more rounds if he had to. He threw 100+ punching in the 15th round against Ezzard Charles. I really wonder what his punches per round was against Moore. Something sensational. The guy fought at a MW pace. Period.

You could argue. Rocky could go 20-25 rounds. Frazier was very dead at the end of the match against Ali and Bonavena. As a boxing fan said after the end of the FOTC "Frazier was so tired he could barely raise his arm."

It's not wrong, not when Frazier's the come forward fighter. That and being a slow started is the combination that makes all the difference. It's bad trouble.

I was comparing him against Tyson... the man he fights in this fantasy matchup.

I think Tyson should be like a 3:1 favorite or something.

No, definitely not as quick as Foreman. I see a TKO around 3-5. You don't think stylistic Mike has the edge? And that Frazier is at a disadvanatge. You are in the minority. I wonder if any matchup is a stylistic disadvantage with Frazier for you? Nobody except Foreman since you saw that fought in front of you. And in the end you still think FOTC Frazier could win.

 

i dont think that makez any difference tyson with MUCH quicker punchez that may not has been as hard but were in the same league of hardness and frazier simply getz stunned early his fighting heart getz him back up, hez facing the wrong way looking into the tyson corner wondering why his trainerz facez are changing ref comez up to him not payin attention and askz him if he is ok frazier sayz yez and ref has to turn him around so as he can find tyson and frazier basically flopz out a few more timez on close punchez that he floped away from at the last second rather then try to walk through them and be knocked completely unconscious by tyson, much like spinks tyson but frazier at least would pretend not to be terrorfied when he waz hurt

no offense and i dont have a clue about it myself as i dont watch the sport but i happened to hear god over talking and she said anyone that believed frazier would take it waz most likely a complete moron due to tfact hat would have tore frazier to peicez with his speed, his anglez and hiz devestating power

dont even reply to me unless your planing on thanking me

 

You all bring up good points. I automatically thought of the heart factor, so I gave it to Frazier. But Tyson had accuracy, speed, and power in both hands. And the fact that Joe has the get inside to do damage, that's gonna be bad. I do think it would take Joe to long to slow Tyson down to wear Frazier could win. Tyson might not of hit quite as hard as Foreman but he's close and a far more accurate puncher.

But I do think if Frazier could stretch Mike past round 6 or so I'd give it to Frazier. But Mike would begin with a relentless attack that I'm not sure Frazier could handle.

 

First of all, Marciano was not as fast as Frazier and never fought with the same pace attacking forward.

I believe FOTC conditioned Joe Frazier or just prior to the FOTC has a solid and legit chance at surviving Foreman and Tysons early outbursts and the fight goes in his favour if the either men are still in the ring with Frazier in the middle rounds.

I don't see Foreman or Tyson, KO'ing the FOTC or earlier conditioned Frazier with the relative ease that you suggest. Your basically saying, prime for prime that Frazier wouldn't see round 4 against either man which is seriously underrating him as a fighter. First of all, I do agree with you that Tyson was more accurate and deadly in the early rounds like Foreman, but you make it sound as if Joe would simply be there to be hit and fall down early which I highly doubt. The fastest heavyweight in history, Ali, did hit Joe with a lot of punches, but he missed a lot of shots too? Tyson doesn't bring any size advantage into a fight prime for prime against Frazier and I think you underestimate Joe's speed. Again, too much emphasis on the Foreman fight in 1973, so in fairness why not use the best version of the champion rather than leaning towards conclusions based on what happened in 1973.

Either way, I don't think Tyson, the 1986 version, if he were to be put in a time capsule against Frazier, FOTC 1971, would knock Joe out early. Yes, I can see Joe hitting the canvas early, but Mike is not stopping him and I'd bet on Joe getting closer to Mike and landing some serious body shots. Mentally, Mike Tyson gets frustrated and he's never fought another heavyweight fighter that would put the same pressure and speed on him.

 

We might as well be done. Everything I do is underrated Frazier. Everybody in the world underrates Frazier according to your standards. And when we deal with the truths of things - you try distorting things for Frazier's favor.

You act as if Frazier was invincible from 67-71 yet the one in 73 was just shot. Foreman bounced him around like a bowling ball. In 1971 he would last longer, maybe. Against Tyson, I think he gets TKOed by round 4... maybe 5-6. I just think it's a bad style matchup. How is it not a style disadvantage for Frazier? If it isn't... what would be? Tyson is better than Foreman in so many ways.

Foreman did, and Bonavena had him hit somewhat early. Right?

Yep, with the 1-2. Joe can avoid a jab, even the straight. His bob & weave was designed for it. He's much more vulnerable to the hook and uppercut. Tyson knew this and he knew the uppercut would be open... he knew it for Marvis and HE and Rooney know it for Joe. Joe will get hit with uppercut. And that's when the fight turns.

Tyson is bigger and stronger. In fact, in weight Tyson may only be 10-13 lbs more. But he's stronger. A worse in-fighter. Granted, but I think Joe gets bombed out when coming forward. I don't underestimate Joe's speed. In terms of hand-speed, Marciano was closer to Joe's then Joe's was to Tyson's. That's how much faster Tyson is.

Yes, because Joe was shot here?

I am using the best version. The best version never fought a Tyson. When he fought some puncher, he got hurt and rocked. Frazier was hurt and rocked OFTEN.

Ramos caught him with a uppercut (Not anywhere near the puncher of Tyson). And Joe buckled in the 1st round. Quarry was stinging back in a phone booth fight. Standler had Frazier reeling toward the other end of the corner. Ellis was landing, Ali stunned Frazier in the 9th round. Bonvena almost KOed Frazier... this is what the history tells us.

Your rhetoric gets annoying. Frazier never fought someone with the speed and power of Tyson. You can say that sort of rhetoric for any fighter in an H2H matchup.


Answer me these questions.

Who was better defensively?

Who was had faster hands?

Who hit harder?

Who was more accurate of a puncher

Who had the better two-fisted attack?

Who was more durable?

Who had superior stamina?

Who had more heart?

Who has intangibles?

I'm not implying Tyson wins all categories, but he wins most of them. And important ones. This should tell us he's at least favorited. Stylistic nightmare.

 

"This is what history tells us ?"

Listening to your crap one would think Frazier had a glass jaw. You simply do not know what you are talking about. Very clear. Good for laughts though.

 

Then don't listen. Simple solution.

... or let the stalking continue. Always fun.

 

In a long distance battle, Frazier might have a chance at stopping him late, but I don't see it happening.. In order for Tyson's weaknesses to come into play, Joe would have to weather an extremely dangerous storm early, and that's a bad situation for Frazier to be in. Tyson was a very fast and effective starter, while Joe was often slow to get warmed up, and even got into trouble early as seen in the Bonavena, Ellis, Ali, Quarry and Foreman fights. While all of those men had styles that were very dissimilar to Tyson's, the one thing that I feel would still be a factor, is that he was far more ferocious out of the gate than just about any of them......

On paper, this looks a great match-up between two of the very best heavyweights of all time, but when I look at the career patterns of both men, in multiple fights and not just a few, it starts to look more and more like a mismatch.

NOTE: Around 1990, Ring Magazine had a battle of the legends match-up between both of these men. Among the people involved were James Bonecrusher Smith and Bert Cooper - two men who were both trained by Joe Frazier at one point.. when asked their opinions, both men picked Tyson to beat Frazier..

 

Interesting, you wouldn't happen to know what the other experts/boxers opinions were on the subject from that RM?

 

I really don't recall.. It was probably 20 years ago that I saw the article, and the only reason those two testimonies stood out from memory, was because I found it interesting that two men who were trained by Frazier himself, picked him to lose in a fantasy match-up..

 

Ah, that makes sense. I'll try searching for it online. Hopefully someone can dig it up. I bet TheGreatA has his sources... he always seems to.