prime joe frazier vs prime mike tyson

Tyson in the 60's/70's would have D'Amato with him. If D'Amato can keep him trained and keep him on track that would still be the issue to talk about but it was certainly better having him then not having him as far as the long run goes.


Ali and Foreman are the tougher fights for him. More so the pre-exile Ali than the post-exile.

 

Hs prime was short it seemed because his motivation was shortened.

The Goal: Win the Title, become the youngest HW Champion in history, and then unify the title to cement your place. After that, not sure Tyson thought about a future in boxing. It might have just not been fun anymore.

The Goal that Rooney tried to add on was the 50-0 mark. Tyson started to mention "retirement" right after the Spinks fight. This could be seen in the post-press-conference after the Spinks fight. And it was talked about in a program they had after.

According to Rooney, right after that fight, Tyson handed him the belts and that was that.


Tyson quote:
Tyson talking about retirement after winning the Spink fight:
"Don King was laughing, but when he finds out I'm serious, he won't be laughing. I don't want to deal with this bull**** anymore....I had fun. Boxing was good to me, but nothing lasts forever....I decided it's time to move on. It's time to call it a day...." [Heller, 255]

Mike on the death of Cus : 'When I'd get up in the morning, he'd make me breakfast. Now he's not around anymore. God. I'm doing to do well, but when I come down to it, who really cares? I like doing my job, but I'm not happy being victorious. I fight my heart out and give it my best, but when it's over, there's no Cus to tell me how I did, no mother to show my clippings to.'

http://www.tysontalk.com/quotes.html

 

very true on the quickniess and punches in bunches comment but for me frazier would manage to see out a rocky first round and once he started smokin tyson would be in a hell of a fight , one that frazier would win

 

:happy:bbb


would be awesome indeed. I dont like Frazier's defense in this match-up.

 

Early Lewis was a much different fighter than what he became. I agree that the LL that lost to McCall and was in trouble w/Bruno was really chinny and a bit careless, but the stick and style he developed under Steward made him really hard to beat in any era. I basically try and remember the best version of any fighter I ever saw and consider that his prime. And LL from 1997-2002 was brilliant.

Any way I really think Tyson was too strong, sturdy and fast for Frazier.

 

Actually mate, no I'm not assuming that. It was probably poorly phrased. But as you said, nobody knows how long his prime could have lasted. Given he relied on physical intangibles - even though he had great fundamentals to go with it - I wouldn't say it was that long anyway, from a logically guess.

All I'm saying is, it's not guarenteed. As I said, it depends on when he entires the frame. If we are talking the Ali/Frazier/Foreman era, when are we starting? The early '70's, when they were all in the picture, or the mid '60's when Ali hit top-level?

If it's the latter, then I don't think he beats a peak Ali - and neither do you as you've said yourself - and so that sort of rules him out until '68, does he beat a prime Frazier? Well, possibly, but again, not guarenteed by any means. Would he have beaten a '73 Foreman if he got the shot? Not for me, but obviously we disagree on this one.

Saying that, booradley's post about he would only be a good contender in nonsense, but I wouldn't expect anything less from him. Even though there were obviously top quality fighters the three mentioned and a host of good contenders, he would obviously be very, very competitive with everybody.

 

I think it's a bit of both, actually. I don't think he's ever rated properly, or rarely. It depends on criteria. I think most people accept that he's very good H2H. Some feel he's the best H2H and loses to nobody at his prime, some feel he was over-rated in his prime anyway and loses to plenty. There are always varying ends of the spectrum, but I think for the most part, H2H he's rated where he should be. The problem lies in his resumé, dominance and longevity. Some people - like me - rate highly on a combination of those factors and mark him down for it, which is why he's low on my ATG heavyweight's list. Some don't, and rate H2H more highly, which is why he's very high on some.

 

So Smokin' Joe would lose quicker than the likes of Bonecrusher Smith, Frank Bruno, Tony Tucker, Pinklon Thomas and Buster Douglas ?
You do know who Joe Frazier is yes ?

 

Holyfield has always reminded me alot of Frasier. They both apply large amounts of intelligent pressure. I like Frasier's chances to break through Tyson's shell and deliver a prime Mike his first loss. Timing is everything with Tyson and Frasier. The Joe that was blown out by Foreman might get hit once too many times and get knocked out by an "on" Tyson.

 

Probably a Tyson KO in 6.

 

:think There not ANYTHING alike.

 

Naw, Holy and Frazier are pretty different.

I don't agree with the common saying "Foreman destroys any swarmer." He knocked out an overweight Frazier who couldn't dodge uppercuts to save his life, awesome win but you're dealing with an entirely different kettle of fish in a prime Tyson, Marciano, etc. I can almost guarantee they don't get blown out that easy.

Tyson and Frazier are so different. They both come forward but other than that not a lot of similarities, Tyson blows Frazier out of the water in every physical way.

I favor Tyson here but I do have some questions about Tyson handling ATG shorter fighters. That's really the biggest question mark here, Tyson was made to fight larger opponents.