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

I have Mike ranked over Joe and I loved his win over Marvis

Mike had better tools, and more defenses

but Joe's defenses are more significant and more memorable

 

What has the number of rounds got to do with the relevancy of workrate or Tyson's ability to stop Ali?

Why would it be a 12-round bout, when FOTC was over 15?

It is not "false" just because you say it is.

A comparative study between Frazier and Tyson has been carried out, which featured in the September 2018 issue of The Ring Magazine. Frazier won most of the statistical comparisons. In particular:

- Frazier was more accurate overall (51.1% to 45.9%).

- Frazier attempted and connected with more power punches per round (43.8 attempts and 24.6 connects per round to Tyson’s 22.8 attempts and 12.4 connects per round)

- Frazier was also the harder fighter to hit, as his prime opponents landed 27.7% overall, 16% jabs and 35.8% power while Tyson’s foes connected on 34.1% overall, 28.1% jabs and 39.6% power.

 

This is really interesting, thank you @Man_Machine

 

Not true. He got some wins and would’ve handled Mathis’ fat, featherfisted ass.

 

Let’s reduce Ali to a guy who needed to cheat to avoid being stopped by an undersized English guy while we’re at it.

 

I take studies like these with a grain of salt because it assumes that both guys' opponents were equal in physical attributes and skill. We both know they were not. It also likely takes into account Tyson's post-prison career where he was nowhere near as good as he was in his prime. I'd love to see statistics comparing '86-'91 Tyson versus '66-'71 Frazier (their primes) and see who comes out on top. I recall seeing guys like Bonavena and Quarry landing with reckless abandon on Joe whereas faster fighters like Tucker, Biggs and Tubbs had trouble landing cleanly on Mike.

 

I don't see Mathis doing any worse than the similarly sized Tubbs who did alright in the 80's. Both were undisciplined but talented fatsos with good speed. Tubbs might be slightly better but not by a lot.

You talk about Ellis being a cruiser but is he that much smaller than guys like Tillis and Weaver who both debuted weighing like 190 and remained at that weight for several fights, and then hovered around 205ish for a long time as contenders? Ellis was also very similar in height (6'1) to those two.

What about Michael spinks? He was a light heavy who had to lift weights and eat a bunch of food and barely managed to get to actual HW a did alright for himself aside from getting steam rolled by Tyson (and to be fair, almost everyone else did).

 

If we look at up to and including their respective championship runs Frazier comes out on top,. He has by far the best win, Ali, and even though it hurts him losing it in a crushing defeat to Foreman it's not as bad as being dominated and KO'd by Douglas.

Post title run might go to Tyson with Stewart, Ruddock x 2, Bruno, Seldon and Golota compared to Quarry and Bugner. Losing in competative fights, one an all time classic, against Ali is better than being dominated and fouling out against Holy, though.

All in all it's probably Frazier for me. And I don't give a **** about guesses who would have won in a fantasy h2h. Cue as to why are the words "guesses" and "fantasy".

 

Mathis was garbage. Not even worthy of being compared to Tubbs. More fit to be compared his son, who also did little but lose to the top guys.

Spinks was an ATG talent so you can’t point to him.

Weaver was naturally bigger and a lot more powerful than Ellis. You’re talking about a guy who lost to Hurricane Carter in Ellis…really a small guy. Tillis was barely relevant in the 80s so bringing in his name isn’t saying much.

 

Cause it will be carried out in modern times.
And cause 15 round fights are garbage, since they emphasize more the stamina of boxers than their actual skill.
If SRR vs Joey Maxim would have been a 12 round fight only, SRR would have been a 3 division champ, as he deserved. He was the better man that fight.

This study is completely irrelevant since they faced different opposition. It would have been relevant only if they would have faced the same opponents. Otherwise one's stats will be as good or as bad as their opponents allow them to be.
Plus, what was the time frame that was analyzed for each of them ?!
If it was carried out over the course of their entire careers, it's quite logical Tyson' were worse since he faced way superior opposition and he was washed up much earlier than Frazier.

 

You're not doing a good job convincing me Mathis was "garbage" compared to Tubbs. What exactly did Tubbs do that was so amazing in comparison? His best wins were a washed up Young, Smith (who everyone and their mom managed to beat), and an obese Greg Page who had a horrible game plan and a low punch output is easily is his best win.

Tubbs has far worse embarrassing losses. 2 1st round KO losses and a 2nd Round KO loss (in a fight where he infamously showed up overweight on purpose). 10 losses overall.

Mathis showed more heart and determination in the Frazier fight than Tubbs did in his whole career.

Yes I can certainly point to spinks. Your argument was that Ellis would have been too small. You can't shift the goal posts now, spinks was skinny as hell and even smaller than Ellis for years.

Of course weaver was more powerful than Ellis, but again that wasn't my point. They're the same height and weight but you're claiming Ellis would be too small and I gave you 3 examples of fighters who were similar in height and weight who had success in the 80's and now you're cherry picking facts.

 

Oh right, Mathis showed “heart” so we can pretend he was the same as a guy who was beating Page and Bonecrusher and giving Spoon and Bowe competitive fights.

Ellis would be too small because he wasn’t special like Spinks. Thinking that outliers should be the norm is a poor approach to reasoning in general.

 

You can interpret the stats as you see fit.

The point is that the stats are indicative of a view of Frazier being busier, more accurate and harder to hit, and NOT being "completely FALSE", as was the charge from @White Bomber.

The stats were derived from bouts, which took place during their respective primes, e.g.

For Frazier - Chuvalo, '67 to Foreman, '73 (but didn't include Connor and Doyle bouts)
For Tyson - Berbick, '86 to Ruddock II, '91 (his last pre-prison fight).

 

Okay, that's cool then. Very interesting to see their primes compared like that. Still not a great indicator of their abilities as it doesn't take into account the unique qualities of their opponents. Tyson fought bigger, faster and more skilled opposition than Frazier on average and thus his numbers look weaker than Joe's. Boxing is too nuanced to break it down to raw statistics like that. Film and video tape are way better indicators, and based on what I've seen, Tyson is better defensively and more skillful than Frazier. Frazier has the nod in workrate and punch output, but keep in mind Tyson needed fewer punches to stop an opponent (see Tubbs, Berbick, Spinks, Williams and Stewart) whereas Frazier was more of an attrition puncher.

Thanks for sharing the study, though, even if we disagree. Neat stuff.