16%? This opens up the flood gates. Does this imply that the idea that the non step pendulum like Frazier effortlessly slipping past the jabs of the super heavyweight behemoths and dragging them into deep waters isn't such a fantastical scenario? It's worth a discussion. He simply can't be written off. Take away the jab of someone like, dare I say, Wladmir, and penalize excessive clinching and how does that fight turn out?
They were better in terms of skill, but not in accomplishments. Guys like Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas, Williams, Douglas, etc. were bigger and had better fundamentals with their speed, combination and jabbing ability.
Frazier most definitely can't be written off against Wlad, in a fair fight with point deductions for incessant clinching. The pace Frazier would set alone is a massive problem for Wlad. Still a mountain to climb for Frazier, mind, But by no means insurmountable.
Being "big" is not a "skill". The question was how are they more skilled than 70's contenders. The only guy you mentioned who had good combinations was Douglas. Several of those guys only operated on 1 gear and rarely threw more than 2 punches at a time. Speed? Plenty of guys in the 70's had comparable speed. Patterson, Quarry, Ellis, etc. Fundamentals? The 60 year old grandfather at my gym has good fundamentals. Fundamentals and form are not a substitute for "skill".
So you saying Frazier has a chance vs Frazier but don't out right pick him. Wlad defense and movement skills are good and his guard him prevents left hooks, Frazier's only punch and one he would have to get very close to land on the much taller Wlad. In a clinch Wlad would manhandle Frazier easily. No way Frazier could the many of Wlad's bombs. Frazier is unproven vs punchers unless you count the Foreman fights where he was Foreman's personal yo-yo. He didn't last long and was down many times. Down goes Frazier, Down goes Frazier, Down goes Frazier! Yes--I think the two had comparable power. Wlad the more skilled of the two.
There are interesting points here...I'm just not convinced h2h Wlad could have taken the punching power and inexorable forward progress of Frazier. Sure, he had the power to knock him cross-eyed. But would he be able to handle seeing him get up time and again from getting floored, clapping his gloves together? I'm not even sure Iron Mike wouldn't get psyched out by that kind of heart. Frazier was ridiculously courageous, beyond the pale. He fought like he'd rather die than lose, and that was most certainly reinforced against both Foreman and during the Ali fights. Mike didn't really fight like that (he admitted as such), though he showed great courage against Lewis in particular.
Tyson's resume spanks Frazier's, even with the win over Ali. Mike Tyson was at the top or near the top for 20 years. Frazier's championship reign was the only time he was considered the man, and that time was nowhere near Mike's longevity. 1.) Joe Louis 2.) Muhammad Ali 3.) Larry Holmes 4.) Jack Johnson 5.) Rocky Marciano This content is protected 7.) Lennox Lewis 8.) George Foreman 9.) Jack Dempsey This content is protected
What does age have to do with it? We all know Holmes was 38 and Spinks was what, 32? Man, everyone shifting the goalposts and adding irrational and irrelevant claims that only Mike Tyson suffers from! It's hilarious how people knock Tyson for things nobody else ever even cared about when it comes to ranking Tyson. Frazier has 1 win over a heavyweight ATG and lost the other 2 times he faced that ATG. He's 1-4 against heavyweight ATG's. Tyson's opponents were legit heavyweights but because they were from the 80's people disqualify their ability and accomplishments.
It really doesn't, though. Tyson fought some solid opponents, but he didn't face any elite-class heavyweights in his first incarnation, and was beaten comprehensively by a massive underdog. This is more like 16 years, at best, and there's a stark contrast between the first 6 years and the latter 10 that followed his prison stint. Tyson's 6-year, pre-prison career accounts for 75% of his professional bouts, during which he was a human superstorm, wrapped around a meteor, causing earthquakes and wildfires in his wake. In this short time (taking a rapid career build-up into consideration) Tyson went 9-1 against Ring-Rated opponents. Tyson's post-prison career absolutely pales in comparison. The later 25% of his bouts, labored over 10 years, involved him going 9-5-0 (2NCs). Yes, he was still a huge draw and capable of knocking over just about anyone not named Holyfield or Lewis, but he was not making anywhere near the impression he had before 1990. Anything post-Lewis I would be tempted to dismiss anyway, since it really only involved a drawn out realization that his career was over. So, that's another three years you could effectively take off this apparent longevity. Tyson's 'longevity' is being overstated and how much value does this alleged longevity carry, in terms of adding to his historical rating, anyway? Post-prison Tyson might have been deemed "the big money draw" - but he was not considered the man, by then. This was only the case during his first reign and Tyson's lineal reign was actually shorter than Frazier's.
Tyson's reign, lineal or not, smacks Frazier's around like a man would toss a sack of potatoes in the back of his turnip truck. You could type paragraph after paragraph about Tyson's career and how it unfolded in detail, but Tyson was considered "the man" for far longer than Joe Frazier was. Mike fought better opposition, championship reign and non-champion contender status. The ONLY thing Frazier has over Tyson is the sole win against a 3rd fight comebacking Ali. Huge win, probably the best in heavyweight history or near that, but Tyson's resume is filled with better fighters and better wins than Frazier's.
I responded to this post earlier but it was a jumbled mess so I deleted it. Here's my, um, "revised" version: While being big is not a skill, using your reach and strength to keep your opponent at bay is. The fact that a shorter guy like Tyson was able to overcome the height and reach disadvantage is a credit to him. This is patently false. The prime versions of Tucker, Williams and Tubbs threw very good combinations. Tubbs in particular had great combination skills, and threw them blazing fast, too. I suggest you watch clips of those guys at their peak. Those guys are no slouches, but considering the difference in sizes, they don't impress me as much as guys like Tubbs, Douglas and Dokes. It's hard to classify Patterson as a '70s-era fighter as he was well past his best during that time and last fought very early in the decade ('72). I should say that in mentioning speed, jabbing and combinations, I meant those particular fighters utilized all three of those skills respectively. They were more "complete fighters" than the '70s contenders in terms of fundamentals and ability. Just my opinion, of course. I'm an unabashed fan of the '80s boxing scene in general, so I admit to some bias. The stigma surrounding the heavyweight scene at that time really baffles me.
Just surprised in general to see people post that Tyson would take out Ali .. ALI is all wrong for Tyson, Tyson relied on that timing coming in .. And a great jab and a great lead right throws Tyson off ... Not to mention how punch resistant Ali is and could tie Tyson up at will on the inside... This is a terrible match up for Tyson ,, Tyson doesn't have the mental part either to hang with Ali when things start going south for him ..so would great jabbers like Liston and Holmes as well, imo be bad style matchups for Mike .. I got Frazier just a head of Mike in greatness and a 50-50 fight H2H
