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

Cause they'd beat them.

 

Actually, it's the other way around. Tyson is all wrong for Ali.

No, it does not. Tyson ducks under Ali's jab and counters him hard. Tyson would be a complete nightmare for Ali.

A complete myth. He was almost KOd by a cruiserweight in Cooper with just 1 punch. He was lucky the punch came at the end of the round. And his team resorted to cheating in order to revive him.
His chin was better in the 70s, but still it only seemed that good cause guys like Liston and Foreman did not land flush on him, while Shavers never got to follow up the few good shots.
If Tyson manages to land big, he finishes him. And Tyson will use combos, not 1 punch at a time, the way Shavers did.

70s Ali did have that trick in his book, 60s Ali did not.
This is something that will be more or less effective depending on who refs the fight. But if Tyson lands, Ali won't be able to tie him up.

Another stupid myth. Tyson had no problem whatsoever with adversity. When he lost, it was due to:
1. him not being properly prepared (Douglas)
2. the fact that at that point in time his overall skill level was no longer the same/ was inferior to that of his opponents
3. he was washed up.

Tyson beats any version of Holmes, he's all wrong for him.
With Liston it's a different story, cause Liston also has the power.

H2H, Tyson beats Frazier every single time by KO, and in under 5 rounds.

 

You didn't bring any value to the discussion, as usual.

 

Mike Tyson himself, along with the overwhelming majority of boxing fans and scribes, will not pick him against Ali. Buster Douglas and past-it Holyfield were not Ali...not even in the same universe.

Ali and Foreman were, in their own way, Ultimate Kryptonite to Mike's style. Just really watch Mike's one-dimensional forward movement and then watch how the former two fought.

Mike's style would cause him all kinds of grief against Ali, who had way too fast hands and high Ring IQ to be unduly caught by Mike's attack. He'd tie up, push down, and manipulate Mike all night. It would be a hopeless situation for him. He'd be lucky if, battered and balloon-faced, he heard the final bell.

Just my opinion, but I know a lot of folks who agree with it.

No offense to people who favor Mike, i'm a fan myself.

 

Since the post's title specifies who was a better HW, including amateur careers is not only not a reach, it is the most rational thing to do.

I did not focus on only one aspect, I described several factors.
Including addressing your own evaluation of strengths-the greater abilities of Tyson you described were quite tangible.

As were my own citing of Frazier's greater work-rate, vastly superior inside work, & better endurance & heart.
Although Tyson was excellent in the latter aspect when in his prime.

Again, I did not focus on the other arguments you made, because I said I overwhelmingly *agreed* with them!
I said as a pro it is close, but I would go with Tyson as better-& also head to head for the reasons we both stated.

You may have no bias, I dunno.
But one cannot tell when there are a range of things Joe does better-yet you only list the advantages of one man.

 

I can always appreciate someone making a case with a detailed explanation, using “objective criteria”. Ultimately, this is why you rate Tyson higher than Frazier and that is fair enough.

However, whilst we cannot argue the facts, in so far as they exist (and to do so would be pointless), one's interpretation of the facts is subjective. And, I wouldn’t necessarily interpret the facts on offer in the same way as yourself.

There are similarities between their careers, but there are also stark differences, as well as some facts which need some clarification.

Referring to them both losing to men, whom they were favored to beat does not really do the disparity in implications of each respective loss any justice.

Foreman went on to become a legend.
Douglas went on to be referred to as "Tokyo Douglas", in honor of his singular moment in the sun.

The other difference I see of note is Frazier's heroic effort against Ali, while Tyson legitimized his lineal claim against a guy who, to my mind, was not even an established Heavyweight.

I also think the idea of Tyson having been more successful, following his loss, as misleading, given that Frazier did not have the same options open to him. The titles were not splintered from 1973 to 1978 and, in effect, Frazier's only route to reclaiming the World Championship was through Ali.

He tried and failed in what most commentators rate as the greatest heavyweight fight of all time. I don't think Frazier could have done anymore than he did, at that stage of his career.

Tyson's post-prison bouts with Bruno (WBC) and Seldon (WBA) are, relatively, of little consequence, given that he failed to successfully defend either strap (vacated WBC title, lost the WBA title to Holyfield).

Had Tyson once again unified or regained the lineal Championship, there would be a case. As it stands, I can't see one for adding to Tyson's tenure here.

One has to wonder what sub-criteria have been used to determine how these two lists compare and contrast. This feels like a subject all on its own, which would, in any event, be almost entirely subjective.

All I'll say is that, on the whole, I think Frazier fought the greater fighters. For example: I would rate Ellis, Quarry, Machen, Bonavena and Chuvalo as collectively greater than Thomas, Ruddock, Berbick, Spinks and Tucker.

Frazier's victory over Ali is streets ahead of anything Tyson managed, even his win over fellow Top-10'er Holmes.

We could delve deeper, but how far does this go to separating them, as the lower we reach, the less any subjectively determined differences actually mean.

Moreover, if the factor of 'Quality of Opposition' is to provide an indication of the level that each of them could perform, Frazier wins this hands down.

Of course, this factor is a matter of opinion.

I can see why the comparisons were made between them. But I also think they each took rather different approaches to their fights, largely based on the variances in strengths and weaknesses - some of which you point out above.

I do not think there is an obvious gap between them in ability and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, I think a closer look at Frazier would surprise a few at just how complete a package he was.

Yes. The facts alone are fairly explanatory on this one.

In terms of pop culture, Tyson is in a class of his own. However, the value I place on this kind of public stature, e.g. recognition outside of the sport, in relation to his All Time Heavyweight Boxing rating, is pretty much zero.

To be clear, I take the same view on Ali's cultural status. Ali's number-1 spot is based on sporting merit alone. That he too was a cultural icon should have no bearing on his All-Time rating, as far as I am concerned. To underline that, I have no issue with those who would rather pick Louis for the number-1 spot.


As I alluded to at the beginning, I appreciate that you have a rationale behind your ratings.

Mine is much simpler. Frazier has the superior win, by a considerable distance, and his only losses were exclusively to fellow Top-10 ATGs. Tyson's loss, in his prime to Douglas, puts a big dent in his perceived dominance.

These are the key distinctions, to me. The rest of the factors seem all too close and blended for there to be a clear and meaningful separation.

 

My bad. Tossing a sack of turnips in the back of a turnip truck. Better?

Dude, go to Boxrec and compare Tyson and Frazier. Tyson's comp is overwhelmingly better than Frazier's. It's not even debatable. Name Frazier's 10 best wins. Now name Tyson's best wins. Not satisfied? Name their best 20 wins.

Tyson >> Frazier. H2H and legacy wise.

 

I really sympathize with these views, Sangria. But it's not # of wins, it's the quality of both wins and losses.

Frazier beat under 30 Ali, who is way beyond anyone Mike ever beat...there isn't even a comparison there. And Frazier only lost to upper tier ATGs.

The only fighters anywhere near 1971 Ali that Mike faced were Holyfield and Lewis...both certainly past it (certainly moreso than the aforementioned Ali). He lost, badly. Both Holy and Lewis were even older than Mike...

I do understand how you object to the One Big Win superseding whole careers, and I see a lot of validity there, good friend.

Mike was amazing, for sure.

 

While I'm not the slightest bit surprised or concerned that some will rate Tyson above Frazier, the fact you use the term, "not even debatable" kind of makes attempts at any discussion between us quite futile.

Suffices to say, I disagree with you.

It wouldn't surprise me if Frazier had fought as many (more or less) regularly listed Top-100 All Time Great Heavyweights, as did Tyson. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if any of Frazier's opposition found in those listings, were collectively rated higher than those found for Tyson.

It's just a thought.

 

You could debate, sure, and maybe I should've said comparable. Use their top 20 opponents, compare them to each other, and I will play counter puncher. Agree?

Actually I just finished reading Ironchamp's post and he's a lot better at this than I ever was. I've been through this all before, for a decade or more, and get tired at responding to the same things over and over again and debating with the same people who will never change their minds.

So I keep it short and sweet.

 

Bull**** NoBrain.

 

You're doing the same thing you accuse Ironchamp of doing. "Frazier's heroic effort against Ali"...and Ironchamp could've easily said something along the lines of "Tyson's heroic rally in the 8th round against Douglas" compared to Frazier getting hydrogen bombed out of the ring against Foreman.

I already see your posts. All of the posters defending Frazier. I see you.

 

I can't exactly argue against your best points on this subject, my friend. Your points are perfectly valid.

 

Tyson fought a helluva lot more rated fighters than Frazier. Tyson's resume compared to Frazier's doesn't compare. At all. So how much emphasis is on Frazier's 4 losses to ATG's compared to Tyson's 6 losses? How much stock do you put into Tyson's clearly deeper resume?

 

Are you kidding? 4 losses to ATGs is far superior to 5 losses with 2 being against complete nobodies and one to a one hit wonder.

You keep saying it doesn't compare at all while ignoring the Ali win. It simply doesn't follow. People have admitted (myself included) that Tyson has sheer quantity for mid level opposition. But the facts of the matter are that Tyson failed against elite opposition and has far worse losses. To take a page out of your book, Tyson's highs and lows simply do not compare to Frazier's.