Could a prime Frazier defeat a prime Tyson ?

On paper it seems like a Tyson win, he is a fast starter with quicker hands and more KO power but Frazier has some keys to win here in my opinion.

First I'll bring up an interesting quote from George Chuvalo:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glaJz6sNJoI[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Wyl-PLmHc[/ame]


Of course these are Tyson's post-prison fights but how many opponents did he fight that tried to push him back in his prime? Not many.

Tyson found an opening for a big left hook early against Tubbs but Tubbs did interestingly try to battle it out on the inside with Tyson for a while and found some success:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UdFkaPi3LA[/ame]


Could Frazier actually push Tyson back against the ropes? That'd be interesting.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Hui9bIRb4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvR7PeRuCzU[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS7MaE99GBs[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcmMPBT8NAY[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kn9pAav-Rc[/ame]

 

True, Tyson was not an inside fighter like Joe, I am suprised already how many on the classic dismiss this about Joe....Frazier fought some good punchers and held up in all but one and if you look at the bonavena and Chuvalo fight you can see how much he slipped for Foreman......Frazier is alive in this fight. I don't know if I would bet on anyone in this fight depending on the odds but for people to say Joe does not have a chance. I wonder why Frazier gets discounted so much

 

I would still favour Tyson up to around the 10th round as he has more firepower and a better chin,but as the fight progresses ,so do Frazier's chances increase imo.
I think its academic really, because I don't think Frazier could weather too many rounds of the punches that Tyson threw

 

You watch the fight with Tubbs and its almost a perfect performance from Tyson. Tubbs was slick and had fast hands and Tyson boxed, was elusive threw combos and hurt Tubbs with rights, lefthooks and uppercuts. It's hard to imagine any fighter having an easy night with that Mike Tyson. It wasnt just Tyson overpowering an opponent, it was a quick systematic dismantling and it has nothing to do with being a Tyson fan but more of an admiration of how technically good Tyson was at his best.

 

Tyson has the skills to beat Frazier. If they fought Frazier would KO Tyson. Tyson never knew how to fight under pressure. Uder pressure he would be. One punch or one Tyson combo would not be enough to stop Smokin' Joe.

 

I think I know what Chuvalo means ,Tyson, like Patterson stands square on .
Tyson was obviously not prime for the Mathis fight he missed a lot of punches ,but when he found his range he punished Buster with uppercuts ,which does not bode well for Frazier.
The Mcneeley thing was a farce.
Against Tubbs, Tyson looked good ,Tubbs was better than Mathis Snr whom Frazier clubbed the **** out of before he finally succumbed in the 11th rd.Tyson only needed a great left hook to put Tubbs out in 2rds.

 

Joe would take Tyson and school him,Joe pressures tyson backs him up and then its OVER.

 

Then again Tyson didn't put away Tillis, Tucker, Smith, Green. The way Frazier worked over Buster Mathis reminds me of the way Tyson beat up Tyrell Biggs and Jose Ribalta.

 

Tyson was not yet the finished article against Tillis a cagey defensive boxer.
Tucker was 35-0 a holder of a version of the title and in his last two fights had beaten Buster Douglas by stoppage for the IBF title and before that James Broad for the USBA title,he was ranked no 2 or 3.
Buster Mathis,when he fought Frazier, was unranked, and untested, he had beat nobody.
Bone Crusher was likewise a belt holder ,and ranked highly he just fought to survive as did Mitch Green ,how many rounds do you think they won against Tyson?
Biggs was a ranked contender how many rounds did he win against Tyson?
Ribalta was a learning fight ,you might as well go back to Frazier against Mike Bruce or an ancient Eddie Machen ,there is no comparison between the examples you put forth imo.

 

Tillis was also knocked out quite a few times. Young Tyson, who had already disposed of Jesse Ferguson, won a 6-4 type of a decision over an opponent who had lost 4 of his last 5 fights, with the sole win over a tomato can.

Mathis could have actually been the Olympic gold medalist instead of Frazier, whom he had beaten in the amateurs, if not for an injury which forced him to stay out of the Olympics. He was trained by Cus D'Amato and had at the very least beaten 22-1 Ron Marsh, Sonny Moore a fairly competent journeyman, Bob Stallings in his 4th pro fight, a decent opponent who once upset Earnie Shavers.

Biggs's record was a bit better but he mostly got the fight due to hype much like Mathis and never accomplished a thing afterwards. Mathis did go onto beat George Chuvalo.

Biggs did look fairly impressive in round one against Tyson but Tyson obviously took the fight over from that point onwards, much like Frazier took the fight over after the early rounds:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reU89EdHuAA[/ame]


Ribalta was a learning fight but Frazier vs Mathis was not? Mathis too fought onto survive at the end, much like Smith and Green, except he didn't survive. Frazier was having his 20th professional fight against a man whom he had previously been beaten by in the amateurs, and he avenged the "loss" in impressive fashion, by breaking down Mathis bit by bit. Comparable to Tyson vs Ribalta or the Biggs fight.

You might not understand my point but neither do I understand yours. Actually I don't think there's much of a point to this arguing. I only pointed out that while the Tubbs and Mathis fights can be compared, I guess for the physique of the two fighters, there are instances when Tyson too went the distance and looked less impressive in winning. It's about as relevant as comparing one of Frazier's better performances to Tyson's performances against Tillis, Ribalta, Green, as you said "learning fights".

 

Fair enough it's good to debate with you,,and to view the clips yu so kindly put up for us.:good

 

Digging up footage of Tyson fighting Buster Mathis was relevant, but I have to agree with McVey.

I'm not discounting Frazier wicked doggedness in any way, but Mike has shown durability that should see him through this.

It would be rather easy, but I'll refrain from rehashing Tyson's alleged and oft-touted stylistic edge over Frazier. I think resorting to that is something of an empty tactic, really; one that's not been properly thought through. I don't believe Tyson holds any advantages in terms of pure styles.

The fact that both are not perfectly accustomed to fighting smaller opponents might make the fight unfold awkwardly. Joe, in particular, might struggle at landing body blows without taking heavy punishment in return.
Although, he is great up-close and Mike isn't.

What really swings it for me is Mike's greater bulk and tank-like build. Few can claim to be a more powerful puncher compared to George Foreman. Mike, though, has better composite skills and frightening power himself. I'm not necessarily of the opinion that Tyson will win via a total blowout (he will need rounds to adjust unlike Foreman), but when Mike does finally connect, the effects may potentially be more devastating.

 

Deep down where it really counts, Tyson was a front runner. If he thought you really had no fear of him and that you were super confident, Tyson lost his own confidence. That is why he could never beat an Ali, a Frazier or a Holyfield or Marciano. They were all too much for him. They didn't just pretend to believe in themselves, the really did and Tyson knew it.

 

no,tyson in his prime-ko,s joe

 

Great post. I agree with this.