Could Mike Tyson really beat Joe Frazier?

More debatable in terms of what he was able to do in REAL life and certainly more debatable than any fool who thinks Valuev would defeat Tyson or even k.o Mike Tyson. Do you know who that guy is ?I think you do, go look in the mirror....:hellohi

 

You're the one who mentioned his being stopped SIX times so I felt that needed elaborating. And no the Douglas loss does not give any credible boxing personality any meaningful insight as to why Frazier would beat Tyson as they had nothing in common and assuming that they met at their best the circumstances would be different as well.

Nobody who ever beat Tyson had anything in common with Joe Fazier.. Absolutely nothing.... And virtually none of them beat him at his best for reasons that have already been repeated at nauseum.

Yet he went 12 rounds on three occasions, two of which were championship fights and against much larger men who could all punch.

He never fought Shavers, Lyle, or M. Foster and faced no real big hitters coming up. He also opted to stay out of the heavyweight elimination tourney of the late sixties. He fought Foreman the first time because he had gone two years fighting ham and egger opponents and it was time to take on a REAL opponent, therebye making it a necessary evil.. The second time the two met was because he needed money and there wasn't a fourth fight with Ali on the table.

Frazier went blind in one eye back in 1965 per an interview that took place with him a few a years before his death. therefore he fought his entire pro career with one blind eye. That has nothing to do with him deteriorating so early. And if you're going to make concessions for him taking two or three beatings, then at least be willing to make concessions for Tyson losing four years of career to a jail sentence, being a comparitively small man in a division of giants, taking the beatings he took from Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis and struggling his whole career with managerial and personal issues..

 

What are you basing this on? His loss to Foreman wasn't a style problem--it was an insurmountable "poor self-preservation skills against men with enormous punching power" problem. One of several problems he'd face against Tyson (and any number of other later heavyweights).

 

Exactly you are correct and nothing really more says it like that Frazier would get bombed out easily...hopefully this right here above ^^^^^ will be the last here,actually I hope not,i'll continue reading the other idiotic Frazier counterarguments for entertainment it beats the comedy channel.

 

I cosign all of Mr. Magoo's excellent points.

 

Oh let me rephrase that...faster with REAL punches!

 

could? yes, would? i think so but not easily.

 

Frazier beat ONE outstanding fighter and that was Ali.

The rest of his oppoaiton was no different to Tysons.

Its just that Tyson beat more of them.

We saw what happened to fighters who tried to rush Tyson and fight aggressively, they got sparked.

And we saw what happened when Frazier tries to bullrush the highest puncher he fought.

Now i admit Tyson might not be no Foreman, but hes definitely up there in that same category.

 

Yes using a fight from when he was 19 years old with umpteen number of fights is certainly the way to make a point. Funny how make references to the Douglas fight of 90' and the Tillis fight of 86' but nothing inbetween. Its obvious where all this is going..

I'm not convinced that he would.. The Shavers fight was deemed by some as a robbery. Foreman gassed earlier than Tyson would as George had never been beyond 10 where as Tyson had.. Neither man had his explosive hand speed and lets not forget Tyson's killer left hook which was Ali's achiles heel. And using such tactics as he did later in his career like holding behind the head, laying on the ropes and only dancing in small spurts are the sports of things that would play into Tyson's hands. I'll pick 1967 Ali to beat Tyson.. Not the seventies version. In any event, none of the above explains why Joe Frazier would beat Tyson.

Again.. Douglas had nothing in common with Frazier. he was 6'4", 230 lbs with an excellent jab, great upper cut and decent mobility. Joe would be in hitting range for Tyson. And by the time Tyson fought Douglas he had only seen 93 seconds of boxing action in the previous year and had been working with incompetent management for closer to a year and a half. Hardly a comparable secenario to the Tyson of 1987-88 was fighting 3-4 times annually with most of his original team around.

Ali did not set down on his punches, was not quite as big and the upper cut was a BIG part of why James beat Mike. He was able to cause real damage. Again I'd pick Ali to beat Tyson in his prime.. Not after the layoff. Or I might also pick a 70's Ali to beat a 90' Tyson but not the 1987-88 version.. See what I mean?

Their only commonality is that they were rangy boxers who fought from a distance. But the similarities end there. And Tyson was not 100% in 1990 - a point that I shouldn't have to repeat.

See the previous two pages of responses I've given you.. And also factor into the equation that how Frazier did against similar types of fighters does nothing for him in the ring against Tyson. Foreman failed against Ali and we all saw what happened when Joe fought him.

Point is they hit hard, were large men, and both were highly ranked at one time or another. Both showed guts in some of their fights against the elite. Joe wouldn't have any easier of a time against them Mike did and in fact might have more trouble.

He never had Tyson down either despite smashing him on the chin through two evenings.

Definitely.. and I don't disagree. But saying that he was exactly like Douglas is incorrect. And furthermore claiming he'd beat Tyson on the same Douglas did is irrelevant as it wasn't the best version of Tyson either.. And whats more how the hell does any of this help Frazier who was nothing like ANY of the above mentioned fighters and who if he fought a peak Tyson would be more like around 1988 rather than 1990 ??

I've never heard Ali-Frazier II called a robbery. Maybe you've heard something or saw something that I didn't.. I watched it and gave it to Muhammad. The third fight was an absolute war but Frazier's corner threw in the towel first.. End of story.. And both men were past it anyway.

Those adjustments that he made were designed to compensate for lost ability and not because his trainer felt that they made him a better fighter.. Watch Ali vs Terrell, Folley, Patterson, etc.. The man was noticeably quicker of both hand and foot, and more importantly could maintain that speed and workrate over 15 rounds with minimal loss of output. Not the case a few years later.

Regardless of him getting up "six" times against Foreman he still got absolutely mauled in that fight.. This argument does nothing for him. I've already explained why the two of them met twice. Bottom line.. Joe fought exactly ONE elite puncher in his entire career and got killed by that man.

So is it your position now that Douglas only hit Tyson with ONE decent shot in the entire fight? He landed that upper cut regularly and again this was a sustained beating over 10 rounds.

This is utter nonsense.. How do you know how his opponents felt against him? and to say that none of them "stood up to him" is total BS.. Do yourself a favor. Sit down tonight.. Make some popcorn and actually WATCH The fights that you comment on..

 

:good