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.
Tyson probably would have beaten them, but not comeback Ali and I don't even know if Tyson could knock them the **** out. Tyson could not even knock out Tillis, who was a sloppy Muhammad Ali knockoff. Comeback Ali beat Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, George Foreman and several other monsters. He'd have boxed Tyson's ears off. Yes, Tyson was not managed properly; but this change did not just suddenly appear with Douglas. It had started for some time, Tyson still went on to beat Frank Bruno or Carl Williams. The reasons why Douglas beat Tyson were more complex than ''Tyson wasn't good then'' - Buster boxed him perfectly. And yeah, Douglas was very much like Ali. They had a VERY similar style; aside from the uppercut, they had similar lateral movement (Ali was faster though), similar jab, similar combinations, etc. Douglas was an outside boxer, he was just stronger than Ali but slower. Douglas is probably comparable to 1975 Muhammad Ali. Why is that selective? Both Buster Douglas (the version that fought Tyson atleast) and Ali were stylistically very similar. Both Tyson and Frazier fought that type of fighter; the difference is that a prime Frazier did much better against that fighter than Tyson ever did. Sorry but I'm not buying it. Bruno was a hype-job. He was very big from his weight-lifting but he had garbage timing and every time he stepped up the competition, he lost. Bonecrusher Smith was again, a weight-lifter with little timing. The only puncher that was notable is Ruddock, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Ruddock could keep Joe down. I never said the 1970's Ali was the ''same'' Ali. But the 1970's Ali was a very, very skilled heavyweight; he adjusted his style to fall more in line with his slower speed and he was still able to beat better competition than he did in the 1960's. The second fight was arguably Joe's win as many felt Ali had a gift decision, and to be fair, the third fight was DEAD even. It went nearly the full 15 rounds until Joe's corner stopped the fight. Ali himself admitted that he was ready to quit and would refuse to continue, the only reason he won was because Joe's corner stopped first. This is not true for a number of reasons: - The 1970's Muhammad Ali was a great fighter, but in a different way to his former self. He was stronger but slower; he clinched more yet boxed better. His 1970's comp was better than the 1960's - by the 70's, he had wins over Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Quarry, etc. - How did Joe ''steer clear'' of big hitters? This makes no sense given that Joe opted to fight Foreman again. He fought Foreman twice, and in the first fight, got up from the canvas 6 times to fight Foreman. So this idea that he ''avoided'' them seems like *******s Against Douglas, Tyson only got hit with ONE big shot - the uppercut. Frazier got hit by Foreman's uppercut several times yet still got up. Douglas was the first man who was not afraid of Tyson and once that happened, Tyson was not as good as he was with his aura of invincibility. Holyfield stood up to Tyson and Tyson ended up biting his ear because of frustration. Whenever Tyson fought someone who wasn't afraid, he **** himself.
The slugger vs swarmer style matchup. It was entirely a style problem. The short, crouching swarmer, more often than not would not stand a chance against the likes of Foreman. These guys are bricks and it's idiotic to fight them forward first.
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.
Okay a few points: - That fight isn't just ''ONE'', he is possibly THE greatest heavyweight of all time. Frazier beat him the first time, arguably won the second fight and went to war with Ali in the third. Ali was going to quit the fight. This isn't something you can sweep under the rug, Frazier beating 70's Ali and matching him is an accomplishment because of who we saw Ali beat - While Frazier's other opposition wasn't as gold standard as Ali, I'd say it's far better than Tyson's 1980's opposition bar 1 or 2 fighters. The best fighters Tyson fought (Lewis + Holyfield, he lost to) - I disagree with the Foreman comparison. Foreman is a slugger. Frazier is a swarmer. Bullrushing Foreman is not the same as bullrushing Tyson Frazier's pressure style fighting against Ali was able to make Ali (a fast fighter, even in the 1970's) miss his shots and pay for it.
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..
