Could Mike Tyson really beat Joe Frazier?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BoxerFan89, Aug 18, 2015.


  1. fists of fury

    fists of fury Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,297
    7,042
    Oct 25, 2006
    I have a habit of continually selling Joe short. Against Tyson he does have his work cut out though.
    Tyson's early rounds assault would be extremely difficult for Joe.

    Where Frazier may have a chance is in keeping the action at very close range where Tyson didn't like to work.
    If Joe can do that and hustle Mike, then he has a chance.
    He cannot compete in a slugging match so he'd need to stay in close as much as he can and try keep Tyson on the back foot.
    Even then he could walk into an uppercut or hook.
    Not an easy fight for Joe at all, but it's not out of the question he can win. Strong edge to Mike though.
     
  2. Foxy 01

    Foxy 01 Boxing Junkie banned

    12,328
    129
    Apr 23, 2012
    The usual Tyson excuse mongers desperately trying to lie about his defeats is no surprise, but the comedy value of them continues to get better as the years go by. So now Tyson needs to be molly coddled before he can fight properly? What a joke. He loses his mentor, and sacks two of his trainers and that is the pathetic excuse the Tyson freaks offer up for the Douglas defeat.

    The reality is Douglas came out and jabbed that head snapping that 23 " neck back like it was made of rubber, and Tyson had NO answer for it. It doesn't matter who was in the corner, they were not the ones supposed to be doing the fighting. He was, the clueless fool. Are there really people dumb enough on this site to think that a fighter like Frazier would give a sh it about what or who was in his corner? The guy didn't look for excuses, he looked to batter the other fella. It is called heart and desire. Admittedly it isn't enough in a lot of cases but with a mental midget like Tyson, it is more than half the battle. Tyson would be as intimidated by Frazier as he was by Holyfield, for the simple reason that he couldn't intimidate them as long as his ass points downwards.

    Oh don't confuse the much bigger, stronger, harder hitting, longer reached Foreman " pushing " Frazier into his own punching range with both arms like he did, with the stumpy little Tyson being able to do the same. He couldn't.
     
  3. BoxerFan89

    BoxerFan89 Active Member Full Member

    1,064
    8
    Jan 17, 2015
    The Tyson who fought Tillis had 20 fights by then; that was not an inexperienced Tyson. That was the beginning of his so-called ''prime''. I was referring to the Tillis fight because it was a stylistic matchup. Tillis was a sloppy Muhammad Ali, if you watch his fights, you'll see he copied many of Ali's tactics.

    Let's break down 1970's Ali. The Ali from 1971-1975 was a great heavyweight. Throughout this period, Ali beat Bugner, Norton, Frazier, Foreman and Lyle. The Ali of those 4 years was a tactical fighter with a sharp jab and high ring IQ.

    The Ali after 1975 was considerably slower; after his 3rd Frazier fight, he had taken considerable damage. That version of Ali would have lost to Tyson, but the version who beat Foreman would very much outbox Tyson.

    He gassed George because it was his plan; that's what the rope-a-dope was for. Even if we put that aside, Tyson's stamina wasn't better than Foreman's. Tyson had awful stamina as a late rounds fighter, he only had 1 knockout in the late rounds, and that was against José Ribalta.

    If you ****yse Mike Tyson, you'll see he's VERY explosive in the early rounds but sloppy in the late rounds. A 1974 Muhammad Ali would be able to survive the early blowout (as he did Foreman) and stop Tyson late.

    I also don't think holding the head would work for Tyson. Tillis did this with Tyson and it worked against Tyson. Most fighters who have went the distance with Tyson had clinched him. Ali's just a far better clincher.


    You're putting words in my mouth. I said Douglas was comparable to Ali, not Frazier. They had a similar style; both mobile, both had a good jab and both controlled the distance. My argument is that Frazier was far better against 1970's Ali (who is better than Douglas) than a Prime Tyson ever was. Tyson lost heart once he got beaten around like that, Frazier with his superior stamina was able to box into the late rounds.

    And if you read my previous comments, you'll see that I admit Tyson's management was bad; but that's no excuse for Frazier. Frazier had a tough life outside the ring and he still went to war with Ali.

    That's the difference between Tyson and Frazier. Tyson had problems and it took over, whereas Frazier dealt with those problems and didn't let that become an excuse. That's called heart; he didn't lose it. Tyson did.

    While Douglas was bigger than Ali and had the uppercut, the 1970's Ali was faster, had better combinations and he was much better at controlling the distance. You're really underselling the 1970's Ali.

    Yes, a 1960's Ali was the prime version. But Ali from 71-75 dealt with much harder competition than he did in the 1960's, he adjusted his style to deal with that.

    I don't see an 80's Tyson beating 71-75 Ali, who beat Norton, Frazier, Lyle and Foreman. Tyson might have beaten Frank Bruno and Michael Spinks but that competition is garbage compared to Foreman or Lyle.

    There are more similarities than just range; watch how Ali fought Frazier, and then contrast that to how Douglas fought Tyson. In addition to being rangey fighters, Ali/Douglas were adept to controlling the distance, clinching inside and dominating the pace. Buster's style IIRC was based on Ali's but he was less athletic.

    Again, saying Tyson was not 100% is not an adequate explanation; yes, he was not 100%, but neither was Frazier against Ali. That's why Tyson didn't have the heart Frazier did.

    You're contradicting yourself a bit. You're saying Tyson wasn't 100% thus he lost to Douglas because of outside troubles yet he fought big men and thus had heart? That's not how it works. You have heart by fighting your best in spite of your outside life. That's what Frazier did with Ali. He was physically deteriorating and had problems with his family yet he still went to war with Ali. Tyson never really want to war. The closest was the Ruddock fight.

    I don't think he was EXACTLY like him. He wasn't - but they were very similar. The only difference is execution; 1970's Ali was still faster, whereas Douglas was bigger.

    You can keep talking about how a 42-1 favorite and 23 year old Mike Tyson was ''past it'' but it honestly comes across as huge excuse making. Literally no other heavyweight boxer gets this level of exemption except Tyson.

    And P.S, the fight has been referred to not as a ''robbery'' but as a fight Frazier edged out.

    Yes, it was designed for his lost speed; and in spite of that, he still won against tough competition. I'm not denying that 70's Ali was slower, but if he could take Foreman's best, then I fail to see how Tyson would knock him out. Tyson would be vulnerable in the late rounds and Ali was able to stop granite-chinned Foreman by wearing him down.


    Because that's what heart is. Getting up in spite of the odds stacked against you. Tyson never did this. He lost to Buster Douglas yet the excuse of ''he was past it'' was made; he got beat by Holyfield once Holyfield stood up to him and Lewis beat him like a ragdoll.
     
  4. BoxerFan89

    BoxerFan89 Active Member Full Member

    1,064
    8
    Jan 17, 2015
    Tyson ALWAYS has excuse makers for him. Even Tyson himself admits that he lost on fair merit, yet his fans can't accept it.

    If ANY OTHER fighter said that he was past his prime at age 23 and being a 42-1 favorite, they'd get laughed out of the ring. It's a ridiculous assumption to make.

    If Tyson struggled against Tillis, he was ''too inexperienced'' yet if Tyson also struggles against Douglas later in his career, he's ''past his best''.

    The thing with Tyson is, that against Douglas AND Holyfield, he was the favorite (and Holyfield was past his prime too), yet somehow if Tyson looses, he was ''past his prime'' - never mind that his opponent is older or that Tyson is the betting favorite, all of that is thrown out of the window.

    Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Floyd Mayweather, Joe Frazier, etc all had problems in their lives yet that didn't stop them from going to war and winning.
     
  5. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,436
    2,839
    Feb 18, 2012
    That's how I see it, Tyson hardly had fighters on him up close working away. Buster Mathis Jr had Tyson confused early on, Joe Frazier was light years ahead of Mathis and hit way harder. If Tyson doesn't get him out early he's in for the fight of his life.
     
  6. BoxerFan89

    BoxerFan89 Active Member Full Member

    1,064
    8
    Jan 17, 2015
    This was another point I forgot. Foreman was physically pushing Frazier whenever they got close; he was a physical monster. Tyson didn't have the long arms to do that.
     
  7. Hookandjab

    Hookandjab Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,618
    551
    Feb 19, 2014
    Oh, let me see ... Bonavena almost stopped him in two rounds and Foreman wrecked in two rounds, but it's naive to think that a much faster, devastating puncher like Tyson could do it in one. Hmmm ...
     
    moneytheman12 likes this.
  8. BoxerFan89

    BoxerFan89 Active Member Full Member

    1,064
    8
    Jan 17, 2015
    Boneavena did not ''almost stop him in 2 rounds'' - this is a gross misrepresentation. He knocked him down and Frazier got straight up again to fight on. Muhammad Ali in his prime has been knocked down by lesser punchers than George Foreman and he's still gotten up to fight.

    Foreman wrecked him because he was a monstrous slugger; no short swarmer could beat Foreman, whenever Frazier got inside, Foreman would physically push him away, pepper his jab and proceed to pound Frazier. His KO power was natural - that's why Foreman was winning the world title at 45 whereas Tyson at age 35 was completely shot.

    It's disingenuous to contrast Foreman and Tyson to insinuate that showing suggests he can beat Frazier. Foreman was made to eat short power punchers like Frazier and Tyson.
     
  9. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,436
    2,839
    Feb 18, 2012
    It's not just the speed, Foreman manoeuvred Frazier into his punching range. Tyson was about as strong as your nan at wrestling. Don't forget Frazier could dig as well.
     
  10. Azzer85

    Azzer85 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,283
    467
    Mar 13, 2010
    Frazier lasted just as long with Foreman as Norton did, a guy notorious for having a dodgy chin.
     
  11. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,436
    2,839
    Feb 18, 2012
    Pity your hero didn't have the ***** to get in with pensioner Foreman, he'd rather suck Don King off than face a prime version.
     
  12. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,566
    Jan 30, 2014
    :lol::lol::lol:
     
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,529
    28,743
    Jun 2, 2006
    You've answered that question:lol:
     
  14. BoxerFan89

    BoxerFan89 Active Member Full Member

    1,064
    8
    Jan 17, 2015
    I have to admit, reading his posts has given me a good laugh :lol:
     
  15. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,698
    24,252
    Jan 3, 2007

    He had 19 fights, was 19 years of age and his best opponent to date was Jesse Ferguson. If that isn't green then I wonder what you're idea of the concept is? Still in the womb perhaps?


    Yes lets.

    .

    Agreed but also irrelevant for reasons already mentioned more than once.

    The Ali after 1975 was considerably slower; after his 3rd Frazier fight, he had taken considerable damage. That version of Ali would have lost to Tyson, but the version who beat Foreman would very much outbox Tyson.

    He went 12 rounds and was convincingly beating men who had 6 inches in height and 20 or more lbs in weight. I don't see this as being a knock on his stamina at all.

    Tyson's stamina, handspeed, and work rate were far better suited to beat an aging Ali than was Foreman's. You try to make these comparisons that simply don't work. Its like saying that mus**** would work great on pizza because it goes good with hotdogs.

    Its about the only thing he'd be able to do because he was no longer fast enough to dodge those left hooks as Tyson would be slipping that Jab. Of course this is assuming that you're not still talking about the 1990 Tyson who fought Douglas, though your track record of repeating the same references reflects that you most likely are.




    Then let's omit Ali and Douglas and talk about Tyson and Frazier.. Frazier having more stamina in the later rounds is moot as I don't think he'd last long enough for that to come into play.


    yes Joe had stronger mental fortitude. But taken at their best I don't see it as being an issue... I can't picture Frazier taking those ripping bombs and still lingering around in the 11th and 12th rounds.


    He needed to take periodic rests by holding behind the head, leaning on the ropes and lost most of the snap to his punches. Douglas had real power behind his shots which is what got Tyson to respect him and again this was a damaged goods version of Tyson. So claiming that because Douglas beat a diminished Tyson means that Ali would beat a peak Tyson has no relevance and certainly does nothing for Joe Frazier who fought like neither.

    He also arguably lost all three times against Ken Norton, was gifted in fights with Young and Shavers and beaten by Leon Spinks. He had the right stylistic attributes to deal with Foreman. But I dont' see these as being particularly useful against a prime Tyson..

    Listing names to impress tourists doesn't address the issue. Sorry but it doesn't.. And you listed Norton's name which for reasons already mentioned doesn't do Ali any favors.

    fck I suppose I could go on and respond to the rest below.. But I have to cut it off here and feel that I've made my point.

    [/QUOTE]