Could Mike Tyson really beat Joe Frazier?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I have to admit, reading his posts has given me a good laugh