Expert opinions on Frazier vs Tyson

One of the most revisionist stand points on this forum must be that Tyson was the one past his prime, not Holy. At the time, the view was actually the opposite - and for good reason.

 

Around 1990 or so Ring Magazine did this matchup in their battle of the legends section.. Among the three experts they chose for the discussion pannel was James Bonecrusher Smith who had fought Tyson and was trained for a while by Joe Frazier. A first round knockout win for Tyson was exactly what he predicted. I'm going with Bone on this one.

 

I remember that issue and still have it locked away. An old timer picked Frazier KO 3 and someone else picked Tyson KO 2. So 2 guys picked Mike by early knockout compared to the old timer who picked Joe. Guys like Mike Acri and Johnny Boz were on there a lot with predictions. Miss those days...

 

Yeah, Smith should of included himself being ko'd in one if not for his holding.

 

Lol James smith was a trash prediction just like the other idiot who think like him

 

Didn't Holmes mention in the past Tyrrell biggs fight interview that the two year break he had gave him some much needed rest to a body struggling with wear and tear and that he felt fresher than ever having to face Tyson now?

It's not like he had zero involvement with boxing, he was taking part in the loss boxing exhibitions and was keeping himself fit.

 

So what if Tyson got stunned. That doesn't mean anything in boxing, anyone can get stunned in this business, what really matters is what you do in response, can you still stay stable and on your feet after being stunned.

If Tyson had a man stunned he would definately finish him off.

Did foreman face a super fast, accurate, double handed, side to side slick mover, defensive genious and an expert finisher like Tyson?

 

Why on earth is he given so much credit for Victories over holyfield and Tyson when he fought them at his own best and when those guys were shot to ****?

 

Dates Tysons weight Opponent

1990-02-11 220½ James Douglas

1989-07-21 219¼ Carl Williams

1989-02-25 218 Frank Bruno

1988-06-27 218¼ Michael Spinks

1988-03-21 216¼ Tony Tubbs

The stats of the previous 2 years don't seem to agree with your fanboy logic do they?

 

Yes indeed, a fighter who was super active for the last 6 years and fought in many great wars will be shot vs a guy who stayed locked up behind bars for three long years with no access to a boxing ring, sparring and boxing training facilities.

Fighting in 8 rounds is excellent preparation against a quality opponent who fought in like 100 plus in the last 6 years.

I am pretty sure you will say holyfield was drunk when even he has several times admitted that he never got to face the best version of Tyson and that he didn't beat the best version of Tyson.

 

I can't help you if you want to propagate that draining and starving yourself to reach from 248 lbs to 220 lbs in 2 weeks equates to having top notch ring preparation and cardiovascular fitness as well for a fight.

 

Neither McCall or Rahman were 42 - 1 underdogs against Lewis, and has already been stated Lewis had the guts to rematch them. Tyson just allowed the older Holyfield having only his 5th Heavyweight fight send Buster into retirement for 6 years for him.

Big difference.

 

Holmes was supposed to face Tyson near the end of 1986 but HBO wanted Tyson in their unification tournament. Jacobs and Cayton told Holmes he would be the first to face Tyson after he collected the belts. So Holmes always knew a fight with Tyson was in the works and stayed in shape by fighting 15 round exhibitions. A proud champion like Holmes would never take a fight unprepared and neither for the money. The guy has got to be the biggest chap azz in terms of his own legacy.

What bugs me most are the people claiming Holmes at the age of 42, 4 years later and 4 years fatter, who was feasting on the likes of Tim Anderson and Eddie Gonzales, was "sharper" or better prepared against Mercer and Holyfield. It was obvious Holmes took the Foreman route in getting a title shot: feast on cans and then face a rated contender - the least resistance possible to receiving a shot at the title. Holmes wasn't better at 42, he simply fought styles more suitable for him at that age.

 

It tells a lot about lenni if he needed guts to rematch bums like McCall and Rahman.

It is in record that don King, Tyson wanted douglas to rematch and he refused. Not Tyson's fault.

 

It just gets easier with you. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Aren't you one of those who claims Tyson was under prepared for Douglas?

Well how about being 38, and not having fought for almost 2 years, which were Holmes circumstances going into the Tyson fight?