Frazier & Tyson who is greater?

Neither.. Only that he never faced them when plenty of other guys around his time did. Tyson faced more punchers than Frazier ever did and fared better against them.

My argument was that even old Holmes and Spinks were better than most of Frazier's "title" challengers which I still say they were. But I'll play along and address your position. I think both Holmes and Spinks still had enough left to decision Chuvalo.

He didn't alter his style as it was. He fought Young the same way he fought everyone else prior, and at some point that version of Foreman was bound to lose to someone who was capable of outlasting him.

I don't know but I don't believe some hearsay blog that you likely copied from some old post here, just as you've refused to believe over the years that Tyson's decline was due to plenty of other factors. I am a former personal trainer and a guy who's had the flu plenty of times, and athletes don't go out and do what Douglas did when their physical state is compromised to that extent.

You obviously haven't followed Holmes very closely if You're unfamiliar with the bias and hatred he has towards Tyson. And when Holmes said that other fighters would beat Tyson, he was speaking from the angle that he wasn't prime himself when Tyson beat HIM...

 

Tyson's era was arguably the worst of the heavyweight division while Frazier's was the best.

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

This was clearly not the same man who fought Ali.

Search it up, it's common knowledge that Douglas had the flu during the bout.

Douglas only looked good because of who he was in the ring with. If he was in the ring with Ali or Frazier...:-(

I am familiar with those claims, but it doesn't make any sense to me at all. He admitted Tyson was a sharper puncher than Frazier and he knew he couldn't beat him. I don't have time right now. I have to go.

 

Tyson's wasn't the worst. And the 70's being one of the best has nothing to do with why Frazier didn't face some of its more dangerous combatants and got killed by the only elite puncher he met.

works for me.

.

No it wasn't. I think he had lost focus after the Ali loss, took too much time off from the ring and was poorly prepared for Jimmy Young in similar fashion to Tyson being poorly prepared for Douglas with a few differences. But my initial point is that Foreman was mightily criticized for his opposition before Frazier and it was because of THAT win, that his future was set up. While I agree its true that Foreman was bound to make a mark on the division, he wasn't going to be a force for long in the 70's. His stamina, defense, and long term mental fortitude for the game was limited.

I saw the fight live in 1990 and have heard all of these comments before. Douglas might have been sick in the days leading up to the fight, but I simply can't believe that he entered the arena in Tokyo with an honest to God case of the Flu.. Most people can't even get out of bed to go to the toilet when stricken with the Flu and at times have even lost their lives to it.. There's no way that even the GREATEST athletes could battle out 10 rounds in a championship fight under those conditions.. No way in hell.. And mind you we're talking about the actual "flu" and not a case of the sniffles, which frankly I think was closer to the truth..

He was in the ring with the heavyweight champion of the world of the past 3+ years and a man who had crushed an entire division and was deemed by 99% of the boxing world as unbeatable. That's who he was in the ring with. Of course unbeknownst to most, that man had diminished significantly due to poor preparation, managerial changes, life problems outside the ring, loss of motivation and only having seen 93 seconds of ring action within the previous year.. But even that being the case, a man stricken with the flu NEVER would have been able to endure 10 rounds of bouncing around while throwing and taking punches like that...

Holmes has said vehemently that he could beat Tyson in his prime and when filming the documentary " champions forever" said prior to the filming in an interview with Reggie Jackson that just about EVERY fighter in the 70's would have beaten Tyson. He didn't like the man.. Maybe it was jealousy that Tyson became an overnight sensation while Holmes couldn't build a fraction of the charisma in 7 years as champion or bitterness over the vast difference in the money the two of them got paid for their defences... Maybe it was sour g****s over getting humiliated against him. Who knows? But if you ask Holmes who'd win between Tyson and Larry's grandmother, I'm pretty sure I know what he'd say...

Incidentally I don't have these two very far apart. I generally rank Tyson right around #8 all time and have Frazier down at around #9-#10. I can see the arguments which favor Frazier being higher but don't agree with them. And I definitely can't see the logic in having Joe literally "leagues" above the other as some have tried to profess..

 

I bet you've read plenty of reports of Tyson shagging lady boys and being 500lb overweight a day before the fight, take it they're gospel are they?

 

Do you remember the time you refused to accept that Tyson broke bones in Golotas face until you saw medical evidence and then when that medical evidence was shown to you you still refused to accept it?

 

What evidence? I want x-ray pics and a look at the doctors report please...

Golota was fine, just his ***** went like your hero's did plenty of times....

P.S.... looks like Golota was a bit of a hypochondriac. Apparently he suffered seizures after the Lewis fight. I guess he paid the doctors for making up injuries instead of admitting he was a big girls blouse.....

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:nut

Ever heard of a guy called Muhammad Ali? He and Frazier will be forever inextricably linked.

I believe there are more than 2 billion catholics on the planet, and Ali at the height of his fame was globally more well known than the pope.

In the other corner we have a convicted ****** who no one outside of Murica or boxing fans have ever heard of, nor give a fuk about.

 

Would you care to list all the Heavyweight's Holmes HAS had a good word to say about?

Don't worry it shouldn't be too difficult for you. You'll only need some of the fingers of one hand.

Your man love for Tyson is comical to say the least, trying to portray him as the sole victim of Holmes's vitriol.

 

Frazier had a hell of a lot better chin than Tyson and better stamina. Tyson burned out after the first half of the fight. Frazier was extremely tough in his prime. He is marked down for knockout loses to the hardest hitter in boxing. It was stylistically terrible match up for Frazier. Frazier was vulnerable to the uppercut and that was Foreman's best punch.

People exaggerate Tyson's explosiveness. Yes, he was a very explosive fighter but not like people say. Frazier could have stood toe to toe with him. Frazier had the better chin so I choose Frazier over Tyson.

 

Tyson is my favourite but Frazier is greater. H2H it's Tyson, he was dominating and devastating at his best.

 

There isn't much in it, I think.

Wins: Tyson has more wins and more dominant ones over ranked opponents, but Joe has that win on his record.

Losses: Tyson has more losses as well, but only two that are highly significant. Was the loss to Douglas more damaging to his legacy than Frazier's against Foreman? I can't really say. To me it looks like Frazier was further removed from his best than Tyson on that night, but Tyson wasn't as easily crushed on the other hand. Of course, Foreman is greater than Douglas, but ca 75% of prime George's rep is built on the win over Joe, so using his greatness here is a bit of circular argument. I can see it both ways here.

Tyson's losses to Holy are more damaging than Frazier's to Ali, though. Mike still had plenty left but was dismantled by someone who himself had left his best in the ring already. Still a very, very good fighter, but I'd say that '74-75 Ali was better than that version of Holy and Joe wasn't as conclusively defeated in either fight as Tyson was by Holy.

H2H speculations are just that, so that doesn't factor in for me.

This is my break-down, and the result is that it could go either way for me. They're probably both in the lower half of the top 10 I'd say, quite interchangeable.

 

Without a doubt.

You can say that again.

In fairness I don't think you can ignore both were going into their 38th fights respectively. Only 2 guys had heard the final bell in Foreman's case, compared to 4 of Tyson's. Foreman was facing the reigning world champion, Tyson was facing a 42 - 1 underdog.

 

Tommy Morrison comes to mind when it comes to collecting impressive numbers against cans and a couple of fringe contenders. Or Foreman in his comeback for that matter. But when they went up in quality of opposition the losses came pretty quickly.

So Foreman's impressive numbers before facing Frazier doesn't matter that much to me, it's more what he did when faced with world class opposition. And there his destruction of Frazier is the one who stands out. Yes, he smashed Norton as well, but Shavers and ****ey did so even quicker. He KO'd Lyle, but that was in a life and death brawl. And he lost to Ali and Young. Take away the win over Frazier and his win list is more or less that of Shavers (plus Lyle, minus Young).

So the difference between young Foreman and Shavers is basically George's destruction of Frazier (who Shavers never got to face).

That leads to the circular logic of "sure, Frazier was destroyed by Foreman but Foreman was a certified ATG ... because he beat Frazier so easily".

 

I don't think most people realize how he completely annihilated the best the greatest heavyweight division had to offer. Norton, Frazier, etc.