Frazier & Tyson who is greater?

I criticize AND praise Tyson, accordingly. That's normal. To give to pros and the cons. Highlight the strengths and the weaknesses, as we see them. Of course, opinions will differ.

Problem is, when I say Tyson was the best fighter in the world for 3 or 4 years straight and probably the top HW fighter of the 1980s (it's between him and Holmes ... and I think if we have to split them, he edges out Holmes within the 1980-89 period) ... AND THESE ARE STATEMENTS I HAVE BEEN MAKING FOR YEARS AND 100% STAND BY .... you still figure I'm a "hater" whose only aim is to "discredit" Tyson.

Neither you, nor Magoo, has ever offered any answer to how come rating Tyson pretty highly, counting his achievements, while acknowledging and estimating his limitations is somehow "unfair" or "hate".
It's the standard we use for every ATG. You count the losses as well as the wins, and assess the quality of opposition in both cases.

The only denial happening is your denial that you are emotionally invested in the Tyson legend, a true believer in the myth of a virtually invincible prime, the legend and myth of a slightly imaginary Tyson, larger than life.
It's like a religion for you. True belief. That's fair enough.
But that's why we'll never see eye to eye.
Religion and objective observations will never see eye to eye.

 

I think it's damaging for a fighter this stature to be so totally helpless against an opponent as Frazier was against Foreman while still reasonably close to his prime. George spanked him. It was totally one-sided. The punches Joe after all managed to land just bumped off George with no visible effect while George on the other hand staggered Frazier with every somewhat clean punch.

Tyson always had a punchers chance against Douglas, as shown in rd 8.

But then again George was a better fighter than Douglas.