Frazier & Tyson who is greater?

On a purely physical level, Tyson is in a different class to Frazier. He was a far better athlete and had physical advantages over Joe in probably every single area. He was also better schooled, had better defensive qualities, better chin and really, it's just a mismatch on a physical level.

BUT - and this is the beauty of the sport - take into account the intangibles, and suddenly it's Joe who enjoys advantages over Tyson in every single area.

Ali gave Joe the chance to become great. Tyson never really had that opponent to test him at his peak. (Had he beaten Holyfield as expected, nobody would have thought much of the win. Instead it's often used as an argument why Tyson was not great.)

 

Frazier had more heart in a war with Ali, but Tyson was all around greater. I don't think he wars with Ali like Frazier did, but I think he beat Ali easier in the first fight than Frazier did.

 

A genuine 50/50 fight here. Could go two very different ways. The fast starting Tyson blitzes the slow of out his blocks Frazier and stops him withing three rounds or Joe weathers the very heavy early storm and stops Mike late.

As for 'who was the greater' ? I see Frazier doing better against previous all time greats than Tyson,so I say Joe.

 

I take the '71 Ali to beat a prime Tyson. Ali put a beating on Frazier and Joe walked through it. I can't see Tyson doing that.

 

this fight makes me worry for joe frazier if he was fighting mike tyson i had it a draw

down twice in second round and tyson punches harder faster and in finishing combinations


[yt]tEzO9aNyzNA[/yt]

 

Thats the thing about Frazier`s career. He started fighting really good fighter in his 12th pro fight.

Mike Tyson was still fighting "Willie Falldown" and "Kenny Getup".

It makes Mike`s resume glossier but not really deeper as has been suggested.

 

Would like to say Frazier is greater. An arguement can be made either way but I think it's clear that Tyson has the upperhand H2H.

Holy also never had a reign at hvy like Tyson did. Overall as a fighter I rank Holy higher but solely as a HW I go for Holy.

Yeah, finally agreed again that Wlad is great but have a hard to ranking him as ATG because of a very limited resume. Dominance can't be ignored and I think H2H he does well enough to be an ATG but its just his resume. Shouldn't say that to a Wlad nutgugger or they'll call me racist lol.

You know me I don't make lists. If someone is great/ATG then fine but to constantly put names on it just waters it down. Of course 1-10 are much better than 30-50 but people forget just how prestigious being an ATG was suppose to be. In my opinion, people are too fast to put decent names on their. If a guy is proven and has a solid resume he should be there which is why I have guys with limited ones out.

At Tyson's best he never folded. I think it's unfair to compare a done one or the one Holy fought to the one 87-90. Not saying he couldn't be outhearted but we don't know how he would've done as he never had a solid test in his prime. He didn't fold against Ruddock as usually stated

Agree I used to use that Frazier too. Prime Frazier means 68-71.

Good point though it does seem like you have something against Tyson usually lol. Though I do think Ellis, Quarry, and Bonavena are better scalps altogether than what Tyson has on his resume. Add the huge Ali win and it just blows Mike's out of the water.

 

Your analogy is flawed......

The only two decent punchers he faced he was down and hurt in one and blitzed in uncompetitive fashion times two in the other. That is a fact.

Heart means **** when you are outgunned on almost every level skill and talent wise......see Gatti or Corrales, as much heart as one could get but it ain't making no difference if you meet a superior fighter. Not their (or Frazier) fault but the genetic gene pool works in mysterious ways.

Tyson does everything better than Foreman, faster, pinpoint accurate, defense better by a mile, textbook punches from either hand, explosive speed while throwing combos etc etc but last but not least acustomed to fight superheavies not beansticks.

Foreman 's power is way overrated by todays standard, the last thing a fighter looses is his power, well, in his second career everytime he remotely stepped up to C class fighters like Stewart,Saverse, Morrison or Schultz he failed to put them to sleep despite landing his best shots on occasion, and those guys all have one thing in common, they are not known for their chin, to the contrary, they are known for their subpar whiskers.....and Michael Moorer is about as glass as it comes.

Same in his first stint as a pro......Norton and Frazier are chinney no matter how you look at it and that are his signature wins.

Michael Gerard Tyson will do a number on Frazier you can bank the house on it and I would not be surprised if it would be over in the first round similar to Marvin and he would do the same to Foreman because meeting Tyson head on toe to toe is absolute suicide, even known Tyson hater Lou Duva admitted to that.

There are ways to beat Tyson but it ain't the way Frazier or Foreman approached their opponents.

BTW, nobody ever responds to me about Frazier when I mention that in his 5 fights with Ali/Foreman he won ONCE , was stopped 3 times and beat pillar to post in the remaining encounter..........I fail to see what is so great about this outing, could one imagine one of the K brothers would have a similar record against two fighters, lol, they would be tared and feathered and so would Tyson if the same would have been true about him but mighty Frazier is held to the highest standard because of it .....

 

This content is protected

:smoke


Foreman Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:rasta

 

Agreed, unless you like the taste of canvas.