How bad would Mike Tyson beat Joe Frazier?

I would rather consider a fight where Tyson was able to do what he wanted to do or make real adjustments rather than getting frustrated and having to settle for what an injured survalist gave him. Only in the bizzarro world of Tyson land would this translate into a "great performance" or a "new dimension of his game." More like a learning experience, best to get past like he did, and move on to a better fight.

Great avatar by the way. Tyson would have beat the hell out of Foreman.

 

Tucker was an excellent example of how good Tyson was at dealing with tall mobile boxers. He could close the distance on tall fighters because they couldnt consistently hit him and keep him stranded on their jab. Thats why almost every tall mobile fighter was reduced to holding or getting knocked out.
People again underestimate how good Tyson was defensively and how good he was at finding counterpunch openings. Thats what made Tyson so great, not just his power. His defense and speed combined with that power made him a formidable challenge for any fighter in the history of the division. You just cant definitively pick an opponent over Tyson at his best, he stands a very good chance with anyone, he was that good.

 

This is bonkers...

After the 5th round, an injured Tucker wasn't even trying as Mike himself admits, he just let Tyson flick his jab so he could grab him and go the distance. And Mike was more than happy to accomdate him.

In Tyson land "An excellent example of Mike using mobility and underrated jab to outbox the bigger man."

:nut

Watch Frazier/Mathis if you want to see how its done. I'm out of here.

 

Im gald your outta here, your starting to sound stupid. Fighters stopped trying because they didnt want to get knocked out. Tucker went into survival mode, like many before him.

 

And Mathis didn't go into survival mode against Fraizer?

Watch both these fights closely, than come back, and talk before you start calling somebody stupid.

There's a difference between a fighter who works the body and a fighter who throws body punches. That's the difference between these two fights.

And again, Mike settling for what Tucker gave him, is not something I would try to twist into a great Tyson performance. This is not a fight that showcases Mike's strenghts, if anything it simply exposes his short comings in constrast to a fighter like Frazier. Again, I stress Tyson/Holmes. Holmes was boxing well in there, before Mike cut the ring off.

 

Yeah all two rounds of it . He made guys fight or hold. The guys who chose to fight got knocked out ala Holmes TKO4. Tucker was 6'5, he had the ability to box and/or hold against a guy who was 5'11. Tyson's performance was one sided dominant. Just because he didnt knock him out didnt make it a good one considering what Tucker brought to the table physically and technically.

 

In Tyson's prime era (1986-88) Tucker was undoubtably his best opponent.

 

For me..

Tyson/Homes=What Tyson could do
Tyson/Tucker=What Tyson couldn't do

I know if I wanted to show people the greatness of Mike Tyson I wouldn't pop in the Tucker fight.

And if we wish to be topical based off the Mathis fight, I doubt Tucker would last 12 rounds with Joe Frazier using those tactics.

 

Uppercuts to the head and body are usually the ideal weapon against an infighter digging in, regardless how big each man is. If you're pinning your head against someone's chest, you're creating space for it regardless-and Tyson could generate great power at that range.

 

Holmes forgot more about boxing than Tucker ever learned, and he actually tried to win.

Was Tucker really better than Berbick? How about Bonecrusher or Green? He didn't do much better than them clowns.

 

Pete has done laid out the best way for Tyson to land the uppercut on Frazier.

 

Tucker actually tried to make a fight of it,unlike Smith or Green. And he lasted the distance,unlike Holmes.

Holmes must have been pissed out of his skull,signing for that fight,without a tune up first. For a normally very astute guy,he badly miscalculated there.

 

-He tried for a couple of rounds before either hurting his right hand or simply deciding it was too risky to commit to any punches.

-Holmes might have lasted the distance as well if he fought as negatively as Tucker did for those last 8 rounds or so.

 

What exactly is Frazier going to do different after round 4? or round 7 for that matter? Some people, even those picking Frazier seem to do so under premise that he survives an early onslaught only to turn the tables and start "smoking" and eventually beat Tyson. My question to them is when exactly has Tyson lost a fight in which he was ahead after the 4th round?

Douglas?
Holyfield?

To beat Tyson you have to take control from start to finish. Tyson often gets accused of having a subpar or lackluster inside fighting skills. I disagree with notion only because people seem to equate Tyson's laziness on the inside as his inability to fight effectively there. During his heyday he was never forced to fight effectively on the inside, but when he did he showed signs of brilliance.

I also pick Tyson to beat Foreman; but at least with Foreman, I can see a plausible argument based on the styles. With Frazier there is no real contrast between their styles just two guys with similar attributes and in that scenario I pick the guy with the better speed, the better punch and the better chin and incidentally that guy is Mike Tyson.

 

-Ha, Though the judges were crazy, Tyson was winning the official scorecards against Douglas. See recent thread in this forum.

-I actually believe Tyson was ahead on some cards against Holyfield until round 5 or 6. It was a competitive fight before the cut and knockdown (which really didn't hurt Mike at all but started a momentum shift). I believe Tyson definetly won rounds 3 and 4, possibly others. I know the more Tyson favoring commentator had it even after the knockdown.

-Says it all.