Mike Tyson Vs Joe Fraizer who ranks higher

You know, this is the second thread in a few weeks where Frazier is beating expectations, the other one being against Holmes, and I could not be happier!

For a long time he was almost a forgotten great.

 

Those of us of a certain age know how good Joe really was

 

Yes indeed---peak Frazier (1968-69 to 71) was a tremendous fighter!! Best left hook in boxing--great bounce and head movement--could go to the body like nobody else, and had the heart of a lion!! Tyson was certainly a great fighter but IMHO didn't have as complete a total package as Joe did at his best! I remember Frazier's fights during his glory years and he was truly a warrior!!

 

Tyson ruled the world for a longer amount of time. He conquered more decisively. He was like Alexander the Great (Tyson lost at his height because of his own hubris), Frazier's reign was more like William Wallace's (he won some good battles but someone came about and dispatched him ending his reign). Even in Frazier's most acclaimed win, he damn near died and looked worse than who he beat.

Tyson had the world on notice that you cannot beat him for 4+ years, damn near 5.

 

It's very hard to give a definitive answer with these two when it comes to careers, but I'll try:

-Signature wins: Frazier has that big cherry on top with his win over Ali. Tyson's best is either an old Holmes or Spinx. Advantage: Frazier.

-Ranked opponents: Last I checked Tyson beat more ranked opponents and he benefits from the 3 belt era. You can count belt holders like Bruno and upper ranked opponent. Advantage: Tyson.

-Dominance: This one is pretty close. Both guys were freight trains clearing out their divisions when they were in their primes. However, Tyson was a wee bit more convincing and didn't really miss many notable names other than Witherspoon (who lost to Smith, the guy Tyson went on to beat) and maybe Bowe (who was notorious for his thin resume and cherry picking). Frazier missed a few guys like Lyle, Shavers, Norton who could've helped his case. Advantage: Tyson.

-Quality of opposition: Other than Ruddock and Bruno, Tyson didn't face very many world class opponents who were healthy and in their primes. Frazier fought several prime opponents such as Mathis, Quarry, Bonavena, Bugner, and the very notable near prime Ali. Advantage: Frazier.

-Losses: Frazier only lost to 2 ATGs: Foreman and Ali. Tyson lost to Douglas in one of the biggest upsets of all time and failed to beat his 2 biggest names in Holyfield and Lewis. Advantage: Frazier.

-Fame and Money: Pretty obvious this goes to Tyson.

-Titles and accolades: Well Frazier has the gold medal and 2 pro championships: Unification with Ellis and the title fight with Mathis. On paper that looks great, but Tyson has a bit more depth. His path to undisputed was crazy given his young age beating 3 good belt holders in Smith, Berbick, and Tucker who certainly stack up to Frazier's. Plus, Tyson came back in the 90's to win 2 more belts. Advantage: Tyson.

-Heart and adversity: Obvious advantage to Frazier who had enough heart to share with an army. Had a broken thumb in the Olympics and found a way to win. Got off the floor to beat Bonavena. The ref had to save him from himself against Foreman getting floored 6x. Advantage: Frazier.

-Longevity and consistency: Ironically Tyson should win this. He was still knocking out world class fighters like Botha 14 years after his debut. He gave Holyfield a good go despite being past his best and had previously slaughtered Bruno and Seldon with relative ease. Frazier didn't have many notable wins after he lost his title other than rematches with Ellis and Quarry who he beat before. Advantage: Tyson.

Final verdict: 5-4 advantage Tyson. Really close careers.

 

Great analysis, and totally agree.