Sonny's Jab and Duo's posts earlier in this thread actually make a lot of sense. On paper this should be relatively one-sided, but I'm not so sure anymore. I watched the Tyson v Mathis fight last night again, and Tyson looked dreadful with his hooks and uppercuts missing by several inches. His timing was way, way off. It's a good thing Mathis had no sort of punch, because his style posed all sorts of problems for Tyson. Mike is an enigma in a way; he must be the only short heavyweight I can think of that needed punching room. He had some good sneaky shots inside, but for all intents and purposes he didn't like fighting inside and he didn't like being crowded. He looked totally uncomfortable when Mathis had him on the backfoot. And obviously Mathis knew this because he came out of his corner and almost ran at Tyson in an attempt to get as close as possible. Credit to Tyson though, he made some adjustments and started side-stepping Mathis in close (It's hard not to be impressed at how quick Tyson's feet were) and he did eventually put Mathis down for the count. (I thought Mathis was on the receiving end of a slightly fast count though.) But it's clear to see from the footage that Tyson didn't like it when someone had their head on his chest. I'd still pick Tyson ultimately, but in my mind it's a very, very interesting matchup and for me, not one in which Mike is a clear favourite.
Really? I see a lot of Frazier in 95-99 Tyson, except that Tyson was still quicker than Frazier ever was, even at that point. Either way, Tyson's style demanded youth to be effective. He was destined for failure beyond his 20's, even if he'd kept Rooney. Any vestige of prime Mike was definitely done and gone after '95. I'd rather Tyson had avoided Holyfield altogether after prison, and instead fought a rematch with Douglas in 96 after the Seldon fight. That way he could've avenged his loss in Tokyo and then he could've retired right after that with is legacy intact.
....or even a fight with Moorer or Shultz first to unify the title again, and then fight Douglas (if they'd have allowed it of course). Retire. Legacy intact.
Well, if you were a boxing fan at the time you knew this scenario wasn't bound to happen. Douglas was actually clamoring for a Holyfield rematch and Tyson had too many other options under King. Tyson-Bowe was the megafight at the end of the tunnel.
Tyson was still more explosive early than Frazier was even in his prime. That's about it though. Tyson had lost much of his quickness and fluidity after prison. Frazier had superior conditioning to almost everyone he ever fought. He had ungodly stamina/endurance. Joe was able to wear down bigger guys as the fight went on. Tyson couldn't wear down anyone post prison. If he didn't get them early he wasn't gonna get them.
I think that may be due to the fact that post rooney Tyson prefferred throwing haymakers more than anything and he needed room to launch these, compare the mathis performance (which was his second after 4 years ring rust) to the Jesse Ferguson fight where the whole fight was fought in close quarters and youll see the difference
I agree with Glover that Tyson is not a great matchup for Frazier. I disagree with some of his other assestments. First when comparing opponents, Frazier without question fought better fighters, Quarry, Bonevena, Ellis, Machen and of course Ali were better than just about anyone Tyson fought. Second to brush off the win over Ali (and don't foget the life and death struggle in the Thrilla as well), is not so simple. Frazier demonstarted traits agains Ali like courage, ability to take a punch and DETERMINATION that Tyson never showed in his entire career. Along with the fact that Ali may have been the grestest of all time (and Frazier beat him) you can't just skate around that win as Glover tries to do. Tyson was a front runner who NEVER demonstrated the ability to come back and win hurt which Frazier did numerous times. Tyson was no 'super Frazier" Tyson would have been completely frustrated by Ali and never have beaten him. AND Tyson's career was built on intimination which would not have worked on Frazier. Indeed the fighter who most compares with Frazier mentally that Tyson fought was Holyfield and we know how that came out. The key to this fight would be having Durham or Futch have Frazier really working up a sweat before the first round. For sure he cannot start cold. But if this becomes a war of attributuion (as many Frazier fights did) this is a BAD matchup for Tyson! He never won any of those. The idea that Tyson would run out and start throwing bombs and blitz Frazier simply fogets the fact that Smokin Joe would also be throwing bombs that Tyson must watch out for as well. Joe Frazier was a greater fighter than Mike Tyson and he certainly would not submit like Michael Spinks and a lot of the fighters Tyson was made to look good against! Frazier never submitted to anyone as Tyson did to Holyfield, Douglas, and others. Frazier was a FAR better inside fighter than Tyson and thats where this fight would be fought. Comparing Foreman and Tyson is ignorant because Foreman won by PUSHING Frazier away (a questionably illegal tactic for which he was finally warned for in the second round when it was to late to help Frazier), Tyson would always be in Fraziers punching range which Foreman was not.
People, it's simple: either Tyson early massacre or Frazier late come from behind KO. Tyson early is more likely, because he had more speed than George.
I think Tyson has a chance to hurt Joe early, probably with a short right on the way in. How much he hurts Joe is the question; if Joe can recover and claim Tyson on the inside, weathering the storm, essentially the fights over. I say this because when Joe gets his rhythm going and gets warmed up he will be on Tyson like a rash. Once Joe does that Tyson's lack of infighting hurts him and Joe takes over. Tyson becomes dis-spirited and resorts to looking for the one punch that never comes. Tyson COULD KO Joe if he hit him right and finish him early; Bonavena nearly did it, after all. But I think that is his only chance. If I was placing bets I'd have Tyson in 1-2 and Frazier 12-15. But I'd put more on Frazier!
The Frazier who out fought and knocked down Muhammad Ali in 71' would almost certainly have defeated Mike Tyson. I could possibly see a scenario whereby Tyson scores a quick KO but it's unlikely,Frazier would survive:good a torrid opener to slowly break Tyson down and stop him late on, al la Holyfield...
How exactly does Tyson have the styles advantage against Frazier? Can someone please explain this to me? I see it the other way around.
If Frazier can jump on Tyson early and keep on him in close he will wear Mike down and knock him out late. It's hard imaging Frazier avoiding Tyson on the way in and walking into something big. If Joe survives the early onslaught ain't no way he's losing down the stretch.
Frazier starts slow, is there to be hit, and completely crumbled when he met the only big puncher he ever fought. Tyson was a fast starter, better puncher than Foreman, and physically and tehnically superior to Frazier.
I think they say that because Frazier is often labelled a "slow starter", whereas Tyson was undoubtedly a fast starter.
