Mike Tyson vs Joe Frazier

yes my point was that although he quit in many ways later in his career he didn't up until after the time against Douglas as he sure didn't quit against Buster, he got pummeled against Douglas and kept coming long before Buster sent him chasing his mouthpiece.

Unless you don't think that was tough Mr Boxer?

 

yeah I clearly told you to PM me if you were interested and shut up about it if you weren't mr tough forum boxing guy :rasta

but you had to continue to be the forum attention ho :nono

you are addicted to being tough over the net in public aware you can get away with it. You cant help yourself :good

 

Tyson did not become champion until he beat Spinks.

Becoming so despondent that you cease fighting effectively and cannot alter your plan of attack is also a form of quitting.

Tyson had a good chin so he took it but quit mentally long before he was koed.

 

not against Douglas he didn't.

Regardless, lets agree to disagree, I can see you don't like giving a inch which is your right :thumbsup

 

The only subjective factor when debating Frazier v Tyson in terms of punching power is how we rate their opposition and specifically how durable we believe their opponents were compared to one another.
We can see on film how many clean punches it took Tyson and Frazier to stopped, floor or KO the opponents. We can measure that objectively.

So it boils down to whether we think Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, Tony Tubbs, Jose Ribalta etc. could take the same amount, less or more punches from Frazier as they did from Tyson ... or whether we think Tyson would need fewer, more or the same amount of clean punches to stop Chuvalo, Ellis, Foster, Quarry, etc.

Personally I think they did about the same thing to the same level of opposition. Frazier generally (but not always) took a little longer because he took longer to find his range and find his mark.

In fact, some of the posters here (Perry for one) who are saying Frazier had significantly less power than Tyson are also of the belief that Frazier was a genuinely "slow starter" which would mean he really couldn't have been hitting those guys much at all in the early going (in my view, the slow starter thing is a gross exaggeration).
There needs to be more consistency and logic in that argument, but that's a rarity around here.

 

yeah good point,,,

that enforces Tyson even more for me.

 

Me thinks you're all mouth, just like your missus....

 

Exactly, if you are firmly of that belief than Bruno etc, would have stood up to the same amount of punches from Frazier without wilting, then that's a consistent argument.
But I hold the contrary view. I don't believe Bruno or Ribalta or Biggs were more durable than Quarry, Machen or Ellis.

 

The durability of opposition is one side of the coin, the power of these two men is the other side of it. There's no right or wrong, even if the two hit a machine and had their power objectively measured, would people still take that as gospel or would they continue the debate regardless?

Frazier being a slow starter. That is something that is known about him but not really something that stands up to scrutiny. Did he actually throw more punches down the stretch? Imo it's entirely based upon him losing the first round or so to Ellis and then Ali. Both fights he finished very strong in and that's where I believe the talk originated.

 

yes I respect that unforgiven :good

 

still you keep acting tough in the public forum?

you realize that is for public attention don't you?

how confused and cowardly are you?

Tyson vs Frazier, can you focus?

PM me if you want to talk tough, if not then shut up mr internet tough guy :nono

 

Again it's a known fact Frazier was a slow starter. Being a slow starter does not mean you can't take out opponents here and there early. **** happens. I've heard his trainers and Joe himself term him a slow starter. It was widely mentioned in articles from that time. Why debate the well known and understood quantities of boxing history? It is what is was.

Even if you discount what I have seen and heard regarding respective punching power there is no doubt Tyson had an awesome right hand. Killer power, speed, accuracy and coordination with the emphasis on power. Joe did not have this capability in his right hand. Just this alone elevates Tyson over Frazier in terms of punching power.

 

Oh but it was you keyboard warrior who thought they was the new internet tough guy wasn't it....

I don't need to PM I'll say it loud and clear on here.

 

Hitting a machine wouldn't prove a thing, not with any two fighters.
Some guys are never going to be able to hit a machine like they hit a human being, and for some guys the opposite would be true.
I suspect guys like Tyson and Frazier would always hit the human being harder.
Contest conditions just cannot be replicated. Not in sparring, not with machines. The greatest athletes go to higher levels under contest conditions, when it's all for real.

I think the subject is debatable. It cannot be resolved completely, or at all. But for me it's debatable, and precisely because the power of the two men is similar or equal.

For you, Tyson's power is so superior that it's "patently obvious" based on the film. I suppse similar to Foreman being taller than Frazier being obvious, or close to that. So, yeah, maybe not so worthy of debate for you.
I just don't see the basis for that view, that's all. :good

 

Cool. :good