I use the word "bum" to describe low quality professional fighters. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of us boxing fans do.
Comparing and contrasting who both fighters defeated and lost to isn't a credible way of determining a fantasy match-up in my estimation. Mike Tyson may well have fought his fair share of poor opposition, but he blasted the vast majority of them out as quickly and as decisively as you would expect from a top-tier Heavyweight. Joe Frazier wasn't always fighting straight-up killers himself. What it comes down to, for me, is whether or not I believe Joe Frazier would stand up to Mike Tyson's best shots, because he would almost certainly have to on account of his offensive-style and notorious slow start. I would have no confidence Joe could. I never saw otherworldly punch resistance from him, nor a great capacity to evade his opponent's punches.
Better that than Tyson gently stroking the sweat off Lennox Lewis's face, post fight of his ars e whopping in an act of abject servitude and emasculation. Pre fight he wanted to eat Lennox's children, post fight his d*ck
I just saw someone argue Tyson-Spinks was a better win than the FOTC. That's got to be the biggest laugh this forum has gotten.
Only God knows how many times I've attempted to explain this to them. ESB is just filled with tysonites who don't really know anything about the sport.
But Tyson was considered prime, even though he had the exact same statistics as Frazier when he lost to Douglas? Frazier beat Ali in 71 and lost to Foreman in 73, 2 years later, within these two years he had two fights. Tyson beat Spinks in 88 and lost to Douglas in 90, 2 years later, within these two years he had two fights. Frazier wasn't in his prime, but Tyson apparently was, even though he'd already made 8 defenses of his titles and had about $300m in his bank. If it works for one guy, it should work for everyone.