Mike Tyson vs Joe Frazier

He would have stopped the Tyson who fought McBride.

 

Yes, Douglas outboxed him from the opening bell. Yes, Tyson looked bad. I always say it's hard for you to look good when someone's beating the **** out of you.

I dont say that. I say Douglas had the style to beat him and IMPOSED it from the opening bell. That's what happened, as I see it.

They weren't "better fighters", they were on about the same level. Bruno and Ruddock were slow-footed sluggers, statues, a bit one-dimensional. I think Douglas boxed better. He moved.
Tubbs went out from one punch. Tucker fought with a broken hand.

Your argument is pointless. Douglas BEAT Tyson, and, yes, no one expected it precisely because Tyson had consistently beaten men who were apparently on the same level as Douglas.
So, does that mean we have to conclude that Douglas was somehow lucky and could not beat the real Tyson ?
The fact is Douglas BEAT Tyson. 40-1 odds were WRONG. The fight was on the level.
You want everything to fit neatly into "logical" categories -
"Douglas was really no better than Tubbs, therefore Tyson would mashed Douglas - but Douglas beat Tyson, so Tyson must have not been Tyson and Douglas must not have been Douglas"
Hey, I dont believe boxing works like that. It's pure favouritism and prejudice.

OK, but do you say the same thing about Tyson-Spinks ? When discussing Tyson-Spinks do you go on about what an apalling version of Spinks turned up that night ? Or Tony Tucker's broken hand ? Do you concentrate so much on the state of Tyson's opponents when they showed up unprepared ?

Frazier would beat the **** out of him.
All the excuses in the world wont help Mikey.

 

That's a rather bold prediction in my opinion. I myself make no convictions of that nature, except that I'd favor Tyson, but who knows. You on the otherhand, continue to make the strong statement that Frazier would " beat the **** out of him," and do it primarily on the basis of one bad performance, and against a fighter who was totally dissimilar to Frazier in just about every way.

But hey, That's probably just your MEDIOCRITY detector, kicking in again...

By the way, I can tell by some of your other statements in the above paragraphs, that you're not very familiar with some of the history nor circumstances of Tyson's career between 1988 and 1990. He was starting to take a turn for the worse, at least a year before the Douglas fight, as was seen by his performance against Bruno, as well as his behavior outside the ring. Of course these facts , don't convieniently play into your argument, therefore I won't be surprised if you ignore them entirely.

 

No, you are completely mis-reading my arguments. I'm not saying Frazier beats Tyson because of the Douglas fight.
I dont think I actually mentioned the Douglas fight much at all until you brought it up.
I mentioned the Tyson-Buster Mathis Jr fight when trying to decipher how Tyson's style matches with a short pressure fighter who crowds him.
I tried to argue analytic points about the match of styles and the proven performances of both fighters. I'm not basing anything much on the Tyson-Douglas fight except I might bring it up when I'm being told how vulnerable Frazier was, and when it's implied that Tyson would be impervious to his punches.

The form book tends to show that Frazier was more reliable. In my opinion at least. Quite clearly I think Frazier should be favoured, and in this timeless realm of imaginary fights I would expect Frazier to beat the **** out of Tyson.

:huh

I am familiar with the history. Tyson looked a bit rusty and less sharp versus Bruno, a little sloppy, after the longest layoff of his career. He wasn't 100%, but he was still close to it. No big deal. He followed the Bruno fight up with a superb first-round TKO of Carl Williams, one of the world's best fighters. His slip-duck-hook against Williams was among the best moves of his career, vintage Tyson.

Tyson was 40-1 favourite to beat Buster Douglas. That's the history. Expected to reign for another ten years. This is what people were saying. No one on the horizon to beat him.
If his "decline from prime" was so obvious, why would he be held in such regard to be such a massive favourite over anyone. I guess Las Vegas bookies would have made a "prime" Tyson a 250-1 favourite over Douglas !

The facts are the facts. TKO 5 Bruno, TKO 1 Carl Williams ........ look how far he had slipped from the "prime" days !!! He was only 40-1 to beat Douglas.

As for his life outside the ring, I dont care.

 

Smith would have never KO'd Tyson that night and had he opened up earlier to try to get Mike outta there then he himself would have been another Tyson victim (In the ring)....

Anyways the notion that Frazier was a slow starter has more to do with his style than anything. Frazier never started fights intentionally slow; he pretty much uses the opening rounds to sync his bob and weave with his opponents timing so he can catch a rhythm. If he is able to do so immediately then you have fights like Bob Foster, Quarry II, etc. where he shows early success.

HOBGOBLIN stated that Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was more effective than Tyson's SPORADIC Bob and weave.

Frazier's CONSTANT bob and weave was actually quite predicatable which is why early on in fights he would seldom win the first round mostly to adjust his timing on his bob and weave. Its effectiveness didnt lie in that method rather it relied on the consistency of that method to truly work. Consistent pressure followed by perputual motion forced fighters to eventually fight Joe's fight and it made them uncomfortable doing so (to Joe's credit). Joe was never known for his right hand, he was notoriously known for his left hook yet despite this knowledge oppenents were seldom able to stop him. As rounds progressed Joe doesnt necessarily get better or do anything spectacular rather he continues to apply the
SAME constant pressure that he's been applying from the start that DOES NOT allow his opponents to rest or change the pace of the fight without getting nailed often which is what eventually breaks down his opponents and see's Joe to victory.

Good example of that is the Miguel Cotto Zab Judah fight. We all know that Zab is the more skiled of the two but Cotto's consistent pressure is what Zab couldnt handle, he could have thrown more punches but Cotto's pressure and relentless aggression made Zab think twice about opening up and taking advantages of the openings there in the same manner that Frazier does to his opponents.

Tyson on the other hand uses his SPORADIC bob and weave which I find more effective because; its economical (he only bobs and weaves when he needs to). It always leaves him in a position to punch and to counter (hence the impeccable accuracy) and eliminates the need for a feel out process which is why Mike always started Fast. Most importantly it allows him to create openings rather than to take advantage of them.


The problem with Joe's constant bob and weave is that it takes time depending on the opponent to become very effective. With Foreman he didnt have that time he needed to get Foreman's timing down. If he did or if George started out a bit slower it would have been George laying on the the canvas in Jamaica. Fortunately for George, his superhuman punching power kept Frazier occupied and hurt long enough to get a stoppage before Joe started to get insync and "smoke."

Now, Tyson never fought a guy that resemebled Frazier in style, well no one significant anyway. So if these two met it comes down to how their styles are going to mesh.

The bob and weave loses its effectiveness when fighting someone who's similar in height so Joe would have to adjust his style.

So what it comes down to is;

you have a fighter on one corner who had successive pressure and relentlessness coupled with the mental strength of an imprisioned future leader facing a fighter in another corner whose combination of speed and power is almost unparallel, has the ability to endure physical punishment beyond reason and in his prime had confidence that bordered on arrogant.

That being said neither fighter is going to back off.

I tried thinking about this objectively. I didnt want think about what Frazier would do to Mike without taking into account what Mike would do in return and vice versa. And the more I think about it; I think Tyson would hurt Joe and finish him off before Joe gets a chance to "smoke."
Frazier just won't weather the storm.


Tyson KO inside 4.

 

The Mathis fight doesn't tell us much. The only fight that Tyson had within 4 years prior to meeting Mathis, involved a single round against Peter Mcneeley, yet Mike managed to destroy Buster with little trouble. Although Mathis was not even remotely the same level of fighter that Frazier was, this is still a somewhat weak example.

A fair enough defense on your part, except I never said Tyson would be impervious to Frazier's punches, or any of his skills for that matter. In fact, I'm not even trying to guarantee that Tyson would even beat him.. I'm simply stating that I would have to give Mike the edge.

To each his own I guess. I however, find it difficult to make such strident claims, given that neither of these men ever really fought someone of the other's description.

Agreed,

nice performance on Tyson's part. You have to take into consideration, however that Carl Williams was highly suseptible to being floored by the left hook. In fact, the vast majority of the knockdowns, or knockouts, that he sustained throughout his career, were left hook induced. Tyson hit him at the right time with a monster punch, and that was all she wrote. While I'm not taking anything away from Mike's performance that evening, I firmly believe that most fighters with a reasonably good left could have done that to Carl. Look at how an aging Weaver demolished what was possibly an even better version of the Truth, 3 years earlier...

Sonny,

Give me a break will ya?? Buster Douglas had a notorious reputation for quitting and had losses to Ferguson, White, and Bey, plus a draw with Tangstad. His only decent wins were primarily decisions over a few pastprime fighters, and his activity levels hadn't been much prior to the Tyson fight.

If you were a bookie in Vegas, what kind of odds would you have given the guy, even you saw Tyson past out drunk on a park bench two days earlier?

See the above statement...

I don't give two shits about his personal life either, in fact I've always viewed the guy as one of boxing's biggest assholes. The sad fact of the matter, however is that a fighter's life outside the ring has every bit as much to do with how successful he is, as what he does inside the ropes. Seeing as how you grew up in the 80's as did I, we both saw a lot of these morons mess up their lives with bull**** that we can't even begin to imagine. While I hold them entirely responsible for their actions, I still have to pick the better versions of themselves, when sizing them up in these fantasy matchups.

 

Wow, great post ironchamp! Spot on!!!!:good :good

 

Agreed. You produced a very thoughtful, insightful, well-articulated analysis, ironchamp. Sonny's jab, I will defer to your superior expertise to make any further rebuttals on behalf of Frazier. I'll just sit back and enjoy whatever exchanges you and ironchamp might have remaining.

This dialogue between Sonny's jab and ironchamp represent the Classic Forum at it's very best, the reason I was able to lurk on this site for so long before joining as a participant. Reading name-calling and insults can be funny, but I come to this forum to read intelligent discussion.

If the two of you continue producing such well-considered analysis and counterpoints like this, I'll be perfectly content to remain a hidden spectator.

 

All fair points, mr magoo. :good

If I'm being a bit over-zealous in my insistence on a Frazier win I guess it's because I entered this thread against an over-whelming amount of picks for Tyson. With the majority saying "Tyson, early KO" I get the impression that Frazier's strengths are being overlooked and his weaknesses exaggerated, and the opposite being applied to Tyson. That's just the impression I get. Personally, it's not a fight I'd expect Tyson to win at all.

BTW, keep up the good work with the avatars. You've uncovered some real jaw-droppers in recent weeks. :shock:

 

Understood and agreed.

Frazier unfortunately, is too underrated on this forum, and I'm not exactly sure why. Personally, I think he's one of the greatest fighters of all time, I just feel however that against certain men, he matches up poorly from styles point of view.

I'll try to carry on with the avators as well :good

 

the point isn't about styles...the point is that while frazier's willingness to take leather in order to land leather worked with just about everyone in the game, foreman brought power to the table that frazier (and just about everyone else) couldn't cope with. tyson's power is in the foreman category, and frazier would find himself unable to trade with tyson. frazier was also typically a slow starter--he often lost the first round of fights he went on to win, while tyson, of course, was one of the most dangerous first round fighters of all time. but hell, frazier was a warrior. and do you remember the moment in the first tyson-ruddock fight where ruddock nailed tyson with a few good shots & it was clear that with one or two more similar shots, tyson would be ready to go? you can be sure that if frazier put tyson in a similar position, he'd be able to finish him. i think tyson's speed and power would overwhelm frazier, but i must say that frazier was mentally tough and one of the fiercest competitors in the history of the sport, whereas tyson was never much for overcoming adversity in the ring. if frazier could survive the early rounds, he'd have a real shot, but that's a big if if we're talking about mike tyson at the top of his game. joe frazier would definitely have been far and away the biggest challenge a young mike tyson ever faced.

 

Good points. :good

I think your analysis of the styles is correct. Where I differ from you is in that I think Joe Frazier's bob-and-weave would be less of a factor in his overall defense against Tyson than it normally was.
Frazier would never stop bobbing and weaving, and I broadly agree that he took a round or two to sync its timing to be most effective against the tempo of his opponent, but against a similarly short and stocky fighter I believe his ABILITY TO CROWD will come into play.

I think a large part of George Foreman's success against Joe Frazier was his brute shoving strength. Being tall and throwing long powerful punches would not have won Foreman the fight if he hadn't the overwhelming brute strength to push Frazier back a foot or two whenever Frazier got through.
Mike Tyson lacked the strength - or more specifically, the strength and body mechanics - to do this.
So I think it's fair to assume Frazier would get to lay on the inside from time to time.

On the inside I think Frazier is the better fighter. Tyson liked a bit of daylight between himself and his opponents to land his bombs. Tyson also used a weak stance on the inside, standing with his feet square-on and often too upright. Frazier had his right leg back and bent when at close quarters, OR he had his upper body bent right over and leaning down, his head pinned on his opponent's chest. Frazier was very relaxed on the inside, and very busy, in his element. I'd actually expect him to render Tyson almost completely uneffective at such close quarters, and Tyson would be straining to keep his balance with Frazier pushing him back. Maybe Tyson could clinch and wait for "break!" but that doesn't win fights.

At their best, both these men are under-rated as far as their ability to box and jab and I think Frazier's footwork and footspeed especially is over-looked, Tyson's less so. Obviously I feel Tyson's best chances lie on him producing the right moves on the outside and at mid-range but I dont think he could out-jab Frazier even if he attempted to. I can imagine him scoring with devastating hooks from mid-range and his punches may well carry more explosives than even Frazier's, but the greater volume of left hooks flying through the air would be coming from Frazier's end of the field - same with body shots. So, while I imagine this mid-range fighting to be the area where Tyson can stun and hurt Frazier early, and get through Frazier's initiatially "predictable" bob-and-weave, I see the risk of Tyson getting caught and momentarily stunned coming in as very high too. Unlike Frank Bruno and Tony Tucker, who both seemed a little startled as they caught Tyson while retreating on their back foots, Frazier's on a hurt Tyson in an instant.

And like I said, Frazier's getting through to crowd and punish Tyson on the inside is NOT reliant on him catching Tyson at all at mid-range. In fact, if I were to imagine Tyson having complete dominance at mid-range, I still imagine a hurt Frazier getting in close enough to first nullify and then dominate Tyson.
Tyson hasn't the strength and levers to do a Foreman-esque shoving technique.

Tyson's defense/offense (a slick gliding weave-and-weave with a bob or two and topped with a combo) may well eliminate the need for a feeling out process, and create openings, but his rhythm could be disturbed. I think Frazier's ability to crowd would cause major interference to Tyson's method. And when the going gets messy, Frazier's proven toughness and temperament is bankable against Tyson's.

This is the way I see it, objectively.

After 3 or 4 rounds it becomes painful for Tyson, and I'd expect Frazier to be showing no mercy. Rounds 5 - 9 are all Frazier, if Tyson gets that far, and I wouldn't expect it to last into the 10th.

 

I think that's because of the following reasons:

-Fraziers weakness is that he takes 2 or more punches to land one of his own. This works against most boxers but is less succesful against someone with absolute top shelf power, which make no mistake about, Tyson has. Frazier won't take a step back or clinch.
-Frazier is a slow starter and has shown this in most of his fights. Ali threw 80 punches during each of the first four rounds yet Frazier kept his cool and started to "smoke" only after that
-Fraziers strengths: determination, stamina, heart, pressure only come in after the 5th.
-Tyson's weakness was when jabbed at, being tied up early on often, being shoved back and tended to fade a bit in the later rounds. Frazier does none of those.
-Tysons strengths were an extraordinairy fast start, great handspeed and power, excellent chin during the first 5 rounds.


In other words, because of the nature of Fraziers fight game, Tyson will be coming on strongest at the start when Frazier is at his weakest, and what's more, Fraziers tendency of taking some licks to get in, not tie him up etc will cost him.
Fraziers strengths will only come into play after the 5th or so and frankly i don't see him getting there because of the reasons lined out above. If he does then certainly he will win, because that's when Tyson will break down.

 

Tyson very bad style matchup for Frazier.

And no Frazier is not going to win because he is menatlly stronger or Tyson has no heart ect.

To discourage Tyson you have to stop him from landing on you and frustate him.

Frazier with his style cannot stop Tyson from landing consistently

as long as a peak Tyson can hit you cositenly he is not going to get discouraged.