Prime Frazier 1969-1971 vs Prime Foreman 1973

Does this translate into someone whose opinion you happen to agree with?

 

I was actually talking about Fraziers chances against Foreman in that in his prime Joe has an extra range to fight with, can land more punches and take a better shot but since you ask...

I think Tyson has too many dimensions and a bit too much speed for Frazier early on. He can beat Frazier to the draw but if Berbick gets out of the first round so will Frazier. Come to think of it, Tyson paused a few times even against Berbick where for moments he just stood up close inside with Trevor while he had time to think before the next spurt of explosive combinations. These are widows of oppertunity for Joe. Frank Bruno caught Tyson with a left hook. There is every reason Frazier can too. He threw more left hook than Bruno. Being essentially a one armed fighter is not such a bad thing if like prime Frazier you can double up, lengthen and shorten a power shot off the front foot as regular as most fighters can land a light jab.

Prime Tyson did not have the best concentration. He was programmed to an extent, he believed in himself, but would easily become frustrated and this would cloud his thinking. When he had to start thinking for himself Tyson became less instinctive. If or when that happens Frazier can really get a foot hold on Tyson.

If it goes past 4 rounds I favour prime Frazier. Tyson to start favourite.

 

Sorry C, getting my threads mixed up.

The Tyson that fought Bruno was already past his best imo he looked to land one big punch and had disdained his bob weave and peek a boo.

 

He was 29 when he lost his title, giving his impersonation of a yo yo.

Better chin than Tyson my arse.atsch

 

It's the second fight that he's referring to in which Joe was 32. Very young still but pretty damaged.

 

It's his thread , and he said Prime Frazier 1969/1971. The second fight was 1976.

 

Tyson was 23 when was KTFO by Douglas.

In light of that people tend to massively overrate Douglas's power. Douglas was a fair puncher and no more than that yet Tyson with his so called amazing chin finshed up brutalized and groping for his mouthpiece on the canvas. Even Wimpy Halstead finished on his feet against Douglas yet the granite chinned Tyson couldn't.

And Evander Holyfield hadn't scored a legit stoppage in 5 years when he put Tyson away in 1996 including not being able to put away less than durable guys like Alex Stewart and Michael Moorer. Yet Tyson was floored and battered senseless.

Do you see either of these guys stopping Frazier especially prime Frazier? I don't. Fact is Frazier got stopped twice by George Foreman whose power was massive yet people seem to run with this myth that Frazier was chinny. Look at all the punishment he absorbed against Ali in the FOTC and Manilla and tell me whether Tyson could've absorbed the same amounts and kept on coming like Joe. I have my doubts.

 

Please show us where anyone on this thread has referred to Tyson as having an" amazing ,or granite chin"?
What they have said is his chin was superior to Frazier's.

You are talking about a very much past prime Tyson.

Frazier was dropped in his prime by Mike Bruce for a 9 count and by Bonavena twice.

You say Douglas was not a big puncher and I would agree but he hit Tyson with a ton of punches before eventually taking him out. Ali wasn't a big puncher either but he had Frazier rocky in the second round of their second fight, and ready to go when he retired on his stool in the third one.Frazier met one real big puncher and was dropped by him 8 times in under 7 rounds.

Tyson met Ruddock who was a monster hitter and never hit the deck in two fights,he met Bruno who was a great hitter and never went down.He took a right hand from Bonecrusher and didn't drop . Tyson weathered some big punches from a lot of hitters ,the best puncher that Frazier met kod him both times. One is proven the other is not.

 

Taking a solitary punch is one thing. That is not something to be confused with the ability to absorb for an entire fight.

Mike Tyson is much better at the former than the latter. Some guys are. But just because they take a single shot better is just one facet of their boxing game.

 

True, but there was mention of the second fight from '76 when discussing the tactics Joe used then to be shifted to the earlier version.

 

Foreman destroys him. I believe any big puncher destroys Frazier, his style is perfect for defeating boxers but in a shootout he's gonna get stopped imo.

 

let it go, george destroys him at any stage of there careers man!!

 

I don't think a Frazier win is out of the question, but it's definitely unlikely.

He tore Chuvalo up on the backfoot, giving up his usual tactics and fighting as the weaker man, as he has already been noted to have done against Foreman in '76. Foreman would be a much more difficult proposition than Chuvalo, but with the amount of stamina Foreman would expend when he hurt his opponent, it's not out of the question. Chuvalo did a pretty damn good job of picking off Foreman's shots when he was hurt, George said he was getting a bit winded by this.

Of course in saying this, you'd have to admit that part of a Frazier victory would be Frazier getting hurt and riding out a storm. Not terribly likely. But the mans heart and stamina were beyond question. I can see a scenario where they make the difference.

But Foremans power and strength win it for him 8 times out of 10.