Tyson vs Mathis Jr- Jeez

Here we go. Heeeere weeee gooooo

 

As Saul Hudson II pointed out already, George Foreman was the only ****in fighter Frazier faced with top shelf power. It's looking like you've come out of retirement for one last hurrah!

 

Tyson was extremely rusty vs Mathis. It shows. Mathis was a slippery fighter. Bowe deserved to be dq’d in his fight against Mathis whose ability to make opponents miss clearly frustrated them.

Cooper vs Tyson is a fun fight one Mike wins fairly early.

prime Tyson defeats Frazier. I like Frazier but I don’t see him hanging with 88 Tyson.

 

Ouch

 

I agree, Bert Cooper would be knocked out early.

 

No, I never really retired.
I'm dragging you out of retirement.

Frazier beats Tyson, in my opinion. Others have a different opinion.
Frazier was a great fighter. He gets underrated.

 

All when and good. That's a fine critique of Joe Frazier.

But what you always ignore is that Mike Tyson only beat second-raters. And then lost to one. Pre prison Tyson lost to a second-rater.
Every excuse under the sun is pulled out for Tyson losing to Douglas.
But you want to tear into Frazier for losing to Foreman/Ali. Makes sense.

 

I guess the logic has always been that Douglas was this hidden ATG h2h monster that only showed up for one night. Hence why losing to him isn't as bad as Frazier losing to 2 actual ATG's.

 

It could be that.
But I see it across the board in how people here view losses. Douglas-Tyson is just the most extreme example.

A lot of people will be quicker to give an ATG a pass for losing to a non-ATG than they do for losing to an ATG.
The very fact they they lost to a non-ATG is apparently proof in itself that it was a "fluke".
It's not logical at all.
It's just rationalizing something they find hard to accept, and saving their favourites from being down-rated.

 

"ATG" is based on what they do in their whole career.
"non-ATG" is all those who didn't do enough.
I think people get confused into thinking an ATG should always beat a non-ATG, and if they don't it's a "fluke".
Whereas actually there's no guarantee. Most ATGs do lose to non-ATGs.
That's why we have to regard those ATGs who never did lose to a non-ATG (such as Frazier) in high esteem, especially when they beat an ATG too (as Frazier did).
It certainly shouldn't be faulted.

Tyson did actually beat two ATGs, to be fair. I think most would say Spinks was fighting way above the weight class he was ATG in, and Holmes was 38 years old, about 8 years past his prime. But hey, I guess we could hang some glory on it. Tyson certainly did destroy them both.

 

You are definitely onto something. I have noticed that losses to non ATG's leads to panic and damage control. Yet losses to credible established ATGs is a cardinal sin in the eyes of some. The latter are given far more scrutiny and both their resume and h2h abilities get frequently questioned.

Just look at the incredibly high rating Joshua got before the Ruiz fights. People on this forum and several others had him on their top 10 h2h lists. Then immediately after the loss, rather than saying they might've jumped the gun a bit overrating him, they hyped up Ruiz as this monster that they overlooked.

 

'ATG' is a term we fans invented. Yes, there is a reason some are labeled as such, but that 'ATG' is still just a man at the end of the day.
He's human, not a god.
A poorly prepared 'ATG' can lose just as easily as anyone else.

 

Probably because of the way the lost theirs battles with the ATG's.
George blew Frazier out.
Douglas out boxed Tyson using his height and reach and when Mike got tired, moved in for the kill.
And of course because of the answers which claim that:
Tyson was completely out of shape and unable to use his style effectively, and was reduced to throwing wild one shot attempts at a knockout punch.
Joe, on the other hand, would probably never have beaten George due to the "style make fight" thing. IMO even the mythical "FOTC frazier" who according to so called experts would have a chance at beating anybody in any era, would have been sparked too.
With Ali, however Those 3 fights are the principal reasons we are giving Joe a high rating.

 

Exactly.
But that's why I always say we have to get down to the finer details when rank the "ATGs" against one another. Some of the best ATGs were so great when they defended their titles they often even seemed to come through those fights where they were poorly prepared and on the brink of losing or behind on points.

 

Here's the problem: it wouldn't matter of Douglas won in the 1st, the 2nd, the 10th, or if he won by decision. As a 42-1 underdog who lost to a man Tyson had already beaten, Douglas had no business beating Tyson in the first place regardless of whatever condition Tyson was in at the time.

The thing is if people were being consistent and impartial they wouldn't throw Joe under the bus for being KOd by an ATG puncher who simultaneously presented a horrible style matchup. Nor would they make every excuse for the prime undefeated guy who lost the biggest upset of the last 100 years. The guy who beat Frazier became a 2x champ and a hall of famer with many great performances after the Frazier win, while Douglas faded into bolivian and was a 1 hit wonder in every sense of the word.