What did they think of Iron Mike?

The wildcard would be how Tyson could handel Frazier's inside pressure.

If Frazier could force the fight on the inside then it sudenly gets blown wide open.

 

I have trouble seeing Joe get passed Tyson's uppercut.

 

I don't think so. Marvis had been taken out by Holmes, and made a good comeback from that loss by the time he faced Tyson. It was a reasonable fight for both fighters.

Tyson wasn't a big money draw at this point either, so I don't think that was much of a factor either.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joPL1ZOMKtc[/ame]


George Chuvalo: Tyson. He’s a tough kid. He walks right in. He’s that kind of a guy. He’s got lots of balls too. I like Tyson. I’d like to meet Tyson and show him a couple of things. I could help Mike.

His problem is he doesn’t know how to fight on the inside. If you take a look at his fight with Buster Mathis, Jr., he exposed that. There’s a chi nk in the armor. He’s too straight up on the inside. If he ever pulled his right leg back, his whole upper body would be at a forty five degree angle. He’s have his head on the other guy’s chest. He’d be safe. The other guy would have no room for any leverage and Mike would have all the leverage. His stance works against him on the inside. He’s easy to push back and he can’t fight when he’s going backwards. But Mike is a helluva an athlete. He’s very quick, got great reflexes and punches like a bazooka. He’s the only guy out there in the heavyweights who can give you goosebumps.

 

For the record he was right.

 

Two men that always reminded me of each other.

 

Mike didn't really develop as a fighter post 1988.

The reason for him being square on was because he was trained by Cus to be a virtuoso counterpuncher midrange-ready to punch with both hands with great balance and timing.

Inside,his opponents couldn't really take advantage of Mike being square-on,earlier in his career, because of his punches thrown in fast flurries.

 

Its a sad fact that Fraizer never learned to be humble and look at things objectively. I believe tyson would of KOed Frazier 3-5 but if it went the distance, Joe frazier definitely has the advantage of attrition strategy.

It's hard to thnk about because Tyson was so under exposed for the first half of his career. Only by long technical fighters do you have a better idea on comparison.

 

In a 1989 interview Frazier said that Tyson was doing a pretty good job,but that Ali,Foreman and himself would have beaten him. Have n't seen any comments from him on the Marvis massacre.

 

That would be Frazier's best and only chance. Quite feasible though.

 

Exactly what I thought.

 

Tyson was a 2 fisted fighter and had a solid chin in the early rds...A fight between Tyson (a fast Starter) and Frazier(a slow Starter) are 2 different fights and I think Tyson's speed and peekaboo defence would offer him some opportunity. Its a who lands first and most fight here. Foreman got Frazier but different style vs Tyson