Who ranks higher as a heavyweight, Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson?

But by you own words a page ago, "Ali wasn´t even a ranked active fighter at the time" ?

Their lows are worlds apart?
Well, someone could argue that Joe Frazier got manhandled like an insect in two rounds, while Mike Tyson took 200 houndred counted punches against Douglas and went 11 with Holyfield. Of course Foreman is a puncher in contrast to both of them, but Foreman - Frazier 1 was as one-sided as a fight could be. In your own words: Thats what I call obliterated per definition.

Apart from that, and not just this discussion: Its very harsh to throw 80s Tyson/90s Tyson, 70s Foreman/90s Foreman and all the other fighters with a big gap in their careers into one bucket. They became different fighters afterwards with a huge disadvantage.

 

Yes.

And then Ali was ranked again and had the coveted lineal title and undefeated. He was quite clearly one of the "best of Frazier's era".

Douglas vs Tyson was one sided aside from the knockdown Tyson scored. He got battered from pillar to post and completely outboxed nearly every round. Tyson got obliterated, it was just a longer sustained beating.

When I say their lows are worlds apart, I'm not just referring to the manner of their defeat but also WHO they lost to. Douglas was a fairly insignificant fighter who didn't do much before Tyson and didn't anything after Tyson. Foreman had a hall of fame career.

It isn't unfair at all.

Douglas was nothing before and after Tyson. It's very significant who you lose to when evaluating resume.

Even if we remove Foreman's 90's career, he still had some very good wins over Norton, Lyle, Chuvalo, and the Frazier rematch. Losing to him doesn't damage Frazier's reputation nearly as much as losing to someone like Douglas.

 

Then Ali was ranked again, and the two years younger Joe Frazier lost to him twice.
When (your words) "Ali wasn´t even a ranked active fighter at the time" Joe beat him.
In my view, thats really the problem with Joe Fraziers win. He had the chance to meet him three times, was younger than him and it wasn´t him who had the layoff.

Thats maybe worth a thread.
And yes, Tyson did in fact knock Douglad down. Douglas did an interview later, and by his words: "Tyson kept coming and coming and coming" after he knew he was in a good position early in the fight.

So would you say, in therms of the word "obliterated", that Tyson - Douglas was more "one-sided" or "comparable" to Joe Frazier vs Foreman 1 ?

If we compare the results, and by that I say comparing the detailed results and their "value", it becomes shady when one fighter has a layoff and the other doesn´t at the respective time-line in their careers. For example, when Tyson fought Holyfield he had a couple of rounds and was in jail before that. Joe Frazier rematched Ali at a comparable age (or time-line) and wasn´t.
I don´t think thats a fair line-up.

 

Context is very important.

Ali was younger and more closer to his prime when Frazier beat him. He could still dance and had a much higher work rate and punch output. He could still gracefully slip punches.

The 2nd fight Ali got away with a lot of holding. That obviously affected the outcome as there wasn't much a 5'11 guy with short arms could do against a fast opponent who was constantly moving away, jabbing and grabbing (the excessive grabbing part being illegal).

3rd fight Frazier was very much damaged goods. He had more wear and tear due to his swarming style and had developed health problems like high blood pressure, arthritis, and poor eyesight. Regardless, it was a great win for Ali and one of the most entertaining bouts ever. But again, context matters. Both men were completely spent in the 14th. It was basically fate that led to Frazier being stopped in his corner and not Ali because their respective trainers had different opinions. Ali himself admitted he was close to death and wanted his gloves cut.

So to harp on about Frazier going 1-2 is a little disingenuous if you ignore the context. All 3 bouts were highly competitive, Frazier won when both men were younger and at their peak, and the other two fights could have gone completely different with different officiating and corner decisions.

Both Tyson and Frazier kept "coming and coming" while getting. Mattered in comparably one sided bouts. If Douglas could hit as hard as Foreman the results would probably be identical.

So you're comparing Ali Frazier 1 to Tyson Hoylfield 1? They're pretty comparable honestly.

Ali had two fights, one of which was just going through the motions and an early stoppage. The other a bit more grueling but he eventually got the W and much needed rounds/activity to fight at a pace that would help prepare for the similarly bullish Frazier.

Tyson fought a couple of cans, then fought two belt holders in Seldon and Bruno. Technically they were the champions l despite the fact h2h they obviously weren't as good as guys like Bowe or Lewis, but they did give him some activity and world level opposition.

Unlike Frazier, Holyfield had lost some of his biggest fights recently to Bowe and Moorer while Frazier was undefeated and looked phenomenal. Holy was 4 years older than Tyson while Ali was only 2 years older than Frazier and much fresher with less wear and tear. Despite these advantages and being favored to win, Tyson lost. He then lost via DQ in a disgraceful manner in the rematch.

 

I hear you, but I have the feeling you´re making it up as you like.

- Joe Frazier was younger than Ali
- Joe Frazier had less fights and less rounds than Ali in general
- Between "FOTC and Ali - Frazier 2", Ali fought 13 bouts including two with Norton, while Frazier fought 4! and 22 rounds. I´m not bothering counting Ali rounds.
- Until then, when Manilla happened Ali boxed 41 rounds and Frazier fought 14.

So Frazier was damaged goods with more wear and tear (it certainly doesn´t reflect the activity of both Ali and Frazier). So then we switch to Ali was more prime and busier. Then I´ll say Mike Tyson was in jail for the Holyfield fights and Holyfield was busier and more prime too, which is clearly reflected by Moorer 2 and the Lewis bouts.
You see what I´m sayin?

You wrote: "Frazier's losses are nowhere near as bad, and his best win is far ahead of any of Tyson's individual best wins. Frazier managed at least one win against the 2 elites of his era, Tyson was obliterated all attempts be had against the elites of his era."

Sorry Cobra you can´t make it up that way. And I see why you´re not going to answer the question. From all the losses Tyson and Joe Fraziers had to suffer, the clearest and by definition obliteration happened in the first Foreman bout to Joe Frazier and not Mike Tyson.
Joe Frazier kept coming in Foreman 1? Cobra comeone...
He kept coming until he got dropped as soon as the fight started. He simply started getting up, for whatever was left.

Since we are trying to compare Tyson and Frazier (for whatever we try to value beeing in jail), I´d compare Tyson - Holyfield 1 to the later bouts of Ali vs Frazier. Joe Frazier was clearly prime in the FOTC and both Frazier and Ali were younger at the time. Makes no sense to me comparing that to comeback-Tyson and Holy.

 

Frazier had worse health problems and was taking more damage. The arthritis, high blood pressure, and eyesight issues were making things worse too. His swarming style took a lot out of him.

Ali had the luxury to dance or jab and grab to avoid damage. The difference in the number of rounds and fights is misleading. Plus Ali didn't get brutally KOd in 2 rounds with multiple knockdowns.

During this time frame the only serious threat Ali faced where he took significant damage was Norton who was a strong guy with respectable power, and did break his jaw but he was no devastating hitter or slugger. For the most part, their bouts were tactical matchups, not wars where both guys beat the crap out of each other. There weren't even any knockdowns.

We can argue semantics all day if the word "obliterate" is correct or not.

The point is BOTH losses were devastating and one sided. Frazier losing to Foreman is not as bad as Tyson losing to Douglas because Douglas was a nobody and written off as a good warm up before the Holyfield fight. I don't see how this can even be disputed.

You can say Tyson had no business losing to Douglas but you can't say Frazier had no business losing to Foreman. We know in hindsight it was a bad matchup and Foreman was an ATG. Douglas on the other hand, even the harshest critics will admit Tyson should have won.

The fact Foreman went on to do great things and Douglas didn't is just icing on the cake and puts things in perspective.

Well I'd say manilla Frazier showed way more heart and class than Tyson of the Holyfield bouts, wouldn't you say?

 

Without knowing the details, I know the claims of Frazier beeing hindered even before he fought Foreman after the FOTC.

But the question really should be (since we make a comparison with MT): Do these "excuses" of Joe Frazier have a higher value than Mike Tyson beeing inactive and in jail for three years, unable to train or box professionally ?

Not just semantics.
We´re coming from "Frazier's losses are nowhere near as bad, and his best win is far ahead of any of Tyson's individual best wins. Frazier managed at least one win against the 2 elites of his era, Tyson was obliterated all attempts be had against the elites of his era." to "The point is BOTH losses were devastating and one sided."

Instead, what you really wanted to say was: "Mike Tysons loss to Buster Douglas was more career-damaging than Joe Fraziers against Foreman" ?

If its really just the quality of the loss (since thats what I evaluate when I read "Tyson was obliterated"), for all the losses we saw for both of them, there was one which was prob the most devastating since the lineal bouts of Liston-Patterson (Ali-Liston 2 beeing shady). Imo, it was a blowout from the beginning and as "bad" as a loss can become, lining up into the historical ranks with Louis-Schmeling, Liston-Patterson, the Lewis-losses or Lewis-Golota.

For my view, there is too much rambling about heart comparing bouts or fighters. Some bouts are simply not in the position to be a drama like others (tactical, not going the distance etc.). For example, just from the perspective of HW boxing quality, the FOTC imo was a "higher level bout" than Manilla. Holyfield - Bowe 1 was also. But both these fights weren´t close enough to become a drama like the Manilla fight. Nevertheless, they were more technically flawless.

Regarding Tyson-Holy 1 I´m a bit biased. I believe its terribly overrated. Holyfield didn´t even have to dig to max to beat that sloppy version of Mike, who looked awful at times. 2nd meeting wasn´t a bout, it was a curiosity.
A valid comparison might be Ty-Holy 1 vs Ali-Fr 2, with the question asked in the beginning of my post (Frazier of course did better).

 

This is interesting. Mike was foiled in some ways like Joe was, the holding and pushing. But Holy was landing significant shots throughout and wasted Mike by the 8th or so. Frazier was rocked in the 2nd but was quite game throughout.

 

Well they're less excuses and more medical facts. Frazier's own trainer Eddie Futch said that he had one of the worst bodies (athletically) for boxing but he meant it as a compliment. Frazier really shouldn't have made it that far but he was an overachiever. The guy won a gold medal with a broken thumb. He didn't make excuses and hid the fact his eyes had problems.

As for the Tyson comparison, they declined due to different reasons. Being in prison isn't like it used to be in the days of Liston and Lyle when guys could actually continue to sharpen their skills and get some underground matches in. Tyson mostly just lifted some weights, studied Islam, and chilled from what I could gather and most guys left him alone. Tyson was amazingly gifted, but without a trainer hounding him, a tight schedule, and a passion for the sport his skills tended to dwindle faster than a blunt at a stoner's house. So he had a different struggle from Frazier, it was simply the fact he couldn't train as diligently. However, his declining passion and descent into madness chasing drugs and women was on him really. It's kind of hard to compare the situations as Frazier had no control over his bodies declining health. In fairness to Tyson, he had no control over much of anything in prison and I thought he was innocent honestly, it was such a tragic case for a great athlete.

I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this. Thread is about Tyson and Frazier.

I do agree with your assessment that my overall point was that Tyson's loss was much more damaging. We're comparing legacies. For a basketball example, LeBron choking against the Mavericks is one of the most egregious losses ever because LeBron is held to such a high standard. Even if lebron won 3 more rings, critics would have a good point in bringing it up again. That's why I maintained the position that it's not just if you lose, it's how you lose and the quality of the opposition.

The fights you mentioned were pretty damn dramatic and exciting as well, they weren't just chess matches like say, Norton vs Young.

I cannot separate heart from legacy, but that's just me. It says a lot about a fighter when things aren't going their way and what they do about it.

You're the one who offered the Tyson Holyfield bout as a comparison, now you're dismissing it?

I can't really accept diminishing Holyfield's win because Tyson was "sloppy". That's Tyson's fault if he looked bad. He was getting paid tens of millions of dollars. In addition, Tyson did not look "sloppy" in the way he disposed of McNeely and Bruno, I think Hoylfield made him look bad with a brilliant game plan, execution, and dominance.

This bout can't just be waved off if we're looking at the whole of their legacies and comparing them. It's critically the first time Tyson faced an A level fighter who wasn't pushing 40 and inactive or a terrified light heavyweight with a thin resume.

 

If we take the age of the participants and value how far apart they are from youth, its imo pretty conclusive to compare these losses of Tyson and Frazier. Of course Frazier did better. Ali played it save and won. I´m srsly not sure how past the well conditioned 209 Frazier really was.
But I´m terribly sure if we cage him in Indiana from 71 to 74, that he wouldn´t look any better.

This one comes up everytime.
And everytime someone else comes up with Evander Holyfield, subsequently, kicking Moorers a** and giving LL everything he could handle.

 

I´m asking these claims as a relevant factor after the FOTC, since these are the advantages we are trying Joe to hand.
What are the medical sources for him beeing in a way worse position in three years after the FOTC ? There are these rumors about him and his band also, but thats his fault of course.

I´m going with this that its sounds extremely silly calling Tyson getting obliterated as an argument of their lows (how it happened), when in fact it was Joe Frazier getting stopped in two rounds. That simply never hapened to Tyson. 10 rounds with Douglas and 8 rounds with Lewis and 4 with Williams, if that really counts.

Or: If you´re trying to value how their reign ended, it doesn´t make sense to me valuing how it hapened (as an argument against Tyson, since Frazier got polaxed in 2).

I´m not dismissing Tyson beeing worse than Frazier against Holy 1 and Ali 2 resp. I´m saying beeing three years in the can make you look like that.
Imo Holy did not even have to take the fight to Mike early on, whose punches were so sloppy, that countering them often were enough, MT not follwing up with anything. These hooks/hooked jabs Tyson threw with Holy ducking (Giachetti: "Put the jab down" ....) were pretty painful to watch. And yep, Holy was a durable veteran and the man to execute a gameplan like that. He showed his smartness, game and ring-iq against Lewis later also.

 

Fading Evander was good enough to give Lewis such a close second fight. I´d call that pretty much game for a devision like that. Not the quick young version, but he certainly had other qualities (like strength). And I´d call that version game against 70s Ali also.

 

It's been a while since I read his biography and read articles on his medical issues. I'm sure something would turn up with a Google search they're pretty well documented. Especially the vision stuff. He was treated after the fight of century for blood pressure I believe, it was in the newspapers and public knowledge.

Post fotc he was declining year after year, fight after fight. His rugged swarming style just made it worse.

Dude it doesn't matter if it was 2 rounds, 6, or 10. Tyson vs Douglas was a one sided ass whooping. Tyson lost nearly every round and got comprehensively outboxed from start to finish other than ONE brief moment where he knocked down Douglas, then proceeded to get himself knocked the **** out in the following round.

For a more recent example, Wilder vs fury 3 was an ass whooping. Wilder won maybe 3 rounds tops. The fact Wilder dropped fury twice doesn't change the fact Fury outboxed him and beat the breaks off of him. Wilder looking good for a few brief moments doesn't mean the fight was "competitive".

That's the part you're not getting. Tyson vs Douglas was not some competitive even back and forth war. Tyson got his ass kicked, Douglas got careless for one moment and got caught (note Douglas slamming his fist on the canvas not because he was hurt, but because he knew he messed up?). Otherwise he put on a clinic. And the fact Douglas was a tune up and a glorified journeyman makes the loss 10x worse.

Arguing over the usage of the word "obliterate" is totally glossing over the nature of the defeat and how horrendous it was.

No one is disputing that prison eroded Tyson's skills and timing. I've literally spoken on that and acknowledged it as a fact multiple times, including in this thread.

But it's also a fact that while Hoylfield was a veteran with a good game plan, it's also a fact he was very heavily shopworn and many people wrote him off. Therefore it was a great win for him, bad loss for Tyson. Tyson lost some of his speed and skill, but he was also 4 years younger, had just won two belts, and was heavily favored to win. That makes the loss rather egregious. It was the second time in a row Tyson lost when everything was on the line and he was supposed to win on paper and it was also the first time he faced a truly elite fighter.