Why is Frazier ranked aboved Tyson?

I'm not sure I'd rate him higher myself, probably right around the same spot.

Frazier has one of the greatest wins of all time going for him. Tyson doesn't have a signature win, just a lot of depth.

Holmes didnt either though, and he's consistently rated above Joe.

 

I also rank Frazier higher but I think both are more or less interchangable. It's a matter of personal taste.

Frazier was a warrior with huge heart and legendary ring battles and has the outstanding single win against Ali in FOTC.
Tyson was extremely gifted in the 80s but also kind of an underachiever later on.

 

Frazier beat Ali = best win

Tyson got KTFO by Buster Douglas (in his prime no less) = worst loss

 

Tyson is significantly more talented but Frazier only lost to 2 guys - one is almost unanimously regarded as the greatest heavyweight ever and the other is arguably the biggest punching heavyweight ever who later became champ at 45.

Frazier full filled his potential and was unlucky to run into prime Foreman.

Tyson was tremendous but the loss to Douglas and the 2 losses to Holyfield plus the 3 year prison lay off don't help.

Frazier beating Quarry twice is at least as good as beating heavyweight Spinks. I think Frazier's wins over Bonavena x 2, Ellis, Bugner, Machen and Doug Jones are comparable to Tyson's wins over Tucker, Thomas, Ruddock x 2, Bruno x 2, and Williams.

If i had to give a slight edge, i would say Tyson's resume is slightly better but not by a massive margin. Tyson beat bigger more powerful punchers while Frazier beat smaller, slightly more skilled ones.

The large difference is Frazier's magnificent win over a 29 year old Ali which is arguably one of the top 5 best wins in the history of heavyweight boxing. Ali may have been off for a long time but he was in good shape and he had just beaten Quarry and Bonavena. This win means Frazier's quality of wins overall is simply much higher.

If you consider their quality of wins plus the fact that one guy fulfilled his potential and the other did not, you can make a great case for Frazier being ahead.

The only slight gap in Frazier's resume is missing the 210 plus pound big hitters like Lyle and Shavers (whom i believe Frazier likely would have beaten) while Tyson did beat huge hitters like Ruddock and Bruno.

 

Yes because Foreman is a more dangerous h2h fighter than Holyfield so being stopped by such a huge hitter is more understandable than losing to Holyfield who did not have that x factor.

If Tyson had stayed out of prison and regained the title between 92-94 vs either Bowe or Holyfield, i would rank him higher overall. Tyson is more talented than Frazier without any shadow of a doubt. Significantly more talented.

 

Oh, okay, so, Frazier isn't? That what we say, TS? Just not? Just say hi.

 

Because he beat Ali and fought in the 70s that's really it. By any objective measure Tyson should rank higher.

 

Frazier has the better resume even without the Ali win, he also has more heart than Tyson and the never give up warrior mentality. Also arguably better inside fighter, ring cutting, left hook, and head movement.

 

I don’t have a problem with either guy ranking above the other or even being ranked equally.

But to attempt to answer the thread question, I suppose there are some possible factors to consider.
- Frazier was an Olympic gold medalist
- Frazier has practically zero padding on his record
- Frazier has the best singular win between the two
- Frazier was only beaten by two men, one of whom is commonly considered the greatest heavy of all time while the other is an easy lock for top 10.
- in addition to having beaten the greatest, he has a a few other wins against highly regarding contenders.
- he was a proven 15 round fighter and one who was involved in some of the most notable heavyweight battles of all time.

 

I have Tyson a bit higher. The Ali win is one of the best ever, but goes pretty downhill after. Bonavena, Mathis, Quarry, Ellis, Bugner and Olympic gold medalist vs Berbick, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno, Spinks, Smith, Ruddock, but he has more losses

 

Frazier gets a lot of mileage for his win against Ali.

The thing is he beat a prime or near prime Muhammad Ali and Tyson beat none near that good and the win over Holmes was seen as a win over a slightly over the hill or just plain over the hill, comebacking Holmes. See the difference?

But yes, Frazier tends to be seen as bigger than he was, but also you have to remember, Frazier's own prime was lost in the first Ali fight. He was diabetic and had high blood pressure and spent two weeks in a hospital after the fight so he was taylor made for Foreman afterwards.

All things considered I guess you could argue for each to be better than the other. Frazier had more but his career was cut short by the great fights he was involved in. Tyson had less but he was fed with what was best in the 80s and none of them, except Tyson himself, could hold Ali, Frazier or Foreman's shoes.

I want to see a Frazier-Tyson fight on Sierra Championship Boxing.

 

I currently rank Mike Tyson higher than Joe Frazier, but not by very much.

 

If Frazier only had two fights, one win, one loss, and those fights were FOC and Manilla, his resume would be better than most heavyweights who ever breathed.

 

Sonya! Where have you been?