Frazier of 1971 vs the Tyson of 1988 Tyson was lightening fast, devastatingly powerful, good chin, good head movement....but he had never proven whether he could take it in a back and forth war and in his later years his heart was indeed called into question. Joe Frazier was all heart and desire, with more stamina than Tyson, and had shown the ability to take a beating and still persevere to win (First Ali fight). So would Tyson find himself in deep waters and drown? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Tyson's a fast starter. Frazier's a slow starter. Frazier's chin was good but not great by any stretch. Frazier is smaller than Tyson, slower than Tyson, has power only in one hand...unlike the ambidextrous Tyson. This fight could only go one way.... Tyson TKO within 5 rounds. It's a matter of styles gentlemen.
I have often been lambasted for this, but I'm going to say I've always envisioned Frazier as --- physically --- a poor man's Tyson. I think if you improved Frazier's physical strength, bostered his right hand (which is under-rated, but still not on Tyson's level for raw power), improved his chin (for single-shot absorption, at least), upped his intimidation factor & honed his finishing instinct a little, you'd have Tyson. Now, to be fair, I think Tyson's one of the greatest HW champions head-to-head --- I do. What separates him from the true, elite legends, however, is that he's a guy you can look at on paper & say, "Well, he has 70 or 80& of the advantages, but I still worry about whether he'll win," most, if not all, the true greats, you cannot say that. Frazier considerable advantages in commitment, endurance & sustained work-rate would merely be consolation prizes in a drubbing against a more stable opponent, but Tyson's hair-line fragility & frankly crumble-on-cue psyche open the door for him. I still would pick Tyson --- I think his power would be traumatic when coupled with his speed, & I know Frazier isn't elusive enough to avoid getting tagged early, often & hard --- but something holds me back from betting on this one. I doubt Frazier survives the early going, but you just never know with Tyson. If Frazier kept getting back up, he might just implode.
Mike's lack of mental tougness I feel is greatly exaggerated. He wasnt the mentally toughest fighter of all time by any means, but he wasnt a mental midget ala Golota, as some would have you believe. Mike would have no need to implode vs Frazier. And Tyson aint Oscar Bonavena, Frazier isnt just gonna survive his onslaught. Tyson was one of the finest finishers of all time.
I do feel, in Tyson's defense, he showed some real grit --- for which he is rarely credited --- against Ruddock &, to some extent, even Douglas. That said, Tyson never had to face the kind of adversity Frazier could present him with until Holyfield. Well. I like Tyson here, but you don't have to be a Golota to crumble mentally against Frazier. Frazier has the chance to test Tyson in a way I wouldn't expect Tyson to succeed. Even so, Tyson's power, accuracy & handspeed are the first test for either fighter here, & I think Frazier, though game, fails. On a sidenote, I too feel Tyson could be ranked as one of the best finishers in the division's history --- but you have to concede, that is, to a fair degree, theoretical, as Tyson never had to finish off any truly great opponents. It was a hideous era.
Early-Tyson Late-Frazier. Chances are Tyson early, as Joe was a slow starter, & Tyson was a fast starter, but if it goes past 6, gimmie Joe (circa 1971), all the way.
This one is a truly horrible style matchup for Joe IMHO. Tyson is all hooks and uppercuts, which spells trouble even for the best version of Frazier. I tend to agree with Sly (for once). Tyson likely wins this early. MTF
HHmmm....I'm not as sure as everyone else that this is the mismatch it seems. Firstly I think Joe WAS more versatile than Mike, he had considerably better footwork, IMO, and the ability to, not fight on the outside per se, as much as to fight in and out and at angles like he did against say George Chuvulo when he came up against a bigger stronger guy. (In a style not at all dissimilar to Holyfield actually). I also think that early in his career his head movement and defence were underrated and certainly MUCH better and more consistent than Mike's. He wasn't the face first type delux model of Arturo Gatti that he seems to have become in the collective imagination because of the Ali & Foreman fights. He was pretty deft at times and coupled with the consistency of his work rate against how sporadic Mike's was I can see him taking rounds and frustrating him. Of course there's the power issue and if Joe fights in Mike's chest for more than 45 seconds he's probably gonna have a very unpleasant night, but overall, I'd probably stick a 5er on Joe here if the odds were favourable.
I've seen every single Mike Tyson fight. Every. Single. One. Tyson had some fancy moves with his feet that if you strung together in a highlight reel would look great but didn't have the focus on concentration levels to apply anything beyond the very, very basic more than 5% of the time with that % falling against better opponents who could frustrate him a bit. As a pressure fighter Mike's footwork may have been superior to Frazier's but it certainly wasn't as versatile. Mike was the very definition of a 1 dimensional fighter.
And you maintain that Joe Frazier had better FOOTWORK than Mike Tyson. FOOTWORK??!!! Joe Frazier who was primarily a ducking left hook and left to the body was more versatile than Mike Tyson? Tyson would double Jab, tripple jab his way in. Knock you out with right uppercuts, left hooks, right crosses, right hooks...was a tremendous combination puncher etc. I disagree completely..
LMAO at 75% of your retarded, biased picks recently, X. Against GOOD opponents Mike came forward covered distance with a jab, threw a follow up right or hook, followed up with a combo if his opponent was still there to be hit but usually ended up in a clinch or with his opponent moving laterally. That was IT. Repeat 15 times a round until either 12 rounds expire or he knocks them out/loses. The wee highlight reel of fancy Tyson footwork moves you could put together would all be sporadic flashes of his trying something he had been taught in the gym by Cus pulled off once against a bum with a 16-4 record when he was 19. He never integrated anything beyond the basic into his style in a way that transfered to the real competitive fights. Tyson cut down the ring well, covered distance with the jab well and occasionally moved laterally on the inside and was fast as he done so. That was IT. Frazier could also box on occasion which is relevant to this MM, which Mike never learned to because of his power.
BTW I should qualify all this by saying Mike would still be my pick here. Im just saying it ain't any kind of foregone conclusion.
The only thing that makes me pick Mike is the stylistic aspect of the matchup. In terms of the kind of punches preferred by each fighter, Tyson was a smaller, more versatile version of Foreman IMHO, in that he threw a lot of hooks to get inside and plenty of uppercuts when he got there. Both punches were devestating when they found their target. Foreman was an uppercutter with murderous power, and had the PERFECT style to make Frazier look like an average plodder. That is no mean feat, because Frazier is one of the very best HW's there has ever been. This stylistic similarity is what makes me pick Tyson over Frazier. Those who have read my posts in Frazier MM's before know I generally despair at the way Joe is overlooked and is picked to be obliterated by almost any HW with a punch, so it is with a fairly heavy heart that I pick against Joe (which I do very rarely). But IMHO that low, swinging, ducking defence would be made for a hooking, uppercutter like Tyson. That said, Joe has an underrated chin and a BAGFUL of heart. If Tyson couldn't blast him out, I'd pick Frazier to come good later on. One thing is for sure- Frazier is at LEAST one level above anyone Tyson ever beat; in fact, probably more than a level above. Only Holmes was of similar stature, and he was a long way past his best when Mike beat him. Besting Joe would be a career defining, resume making win for Mike- the kind of win he never really scored IMHO. MTF
Easily more than a level above the undefeated Michael Spinks? Better than Spinks, sure, but it's not like Tyson only fought bums. Tony Tucker was also a decent fighter.
Yes he certainly was. Joe Frazier was a MUCH better heavyweight than Michael Spinks. Spinks was great at Lightheavy only. Let's not fall into the old Kid Dynamite habit of overrating Spinks at heavy in the attempt to make Tyson's resume look better.
I agree with Joe on Spinks. No way, no how is he one rung below Frazier as a Heavyweight fighter. No, Sir.
joe frazier is about as versatile as a lamp, what a stupid take. Mike is one-dimensional but Frazier isnt hahaha. Wow.
I'm glad you found the oldest human being without a neurological disorder who thinks Joe Frazier is a versatile fighter.
Watch stretches of the Chuvulo fight for instance. Or even the Foreman rematch where he had limited periods of success on the back foot despite being damn near shot. I didn't say he was a versatile fighter. I said he was more versatile than Mike. You know, kinda like the way Wayne McCullough doesn't punch the bag particularly hard but punches it way harder than you.:stir:::
