Do you agree with this breakdown on fantasy fight Tyson vs Frazier?

[APryor]

Holyfield was a blown up cruiserweight. There's no way Tabarista didn't handicap that fight as an early Tyson knockout. They fought twice and we all know how it turned out.

Speaking of Holyfield, a great recent HW who weighed 208, his burned out shell travelled to Europe to take on the largest HW champion in the history of the sport and only a robbery kept him from taking the belt.

Foreman won the lineal HW title by knockout 20 years after first winning it, having had a long retirement in between.

In the 70s, many great athletes became HW boxers. Today, not so much.

[Mr Objecitivity]

No, just no. Frazier would be the best heavyweight in today's era.

Sure! Even though Joe Frazier's KO percentage against modern sized heavyweights (215 pounds and plus which is still being generous as they are roughly around the 230 pound mark these days) is at an abysmal 47%, which is actually less than Chris Byrd's KO percentage against similar / heavier sized heavyweights.

Don't let Joe Frazier's cruiserweight accomplishments (accomplishments against boxers that would be considered cruiserweights by modern standard and accomplishments when he would've been considered a cruiserweight by modern standards) fool you into believing he could somehow have the same accomplishment against modern heavyweights too.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Who did Tyson beat in his prime that is even close to Frazier. What happened when Buster Douglas stood up to him? And dont give me that crap that he was out of his prime. He was 24 years old when that fight happened. Based off the fact that he beat nothing but trash cans in his prime, never rose to the occasion, and lost every big fight, we have no evidence that he would beat Ali, Foreman, Frazier Johnson, Liston or even Norton at that. Tyson is more of a myth than a monster.

Who did Tyson beat in his prime that is even close to Frazier.

For starters, Joe Frazier's son Marvis Frazier and practically every single other boxer he faced that was close to his height, reach and weight. He never lost to a boxer who didn't have a significant enough size advantage (in height, weight and reach).

What happened when Buster Douglas stood up to him?

Buster Douglas was 6 foot 3, had an 83 inch reach and was heavier than Mike Tyson on fight. Overall, much different than Joe Frazier in both physical dimensions and style. It's a false equivalence fallacy you've just committed comparing the two!

Based off the fact that he beat nothing but trash cans in his prime, never rose to the occasion, and lost every big fight, we have no evidence that he would beat Ali, Foreman, Frazier Johnson, Liston or even Norton at that.

Mike Tyson's average NON - BUMMY opponents were all much heavier and overall bigger than Joe Frazier's NON - BUMMY opponents.

Some of the NON - BUMMY opponents that Mike Tyson beat, especially in the manner that he did, are victories that Joe Frazier did not match in his career. Whereas the opponents Mike Tyson lost against, Joe Frazier himself hadn't beaten such opponents that were as hefty + as big + as skilled as the opponents that beat Mike Tyson.

Joe Frazier was more akin to a cruiserweight by modern standards than an actual heavyweight.

Mike Tyson was naturally bigger and heavier, plus just as good boxing ability wise at the VERY LEAST. However, I believe he was even better boxing abilities wise, but he doesn't even have to be better to be able to beat Joe Frazier as when everything is equal, the naturally bigger boxer is the favorite to win, which is the case with Mike Tyson. So because Tyson is naturally the heavier / bigger of the two, Mike Tyson just has to be equal in boxing abilities as Joe Frazier to be able to beat him. However, upon doing some analysis, Mike Tyson showed more advanced head movement, greater foot speed and more punching power compared to Joe Frazier. Thus, I'd say Mike Tyson is even better than Joe Frazier plus bigger. Joe Frazier therefore doesn't stand much of a chance against Mike Tyson!

As far as all the other boxers you've mentioned, including Joe Frazier, none of them have a better modern HEAVYWEIGHT record (200+ pounds) against modern heavyweight opponents as Mike Tyson. None of their knockout percentage or victories overall against modern sized heavyweights (bummy & non bummy) is as impressive as Mike Tyson's. That's a fact!

Joe Frazier's best performances were at cruiserweight by modern standards. Same with Muhammad Ali, same with Sonny Liston and so forth. Only George Foreman comes closest to resembling a modern heavyweight and even he doesn't have the accomplishments as Mike Tyson against modern sized heavyweights. However, George Foreman was clearly the best boxer from the 1950's - 1970's and he was winning pretty much all his fights more convincingly than anybody else from those era.

So if anything, we have no evidence that those aforementioned boxers would beat a dominant modern heavyweight like Mike Tyson. That's a more accurate reflection!

[APryor]

OK, it's been made clear that Tabarista has never heard of tiny HW Evander Holyfield. Or maybe the memories are too painful so his subconscious is protecting him from the memories of what he did to Tyson, twice.

He even mentions Chris Byrd, a middleweight, as proof that smaller HWs can no longer compete.

I saw Fury-Cunningham and I'm pretty sure I know what Frazier/Norton/Holyfield would do to today's Super Heavyweight Champion.

[boliodogs]

The prime young Foreman weighed about 215 compared to a prime young Tyson of 220 and both were lean at those weights. Tyson was actually a heavier boxer than the young Foreman. I think Tyson beats Foreman by KO. If the fight went the full distance then I think Frazier wins with his higher work rate and better stamina.

[boliodogs]

Sorry, I meant to say Tyson KOs Frazier and I wrote Foreman by mistake.

[Sheldon312]

For starters, Joe Frazier's son Marvis Frazier and practically every single other boxer he faced that was close to his height, reach and weight. He never lost to a boxer who didn't have a significant enough size advantage (in height, weight and reach).



Buster Douglas was 6 foot 3, had an 83 inch reach and was heavier than Mike Tyson on fight. Overall, much different than Joe Frazier in both physical dimensions and style. It's a false equivalence fallacy you've just committed comparing the two!



Mike Tyson's average NON - BUMMY opponents were all much heavier and overall bigger than Joe Frazier's NON - BUMMY opponents.

Some of the NON - BUMMY opponents that Mike Tyson beat, especially in the manner that he did, are victories that Joe Frazier did not match in his career. Whereas the opponents Mike Tyson lost against, Joe Frazier himself hadn't beaten such opponents that were as hefty + as big + as skilled as the opponents that beat Mike Tyson.

Joe Frazier was more akin to a cruiserweight by modern standards than an actual heavyweight.

Mike Tyson was naturally bigger and heavier, plus just as good boxing ability wise at the VERY LEAST. However, I believe he was even better boxing abilities wise, but he doesn't even have to be better to be able to beat Joe Frazier as when everything is equal, the naturally bigger boxer is the favorite to win, which is the case with Mike Tyson. So because Tyson is naturally the heavier / bigger of the two, Mike Tyson just has to be equal in boxing abilities as Joe Frazier to be able to beat him. However, upon doing some analysis, Mike Tyson showed more advanced head movement, greater foot speed and more punching power compared to Joe Frazier. Thus, I'd say Mike Tyson is even better than Joe Frazier plus bigger. Joe Frazier therefore doesn't stand much of a chance against Mike Tyson!

As far as all the other boxers you've mentioned, including Joe Frazier, none of them have a better modern HEAVYWEIGHT record (200+ pounds) against modern heavyweight opponents as Mike Tyson. None of their knockout percentage or victories overall against modern sized heavyweights (bummy & non bummy) is as impressive as Mike Tyson's. That's a fact!

Joe Frazier's best performances were at cruiserweight by modern standards. Same with Muhammad Ali, same with Sonny Liston and so forth. Only George Foreman comes closest to resembling a modern heavyweight and even he doesn't have the accomplishments as Mike Tyson against modern sized heavyweights. However, George Foreman was clearly the best boxer from the 1950's - 1970's and he was winning pretty much all his fights more convincingly than anybody else from those era.

So if anything, we have no evidence that those aforementioned boxers would beat a dominant modern heavyweight like Mike Tyson. That's a more accurate reflection!

Quit using size as a way of justifying Tyson over Frazier. Frazier beat a prime Ali that trumps anything Tyson ever did. Theres no way in hell a 24 year old Frazier loses to Buster Douglas who is an inferior fighter. Place Frazier in Tyson's era, he beats everyone except Lewis. I would even favor him over Holyfield because of his stamina and heart.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Quit using size as a way of justifying Tyson over Frazier. Frazier beat a prime Ali that trumps anything Tyson ever did. Theres no way in hell a 24 year old Frazier loses to Buster Douglas who is an inferior fighter. Place Frazier in Tyson's era, he beats everyone except Lewis. I would even favor him over Holyfield because of his stamina and heart.

Quit using size as a way of justifying Tyson over Frazier.

Me using 'size' is based on solid facts. It's a fact that Joe Frazier had under 50% KO percentage against modern sized heavyweights (215+ pounds), including bums and non bums. It's even worse if we exclude bums from that list and only consider non - bummy opponents.

Frazier beat a prime Ali that trumps anything Tyson ever did.

It's extremely disputable the version of Muhammad Ali that Joe Frazier beat was 'prime'. Even so, Joe Frazier barely beat him and it was an extremely indecisive win (hence the rematches).

On the other hand, Mike Tyson destroyed a similar caliber of opponent in Larry Holmes in a comprehensive, indisputable and a one sided manner via brutal knockout and before you or anybody claims Ali was better than Larry Holmes, that's pure speculation and guesswork for the most part. I've seen nothing from Ali that tells me he was that much better, if at all any better than Larry Holmes. This involves judging their performances against common opponents and similar caliber of opposition.

heres no way in hell a 24 year old Frazier loses to Buster Douglas who is an inferior fighter.

Except Joe Frazier never to my knowledge beat an opponent as heavy, rangy as tall combined as Buster Douglas. So I have no idea on what basis / grounds you're coming to that conclusion.

Again, Joe Frazier had an abysmal 45% KO percentage against modern sized heavyweights (which is what Buster Douglas was) and even less against non bummy modern sized opponents (which again what Buster Douglas was).

Place Frazier in Tyson's era, he beats everyone except Lewis.

Again, pure speculation that's not been backed up by solid facts. 45% KO percentage says otherwise (which are solid facts).

I would even favor him over Holyfield because of his stamina and heart.

Right, even though Evander Holyfield outboxed George Foreman and was never even close to getting knocked out by George Foreman but the same Joe Frazier was nearly murdered out of the ring in 2 & 5 rounds by George Foreman?

Evander Holyfield is simply the superior boxer to Joe Frazier. Even if you argue George Foreman was old when fought Evander Holyfield and was young when fought Joe Frazier, the manner in which Joe Frazier got destroyed was so embarrassing that even a old Foreman would've likely done the same thing. Joe Frazier was simply no match for true power punchers. He didn't fight other power punchers in his era like Ron Lyle, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and etc. The only time he did, he got destroyed.

[Sheldon312]

Me using 'size' is based on solid facts. It's a fact that Joe Frazier had under 50% KO percentage against modern sized heavyweights (215+ pounds), including bums and non bums. It's even worse if we exclude bums from that list and only consider non - bummy opponents.

And yet he beat an all time great that was in his prime while Tyson never came close to such a thing.

It's extremely disputable the version of Muhammad Ali that Joe Frazier beat was 'prime'. Even so, Joe Frazier barely beat him and it was an extremely indecisive win (hence the rematches).

Go back and watch fight. Frazier clearly won that fight. I had it 8-5

On the other hand, Mike Tyson destroyed a similar caliber of opponent in Larry Holmes in a comprehensive, indisputable and a one sided manner via brutal knockout and before you or anybody claims Ali was better than Larry Holmes, that's pure speculation and guesswork for the most part. I've seen nothing from Ali that tells me he was that much better, if at all any better than Larry Holmes. This involves judging their performances against common opponents and similar caliber of opposition.

Holmes was past it when Tyson fought him. Ali was still in his prime when Frazier beat him.

Except Joe Frazier never to my knowledge beat an opponent as heavy, rangy as tall combined as Buster Douglas. So I have no idea on what basis / grounds you're coming to that conclusion.

A great big man will beat a great smaller guy but douglas wasnt great Frazier was. That's the difference.
And what is it eith you and size? Based off your logic. Wilder beats Ali because he is a bigger man even though Ali schooled Liston.

Again, Joe Frazier had an abysmal 45% KO percentage against modern sized heavyweights (which is what Buster Douglas was) and even less against non bummy modern sized opponents (which again what Buster Douglas was).



Again, pure speculation that's not been backed up by solid facts. 45% KO percentage says otherwise (which are solid facts).

Smh are we really using ko%.

Right, even though Evander Holyfield outboxed George Foreman and was never even close to getting knocked out by George Foreman but the same Joe Frazier was nearly murdered out of the ring in 2 & 5 rounds by George Foreman?

Evander Holyfield is simply the superior boxer to Joe Frazier. Even if you argue George Foreman was old when fought Evander Holyfield and was young when fought Joe Frazier, the manner in which Joe Frazier got destroyed was so embarrassing that even a old Foreman would've likely done the same thing. Joe Frazier was simply no match for true power punchers. He didn't fight other power punchers in his era like Ron Lyle, Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and etc. The only time he did, he got destroyed.

Frazier's motor is higher than Holyfields prime for prime that is why i pick him. He is also the better counter puncher and defender. Styles make fights so a tyson/frazier style is tailor made for a guy like foreman. And if you dont think he stops Cleveland and Ryle you are smoking. I would probably favor Liston over Frazier do to styles.

[GhostofDempsey]

Who did Tyson beat in his prime that is even close to Frazier. What happened when Buster Douglas stood up to him? And dont give me that crap that he was out of his prime. He was 24 years old when that fight happened. Based off the fact that he beat nothing but trash cans in his prime, never rose to the occasion, and lost every big fight, we have no evidence that he would beat Ali, Foreman, Frazier Johnson, Liston or even Norton at that. Tyson is more of a myth than a monster.

Tyson destroyed Michael Spinks in his prime. Spinks was a big LHW at nearly 6'3" and beat a still prime Holmes twice. Tyson also went through Carl Williams, a big HW at 6'4" and a good puncher like he was warm butter.

Bruno and Biggs were no slouches and they were large HW at 6'3" and 6'5' respectively. Tony Tucker was 6'5", undefeated in his prime and had a 72% KO ratio in 34 fights when Tyson beat him.

Using the Douglas fight as a barometer to measure Tyson's weakness is unfair. Mike entered that fight mentally distracted with lawsuits and **** allegations looming over his head, and if you remember, he dropped Douglas but there was a long count of about 13 seconds in that fight that should have ended the fight with a KO win by Tyson even though Buster was dominating him for most of the fight.

No disrespect towards Lennox, but he beat a lot of guys Tyson had already KO'd, who knows if they were softened up or damaged from those fights before Lennox had a shot at them. FWIW, I still rank Lennox higher.