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

[Mr Objecitivity]

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.

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.

You've just used rare exceptional circumstances as the basis to your argument. That doesn't conclusively prove your point that small heavyweights are going to have as much success against heavyer opponents when there is far more evidence that exists against them to the contrary.

Evander Holyfield is a rare exception. Yes he beat Mike Tyson. However, very few ex cruiserweights can beat Mike Tyson. Evander Holyfield was an exception. Very few cruiserweights since Evander Holyfield have had anywhere near the success as Evander Holyfield.

By consistency, lighter boxers have struggled more often to beat and KO heavier + skilled opponents than vice versa.

Another thing you seem to be mistaking in differentiating between is a heavy boxer that is low skilled and a heavy boxer that is high skilled. Nikolai Valuev is a low skilled heavy boxer. Lennox Lewis and Klitschkos are high skilled heavy boxers. So even if small heavyweights or ex cruiserweights like Evander Holyfield and Joe Frazier can beat heavy but low skilled boxers like Nikolai Valuev, it by no means follows that they can also beat heavy + skilled boxers like Lennox Lewis or the Klitschkos. It's important to differentiate between the two.

Also, Chris Byrd may have been a middleweight once, however, he by no means was one when he turned pro. He was a more natural, bigger heavyweight than Joe Frazier. A boxer's size before they compete professionally is totally irrelevant when judging them as pro boxers.

[TonyGe]

I look at the Frank Bruno fight. Bruno was 6'3" and about 230-250 pounds. Tyson beat him up. In fact it took Lewis more rounds to dispose of Bruno when Bruno wasnt in his prime. I think Tyson would do well today.

[APryor]

Lewis and the Klitschkos are all time heavyweights. Now you've completely changed your tune. You were talking like random bums of today could beat top HWs of the 70s. And you even included Cruiserweights. I'm glad to see we're on the same page now. Second tier guys like Valuez and Fury are not going to beat all time greats just because they're huge.

Regarding Lewis - he's a tough matchup for anyone but Foreman probably KOs Him. Guys like Norton and Frazier would be live. Lewis had a couple of embarrassing KO losses in his prime and Ray Mercer fought him even. I think he would jab/hold/threaten with right hand his way to victory but Frazier could possibly KO him.

Frazier and Norton would likely whip any of today's cruiserweights.

[APryor]

Chris Byrd was a tiny heavyweight. Like a lot of other guys, he was only fighting at HW cause the money is bigger. I'm not sure why you mentioned him.

[elfag]

George Foreman beat a bunch of bums and extremely low ranked opponents. Anytime he fought a top quality opposition, he's always lost. Even a slight step up in competition against an average - high quality opponent like Axel Schulz, George Foreman was badly exposed and beaten to a pulp. So 'wrecking' extremely low quality modern opponents isn't as impressive.

The same applies to Larry Holmes too.

You forgot the part where he beat prime shannon briggs, who later on became a contender well into the 2000s. AS A 47 year old.

[Mr Objecitivity]

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.

The same applied to Dwight Muhammad Qawi and he was demolished in the rematch. Also, there is no way Frazier is the better defensive fighter or the better counter puncher. Frazier is one dimensional with his defense, which is to predominantly duck below the waist and throw a blind left hook and then repeat some more. Not very impressive!

Evander Holyfield destroys Joe Frazier in much the same way he did to Dwight Muhammad Qawi. Evander Holyfield has the superior resume and record against modern heavyweights (200 pounds and plus opponents). Evander Holyfield's average opponents in general, KO victims and non KO victims were all much bigger and heavier than that of Joe Frazier's. That's a fact!

Pretty much all of Joe Frazier's fights with the exception of a few would've likely been contested at cruiserweight today.

The modern heavyweights aren't just bigger, but they are also top level fighters. Everything being equal, size is almost always the decisive factor.

Joe Frazier only faced one big power puncher of his era and we all know how that turned out. He did not fight the other power punchers like Ron Lyle and Cleveland Williams for whatever reason, maybe to not expose his weak punch resistance or whatever.

Mike Tyson also beats George Foreman in my opinion. George Foreman's success against Joe Frazier isn't any evidence of Mike Tyson's susceptibilities to someone of George Foreman's style. Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier are world apart in terms of skills, abilities, strength, speed, all round athleticism and etc. George Foreman beating Joe Frazier doesn't have direct bearing / relevance to a potential fight between Mike Tyson and George Foreman.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Lewis and the Klitschkos are all time heavyweights. Now you've completely changed your tune. You were talking like random bums of today could beat top HWs of the 70s. And you even included Cruiserweights. I'm glad to see we're on the same page now. Second tier guys like Valuez and Fury are not going to beat all time greats just because they're huge.

Regarding Lewis - he's a tough matchup for anyone but Foreman probably KOs Him. Guys like Norton and Frazier would be live. Lewis had a couple of embarrassing KO losses in his prime and Ray Mercer fought him even. I think he would jab/hold/threaten with right hand his way to victory but Frazier could possibly KO him.

Frazier and Norton would likely whip any of today's cruiserweights.

You were talking like random bums of today could beat top HWs of the 70s.

You've just committed a straw man fallacy there! At no stage did I argue that point. Of course an ACTUAL bum of today that is of VERY low quality can be beaten by the top fighters of the 1970's, but that doesn't say much because even Gennady Golovkin can KO such poor level of heavyweight opponents and he already has.

My argument was with everything being equal. So:

The top modern heavyweight boxers > pre-1980 heavyweight boxers.

ATG modern heavyweight boxers > ATG pre - 1980 heavyweight boxers.


The likes of Alexander Povetkin (in my opinion) would steam roll virtually any top heavyweight from the 70's. Only George Foreman would be capable of providing a tough fight and would still in the end in a decent match.

The same applies for David Haye, Luis Ortiz, Tyson Fury and so forth. All of those guys would likely beat every top boxer from the past heavyweight eras.

And you even included Cruiserweights.

Because many of the past era 'heavyweights' were cruiserweights by modern standards. The heavyweight division started from 176 pounds and upwards during Muhammad Ali's era. So not only were some of the pre 1980 boxers cruiserweights by modern standards, but some of them were also light heavyweights by modern standards.

It's important to differentiate between a boxer's cruiserweight record (by modern standards) and a boxer's heavyweight record (by modern standards). Joe Frazier's accomplishments below 200 pounds (when his opponents weighed below 200 pounds and / or when he also weighed below 200 pounds) aren't that relevant when comparing him to modern heavyweights above 200 pounds. Modern heavyweight is a total different ball game compared to pre - 1980 heavyweight division (modern day cruiserweight). Joe Frazier's chin and his punching power when competing against cruiserweights have very little bearing when comparing him to a modern heavyweights.

Second tier guys like Valuez and Fury are not going to beat all time greats just because they're huge.

Fury is anything but 'second' tier. He is one of the most skillful super heavyweights in history. He would make small work of any pre - 1980 heavyweight. He isn't just very big, but very skillful too. A smaller heavyweight might be able to overcome their lack of size by being more skillful, but they can't do that against Tyson Fury as he is also extremely skilled.

Regarding Lewis - he's a tough matchup for anyone but Foreman probably KOs Him.

George Foreman never KOed anybody Lennox Lewis's size COMBINED WITH TOP QUALITY SKILLS. Beating Gerry Cooney isn't the same as he only had that one aspect, which was size but not the skills.

Guys like Norton and Frazier would be live.

They would likely lose worse than they lost to George Foreman.

Lewis had a couple of embarrassing KO losses in his prime and Ray Mercer fought him even.

That's because modern heavyweight is vastly different from modern cruiserweight. One punch can change things instantly, even against a poor quality opposition when facing such hefty opponents, something that is unlike in divisions below.

A focused Lennox Lewis is unbeaten and he avenged his both losses convincingly.

Frazier and Norton would likely whip any of today's cruiserweights.

Based on what exactly? Leaving nostalgia aside, what eactly did they have that were so much better than modern cruiserweights? They definitely don't look faster than top cruiserweights. Their movements definitely don't look better than modern cruiserweight's movement. Their defense doesn't look much better either. So what exactly is it?

[Mr Objecitivity]

You forgot the part where he beat prime shannon briggs, who later on became a contender well into the 2000s. AS A 47 year old.

Last time I checked, George Foreman lost that fight.

Also, Shannon Briggs was one of the worst of the modern 'top' heavyweights.

Shannon Briggs is roughly equal to George Foreman. A prime Shannon Briggs would likely dominate the 1970's to the same extent as George Foreman did. Whereas prime George Foreman would probably have the same level of success in the modern heavyweight as Shannon Briggs did.

1970's George Foreman was the closest thing to a modern heavyweight, but even he wouldn't be one of the absolute best in my opinion. He would likely be a 'top' level fighter, but at best be at the level of Shannon Briggs if he was competing today.

[Elroy The Great]

hand speed is the game changer. take away joes hook and whats left to fear tyson was a beast (vs limited opposition) with both hands.

IF joe lands the hook that broke alis jaw, tyson ends up in a coma. big if though.

imho, tyson ends joe in 7.

[Sheldon312]

hand speed is the game changer. take away joes hook and whats left to fear tyson was a beast (vs limited opposition) with both hands.

IF joe lands the hook that broke alis jaw, tyson ends up in a coma. big if though.

imho, tyson ends joe in 7.

But how can you say that when Tyson never beat someone great. You sound like one of those Roy Jones fans.