Tyson in the all time P4P

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 09 Aug 2004, 08:17

KO - your trying to build a house on quick-sand here.

'Ali beat a dinosaur in Liston' but Tyson beating Holmes is credible?

Ali's resume has no superior.

Compile a heavyweight top 30. You'll find Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Patterson and Holmes all feature.

Ali has beaten Frazier x 2, Liston x 2, Foreman x 1, Patterson x 2, Norton x 2 not to mention Shavers, Quarry, Williams et al.

You may find Holmes, Spinks, Holyfield and Lewis in the top 30.

Tyson has beaten Holmes (who is roughly comparable in terms of age and activity to the current Tyson) and Spinks and lost to Holyfield x 2 and Lewis x 1.

Ali was a top three heavyweight for 14 years.

Tyson had a four year reign and then feasted on nobodies and lost every time somebody hit him back.

Tyson never got off the floor to win.

Imagine if following his lay-off and then loss to Frazier - Ali then lost again to Frazier, got smashed up over eight rounds by Foreman and failed to rematch or beat Norton.

Then I could see your argument, because then and only then would their careers be even close to comparable with Norton playing the part of Douglas, Foreman playing Lewis and Frazier playing Holyfield. We'll let Danny Williams be Leon SPinks.

Ali had 13 fights against top 30 of ALL TIME heavies won 9 and lost 4 and I've included the Holmes loss.

Tyson had 5 fights against top 30 of ALL TIME heavies won 2 and lost 3.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 Aug 2004, 08:23

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 09 Aug 2004, 08:41

bennie wrote:Are you telling me Tyson would have beaten Joe Louis now! My God, Louis would have ripped him apart inside a couple of rounds. Jack Dempsey, too. ANYONE with balls, would have half a chance with Tyson, let alone a world heavyweight champion with balls.
The Tyson myth continues. He bombs out Tony "Tubby" Tubbs and Mike "Scared" Spinks in his peak year - and all of a sudden he's beating Joe Louis.

I'm a big fan of Joe Louis. Anyone who's seen his fights has to be - he ranks as number two for me.
But you seem to be really underestimating Tyson here. I agree with Stuart - Louis was usualy a very slow starter: journeymen like Braddock, the pie eating Galento, Baer and even the club footed Mauriello managed it - are you telling me a fast starting P4P puncher like Tyson couldn't have managed it too?

And while it's true Mike never got up to win, you have to take into account those knockdowns came late in the fight, after a prolonged beating, and were usualy 15 or 20 punch combinations that virtualy nailed him to the canvas. No wonder he didn't get up. ( in fact, a bit like the KO Joe suffered at the hands of Schmeling ).

And no, I don't count the Williams loss, just like I don't count the losses Louis, Holmes and co suffered late in their careers.

In Joe's reign as champ, who did he beat that was better than Tyson?
Walcott? Maybe - but that was life & death and Joe was well past it. I'd rate Tyson over Jersey Joe anyway.

All I'm saying is that Mike would have a great chance early, even against The Mighty Joe Louis.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 Aug 2004, 08:54

I'd agree with that. I would give Tyson a good chance of beating anyone who was a slow starter or who had an iffy chin, he was a great starter.

However, that doesn't mean I rate Tyson highly as a champion, because he simply didn't beat the competition over a consistent period of time. Louis was in a weak era, but he maintained his dominence over such a long period of time that you have to have him in the top 3.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 09 Aug 2004, 15:06

James, fair play I have agreed with everything you have said on this thread so far. Your writing is far more articulated than mine, so I will leave it to you to continue.

Just to clarify - in terms of ranking Louis over Tyson, in terms of who I think would win a mythical match up - Tyson over Louis.

Holyfield over Lewis in both respects (at their primes), and Dempsey over Tunney in terms of Heavyweight ranking.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 Aug 2004, 15:20

Awww shucks you'll make me blush. I would give Tyson a good chance early on is how I would put it, partly because of his physical strength and fantastic punshing technique, but past 6 even in his prime, and the old demons are always there.

Worth nothing, Louis wasn't that small. 210 or so in his prime and 6 1 1/2, so not a midget, and he really could punch. Did have a little bit of a porous defence Louis though, got tagged with a lot of shots.

Louis had the power and technique to hurt anyone he hit, look at his record, he beat down the 6'6" Buddy baer like a bitch and the monstrous Abe Simon.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 10 Aug 2004, 15:21

I am constantly amazed that anyone can put joe frazier into their HW top ten. My list has probably been posted somewhere, and i can't be arsed thinking now, but i would put tyson above frazier in a heartbeat. whether he is top 10, thats a different story.

seriously, how can joe frazier be justified in there? demolished twice in embarassingly one sided brawls with foreman. Beat an inexperienced ali which was avenged. sort of one dimensional. lacked the size to control fights with anything but bullish rushes. i'm sure i'm missing something with joe.

tyson overall had more wins over good fighters.

Lefthookhappy19 · Post by **Lefthookhappy19** » 10 Aug 2004, 15:36

Name Tysons better wins? Are you suggesting Joe Frazier wouldn't have beaten the Spinks and Holmes that Mike fought, cause those are his best wins. Not much is it.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 11 Aug 2004, 08:02

Lefthookhappy19 wrote:Name Tysons better wins? Are you suggesting Joe Frazier wouldn't have beaten the Spinks and Holmes that Mike fought, cause those are his best wins. Not much is it.

Frazier wouldnt have starched Spinks in one, and was such a slow starter I would back Tyson to KO him in one. Frazier knew only one way to fight, he would have got hit early and would have been stopped on the three knockdown rule.

Tyson hit harder than Frazier

Tyson was faster than Frazier

Tyson had a better chin than Frazier

Tyson had more skill than Frazier

Tyson was stronger than Frazier

Tyson had a better jab than Frazier

Tyson had a better right hand than Frazier

The only chance Frazier would have is if he extended the fight.

Based on Tyson being a very fast starter and Frazier being very agressive and in your face, but still a slow starter, Tyson KO1.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 11 Aug 2004, 09:12

Riddick Blowe wrote:I am constantly amazed that anyone can put joe frazier into their HW top ten. My list has probably been posted somewhere, and i can't be arsed thinking now, but i would put tyson above frazier in a heartbeat. whether he is top 10, thats a different story.

seriously, how can joe frazier be justified in there? demolished twice in embarassingly one sided brawls with foreman. Beat an inexperienced ali which was avenged. sort of one dimensional. lacked the size to control fights with anything but bullish rushes. i'm sure i'm missing something with joe.

tyson overall had more wins over good fighters.

Errrr, inexperienced Ali? Ali had more fights than Frazier did at that point. Get yer facts straight. Ali was returning from exile and had two tune up fights, he probably wasn't quite at his peak yet, but he wasn't inexperienced, and he certainly wasn't inactive.

I agree that Frazier was overrated, however, don't underrate him too much, if he doesn't deserve a spot in the top 10, then name 10 other heavyweight champions who deserve the nod, there are very few Heavyweight champions who managed to even rack up a few title defences. Unless you are going to go back to the likes of John L Sullivan or Jim Jeffries, who don't even belong in the same sport as Joe, then I fail to see who these other 10 are.

Unless you are going to go back to John L Sullivan or

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 11 Aug 2004, 09:41

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Riddick Blowe wrote:I am constantly amazed that anyone can put joe frazier into their HW top ten. My list has probably been posted somewhere, and i can't be arsed thinking now, but i would put tyson above frazier in a heartbeat. whether he is top 10, thats a different story.

seriously, how can joe frazier be justified in there? demolished twice in embarassingly one sided brawls with foreman. Beat an inexperienced ali which was avenged. sort of one dimensional. lacked the size to control fights with anything but bullish rushes. i'm sure i'm missing something with joe.

tyson overall had more wins over good fighters.
Errrr, inexperienced Ali? Ali had more fights than Frazier did at that point. Get yer facts straight. Ali was returning from exile and had two tune up fights, he probably wasn't quite at his peak yet, but he wasn't inexperienced, and he certainly wasn't inactive.

I agree that Frazier was overrated, however, don't underrate him too much, if he doesn't deserve a spot in the top 10, then name 10 other heavyweight champions who deserve the nod, there are very few Heavyweight champions who managed to even rack up a few title defences. Unless you are going to go back to the likes of John L Sullivan or Jim Jeffries, who don't even belong in the same sport as Joe, then I fail to see who these other 10 are.

Unless you are going to go back to John L Sullivan or

Ali did have more fights than Frazier at 8th March 1971, Ali was not inexperienced. Fraziers win over Ali was possibly a grreater acheivement than any of Tysons. I just think Joe was tailor made for Mike.

Joe made 8 or nine defences, he wasnt overrated.

I just feel a prime Tyson v Prime Frazier would be the same result 10 out of 10, Tyson KO1.

More to do with styles than anything, but come on you guys, Tyson was a GREAT fighter.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 11 Aug 2004, 10:17

A great offensive fighter with serious mental flaws...yes.

One thing which escapes a lot of people, is the fact that very few heavyweight champions have made anywhere near the number of defences that Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lewis and even Holyfield made.

This for me is why you have to rate all these guys highly for consistency.

Tyson 9 Defences (depending on how you look at it, he won his first belt from Berbick, so wasn't unified champion, but then neither was Holmes. 1 defence against Seldon, loses to Holyfield twice, then loses to Lewis in final title challenge. Brief prime, had he had one win over someone of the stature of a prime Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield etc, I would rate him above Liston, frazier, Foreman etc for sure, but his lack of credentials coupled with brief prime hurt him. Should perhaps be above Liston though.

Frazier only actually made 4 defences....one good win over Ali as champion, but then got annihilated twice by foreman. His best wins aside from Ali were against the likes of Quarry and Bonavena, tough guys, but hardly all time greats.

Dempsey (only 6 successful defences in 4 years, lost in his 7th 3 years since his last defence, was bizzarely allowed to fight 10 round defences, despite 15 rounds being the standard distance for title fights.

Marciano 6 defences in 3 years, fighting ageing light heavyweights and past it Walcott. Never lost which gets him props, but weak opposition as champion.

Foreman. Only two successful defences in his prime, before getting derailed by Ali. Jose Roman and Ken Norton. Norton and Frazier his best wins. Annihilated Frazier in a rematch, up and down war with Lyle proved his heart. In his second career, showed how good he was going the distanec with young Gun Morrison, Holyfield, beating Alex Stewart, Moorer, and getting robbed against Briggs. His ability to compete at top level in his 40's earns him a lot of brownie points.

Bowe Only 2 defences, two wins over Holyfield give him some kudos, but inconsistent and faded fast. Looked good for a brief period, but was shot to shit by the time Golota got there.

Liston. Only 1 defence. Runs into Ali, never gets back into contention. Is rated so high based on pre title winning performances, but was probably past his peak by then. Between 1959-61 destroyed all comers on his way to mullering Patterson.

See what I mean?

J · Post by J » 11 Aug 2004, 10:25

At the risk of being accused of being a Mcacy D nuthugger.
that was some fornicating quality post.

credit to you mate, if that all up there in your head, you aint as thick as you look!

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 11 Aug 2004, 10:34

Some was, the rest I used good old BOXREC for.

J · Post by J » 11 Aug 2004, 10:41

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Some was, the rest I used good old BOXREC for.

SO YOUR ONLY HALF AS THICK AS YOU LOOK, BUT JEEZ YOU DO LOOK THICK

just mesisng mate was a great post.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 11 Aug 2004, 15:53

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Riddick Blowe wrote:I am constantly amazed that anyone can put joe frazier into their HW top ten. My list has probably been posted somewhere, and i can't be arsed thinking now, but i would put tyson above frazier in a heartbeat. whether he is top 10, thats a different story.

seriously, how can joe frazier be justified in there? demolished twice in embarassingly one sided brawls with foreman. Beat an inexperienced ali which was avenged. sort of one dimensional. lacked the size to control fights with anything but bullish rushes. i'm sure i'm missing something with joe.

tyson overall had more wins over good fighters.
Errrr, inexperienced Ali? Ali had more fights than Frazier did at that point. Get yer facts straight. Ali was returning from exile and had two tune up fights, he probably wasn't quite at his peak yet, but he wasn't inexperienced, and he certainly wasn't inactive.

I agree that Frazier was overrated, however, don't underrate him too much, if he doesn't deserve a spot in the top 10, then name 10 other heavyweight champions who deserve the nod, there are very few Heavyweight champions who managed to even rack up a few title defences. Unless you are going to go back to the likes of John L Sullivan or Jim Jeffries, who don't even belong in the same sport as Joe, then I fail to see who these other 10 are.

Unless you are going to go back to John L Sullivan or

i only meant inexperienced in relation to his later fights. it was probably the wrong word

Lefthookhappy19 · Post by **Lefthookhappy19** » 11 Aug 2004, 16:09

knockout artist wrote:
Lefthookhappy19 wrote:Name Tysons better wins? Are you suggesting Joe Frazier wouldn't have beaten the Spinks and Holmes that Mike fought, cause those are his best wins. Not much is it.
Frazier wouldnt have starched Spinks in one, and was such a slow starter I would back Tyson to KO him in one. Frazier knew only one way to fight, he would have got hit early and would have been stopped on the three knockdown rule.

Tyson hit harder than Frazier

Tyson was faster than Frazier

Tyson had a better chin than Frazier

Tyson had more skill than Frazier

Tyson was stronger than Frazier

Tyson had a better jab than Frazier

Tyson had a better right hand than Frazier

The only chance Frazier would have is if he extended the fight.

Based on Tyson being a very fast starter and Frazier being very agressive and in your face, but still a slow starter, Tyson KO1.

Ugh, Tyson KO1? This is Joe Frazier not Trevor Berbick. Tyson will come out swinging but come on, Tysons no Foreman, he's not gonna blowout someone like Joe Frazier. Yeah Joe might get caught, but all the middle and late rounds will be Joe's after an early Tyson rush. Also don't underestimate Fraziers power, he could dig, maybe not like the very best but well above average power. Evander showed heart against Mike, so would Joe.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 12 Aug 2004, 04:58

I think it's a possibility that Tyson could do him in 1. It's also a possibility that Frazier does Mike in the 9th or 10th. Frazier had decent boxing ability in his prime, and remember Mike wasn't a good inside fighter, certainly not in his prime. Once in close, Frazier was the more effective inside fighter.

It's all conjecture let's face it, but to say which such surety that Mike would do him in the 1st seems silly.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 12 Aug 2004, 06:10

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think it's a possibility that Tyson could do him in 1. It's also a possibility that Frazier does Mike in the 9th or 10th. Frazier had decent boxing ability in his prime, and remember Mike wasn't a good inside fighter, certainly not in his prime. Once in close, Frazier was the more effective inside fighter.

It's all conjecture let's face it, but to say which such surety that Mike would do him in the 1st seems silly.

Its not silly at all. Frazier was a very very slow starter. Tyson was faster than Foreman and was more accurate with his punches. Remember Bonavena decked Frazier twice. Bonavena was strong but was nowhere near as good as Tyson.

I just cant see Frazier getting past the first.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 12 Aug 2004, 06:18

I see your points, and they are good ones, and yes Bonavena was little more than a big rugged brute, the second coming of Firpo. I think frazier's style suited big punchers, it's lucky he didn't face that many in his career.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 12 Aug 2004, 15:17

While I have only been skimming the last few posts, it seems like the debate has moved to a Tyson vs Frazier mythical match up. I'm not sure why some people don't see it likely that Tyson couldn't do Frazier early. He might not have had the mental strength of Big George, but physically he more than matches up to him.

In my opinion Tyson hit harder than Foreman, was faster than Foreman and more acurate than Foreman. Not saying Foreman was nothing, in my opinion he is the 2nd hardest hitting heavyweight of all time. Look at Tyson's KO percentage, it is pretty phenomenal (as is Foreman's granted) - whilst Tyson has been rightfully (although not his fault) criticised for fighting in a poor generation, the chins of many of his world title challengers has not been questioned.

In his first career, Foreman showed similar stamina problems than Tyson also suffered from. If you combined the first Foreman and the older version then, you get probably the best Heavyweight of all time - but you cannot for mythical match ups.

So while, Frazier might out psych Tyson, I think to say its beyond the realms of possibility for Tyson not to blast out Frazier is wrong.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 12 Aug 2004, 15:20

Leonard probably the best gifted fighter i have seen. followed by the likes of jones, robinson (not dale

) and chavez and a young medrick taylor could of been a great if he didnt run into chavez.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 12 Aug 2004, 15:46

Chris, Sugar Ray Leonard - now we are in agreement.

For sheer gifteness I would go for Leonard, Robinson, Ali with Tyosn, Jones Jnr and Wilde close by (we are strickly talking about physical ability).

Add the mental aspect to it, and although the top three stay the same Tyson would fall by the wayside and the likes of Pep, Hagler, Monzon, Jofre, Benny Leonard, Chavez, Duran and Henry Armstrong would come into fore.

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 12 Aug 2004, 16:29

mike tyson ko joe frazier in the first? come on
yeah tyson has a good first round ko rate but against who?
everyone who has gone early to tyson wanted out early (spinks, williams, mcneeley, savarese)
the early guy`s well, there not exactly HOF material.
mercedes, singleton, spain, canady, johnson, long, colay, benjamin,
richardson, scaff, young (mark), jaco, gross, hosea, marvis frazier,
spinks, williams, tillman, stewart, mcneeley, seldon, norris (dq),
savarese and ettiene.
joe frazier does not belong on that list.
even frank bruno lasted to the 5th against the legendary `prime` mike tyson and if frank could so could joe imo.
the only difference is where frank started wilting joe would start smoking.
apart from ruddock tyson never beat anyone who really came to fight.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 13 Aug 2004, 07:10

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Awww shucks you'll make me blush. I would give Tyson a good chance early on is how I would put it, partly because of his physical strength and fantastic punshing technique, but past 6 even in his prime, and the old demons are always there.

Worth nothing, Louis wasn't that small. 210 or so in his prime and 6 1 1/2, so not a midget, and he really could punch. Did have a little bit of a porous defence Louis though, got tagged with a lot of shots.

Louis had the power and technique to hurt anyone he hit, look at his record, he beat down the 6'6" Buddy baer like a bitch and the monstrous Abe Simon.

Check you figures, James. Louis optimum weight was 198[3/4]