Joe Frazier vs Mike Tyson

[hhaehre]

What type of swarmer/pressure fighter did he ever fight? Holyfield flung him around inside like a rag doll. That wasn't Mike's prime, but the vast difference in their physical strength could be telling.

Holyfield was awesome on the inside , not by hitting his opponent but by using his height, body strength, and leverage to outwrestle his opponent and prevent him from doing any damage. That's how he frustrated and beat Tyson. In what fight did Frazier do that?

In what fight did Frazier not do well on the inside is a more approriate question. I know Frazier did not employ the same tactics as Holyfield on the inside but who beat Frazier when the battle was fought at close quarters? No one, that's who.

[ThatOne]

What type of swarmer/pressure fighter did he ever fight? Holyfield flung him around inside like a rag doll. That wasn't Mike's prime, but the vast difference in their physical strength could be telling.

Holyfield was awesome on the inside , not by hitting his opponent but by using his height, body strength, and leverage to outwrestle his opponent and prevent him from doing any damage. That's how he frustrated and beat Tyson. In what fight did Frazier do that?

In what fight did Frazier not do well on the inside is a more approriate question. I know Frazier did not employ the same tactics as Holyfield on the inside but who beat Frazier when the battle was fought at close quarters? No one, that's who.

SaafOffTheDeck stated that Holyfield beat Tyson by throwing him around the ring like a rag doll which is true at least imho. I then asked what opponent Frazier did that to. The answer is zero. That's not saying Frazier wasn't a great inside fighter because he was the greatest if not one of the greatest. But his forte was not outmuscling his opponent or using his strength and leverage which appeared to be average to subdue them. Frazier's greatest assets were his slipping ability, endurance, and heart not his strength and leverage.

[ThatOne]

I don't inlclude Williams and McBride in my analysis of Tyson because he was shot.

If you look at Tyson's losses or subpar performances ( by subpar I mean boxers he didn't lay out which was his sine qua non) they came at the hands of Tillis, Lewis, Douglas, and Holyfield. The former all boxed him and kept him at bay or partially at bay with a stiff jab. Holy beat him by outwrestling him. Even Bonecrusher Smith frustrated Tyson by outwrestling or tieing him up. Too bad he did little else.

So, Tyson's losses or subpar performances came at the hands of opponents who outboxed him or successfully tied him up. I think the evidence clearly suggests nether was Frazier's forte. Frazier won his matches by applying relentless pressure which worked against most opponents. He did not win his matches by outboxing his opponents or outmuscling them.

Tyson was a great, great, great mid range fighter. Frazier was a great, great, great inside fighter. Frazier is going to have to eat a lot of leather to get inside Tyson and Tyson for all his flaws, real and imagined, could apply the leather.

People in this thread are picking Joe because of the intangibles and that's why I can't predict the winner with anything approaching unwavering conviction.

I stand by original analysis or prediction that "Tyson has to get him early or not at all which is a distinct possibility."

[hhaehre]

Holyfield was awesome on the inside , not by hitting his opponent but by using his height, body strength, and leverage to outwrestle his opponent and prevent him from doing any damage. That's how he frustrated and beat Tyson. In what fight did Frazier do that?

In what fight did Frazier not do well on the inside is a more approriate question. I know Frazier did not employ the same tactics as Holyfield on the inside but who beat Frazier when the battle was fought at close quarters? No one, that's who.

SaafOffTheDeck stated that Holyfield beat Tyson by throwing him around the ring like a rag doll which is true at least imho. I then asked what opponent Frazier did that to. The answer is zero. That's not saying Frazier wasn't a great inside fighter because he was the greatest if not one of the greatest. But his forte was not outmuscling his opponent or using his strength and leverage which appeared to be average to subdue them. Frazier's greatest assets were his slipping ability, endurance, and heart not his strength and leverage.

Sure, but I think what Holyfield did vs. Tyson is hardly a blueprint for beating a prime Tyson. Holyfield physically exhausted Tyson by manhandling him and because Tyson at that stage was pretty one dimentional coming in Holyfield did not pay the price. Tyson was never a great inside fighter. Once Frazier was on the inside he'd be fine against Tyson, it's getting there without tasting leather that would be the problem.

[ThatOne]

In what fight did Frazier not do well on the inside is a more approriate question. I know Frazier did not employ the same tactics as Holyfield on the inside but who beat Frazier when the battle was fought at close quarters? No one, that's who.

SaafOffTheDeck stated that Holyfield beat Tyson by throwing him around the ring like a rag doll which is true at least imho. I then asked what opponent Frazier did that to. The answer is zero. That's not saying Frazier wasn't a great inside fighter because he was the greatest if not one of the greatest. But his forte was not outmuscling his opponent or using his strength and leverage which appeared to be average to subdue them. Frazier's greatest assets were his slipping ability, endurance, and heart not his strength and leverage.

Sure, but I think what Holyfield did vs. Tyson is hardly a blueprint for beating a prime Tyson. Holyfield physically exhausted Tyson by manhandling him and because Tyson at that stage was pretty one dimentional coming in Holyfield did not pay the price. Tyson was never a great inside fighter. Once Frazier was on the inside he'd be fine against Tyson, it's getting there without tasting leather that would be the problem.

We agree. Look at my editied version. To get inside of Tyson you are going to have to eat a lot of leather and he hit as hard any hw in history when you include the hit/miss factor.

Where we
might disagree is that I think any Tyson can be effectively tied up

[ThatOne]

IMHO, the blueprint for beating Tyson is to get a big, tall, strong, quick, durable fighter who can move and keep Tyson at bay with a stiff jab. And when that fails that fighter needs to tie Tyson up. Eventually Tyson will physically or mentally tire, thus providing an opening.


Or a monster with a long reach like George Foreman who will wallop him as tries to get inside.

[hhaehre]

SaafOffTheDeck stated that Holyfield beat Tyson by throwing him around the ring like a rag doll which is true at least imho. I then asked what opponent Frazier did that to. The answer is zero. That's not saying Frazier wasn't a great inside fighter because he was the greatest if not one of the greatest. But his forte was not outmuscling his opponent or using his strength and leverage which appeared to be average to subdue them. Frazier's greatest assets were his slipping ability, endurance, and heart not his strength and leverage.

Sure, but I think what Holyfield did vs. Tyson is hardly a blueprint for beating a prime Tyson. Holyfield physically exhausted Tyson by manhandling him and because Tyson at that stage was pretty one dimentional coming in Holyfield did not pay the price. Tyson was never a great inside fighter. Once Frazier was on the inside he'd be fine against Tyson, it's getting there without tasting leather that would be the problem.

We agree. Look at my editied version. To get inside of Tyson you are going to have to eat a lot of leather and he hit as hard any hw in history when you include the hit/miss factor.

Where we
might disagree is that I think any Tyson can be effectively tied up

Well Bonehugger did it effectivly but of course he never tried to win, just survive. I think whether Tyson could be tied up or not is a mute point when it comes to Frazier as Joe did not fight like that. The crux imo is whether Frazier could get inside without being knocked out and I would rate his chances of doing that at 50-50.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

What type of swarmer/pressure fighter did he ever fight? Holyfield flung him around inside like a rag doll. That wasn't Mike's prime, but the vast difference in their physical strength could be telling.

Holyfield was awesome on the inside , not by hitting his opponent but by using his height, body strength, and leverage to outwrestle his opponent and prevent him from doing any damage. That's how he frustrated and beat Tyson. In what fight did Frazier do that?

LMAO, do you seriously consider this an answer to a question?

But to answer yours, Joe Frazier was a very strong man and a tremendous in fighter. Mike Tyson was a weak in-fighter and I'm questioning whether he had the physical strength to push Frazier back which is something he would need to do to win. Ok?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Holyfield was awesome on the inside , not by hitting his opponent but by using his height, body strength, and leverage to outwrestle his opponent and prevent him from doing any damage. That's how he frustrated and beat Tyson. In what fight did Frazier do that?

In what fight did Frazier not do well on the inside is a more approriate question. I know Frazier did not employ the same tactics as Holyfield on the inside but who beat Frazier when the battle was fought at close quarters? No one, that's who.

SaafOffTheDeck stated that Holyfield beat Tyson by throwing him around the ring like a rag doll which is true at least imho. I then asked what opponent Frazier did that to. The answer is zero. That's not saying Frazier wasn't a great inside fighter because he was the greatest if not one of the greatest. But his forte was not outmuscling his opponent or using his strength and leverage which appeared to be average to subdue them. Frazier's greatest assets were his slipping ability, endurance, and heart not his strength and leverage.

Actually, you stated that Tyson had no issue with swarmers and were asked to name some he faced. It appears we are just going to pretend you never said it but I'd still love an answer.

Just a few names will do, no need to write a novel or quote Ernest Hemingway.

[ThatOne]

Actually, you stated that Tyson had no issue with swarmers and were asked to name some he faced. It appears we are just going to pretend you never said it but I'd still love an answer.

-SaadOffTheDeck



I guess we are to the point of discussing "what is is" This is what I said


"That being said it was usually boxers that confounded Tyson not swarmers/presure fighters." . That is the truth. You should have asked me to elaborate then I would have said "That being said it was usually boxers that confounded Tyson not swarmers/presure fighters. The veridct is still out as Tyson never faced a pressure fighters"

In other words we know the blueprint for beating Mike Tyson. That is what I stated. Are there other blueprints ?We dont know. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

I am sorry if I didn't convey my thoughts clearly enough. The gentlemanly thing to do would have asked me to elaboarate but I guess that is out of character for some.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

There was nothing abrasive about my question. You were twice asked to elaborate by naming some swarmers that he fought. but as per usual, you have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Just offering your own long winded opinions that usually have nothing to do with the thread at hand.

I'll just assume your answer is Mike never faced a decent swarmer/pressure fighter and therefore your statement carried no meaning to this match up.

[ThatOne]

There was nothing abrasive about my question. You were twice asked to elaborate by naming some swarmers that he fought. but as per usual, you have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Just offering your own long winded opinions that usually have nothing to do with the thread at hand.

I'll just assume your answer is Mike never faced a decent swarmer/pressure fighter and therefore your statement carried no meaning to this match up.

Where was I abrasive?

You mocked my answer. I am a gentlemanly and respectful debater. We have no idea how Tyson would do against a pressure fighter because he never faced one. We do know that boxers with a stiff jab troubled him to varying extents.

And Holy did use leverage, strength, and a height advantage to tie him up.

Tyson was a tremendous mid range fighter. How much leather is Joe willing to and can eat to get inside? Answer that and you have your winner.


This is what I meant. I regret you were unable to understand it:



Boxers who operated behind a stiff jab troubled Tyson the most. That is not Frazier's forte.


I will concede that he never fought anybody with Frazier's skill set so we were left to surmise, infer, predict, et ctera how he is going to do.


And since my dad was a Golden Gloves fighter and my uncle was a professional fighter there are obviously boxers who interest me beside Ali. (That was in response to the part you edited out about be being only interested in discussing Ali)

[SaadOffTheDeck]

There was nothing abrasive about my question. You were twice asked to elaborate by naming some swarmers that he fought. but as per usual, you have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Just offering your own long winded opinions that usually have nothing to do with the thread at hand.

I'll just assume your answer is Mike never faced a decent swarmer/pressure fighter and therefore your statement carried no meaning to this match up.

Where was I abrasive?

You mocked my answer. I am a gentlemanly and respectful debater. We have no idea how Tyson would do against a pressure fighter because he never faced one. We do know that boxers with a stiff jab troubled him to varying extents.

And Holy did use leverage, strength, and a height advantage to tie him up.

Tyson was a tremendous mid range fighter. How much leather is Joe willing to and can eat to get inside? Answer that and you have your winner.

You weren't called abrasive, you just made an inane post. that's not a criminal offense. How tyson fared against Boxers is irrelevant here. The fact that he never faced a swarmer is quite relevant

Frazier would be willing to walk through an army to get inside. That isn't even a question. There is a chance that tyson catches him coming in and finishes him.Imo it's more likely that Joe weathers some early trouble and begins to back Tyson up where he was useless at any range. Once that starts happening it's not a matter of who, but how.

[ThatOne]

Saad- This is what I said up thread.


"Tyson has to get him early or not at all which is a distinct possibility..."


-ThatOne

So much bandwith on a point we agree on. Que sera, sera

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yup, so sorry to have asked you a simple question that wasted up a page of space.

[dempseyfire]

There was nothing abrasive about my question. You were twice asked to elaborate by naming some swarmers that he fought. but as per usual, you have no interest in carrying on a conversation. Just offering your own long winded opinions that usually have nothing to do with the thread at hand.

I'll just assume your answer is Mike never faced a decent swarmer/pressure fighter and therefore your statement carried no meaning to this match up.

Where was I abrasive?

You mocked my answer. I am a gentlemanly and respectful debater. We have no idea how Tyson would do against a pressure fighter because he never faced one. We do know that boxers with a stiff jab troubled him to varying extents.

And Holy did use leverage, strength, and a height advantage to tie him up.

Tyson was a tremendous mid range fighter. How much leather is Joe willing to and can eat to get inside? Answer that and you have your winner.

You weren't called abrasive, you just made an inane post. that's not a criminal offense. How tyson fared against Boxers is irrelevant here. The fact that he never faced a swarmer is quite relevant

Frazier would be willing to walk through an army to get inside. That isn't even a question. There is a chance that tyson catches him coming in and finishes him.Imo it's more likely that Joe weathers some early trouble and begins to back Tyson up where he was useless at any range. Once that starts happening it's not a matter of who, but how.

The above anlysis is spot on. Tyson of course has a chance to end it early but out of 3 fights I'd favor Frazier to win at least two.

People keep talking about how Frazier was physically not strong, which is a crock. If Frazier, who had tree trunk legs and lower body built from doing manual field labor from childhood, was so weak in terms of body strength, the likes of Chuvalo, Bonavena and Ali, all incredibly strong men, would've backed Frazier up to the ropes and bullied him instead of being forced to retreat.