BoxRec

hhaehre wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

hhaehre wrote: He came in on a weeks notice and put Holyfield on the floor. To suggest with certainty that Tyson could not knock out Holyfield is absurd.

Why? Because he was stopped by Bowe with hepatitis or Toney at 41?

Right, because without hepatitis, a hardened heart, age or what have you, Holyfield was actually knockout proof. You may like Holyfields chances vs. a prime Tyson (I don't) but to categorically dismiss a Tyson victory is foolish to say the least.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: You like Frazier over Foreman & tyson over Holyfield and I'm absurd? Ok

Yes you are absurd if you don't think Holyfield could possibly suffer a ko at the hands of a prime Tyson.
In case you get tired of making things up, this is what I actually wrote on Frazier-Foreman.

hhaehre wrote:Foreman had Fraziers number and I don't think it would have been different with a prime Frazier. Somkin Joe would have to take Foreman deep into the fight to succeed but I fear he would not last more than 5 rounds or so, even in his prime.

I'm absurd and you're delusional. Tyson fans are a rare breed. When did his prime so abruptly end? I know, when he lost his first fight at 24, Evander was next and Mike wouldn't have had even an inkling of a prayer. Nope, not a punchers chance, Holyfield was his daddy, then and forever.

Hilarious that talk centers around Mike's "prime" and the fact that Holyfield was diminished and brought in as cannon fodder is now lost in the shuffle. Whatever makes me you feel good.

Hilarious that talk centers around Mike's "prime" and the fact that Holyfield was diminished and brought in as cannon fodder is now lost in the shuffle.

Thankyou

Collins2000 wrote:"yancey" is still shilling away for his frazier.

Ol' Curly, the village bubble head. ;;-)

yancey wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:"yancey" is still shilling away for his frazier.

I'm Ol' Curly, the village bubble head. ;;-)

Keep shilling for your frazier, boy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:If every defense was mike tyson, Holyfield would break Joe Louis record.

- If everyone ate as much canvas as Saad Still Splotto on the Deck, they's all be as daft as you.

If Mr. Field thought Tyson was so easy, he would've gotten on his vitamins from the gitgo and skipped the cushy cruiser gig. If everyone took their vitamins, they'd all beat Tyson, but they didn't.

Durned shame about your boy being one of the most beatable heavy champs out there. Must've been a bad batch of vitamins he got that hardened his heart, gave him hep and unification syndrome.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:If every defense was mike tyson, Holyfield would break Joe Louis record.

- If everyone ate as much canvas as Saad Still Splotto on the Deck, they's all be as daft as you.

If Mr. Field thought Tyson was so easy, he would've gotten on his vitamins from the gitgo and skipped the cushy cruiser gig. If everyone took their vitamins, they'd all beat Tyson, but they didn't.

Durned shame about your boy being one of the most beatable heavy champs out there. Must've been a bad batch of vitamins he got that hardened his heart, gave him hep and unification syndrome.

Well said!!!Someone needs to take apart these biased ignorant retards.
I love these pathetic Holyfield fanboys.

And there you have it, an unbiased view point from two masters of the Sweet Science.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And there you have it, an unbiased view point from two masters of the Sweet Science.

If you wish to read an unbiased view point from several masters of the Sweet Science,i can post again the text where almost everyone among legendary trainers rate Tyson above Holyfield.

I don't wish to read anything you post, but thanks for the offer.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't wish to read anything you post, but thanks for the offer.

Not me,legendary coaches and boxing historians.

Ali in March 71 may have slowed in terms of foot speed, but he was undoubtedly as fast in terms of hand speed, and was physically stronger than prior to his exile. Because his feet were that bit slower he sat down on his punches more and actually hit harder. Therefore I dont really feel that he was any worse in March 71 than he was in 67. Ali fans should accept that when Ali and Frazier met and both were closest to their primes, Frazier won fair and square. Talking of primes, I feel that Fraziers prime was the first Quarry fight, so when they met in 71 Ali and Frazier were about level.

McCannW14 wrote:Ali in March 71 may have slowed in terms of foot speed, but he was undoubtedly as fast in terms of hand speed, and was physically stronger than prior to his exile. Because his feet were that bit slower he sat down on his punches more and actually hit harder. Therefore I dont really feel that he was any worse in March 71 than he was in 67. Ali fans should accept that when Ali and Frazier met and both were closest to their primes, Frazier won fair and square. Talking of primes, I feel that Fraziers prime was the first Quarry fight, so when they met in 71 Ali and Frazier were about level.

Excellent!

Someone who understands the TRUE dynamics of the FOTC. I'm impressed.

You are exactly right, Frazier's true prime was around that 1969 time era.

I think Frazier's prime is inclusive of both bouts (Quarry & Ali I), but you guys are arguing he was slightly past-it when he first met Ali?

Can't support that, myself

Joe Frazier is a great fighter and he might have beat just about any hw in history on 3/8/71 but he could never beat George Foreman. He's all wrong for him. The scenarios where some of you guys have him beating Foreman strain credulity.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I think Frazier's prime is inclusive of both bouts (Quarry & Ali I), but you guys are arguing he was slightly past-it when he first met Ali?

Can't support that, myself

Yes, Frazier was slightly past it for the '71 fight with Ali. Definite health issues going into that fight, too.

GI, you would agree that swarmers like Frazier would tend to have shorter primes than the fancy dans, right?

ThatOne wrote:Joe Frazier is a great fighter and he might have beat just about any hw in history on 3/8/71 but he could never beat George Foreman. He's all wrong for him. The scenarios where some of you guys have him beating Foreman strain credulity.

Also find it hard to agree with the notion some people subscribe to that Frazier would have likely beaten any HW in history that night, Foreman aside.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Joe Frazier is a great fighter and he might have beat just about any hw in history on 3/8/71 but he could never beat George Foreman. He's all wrong for him. The scenarios where some of you guys have him beating Foreman strain credulity.

Also find it hard to agree with the notion some people subscribe to that Frazier would have likely beaten any HW in history that night, Foreman aside.

What other ATGS beat a prime Frazier?

You're asking who I'd favour head-to-head over him?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You're asking who I'd favour head-to-head over him?

At his peak. I can't think of many.

I like...

Dempsey
Louis
Liston
Ali
Foreman
Tyson

...to start as favourites against Frazier. You've also got swing fights (somewhat dependent on conditions) with Jeffries, Marciano, & Bowe. There are then several fights more against other greats where I would only make Frazier a slight (or fairly slight) favourite going in.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I like...

Dempsey
Louis
Liston
Ali
Foreman
Tyson

...to start as favourites against Frazier. You've also got swing fights (somewhat dependent on conditions) with Jeffries, Marciano, & Bowe. There are then several fights more against other greats where I would only make Frazier a slight (or fairly slight) favourite going in.

That's not that big a list. I don't think Holmes beats prime Frazier. Look at all the trouble a past it Norton gave him. I think Frazier swarms Liston. I'll give you Foreman. I think Ali fought a stupid fight. When he wasn't sticking and moving, he should have been holding; like in their second fight.

Louis didn't like swarmers. Don't know about Dempsey. Tyson's fragile psyche makes him suspect against a fighter who doesn't fear him and Joe wouldn't have feared him.

What about Jeffries, Marciano, & Bowe, do you think?

Those fights might hinge on the conditions for the bout. I can see Frazier giving all three absolute hell, & all three reciprocating for Frazier.

On account of his style &, to a lesser extent, certain limitations, I can't think of a legitimate all-time great Heavy who Frazier would defeat easily, & without taking something of a beating.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:What about Jeffries, Marciano, & Bowe, do you think?

Those fights might hinge on the conditions for the bout. I can see Frazier giving all three absolute hell, & all three reciprocating for Frazier.

I think Frazier is an improved version of Marciano and Tyson when he had his head on right was an improved version of both on them.

Don't know about Jeffries; Frazier's work rate is too much for Bowe. The more I watch him the more amazed I am by him. He doesn't take a moment off.

Frazier's style like Rocky's lent itself to absorbing a lot of punishment but he usually prevailed. I think he catchs up with a lot of the greats in the final rounds. I just think against Foreman he ain't getting into (no) later rounds.

No, he doesn't. There was a moment in one fight, I forget the opponent, but the fight ran late, & they were about to commence one of the rounds. The look on the guys' face, who had been busy throughout the bout, seemed to convey, "Still tickin' huh?" as Frazier came forward again. 180 seconds of every round --- that was Joe

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I like...

Dempsey
Louis
Liston
Ali
Foreman
Tyson

...to start as favourites against Frazier. You've also got swing fights (somewhat dependent on conditions) with Jeffries, Marciano, & Bowe. There are then several fights more against other greats where I would only make Frazier a slight (or fairly slight) favourite going in.

Man, would I like to get some of that Dempsey-Frazier action.

Joe would wind up punching Dempsey into a senseless coma.