Tyson Fury vs Joe Fraizer

Gringo180 wrote: »

Is this the same Joe Frazier that sparked Muhammed Ali out? Frazier would have Fury dead and buried inside 3 rounds no doubt about it.

Yeah the romantic fairytale version would, in reality he probably wouldn't land 1 clean punch in a 12 round fight

cowzerp wrote: »

Frazier would be a journey man now for gods sake, he's a small man with very limited skills and got obliterated when he fought a big man who isn't as big as todays big men, Ali wouldn't be the top now either but his title of greatest is fine by me, once in context


This romantic nonsense of old boxers shows up peoples actual understanding of Boxing, just like clowns who think Marciano would be a top 20 fighter theses days, total fairytales

What ?, you mean John L. Sullivan still couldn't ''Lick any son of a bitch in the house'' ?, blasphemy !!!

HigginsJ wrote: »

Has to look up this chap, moustache alone gives him a shot against any heavyweight

Love this report (if accurate) of his fight against an Irish fighter Paddy Ryan:

"In the 2nd round, Sullivan landed a perfectly timed counter punch to drop his fading opponent and, when Ryan got up, put him down twice more before the close of the round. Ryan fought a brave fight and came out for the 3rd, but had nothing left. He was devastated by a right hand and floored twice more before the police interrupted"

That'll be a newspaper report and probably won't have much reason for bias, so will likely be accurate. It was not uncommon for police to stop fights at the time, boxing was outright illegal in some states, while discouraged and considered unsocial in most others. Nevertheless its popularity meant laws against it were as unenforceable as prohibition became many years later.

Ryan was from Thurles, and was apparently a fine fighter during the days of London Prize-Ring Rules. The change to Marquess of Queensberry rules did not suit him very well, and despite being well known and getting big fights, he was no longer a top fighter.
So I think under London prize ring rules, Ryan beats both Frazier & Fury...

I would consider this an insult to the memory of joe frazier to be compared with the likes of fury

barney4001 wrote: »

I would consider this an insult to the memory of joe frazier to be compared with the likes of fury

Who's comparing them?

One_More_Mile wrote: »

Joe Frazier would destroy Fury.

With those left hooks that would be missing by yards?

Diddley Squat wrote: »

Joe Frazier -

I think he wins through attrition

Very vague reason!

thierry14 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you agree that a young Mike Tyson would be able to ko Fury.

Mike is even smaller than Frazier in height and reach, why would Frazier not be able to ko Fury then?

He's been down against Cunningham, Pajkic and a few others, none of them with much ko power and all alot shorter.

I'll refer you to my earlier post. Mike Tyson was not smaller than Frazier and his physique was far more impressive, he was a lot stronger and a hell of a lot faster. He also had a ridiculously elusive defence and threw combos which contained a variety of debilitating punches. Mike Tyson would annihilate Frazier.

I've great time for Frazier, but he was a man of his time.

Littlehorny wrote: »

Why don't we look at this debate another way. How would Fury fair if he was operating in the 70s? If he didn't have modern sports science, nutrition and training. I guess my question is if Fury fought Frazier in 1973 or 4, who would win?

Look, modern science and diet cannot take away from the fact that he is 6 feet 9 and 250 lbs. It's a silly analogy IMO. 70s or today he beats the stuffing from Frazier. Really, what is Fury doing today as regards training that is so much more advanced and superior than what the best 70s HWs were doing?

There are IMO 70s HW men who would be competitive today. The main point with Fury and a few others today is their ridiculous physical advantages, not their boxing skills and ring generalship, as good as it may be or not be.

That is why they are better than many of the smaller HW men today, and why I feel they would be too good for the smaller men from the 70s.

The same with the Klits. They are not somehow technically superior to all the past HW men. They are two vey big and athletic and technically good HW fighters. Their clear advantage over the 70s is NOT their technical skills or ring generalship alone, it's a combination of that, and their size. Their size and physicality is the main difference between them and Norton and Foreman and Frazier and Ali and Shavers and Holmes and others.

Littlehorny wrote: »

Yeah the Klitchko's are one thing , but Fury? Come on, he is no good. Just a huge, strong, game fella. He once hit himself in a fight for god's sake. Steve Cunnigham was a cruiserweight champ and he had Fury is loads of trouble. The KO of Cunnigham was illegal as well. he lifted Cunnigham's head up with left arm and hit him with his right.
He just looks like a big slob to me sometimes imo.

I didn't mean to imply that Fury was equal or really comparable to the Klits. It was more the size and physicality. And, Fury presents even more size and physicality than them. So although they are superior technicians and boxers, he makes up for it somewhat with his size, making it massively difficult for the likes of Frazier.