Jimmy Ellis -A "Real" Champion?

[Goodnight, Irene]

It didn't take a peak Frazier to relieve Ellis of his title --- that just happened to be the fellow who did it.

Want proof a lesser man would have turned the trick? Watch an old Patterson do it, but get jobbed on the cards.

Old Patterson is a lesser man than peak Frazier.

[Ambling Alp]

dempseyfire wrote "I don't see how in the absence of Ali, you can crown a HW champ without fighting Frazier. I don't get the logic."

That bothers me as well. On the other hand, the WBA did invite Frazier to be in the tournament and he declined. The WBA really had no choice but to stage the tournament without him. It's not Ellis' fault that Frazier didn't participate. Ellis beat the guys necessary to win the title; and that's all that he could do.

There are several things that bother me about Ellis being regarded as a true champion. However, if you go through them one by one, you can make legitimate to counter them.

[dempseyfire]

It didn't take a peak Frazier to relieve Ellis of his title --- that just happened to be the fellow who did it.

Want proof a lesser man would have turned the trick? Watch an old Patterson do it, but get jobbed on the cards.

Old Patterson is a lesser man than peak Frazier.

Not a robbery (see earlier thread)

[My2Sense]

If you don't consider the Ellis champion, then Frazier didn't win the title until beat Ali, which seems a little silly.

Not really, you could regard the Frazier-Ellis match as an eliminator for the "real" title between the two top-rated men in the division, which is how I look at it. It was not simply a case of Ellis being the champion and Frazier the challenger. They were both only belt-holders at the time, neither the unified champ, and their fight unified the title.

Having said that, Ellis is definitely one of the better partial belt-holders in heavyweight history. As said, he had to battle his way through a tough elimination tournament, had very impressive wins against Martin and Bonavena (both of whom were favored over him), and beat fellow semi-finalist Quarry to get what recognition he had. He wasn't given a "set up" elimination fight, the way Terrell had been (against a used up Machen, who had lost his last fight), and the way a lot of other paper chumps are. He worked hard to earn his share of the title and he deserves respect for that.

[Angelo]

Ellis was a legitimate Champion based on his wins in that heavyweight tournament. Frazier chose not to compete. The idea that it had to do with contractual rights, etc. might be valid, but that hardly matters. Eight of the top heavyweights in the world at the time signed on for it and Joe didn't. Frazier was odd man out and he and his management decided to forego the title, at least temporarily, by not competing. Ellis beat live fighters and became a bonafide Champion. In my opinion, he was far more legitimate than, for example, Ken Norton. I guess my opinion is tainted because I believe Jimmy Young beat Norton in that "eliminator" bout that eventually was used by the WBA in naming a Champion. Be that as it may, by virtue of fighting everyone they put in front of him, Holmes legitimized himself as Champion after decisioning Norton.
Back to Ellis: Participating in that tournament and having to beat a few contenders in a short amount of time was hard work. It was a nice luxury for Frazier to sit out the tourney and wait for everyone to punch themselves out, then face the winner. It also strikes me as odd that in an era when every contender ended up fighting just about every other contender, Frazier somehow missed Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers and Jimmy Young, among others. Look at Ali's record to see how a true Champion faces anyone and everyone. Frazier's management navigated the field very carefully, especially after Foreman blew him out. Where was Shavers? Where was Lyle? Frazier beat some very good fighters and he had the amazing trilogy with Ali, winning one of those. But I have to question why some of these fights DIDN'T take place.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Ellis was a legitimate Champion based on his wins in that heavyweight tournament. Frazier chose not to compete. The idea that it had to do with contractual rights, etc. might be valid, but that hardly matters. Eight of the top heavyweights in the world at the time signed on for it and Joe didn't. Frazier was odd man out and he and his management decided to forego the title, at least temporarily, by not competing. Ellis beat live fighters and became a bonafide Champion. In my opinion, he was far more legitimate than, for example, Ken Norton. I guess my opinion is tainted because I believe Jimmy Young beat Norton in that "eliminator" bout that eventually was used by the WBA in naming a Champion. Be that as it may, by virtue of fighting everyone they put in front of him, Holmes legitimized himself as Champion after decisioning Norton.
Back to Ellis: Participating in that tournament and having to beat a few contenders in a short amount of time was hard work. It was a nice luxury for Frazier to sit out the tourney and wait for everyone to punch themselves out, then face the winner. It also strikes me as odd that in an era when every contender ended up fighting just about every other contender, Frazier somehow missed Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers and Jimmy Young, among others. Look at Ali's record to see how a true Champion faces anyone and everyone. Frazier's management navigated the field very carefully, especially after Foreman blew him out. Where was Shavers? Where was Lyle? Frazier beat some very good fighters and he had the amazing trilogy with Ali, winning one of those. But I have to question why some of these fights DIDN'T take place.

- Might not have to ask the question if you just removed your blinders.

If Ellis or Frazier had been Mr. Larry, no unification would've taken place and they could've run out 20+ title defenses. Moreover, in case you didn't get the email, every belt holder, ""by virtue of fighting everyone they put in front of him, they legitimize themselves as Champion after beating the champion"" in the same class of Mr. Larry.

Indeed, where was Lyle, Young, Foreman on Mr. Larry's record, not to mention too many others to pile on an obvious point? You crack of Joe's careful management after the Foreman blowout, but Joe had some major health issues as he struggled to regain form really starting after the Ali fight.

When were Lyle and Shavers viable contenders? Shavers never beat a fighter of note until a fast fading Ellis in 73, but then is blasted out in 1 rd by Quarry in his next fight. He draws with a fast improving prospect Young in 74, and then blasted out by Lyle in 75. He gets a title shot with Ali in spite of never having beaten any top contender save maybe Ellis who wasn't doing more than coasting on his name after Ali routed him in 71.

In short, Shavers was no more viable than Terry Daniels in 72, a fighter Joe picked to shake some rust off and test his health in. Joe then fought Standers, Foreman, Bugner, Quarry, Ali, Ellis, Ali, and Foreman, and retires. Don't see how Shavers really figures in to a fine competitive schedule like that. A fading Ellis that seems to be Ernie's biggest win is the only gimmee, and that was to set up the Thrilla.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You can't expect Frazier, with his style, to have the sort of longevity Ali enjoyed. With that in mind, a shorter career equates to fewer fights, & this fewer opportunities to face all contenders of the day. Post-Jamaica, Heavyweights weren't clamouring for a fight with a perceived-to-be fading Frazier, either, to anywhere near the extent they were with Ali, following his Zaire triumph.

Unfair comparison. Frazier ducked nought.