Joe Fraziers legacy?

[NYDominican]

For professional boxings rankings. -----


Do you think that Joe Frazier should rank somewhere in the top 5?


If not the top 5, within the top 10?


Joes 2 losses to Muhammad Ali. Joes 2 losses to George Foreman. ---- Do you think that this knocks Joe out of contention for him to rank within the top 10?


If not within the top 10, somewhere within the top 15?


If not somewhere within the top 15, where do you think that Frazier should rank?



Please explain why.

[yancey]

For professional boxings rankings. -----


Do you think that Joe Frazier should rank somewhere in the top 5?


If not the top 5, within the top 10?


Joes 2 losses to Muhammad Ali. Joes 2 losses to George Foreman. ---- Do you think that this knocks Joe out of contention for him to rank within the top 10?


If not within the top 10, somewhere within the top 15?


If not somewhere within the top 15, where do you think that Frazier should rank?



Please explain why.

I generally have Frazier around 5 or 6.

The prime version of Frazier, which actually predates the FOTC a bit, would be an extremely hard matchup for those heavies generally placed above him.

OTOH, Joe's career and prime was not all that long, which seems typical of the swarmer style.

[NYDominican]

For professional boxings rankings. -----


Do you think that Joe Frazier should rank somewhere in the top 5?


If not the top 5, within the top 10?


Joes 2 losses to Muhammad Ali. Joes 2 losses to George Foreman. ---- Do you think that this knocks Joe out of contention for him to rank within the top 10?


If not within the top 10, somewhere within the top 15?


If not somewhere within the top 15, where do you think that Frazier should rank?



Please explain why.

I generally have Frazier around 5 or 6.

The prime version of Frazier, which actually predates the FOTC a bit, would be an extremely hard matchup for those heavies generally placed above him.

OTOH, Joe's career and prime was not all that long, which seems typical of the swarmer style.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



yancey, a few statements. A few questions. ----


1. I see your point about Joe ranking around #6. I'm in agreement.


Who would you list at #5 to #1?



2. Joe started off his professional boxing career back in August, 1965. Fraziers fight against Bob Foster was back in November, 1970.


Which year, or years would you say was Joe at his prime?


Back in 1968?


Back in 1969?


Back in 1970?


Or, from early 1968 till late 1970?

[NYDominican]

yancey ---- A couple more statements. A couple more questions.


3. Right after Joes first fight against Muhammad Ali. Till the very end of his professional career. ---

Do you think that Fraziers boxing style encompassed more of a "slugger style"?



4. A prime Joe Frazier against George Foreman.


Do you think that a prime Joe (Joe from 1967-1969) going against the George Foreman from the time frame of 1969 till 1977. --- That a prime Frazier could have won?


Do you think that a prime Joe (Joe from 1967-1969) going against the George Foreman from the time frame of 1987 till 1997. ---- That a prime Frazier could have won?



Or, do you think that George Foremans size, strength, punching power & slugger style. At any time throughout Georges professional career. Foremans professional career from 1969 till 1977. Also, Georges pro career from 1987 till 1997. ---- Would always have been too much for even a prime Joe Frazier?

[yancey]

For professional boxings rankings. -----


Do you think that Joe Frazier should rank somewhere in the top 5?


If not the top 5, within the top 10?


Joes 2 losses to Muhammad Ali. Joes 2 losses to George Foreman. ---- Do you think that this knocks Joe out of contention for him to rank within the top 10?


If not within the top 10, somewhere within the top 15?


If not somewhere within the top 15, where do you think that Frazier should rank?



Please explain why.

I generally have Frazier around 5 or 6.

The prime version of Frazier, which actually predates the FOTC a bit, would be an extremely hard matchup for those heavies generally placed above him.

OTOH, Joe's career and prime was not all that long, which seems typical of the swarmer style.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



yancey, a few statements. A few questions. ----


1. I see your point about Joe ranking around #6. I'm in agreement.


Who would you list at #5 to #1?



2. Joe started off his professional boxing career back in August, 1965. Fraziers fight against Bob Foster was back in November, 1970.


Which year, or years would you say was Joe at his prime?


Back in 1968?


Back in 1969?


Back in 1970?


Or, from early 1968 till late 1970?

NY,

Don't have much time, but here are my thoughts. I have Louis, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, and sometimes (depending upon my mood) Evander Holyfield ahead of Joe in the rankings. That is not to say they would have beaten prime Joe, but they did have longer peaks and that has to be factored. I personally think prime Joe probably survives Louis early and breaks him down. He is at pick-em with Ali. He wears on that big body of Holmes, gets under that jab and wins by late stoppage. Holyfield would have been a hell of a war, but my $$$ would be on Smoke. Only against '73 Foreman would I make Frazier the underdog. This is because of the terrible style matchup of smaller swarmer wading in against an extremely powerful slugger. Still, and I have been ridiculed by people with comprehension issues like Giancarlo for this, but I would give '69 Joe about a 35-40% chance of surviving those extremely scary first few few rounds with Foreman, attaching himself to George's chest and ultimately breaking Foreman's will. In fact, in that scenario, I suspect the end would come fairly quickly in the 8th round or so with Big George collapsing in a heap of unviable tissue mass. Frazier HAS to get inside GF's punching radius early and Foreman's illegal pushing and shoving moves cannot be allowed to happen.

Finally, I have Frazier's peak as probably the first Quarry fight. He showed his best movement, imo, in that fight. My favorite fight is the Manuel Ramos fight, which showed Joe as the buzz saw he was. He shook off that big right uppercut and at the end of the 2nd Ramos wanted the hell out of MSG. ;;-)

Have a good day.

[Hairy Arse]

Top ten sounds about right. Always been quite underrated with regards to his actual in-ring skills.

[man]

i always felt he was (slightly) overrated due to knowing
ali's number by heart.

a fight with marciano or dempsey would have been terrific.
i for one don't see him able to take on a prime holmes or lewis.
prime tyson would have been hagler-hearns at heavy. he is
borderline top ten for me. i just miss the top wins on his
resume aside of FOTC and this is not outbalanced by long
reign or dominance. he is for me the ATG most difficult to
judge and i tend to think he gets too much credit as an ATG
for his courage in the thrilla.

[elmersalsa]

Back in the 20th century rankings, Smokin' Joe was a top 50 great p4p in my view. He is still definately a top 10 heavyweight of all-time. His victory over the great Muhammad Ali cemented that, and I think most of the guys in this forum agree with this. It was the most anticipated fight of the 20th century, and he won FAIR AND SQUARE. His left hook was legendary, and when it came to battles of attrition, he was the ultimate warrior. A TRUE WARRIOR. Only two guys beat him at heavyweight, and that was when he was not in his prime. He was the Ring Fighter of the Year 3 times: 1967, 1970 and 1971. All well deserved. No doubt. And besides the Ali win, he has other great wins: Jimmie Ellis (He beat him twice by KO), Oscar Bonavena, Bob Foster (a total mismatch that Foster got almost decapitated), Jerry Quarry (twice by KO, the first fight, a classic and brutal slugsfest), George Chuvalo, Buster Mathis, Joe Bugner, and he also stopped top veterans like Eddie Machen and Doug Jones when he only had 11 and 12 fights respectively.

Made 9 successful world title defenses between the NY World and the World Heavyweight championships. Ten in all. An all-time great? Definately in my book. Great legacy? Yes!...Guys like him do not come into boxing very often. Amen.

[yancey]

Back in the 20th century rankings, Smokin' Joe was a top 50 great p4p in my view. He is still definately a top 10 heavyweight of all-time. His victory over the great Muhammad Ali cemented that, and I think most of the guys in this forum agree with this. It was the most anticipated fight of the 20th century, and he won FAIR AND SQUARE. His left hook was legendary, and when it came to battles of attrition, he was the ultimate warrior. A TRUE WARRIOR. Only two guys beat him at heavyweight, and that was when he was not in his prime. He was the Ring Fighter of the Year 3 times: 1967, 1970 and 1971. All well deserved. No doubt. And besides the Ali win, he has other great wins: Jimmie Ellis (He beat him twice by KO), Oscar Bonavena, Bob Foster (a total mismatch that Foster got almost decapitated), Jerry Quarry (twice by KO, the first fight, a classic and brutal slugsfest), George Chuvalo, Buster Mathis, Joe Bugner, and he also stopped top veterans like Eddie Machen and Doug Jones when he only had 11 and 12 fights respectively.

Made 9 successful world title defenses between the NY World and the World Heavyweight championships. Ten in all. An all-time great? Definately in my book. Great legacy? Yes!...Guys like him do not come into boxing very often. Amen.

[polecateddy]

Are people ranking him on ability or achievement. Obviously the latter would mean a higher ranking. On the ability the harsh reality is that 30-40, perhaps more heavies could have outboxed him. He was a tiny heavyweight in modern terms.

[elmersalsa]

Say what? with that pressure? The great Muhammad Ali could not do it. Jimmy Ellis a good boxer, could not outbox him. Neither Buster Mathis. In his prime, not too many fighters could outbox him. That pressure, man. That suffocating pressure that Smokin' Joe had was off the chain!

[hhaehre]

Are people ranking him on ability or achievement. Obviously the latter would mean a higher ranking. On the ability the harsh reality is that 30-40, perhaps more heavies could have outboxed him. He was a tiny heavyweight in modern terms.

Ali couldn't outbox him but 30-40 others could?

[BoxBuzz]

Frazier was the Harry Greb of his time. Seriously he was a windmill that did not get winded.

And until his vision was pretty well compromised he never lost a fight. Only when he could not see to avoid heavy incoming was he bested, and even then he just kept getting back up. Sort of like the REAL old days....have to wonder how he'd do in a 50 rounder. lol.

He would have gotten back up in Manilla, though to sit it out was the wiser choice...imposed on him by a guy he forever held a grudge against after the fact. There was NO quit in this guy.

I don't understand how anyone can undercut his abilities or his achievements.

[polecateddy]

Judging by what Foreman did to him on two occasions, it would be very short-sighted to suggest only 5 or so other heavies in history couldn't have done the same thing.

[yancey]

Frazier was the Harry Greb of his time. Seriously he was a windmill that did not get winded.

And until his vision was pretty well compromised he never lost a fight. Only when he could not see to avoid heavy incoming was he bested, and even then he just kept getting back up. Sort of like the REAL old days....have to wonder how he'd do in a 50 rounder. lol.

He would have gotten back up in Manilla, though to sit it out was the wiser choice...imposed on him by a guy he forever held a grudge against after the fact. There was NO quit in this guy.

I don't understand how anyone can undercut his abilities or his achievements.

Very well said, Buzz.

[dempseyfire]

Judging by what Foreman did to him on two occasions, it would be very short-sighted to suggest only 5 or so other heavies in history couldn't have done the same thing.

Foreman was also a top 10 HW and one of the strongest/hardest hitting HWs ever with a great chin which gave him confidence to be aggressive vs Frazier. He also knew how to throw a proper uppercut, which your beloved K brothers don't. But I'm sure in PCteddy's world Tyson Fury would have Frazier's number . . .

I could see him anywhere from #5 through #8. Packed up a great resume in a short amount of time, and was an absolute terror for HWs to fight, never giving you breathing room and who actually got stronger (stared 'smoking') in the middle rounds when most guys start tiring. Also at his peak had excellent head movement. Out of the great HW pressure fighters (Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson) I'd put him just behind Dempsey as Jack has a better right hand and better footwork.

[polecateddy]

No point arguing with a true believer. I'm neither a K brothers fan or a Fury fan, above the interest of a normal boxing fan. I grew up watching Bruno and was a fan of Lennox. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. Foreman of the 1970's was clearly quite robotic and predictable, and I don't personally feel that style would have prospered against Vitali Klitschko. And just as a aside, Foreman generally looked great against smaller fighters. Certainly against Ron Lyle he started to realise his bullying approach wasn't always going to win through, even though he did come through that fight as a winner. In today's boxing climate he wouldn't be a me to bully his way through.

[Giancarlo]

No one can seriously argue against Joe being a top 10 heavy of all time.

Coincidentally I re-watched The Thrilla in Manila last weekend with my son who has just started following the noble art. That nonsense granberry (and Little Gran) used to spout about Futch The Traitor is fekkin nonsense. By Round 14 Ali was well ahead and could not miss poor old Joe with the old one-two and it was getting very painful to watch. Unless you were some sort of sadistic buffoon, of course.

[polecateddy]

If we have Joe at his peak beating Ali, he was barely over 14 stone, (okay 14 and a half). Simply put that is too small to tackle today's giants. No doubt lots of Frazier fans will cry blue murder. And yes, Holyfield, Tyson and Haye operate well at just over 15 stone. But Frazier was 14 stone at his peak. And in reality probably barely 5'11''. And he was never exactly ripped with it. Reality=too small!

[The Great John L]

If we have Joe at his peak beating Ali, he was barely over 14 stone, (okay 14 and a half). Simply put that is too small to tackle today's giants. No doubt lots of Frazier fans will cry blue murder. And yes, Holyfield, Tyson and Haye operate well at just over 15 stone. But Frazier was 14 stone at his peak. And in reality probably barely 5'11''. And he was never exactly ripped with it. Reality=too small!

Well, Dr. Steelhammer was dropped and wobbled by a tall, skinny journeyman with horrible foot speed who was only slightly heavier than Frazier, so it's hardly a stretch to think that Joe would have had a decent chance of beating him. Yes, TOS was much taller than Joe, but Joe was light years faster, which I think could easily makes up for the lack of height.

I do know that was the mere novice Wlad of only 28yo, but it did show that a realtively small HW could hurt him. Of course TOS does represent the ever evolving modern HW so maybe that explains it. Of course my old eyes can't recognize the vastly better skills of the modern TOS as compared to the "vintage" Frazier, but I'm sure that the more astute posters on here can.

[HomicideHenry]

With the exception of the win over Ali in 1970, there isn't exactly a moment in Frazier's career in which I say to myself 'Holy shit he really was a dominate heavyweight.' Let's face it, Ali made his career, and turned him into a legend. Outside of those three fights, he was dismantled by Foreman twice, failed to meet Norton at all, and one can point out that maybe his best win was against Jerry Quarry. Sure, Chuvalo is on that list, but it was an older George. Bob Foster simply didn't have the chin to be a real heavyweight, etc. Jimmy Ellis and Mathis both were good, yes, but they were not anything special.

If heart and toughness alone made someone great, then Frazier was it. There was no quit in this man, and he would go to the ends of the earth to try and avenge his losses to Ali. But even Ali said that Marciano was better than Frazier, and alot of people think Dempsey was better than Marciano. So Joe really wasn't the best of the swarmers, and in a way (outside of facing an older, slower, Ali) he never exactly proved his mettle with an equally great opponent being as he was destroyed by Foreman.

I have him in the top 15, but not in the top 10. I have Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Langford and the Klitschko brothers in the top 11. Frazier sits somewhere between Tyson, Schmeling, Tunney, etc. Now granted, I've said it many a time, imho anyone in the top 20 on any given night, could beat anyone else in the top 20 so it isnt really a big drawback against Frazier because when you are that high up, you are only seperated by a hair's width from the rest.

Reasons Why Frazier Doesn't Make The Top Ten

Short Championship Reign

His legacy is built on the Ali trilogy and little else

Failed To Meet Other Equally Great Opponents (Norton)

H2H (IMHO) how many see Frazier coming out on top against others in the topn ten? Very few.

What Keeps Him in The Top 15?

The Ali trilogy (will forever be the first man to defeat Ali)

Gold Medal Winner in The Olympics (it minutely helps him)

Wins over Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, and Bob Foster

Tireless puncher, with unbelievable conditioning and heart that overcame physically superior opponents; this is all the more incredible considering he was essentially a one-handed fighter

[yancey]

Frazier will never, ever be forgiven by Ali fans for beating their hero in the FOTC.

That was the most important moment and fight in both their careers and Smoke prevailed.

[yancey]

With the exception of the win over Ali in 1970, there isn't exactly a moment in Frazier's career in which I say to myself 'Holy poo he really was a dominate heavyweight.' Let's face it, Ali made his career, and turned him into a legend. Outside of those three fights, he was dismantled by Foreman twice, failed to meet Norton at all, and one can point out that maybe his best win was against Jerry Quarry. Sure, Chuvalo is on that list, but it was an older George. Bob Foster simply didn't have the chin to be a real heavyweight, etc. Jimmy Ellis and Mathis both were good, yes, but they were not anything special.

If heart and toughness alone made someone great, then Frazier was it. There was no quit in this man, and he would go to the ends of the earth to try and avenge his losses to Ali. But even Ali said that Marciano was better than Frazier, and alot of people think Dempsey was better than Marciano. So Joe really wasn't the best of the swarmers, and in a way (outside of facing an older, slower, Ali) he never exactly proved his mettle with an equally great opponent being as he was destroyed by Foreman.

I have him in the top 15, but not in the top 10. I have Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Langford and the Klitschko brothers in the top 11. Frazier sits somewhere between Tyson, Schmeling, Tunney, etc. Now granted, I've said it many a time, imho anyone in the top 20 on any given night, could beat anyone else in the top 20 so it isnt really a big drawback against Frazier because when you are that high up, you are only seperated by a hair's width from the rest.

Reasons Why Frazier Doesn't Make The Top Ten

Short Championship Reign

His legacy is built on the Ali trilogy and little else

Failed To Meet Other Equally Great Opponents (Norton)

H2H (IMHO) how many see Frazier coming out on top against others in the topn ten? Very few.

What Keeps Him in The Top 15?

The Ali trilogy (will forever be the first man to defeat Ali)

Gold Medal Winner in The Olympics (it minutely helps him)

Wins over Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, and Bob Foster

Tireless puncher, with unbelievable conditioning and heart that overcame physically superior opponents; this is all the more incredible considering he was essentially a one-handed fighter

Norton "equally great"?

That absurdity disqualifies the rest of your post.

Prime Frazier would have run prime Norton out the building.

[polecateddy]

With the exception of the win over Ali in 1970, there isn't exactly a moment in Frazier's career in which I say to myself 'Holy poo he really was a dominate heavyweight.' Let's face it, Ali made his career, and turned him into a legend. Outside of those three fights, he was dismantled by Foreman twice, failed to meet Norton at all, and one can point out that maybe his best win was against Jerry Quarry. Sure, Chuvalo is on that list, but it was an older George. Bob Foster simply didn't have the chin to be a real heavyweight, etc. Jimmy Ellis and Mathis both were good, yes, but they were not anything special.

If heart and toughness alone made someone great, then Frazier was it. There was no quit in this man, and he would go to the ends of the earth to try and avenge his losses to Ali. But even Ali said that Marciano was better than Frazier, and alot of people think Dempsey was better than Marciano. So Joe really wasn't the best of the swarmers, and in a way (outside of facing an older, slower, Ali) he never exactly proved his mettle with an equally great opponent being as he was destroyed by Foreman.

I have him in the top 15, but not in the top 10. I have Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Langford and the Klitschko brothers in the top 11. Frazier sits somewhere between Tyson, Schmeling, Tunney, etc. Now granted, I've said it many a time, imho anyone in the top 20 on any given night, could beat anyone else in the top 20 so it isnt really a big drawback against Frazier because when you are that high up, you are only seperated by a hair's width from the rest.

Reasons Why Frazier Doesn't Make The Top Ten

Short Championship Reign

His legacy is built on the Ali trilogy and little else

Failed To Meet Other Equally Great Opponents (Norton)

H2H (IMHO) how many see Frazier coming out on top against others in the topn ten? Very few.

What Keeps Him in The Top 15?

The Ali trilogy (will forever be the first man to defeat Ali)

Gold Medal Winner in The Olympics (it minutely helps him)

Wins over Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, and Bob Foster

Tireless puncher, with unbelievable conditioning and heart that overcame physically superior opponents; this is all the more incredible considering he was essentially a one-handed fighter

This is a well written post, but geez what is it with people saying oldies like Langford, and Tunney and Dempsey could compete with today's heavies? Come on, transport them in a time machine into today's scene and they'd get nowhere. Most would have to be cruisers. And even then probably lacked the skills and fitness to beat say a Huck.

[HomicideHenry]

With the exception of the win over Ali in 1970, there isn't exactly a moment in Frazier's career in which I say to myself 'Holy poo he really was a dominate heavyweight.' Let's face it, Ali made his career, and turned him into a legend. Outside of those three fights, he was dismantled by Foreman twice, failed to meet Norton at all, and one can point out that maybe his best win was against Jerry Quarry. Sure, Chuvalo is on that list, but it was an older George. Bob Foster simply didn't have the chin to be a real heavyweight, etc. Jimmy Ellis and Mathis both were good, yes, but they were not anything special.

If heart and toughness alone made someone great, then Frazier was it. There was no quit in this man, and he would go to the ends of the earth to try and avenge his losses to Ali. But even Ali said that Marciano was better than Frazier, and alot of people think Dempsey was better than Marciano. So Joe really wasn't the best of the swarmers, and in a way (outside of facing an older, slower, Ali) he never exactly proved his mettle with an equally great opponent being as he was destroyed by Foreman.

I have him in the top 15, but not in the top 10. I have Holmes, Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Lewis, Holyfield, Foreman, Langford and the Klitschko brothers in the top 11. Frazier sits somewhere between Tyson, Schmeling, Tunney, etc. Now granted, I've said it many a time, imho anyone in the top 20 on any given night, could beat anyone else in the top 20 so it isnt really a big drawback against Frazier because when you are that high up, you are only seperated by a hair's width from the rest.

Reasons Why Frazier Doesn't Make The Top Ten

Short Championship Reign

His legacy is built on the Ali trilogy and little else

Failed To Meet Other Equally Great Opponents (Norton)

H2H (IMHO) how many see Frazier coming out on top against others in the topn ten? Very few.

What Keeps Him in The Top 15?

The Ali trilogy (will forever be the first man to defeat Ali)

Gold Medal Winner in The Olympics (it minutely helps him)

Wins over Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, and Bob Foster

Tireless puncher, with unbelievable conditioning and heart that overcame physically superior opponents; this is all the more incredible considering he was essentially a one-handed fighter

This is a well written post, but geez what is it with people saying oldies like Langford, and Tunney and Dempsey could compete with today's heavies? Come on, transport them in a time machine into today's scene and they'd get nowhere. Most would have to be cruisers. And even then probably lacked the skills and fitness to beat say a Huck.

Idk about Tunney, but Langford and Dempsey were giant killers. Dempsey destroyed men who were 6'5" and taller, 240 pounds and heavier almost reguarly on the way up and Langford often fought men as tall as 6'8" and 280 pounds and knocked them out. The only difference between then and now, is that the money is greater, the promoters deadlock the industry, and the organisations dont want unification cus that cuts into their pockets. Big men= big targets.