Joe Fraziers legacy?

[yancey]

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.

I can just visualize poor old Giancarlo jumping up and down and trying to convince his son that Manila was the seminal moment and here was Ali and Joe at their best.

Show the lad the FOTC, bubblehead. That was the one that counted.

Manila was freaking slow motion.

btw, Ali definitely wanted out in that one. Fitch should have sent Joe out for the 15th.

[HomicideHenry]

Norton "equally great"?

That absurdity disqualifies the rest of your post.

Prime Frazier would have run prime Norton out the building.

Norton, in truth, defeated Ali two out of three. Frazier won one of three. Norton was equally as great. Besides that, one can argue Norton had the better resume. He beat Quarry, he kayoed previously undefeated Duane Bobick, etc. The only real 'stain' on his career was being blown out in two rounds, the same as Joe was against Foreman.

[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.

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.

How old and deluded do you have to be to believe that stuff? The rise of the athletic, skilled, big man probably only arrived in the 1990's! These people you refer to are just big bums.

[HomicideHenry]

How old and deluded do you have to be to believe that stuff? The rise of the athletic, skilled, big man probably only arrived in the 1990's! These people you refer to are just big bums.

Granted, I would probably say the first heavyweight that built his career in dominating fashion early on, much in the same way fighters do today, was Joe Louis. In his first year or two as a heavyweight, he defeated giant Primo Carnera and Max Baer in ten rounds total. Louis in every sense of the word is a legitimite heavyweight, and his development is equal to anyone today. Now, with Dempsey it took several years to do so. One can argue, possibly, that from the 1930s onward prizefighters went from being fighters to athletes (in the modern sense), considering previous to that era men fought whomever they could and got ranked on sheer volume of wins rather than by merit of beating equally great opponents. Then again, there is that other mindset (which I do lean towards) that life was tougher in those times than now, and one couldn't whip a farmer in a fist fight let alone last with a boxer back then. Guys today can rest for several months between fights, whereas in those times you were put to the fire on a regular basis and were essentially toughened up.

As time has went on, one can argue that toughness/power/durability has decreased while reflexes/speed has increased. I don't think no one today could have the same kind of staying power as the older fighters could, cus athlete or not, someone would be essentially burned out by the time they were in their early 30's. That's why I hold some men like Archie Moore so highly, for being in well over 100 fights and being a threat to two different divisions in his forties. There is no one today who is comparable to that kind of success/work rate.

[polecateddy]

How old and deluded do you have to be to believe that stuff? The rise of the athletic, skilled, big man probably only arrived in the 1990's! These people you refer to are just big bums.

Granted, I would probably say the first heavyweight that built his career in dominating fashion early on, much in the same way fighters do today, was Joe Louis. In his first year or two as a heavyweight, he defeated giant Primo Carnera and Max Baer in ten rounds total. Louis in every sense of the word is a legitimite heavyweight, and his development is equal to anyone today. Now, with Dempsey it took several years to do so. One can argue, possibly, that from the 1930s onward prizefighters went from being fighters to athletes (in the modern sense), considering previous to that era men fought whomever they could and got ranked on sheer volume of wins rather than by merit of beating equally great opponents. Then again, there is that other mindset (which I do lean towards) that life was tougher in those times than now, and one couldn't whip a farmer in a fist fight let alone last with a boxer back then. Guys today can rest for several months between fights, whereas in those times you were put to the fire on a regular basis and were essentially toughened up.

As time has went on, one can argue that toughness/power/durability has decreased while reflexes/speed has increased. I don't think no one today could have the same kind of staying power as the older fighters could, cus athlete or not, someone would be essentially burned out by the time they were in their early 30's. That's why I hold some men like Archie Moore so highly, for being in well over 100 fights and being a threat to two different divisions in his forties. There is no one today who is comparable to that kind of success/work rate.

Rise tinted glasses much? Just because people fought more rounds (at a slower pace) and more often does not in anyway equal superior conditioning/speed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again ...it is simply not credible that every other quantifiable sport has dramatically improved in speed, distance, weight lifted, or whatever. And because boxing can't be measured in such a fashion it just opens the door for such nostalgic, delusional thinking!

[HomicideHenry]

How old and deluded do you have to be to believe that stuff? The rise of the athletic, skilled, big man probably only arrived in the 1990's! These people you refer to are just big bums.

Granted, I would probably say the first heavyweight that built his career in dominating fashion early on, much in the same way fighters do today, was Joe Louis. In his first year or two as a heavyweight, he defeated giant Primo Carnera and Max Baer in ten rounds total. Louis in every sense of the word is a legitimite heavyweight, and his development is equal to anyone today. Now, with Dempsey it took several years to do so. One can argue, possibly, that from the 1930s onward prizefighters went from being fighters to athletes (in the modern sense), considering previous to that era men fought whomever they could and got ranked on sheer volume of wins rather than by merit of beating equally great opponents. Then again, there is that other mindset (which I do lean towards) that life was tougher in those times than now, and one couldn't whip a farmer in a fist fight let alone last with a boxer back then. Guys today can rest for several months between fights, whereas in those times you were put to the fire on a regular basis and were essentially toughened up.

As time has went on, one can argue that toughness/power/durability has decreased while reflexes/speed has increased. I don't think no one today could have the same kind of staying power as the older fighters could, cus athlete or not, someone would be essentially burned out by the time they were in their early 30's. That's why I hold some men like Archie Moore so highly, for being in well over 100 fights and being a threat to two different divisions in his forties. There is no one today who is comparable to that kind of success/work rate.

Rise tinted glasses much? Just because people fought more rounds (at a slower pace) and more often does not in anyway equal superior conditioning/speed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again ...it is simply not credible that every other quantifiable sport has dramatically improved in speed, distance, weight lifted, or whatever. And because boxing can't be measured in such a fashion it just opens the door for such nostalgic, delusional thinking!

Therein lies your own answer. It can't be measured, so where is your basis for your stances on a sport that cant be measured?

[The Great John L]

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

Wow. You missed Bonavena (twice), Chuvalo (when he was arguably at his best) and Bugner.

No, he didn't fight Norton, but he had more world class HW scalps on his resume than Foreman, who seems to now be anointed by everyone as a demi-god.

[The Great John L]

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.

Very nicely stated.

[Ezzard]

I imagine Joe on his best night beating up the great boxers… Corbett, Johnson, Tunney, Walcott, Ali, Holmes…

A fast starting puncher could get him out early.

But what if they didn’t?

What if Tyson or Foreman blew their load in the first 3 rounds and they hadn’t detonated their best shots… Seems to me the fight really only started for Frazier after the first 6 minutes after which he just got stronger and stronger…

Against a prime Frazier I think Foreman and the other punchers have 4 maybe 5 rounds…else they lose…

[zorndeslammes]

Rise tinted glasses much? Just because people fought more rounds (at a slower pace) and more often does not in anyway equal superior conditioning/speed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again ...it is simply not credible that every other quantifiable sport has dramatically improved in speed, distance, weight lifted, or whatever. And because boxing can't be measured in such a fashion it just opens the door for such nostalgic, delusional thinking!

Most sports can't be measured like that. No one has Red Grange's 40 time or vertical leap. It is just assumed based on the footage that exists that the old time guys wouldn't be competitive. That being said, seriously, George Mikan wouldn't make an NBA squad today and all the great pitchers of the deadball era would have a brutal time trying to blow fastballs by today's hitters.

[The Great John L]

One can argue, possibly, that from the 1930s onward prizefighters went from being fighters to athletes (in the modern sense), considering previous to that era men fought whomever they could and got ranked on sheer volume of wins rather than by merit of beating equally great opponents.

And what do you base this on? Could you provide some examples?

[The Great John L]

Rise tinted glasses much? Just because people fought more rounds (at a slower pace) and more often does not in anyway equal superior conditioning/speed.

Well, yes some did fight at a slower pace, however that's not always the case. Watch the Ali-Frazier FOTC and tell me they're fighting at a "slower pace" than "modern" HWs. And watch their energy level in the last round of a high energy fight compared to just about any round of any current HW title fight. Guys like Armstrong and Marciano could fight at a frenetic pace for 15 rounds and be quite fresh at the end, as could most of the ATGs. And the same is true of the very best non HWs today, but today they aren't fighting monthly as was done many decades ago.

But as you noted, if a fight is scheduled for 25-40 rounds, fighters usually fought at a more tempered pace in order to survive. Of course, in general, they also fought a lot more frequently.

[Ezzard]

My issue with these arguments are that drivers aren't better because today's cars are faster. Einstein wasn't a fool because he didn't know how to use Google.

So even if I am generous and say yes, you're right, they're real athletes today... So what?

[man]

My issue with these arguments are that drivers aren't better because today's cars are faster. Einstein wasn't a fool because he didn't know how to use Google.

So even if I am generous and say yes, you're right, they're real athletes today... So what?

hohoho, that was some post ...

[The Great John L]

Norton, in truth, defeated Ali two out of three. Frazier won one of three. Norton was equally as great. Besides that, one can argue Norton had the better resume. He beat Quarry, he kayoed previously undefeated Duane Bobick, etc. The only real 'stain' on his career was being blown out in two rounds, the same as Joe was against Foreman.

Really? Norton beat Ali one out of three, and I do realize that the 3rd fight could have been Nortons, but the age and physical nature of Al, Frazier and Norton had much to do with the fact that a younger, prime Norton was able to show so well, while the partially blind Frazier was stopped in Manilla.

And if you think the rest of Nortons resume is comparable to Fraziers, you need to brush up on your boxing son. Fraziers got Bonavena x2, prime Chuvalo, Ellis x2, Bugner, Quarry (prime, not the 10 day replacement that Norton beat) as well as the older Quarry. And then check Nortons resume for top ranked HWs, because it's pretty thin. He's got Quarry and Ali, but if you don't want to give Ali credit for the 3rd Norton fight then I don't think you can give Norton the Young fight. Beyond that there's not much more than a fair list of fringe guys who may have been ranked but it was short term and likely not deserved. The guys I mentioned that Frazier beat were all top ten for multiple years.

And yes, Norton beat Bobick. Do you really want to go there?

[Giancarlo]

Show the lad the FOTC, bubblehead. That was the one that counted.

Manila was freaking slow motion.

btw, Ali definitely wanted out in that one. Fitch should have sent Joe out for the 15th.

If you believe that, then you have no idea what you are seeing.

My son has seen FOTC - He was very impressed with Frazier. Like you, he is only a novice fan but he was big on Frazier. Then we watched Foreman - Frazier (1)...

Can you remind me what the granberry position is on that?

Wasn't it some nonsense that Frazier was well past his best and, even then, George had to cheat to win?

[HomicideHenry]

One can argue, possibly, that from the 1930s onward prizefighters went from being fighters to athletes (in the modern sense), considering previous to that era men fought whomever they could and got ranked on sheer volume of wins rather than by merit of beating equally great opponents.

And what do you base this on? Could you provide some examples?

Most of the fighters of the 1920s and prior had excessively huge records, most of which against relative unknowns and novices. Mind you RING magazine wasn't created until the mid 1920's and state commissions didn't have no ranking system either. Reputation was built not just on performance, but by sheer volume (with most fighters). Case in point, Dempsey had almost 50 fights prior to Jess Willard. Sure there we good fighters among those, like Fred Fulton, Willie Meehan, Jim Flynn, Carl Morris, Gunboar Smith, etc. but a good majority were part-timers whose names have disappeared into the history books forever as mere footnotes. Go further back, especially in the 19th century and prior, alot of fighters fought regional champions or complete uknowns and those fights were lost to history.

This tradition in a sense was further bellied in the early days of television. In those times, just like with professional wrestling, each state generally had two-three stations that covered fights in the local areas. To get recognised, one had to not only be the best in their region, but go state to state to build a reputation, and most of these fights were generally with weak or average competition. Take a look at Archie Moore's record, for example, and you will see a man who fought an awful lot of questionable opponents in between his legendary opponents. Or if you're not satisfied, look at someone like Lamar Clark, whose reputation was built on sheer volume against whomever was available to him. Fighting nearly 50 bums and pro debuters got him a chance at Ali.

Jimmy Wilde is another good example of this, as most of his opponents are unknowns. Course, Wilde also lived in the day and age of the fighting booths/carnivals where many a match went unrecognised and forgotten.

[The Great John L]

One can argue, possibly, that from the 1930s onward prizefighters went from being fighters to athletes (in the modern sense), considering previous to that era men fought whomever they could and got ranked on sheer volume of wins rather than by merit of beating equally great opponents.

And what do you base this on? Could you provide some examples?

Most of the fighters of the 1920s and prior had excessively huge records, most of which against relative unknowns and novices. Mind you RING magazine wasn't created until the mid 1920's and state commissions didn't have no ranking system either. Reputation was built not just on performance, but by sheer volume (with most fighters). Case in point, Dempsey had almost 50 fights prior to Jess Willard. Sure there we good fighters among those, like Fred Fulton, Willie Meehan, Jim Flynn, Carl Morris, Gunboar Smith, etc. but a good majority were part-timers whose names have disappeared into the history books forever as mere footnotes. Go further back, especially in the 19th century and prior, alot of fighters fought regional champions or complete uknowns and those fights were lost to history.

This tradition in a sense was further bellied in the early days of television. In those times, just like with professional wrestling, each state generally had two-three stations that covered fights in the local areas. To get recognised, one had to not only be the best in their region, but go state to state to build a reputation, and most of these fights were generally with weak or average competition. Take a look at Archie Moore's record, for example, and you will see a man who fought an awful lot of questionable opponents in between his legendary opponents. Or if you're not satisfied, look at someone like Lamar Clark, whose reputation was built on sheer volume against whomever was available to him. Fighting nearly 50 bums and pro debuters got him a chance at Ali.

Jimmy Wilde is another good example of this, as most of his opponents are unknowns. Course, Wilde also lived in the day and age of the fighting booths/carnivals where many a match went unrecognised and forgotten.

A good many of the names that have disappeared because of poor record keeping, not because they weren't good fighters. And the guys you mentioned that Dempsey beat prior to winning the title is only a partial list of the top guys that he beat, and even they represent a better resume than all but a few HWs had in the entire careers during the past few deacdes.

C'mon, you're minimizing accomplishments because of incomplete records? And your description of the 50's with regional and state titkles made the sport better. Again many of those records are incomplete.

And your mention of Clark is pretty lame, because he's the poster child of manufactured records and not at all representative of boxing prior to that time. In fact, he's more like the beginning of modern boxing, because pretty much all HW challengers are bereft of decent opposition in their records prior to them cashing out against a Klitschko.

[polecateddy]

I think how one of these old timers against say Vitali would probably play out like the Adamek fight. Barring in mind Adamek probably follows are very modern training schedule and must be on a truck load of modern training supplements.

[yancey]

Show the lad the FOTC, bubblehead. That was the one that counted.

Manila was freaking slow motion.

btw, Ali definitely wanted out in that one. Fitch should have sent Joe out for the 15th.

If you believe that, then you have no idea what you are seeing.

My son has seen FOTC - He was very impressed with Frazier. Like you, he is only a novice fan but he was big on Frazier. Then we watched Foreman - Frazier (1)...

Can you remind me what the granberry position is on that?

Wasn't it some nonsense that Frazier was well past his best and, even then, George had to cheat to win?

Frazier was indeed clearly past his best for the first Foreman fight and George did indeed use illegal tactics in his win.

That said, I have consistently said I make '73 Foreman a favorite over any version of Frazier because of the style matchup. Therefore, that means he would not necessarily have to cheat to win.

But you have always got to twist my thoughts just like you go in and change my posts.

Here is hoping your son grows up to be a better man than you appear to be.

[BoxBuzz]

Show the lad the FOTC, bubblehead. That was the one that counted.

Manila was freaking slow motion.

btw, Ali definitely wanted out in that one. Fitch should have sent Joe out for the 15th.

If you believe that, then you have no idea what you are seeing.

My son has seen FOTC - He was very impressed with Frazier. Like you, he is only a novice fan but he was big on Frazier. Then we watched Foreman - Frazier (1)...

Can you remind me what the granberry position is on that?

Wasn't it some nonsense that Frazier was well past his best and, even then, George had to cheat to win?

Frazier was indeed clearly past his best for the first Foreman fight and George did indeed use illegal tactics in his win.

That said, I have consistently said I make '73 Foreman a favorite over any version of Frazier because of the style matchup. Therefore, that means he would not necessarily have to cheat to win.

But you have always got to twist my thoughts just like you go in and change my posts.

Here is hoping your son grows up to be a better man than you appear to be.

Yancey, really, genuinely, honestly, Joe was not going to go out and win that fight had his corner allowed him to go on, also, Ali was not going to leave that fight without the "W". It was not going to happen.....on that day, the rubber match was Ali's. Regardless of any action taken by the other corner.


Futch's decision does allow us to ponder it and postulate the "what ifs" .....and that was Eddie's GIFT to Joe. A gift Joe never valued.

But one he did open, and use as a conversation piece from time to time.

[yancey]

Buzz, really, genuinely, honestly, I respect your opinion and think of you as a great man.

On the other hand, I reflect back to the opinion of the great Gil Clancy who called Futch's "gift" to Frazier as the greatest mistake in boxing he had ever seen.

Clancy's rationale was that Ali was absolutely exhausted on his stool at the end of the 14th and Joe should have been at least sent out for the 15th. Clancy felt that one good shot from Joe very likely would have been curtains for the Lip.

I agree with Mr. Clancy.

[BoxBuzz]

ok....but as the record shows...you (as did Gil) do have a dog in this race.....

I really do see this side, and I suppose even great minds can have differences. lol

I think Ali's "dramatic exhaustion" was his "tip of the stetson" so to speak to a man he came to respect over those 30 plus rounds they shared. Not that he wasn't spent, but his adrenaline and ego would have sustained him for 3 more minutes, and I'm honestly thinkin it would have been Joe not Muhammad that had the greater chance of sustaining either an injury, fall, or KO over the course.

Joe was groping in the dark, his eyesight pretty compromised, Futch could not bare to see that last round play out. Or let Joe experience it. He sacraficed his friendship to help his friend.

[NYDominican]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



yancey, I see all of your points which you typed up regarding Joe Frazier having matches against Joe Louis, Evander Holyfield and George Foreman. I can't really add anything. You summed up those hypothetical match ups perfectly.


Joes first fight against Jerry Quarry. -------- Had this been the Joe who showed up to fight George Foreman in their first match up in Kingston, Jamaica. ------- Had Joe gotten inside of Georges punching radius. Had Joe attached himself to Foremans chest. Had Joe really imposed his will upon George. ------- Do you see Joe Frazier beating George Foreman?




Thanks for wishing me a good day. Likewise.

[NYDominican]

man -------


You said "a fight with marciano or dempsey would have been terrific". -------- Oh yeah. Big time.


A prime Joe Frazier against a prime Rocky Marciano. How do you see this fight going?


What advantages (If any) would Joe have over Rocky?


What advantages (If any) would Rocky Marciano have over Joe Frazier?


Who would win this fight? Why?



A prime Joe Frazier against a prime Jack Dempsey. How do you see this fight going?


What advantages (If any) would Joe have over Jack?


What advantages (If any) would Jack Dempsey have over Joe Frazier?


Who would win this fight? Why?