Joe Frazier vs. Tyson Fury

[Ambling Alp II]

As for some points brought up:

Frazier weighed more than 195.
Just because there aren't many small heavyweights currently, doesn't mean that their should not be. There all sorts of trends in in sports (currently and throughout history) that don't make sense.

Yes the Cunningham fight counts, because guess what? It happened. You can't just pretend that it didn't. It's relevant because it's against a guy who weighed a similar amount to Frazier; only wasn't only nowhere near his ability.
I'm glad that someone's that realize size only takes you so far. There seems to be some people who don't grasp this at all.
Not sure who USS is?
Not exactly sure what Bob Fitzsimmons had to do with this.

Look, Frazier was a lot better than Fury. It should be pretty obvious by simply watching their fights. Fury never fought anyone that would this kind of pressure on him; or anyone close to this level. Can't we just use common sense here?

[margaret thatcher]

USS is Cunn's nickname, guess you're a bit of a newb ? btw, if there's anyone who should have a win over Fury it's 260 pound John McDermott lol, not Cunningham or Wilder

Serious question though, lhws today are often around 6'0- 6'2 and weigh around 190 on fight night, should we be looking for the next hw stars among them instead of the bigger bois? do they have the optimal size or pretty much optimal size to succeed at hw?

[Cojimar 1946]

As for some points brought up:

Frazier weighed more than 195.
Just because there aren't many small heavyweights currently, doesn't mean that their should not be. There all sorts of trends in in sports (currently and throughout history) that don't make sense.

Yes the Cunningham fight counts, because guess what? It happened. You can't just pretend that it didn't. It's relevant because it's against a guy who weighed a similar amount to Frazier; only wasn't only nowhere near his ability.
I'm glad that someone's that realize size only takes you so far. There seems to be some people who don't grasp this at all.
Not sure who USS is?
Not exactly sure what Bob Fitzsimmons had to do with this.

Look, Frazier was a lot better than Fury. It should be pretty obvious by simply watching their fights. Fury never fought anyone that would this kind of pressure on him; or anyone close to this level. Can't we just use common sense here?

Fitzsimmons and his ilk are relevant because what applies in one era does not necessarily apply to other eras.

You seem to fell that Frazier's success in the 1960s and 1970s somehow indicates he would enjoy the same success today. However, that logic seems flawed. In Frazier's day nobody Fury's size ever cracked the top 10. To believe that Fury is no better than the giants of Frazier's day you have to believe in the 70s he would never crack the top 10 and lose to the likes of Henry Clark and Larry Middleton.

And since were concerned with what happened in prior eras, by your logic doesn't the success of middleweights like Greb and Fitzsimmons indicate that its reasonable to pick middleweights over top heavyweights? Back in the day, middleweights like Greb, Fitzsimmons, etc were capable of beating top heavyweights. If what happened in the 1960s and 1970s is relevant to todays heavyweight scene than why not the 1890s or the 1910s, etc?

[Ambling Alp II]

Frazier's era was much better than today's era. Frazier was at or the near the top during that time. There he would be in a weaker era. I base this how good the fighter's were; it deosn't matter what the scales say.

You are cherry picking with Middleton and Clark. They were in the top 10 briefly. Rankings are always a fluid situation. Fighters only fight 2 or 3 times a years and contenders avoid each other. That happens all the time boxing; a guy is in the top 10 for a year, maybe two and then disappears when he starts losing to contenders.

Fitzsimmons and Greb were capable of beating a lot of heavyweights. They were extraordinary fighters who could compete bigger fighters. We know this because it happened. There are always exceptions in sport. Charles Barkley was a better rebounder than 99.99 of 7 footers. How did Jimmy Connors win so many tennis matches?

170 is not ideal for a heavyweight. Either is 270.
Again, if you can find some real world examples where really big heavyweights beat great fighters under 200, name them. So far, I have only ever been able to come up with two.

Fury is not going to win a decision. He doesn't have the power to stop him. Frazier was relentless and had power. He would simply break him down.

As for marge; if we start seeing smaller heavyweights that we currently have, if they have talent they will do well.

[mikeinmaine]

Dont forget Rocky M 5'10 185 49- 0

[mikeinmaine]

Frazier was 5. 11 205, great fighter, but 205. Lets not forget what the Grill man did to him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fury ain't no George Foreman.

[Onetimeonly]

Fury ain't no George Foreman.

Nor Ali. Evidently to some he's a combo of both.

[Cojimar 1946]

Frazier's era was much better than today's era. Frazier was at or the near the top during that time. There he would be in a weaker era. I base this how good the fighter's were; it deosn't matter what the scales say.

You are cherry picking with Middleton and Clark. They were in the top 10 briefly. Rankings are always a fluid situation. Fighters only fight 2 or 3 times a years and contenders avoid each other. That happens all the time boxing; a guy is in the top 10 for a year, maybe two and then disappears when he starts losing to contenders.

Fitzsimmons and Greb were capable of beating a lot of heavyweights. They were extraordinary fighters who could compete bigger fighters. We know this because it happened. There are always exceptions in sport. Charles Barkley was a better rebounder than 99.99 of 7 footers. How did Jimmy Connors win so many tennis matches?

170 is not ideal for a heavyweight. Either is 270.
Again, if you can find some real world examples where really big heavyweights beat great fighters under 200, name them. So far, I have only ever been able to come up with two.

Fury is not going to win a decision. He doesn't have the power to stop him. Frazier was relentless and had power. He would simply break him down.

As for marge; if we start seeing smaller heavyweights that we currently have, if they have talent they will do well.

The era's argument seems to largely be a generational thing. An era is great for people of a certain age and when they start to be replaced by the younger generation the narrative changes and the era is no longer great. In recent years, the idea of the 1970s as some sort of golden age is increasingly being questioned as more and more younger fans start following the sport and the older generation of people born in the 1930s and 1940s who revered Ali and Frazier steadily die off. Also, people who believe the 1970s are a golden age haven't really put together good arguments backing their opinion. The argument that fights today are less exciting is not a good argument given that's pretty subjective and more exciting fighters are frequently beaten by more boring ones. A better argument would be something like Frazier on average throws 110 punches per round and Tyson Fury only throws 30 thus he will simply get outworked. I don't think that's true but if it was it would be a strong argument in favor of Frazier.

Fury just stopped Wilder. What makes you so confident he couldn't stop Frazier via attrition? Guys like Quarry and Bugner were able to hurt him and he wasn't that difficult to hit. A guy 50 pounds heavier leaning on him in the clinches could also be pretty draining on Frazier.

I think Fitzsimmons and Greb's success can be partially attributed to the big heavyweights of their eras not being very good. If you put Leonard or Hearns back in the 1890s or 1900s they probably could easily win the heavyweight title. I think they could beat Corbett, Hart, or Burns.

[Tevfik1907]

Frazier was 5. 11 205, great fighter, but 205. Lets not forget what the Grill man did to him.

Grill man can do that to anyone if he can connect, it has nothing to do with weight. Foreman's style wasn't letting Frazier to getting close, and Frazier's style is based on getting close via pressuring his opponents, if he can't, he is in trouble, and Foreman's uppercuts were perfectly designed to catch Frazier's head movement. I believe Foreman could do the same to Mike Tyson as well, Foreman is just a very difficult style for them. That doesn't mean Fury can do the same, especially 2015 Fury can't do that, 2020 Fury maybe, and that's maybe.

Frazier already proved that he can beat people who are around 240-250 lbs, see his Buster Mathis fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Good post.

[Ambling Alp II]

Frazier's era was much better than today's era. Frazier was at or the near the top during that time. There he would be in a weaker era. I base this how good the fighter's were; it deosn't matter what the scales say.

You are cherry picking with Middleton and Clark. They were in the top 10 briefly. Rankings are always a fluid situation. Fighters only fight 2 or 3 times a years and contenders avoid each other. That happens all the time boxing; a guy is in the top 10 for a year, maybe two and then disappears when he starts losing to contenders.

Fitzsimmons and Greb were capable of beating a lot of heavyweights. They were extraordinary fighters who could compete bigger fighters. We know this because it happened. There are always exceptions in sport. Charles Barkley was a better rebounder than 99.99 of 7 footers. How did Jimmy Connors win so many tennis matches?

170 is not ideal for a heavyweight. Either is 270.
Again, if you can find some real world examples where really big heavyweights beat great fighters under 200, name them. So far, I have only ever been able to come up with two.

Fury is not going to win a decision. He doesn't have the power to stop him. Frazier was relentless and had power. He would simply break him down.

As for marge; if we start seeing smaller heavyweights that we currently have, if they have talent they will do well.

The era's argument seems to largely be a generational thing. An era is great for people of a certain age and when they start to be replaced by the younger generation the narrative changes and the era is no longer great. In recent years, the idea of the 1970s as some sort of golden age is increasingly being questioned as more and more younger fans start following the sport and the older generation of people born in the 1930s and 1940s who revered Ali and Frazier steadily die off. Also, people who believe the 1970s are a golden age haven't really put together good arguments backing their opinion. The argument that fights today are less exciting is not a good argument given that's pretty subjective and more exciting fighters are frequently beaten by more boring ones. A better argument would be something like Frazier on average throws 110 punches per round and Tyson Fury only throws 30 thus he will simply get outworked. I don't think that's true but if it was it would be a strong argument in favor of Frazier.

Fury just stopped Wilder. What makes you so confident he couldn't stop Frazier via attrition? Guys like Quarry and Bugner were able to hurt him and he wasn't that difficult to hit. A guy 50 pounds heavier leaning on him in the clinches could also be pretty draining on Frazier.

I think Fitzsimmons and Greb's success can be partially attributed to the big heavyweights of their eras not being very good. If you put Leonard or Hearns back in the 1890s or 1900s they probably could easily win the heavyweight title. I think they could beat Corbett, Hart, or Burns.

We had a poll on here a while and it was judged against the 1990s and it won easily. The 1990s was compared to present day and came out on top. Considering the age of many people on here that says a lot.
Of course many younger fans aren't going to be impressed by the 1970s. Many people think boxing automatically started the day they became fans.
Just watch the fights. Trust your eyes. Use your brain. The 1970s was great in the heavyweight division. It sucks right now.
Fury stopping Frazier by attrition? He doesn't throw nearly enough to do that. He would be stopped himself well before that point.
Quarry and Bugner didn't really hurt Frazier. And they punched harder than Fury.

[DrDuke]

Of course many younger fans aren't going to be impressed by the 1970s. Many people think boxing automatically started the day they became fans.

As if different old farts don't pick automatically the eras, when they started to be fans, over the next ones.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course some older fans love the guys they grew up with and ignore fighters before their time or in later times.

What many people do is simply start with the era from when they became a fan and go up to the present time. If they became a fan the early 1960s, they mostly just consider fighters from then until now; if they became a fan in the late 1970s, they really only consider fighters form then until now; If they became a fan in 2002, they go from then to now.
Most sports fans think the a particular sport has remained fairly stead during the time that they have been a fan, and was worse before they became a fan. However, other sports have not declined like boxing.

On average though, an older fan (lets say someone who was a fan in the 1960s) has more knowledge and respect for fighters from before the 1960s than someone that who became a fan in the early 2000s.
When I was a kid, nobody mocked Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey. Or from other sports Johnny Unitas or Ty Cobb. There was respect for them even though they came before our time.

Obviously these are generalities, and not always true with every fan.

[DrDuke]

On average though, an older fan (lets say someone who was a fan in the 1960s) has more knowledge and respect for fighters from before the 1960s than someone that who became a fan in the early 2000s.

It's strange to hear such thing from you, after you openly mocked Fury and felt OK with it.

[Ambling Alp II]

huh?

[Cojimar 1946]

Frazier's era was much better than today's era. Frazier was at or the near the top during that time. There he would be in a weaker era. I base this how good the fighter's were; it deosn't matter what the scales say.

You are cherry picking with Middleton and Clark. They were in the top 10 briefly. Rankings are always a fluid situation. Fighters only fight 2 or 3 times a years and contenders avoid each other. That happens all the time boxing; a guy is in the top 10 for a year, maybe two and then disappears when he starts losing to contenders.

Fitzsimmons and Greb were capable of beating a lot of heavyweights. They were extraordinary fighters who could compete bigger fighters. We know this because it happened. There are always exceptions in sport. Charles Barkley was a better rebounder than 99.99 of 7 footers. How did Jimmy Connors win so many tennis matches?

170 is not ideal for a heavyweight. Either is 270.
Again, if you can find some real world examples where really big heavyweights beat great fighters under 200, name them. So far, I have only ever been able to come up with two.

Fury is not going to win a decision. He doesn't have the power to stop him. Frazier was relentless and had power. He would simply break him down.

As for marge; if we start seeing smaller heavyweights that we currently have, if they have talent they will do well.

The era's argument seems to largely be a generational thing. An era is great for people of a certain age and when they start to be replaced by the younger generation the narrative changes and the era is no longer great. In recent years, the idea of the 1970s as some sort of golden age is increasingly being questioned as more and more younger fans start following the sport and the older generation of people born in the 1930s and 1940s who revered Ali and Frazier steadily die off. Also, people who believe the 1970s are a golden age haven't really put together good arguments backing their opinion. The argument that fights today are less exciting is not a good argument given that's pretty subjective and more exciting fighters are frequently beaten by more boring ones. A better argument would be something like Frazier on average throws 110 punches per round and Tyson Fury only throws 30 thus he will simply get outworked. I don't think that's true but if it was it would be a strong argument in favor of Frazier.

Fury just stopped Wilder. What makes you so confident he couldn't stop Frazier via attrition? Guys like Quarry and Bugner were able to hurt him and he wasn't that difficult to hit. A guy 50 pounds heavier leaning on him in the clinches could also be pretty draining on Frazier.

I think Fitzsimmons and Greb's success can be partially attributed to the big heavyweights of their eras not being very good. If you put Leonard or Hearns back in the 1890s or 1900s they probably could easily win the heavyweight title. I think they could beat Corbett, Hart, or Burns.

We had a poll on here a while and it was judged against the 1990s and it won easily. The 1990s was compared to present day and came out on top. Considering the age of many people on here that says a lot.
Of course many younger fans aren't going to be impressed by the 1970s. Many people think boxing automatically started the day they became fans.
Just watch the fights. Trust your eyes. Use your brain. The 1970s was great in the heavyweight division. It sucks right now.
Fury stopping Frazier by attrition? He doesn't throw nearly enough to do that. He would be stopped himself well before that point.
Quarry and Bugner didn't really hurt Frazier. And they punched harder than Fury.

Fury hit hard enough to stop Deontay Wilder who had never been stopped previously. And he had him hurt in the early rounds. Who is the best fighter Bugner stopped? What leads to think Bugner hits harder?

As far as the division sucking currently, the top fighters generally dont face each other which is bad but there are plenty of action packed fights. Did you see Povetkin's recent fights with Hunter and Whyte?

[Ambling Alp II]

Wilder never fought anyone worth mentioning. Fury couldn't even stop an ancient , glass jaw Wladimir Klitschko. The division has sucked for almost 20 years now. No I didn't see the fights that you mention. There might be a reason that nobody ever points out to specific heavyweight fights in the last several years as being great.

[gilgamesh]

Wilder never fought anyone worth mentioning. Fury couldn't even stop an ancient , glass jaw Wladimir Klitschko. The division has sucked for almost 20 years now. No I didn't see the fights that you mention. There might be a reason that nobody ever points out to specific heavyweight fights in the last several years as being great.

Wlad vs AJ was pretty great.

I enjoyed Fury vs Wilder 2 personally. Not a lot of real great Heavyweight fights for a while though.

Wladimir vs Pulev was fun as I recall.

[Onetimeonly]

Wilder never fought anyone worth mentioning. Fury couldn't even stop an ancient , glass jaw Wladimir Klitschko. The division has sucked for almost 20 years now. No I didn't see the fights that you mention. There might be a reason that nobody ever points out to specific heavyweight fights in the last several years as being great.

Wlad vs AJ was pretty great.

I enjoyed Fury vs Wilder 2 personally. Not a lot of real great Heavyweight fights for a while though.

Wladimir vs Pulev was fun as I recall.

Really? I've never heard wlad/pulev was good, just that the reluctant one whipped some ass like his 'pre prime' version

Wlad/aj was very good, but nothing like any holy/bowe fight.

[gilgamesh]

Wilder never fought anyone worth mentioning. Fury couldn't even stop an ancient , glass jaw Wladimir Klitschko. The division has sucked for almost 20 years now. No I didn't see the fights that you mention. There might be a reason that nobody ever points out to specific heavyweight fights in the last several years as being great.

Wlad vs AJ was pretty great.

I enjoyed Fury vs Wilder 2 personally. Not a lot of real great Heavyweight fights for a while though.

Wladimir vs Pulev was fun as I recall.

Really? I've never heard wlad/pulev was good, just that the reluctant one whipped some ass like his 'pre prime' version

Wlad/aj was very good, but nothing like any holy/bowe fight.

I mean I liked it. Wasn't an all time classic or anything, but it was probably one of the better ones of the last 15 years or so. Not saying much of course

[Onetimeonly]

Wlad vs AJ was pretty great.

I enjoyed Fury vs Wilder 2 personally. Not a lot of real great Heavyweight fights for a while though.

Wladimir vs Pulev was fun as I recall.

Really? I've never heard wlad/pulev was good, just that the reluctant one whipped some ass like his 'pre prime' version

Wlad/aj was very good, but nothing like any holy/bowe fight.

I mean I liked it. Wasn't an all time classic or anything, but it was probably one of the better ones of the last 15 years or so. Not saying much of course

I'll take your word for it. Unless I'd be better off watching it than Morrison/hipp

[Cojimar 1946]

Wilder never fought anyone worth mentioning. Fury couldn't even stop an ancient , glass jaw Wladimir Klitschko. The division has sucked for almost 20 years now. No I didn't see the fights that you mention. There might be a reason that nobody ever points out to specific heavyweight fights in the last several years as being great.

I think they were both pretty good, dramatic fights. Here are some yotube links to these and other recent fights you might like. There is a guy called Justis Huni who looks pretty promising. Fury was handily outboxing Klitschko, going for the kayo would probably have been more risky. It seems like he made an intelligent decision to win without taking any risks he didn't need to take. As far as Wilder's resume goes, he has beaten two guys who were general consensus top 10 heavyweights which is not much by the standards of most divisions but pretty standard for heavyweights from the 1980s onwards.
It's probably at least comparable to someone like Ruddock who built his reputation beating shot fighters.

[Ambling Alp II]

Beating guys in the top 10 in one era can be com pletely different han beating someone in the Top 10 of another era.
Ruddock beat some has been's, Wilder beat some never was's.

Actually Dokes was only ranked behind Holyfield and Tyson when Ruddock knocked him out.

[Cojimar 1946]

Beating guys in the top 10 in one era can be com pletely different han beating someone in the Top 10 of another era.
Ruddock beat some has been's, Wilder beat some never was's.

Actually Dokes was only ranked behind Holyfield and Tyson when Ruddock knocked him out.

It certainly can be but most of the criticism of the current era doesn't seem very well thought out.
The argument I hear from you is that there have not been great heavyweight fights recently but it might help if you watched more of them. There have been some dramatic high paced fights recently. It depends partially on taste of course. I should think Povetkin coming back from two knockdowns and seemingly on the verge of a kayo loss to brutally knock out Dillian Whyte would qualify as exciting if nothing else.

I would agree for example that the Klitschko-Fury fight was not especially exciting or action-packed but there have many better fights than that in recent years.