Styles Make Fights

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 01 Aug 2006, 14:03

There are various advantages and disadvantages to diverse styles in this sport, this is common knowledge. As to where a tactician uses his skill to fight from long range and to use the center of the ring to his advantage, he has flaws at infighting ability and due to his style he fights from his toes, thus lessening his power.

One example of this was the Ali-Marciano computer fight, though simulated and nothing more than a sparring session---the computer was correct in the sense that it would take a style of Marciano's to defeat Muhammad Ali, who was deemed too fast for anyone to beat; was proven to be true, when Ali lost a 15 round decision to the likes of Joe Frazier, who fought the way Marciano did.

A style like Marciano and Frazier's, is where all the power is driven from the legs (these boxers are flat footed), and then dispersed upwards and with the swivel of the hips and turn of the upper body gives tremendous power. These boxers also do a swaying motion that cuts off the ring, so a 24 foot ring becomes a 12 foot ring and etc, limiting the amount of room a tactician would have. These fighters also fight from the inside, a strength that most tacticians do not have---but the draw back to being a swarmer is the amount of punishment one must take before being able to get close enough to drop their bombs.

A counter-puncher is one who throws punches inside of his opponents punches, more or less waiting for that one shot, and must be quick and accurate to do it, to beat his opponent to the punch. Such men as Leotis Martin were counter-punchers.

Then of course there have been fighters with no style at all but brawling, such as Tony Galento---but there is many disadvantages to this style, as it leaves you open for shots, expells alot of energy out of a fighter, you take alot of punishment, timing and accuracy is off---but the sole advantage is that the power and ferocity is so huge.

Now...depending on what kind of fights you like, there is certain entertaining moments. By and large most HW fans perfer to see the KO's rather than actual boxing matches. In lighter divisions fans perfer more fast action and combinations and skill---though the KO is universally the biggest draw in the sport, no matter the division.

But by and large, the most diverse styles, make the most enetrtaining fights. Prime example, Willie Pep was a master tactician and his fights with Sandy Saddler, a puncher, were some of the greatest fights of all time. It just goes to show that you could be the greatest boxer-boxer in the world, and could very well be beaten by a fighter with less skill, whose sole ability is to move forward and to chop down his opponent.

tagjohnson · Post by **tagjohnson** » 01 Aug 2006, 16:25

I think that "Styles make fights" is one of the great truisms in sports. If not the greates and truest. I call it the "Jerry Quarry Principle." after my favorite example.
1) Earnie Shavers knocks out Ken Norton (winning me some major buck BTW) and Jimmy Ellis in the first round.
2) Ken and Jimmy beat Jerry Quarry by tko and decision.
3) So what happens when Jerry and Earnie get together? Jerry ko's Earnie in the first round!

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Aug 2006, 17:39

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:There are various advantages and disadvantages to diverse styles in this sport, this is common knowledge. As to where a tactician uses his skill to fight from long range and to use the center of the ring to his advantage, he has flaws at infighting ability and due to his style he fights from his toes, thus lessening his power.

One example of this was the Ali-Marciano computer fight, though simulated and nothing more than a sparring session---the computer was correct in the sense that it would take a style of Marciano's to defeat Muhammad Ali, who was deemed too fast for anyone to beat; was proven to be true, when Ali lost a 15 round decision to the likes of Joe Frazier, who fought the way Marciano did.

A style like Marciano and Frazier's, is where all the power is driven from the legs (these boxers are flat footed), and then dispersed upwards and with the swivel of the hips and turn of the upper body gives tremendous power. These boxers also do a swaying motion that cuts off the ring, so a 24 foot ring becomes a 12 foot ring and etc, limiting the amount of room a tactician would have. These fighters also fight from the inside, a strength that most tacticians do not have---but the draw back to being a swarmer is the amount of punishment one must take before being able to get close enough to drop their bombs.

A counter-puncher is one who throws punches inside of his opponents punches, more or less waiting for that one shot, and must be quick and accurate to do it, to beat his opponent to the punch. Such men as Leotis Martin were counter-punchers.

Then of course there have been fighters with no style at all but brawling, such as Tony Galento---but there is many disadvantages to this style, as it leaves you open for shots, expells alot of energy out of a fighter, you take alot of punishment, timing and accuracy is off---but the sole advantage is that the power and ferocity is so huge.

Now...depending on what kind of fights you like, there is certain entertaining moments. By and large most HW fans perfer to see the KO's rather than actual boxing matches. In lighter divisions fans perfer more fast action and combinations and skill---though the KO is universally the biggest draw in the sport, no matter the division.

But by and large, the most diverse styles, make the most enetrtaining fights. Prime example, Willie Pep was a master tactician and his fights with Sandy Saddler, a puncher, were some of the greatest fights of all time. It just goes to show that you could be the greatest boxer-boxer in the world, and could very well be beaten by a fighter with less skill, whose sole ability is to move forward and to chop down his opponent.

I think using Saddler as an example of a fighter "whose sole ability is to move forward and chop down his opponents" shows you have either never seen Saddler fight or you have no idea what you are seeing.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 01 Aug 2006, 19:52

Saddler was a very very rough fighter.But I would describe his style as boxer/puncher. He was very skillfull.
He just had that old school style of knowing all the tricks of the trade.
If things got rough in there he was very comfortable with it.
Just another day at the office.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Aug 2006, 20:02

If you can attribute "style names" Can you give the basic catagories?
I understand no fighter will exactly fit any catagory but I would love to the theoretical "styles listing".

Can you then take it one step farther and show the "circle of domination" in other words will the best of "catagory A" likley dominate the best of "catagory B" based on style alone? "B over C" and "C over A"? All things being equal? I understand that a great A will likely dominate a poor C....

The reason I bring this up is that there is such a wide range of opinions on what the proper lexicon might be.

I'm not looking for a dissertation just some nuts and bolts and perhaps likely trends based on your opinions.

And leave some room for difference of opinion, my point here is not start a dispute but to see if we have some common ground here.

Also I think this is very very difficult to get to any standards but it seemed an interesting challenge. Or perhaps I am simply showing my ignorance and this has all been clearly mapped and I just missed the class.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Aug 2006, 20:06

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:There are various advantages and disadvantages to diverse styles in this sport, this is common knowledge. As to where a tactician uses his skill to fight from long range and to use the center of the ring to his advantage, he has flaws at infighting ability and due to his style he fights from his toes, thus lessening his power.

One example of this was the Ali-Marciano computer fight, though simulated and nothing more than a sparring session---the computer was correct in the sense that it would take a style of Marciano's to defeat Muhammad Ali, who was deemed too fast for anyone to beat; was proven to be true, when Ali lost a 15 round decision to the likes of Joe Frazier, who fought the way Marciano did.

A style like Marciano and Frazier's, is where all the power is driven from the legs (these boxers are flat footed), and then dispersed upwards and with the swivel of the hips and turn of the upper body gives tremendous power. These boxers also do a swaying motion that cuts off the ring, so a 24 foot ring becomes a 12 foot ring and etc, limiting the amount of room a tactician would have. These fighters also fight from the inside, a strength that most tacticians do not have---but the draw back to being a swarmer is the amount of punishment one must take before being able to get close enough to drop their bombs.

A counter-puncher is one who throws punches inside of his opponents punches, more or less waiting for that one shot, and must be quick and accurate to do it, to beat his opponent to the punch. Such men as Leotis Martin were counter-punchers.

Then of course there have been fighters with no style at all but brawling, such as Tony Galento---but there is many disadvantages to this style, as it leaves you open for shots, expells alot of energy out of a fighter, you take alot of punishment, timing and accuracy is off---but the sole advantage is that the power and ferocity is so huge.

Now...depending on what kind of fights you like, there is certain entertaining moments. By and large most HW fans perfer to see the KO's rather than actual boxing matches. In lighter divisions fans perfer more fast action and combinations and skill---though the KO is universally the biggest draw in the sport, no matter the division.

But by and large, the most diverse styles, make the most enetrtaining fights. Prime example, Willie Pep was a master tactician and his fights with Sandy Saddler, a puncher, were some of the greatest fights of all time. It just goes to show that you could be the greatest boxer-boxer in the world, and could very well be beaten by a fighter with less skill, whose sole ability is to move forward and to chop down his opponent.

The part about Marciano, Ali and Frazier is off the mark. The Marciano-Ali movie is completely meaningless. It wasn't even sparring; it was staged.
To come to the conclusion that from this it shows that Marciano/Frazier's pressure style would combat Ali's speed is simply wrong.

When Frazier fought Ali, Ali had slowed down considerably from the fighter that he was before the layoff. He also wasn't able to use his speed as often in a fight as he did previously.
There was one big difference in the way that Marciano and Frazier fought; Frazier was harder to hit.
Even so, Ali beat Frazier the next two times that they fought. (Their 2nd fight Ali won fairly easily).

Actually the "style" that gave Ali the most trouble in his 2nd career was Norton's. This really wasn't a conventional style. Norton was good enough of puncher to keep Ali honest, good boxer, wasn't easy to hit, had good enough of a chin that Ali couldn't hurt him with one shot, and was somewhat awkward and unpredictable.
Norton wasn't really a "slugger", "a pressure fighter" or a "boxer". He was a little of each.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Aug 2006, 20:19

There is another dynamic to be considered when appraising Ali, his vanity. He always wanted to look good while winning...... pride usually goes before a fall but not so with Muhammad He wanted to look good falling down.

I have always thought that if he had the focus of a Joe Frazier on simply winning, things would have turned out different that night. But he wanted his cake and eat it too. And Frazier was too much....not for his ability but for his personality on that night. Ali would have had to eaten his pride and gone after this with no levity whatsoever, forgetting about "style points" or "puttin on a show". But that was not in Ali's playbook. Though he did seem to muster much of that in his second go round with Frazier. Remember going into Manilla Ali really thought he was facing a "washed up" Frazier. He found out different.

Styles make fights.....but so do personalities.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 01 Aug 2006, 20:42

Yeah you bring up an interesting point Buzz.
There was no way that Ali was ever gonna take on any type of Blue collar , lunch pail , workmanlike persona in the ring or out.
That was Fraziers gig. Ali had to do everything with a certain "flair" . It was what the " hip " crowd of the early 70s wanted and he usally delivered.
But not the first time they fought. That was Fraziers time .

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:33

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
Joe Frazier, who fought the way Marciano did.

Pathetic.

Frazier was a one-armed fighter who threw only a left hook.

Marciano's mosr devastating single punch was his right hand (ask Jersey Joe Walcott).

Frazier didn't have a right hand.

Marciano threw a variety of punches---left hooks to the head (ask Harry Matthews) and body, right hands to the head (ask Rex Layne, ask Jersey Joe Walcott) and body, right uppercut (ask Roland LaStarza).

As a one-armed fighter, limiting himself to throwing ONLY a left hook, Frazier still beat Ali.

.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:44

Jimmy Young proved for fifteen rounds

that poor Ali didn't have a clue on how to fight a counter puncher.

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:45

Frazier was a one-armed fighter who threw only a left hook.

Have you ever seen Frazier fight? It appears you never have making such a statement. Frazier left hook was so dominant it overshadowed everything else that he did. Frazier threw vicious body shots with both hands and threw a short compact right hand. Not as devastating as his left hook but repectable nonetheless.

Frazier was also physically tougher than Marciano, was faster, and had a better defense. His stamina was equal if not better than the Rocks as was his heart.

Not to mention that Frazier beat MUCH better competition than Marciano.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:50

tagjohnson wrote:I think that "Styles make fights" is one of the great truisms in sports. If not the greates and truest. I call it the "Jerry Quarry Principle." after my favorite example.
1) Earnie Shavers knocks out Ken Norton (winning me some major buck BTW) and Jimmy Ellis in the first round.
2) Ken and Jimmy beat Jerry Quarry by tko and decision.
3) So what happens when Jerry and Earnie get together? Jerry ko's Earnie in the first round!

You left out

The Quarry of the Norton fight was fat, out of shape, tired after a very few rounds.

The fight mainly proved that Norton did not have a big punch as he hit out of gas Quarry for round after round.

Quarry beat Shavers with a lot of "help" from stooge referee Arthur Merchante.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 01 Aug 2006, 22:54

theone wrote:
Frazier was a one-armed fighter who threw only a left hook.
Have you ever seen Frazier fight? It appears you never have making such a statement. Frazier left hook was so dominant it overshadowed everything else that he did. Frazier threw vicious body shots with both hands and threw a short compact right hand. Not as devastating as his left hook but repectable nonetheless.

Frazier was also physically tougher than Marciano, was faster, and had a better defense. His stamina was equal if not better than the Rocks as was his heart.

Not to mention that Frazier beat MUCH better competition than Marciano.

When Frazier fought Ali he was a ONE-ARMED fighter, throwing ONLY a left hook.

And he beat Ali thoroughly throwing only that one punch.

No fighter was ever physically tougher than Marciano.

Few fighters in the entire history of boxing had Marciano's stamina.

Frazier certainly didn't.

How long would Frazier have stayed in there against Jersey Joe Walcott with his exposed chin?

Ezzard Charles?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:26

ill take rocky over frazier. theone u make some decent points but saying frazier was physically tougher than marciano is laughable.

did frazier ever get his nose sliced open with blood pouring out like a faucet then come out the next round and KO a hall of famer right when he needed to?

frazier did not beat much tougher competitino than marciano

the 1971 ali was better than anyone marciano ever beat

but

jersey joe walcott
ezzard charles june 1954 were both better than anyone frazier beat except ali

ill also take archie moore, old joe louis, roland lastarza, right on par with jerry quarry, jimmy ellis, oscar bonavena

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:27

No fighter was ever physically tougher than Marciano.

Lots were. marciano was cut and dropped a couple of times. Once by an old man the other by a blown up lightheavyweight. He was also cut several times. What exactly makes him physically tougher than anyone else?

Few fighters in the entire history of boxing had Marciano's stamina.
Frazier certainly didn't.

Fraizer went 14 hellacious rounds with Ali in excruciating heat throwing nothing but power shots.

Give me an example of Marciano's stamina for comparision.

How long would Frazier have stayed in there against Jersey Joe Walcott with his exposed chin?
Ezzard Charles?

Both thier best punches would have slightly annoyed Frazier.
They both would have lasted slightly longer than Foster did against Frazier, and certainly would not have been half as effective against Frazier as they were against Marciano.

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:30

did frazier ever get his nose sliced open with blood pouring out like a faucet then come out the next round and KO a hall of famer right when he needed to?

Charles would be utterly incapable of putting Frazier in that position. Frazier would have steamed rolled him in less than four rounds.

ill take rocky over frazier. theone u make some decent points but saying frazier was physically tougher than marciano is laughable.

Laughable? Please explain this point. Ive seen plenty of fights of both men and see absolutelty no evidence of this.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:35

theone wrote:
did frazier ever get his nose sliced open with blood pouring out like a faucet then come out the next round and KO a hall of famer right when he needed to?
Charles would be utterly incapable of putting Frazier in that position. Frazier would have steamed rolled him in less than four rounds.

ill take rocky over frazier. theone u make some decent points but saying frazier was physically tougher than marciano is laughable.
Laughable? Please explain this point. Ive seen plenty of fights of both men and see absolutelty no evidence of this.

marciano was stream rolling charles. he won every round and knocked charles down in the 2nd. so wut if charles caught marciano with a fluke cut and i might add A HORRIBLE ONE, marciano was dominating ezz. if frazier had to fight with that bad a cut, u think he couldda knocked charles out the next round?

charles in less than 4 rounds?

ellis lasted 5 rounds with frazier

bonavena lasted 15

quarry lasted 7

bugner and mathis lasted 12 and 11

old old eddie machen lasted 10 rounds

yet ATG master boxer ezzard would last less than 4 rounds?

fact is if charlie goldman ever tried to pull marciano out of manilla in that 15th round like futch did with frazier, marciano would have knocked out goldman and gone out there.

if frazier ever suffered a cut as badly as marciano did in charles II, frazier would have never went out there IMO.

marciano was bleeding to death and he went out there like a bloody hungry tiger and knocked his prey out!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:39

"I think Marciano had the better chin (his knockdowns were all of the flash variety, when Marciano was off balance, whereas Frazier was rocked and in serious trouble or even stopped in several of his big fights) harder two fisted power, and a better defense. I always got the sense watching Frazier's bob and weave that it was almost like a soldier running from a firefight in a zig zag pattern without looking back. To me it ressembled a learned pattern, a sort of weave side to side up and down and hopefully they dont catch you thing, whereas Marciano actually used his eyes and reflexes to sit back and react to his opponents punches and avoid and counterpunch.

I'm gonna really get it for this, but I think Marciano was a more versatile fighter who contrary to popular belief actually would take backword steps in a fight and pace himself at times. He was much cagier than he is given credit for and not the glutton for punishment that writers liked to paint him as. Frazier on the other hand was always moving forward, toward punishment, and with his chin (which I equate to an Arturo Gatti type chin where he would be down but never out, but being down itself is costly on the scorecards) he could wander into trouble.

I could be wrong but having watched film and forming my own impressions on both men over the yeas, I think Marciano is the smarter, better fighter in this matchup. Frazier was excellent and his place in the top ten is undisputed but comes up short here IMO."

i agree with this assesment. to ellaborate, i think frazier is faster and i think defense is equal, but i think marciano was the better inside fighter, defintley had the advantage when it came to punching abilities since marciano had Two fisted KO power, and i believe marciano was stronger.
marciano was one of the strongest champs ever, strength was not one of fraziers best charasteristics. frazier was very strong, but marciano had legendery strength.

i do believe frazier was faster, more fluid, and technicically superior to marciano
i favor the stronger, better puncher more durable marciano in a slugout over frazier

i do believe marciano has to knockout frazier to win since i feel the peak frazier is almost impossible to beat on points cause of his pressure, technicial skills, speed, workrate.

but i feel the peak 1951 slugger marciano would get him around the 9th or 10th round with frazier ahead on points

theone · Post by **theone** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:49

marciano was stream rolling charles. he won every round and knocked charles down in the 2nd. so wut if charles caught marciano with a fluke cut and i might add A HORRIBLE ONE, marciano was dominating ezz. if frazier had to fight with that bad a cut, u think he couldda knocked charles out the next round?

First of all, being physically tougher, Frazier would not be in a position were he would need to knock out Charles because of a bad cut.

charles in less than 4 rounds?
ellis lasted 5 rounds with frazier
bonavena lasted 15
quarry lasted 7
bugner and mathis lasted 12 and 11
old old eddie machen lasted 10 rounds

yet ATG master boxer ezzard would last less than 4 rounds?

Yup. Charles was more aggresive than Machen(who fought a very young Frazier)and Ellis, and would put himself in a more dangerous situation than either of those two. Quarry, Bonavena,Bugner, and Mathis were true heavyweights and could take alot more punishment than Charles could.

f frazier ever suffered a cut as badly as marciano did in charles II, frazier would have never went out there IMO.
Again, when have you ever seen Frazier act less than fearless?

marciano was bleeding to death and he went out there like a bloody hungry tiger and knocked his prey out!

Bleeding to death? Arent you laying it on a bit too thick Brock?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Aug 2006, 23:59

First of all, being physically tougher, Frazier would not be in a position were he would need to knock out Charles because of a bad cut.

marciano being more susceptible to cuts than frazier has nothing to do with frazier being physically tougher. frazier swelled up alot more than marciano, does that make marciano physically tougher? i believe marciano took a better puncher than frazier. does that make him physically tougherr?

really please tell me wut on film leads u to believe marciano is not as physically as tough as frazier.

marciano fought 3 rounds BLIND against walcott. he never even once hesistated to go out there, he knew walcott could hit like a mule. marciano was fearless.

Bleeding to death? Arent you laying it on a bit too thick Brock?

his nose was pouring like a faucet, surely a couple more minutes of that and he would have got horribly dizzy and pased out. thats what happens.

Yup. Charles was more aggresive than Machen(who fought a very young Frazier)and Ellis, and would put himself in a more dangerous situation than either of those two. Quarry, Bonavena,Bugner, and Mathis were true heavyweights and could take alot more punishment than Charles could.

i disagree, charles was a better boxer(though ellis was damm good boxer) and better counterpuncher than all u mention above. this makes him harder to hit. as for taking a harder punch, bonavena and quarry were more durable but charles was harder to hit. also charles took a better punch than u think.

i think very highly of jerry quarry though rate him # 26 HW of all time

charles only fought agressively when there was nothing he could do to stop marciano from coming in. charles could afford to do this cause he was a great infighter. much better infighter than ellis. charles can deal with frazier on the inside much better than ellis. but charles counterpunches and stayed away very well in the early rounds of marciano I

i think frazier would knock out charles though

frazier may have been young in 66, but not too young and he certainly should have put the completley washed up machen out earlier just like marciano should have done to savold .

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 00:02

just remember wut i said.........marciano HAS to knock out frazier to win. i think the peak 1951 slugger marciano does this though in the mid-late rounds

the 51-52 slugger marciano matches up better vs frazier than the later swarmining accumalitive punching marciano

i believe frazier matches up better vs ali than marciano does. but i believe marciano matches up better vs liston and foreman than frazier does

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Aug 2006, 00:32

Lots were. marciano was cut and dropped a couple of times. Once by an old man the other by a blown up lightheavyweight.

that old man ur talking about, jersey joe walcott, hit harder than anyone frazier faced outside of foreman.

archie wasnt a blown up light-h. he could barely make the light-h limit, he was naturally well over 200lb. he had a huge frame. when he fought marciano he weighed 188lb, thats certainly not blown up, thats natural weight. michael spinx vs holmes is an example of a blown up light-H

archie moore even as a heavyweight is a hard hitter and sharp puncher, that straight right he hit marciano with would have defintley decked frazier

no name tomatoe can michael bruce dropped frazier. did this ever happen to marciano?

bonavena had frazier down twice and nearly knocked out, and frazier was staggered badly in many other fights.

wut sounds better getting floored by walcott and moore or getting floored by bum bruce and bonavena 2x??

Fraizer went 14 hellacious rounds with Ali in excruciating heat throwing nothing but power shots.

Give me an example of Marciano's stamina for comparision.

marciano went 14 gruelling rounds with ezzard charles and in the 15th round marciano threw over 100 punches most of them power shots. did frazier do this in the 15th round? did frazier even come out for the 15th round?

Both thier best punches would have slightly annoyed Frazier.

walcotts best punch would easily floor and hurt frazier badly. maybe knock him out. frazier wasnt as durable as marciano. if bonavena could put frazier down twice and others could badly stagger frazier, then walcott would do damage.

They both would have lasted slightly longer than Foster did against Frazier, and certainly would not have been half as effective against Frazier as they were against Marciano.

charles would have done worse vs frazier, but walcott would have done just as well vs frazier possibly. walcott really attacked marciano and walcott can really bang, frazier has to be careful. walcott has great inside fighting skills too and is very strong. the walcott of the first marciano fight presented a tough style matchup for frazier. cause rather than cricle and dance and allow frazier to chase him down, walcott actually went right in and tried to take ur head off!

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 02 Aug 2006, 08:08

marciano fought 3 rounds BLIND against walcott. he never even once hesistated to go out there, he knew walcott could hit like a mule. marciano was fearless.

Strange comment to make when trying to put forward the arguement for Rocky being tougher than Frasier

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Aug 2006, 08:17

granberry wrote:Quarry beat Shavers with a lot of "help" from stooge referee Arthur Merchante.

Yeah, Arthur had a great uppercut!!

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Aug 2006, 08:35

theone wrote:
Frazier was a one-armed fighter who threw only a left hook.
Have you ever seen Frazier fight? It appears you never have making such a statement. Frazier left hook was so dominant it overshadowed everything else that he did. Frazier threw vicious body shots with both hands and threw a short compact right hand. Not as devastating as his left hook but repectable nonetheless.

Frazier was also physically tougher than Marciano, was faster, and had a better defense. His stamina was equal if not better than the Rocks as was his heart.

Not to mention that Frazier beat MUCH better competition than Marciano.

Wow, we agree on another one!!

Actually, I’m sick of hearing about Frazier being a one armed fighter. As you noted, his right wasn’t as notable as his left hook, but there aren’t too many rights in the history of the HW division that wouldn’t have gotten overshadowed by Joe’s hook.

I also would say that Joe was faster – a LOT faster – than Marciano, although I’m not sure about him being physically tougher. There were both incredibly tough and physical fighters.

And I would also say his competition was better than the Rock’s, although I don’t think I’d say it was a lot better.

All in all though I think we agree on this topic. I think that makes 2 now…

Styles Make Fights

Styles Make Fights

True

Re: Styles Make Fights

Re: Styles Make Fights

Re: Styles Make Fights

Re: True

Re: True