Frazier 1970 vs. Holmes 1980

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 22 Oct 2006, 17:53

The best jab vs. the best hook in HW history.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 Oct 2006, 19:51

I think a prime Frazier had the style to give Holmes all kinds of problems. Even though I rate Holmes the greater all-time HW, in a head to head I'd take Frazier by UD or possibly a late stoppage in a great fight.

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 22 Oct 2006, 23:51

I think it was because Ali was not a great puncher that, even though he had the great jab, Frazier's constant pressuring style still gave him fits. Holmes, on the other hand, had I believe a little harder jab and a little more punch.

I think the Holmes of 1980 would've beaten the Frazier of 1970. I think it would've been a slow and steady beat down with perhaps an exciting moment or two for Frazier.

IMHO ... Holmes by a hard fought UD.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 Oct 2006, 02:38

The Great John L wrote:I think a prime Frazier had the style to give Holmes all kinds of problems. Even though I rate Holmes the greater all-time HW, in a head to head I'd take Frazier by UD or possibly a late stoppage in a great fight.

Agree on it all except for the stoppage.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 Oct 2006, 10:04

The Great John L wrote:I think a prime Frazier had the style to give Holmes all kinds of problems. Even though I rate Holmes the greater all-time HW, in a head to head I'd take Frazier by UD or possibly a late stoppage in a great fight.

My sense too. An interesting style matchup in any case.

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 23 Oct 2006, 11:46

kingpawn wrote:I think it was because Ali was not a great puncher that, even though he had the great jab, Frazier's constant pressuring style still gave him fits. Holmes, on the other hand, had I believe a little harder jab and a little more punch.

I think the Holmes of 1980 would've beaten the Frazier of 1970. I think it would've been a slow and steady beat down with perhaps an exciting moment or two for Frazier.

IMHO ... Holmes by a hard fought UD.

I agree, I think Larry had just that more power than Ali, enough to keep Joe respectful.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:14

Frazier 15 unanimous. this is one of the kehy matchups im confident in. style wise, frazier matches up great vs holmes. frazier at his peak destroyed the tall fast master boxers

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:49

I agree that a Prime Joe Frazier would give Holmes fits. Holmes can get a unanimous decision. It all depends on how Holmes chooses to fight. Frazier would come forward all day.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 23 Oct 2006, 23:53

how is holmes gonna outpoint frazier?? no tall fast boxer could ever outpoint a peak frazier including the great muhammad ali who lost by CLEAR CUT unanimous decision to frazier.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 24 Oct 2006, 04:49

If Joe could beat Ali back then, he could beat Holmes. And back in the early 70s Ali had as much power as Holmes ever did, check stoppages of Quarry & Bonavena etc.

The question is, who did Holmes EVER beat who was as great as Smokin Joe?? Joe beat The Greatest!

I dont seem to be allowed to vote in the poll, so JOE Wu15 LARRY!

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 24 Oct 2006, 05:10

overhand_right wrote:If Joe could beat Ali back then, he could beat Holmes. And back in the early 70s Ali had as much power as Holmes ever did, check stoppages of Quarry & Bonavena etc.

The question is, who did Holmes EVER beat who was as great as Smokin Joe?? Joe beat The Greatest!

I dont seem to be allowed to vote in the poll, so JOE Wu15 LARRY!

Then the question could also be. Whoever smashed Holmes twice the way Foreman did to Joe?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 24 Oct 2006, 06:50

Andy Mac wrote:Then the question could also be. Whoever smashed Holmes twice the way Foreman did to Joe?

Okay... and how exactly is that relevant? Are you saying that Holmes punched as hard as Foreman?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Oct 2006, 06:52

I always thought Ali could have won the first fight with Joe the way he won the second fight......NO SHOWBOATING, stay focused on the opponent and not the crowd.

With that said Holmes always stayed focused and though he did not have quite the skillset and chin of Ali he could have made a great fight of it. I would lean to him in a close war that would take a lot out of both of them. But it would be close and certainly could go either way. If Norton could give Holmes the fight of his life then it's at least possible Frazier would be too much for him.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 24 Oct 2006, 11:03

Andy Mac wrote:
Then the question could also be. Whoever smashed Holmes twice the way Foreman did to Joe?

That argument doesn't work Andy.

The whole point is Joe had to defend v George Foreman. How many greats in their prime did Larry defend against? Zero.

If Larry was mixing it in that kind of competiton, no way would he have reigned for as long as Joe did.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 24 Oct 2006, 11:33

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:how is holmes gonna outpoint frazier?? no tall fast boxer could ever outpoint a peak frazier including the great muhammad ali who lost by CLEAR CUT unanimous decision to frazier.

Ali did outpoint Frazier in their second fight. Frazier had fits with big fellas who could box. Frazier was actually down on points vs Buster Mathis for a while until coming on late.

Holmes had the skills to out point a slow starting Joe Frazier. Holmes also had a key weapon in the uppercut. The uppercut is a weapon that often finds its mark vs shorter aggressive fighters. Frazier was susceptible to this punch. Holmes also took a good punch, and knew how to take away the other guy’s best punch. I'd give Holmes the edge here.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 24 Oct 2006, 12:05

pound per pound wrote:
Ali did outpoint Frazier in their second fight. Frazier had fits with big fellas who could box. Frazier was actually down on points vs Buster Mathis for a while until coming on late.

Holmes had the skills to out point a slow starting Joe Frazier. Holmes also had a key weapon in the uppercut. The uppercut is a weapon that often finds its mark vs shorter aggressive fighters. Frazier was susceptible to this punch. Holmes also took a good punch, and knew how to take away the other guy’s best punch. I'd give Holmes the edge here.

We're talking about Frazier 70, you talking about Frazier 74.

Frazier was down on points v Mathis? Big deal, it was a 15 rd fight and he knocked him clean out in the 11th. Being ahead & staying ahead of Joe are two different things.

Holmes didn't have any qualities that Ali didn't have in abundance.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 24 Oct 2006, 16:14

BoxBuzz wrote:I always thought Ali could have won the first fight with Joe the way he won the second fight......NO SHOWBOATING, stay focused on the opponent and not the crowd.

With that said Holmes always stayed focused and though he did not have quite the skillset and chin of Ali he could have made a great fight of it. I would lean to him in a close war that would take a lot out of both of them. But it would be close and certainly could go either way. If Norton could give Holmes the fight of his life then it's at least possible Frazier would be too much for him.

]

You mean constantly holding Frazier for about 2 minutes of each round? Come on, I like Ali, and I believe in the strategic clinch, but the amount of holding Ali was doing in that fight was just obscene. It ruined the whole fight. The reason the Thrilla was so much better was b/c the ref wasn't letting Ali get away with so much bullshit.

I edge Frazier in this one. Holmes has the style to give Frazier major problems, but Holmes got fatigued and bothered by the pressure from the likes of Shavers (rematch), Norton and Weaver, all very good fighters, but not the dynamo a prime Frazier was, especially as pressure-swarmers. Holmes by the 7th-8th round would start getting tired and leave the jab out more, especially from Frazier's great body attack. From then on, it would be all out war, and Holmes isn't going to win a shootout against the ropes with Joe.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Oct 2006, 18:20

dempseyfire wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:I always thought Ali could have won the first fight with Joe the way he won the second fight......NO SHOWBOATING, stay focused on the opponent and not the crowd.

With that said Holmes always stayed focused and though he did not have quite the skillset and chin of Ali he could have made a great fight of it. I would lean to him in a close war that would take a lot out of both of them. But it would be close and certainly could go either way. If Norton could give Holmes the fight of his life then it's at least possible Frazier would be too much for him.
]

You mean constantly holding Frazier for about 2 minutes of each round? Come on, I like Ali, and I believe in the strategic clinch, but the amount of holding Ali was doing in that fight was just obscene. It ruined the whole fight. The reason the Thrilla was so much better was b/c the ref wasn't letting Ali get away with so much bullshit.

I edge Frazier in this one. Holmes has the style to give Frazier major problems, but Holmes got fatigued and bothered by the pressure from the likes of Shavers (rematch), Norton and Weaver, all very good fighters, but not the dynamo a prime Frazier was, especially as pressure-swarmers. Holmes by the 7th-8th round would start getting tired and leave the jab out more, especially from Frazier's great body attack. From then on, it would be all out war, and Holmes isn't going to win a shootout against the ropes with Joe.

Ali would have won the first fight with better focus....he thought he could fight AND entertain and it didn't fly with Frazier. Fact is he won the second fight and the third....as Frazier could not come out for their last tango.

Holmes might be able to pull that off but I agree with you it would be more challenging for Holmes to pull it off than it was for Ali. This is a very close call.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 24 Oct 2006, 19:32

The difference in this fight vs. Ali - Frazier would be the feet.
Holmes didnt have the footwork of Ali. I think Joe would force Larry to trade with him a bit.
I see Joe winning a dec.

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 25 Oct 2006, 07:05

What's interesting is that Frazier is in the poll rather handily so far. Yet, whenever the all-time great lists are recycled and represented for the umpteenth time, Holmes is nearly always rated ahead of Joe.

Styles make fights, of course. And I've never been that big on lists, anyway. At their very best, they're just good fun. Nothing more. That's why it's hilarious to watch all the arguing that goes on when the latest lists come out and some dude's trying to defend his high placement of some forgotten sole from the turn of the century ...

Like there's any way to conceivably measure how, for instance, Jeffries might have done against Holyfield. Fighters from eras too far removed. Not a good enough measuring stick available. It's all purely speculative.

Speculative, too, how Frazier-Holmes would have come out. But at least these guys' careers were not so far out of the same ballpark.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 25 Oct 2006, 07:59

Tough one to call this.

Frazier was very hard to hit & I think Larry's lack of power would have seen him stuggle against Joe.

Saying that, I still think he would have won on points, but in a very close fight.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 28 Oct 2006, 17:28

kingpawn wrote:What's interesting is that Frazier is in the poll rather handily so far. Yet, whenever the all-time great lists are recycled and represented for the umpteenth time, Holmes is nearly always rated ahead of Joe.

Styles make fights, of course. And I've never been that big on lists, anyway. At their very best, they're just good fun. Nothing more. That's why it's hilarious to watch all the arguing that goes on when the latest lists come out and some dude's trying to defend his high placement of some forgotten sole from the turn of the century ...

Like there's any way to conceivably measure how, for instance, Jeffries might have done against Holyfield. Fighters from eras too far removed. Not a good enough measuring stick available. It's all purely speculative.

Speculative, too, how Frazier-Holmes would have come out. But at least these guys' careers were not so far out of the same ballpark.

It is interesting that Holmes is almost always higher than Frazier on most all time lists. When holmes actaully was the champion, most people would have said Frazier was better.
Holmes had a tremendous cvareer, but which opponent that he ver beat would Frazier not have also beat?
The best arguement for Holmes is that perhaps he would have done a lot better against Foreman than Frazier did. Still, considering that Frazier did beat Ali once and really pushed Ali in their 3rd fight, I always rate Frazier slightly higher.

I do think that you can compare fighters from vastly different eras. It's a little hard to explain, but I will try. If you can compare Holmes and Frazier, why not Frazier and someone a little before him like Liston? Then you can compare Liston and Holmes. You can compare Liston and Marciano. Then you can compare Marciano and Holmes etc. It's harder and takes more time and thinking, but it certainly can be done.

As for the head to head matchup in the original thread, it would be a great fight. I see Frazier winning a very tough competitive fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Oct 2006, 18:41

pound per pound wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:how is holmes gonna outpoint frazier?? no tall fast boxer could ever outpoint a peak frazier including the great muhammad ali who lost by CLEAR CUT unanimous decision to frazier.
Ali did outpoint Frazier in their second fight. Frazier had fits with big fellas who could box. Frazier was actually down on points vs Buster Mathis for a while until coming on late.

Holmes had the skills to out point a slow starting Joe Frazier. Holmes also took a good punch, and knew how to take away the other guy’s best punch. I'd give Holmes the edge here.

frazier was past his prime in the 2nd ali fight. that was nowhere near compared to the 67-71 beast frazier. ali only fought a prime frazier once, and got his ass kicked. buster mathis fought much different than holmes and was lot bigger than holmes.

Holmes also had a key weapon in the uppercut. The uppercut is a weapon that often finds its mark vs shorter aggressive fighters. Frazier was susceptible to this punch.

this is bullshit. frazier was suceptible to foremans uppercut, but foremans uppercut was much much much more powerful than holmes. holmes doesnt have the firepower to threaten frazier.

holmes had a bad tendency to brawl when hurt. whenever the other fighter stunned/hurt holmes, holmes would try to slug his way to safety. this is suicide vs joe frazier. frazier would take holmes apart in a brawl.

frazier showed he could completley breakdown and tear apart tall slick master boxers like ali and ellis. i have no doubt frazier will do the same to holmes

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 29 Oct 2006, 10:17

Alp ... I understand the point you're making.

What you're basically saying is, if you can estimate what a fighter from 1970 would do against a fighter from 1980, then you should be able to back up 10 years and compare a fighter from 1960 to the fighter from 1970, and then use that to judge a matchup of the 1960 and 1980 fighter ... and so on and so on ...

Judging two fighters head-to-head is not quite what I'm getting at, though. That, in fact, is much more enjoyable. What I'm saying I find a little comical is the list thing -- e.g. (1) Joe Louis, (2) Muhammad Ali, (3) Jack Johnson, (4) Larry Holmes ... etc, etc. ... put 'em in whatever order one wishes ...

Then watch guys write post after post telling each other how stupid they are -- "How is it you rate Holyfield at eight? Are you an idiot?" You know, that kind of thing. Quite the fascination with lists, we humans, like a list really cements things for us. People magazines 50 most beautiful people. Golf Digests 50 best courses. Travel magazines 20 best vacation sites ...

The polls in college football are kind of the same thing, but I guess we need some form of list -- right? -- since we'll never have the playoff system most of us really want.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 29 Oct 2006, 15:32

Sometimes the arguements that people make in regard to lists are indeed silly. Often this is because one or more of the people involved simply aren't that knowledgable. Other times they let biases get in their way. Some people don't like certain styles of fighters, or don't like a fighter's personality so they rate them lower than someone they rate them lower than their favorites.
The different ways that people evaluate fighter can make people come to very different conclusions. For example, one person may have seen a fighter fight once or twice and think that is how the guy always fought, when the footage they saw wasn't a typical performance. Meanwhile the other person saw the guy fight in one or two other fights and has reached a different conclusion.

Some people have an obsession with film to the point that if they haven't seen a particular fight they don't pay much attention to it. Therefore, they don't have much respect for fighters from long ago where is little or film of. It's as if they believe that as film gets better so do the fighters.

Still, others (although probably fewer in number) seem to take almost the opposite view. They have a hero worship for guys who fought before film and since we can't see their weaknesses exposed they seem to think the oldtime greats didn't have them.

Other people are rating fighters on what they consider to the fighter's prime. Often that prime (if it's a fighter they like) conviently ends right before an embarrassing loss that in reality there is no excuse for.
It's also interesting how some people will find every excuse in the book to dismiss all or most of their favorites losses but pay no attention to excuses for fighters that their favorites beat. ie a guy is say 50-9, and there is an excuse for every loss but every single win is legitimate.

So it's tough to rate fighters. You have to try not to be biased against fighters you don't like or overrate someone that you do like. You also have to get as much information as you can. This means books, newspapers, film, records etc.
You also have to listen to other peolpes opinions. Often you won't agree, but occasionally you hear something that you hadn't thought much about before.
On this forum often I will completely disagree with someone about one thing, but will be in complete agreement with that person about something else.

Still, making good lists is possible and is fun. It's also always a work in progress.

Frazier 1970 vs. Holmes 1980

Who would have won

Frazier 1970 vs. Holmes 1980

Ali

Re: Ali

Re: Ali