How would Frazier do in this era?

[dempseyfire]

Boxing has massively declined EVERYWHERE in the Western World . . .including Europe. People think Eastern Europe is picking up the slack but it's really not, football (soccer) and basketball (and to a lesser extent hockey) are the big sports kids go into and follow, boxing is a fringe sport in Russia as it is here. And only a blind man wouldn't see the huge decline in boxing here in the States, it went in 40 years from one of the big 3 sports in the country to something that maybe gets mentioned in a major paper twice a year, like horse-racing. The number of boxing clubs in the States decreases every year. I think in the next 15 years the only American 'stars' that will remain in boxing will be from the south-west and the growing latino community. Boxing is pretty much dead as a door nail in the black community, just as it died among the white working classes years before. John Galt's amazingly crappy attempt at disproving this by comparing a paperback Ring record book to a massive online archive with contributers world-wide notwithstanding

Boxing seems to remaining fairly strong in south-east Asia but if people haven't noticed that region isn't exactly producing fighters above 147 lbs.

[John Galt]

Come on DF, you're even funnier when you tell us how Jimmy Ellis and Jerry Quarry were bigger than Sam Peter. Now we can't believe what we read in the Ring Record Book and on Boxrec. because they too show you make up "facts" as you go along?

The fact is that The Ring had every boxer listed who had fought in the world and Boxrec. has the same thing. There are more active boxers today than in the 70s. Sorry that doesn't fit your view of boxing.

There is plenty of talent out there. I was at a state Golden Gloves tournament last weekend and the talent was as good or better than ever.

[dempseyfire]

Come on DF, you're even funnier when you tell us how Jimmy Ellis and Jerry Quarry were bigger than Sam Peter. Now we can't believe what we read in the Ring Record Book and on Boxrec. because they too show you make up "facts" as you go along?

The fact is that The Ring had every boxer listed who had fought in the world and Boxrec. has the same thing. There are more active boxers today than in the 70s. Sorry that doesn't fit your view of boxing.

There is plenty of talent out there. I was at a state Golden Gloves tournament last weekend and the talent was as good or better than ever.

The Ring Record book did not have every boxer who had fought in the world you crackpot, jeez louise what drugs have you taken? If the Ring had everything than hell boxrec could have just taken the Ring Record book and posted that, nevermind the literally thousands upon thousands of people who have contributed to boxrec with new 'old' fighters and fights practically every week.

And how typical you would take my statement that the majority of men in Frazier's era were as big as most of the heavyweights fighting today (including Chambers,Chagaev,Povetkin,Ibragimov,Ruiz etc.) and that Ellis was as big as Byrd and Chambers and a better puncher than both, and then you saying that equates to me saying Ellis was bigger than Sam Peter. You must really enjoy making an ass out of yourself.

[John Galt]

DF,

The boxers in the hywt. class are bigger today than in the 70s.

There are more active boxers now than in the 70s.

People in measurable sports are faster, stronger and bigger than in the 70s. All sports have improved.

Weight cutting is a science today in boxing and other sports. Joe Frazier, even Ali could be Cruiserweights today and with 24-48 hour prior to the fight weigh ins be as big by fight time as they ever were.

[dempseyfire]

You are full of rubbish johnny boy. And you know it deep down, that's why you're answering now with just blanket statement responses like a little boy who refuses to admit he's wrong. You don't understand what the hell you are talking about, but worse refuse to listen and understand. To not believe that the human race is constantly evolving at the speed of light seems to be going against some wierdo beliefs you have, so be it. Explain again how Scott Frank beats everyone Ali beat in the 60s, please, that remains my favorite of yours.

Now can some admin. people come on here and explain to poor john how the Ring Record Book didn't come close to listing every boxer in the world, as well as being full of errors.

[John Galt]

DF,
nobody said the Ring Record book was not full of errors. As usual you are trying to divert attention away from the crap you spread. You are clueless about boxing, conditioning and athletics in general, but some of your ideas are good for a chuckle.

Why don't you prove there were more boxers in the 70s than now? That should be something you could prove if it is true. But you know it isn't true!

Nobody said the human race is evolving at the speed of light. But most of us can look at measurable sport records and realize that athletes are getting better in the measurable sports. In your mind, is boxing the only sport that is regressing?

[dempseyfire]

DF,
nobody said the Ring Record book was not full of errors. As usual you are trying to divert attention away from the crap you spread. You are clueless about boxing, conditioning and athletics in general, but some of your ideas are good for a chuckle.

Why don't you prove there were more boxers in the 70s than now? That should be something you could prove if it is true. But you know it isn't true!

Nobody said the human race is evolving at the speed of light. But most of us can look at measurable sport records and realize that athletes are getting better in the measurable sports. In your mind, is boxing the only sport that is regressing?

I don't need to prove it, anyone with any iota of the history of the sport can tell it to be true. Less clubs, less shows, less fighters. In the U.S., UK, Europe . . .you name it. This board has members older than me. Ask their opinion.

Most of the 'measurable' sports records are being broken b/c of more participants or material changes to the sport. For the latter, look at the changes that have occured just in swimming pool designs made to reduce swimming resistance, including adjustments of proper pool depth, elimination of waves, elimination of currents, increased lane width, energy absorbing racing lane lines and gutters, and the use of other innovative hydraulic, acoustic, illumination etc. Of course, any podunk observer can look at the Guiness Book of Records, see the records broken, and exclaim that a Gold Medal swimmer in 1968 "wouldn't make the team" or some other complete nugget of junk like Bob Hayes running with modern cleats on a modern surface wouldn't be one of the top sprinters today.

Once sports reach a certain plateau of popularity and participation (the NBA in the 80s, the NFL in the late 70s, boxing in the 19teens,baseball in the 19teens) the best of those sports can compete and often best their offspring, especially in a sport like boxing which, to the contrary to the NFL for example, has suffered an immense decline. Fools like lil' johnny can live in a fairy-tale land where the Golden Gloves entrants are better than ever, but such thoughts are reserved for the senile and delusional. Anyone whose spent any period of time in this sport will just laugh it off.

[Robinson]

Interesting contrast in Quarry taking the Norton fight on
18 days notice and Bert Cooper taking the Holyfield fight
on much less notice.

[Collins2000]

No need for all this smack talk, lads.

Rufus' tournament will resolve all these old vs new questions and much more.

And it won't be 'bullshit' like the other tourneys either!

[Robinson]

:)
indeed it will be
"fair and balanced"....
hrm where have I heard that before?

[hhaehre]

Interesting contrast in Quarry taking the Norton fight on
18 days notice and Bert Cooper taking the Holyfield fight
on much less notice.

No big contrast imo, apart from Coopers lucky punch he got beat up and lost pretty much every second of the fight.

[hhaehre]

Nobody said the human race is evolving at the speed of light. But most of us can look at measurable sport records and realize that athletes are getting better in the measurable sports. In your mind, is boxing the only sport that is regressing?

The only one I can think of.
It is really quite simple, when I look at a soccer game from 1970 I can see that the game today is much faster, the players are much stronger and the game has evolved tactically. The same is true for football and most other sports but when I look at the first Frazier-Quarry bout I see more punches thrown, faster punches, better technique much faster pace compared to what we see today. To me many of the fighters that dominated in the 70's just look better than the current crop.

The fighter today are bigger, no question about it, but is that a good thing ? Many of the big guys today are fat and that is absolutely not a good thing but what about those with more muscle mass ? How would a 230lbs Chagaev do against a 200lbs Ellis ? My personal belief is that Ellis would do just fine but I have no problem with people who think differently. However I find some claims in this thread beyond the pale such as Ali the cw and Peter destroying Frazier.

[Ezzard]

Nobody said the human race is evolving at the speed of light. But most of us can look at measurable sport records and realize that athletes are getting better in the measurable sports. In your mind, is boxing the only sport that is regressing?

The only one I can think of.
It is really quite simple, when I look at a soccer game from 1970 I can see that the game today is much faster, the players are much stronger and the game has evolved tactically. The same is true for football and most other sports but when I look at the first Frazier-Quarry bout I see more punches thrown, faster punches, better technique much faster pace compared to what we see today. To me many of the fighters that dominated in the 70's just look better than the current crop.

The fighter today are bigger, no question about it, but is that a good thing ? Many of the big guys today are fat and that is absolutely not a good thing but what about those with more muscle mass ? How would a 230lbs Chagaev do against a 200lbs Ellis ? My personal belief is that Ellis would do just fine but I have no problem with people who think differently. However I find some claims in this thread beyond the pale such as Ali the cw and Peter destroying Frazier.

The differences are technological. If Jesse Owens was around today and training with today's boys and using their equipment he'd be winning medals.

Sports are more professional in many senses. That doesn't mean the athletes are better in the same way it doesn't mean that a film with special effects is better than 'The Maltese Falcon' or 'Night of The Hunter' etc...

As for soccer, here's an intersting observation. Back in 1966 Bobby Charlton was about to take a corner with his right, checked the wind direction and took it with his left instead. David Beckham (The crossing God) has all the benefit of faster, lighter balls, sports science, special boots, but he couldn't do that...I doubt even little Diego could have.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I look at the first Frazier-Quarry bout I see more punches thrown, faster punches, better technique much faster pace compared to what we see today. To me many of the fighters that dominated in the 70's just look better than the current crop.

The fighter today are bigger, no question about it, but is that a good thing ? Many of the big guys today are fat and that is absolutely not a good thing but what about those with more muscle mass ? How would a 230lbs Chagaev do against a 200lbs Ellis ? My personal belief is that Ellis would do just fine but I have no problem with people who think differently. However I find some claims in this thread beyond the pale such as Ali the cw and Peter destroying Frazier.

- Look, fighters are bigger and stronger and it has nothing to do with whether it's a good thing or not. The cruiser division has been created in a quest to level the playing field, and in spite of modern American hubris that sees the average citizen thumbing his nose at smaller sizes, there have been some notable fighters still passing through the ranks.

Quarry/Frazier was a magnificent series, but we never saw Ali in a shoot out like that, so now does it follow that Ali is inferior, or Louis, and so on?

You want to compare Chagaev to Ellis, but if you think Chagaev ever gonna turn pro near 157 lbs, you must be well armed with a sweet titanium carbide electric leg saw. Ellis at 200 is no different than Byrd at 215 or Ali at 225 or Chagaev at 230. Plenty of chubby boys running around the storied golden olden years as much as today. None of those storied fighters has shown the ability to hold down their weights to their primes except under the visage of rose coloured glasses.

As I've noted in deference to the header, Frazier starts in the cruiser division today as would Ali, Louis, and so on. That in no way diminishes their careers or capacity to move up. Since the size of all divisions has increased due to modern regulations, it becomes a logistical problem to compare eras that some are unable to come to terms to.

[hhaehre]

- Look, fighters are bigger and stronger and it has nothing to do with whether it's a good thing or not.

It has a lot to do with whether it is a good thing or not. Is it beneficial to be muscle bound or not ? I guess in your world the ultimate fighter would be a power lifter or a body builder. I assume you don't believe that the increased muscle mass in many heavyweights today is due to evolution rather than different training methods.

You want to compare Chagaev to Ellis, but if you think Chagaev ever gonna turn pro near 157 lbs, you must be well armed with a sweet titanium carbide electric leg saw. Ellis at 200 is no different than Byrd at 215 or Ali at 225 or Chagaev at 230. Plenty of chubby boys running around the storied golden olden years as much as today. None of those storied fighters has shown the ability to hold down their weights to their primes except under the visage of rose coloured glasses.

Why are you dragging Ellis' early mw career into this ? I never stated that Chagaev could or should fight at 157, he did however start out at around 205. He has packed on about 25lbs since, quite comparable to Ellis going from 160 to 190. Ellis and Chagaev are about the same height and thus my question was: Would Chagaev steam roll Ellis because of his size advantage ? Ellis did fight and beat Chuvalo who was very strong and close to 220lbs and it is my opinion that he would have been competitive against Chagaev also.

As I've noted in deference to the header, Frazier starts in the cruiser division today as would Ali, Louis, and so on. That in no way diminishes their careers or capacity to move up. Since the size of all divisions has increased due to modern regulations, it becomes a logistical problem to compare eras that some are unable to come to terms to.

Ali's best fighting weight was around 215, how is he a cruiser ? Frazier was never under the cw limit ever, how is he a cw ? None of these men would fight in the cruiser division, they would be heavy weights on the lighter end of the scale, except for Ali who would be average at 215-220.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Look, fighters are bigger and stronger and it has nothing to do with whether it's a good thing or not.

It has a lot to do with whether it is a good thing or not. Is it beneficial to be muscle bound or not ? I guess in your world the ultimate fighter would be a power lifter or a body builder. I assume you don't believe that the increased muscle mass in many heavyweights today is due to evolution rather than different training methods.

You want to compare Chagaev to Ellis, but if you think Chagaev ever gonna turn pro near 157 lbs, you must be well armed with a sweet titanium carbide electric leg saw. Ellis at 200 is no different than Byrd at 215 or Ali at 225 or Chagaev at 230. Plenty of chubby boys running around the storied golden olden years as much as today. None of those storied fighters has shown the ability to hold down their weights to their primes except under the visage of rose coloured glasses.

Why are you dragging Ellis' early mw career into this ? I never stated that Chagaev could or should fight at 157, he did however start out at around 205. He has packed on about 25lbs since, quite comparable to Ellis going from 160 to 190. Ellis and Chagaev are about the same height and thus my question was: Would Chagaev steam roll Ellis because of his size advantage ? Ellis did fight and beat Chuvalo who was very strong and close to 220lbs and it is my opinion that he would have been competitive against Chagaev also.

As I've noted in deference to the header, Frazier starts in the cruiser division today as would Ali, Louis, and so on. That in no way diminishes their careers or capacity to move up. Since the size of all divisions has increased due to modern regulations, it becomes a logistical problem to compare eras that some are unable to come to terms to.

Ali's best fighting weight was around 215, how is he a cruiser ? Frazier was never under the cw limit ever, how is he a cw ? None of these men would fight in the cruiser division, they would be heavy weights on the lighter end of the scale, except for Ali who would be average at 215-220.

- My friend, do you ever consider your thoughts, or is your above just a loose stream of conciousness?

If you think that the Haye/Mormeck fight featured smaller fighters with less total poundage in the ring than Ali/Frazier's first fight, oh my stars, where in the name of nirvana have you been able to hibernate absent rule changes?

Jim Jeffries had about as dense a muscle and bone structure as could be imagined, and it sure never hampered him. Nor did it hamper Tyson. Nor did it hamper Primo in between Jeffries and Tyson. Mr. E. H. Field went to extraordinary artificial means to enhance his muscle and bone density, to compete with mixed results against his era dreadnaughts, so was he hampered?

Any good or bad judgments need to be properly placed with new rules, regulations that today's fighters fight under, not the fighters who can only compete under rules of their day. If you prefer rules of Jeffries' day, then state it as such, but don't expect much sympathy if you claim nobody that comes after him can beat him because he's so vastly superior.

Jim Corbett was using dumbbells and claimed they did him a world of good, yet we still have the crowd that you are a part of refusing to see history in proper context and bounding fighters with their own muscle if they don't meet some fancified ideal in your mythical imaginations of history.

Ali wasn't hitting a natural 200 lbs until around the 3rd yr of his career at any rate no matter how you spin him.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I note with interest John Galt & his ilk will talk until they're blue in the face on the subject of how much better contemporary sportsmen are, but will eternally stop short of actually stating which current or recent Heavyweights would blow away Muhammad Ali, a 60's fighter at his peak, or which Welter & Middleweights of current or recent times would do the same to Ray Robinson, a 40's fighter at his peak.

Surely, such relics as these would find any number of common, modern-world opposition who would clean their clock? You lot know you would be laughed off any credible forum for actually stating what you continue to half-heartedly imply.

[John Galt]

GI, being laughed at by posters like you, DF, etc. would be a compliment to me. There are posters here that I respect, who know boxing, understand conditoning and athletics who would not laugh at the suggestion of modern heayweights dominating the boxers of the past.

People who believe that the modern, bigger, stronger boxers are better believe it because there are few small heavyweights who are competitive today. Where are those guys? Maybe they are obsolete? These people understand strength training and modern conditoning methods. They know that being stronger makes one faster, not slower. They know it makes one more resilient. These people also understand weight cutting and know that it is very possible for a man to dehydrate himself for a weigh-in and be 15-20 pounds heavier by fight time. There are only a few heavyeight champions of the past who could not have been Cruiserweights today.

Then there are the people like you, DF, etc. who get their boxing info. from Hauser, Merchant, Sugar, etc. Your sources know nothing about boxiing and IMO, you don't either. So I don't want you to agree with me about boxing. If we agreed, I would have to be as naive about the subject as you!

[Ezzard]

People who believe that the modern, bigger, stronger boxers are better believe it because there are few small heavyweights who are competitive today. Where are those guys? Maybe they are obsolete?

But aren't these guys competing but simply juiced up?

If it's true, and I'm willing to accept that size is a big advantage, then why wouldn't Jack Johnson simply put on the weight he needed?

If you're saying a car from today beats a car from 1925 in a race then I agree. But you can't conclude that the drivers are better.

[Goodnight, Irene]

He cannot make that distinction, Ezzard.

[raylawpc]

There are only a few heavyeight champions of the past who could not have been Cruiserweights today.

Jeffries couldn't have made cruiserweight. What if Jeffries had been born in 1975 instead of 1875, and had decided to pursue a boxing career? If he were fighting now under today's methods and had the advantages of today's training and conditioning, do you believe he would have been blown away by today's talent?

[John Galt]

Ezzard, elite athletes in any era are probably elite athletes in other eras IF they have the same training and conditioning, and access to new skills. But if you take an elite athlete from a past era, exactly as he was, and put him into competition with an elite contemporary athlete he probably can not compete.

I have never claimed that evolution has made people better in the last few years. Training, conditioning, and skills have changed. Another change is the huge boxer who has been a boxer since he was young. Lewis, Bowe, VK, WK, and Valueev were boxers who grew big. They were not big men who tried boxing.

[raylawpc]

Ezzard, elite athletes in any era are probably elite athletes in other eras IF they have the same training and conditioning, and access to new skills. But if you take an elite athlete from a past era, exactly as he was, and put him into competition with an elite contemporary athlete he probably can not compete.

But again, "What if Jeffries had been born in 1975 instead of 1875, and had decided to pursue a boxing career? If he were fighting now under today's methods and had the advantages of today's training and conditioning, do you believe he would have been blown away by today's talent?"

I'd like to read your thought on that question.

[John Galt]

Ray,
Was Jeffries an elite boxing athlete?

There are lots of questions about a guy like Jeffries who fought smaller men and was usually much bigger than his opponent. How well does Jeffries take punches from bigger opponents, is he intimidated by bigger opponents, is he coachable. etc.?

If he takes punches, if he isn't intimidated, if he is coachable, he should do okay.

[Trainer Monkey]

I was aware of those fights. That's hardly damning evidence, since George was one of the hardest punchers of all time. Do you have anything else?

Did u ever watch his son fight? Also had a weak chin. It's genetic.

No,Marvis was a blown up cruiserweight fighting a slugger style when he was actually better as a sniper /boxer.
He did beat Tim Witherspoon and Bonecrusher Smith in Ammies BTW
Frazier would have walked through the division the way it is like a Panzer going through Belgium,way too fast,and way to tricky to track,he'd have driven these plodding heavy's nuts by never being there for the jab to connect.