Joe Frazier in the 1980s

[MEISINGER]

yancey what is with the personal attack

i have frazier in my top 20

since fraziers death ne is rising in popularity
with this forum to an all time rating that he did not earn in the ring

and top 20 is nothing to sneeze at
there are 25,000 other boxers in history that would love to be
that high

Nothing personal, you simply don't know what the hell you are talking about when you say Frazier is not an all-time great.

i consider him upper tier
in the lower part of the top 20

somewhere between 15-20
nothing personal against the guy.the heavyweights have the
most storied history of all weight divisions
where i have him rated i feel is more that fair.career was too short and
the top names he face ali and foreman he went 1-4 against suffering 3 stoppage losses
2 of them brutally losing

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He beat a lot of good fighters that he doesn't get credit for. If anything, I think Joe's career is undervalued. While he was 1-4 against Ali & Foreman he beat Bonavena X2, Doug Jones, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Ellis x2, Quarry x2 & Bugner.

You're right that none of those guys are top 20, but you could make a case for all of them in the top 50. If you have him at the back end of the top 20 because of his resume, I sure hope Mike Tyson isn't ahead of him. Because he, nor many other Heavyweights, can match that career.

[MEISINGER]

He beat a lot of good fighters that he doesn't get credit for. If anything, I think Joe's career is undervalued. While he was 1-4 against Ali & Foreman he beat Bonavena X2, Doug Jones, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Ellis x2, Quarry x2 & Bugner.

You're right that none of those guys are top 20, but you could make a case for all of them in the top 50. If you have him at the back end of the top 20 because of his resume, I sure hope Mike Tyson isn't ahead of him. Because he, nor many other Heavyweights, can match that career.

i do rate frazier ahead of tyson
again a very exciting heavyweight not top 10

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He beat a lot of good fighters that he doesn't get credit for. If anything, I think Joe's career is undervalued. While he was 1-4 against Ali & Foreman he beat Bonavena X2, Doug Jones, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Ellis x2, Quarry x2 & Bugner.

You're right that none of those guys are top 20, but you could make a case for all of them in the top 50. If you have him at the back end of the top 20 because of his resume, I sure hope Mike Tyson isn't ahead of him. Because he, nor many other Heavyweights, can match that career.

i do rate frazier ahead of tyson
again a very exciting heavyweight not top 10

I couldn't disagree more. Do you mind listing the 14 guys you definitively have ahead of him? I have a hard time making a case for him any lower than 9th or 10th.

[MEISINGER]

He beat a lot of good fighters that he doesn't get credit for. If anything, I think Joe's career is undervalued. While he was 1-4 against Ali & Foreman he beat Bonavena X2, Doug Jones, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Ellis x2, Quarry x2 & Bugner.

You're right that none of those guys are top 20, but you could make a case for all of them in the top 50. If you have him at the back end of the top 20 because of his resume, I sure hope Mike Tyson isn't ahead of him. Because he, nor many other Heavyweights, can match that career.

i do rate frazier ahead of tyson
again a very exciting heavyweight not top 10

I couldn't disagree more. Do you mind listing the 14 guys you definitively have ahead of him? I have a hard time making a case for him any lower than 9th or 10th.

in no order but these are all fighters that have an argument on being greater than frazier
ali
louis
holmes
foreman
lewis
holyfield
marciano
dempsey
johnson
liston
langford
jeffries
tunney
corbett
fitzsimmons
charles
jeanette
wills
patterson

frazier fits in my top 20 somewhere in the bottom 5 of these fighters

and this is great company to be in.no shame in being mentioned withthese fighters

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ok, so since Joe only beat Ali once. Where does Floyd Patterson's argument come from? Tunney had about 7 fights. Fitzsimmons and Corbett is, frankly, laughable. Langford went 2-18 against the best heavyweight he fought.

I have Liston ranked at #10, but if the argument against Frazier was that he only had one win against great opposition than Sonny has none.

[HomicideHenry]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

[MEISINGER]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

thank you
i was begining to think i was all alone is this argument

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

I think it's safe to say that Frazier is definitely ahead of Dempsey. I rate him ahead of Lewis & marciano but I think they're arguable.

[MEISINGER]

Ok, so since Joe only beat Ali once. Where does Floyd Patterson's argument come from? Tunney had about 7 fights. Fitzsimmons and Corbett is, frankly, laughable. Langford went 2-18 against the best heavyweight he fought.

I have Liston ranked at #10, but if the argument against Frazier was that he only had one win against great opposition than Sonny has none.

floyd patterson was the more hisorically significant champion between the 2
being the first to win the title twice

fitzsimmons again being more significant being the first middleweight to win title

i rate on what i feel is head to head opinion
and historical significance both

langford fought more legends than frazier had fights

[HomicideHenry]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

I think it's safe to say that Frazier is definitely ahead of Dempsey. I rate him ahead of Lewis & marciano but I think they're arguable.

I almost agree with you. Here's the issue I have with Dempsey, he wasn't the Jack Dempsey who tore up the division on the way up. When he became champion, he was dominate but he didn't fight the same kind of threats, or as often, as he done prior to winning the championship. Basically it comes down to stats and figures and the inevitable question, if Dempsey wasn't the dominate man in the division in his time, then who was? I pick Dempsey over any man in the division in his era, except for one, and that was Sam Langford.

Now let's look at Joe Frazier. He couldn't beat Foreman, he couldn't beat Ali in the trilogy, we never will know whether he could have beaten Norton, etc. He was certainly not "the man" of his times. Dempsey was, save for Langford. I think because Dempsey has the stronger argument for dominance in his time over Frazier, he is ranked ahead of Joe Frazier.

[MEISINGER]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

I think it's safe to say that Frazier is definitely ahead of Dempsey. I rate him ahead of Lewis & marciano but I think they're arguable.

didn't you make the argument of dempseys greatness in the thread heavyweight top 10?
where you called dempsey more historically significant then ali?

[yancey]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

thank you
i was begining to think i was all alone is this argument

No, you are not alone. You just found another guy who probably didn't live those times and just doesn't understand what an absolute force Frazier was in the late '60s through the FOTC when he accomplished his goal. He was a relentless machine.

[yancey]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

I think it's safe to say that Frazier is definitely ahead of Dempsey. I rate him ahead of Lewis & marciano but I think they're arguable.

I almost agree with you. Here's the issue I have with Dempsey, he wasn't the Jack Dempsey who tore up the division on the way up. When he became champion, he was dominate but he didn't fight the same kind of threats, or as often, as he done prior to winning the championship. Basically it comes down to stats and figures and the inevitable question, if Dempsey wasn't the dominate man in the division in his time, then who was? I pick Dempsey over any man in the division in his era, except for one, and that was Sam Langford.

Now let's look at Joe Frazier. He couldn't beat Foreman, he couldn't beat Ali in the trilogy, we never will know whether he could have beaten Norton, etc. He was certainly not "the man" of his times. Dempsey was, save for Langford. I think because Dempsey has the stronger argument for dominance in his time over Frazier, he is ranked ahead of Joe Frazier.

Prime Frazier would have run any version of Ken Norton out the frickin' building.

Not ever "the man?" Give me a break.

He was a monster from the late '60s through the FOTC.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Ok, so since Joe only beat Ali once. Where does Floyd Patterson's argument come from? Tunney had about 7 fights. Fitzsimmons and Corbett is, frankly, laughable. Langford went 2-18 against the best heavyweight he fought.

I have Liston ranked at #10, but if the argument against Frazier was that he only had one win against great opposition than Sonny has none.

floyd patterson was the more hisorically significant champion between the 2
being the first to win the title twice

fitzsimmons again being more significant being the first middleweight to win title

i rate on what i feel is head to head opinion
and historical significance both

langford fought more legends than frazier had fights

Floyd was the first two time champ, he also has an inferior resume and Frazier would have mutilated him.

Again, nothing to do with comparing resumes.

So you're counting Sam's Lightweight to Light Heavyweight fights too? Then he is a landslide greatest Heavyweight in history.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

I think it's safe to say that Frazier is definitely ahead of Dempsey. I rate him ahead of Lewis & marciano but I think they're arguable.

didn't you make the argument of dempseys greatness in the thread heavyweight top 10?
where you called dempsey more historically significant then ali?

He isn't in my top 10, I feel he is the most significant fighter in history. I don't rate fighters on popularity.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier I never rated that high either. He was Ali's kryptonite, but that was the extent of his powers. He was brutally destroyed by Foreman twice, he failed to meet Norton at all, he got a gift over Bonavena in one of their encounters. He could be hurt, he could be outboxed, etc. by even the most fringe of contenders. Stander buckled Frazier's knees momentarily. In his career, his best wins came over Quarry, Foster, Ellis and Mathis. Not too shabby considering the 1970s was arguably the best era in heavyweight history, but Frazier wasn't this incredible fighter that many have made him out to be. I would put Frazier below the top ten, maybe at 11-15. I think its fair to say that Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holyfield, Holmes, Foreman, were definately ahead of him.

I think it's safe to say that Frazier is definitely ahead of Dempsey. I rate him ahead of Lewis & marciano but I think they're arguable.

I almost agree with you. Here's the issue I have with Dempsey, he wasn't the Jack Dempsey who tore up the division on the way up. When he became champion, he was dominate but he didn't fight the same kind of threats, or as often, as he done prior to winning the championship. Basically it comes down to stats and figures and the inevitable question, if Dempsey wasn't the dominate man in the division in his time, then who was? I pick Dempsey over any man in the division in his era, except for one, and that was Sam Langford.

Now let's look at Joe Frazier. He couldn't beat Foreman, he couldn't beat Ali in the trilogy, we never will know whether he could have beaten Norton, etc. He was certainly not "the man" of his times. Dempsey was, save for Langford. I think because Dempsey has the stronger argument for dominance in his time over Frazier, he is ranked ahead of Joe Frazier.

Competition means much more to me than dominance. Dempsey would have been 0-5 against Ali & Foreman.

[yancey]

'Smokin Joe' is a Certified All-Time Great.

Placing a number position on him is disrespectful, (ie; Top 10, Top 15, Top 20)

The man was great, and 'over-achieved'. He gave his all in every single fight,
except for his last '2' when he was just going through the motions.

That's all I need to know.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd also add that I'd rate his two losses to Ali higher than any wins that many other Heavyweights had. Is it really possible to rate the Thrilla as a negative in his career? How the hell does that even work?

[SamWise72]

Maybe so; the last fight I have to base Frazier on that I've seen is the Thriller, so I could be wrong. Bruno was as strong as almost any heavy, and hit hard enough to do a Foreman on Frazier, if he landed, but he was never a fan of being under pressure and fighting on the back foot. If Joe couldn't bring that any more, he'd have no chance.

[SenorPipino]

Frank Bruno? Frank Bruno??? Are you guys kidding or all Brits? Frazier would destroy the weak chinned, self-doubting Bruno? Remember how he crossed himself repeatedly before facing Tyson a second time? No different against Frazier. Big time freeze.
I don't remember the 80's being looked at fondly in terms of heavyweight talent. A lot of overweight, poorly conditioned alphabet champions.
Frazier would destroy all of them, except for Holmes and Tyson. Holmes wins a split decision, pumping his jab to build up a pretty good lead. Frazier comes on, but falls short in either a 12 or 15 rounder.
Tyson, however, blitzes the slow-starting Frazier in 2 rounds. But he better hope that Smokin' Joe isn't still around after 5.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Senior Pipino,,,,,,,

33 1/2 year-old Joe Frazier "ain't" beating 25 1/2 year-old Frak Bruno.

'Smokin Joe' an 'All-Time Great', but not after Age 32.

At Age 34, he turned down 'big bucks' to fight Kallie Knoetzee, after he got
'lumped up' in Gym Sessions in Philadelphia.

I got news for you, prime Frazier isn't getting knocked down 5 times by Michael Dokes either.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

If the nearly 29 year-old Joe Frazier came into the ring the same 'pudgy self' at 215 lbs. like he did against
George Foreman - when he was '29'.

The 24 year-old Michael Dokes, at 6' 2" and 220 lbs. - would 'rattle' Joe early and often. 'Dynamite' with a
record of 26-0-1 (15 KO's) was at his 'peak' - and hand speed would be the 'problem' for Joe - who was
always a slow starter.

After Dokes slows down {Round 8}, 'Smokin Joe' would come roaring back like a Runaway Freight Train,
only to get edged out by a single-point.

Computer Program "Heavyweights of the 60's thru 80's"

Michael Dokes scores Flash Knockdowns in Rounds 1, 2, 3 (2x) and 5.
Joe Frazier has a big scores in Rounds 13 and 15.

Scorecard

Joe Frazier..............8 - 8 - 7 - 10 - 8 ...... 9 - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10 ....... 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 ===== {139}
Michael Dokes........10 -10-10 -10 -10 .....10-10 -- 9 -- 9 --- 9 ........ 9 --- 9 -- 8 --- 9 -- 8 ===== {140}

The 24 year old Dokes was much more of a mover than he was a banger. Joe could weigh 260 pounds and Dokes isn't bouncing him off of the canvas like a ball. That draw was an absolute ass whipping at the hands of Ossie Ocasio. Frazier would have eaten young Dokes alive.

[gilgamesh]

I can't believe I'm seeing a thread where somebody is trying to make a case for Frank Bruno and Michael Dokes beating Joe Frazier. He's leaps and bounds beyond either of those two, and would beat the hell out of them both. They may have their moments, but Joe was on a whole other level than either of them and would knock them both out in less than 10 rounds.

[HomicideHenry]

Competition means much more to me than dominance. Dempsey would have been 0-5 against Ali & Foreman.

That can never be proven, but by you saying so, you rank Dempsey virtually the same as Frazier as Smokin' Joe went 1-4 with Ali and Foreman; and weren't you arguing with me a month or so ago that Ali was so ring rusted, slow, and pitiful when he fought Bonavena? The Bonavena match happened just a few short months before the FOTC. So, by your logic then, Frazier's win over Ali doesn't mean much at all. Or does it, since your using it as a weapon against Jack Dempsey?