BoxRec

The Great John L wrote:

dangerousjohnny wrote:You can't compare Fraizer to Relentless Lamon Brewster, who starched Klitscho & Golota and has never been hurt in a fight. That would be a hell of a fight, but no way Fraizer would hurt Brewster

Brewster has never been hurt in a fight? And perhaps you also didn't notice that even at his best Brewster's speed was comparable to Butterbean.

And I'm sorry but Sam Peter is in no way a major hitter along the lines of Foreman or Shavers. In his last 8 fights he had 2 stoppages, Julius Long and Maskaev, who he couldn't even KD. Besides the archaic Maskaev, he has zero KO's over world class fighters and his sole claim to fame seems to be his spectacular KO of Jeremy Williams, who was a good fighter, but he's hardly noted for having a great chin. Like most over-hyped KO "artists", Peter's true colors should be apparent now that he is fighting actual liove bodies.

Heres how I see Frazier doing in matchups against the current Boxrec top 10:

Vitali - very tough fight for Joe. I could see an ebb and flow in this fight with VK possibly quiting late or hanging on and taking it to a close decision that could go either way.

Wlad - Wlad has a punchers chance, but I would see Wlad going in to a shell and getting worn down for a mid rounds stoppage.

Chagaev - Tough battle, but Joe's conditioning gets him either a late stoppage or comfortable decision.

Haye - quick and explossive fight with Joe dropped in the 2nd but coming back to drop Hay 3 times in the 3rd round for a TKO win.

Valuev - Valuev's jab is too slow to stop Joe, but his clinhing sure stops the action. With the fight held in Germany, Joe outlands Valuev about 300-30 over the 12 rounds but still loses the decision.

Peter - Peter wings some bombs early and rattles Joe, but he in turn is dropped in each of the first 2 rounds. he survives to fight on but quits on his stool after 7.

Povetkin - Good matchup with lots of quick exchanges. Povetkin takes the first few rounds before Joe finds his timing and takes over in the third. The fight has its ebb and flow, but Joe seems to control more rounds to win a SD.

Ruiz - Ruiz lasts until the 5th by clinching and wrestling, but is stopped cold by a perfect LH to the jaw.

Dimitrenko - Dimitrenko's length present some problems again and Joe falls behind losing some early rounds before taking charge to to earn a comfortable UD.

Gomez - Joe is just too much for Gomez who fights gamely but is stopped in the 9th round after getting dropped a few times.

An almost perfect analysis,the only parts you missed,was Joes slips,and ability to be dirty on the inside,most of us who are from Philly either learned that stuff from Joe or Marvis,or from somebody who learned it from them.Though I would say,it isnt really being dirty per se,its doing it first,because given a chance they'll do it to you. Its just "The ref didnt see it" land,and you want to be better at it then the other guy.

As said somewhere previous, 'Joe smkes 'em all'.

Samuel Peter, Brewster etc...would just be meat to be honest.

Joe was hard to hit, had a rock solid chin, could really bang and when he started smoking, it was trouble.

Vital and Vlad offer a different challenge but Joe was good against big guys (bar the Foreman fight - but then again Foreman's power was significantly more than anyone around today).

dangerous johnny loves the big pasty robots and wont let a second go by to compare them (foolishly) to true ATGs

DJ, as you grow in years and wisdom you'll understand that's exactly it! Peter could look great vs an old, glass jawed Williams . . .vs class guys he looked like crap. This you will see happens to many a prospect in boxing . . they will look like the bee's knees vs weak comp but suddenly look weak as they step-up. Peter was NEVER anything special . .he was a born puncher with decent athleticism who unfortunately never put forth the discipline needed to have his skils and conditioning match his potential.
Ditto with Tua, the guy would have always lost to great fighters . . .he was simply too lazy and one-dimensional in the ring.

And from what I have seen from Peter is that he never has
a second level to put himself into. If his opponent wont
fall down and stands in front of him and fighst back, Peter
seems to slow up and look more and more dis interested as
the fight goes on.

Peter is a tough big guy and like DF says has some athleticism.
He gives some past greats trouble, manages a KO here or
there, but I can not see him doing that well against alot of the
past greats.

dangerousjohnny wrote:I stand corrected. The Sam Peter who lost on Friday wouldn't last a single round with Joe Fraizer. The Sam Peter that whooped Jeremy Williams would definately do the same to Joe though.

Really ? The Williams ko suggests that Peter would ko Frazier ? How 'bout Fraziers devastating ko of a prime Ellis, his ass-kicking of Ali, his tko of a prime Quarry in one of the best hw fights you'll ever see ? To me, these fights suggest that Frazier would use Peter as a punching bag.
Sam Peter is and always was a fat lazy fighter with modest boxing skills and a big punch. Had he been serious about his career he would have dropped to 220 and figured out how to throw a combination but he simply does not have the heart or the discipline to compete at the highest level and you can't teach heart. To compare him with Frazier is insane.

hhaehre wrote:The Williams ko suggests that Peter would ko Frazier ? How 'bout Fraziers devastating ko of a prime Ellis, his ass-kicking of Ali, his tko of a prime Quarry in one of the best hw fights you'll ever see ? To me, these fights suggest that Frazier would use Peter as a punching bag.

- I suggest you've lost track of the topic, how Frazier would do in this era. The examples you use are Frazier beating a pair of small cruisers save Ali who's a blown up cruiser who never had the strength or punch to keep the cruiser sized Frazier off him.

Much ado over Peter's recent loss, but as a King fighter, good chance he wore the cuffs, and at the very worst, he was marginally outworked and out worked by a lazy contender in a lazy fight he chose to box rather than slug in.

Frazier wouldn't step into the ring with all his accolades in today's era. He'd have to come up against a series of 220-270lb heavies vastly bigger, stronger, and more capable of muscling him around, knocking him down, and scoring stoppages.

As a pure fighter, obviously Frazier is greater than Peter and the like, but Fitzsimmons is greater than Frazier. Greatness doesn't always confer victory because not even the greatest greats can be great 100% of the time against lesser fighters, otherwise I can claim Fitz would beat Frazier and all the guys Fitz lost to. Fitz never fought a single fighter greater than Fitz was.

The young, less monied, undefeated Peter who walked through every punch of one of this era's supreme super heavy dreadnaughts to deliver a series of clubbing blows that would have knocked any heavy in history off his game at least temporarily is a lot for a little guy like Frazier to bring down. It would be much easier for Joe if Peter chose to box like he did Chambers since Joe did a pretty fair job taking down the Peter sized Buster Mathis.

At the same time, Joe was quite fortunate to survive the mini version of a slugging Peter, Ron Stander who presented a whole 'nother set of problems from Mathis. According to the "greatness" model used by most on this forum, Joe jumps through Stander like a bull through a glass door. That ain't what happened.

The idea that undefeated Peter was favorably compared in style and attributes to Big George the younger cannot be ignored. It suggests at very least, Peter is quite capable of a difficult tussle, just as all of today's top heavies in their fashion would present against Joe. Maybe Joe could bring Bob Foster, Terry Daniels, Mando Ramos and Dave Ziggy with him for some breathers, ya think?

Frazier is greater than Fitzsimmons in my book...but then again
3 titles at 3 different weights is a great feat....nah Ill say Frazier.

I see Frazier beating some guys on a once off, but sustaining a
career of fighting big powerful men will burn a guy out.
It takes its toll.

Broughton

I accept the Fitzsimmons point.

But my argument to you is this…

Joe Louis was 6’1-2’’ with a reach of approx 76’’
Sam Peter is 6’0’’ with a reach of approx 77’’

Essentially similar dimensions.

(I’m using these as simple examples, nothing more)

Is it not possible that the size difference is just juice?

Yes the Klits are giants, freaks of nature, but many of the vastly bigger are not. Valuev would have been beaten by Frazier juice or no juice. The Klits have size and talent so are a different proposition.

In 1973 Sam Peter would probably have weighed around 200.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

hhaehre wrote:The Williams ko suggests that Peter would ko Frazier ? How 'bout Fraziers devastating ko of a prime Ellis, his ass-kicking of Ali, his tko of a prime Quarry in one of the best hw fights you'll ever see ? To me, these fights suggest that Frazier would use Peter as a punching bag.

- I suggest you've lost track of the topic, how Frazier would do in this era. The examples you use are Frazier beating a pair of small cruisers save Ali who's a blown up cruiser who never had the strength or punch to keep the cruiser sized Frazier off him.

Much ado over Peter's recent loss, but as a King fighter, good chance he wore the cuffs, and at the very worst, he was marginally outworked and out worked by a lazy contender in a lazy fight he chose to box rather than slug in.

Frazier wouldn't step into the ring with all his accolades in today's era. He'd have to come up against a series of 220-270lb heavies vastly bigger, stronger, and more capable of muscling him around, knocking him down, and scoring stoppages.

As a pure fighter, obviously Frazier is greater than Peter and the like, but Fitzsimmons is greater than Frazier. Greatness doesn't always confer victory because not even the greatest greats can be great 100% of the time against lesser fighters, otherwise I can claim Fitz would beat Frazier and all the guys Fitz lost to. Fitz never fought a single fighter greater than Fitz was.

The young, less monied, undefeated Peter who walked through every punch of one of this era's supreme super heavy dreadnaughts to deliver a series of clubbing blows that would have knocked any heavy in history off his game at least temporarily is a lot for a little guy like Frazier to bring down. It would be much easier for Joe if Peter chose to box like he did Chambers since Joe did a pretty fair job taking down the Peter sized Buster Mathis.

At the same time, Joe was quite fortunate to survive the mini version of a slugging Peter, Ron Stander who presented a whole 'nother set of problems from Mathis. According to the "greatness" model used by most on this forum, Joe jumps through Stander like a bull through a glass door. That ain't what happened.

The idea that undefeated Peter was favorably compared in style and attributes to Big George the younger cannot be ignored. It suggests at very least, Peter is quite capable of a difficult tussle, just as all of today's top heavies in their fashion would present against Joe. Maybe Joe could bring Bob Foster, Terry Daniels, Mando Ramos and Dave Ziggy with him for some breathers, ya think?

The problem I have with your reasoning is that you only consider weight. Peter is not big like Vitali, he is a 6ft tall fat body and the same goes for many of the hw around today. Sure Peter can punch but he is slow and one dimensional and if he could not finish Wlad I doubt he could knock out Frazier, who had a much better chin that lil Klit.
You bring up Mathis as the only big man Frazier beat but Mathis was fat, not a strong bull like Bonavena or Chuvalo. As for Stander, I think you need to look at the fight again. Frazier did not look very good but to suggest Joe was fortunate to survive Stander borders on the laughable. BTW Stander is just an inch or so shorter than Peter, only he was never as fat as the "nightmare".

To get back to the topic, I think that Frazier would be champ today but I certainly agree that the really big men would present difficulties for a man the size of Frazier. Vitali is big, skilled and in shape, he would be a problem for Fazier. I still think Frazier beats Vitali as Vitali is a slow methodical fighter, unlike a young Foreman, but it would not be easy for Frazier. However all the 250+ guys around today with a six pack on their necks and man tits flopping in the wind would be easy pickings for Joe.

Hell, Mathis would be a top 3 HW right now, and I'm not unconvinced he couldn't use his handspeed and counter-punching ability to tear up both Klit's faces.

Stander is a perfect analogy to how a Frazier-Peter fight would play out. Stander was just 5'11 but had a gigantic frame, an extremely heavy puncher, and fairly durable. Frazier by the end of the 2nd was using his boxing ability to counter and bust up Stander in what by the 4th was turning into a one-sided beating. And Peter would throw less punches than big Ron.

If just being chubby and over-massed gave a fighter such a huger advantage than wow the previous 90 years of heavyweights must have been really stupid, spending all that time trying to be lean and in shape

hhaehre wrote: The problem I have with your reasoning is that you only consider weight. Peter is not big like Vitali, he is a 6ft tall fat body and the same goes for many of the hw around today. Sure Peter can punch but he is slow and one dimensional and if he could not finish Wlad I doubt he could knock out Frazier, who had a much better chin that lil Klit.
You bring up Mathis as the only big man Frazier beat but Mathis was fat, not a strong bull like Bonavena or Chuvalo. As for Stander, I think you need to look at the fight again. Frazier did not look very good but to suggest Joe was fortunate to survive Stander borders on the laughable. BTW Stander is just an inch or so shorter than Peter, only he was never as fat as the "nightmare".

- Then let's all laugh because I watched the Standers' fight a few weeks back and Stander's had Joe ready to go those first two rounds before running out of steam. Ron was based on one dimensional awkwardness applied to strength. Perhaps you need to review.

Mathis was a big strong man with some excellent athletic attributes such as speed and coordination. He was not, however a natural fighter, rather a made fighter by D'amato who learned the ropes well enough to fight a bit to go along with his boxing. His style was not based on using his strength, but rather his speed and coordination. He also had the typical diabetic health problems that Joe and the other Buster had, high blood pressure and weight gains that limit their primes.

You say Peter is fat, and I say you need to go review his last fight. There was not a single roll of fat on him. He looks the same at 265 as he did at 250 and you can can see a hint of abs in his belly. Sure, he could stand to lose 10 lbs of fat just like Ali in 90% of his comeback. I've seen the NFL do BMIs on Sam's body type and often they comeback lower than some defensive and offensive backs at around 10%.

With only 12 rds maximum and an emphasis on KDs and quick stoppages, today's heavies are a different breed of cat. Peter/Chambers broke the rule of today's heavies by chosing to box at range primarily rather than grapple/slug and wear on the opponent.

The fat man, Chambers won, or didn't you see the results? Guaranteed that guy is approaching the 30% BMI. Thought Big George laid the blueprint for a fat man being competitive and good enough shape to win over 12 at any rate. Willie Meehan, Galento, Mathis, Toney, they made themselves useful as fatboys in the divison.

You also underrate Wlad's chin. Through 55 fights he's never taken a 10 count and only stopped on punches once, a fight that sees him crawl off the canvas Primo style 5x in two rounds against the biggest strongest hardest hitting southpaw in history who specialized in early round KOs. Doubt seriously 190lb Sonny Banks or 180 lb Cooper would have budged Wlad, but he doesn't have the luxury of fighting those itsy bitsy fighters young Clay was matched against to fluff his record up.

Looking at Wlad's whole career, his flaws revolve around some very unusual stamina issues not easily explained, a lack of balance that sees him more open for counters and in precarious positions when missing right hands primarily, coupled with a lack of natural fighting instinct. He's a made fighter, a younger brother willing to walk through fire to emulate his idolized older brother.

Heck, name your fighter and I can pick him apart as well, but it means nothing as to the essentials that today's fighter, most esp the heavies, are simply a different breed of cat from past breeds.

I previously mentioned, if Joe is to have any decent career against today's heavies, he's got to be seasoned in the cruisers and pick up some titles, and then he has to hit the weights and gain at least 10-15 lbs for the heavies. Be fun to see, I know that.

Briggs at 270 has abs . . I guess he wasn't carrying a ton of fat too

Peter had a huge bloated stomach last Friday, he looked like he had the condition starving children in Kenya get when they are malnourished. The fact that he looked relatively 'solid' in his upper-body doesn't mean anything. In the sport of boxing nobody standing at 6 inches should be weighing more than 225 lbs, and most should be far less than that. Or else you'll get low activity, flat-footed guys like Peter who are gassed by the 5th round and lack the mobility of beached whales.

Fraizer would lose against 80% of todays boxers. He most likely would be dropped extremely fast against people like Vitali, Wlad, Chagaev. I think even Haye would beat him.

I mean cmon the guy at his heaviest was 229 in his very last fight. before that he never really went above 212 pounds.

In my opinion by today's standards Joe would not even be in the HW division. His coach would say "joe your gonna get killed, they have this thing now CW you should try it out"

In fact most of the HW of that era would have been in CW today. Not all but most. In fact thats why later they realized it was unfair to make these smaller guys fight HW that were getting bigger and bigger

TheCentre wrote:Fraizer would lose against 80% of todays boxers. He most likely would be dropped extremely fast against people like Vitali, Wlad, Chagaev. I think even Haye would beat him.

I mean cmon the guy at his heaviest was 229 in his very last fight. before that he never really went above 212 pounds.

In my opinion by today's standards Joe would not even be in the HW division. His coach would say "joe your gonna get killed, they have this thing now CW you should try it out"

In fact most of the HW of that era would have been in CW today. Not all but most. In fact thats why later they realized it was unfair to make these smaller guys fight HW that were getting bigger and bigger

LMAO!

If Frazier should try another division, perhaps you should try analysing another sport. You're more out of your depth trying to assess boxing than Frazier would be at Heavyweight today, slicing through the current obesity crisis plaguing the division.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

TheCentre wrote:Fraizer would lose against 80% of todays boxers. He most likely would be dropped extremely fast against people like Vitali, Wlad, Chagaev. I think even Haye would beat him.

I mean cmon the guy at his heaviest was 229 in his very last fight. before that he never really went above 212 pounds.

In my opinion by today's standards Joe would not even be in the HW division. His coach would say "joe your gonna get killed, they have this thing now CW you should try it out"

In fact most of the HW of that era would have been in CW today. Not all but most. In fact thats why later they realized it was unfair to make these smaller guys fight HW that were getting bigger and bigger

LMAO!

If Frazier should try another division, perhaps you should try analysing another sport. You're more out of your depth trying to assess boxing than Frazier would be at Heavyweight today, slicing through the current obesity crisis plaguing the division.

Cute reply. Its called progess. Just like any other sport progress made the athletes considerably better than their predecessors. Go on JSTOR and search for the key terms "progress, sports science, etc etc" and you will see hundreds of studies that pretty much state that the present day athletes would dominate almost all their predecessors, with some few exceptions of course.

TheCentre wrote:Its called progess.

The only thing progressing with most of the current crop of heavys is their waistlines. Frazier was a brutal bodypuncher. If a prime Frazier came in today, I'd plug him in at #3 with this current group.

Another sad instance of a fellow looking at his stats sheets instead of observing the stunning gulf in class, conditioning, fitness, dedication, & sheer ability, no less.

Progression is not mandated, mate. It doesn't just happen because Fighter X's birthdate on the calendar arrives later. Sports science & nutrition has improved. Everything else amongst the Heavyweights has declined. That's a progression deficit, not a surplus. They're going backwards.

dempseyfire wrote:Hell, Mathis would be a top 3 HW right now, and I'm not unconvinced he couldn't use his handspeed and counter-punching ability to tear up both Klit's faces.

Stander is a perfect analogy to how a Frazier-Peter fight would play out. Stander was just 5'11 but had a gigantic frame, an extremely heavy puncher, and fairly durable. Frazier by the end of the 2nd was using his boxing ability to counter and bust up Stander in what by the 4th was turning into a one-sided beating. And Peter would throw less punches than big Ron.

If just being chubby and over-massed gave a fighter such a huger advantage than wow the previous 90 years of heavyweights must have been really stupid, spending all that time trying to be lean and in shape

So Sam Peters is essentially a Ron Stander ? Ok....

If Frazier was fighting today he would be a LHW that cuts. Or
most likely a CW.

Frazier could have not sweated down to 175, that's a joke.

Fighting today, he could fight at cruiser. Or fight as a . . . .incredible, I know, heavyweight who actually comes into fights in top shape.

I think Peter was a better boxer than Stander but lacked Stander's work-rate or heart. I think their power is very comparable (who besides a 40 year old Maskaev did Peter ever knockout?) Both were fairly durable but could be hurt and knocked down. Peter would have not been more than a fringe contender just like Stander was in the early 70s.

As to the 'athletes are stronger and faster' argument, I feel like I've answered that myth over a 100 times, not going to get into that again in detail. In summary, advancements in records are due to an increase in participation (i.e. a larger field of talent) and certain equipment advances (cleats and running surface with sprinters), not due to people becoming better athletes within a span of 50 years, natural selection does not work like that.

DF

Im not saying that todays guys are faster or
stronger.

I just think that Frazier would fight at a lower
weight these days/

Beating big men when you are Frazier's size
and talent is very doable. But to say do 20
in a row burns a man out.

Head to head I favour Frazier every time.

One after the other on a 2 mth fight schedule
one is going to catch the man out.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Another sad instance of a fellow looking at his stats sheets instead of observing the stunning gulf in class, conditioning, fitness, dedication, & sheer ability, no less.

Progression is not mandated, mate. It doesn't just happen because Fighter X's birthdate on the calendar arrives later. Sports science & nutrition has improved. Everything else amongst the Heavyweights has declined. That's a progression deficit, not a surplus. They're going backwards.

Well said.

Robinson wrote:DF

Im not saying that todays guys are faster or
stronger.

I just think that Frazier would fight at a lower
weight these days/

Beating big men when you are Frazier's size
and talent is very doable. But to say do 20
in a row burns a man out.

Head to head I favour Frazier every time.

One after the other on a 2 mth fight schedule
one is going to catch the man out.

But what I was saying earlier is that besides the Klitschkos, the division doesn't have any talented natural super heavyweights (I won't even bring up the imposter Valuev) . . .guys like Peter,Chagaev,Povetkin,Ruiz etc. are just chunky men who are no bigger than the majority of guys Frazier fought in his day. Un-neccesary poundage won't make a guy tougher to fight in boxing . . actually with Frazier's relentless pressure style I see him blowing away pretty much everyone before the 5th round, so the end result would be him taking LESS punishment. Bonavena,Quarry,Machen, Chuvalo,Ellis,Ali were as big or bigger as the wide majority of the division, they just came into fights in top shape and not looking like your neighborhood plumber (no offense intended for plumbers )
The Klitschkos are Chenobyl produced anomalies in the division, not the norm. And Joe beats them anyway.

DF wrote:
"Bonavena,Quarry,Machen, Chuvalo,Ellis,Ali were as big or bigger as the wide majority of the division, they just came into fights in top shape and not looking like your neighborhood plumber (no offense intended for plumbers "

Ellis fought at 160 until he was almost 25 years old! He must have really been ripped at 160 if he is bigger than Sam Peter.LOLOL. We saw how great and ripped Quarry was at 207 when he fought Norton...LOLOL. We saw how ripped Ali was at 230 for the Young fight. LOLOL. DF, you should be a strength and conditioning coach with your "unique" understanding of athletics and conditioning. I guess that weights were different in the 70s, when Quarry looked sloppy fat at 207, those scales would have weighed him at 270 today? LOLOL.

Keep it up DF. Your posts are hilarious! I think you are a troll who just makes outrageous comments for attention, but whatever, your posts are the funniest on the board.