How would Frazier do in this era?

[BoxBuzz]

If Joe was too small wouldnt' Mike Tyson also be considered a bit of a shrimp in today's crop of "obeseweights"? One of the things you can't take away from Mike in his early days was conditioning...he was muscle and pulp as I recall....Has anyone seen a genuine "in shape" Heavy lately? The K brothers can't be faulted for their size like some in the current crop, but they aren't of the solidity of Joe or Mike in their top form. If Joe can keep from being nailed solidly he can snatch the body from the biggest of prey.

IMHO.

[Robinson]

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.

I have met in person Mark Hunt (K-1 kickboxer) and seen at a show David Tua,
I am taller and I have a longer reach than both of these men. If I were to box as
a pro I would fight as a CW. These men, while shorter are massively wide and solidly
framed. Just heavy thick looking guys. I have come across these guys in MMA and
wrestling. These guys are big men.

The fighters you mentioned would also be able to fight at CW. In modern divisions.

Valuev is not an impostor, he is doing the best he can do. Being that big has its
faults as does being small.

I agree that alot of more recent HW are not looking the part, and are eating as
well as using science to help gain the weight needed. This is often so they
can compete (perceived real or not) against the men that are naturally big
Grant, Lewis, Klits, Valuev, etc etc.

[Robinson]

If Joe was too small wouldnt' Mike Tyson also be considered a bit of a shrimp in today's crop of "obeseweights"? One of the things you can't take away from Mike in his early days was conditioning...he was muscle and pulp as I recall....Has anyone seen a genuine "in shape" Heavy lately? The K brothers can't be faulted for their size like some in the current crop, but they aren't of the solidity of Joe or Mike in their top form. If Joe can keep from being nailed solidly he can snatch the body from the biggest of prey.

IMHO.

Tyson and Frazier are a different build and frame. Regardless of
how they measure up on paper. Besides...Frazier and Tyson are
two completly different fighters.

[dempseyfire]

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.

Ellis at 190 was in shape without any fat on him . . I don't see flabby Chambers or Byrd being any naturally bigger than Ellis

Wow, you picked out Quarry's physique in his very last fight before he retired (in a fight he took on short notice), and Ali's career high until the Berbick fight in a fight he clearly came out of shape in . . .despite the fact that those were clear EXCEPTIONS at the time rather than the norm, as it is today. You must be proud of yourself!

[dempseyfire]

If Joe was too small wouldnt' Mike Tyson also be considered a bit of a shrimp in today's crop of "obeseweights"? One of the things you can't take away from Mike in his early days was conditioning...he was muscle and pulp as I recall....Has anyone seen a genuine "in shape" Heavy lately? The K brothers can't be faulted for their size like some in the current crop, but they aren't of the solidity of Joe or Mike in their top form. If Joe can keep from being nailed solidly he can snatch the body from the biggest of prey.

IMHO.

Tyson and Frazier are a different build and frame. Regardless of
how they measure up on paper. Besides...Frazier and Tyson are
two completly different fighters.

Completly different builds?? Both were short, stocky guys, about the same height with Joe having longer arms. At their peak weights Tyson has a mere 10 lbs on Frazier.

[Robinson]

Of those you mentioned DF.
I would imagine that Ali, Chuvalo would be HW's.
Bonavena would be a CW.
Machen is a CW.
Ellis would be a good LHW or CW.
Quarry would be a CW.

There is no saying that they could not fight as HW, they did
and were entertaining and talents. How would they fare fight
after fight against much heavier men. We will never know.
But the argument I am making is that fight after fight against
big, heavy, hard hitting men takes it out of you. It wears one
down. Especially for guys like Chuvalo and Bonavena, even
Quarry. They would eat a lot of damage.

Ellis for all of his skills and abilities was not the same style
of safety first boxer that Byrd was.

[Robinson]

If Joe was too small wouldnt' Mike Tyson also be considered a bit of a shrimp in today's crop of "obeseweights"? One of the things you can't take away from Mike in his early days was conditioning...he was muscle and pulp as I recall....Has anyone seen a genuine "in shape" Heavy lately? The K brothers can't be faulted for their size like some in the current crop, but they aren't of the solidity of Joe or Mike in their top form. If Joe can keep from being nailed solidly he can snatch the body from the biggest of prey.

IMHO.

Tyson and Frazier are a different build and frame. Regardless of
how they measure up on paper. Besides...Frazier and Tyson are
two completly different fighters.

Completly different builds?? Both were short, stocky guys, about the same height with Joe having longer arms. At their peak weights Tyson has a mere 10 lbs on Frazier.

Ok if you say so...sure why not. They can be the same build and frame.
I dont see no difference....oh and in style..would you say that tired Bert
Sugar line that Tyson is a poor man's Frazier rings true...? I guess Frazier
was a poor man's Marciano and Marciano was a poor man's Dempsey...and
Dempsey was a poor mans Burns...and Burns was a poor mans Mace...

[John Galt]

DF again, this time comparing the builds of Frazier and Tyson:
"Completly different builds?? Both were short, stocky guys, about the same height with Joe having longer arms. At their peak weights Tyson has a mere 10 lbs on Frazier."

The difference would be like the difference between Ken Norton's build and Duane Bobick's. They are about the same height and weight, but one is muscular with little body fat, the other is not.

DF, I know this is going to take time, but take a look at I. Ibeabuchi at 240 and then look at Buster Mathis at about the same height and weight. Do they look like they are built the same to you?

[dempseyfire]

Of those you mentioned DF.
I would imagine that Ali, Chuvalo would be HW's.
Bonavena would be a CW.
Machen is a CW.
Ellis would be a good LHW or CW.
Quarry would be a CW.

There is no saying that they could not fight as HW, they did
and were entertaining and talents. How would they fare fight
after fight against much heavier men. We will never know.
But the argument I am making is that fight after fight against
big, heavy, hard hitting men takes it out of you. It wears one
down. Especially for guys like Chuvalo and Bonavena, even
Quarry. They would eat a lot of damage.

Ellis for all of his skills and abilities was not the same style
of safety first boxer that Byrd was.

So could Povetkin,Chagaev,Ibragimov,Gomez,Holyfield,Byrd,Chambers, and yes David Tua (who is not any bigger than Bonavena).

These aren't 'bigger' men . . .they are only heavier!! Minus the K-brothers and Valuev (who I think automatically gets X'd from the discussion for deserving to lose vs an old Ruiz and 45(!) year old Holyfield) the guys now are not any bigger than the men of Frazier's time.

And regarding Ellis look at how Chambers and Toney, two fatsos, beat top 10 heavyweights. Ellis, a bigger puncher than both and just as slick, would be schooling the wide majority of current heavyweights in similar but more dominant fashion.

If being chubby and overmassed makes you a better fighter, why don't the Klitschkos stop actually taking care of themselves in between fights, dine on German beer and bratwurst for months, and then do some basic training for 4-5 weeks before fights weighing in the 260-70s? A major reason they are on top right now is they are some of the very few right now who come into the ring looking and LIVING like professional fighters!

FYI that Tyson pic is from the late 90s after he'd gone crazy with the weightlifting. Tyson always looked a little more 'ripped' but that doesn't mean anything. Frazier at his peak weighing 205-210 was very lean and fit, as was Tyson at 215-220.

[Robinson]

You tell me DF. You have it all figured out.

[Goodnight, Irene]

It just amazes me how people can't see certain things directly in front of them, & there are so many such people throughout our sport today.

Joe Frazier would be a Cruiserweight today, because he's too small to compete? Ummm...isn't this implying ancient, way-past-it ex-Middleweight, James Toney, is better than a prime Joe Frazier, given the former's ability to compete, & win?

Frazier, at his best, is ten times a shot, obese Toney, who's been relatively successful.

[TheCentre]

To the people that said joe would be a CW and or other weight class, I agree. All the others that said I am just looking at stat sheets, you are not getting the point. You are romantics of a bygone era; irrelevant of the facts you would still see through your rose colored glasses any of the boxers of that bygone era.

If you think Joe could be in the top 3 now. thats crazy. Its like comparing Carl Lewis with Asafa Powell or Usain Bolt. Simply mad. And keep in mind Carl lewis ran his fastest in 1991, which is not that far from our present time. With time due to progress in all its shapes and forms, (maybe it be by the use of better drugs or by better conditioning or by better training etc etc etc etc etc); most of todays athletes are unquestionably better then yesterdays athletes ESPECIALLY if those athletes come from almost 30 years ago.

thats the rule in all sports, why would boxing be any different?

[Robinson]

GI

Toney for starters ate his way up in weight.
He also has a much different style to Frazier. Toney seldom eats a
clean shot and has a pretty decent chin. What usually hurts a guy
like Toney, fat or thing was a sharp fast shot. As opposed to a powerful
ram of a blow.

The arguments I am suggesting is that Frazier would beat most these
guys head to head, but after a career one after the other, he would
be warn out and one guy would catch up with him.

As you know a lot of guys have gone from MW up to HW in most
eras and have done well. And a lot of naturally big men, with talent
have not done so well. My argument here is not so much on size as
it is also on the style and nature of Frazier as a fighter.

Transplant him at his best now, and say go get them. Fight each top
ten guy one after the other over 2 or so years and eventually one
will catch up with him. Now whether he decides to mass up, change
his style, use some PEs we shall never know. Whether he stays around
his CW weight as he does this...perhaps. But for sure one of these
big current guys will catch up with him.

[hhaehre]

To the people that said joe would be a CW and or other weight class, I agree. All the others that said I am just looking at stat sheets, you are not getting the point. You are romantics of a bygone era; irrelevant of the facts you would still see through your rose colored glasses any of the boxers of that bygone era.

If you think Joe could be in the top 3 now. thats crazy. Its like comparing Carl Lewis with Asafa Powell or Usain Bolt. Simply mad. And keep in mind Carl lewis ran his fastest in 1991, which is not that far from our present time. With time due to progress in all its shapes and forms, (maybe it be by the use of better drugs or by better conditioning or by better training etc etc etc etc etc); most of todays athletes are unquestionably better then yesterdays athletes ESPECIALLY if those athletes come from almost 30 years ago.

thats the rule in all sports, why would boxing be any different?

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Boxing is a shrinking sport, it was much bigger in the 70's and the notion that fighters today are somehow so much more advanced when it comes to training and nutrition is simply false. Take a look at Chambers, a contender today, and tell me if you think he even looks like a professional athlete ? The mere fact that James Toney is able to compete at hw should tell you all you need to know about the "better conditioning or by better training etc etc etc etc etc" in boxing today.

[Robinson]

Boxing was alot more popular in the USA in the 70s.
It is alive and well across the world, still popular in the
UK and in Europe. Many asian nations also.

The assumption that boxing has less fighters today
and is less popular is perhaps a truth in the USA and
Australia. But I dont think it is a global reality.

[hhaehre]

I have met in person Mark Hunt (K-1 kickboxer) and seen at a show David Tua,
I am taller and I have a longer reach than both of these men. If I were to box as
a pro I would fight as a CW. These men, while shorter are massively wide and solidly
framed. Just heavy thick looking guys. I have come across these guys in MMA and
wrestling. These guys are big men.

Are you saying Tua and Hunt were not fat ? Mark Hunt was always obese and it hurt him in K1 even though the fights are only 3 rounds. He would have been 3-0 against Le Banner had he been in shape. The difference between a 6 ft. tall naturally big man and a 6 ft. tall man of normal build is not 100lbs. When you look at a massive guy like Tua it might be difficult to envision him as a slim fit fighter but have a look at Ray Sefo today (looks much like Tua in build) and Sefo 10 years ago.

[hhaehre]

Boxing was alot more popular in the USA in the 70s.
It is alive and well across the world, still popular in the
UK and in Europe. Many asian nations also.

The assumption that boxing has less fighters today
and is less popular is perhaps a truth in the USA and
Australia. But I dont think it is a global reality.

Count the number of pros in Britain today and compare it with the count 30 years ago. You might be surprised. The only growth you'll see in Europe are in the old eastern block countries who did not have professional boxing before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Robinson]

And that is very true. And in those countries
it is popular.

[Ezzard]

To the people that said joe would be a CW and or other weight class, I agree. All the others that said I am just looking at stat sheets, you are not getting the point. You are romantics of a bygone era; irrelevant of the facts you would still see through your rose colored glasses any of the boxers of that bygone era.

If you think Joe could be in the top 3 now. thats crazy. Its like comparing Carl Lewis with Asafa Powell or Usain Bolt. Simply mad. And keep in mind Carl lewis ran his fastest in 1991, which is not that far from our present time. With time due to progress in all its shapes and forms, (maybe it be by the use of better drugs or by better conditioning or by better training etc etc etc etc etc); most of todays athletes are unquestionably better then yesterdays athletes ESPECIALLY if those athletes come from almost 30 years ago.

thats the rule in all sports, why would boxing be any different?

Okay, so say you're right in your assessment (just for sake of argument), that doesn't mean the conclusions you draw are meaningful or correct.

If all it's about is 'sport science' then it's the PE's and training etc... that has improved.

Picasso didn't have access to computer graphics but he is still the greatest artist who ever lived.
Einstein didn't know how to use the internet, but that doesn't make us more intelligent than him.

[hhaehre]

And that is very true. And in those countries
it is popular.

But there is no money in it. Many of the former eastern block countries are dirt poor and produces mostly canon fodder for the German circuit. Have a look at Romania for example, they have no money and contribute only a score of traveling losers who tour the European circuit fighting for change. These are not finely tuned athletes reaping the benefits of modern training methods and nutrition.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

So could Povetkin,Chagaev,Ibragimov,Gomez,Holyfield,Byrd,Chambers, and yes David Tua (who is not any bigger than Bonavena).

These aren't 'bigger' men . . .they are only heavier!! Minus the K-brothers and Valuev (who I think automatically gets X'd from the discussion for deserving to lose vs an old Ruiz and 45(!) year old Holyfield) the guys now are not any bigger than the men of Frazier's time.

And regarding Ellis look at how Chambers and Toney, two fatsos, beat top 10 heavyweights. Ellis, a bigger puncher than both and just as slick, would be schooling the wide majority of current heavyweights in similar but more dominant fashion.

- Why don't you do your best schoolboy impersonation and list all the "top 10 heavyweights" Chambers and Toney beat.

Ellis a bigger puncher eh? Pull another gem out of your shorts and "be schooling the wide majority of current posters in similar but more dominant fashion." all the top heavies Ellis KOed.

Afterall, Valuev is no bigger than Ellis, just fatter!

[Robinson]

Sure there is money in it.

Their is no money in amateur wrestling but it is still thriving
and evolving and its athletes receive the benefits of modern
science and nutrition.

[John Galt]

Some of you might get a surprise about the number of boxers in 70s compared to now if you get a Ring record book from the 70s and compare the number of active boxers then to the number of active boxers today listed on Boxrec. I don't have exact numbers, but saw this argued once on a board and it was shown that there are a lot more boxers today.

After that was proven, the oldies are better crowd claimed that there were more shows in the 70s...Who knows?

[Goodnight, Irene]

To the people that said joe would be a CW and or other weight class, I agree. All the others that said I am just looking at stat sheets, you are not getting the point. You are romantics of a bygone era; irrelevant of the facts you would still see through your rose colored glasses any of the boxers of that bygone era.

If you think Joe could be in the top 3 now. thats crazy. Its like comparing Carl Lewis with Asafa Powell or Usain Bolt. Simply mad. And keep in mind Carl lewis ran his fastest in 1991, which is not that far from our present time. With time due to progress in all its shapes and forms, (maybe it be by the use of better drugs or by better conditioning or by better training etc etc etc etc etc); most of todays athletes are unquestionably better then yesterdays athletes ESPECIALLY if those athletes come from almost 30 years ago.

thats the rule in all sports, why would boxing be any different?

But haven't you heard? Don't you understand!?

It's, "the rule" that new is better than old

I love how this guy claims anyone thinking a fighter from the, "bygone era" of the 70's or before are romantics stuck in the past, but then puts forth his own well-considered point --- "it's the rule modern fighters are better."

Sit down & watch Joe Frazier. Then watch Sam Peter. It's really that straight-forward. You're being close-minded in your approach.

Robinson --- we agree Frazier gets worn down over time, as he did in his own era. I said much the same thing as you did at an earlier point. We're in-sync on that.

Centre --- I want to see one of you boxing diletanttes who occasionally crop up with your, "modern-is-best-by-default" logic actually explain to me what all these modern Gods do in the ring which gets them a win against Joe Louis, Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali, etc.

None of you have any answers in that department.

[Collins2000]

It just amazes me how people can't see certain things directly in front of them, & there are so many such people throughout our sport today.

It's lucky we have you here to tell us what's what eh mate?