BoxRec

Marvis Frazier.

He had terrific amateur pedigree and was part of the legendary pool of the class of 1980 boxers (those were in and around the would be olympic squad), and of course he was smokin Joes son.

Joe pushed him so damn hard as he was trying to exercise the demons of his own retirement.

Despite the fact he was short and light for the HW division even in those times and seemingly didnt have anything resembling HW punch power and evidence of a weakish chin, he managed on sheer boxing talent and will and resolve to please his father, to beat a 63 fight veteran Joe Bugner who had 57 wins and was aged 31, easily on points in only his 9th fight. Bugner was and is a very respected european HW when the history of European heavyweight boxing is discussed.A year or so later he would go on a streak beating greg page, david bey,and james tillis, so the version Marvis beat was hardly "shot".

Anyway back to Marvis he beat Bugner, Bonecrusher Smith,James Tillis, James Broad and Jose Ribalta but since Joe insisted on putting his 22 year old son in with a seasoned champion and legend like larry holmes and a rampaging Mike Tyson, Marvis will always be remembered for those brutal 1st round defeats.

Sure it was Joe's way to do it the hard way and only have his son fight Larry and not some "paper" champ.

Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?

Marvis wasnt physically developed enough at 200 pounds and at age 22 to be fighting Holmes. And he should have been manouvered into a title match in 86 against a Spinks, Thomas or berbick, but instead he was put in with Tyson. The rest is history.

I feel Marvis had no reason being rushed into a fight with Holmes. He should have fought for the WBA title and whoever was holding it that month. he should have been given time to develop strength and power and if it wasnt working allowed to make some money in the HW division by fighting someone who he had a chance of beating who would advance his career

u kinda get the feeling if marvis hadnt retired in 88, his bitter father Joe would likely have thrown him in with Foreman in 89 and there would have been another brutal beatdown.

The sad irony is Holmes, Tyson and Foreman aside, I think Marvis had a good shot against the rest of the 80's HW's. Unlike the "lost generation" of hw's, marvis was at least proffesional and focused and not distracted by drink and drugs.

I could see Marvis outhustling your Frank Brunos, your Tony Tubbs, and Berbicks, or a Dokes and Witherspoon on one of their bad days which were frequent enough in the 80's.

Someone has been kind enough to post quite a few rare videos of marvis on youtube detailing his wins over bugner, broad and tillis to name a few. well worth watching

Frazier could have had a few more big wins over the usually underperforming heavyweights of the 1980s but even if he'd been steered clear of Holmes and Tyson, he would've had to fight them eventually, and he never gets to the late rounds vs those guys. Just not enough punching power for a volume puncher pressure fighter at heavyweight. But he was better than he gets tagged with and an ultimate overachiever. It must have been extremely difficult having the legacy of his father hanging over him for every fight.

mugabi wrote:Marvis Frazier.

He had terrific amateur pedigree and was part of the legendary pool of the class of 1980 boxers (those were in and around the would be olympic squad), and of course he was smokin Joes son.

Joe pushed him so damn hard as he was trying to exercise the demons of his own retirement.

Despite the fact he was short and light for the HW division even in those times and seemingly didnt have anything resembling HW punch power and evidence of a weakish chin, he managed on sheer boxing talent and will and resolve to please his father, to beat a 63 fight veteran Joe Bugner who had 57 wins and was aged 31, easily on points in only his 9th fight. Bugner was and is a very respected european HW when the history of European heavyweight boxing is discussed.A year or so later he would go on a streak beating greg page, david bey,and james tillis, so the version Marvis beat was hardly "shot".

Anyway back to Marvis he beat Bugner, Bonecrusher Smith,James Tillis, James Broad and Jose Ribalta but since Joe insisted on putting his 22 year old son in with a seasoned champion and legend like larry holmes and a rampaging Mike Tyson, Marvis will always be remembered for those brutal 1st round defeats.

Sure it was Joe's way to do it the hard way and only have his son fight Larry and not some "paper" champ.

Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?

Marvis wasnt physically developed enough at 200 pounds and at age 22 to be fighting Holmes. And he should have been manouvered into a title match in 86 against a Spinks, Thomas or berbick, but instead he was put in with Tyson. The rest is history.

I feel Marvis had no reason being rushed into a fight with Holmes. He should have fought for the WBA title and whoever was holding it that month. he should have been given time to develop strength and power and if it wasnt working allowed to make some money in the HW division by fighting someone who he had a chance of beating who would advance his career

u kinda get the feeling if marvis hadnt retired in 88, his bitter father Joe would likely have thrown him in with Foreman in 89 and there would have been another brutal beatdown.

The sad irony is Holmes, Tyson and Foreman aside, I think Marvis had a good shot against the rest of the 80's HW's. Unlike the "lost generation" of hw's, marvis was at least proffesional and focused and not distracted by drink and drugs.

I could see Marvis outhustling your Frank Brunos, your Tony Tubbs, and Berbicks, or a Dokes and Witherspoon on one of their bad days which were frequent enough in the 80's.

Someone has been kind enough to post quite a few rare videos of marvis on youtube detailing his wins over bugner, broad and tillis to name a few. well worth watching

How do you ruin a guy's career by getting him a shot at the heavyweight title? Isn't that the whole idea? How do you know that "whoever was holding [the WBA title] that month" was willing to fight Marvis? The guy retired with a 19-2 record. Ruined?

Would somebody with more experience as a manager have done better with Marvis' career than Joe? Maybe . . . But "ruined"?

raylawpc wrote:

mugabi wrote:Marvis Frazier.

He had terrific amateur pedigree and was part of the legendary pool of the class of 1980 boxers (those were in and around the would be olympic squad), and of course he was smokin Joes son.

Joe pushed him so damn hard as he was trying to exercise the demons of his own retirement.

Despite the fact he was short and light for the HW division even in those times and seemingly didnt have anything resembling HW punch power and evidence of a weakish chin, he managed on sheer boxing talent and will and resolve to please his father, to beat a 63 fight veteran Joe Bugner who had 57 wins and was aged 31, easily on points in only his 9th fight. Bugner was and is a very respected european HW when the history of European heavyweight boxing is discussed.A year or so later he would go on a streak beating greg page, david bey,and james tillis, so the version Marvis beat was hardly "shot".

Anyway back to Marvis he beat Bugner, Bonecrusher Smith,James Tillis, James Broad and Jose Ribalta but since Joe insisted on putting his 22 year old son in with a seasoned champion and legend like larry holmes and a rampaging Mike Tyson, Marvis will always be remembered for those brutal 1st round defeats.

Sure it was Joe's way to do it the hard way and only have his son fight Larry and not some "paper" champ.

Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?

Marvis wasnt physically developed enough at 200 pounds and at age 22 to be fighting Holmes. And he should have been manouvered into a title match in 86 against a Spinks, Thomas or berbick, but instead he was put in with Tyson. The rest is history.

I feel Marvis had no reason being rushed into a fight with Holmes. He should have fought for the WBA title and whoever was holding it that month. he should have been given time to develop strength and power and if it wasnt working allowed to make some money in the HW division by fighting someone who he had a chance of beating who would advance his career

u kinda get the feeling if marvis hadnt retired in 88, his bitter father Joe would likely have thrown him in with Foreman in 89 and there would have been another brutal beatdown.

The sad irony is Holmes, Tyson and Foreman aside, I think Marvis had a good shot against the rest of the 80's HW's. Unlike the "lost generation" of hw's, marvis was at least proffesional and focused and not distracted by drink and drugs.

I could see Marvis outhustling your Frank Brunos, your Tony Tubbs, and Berbicks, or a Dokes and Witherspoon on one of their bad days which were frequent enough in the 80's.

Someone has been kind enough to post quite a few rare videos of marvis on youtube detailing his wins over bugner, broad and tillis to name a few. well worth watching

How do you ruin a guy's career by getting him a shot at the heavyweight title? Isn't that the whole idea? How do you know that "whoever was holding [the WBA title] that month" was willing to fight Marvis? The guy retired with a 19-2 record. Ruined?

Would somebody with more experience as a manager have done better with Marvis' career than Joe? Maybe . . . But "ruined"?

Oh my goodness its like the ghost of skelp has come back to haunt us?!!

perhaps you ought to wag that finger at your own comments. I think your post is possibly the most risible reaction i have ever seen on this board!

if you knew anything about the history of boxing in the 80's and 90's, plenty of fighters were ruined by title shots or fights that came to early and resulted in a confidence destroying beating. You think of a drug addled Tyrell Biggs "ruined" by the Duvas rushing him into a fight with Tyson when he had out of the ring issues and taking a beating that reduced him to a journeyman the rest of his career.

You think of Johhny Bumphus and Gene Hatcher given undeserving shots at a Honeyghan who destroyed them. Johhny couldnt even walk straight that night due to substance abuse and had to be walked into the ring by his trainers the way a young celebrity might walk an elderly actor to a podium to accept his lifetime award.

Marvis is another one who was "ruined" by a title shot which came way to early and he was way in over his head. Since its clear you havent actually seen the fight marvis was brutally knocked down like a rag doll and stopped in the first round. It was one of the saddest things ive seen in the ring . Marvis was 22 , had only had 10 fights to the champs 44, had only been 10 rounds twice, had no punch to hurt the average HW let alone the champ for five years who was known for his chin in holmes,furthermore on fight night he was ouweighed by 25 pounds, basically Marvis had no business being in with Holmes at that stage. Larry said the same thing and was at one point pleading with the referee to stop it while marvis was still on his feet not willing to quit as his father looked on. At the end of the fight Holmes and his corner including eddi futch didnt celebrate and had their heads down in shame that they had used the Frazier name for a $3 .5 million pay day while beating on little marvis who holmes used to see at his dads fights when he was a young teenager.

The whole idea isnt just to get a title shot you have little chance of winningand take a nigh on career ending beating. The point of proffesional boxing is to win a title shot and make as much money as possible whilst retaining your faculties.

Marvis was exposed in his uneccesarily early title shot, he didnt make as much money as he could have going in with holmes having won the wba title, he was brutally knocked out in the first round and it ruined his momentum and career at age 22!! He hadnt had a chance to develop strength in his body or the chance to develop a harder punch as he had weak power for someone who fought that pressure style.He couldnt put away guys like zouski cleanly. He could have had a more succesful career in the long run by taking more time. How am I sure he would have got a fight with "whoever had the WBA title". well the WBA title was controlled by Don King same as Larry Holmes. Joe insisted on Marvis getting Larry for the linear and real HW title.

if they had waited for 2-3 years as Larry slowed down and declined dramatically after 83, it could have been marvis beating larry in late 85/86 and not Spinks another 200 pounder with vastly more experience and a punch.

Perhaps you ought to watch the Tyson fight as well and suggest to me that the brutal concussion marvis was rendered into within 30 seconds didnt "ruin" his career.

Marvis had no business being in with Tyson, especially since it was clear to anyone that he didnt have the power to hurt tyson and tyson was faster and more skilled and brutally powerful. It all came down to Joe being envious at the talk of this youngster who fought like him getting all the hype so he decided to put his son in with Tyson beleiving it was him fighting Tyson so he would prove a point. It backfired disastrously.

Okay. I also wrote that another, more experienced manager might have done a better job for Marvis. But clearly your definition of "ruined" is different than mine. The guy got a shot at the heavyweight title, and got paid for it (I don't recall anyone complaining that Marvis was underpaid for his shot). As I understand it, he is an ordained minister now working in prison ministries, and has all his marbles. Ruined?

I think Marvis Frazier went about as far as he possibly could have. Sure, he might have run up a few more wins over decent opposition had he been brought along a little slower, but ultimately a guy with a poor chin and little punching power is going to get exposed at heavyweight.

With better management he probably would have won a Cruiserweight title.

No excuses for papa Joe, but I can see where his thoughts were as far as taking the match with Holmes when he did.

Holmes had struggled mightily against Tim Witherspoon earlier that summer of '83, a fighter that Marvis had comprehensively beaten in the amateurs just a couple-few years before. So, he figured if Witherspoon could take Holmes to the brink like that then Marvis could pressure Holmes right over the edge & beat him.

Plus, just about four years earlier, there was a young, small, energetic, though very inexperienced heavyweight training at Frazier's gym by the name of Leon Spinks who had even LESS fights than Marvis who shocked the world in beating Ali for the title.

Put those two things together & you can see his rational for thinking that Marvis had a real shot. Hell, even one of the leading "experts" of the time in Randy Gordon wrote that he was picking Marvis to pressure his way to a win over Holmes. Of course, this was coming from the same guy that picked Leon Spinks over Holmes via KO10...

He just wasn't a big heavyweight in an era of bigger heavyweights, he didn't have a big punch and he didn't have the best chin. Size, power and ability to take a punch were the three strikes against him. Other than that he was a terrific fighter and very entertaining. He had a decent career, just came up short against the very best.

A ton of Marvis Frazier footage here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rYaZ2T0yYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0UFUFbxIY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifDJ4-Lja6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5oOaRA3Is8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esbahf64ytg

raylawpc wrote:Okay. I also wrote that another, more experienced manager might have done a better job for Marvis. But clearly your definition of "ruined" is different than mine. The guy got a shot at the heavyweight title, and got paid for it (I don't recall anyone complaining that Marvis was underpaid for his shot). As I understand it, he is an ordained minister now working in prison ministries, and has all his marbles. Ruined?

are you totally retarded? I was commenting on his being rushed into a fight with holmes.what has his post boxing career as a minister got to do with the holmes fight?

My point and i really feel the need to draw it in crayons 4 u is he was rushed.he took a brutal 1st round kayo and his blossoming pro career was prematurely ruined.if he had been guided correctly he could have made many millions more. Read my origional post again maybe the penny will drop. The fact marvis had a tremendous amateur career and post boxing is a great man and minister and son and husband is beyond dispute and not what the thread is debating.u understand that now?

My own view is,marvis could well have won the wba and defended it a few times before meering holmes around 85 and made several millions more and been more competitive but that he didnt have the punch or chin to stay at or near the top 4 long.michael spinks was also a limited hw who was manouevered correctly unlike frazier jnr. Spinks could have been a sacrificial lamb in the hw tourney but gave up his ibf title after fighting a relatively poor guy in tangstad to take the best bucks against cooney.this in turn moved him into a tyson fight and 13 mill payday all 4 91 seconds work.butch lewis was a great manager

bluerosekiller wrote:No excuses for papa Joe, but I can see where his thoughts were as far as taking the match with Holmes when he did.

Holmes had struggled mightily against Tim Witherspoon earlier that summer of '83, a fighter that Marvis had comprehensively beaten in the amateurs just a couple-few years before. So, he figured if Witherspoon could take Holmes to the brink like that then Marvis could pressure Holmes right over the edge & beat him.

Plus, just about four years earlier, there was a young, small, energetic, though very inexperienced heavyweight training at Frazier's gym by the name of Leon Spinks who had even LESS fights than Marvis who shocked the world in beating Ali for the title.

Put those two things together & you can see his rational for thinking that Marvis had a real shot. Hell, even one of the leading "experts" of the time in Randy Gordon wrote that he was picking Marvis to pressure his way to a win over Holmes. Of course, this was coming from the same guy that picked Leon Spinks over Holmes via KO10...

thanks this was the kind of level of debate i expected.very solid points; as were those of the guy who mentioned youtube links and seamus.

Marvis had alot of talent and potential for being so young. what i hate is that joe tried to make marvis fight like he did. marvis didnt have the fire power, the experience or the tough tests to make him anything like his father. marvis was an unfortunate of the dirty part of the business. one minute a prospect, the next a title challenger, the next being an opponent for the media sensation tyson. he'd of faired better had he competed longer against the 2nd tiers and been put in against a coetzee or tate or weaver than holmes.

..what coulda been wuz what wuz...

mercman wrote:By the way, I'm not sure that the Marvis v Holmes fight was actually a title shot. I seem to remember it being a non-title bout.

I believe that's right! Holmes had vacated the WBC title at that time. I believe the Ring Magazine recgnized the fight as a title fight. Poltics aside, I think most people considered it a title fight. Certainly, had Marvis pulled off the upset alot of people would have recognized him as champion.

mugabi wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Okay. I also wrote that another, more experienced manager might have done a better job for Marvis. But clearly your definition of "ruined" is different than mine. The guy got a shot at the heavyweight title, and got paid for it (I don't recall anyone complaining that Marvis was underpaid for his shot). As I understand it, he is an ordained minister now working in prison ministries, and has all his marbles. Ruined?

are you totally retarded? I was commenting on his being rushed into a fight with holmes.what has his post boxing career as a minister got to do with the holmes fight?

My point and i really feel the need to draw it in crayons 4 u is he was rushed.he took a brutal 1st round kayo and his blossoming pro career was prematurely ruined.if he had been guided correctly he could have made many millions more. Read my origional post again maybe the penny will drop. The fact marvis had a tremendous amateur career and post boxing is a great man and minister and son and husband is beyond dispute and not what the thread is debating.u understand that now?

My own view is,marvis could well have won the wba and defended it a few times before meering holmes around 85 and made several millions more and been more competitive but that he didnt have the punch or chin to stay at or near the top 4 long.michael spinks was also a limited hw who was manouevered correctly unlike frazier jnr. Spinks could have been a sacrificial lamb in the hw tourney but gave up his ibf title after fighting a relatively poor guy in tangstad to take the best bucks against cooney.this in turn moved him into a tyson fight and 13 mill payday all 4 91 seconds work.butch lewis was a great manager

No, you wrote, "Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?" That's the question you asked. Your question went to more than the Holmes fight.

A career is more than one fight. Was it a smart move to match him against Holmes? Maybe . . . maybe not. He was inexperienced. But, politics aside, it was a title shot. I think bluerosekiller made some good points regarding what Joe was thinking in matching Marvis with Holmes. Indeed, most guys would give their left nut for a title shot. Was it a good idea to match him with Tyson? Hindsight clearly says "no," but Papa Joe didn't have the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the Tyson fight, Marvis had a six fight winning streak going for him, and a win over the undefeated Tyson would have put him back in the mix for a title shot. Maybe Papa Joe figured that potential payoff was worth the risk.

The fact remains: Papa Joe guided Marvis to a 19-2 record. His Dad got him a title shot. He met some forimidible fighters along the way, and won. He retired before he became an "opponent" for up-and-comers. He retired with all his marbles, speaks clearly, and doesn't walk on his heels. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that his career was "ruined." Could another, more experienced manager have done better for Marvis? Possibly. Should he have campaigned as a cruiserweight? Probably. I thought so at the time. Would I have loved seeing him against the likes of Holyfield, Qawi or DeLeon in the cruiserweight division? You betcha! But was his career ruined? Sorry, but I can't agree with that.

I think Marvis is under rated, and is sadly remembered for those two
losses. He lost (quick no doubt) to two of the sports best HWs
while at their best.

Marvis perhaps would have been better suited as a CW, though
the glory of HW was what he sought. It is an ashame he did
not do more, but with Tyson around it would have been hard for
him to have become anything more than he was.

I doubt he would have beaten Holyfield had they met in '88-89.
And as it is mentioned above Foreman would have been a blow
out as well no doubt.

It seems that the Frazier camp invested its interests in Bert Cooper
around the time of Marvis' retirement. In any case, Joe developed
two very talented, though under sized, guys in his own image (as such)
sure they did not become the number 1 guy of their generation...but
fewer were ranked above them, than were beneath and that is all
to often forgotten.

I shall always have a good respect for Marvis, and will enjoy his
better fights on the odd occasion when I have the time to watch
em.

Holmes vs Frazier was for the IBF title which Holmes had
switched to when he dumped the WBC.

Robinson wrote:I think Marvis is under rated, and is sadly remembered for those two
losses. He lost (quick no doubt) to two of the sports best HWs
while at their best.

Marvis perhaps would have been better suited as a CW, though
the glory of HW was what he sought. It is an ashame he did
not do more, but with Tyson around it would have been hard for
him to have become anything more than he was.

I doubt he would have beaten Holyfield had they met in '88-89.
And as it is mentioned above Foreman would have been a blow
out as well no doubt.

It seems that the Frazier camp invested its interests in Bert Cooper
around the time of Marvis' retirement. In any case, Joe developed
two very talented, though under sized, guys in his own image (as such)
sure they did not become the number 1 guy of their generation...but
fewer were ranked above them, than were beneath and that is all
to often forgotten.

I shall always have a good respect for Marvis, and will enjoy his
better fights on the odd occasion when I have the time to watch
em.

But this is why 'cruiserweight' is a bunch of BS.

Frazier dominated Bugner and Smith, two very big top ranked HWs.

They were actually bigger than Tyson and Holmes, but Holmes and Tyson were simply much superior fighters. But when a smaller guy loses people automatically point to size.

It's like Eddie Chambers currently. Clearly, he showed vs Dimitrenko and Peter he can handle much bigger guys. Klitschko is simply a much better fighter than all of them, with size just being a part of the equation.

Its not that its BS. I mean south of 175 you have an army of
divisions.

Sure a 175lber can beat some good BIG guys, but to campaign over
time against BIG men takes it out of you. Especially if your a
guy that falls in the 'in between' region.

I would be a CW if I boxed. Though I would happily fight at
HW. Though it would be near impossible to sustain it (for
most) against a lot of bigger guys/

I love the image of the smaller man besting the bigger one/
BUT i do not think the CW is BS. I think it should exist. As mcuh
as some of the lower divisions do.

Why is it such a big deal between 147lbs and 160lbs... yet
200lbs to 250lbs is suppose to be nothing?

I have fought a 340lb guy when I was 220lbs and I can tell
you IT is a MASSIVE ask of any man, under any code of
combat. That is why I am happy to stay at 205lbs and occasionally
slip up for a $bigger challenge.

I do not think the CW div is BS. I think marvis would have done
well there, but he proved he could fair well against some solid
big men in Bugner, Smith, Tillis etc/

Sorry the above rant may read weird. Its near 0200 here
and I am babysitting and just re read it :) sorry DF if it
reads cluttered.

B/c a 200 lb man can have more than enough power to dent the chin of any 300 lber. In addition, the 190-220 lbers often have speed and stamina advantages.

Frazier's problem vs Holmes wasn't size . . .compare that fight with Larry's first fight with Michael Spinks. It was that Marvis was a 10 fight veteran with little experience and vast holes in his defense.

I would think in MMA, your sport, with a ground game such weight differentials would be a bigger deal clearly with the wrestling component.

A 147lber can have more than enough power to dent the chin of a 160lber as well
does that mean we should eliminate WW and MW ?

raylawpc wrote:

mugabi wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Okay. I also wrote that another, more experienced manager might have done a better job for Marvis. But clearly your definition of "ruined" is different than mine. The guy got a shot at the heavyweight title, and got paid for it (I don't recall anyone complaining that Marvis was underpaid for his shot). As I understand it, he is an ordained minister now working in prison ministries, and has all his marbles. Ruined?

are you totally retarded? I was commenting on his being rushed into a fight with holmes.what has his post boxing career as a minister got to do with the holmes fight?

My point and i really feel the need to draw it in crayons 4 u is he was rushed.he took a brutal 1st round kayo and his blossoming pro career was prematurely ruined.if he had been guided correctly he could have made many millions more. Read my origional post again maybe the penny will drop. The fact marvis had a tremendous amateur career and post boxing is a great man and minister and son and husband is beyond dispute and not what the thread is debating.u understand that now?

My own view is,marvis could well have won the wba and defended it a few times before meering holmes around 85 and made several millions more and been more competitive but that he didnt have the punch or chin to stay at or near the top 4 long.michael spinks was also a limited hw who was manouevered correctly unlike frazier jnr. Spinks could have been a sacrificial lamb in the hw tourney but gave up his ibf title after fighting a relatively poor guy in tangstad to take the best bucks against cooney.this in turn moved him into a tyson fight and 13 mill payday all 4 91 seconds work.butch lewis was a great manager

No, you wrote, "Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?" That's the question you asked. Your question went to more than the Holmes fight.

A career is more than one fight. Was it a smart move to match him against Holmes? Maybe . . . maybe not. He was inexperienced. But, politics aside, it was a title shot. I think bluerosekiller made some good points regarding what Joe was thinking in matching Marvis with Holmes. Indeed, most guys would give their left nut for a title shot. Was it a good idea to match him with Tyson? Hindsight clearly says "no," but Papa Joe didn't have the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the Tyson fight, Marvis had a six fight winning streak going for him, and a win over the undefeated Tyson would have put him back in the mix for a title shot. Maybe Papa Joe figured that potential payoff was worth the risk.

The fact remains: Papa Joe guided Marvis to a 19-2 record. His Dad got him a title shot. He met some forimidible fighters along the way, and won. He retired before he became an "opponent" for up-and-comers. He retired with all his marbles, speaks clearly, and doesn't walk on his heels. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that his career was "ruined." Could another, more experienced manager have done better for Marvis? Possibly. Should he have campaigned as a cruiserweight? Probably. I thought so at the time. Would I have loved seeing him against the likes of Holyfield, Qawi or DeLeon in the cruiserweight division? You betcha! But was his career ruined? Sorry, but I can't agree with that.

The penny still hasnt dropped with you.
My fundamental point is his career all things considered shoulda been more succesfull . He didnt need to take on a Tyson to get a title shot around 86 as you seem to think. Hell a Steffan Tangstad and Gerry cooney were getting title shots around this time for doing nothing. You think Joe Fraziers son , the Holmes defeat nonwithstanding wasnt more deserving than those two guys and you think Tangstad was better connected???!!
Hell the WBA and WBC titles around this time were like the game pass the parcel every mike, gerrie,james and tim and tony was holding them and passing them around every 6 months.

Marvis should have won a HW belt and earned more money even in the time he fought if Joe had been more proffesional matching him up and letting him develop so yes his career from that perspective was ruined and he goes down as another those sons whose career was hindered by their father casepoints, even tho thats harsh on Joe who led his son to a tremendous amateur career and molded him into a useful HW.

Arguing with you is pointless since you miss the fundamental point which others have grasped quite easily. Your keen to play sermantics fine do that but stick to the point, the point which is Marvis should have been a world champ of some sort and earned more than he did. Fine thank god he is healthy and a minister and happy and why shouldnt he be? but that doesnt detract that purely on a sporting debate/business of boxing level he could quite easily have been far more succesful in the ring as a pro. As it is he can be rightly proud and content being a former amateur world star and HW contender, but all Im saying is , he could have been a world champion who made millions.

The fact his life is very succesful away from boxing and he is content and hugely respected as a man , and has moved on from his pro boxing days isnt the point. I am talking about his pro boxing career here and a sporting debate.

You seem to think I am attacking Marvis as a man, which I am not, clearly Marvis as a human is very succesfull and respected. And long may he continue to be

mugabi wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

mugabi wrote:
are you totally retarded? I was commenting on his being rushed into a fight with holmes.what has his post boxing career as a minister got to do with the holmes fight?

My point and i really feel the need to draw it in crayons 4 u is he was rushed.he took a brutal 1st round kayo and his blossoming pro career was prematurely ruined.if he had been guided correctly he could have made many millions more. Read my origional post again maybe the penny will drop. The fact marvis had a tremendous amateur career and post boxing is a great man and minister and son and husband is beyond dispute and not what the thread is debating.u understand that now?

My own view is,marvis could well have won the wba and defended it a few times before meering holmes around 85 and made several millions more and been more competitive but that he didnt have the punch or chin to stay at or near the top 4 long.michael spinks was also a limited hw who was manouevered correctly unlike frazier jnr. Spinks could have been a sacrificial lamb in the hw tourney but gave up his ibf title after fighting a relatively poor guy in tangstad to take the best bucks against cooney.this in turn moved him into a tyson fight and 13 mill payday all 4 91 seconds work.butch lewis was a great manager

No, you wrote, "Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?" That's the question you asked. Your question went to more than the Holmes fight.

A career is more than one fight. Was it a smart move to match him against Holmes? Maybe . . . maybe not. He was inexperienced. But, politics aside, it was a title shot. I think bluerosekiller made some good points regarding what Joe was thinking in matching Marvis with Holmes. Indeed, most guys would give their left nut for a title shot. Was it a good idea to match him with Tyson? Hindsight clearly says "no," but Papa Joe didn't have the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the Tyson fight, Marvis had a six fight winning streak going for him, and a win over the undefeated Tyson would have put him back in the mix for a title shot. Maybe Papa Joe figured that potential payoff was worth the risk.

The fact remains: Papa Joe guided Marvis to a 19-2 record. His Dad got him a title shot. He met some forimidible fighters along the way, and won. He retired before he became an "opponent" for up-and-comers. He retired with all his marbles, speaks clearly, and doesn't walk on his heels. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that his career was "ruined." Could another, more experienced manager have done better for Marvis? Possibly. Should he have campaigned as a cruiserweight? Probably. I thought so at the time. Would I have loved seeing him against the likes of Holyfield, Qawi or DeLeon in the cruiserweight division? You betcha! But was his career ruined? Sorry, but I can't agree with that.

The penny still hasnt dropped with you.
My fundamental point is his career all things considered shoulda been more succesfull . He didnt need to take on a Tyson to get a title shot around 86 as you seem to think. Hell a Steffan Tangstad and Gerry cooney were getting title shots around this time for doing nothing. You think Joe Fraziers son , the Holmes defeat nonwithstanding wasnt more deserving than those two guys and you think Tangstad was better connected???!!
Hell the WBA and WBC titles around this time were like the game pass the parcel every mike, gerrie,james and tim and tony was holding them and passing them around every 6 months.

Marvis should have won a HW belt and earned more money even in the time he fought if Joe had been more proffesional matching him up and letting him develop so yes his career from that perspective was ruined and he goes down as another those sons whose career was hindered by their father casepoints, even tho thats harsh on Joe who led his son to a tremendous amateur career and molded him into a useful HW.

Arguing with you is pointless since you miss the fundamental point which others have grasped quite easily. Your keen to play sermantics fine do that but stick to the point, the point which is Marvis should have been a world champ of some sort and earned more than he did. Fine thank god he is healthy and a minister and happy and why shouldnt he be? but that doesnt detract that purely on a sporting debate/business of boxing level he could quite easily have been far more succesful in the ring as a pro. As it is he can be rightly proud and content being a former amateur world star and HW contender, but all Im saying is , he could have been a world champion who made millions.

The fact his life is very succesful away from boxing and he is content and hugely respected as a man , and has moved on from his pro boxing days isnt the point. I am talking about his pro boxing career here and a sporting debate.

You seem to think I am attacking Marvis as a man, which I am not, clearly Marvis as a human is very succesfull and respected. And long may he continue to be

The penny dropped for me with your first message, but you keep trying to change the coins. That isn't playing semantics by me, but it is intellectual dishonesty by you.

Your original premise was "Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?" I do not concur with you that Joe ruined his career. Live with it.

raylawpc wrote:

mugabi wrote:

raylawpc wrote: No, you wrote, "Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?" That's the question you asked. Your question went to more than the Holmes fight.

A career is more than one fight. Was it a smart move to match him against Holmes? Maybe . . . maybe not. He was inexperienced. But, politics aside, it was a title shot. I think bluerosekiller made some good points regarding what Joe was thinking in matching Marvis with Holmes. Indeed, most guys would give their left nut for a title shot. Was it a good idea to match him with Tyson? Hindsight clearly says "no," but Papa Joe didn't have the benefit of hindsight. At the time of the Tyson fight, Marvis had a six fight winning streak going for him, and a win over the undefeated Tyson would have put him back in the mix for a title shot. Maybe Papa Joe figured that potential payoff was worth the risk.

The fact remains: Papa Joe guided Marvis to a 19-2 record. His Dad got him a title shot. He met some forimidible fighters along the way, and won. He retired before he became an "opponent" for up-and-comers. He retired with all his marbles, speaks clearly, and doesn't walk on his heels. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that his career was "ruined." Could another, more experienced manager have done better for Marvis? Possibly. Should he have campaigned as a cruiserweight? Probably. I thought so at the time. Would I have loved seeing him against the likes of Holyfield, Qawi or DeLeon in the cruiserweight division? You betcha! But was his career ruined? Sorry, but I can't agree with that.

The penny still hasnt dropped with you.
My fundamental point is his career all things considered shoulda been more succesfull . He didnt need to take on a Tyson to get a title shot around 86 as you seem to think. Hell a Steffan Tangstad and Gerry cooney were getting title shots around this time for doing nothing. You think Joe Fraziers son , the Holmes defeat nonwithstanding wasnt more deserving than those two guys and you think Tangstad was better connected???!!
Hell the WBA and WBC titles around this time were like the game pass the parcel every mike, gerrie,james and tim and tony was holding them and passing them around every 6 months.

Marvis should have won a HW belt and earned more money even in the time he fought if Joe had been more proffesional matching him up and letting him develop so yes his career from that perspective was ruined and he goes down as another those sons whose career was hindered by their father casepoints, even tho thats harsh on Joe who led his son to a tremendous amateur career and molded him into a useful HW.

Arguing with you is pointless since you miss the fundamental point which others have grasped quite easily. Your keen to play sermantics fine do that but stick to the point, the point which is Marvis should have been a world champ of some sort and earned more than he did. Fine thank god he is healthy and a minister and happy and why shouldnt he be? but that doesnt detract that purely on a sporting debate/business of boxing level he could quite easily have been far more succesful in the ring as a pro. As it is he can be rightly proud and content being a former amateur world star and HW contender, but all Im saying is , he could have been a world champion who made millions.

The fact his life is very succesful away from boxing and he is content and hugely respected as a man , and has moved on from his pro boxing days isnt the point. I am talking about his pro boxing career here and a sporting debate.

You seem to think I am attacking Marvis as a man, which I am not, clearly Marvis as a human is very succesfull and respected. And long may he continue to be

The penny dropped for me with your first message, but you keep trying to change the coins. That isn't playing semantics by me, but it is intellectual dishonesty by you.
Your original premise was "Perhaps this is an obvious answer but do you guys concur Joe ruined his sons career by his lousy matchmaking and letting Don King sacrifice Marvis?" I do not concur with you that Joe ruined his career. Live with it.

YAWN more semantics by you!
Nice analogy I "keep changing the coins" do I?

Rather you keep penny pinching and refusing to let the penny drop.

There more semantics for you to play around with!

I wouldnt want you to fool yourself that i give two pennies about the value of your opinion! But judging by your behaviour here your very much the kind of guy who could start a riot in an empty house! hahhaha DD