BoxRec

In real time, you pick the timeline and the outcome. How critical is the timing for the advantage to shift? At what point in time would it be a "pick'em"....or is it never that close of a call? If you want to give your opinion on prime for prime fine, but that's not the discussion I'm searching for here.

I wouldn't favor Young over Frazier until after Manilla. Frazier still brought way too much pressure and threw too many punches to get outboxed by a (relatively) stationary slickster like Young

So the night Frazier fought Cummings, Young wins?

dempseyfire wrote:I wouldn't favor Young over Frazier until after Manilla. Frazier still brought way too much pressure and threw too many punches to get outboxed by a (relatively) stationary slickster like Young

Sounds reasonable.

BoxBuzz wrote:So the night Frazier fought Cummings, Young wins?

Never have watched one second of Frazier-Cummings and never will.

I just don't want to see that version of Frazier. :(

BoxBuzz wrote:So the night Frazier fought Cummings, Young wins?

Yes, clearly. Frazier looked like crap vs Cummings. I'd also favor a peak Young over the Frazier that fought George the 2nd time . . .

Okay, hard one to call…

Frazier would have got the job done in the mythical universe of prime-for-prime. I believe Joe fared better against boxers and I’d see him winning a competitive fight (but winning decisively).

Frazier was never the same after the first Ali fight. He was still formidable but he was no longer the man who could have given any fighter from any era a run for their money.

He was still operating at world class level but don’t be fooled by Manila. Joe got himself up for that one and really had no right to put in a performance of that magnitude. I don’t think Joe could have got up like that for any other opponent.

This leads me to think that Frazier was probably there to be taken earlier than many might think… But Young was awfully inconsistent in the early 70s and bloomed in the mid-years.

The tipping point for me is around 1974. Young might have won before that but I’d be nervous…

Ezzard wrote:Okay, hard one to call…

Frazier would have got the job done in the mythical universe of prime-for-prime. I believe Joe fared better against boxers and I’d see him winning a competitive fight (but winning decisively).

Frazier was never the same after the first Ali fight. He was still formidable but he was no longer the man who could have given any fighter from any era a run for their money.

He was still operating at world class level but don’t be fooled by Manila. Joe got himself up for that one and really had no right to put in a performance of that magnitude. I don’t think Joe could have got up like that for any other opponent.

This leads me to think that Frazier was probably there to be taken earlier than many might think… But Young was awfully inconsistent in the early 70s and bloomed in the mid-years.

The tipping point for me is around 1974. Young might have won before that but I’d be nervous…

I would argue that people shouldn't be fooled by Kingston (into thinking Frazier was dramatically diminished from his best).

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I would argue that people shouldn't be fooled by Kingston (into thinking Frazier was dramatically diminished from his best).

He probably wasn't dramatically diminished, but he certainly was not well prepared.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Okay, hard one to call…

Frazier would have got the job done in the mythical universe of prime-for-prime. I believe Joe fared better against boxers and I’d see him winning a competitive fight (but winning decisively).

Frazier was never the same after the first Ali fight. He was still formidable but he was no longer the man who could have given any fighter from any era a run for their money.

He was still operating at world class level but don’t be fooled by Manila. Joe got himself up for that one and really had no right to put in a performance of that magnitude. I don’t think Joe could have got up like that for any other opponent.

This leads me to think that Frazier was probably there to be taken earlier than many might think… But Young was awfully inconsistent in the early 70s and bloomed in the mid-years.

The tipping point for me is around 1974. Young might have won before that but I’d be nervous…

I would argue that people shouldn't be fooled by Kingston (into thinking Frazier was dramatically diminished from his best).

No, but he was 10 pounds heavier than he should have been.

Then in the rematch against Ali, Joe looked like a fighter who could no longer set the pace he used to.

Okay, Bugner was a tricky opponent but that was a competitive fight. I checked the score and it was judged 6-4. Young was better than the skillful and capable Bugner.

Joe wasn't poor in any of these fights. He was just no longer the man who could have fought Jim Jeffries, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano all the way to hell and back.

Joe was in a steady decline from after the FOTC.

Frazier had lost a step for his fights in between FOTC and Manilla (Ali II, Quarry II, Bugner) but IMO he still looked pretty good and was still an elite, top class fighter. Frazier's high workrate style is the perfect antedote to Young's catch me if you can, occasional flurry antics . . .I think Frazier has enough to take rounds by sheer work and pressure until after Manilla.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Okay, hard one to call…

Frazier would have got the job done in the mythical universe of prime-for-prime. I believe Joe fared better against boxers and I’d see him winning a competitive fight (but winning decisively).

Frazier was never the same after the first Ali fight. He was still formidable but he was no longer the man who could have given any fighter from any era a run for their money.

He was still operating at world class level but don’t be fooled by Manila. Joe got himself up for that one and really had no right to put in a performance of that magnitude. I don’t think Joe could have got up like that for any other opponent.

This leads me to think that Frazier was probably there to be taken earlier than many might think… But Young was awfully inconsistent in the early 70s and bloomed in the mid-years.

The tipping point for me is around 1974. Young might have won before that but I’d be nervous…

I would argue that people shouldn't be fooled by Kingston (into thinking Frazier was dramatically diminished from his best).

No, but he was 10 pounds heavier than he should have been.

Then in the rematch against Ali, Joe looked like a fighter who could no longer set the pace he used to.

Okay, Bugner was a tricky opponent but that was a competitive fight. I checked the score and it was judged 6-4. Young was better than the skillful and capable Bugner.

Joe wasn't poor in any of these fights. He was just no longer the man who could have fought Jim Jeffries, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano all the way to hell and back.

Joe was in a steady decline from after the FOTC.

You've nailed the truth about Frazier post-FOTC quite well.

I wonder what would happen if Jimmy stuck his head out of the ring with Joe.....I"m thinkin' Joe would catch him with a nicely placed liver shot that would send the rest of Jimmy out of the ring as well.

Foreman and Ali were the only men to beat Frazier.

I dont think there is any evidence whatsover to suggest Frazier was in "steady decline" after TFOC. And the fact he was ten pounds heavier against Foreman was more to build up his strength against the super strong Foreman rather than any evidence of not being in shape. Joe Frazier never went into a fight in less than 15 rounds shape thats just the man and his mentality similar to Hagler after him.I would argue Foreman always had his number and that history is a lot more unkind (at least on these pages) to Frazier than he deserves based only on the Foreman and Ali losses.

I see a version of Frazier up to 76 beating any other version of Young. Jimmy for all his slicks wasnt mobile and he Ali went through hell standing flatfooted with Joe to get his wins and i dont think Young had quite the same dig as Ali of the 70s.

yancey wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I wouldn't favor Young over Frazier until after Manilla. Frazier still brought way too much pressure and threw too many punches to get outboxed by a (relatively) stationary slickster like Young

Sounds reasonable.

Agreed.

Rover wrote:

yancey wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:I wouldn't favor Young over Frazier until after Manilla. Frazier still brought way too much pressure and threw too many punches to get outboxed by a (relatively) stationary slickster like Young

Sounds reasonable.

Agreed.

I agree with this also. Prime Young was slick but prime Joe was relentless and would win by decision. Young played rope-a dope with Foreman and tired him out like Ali did but Joe was there for the hitting on the chin. Different styles, different fights.

Ezzard wrote:Okay, hard one to call…

Frazier would have got the job done in the mythical universe of prime-for-prime. I believe Joe fared better against boxers and I’d see him winning a competitive fight (but winning decisively).

Frazier was never the same after the first Ali fight. He was still formidable but he was no longer the man who could have given any fighter from any era a run for their money.

He was still operating at world class level but don’t be fooled by Manila. Joe got himself up for that one and really had no right to put in a performance of that magnitude. I don’t think Joe could have got up like that for any other opponent.

This leads me to think that Frazier was probably there to be taken earlier than many might think… But Young was awfully inconsistent in the early 70s and bloomed in the mid-years.

The tipping point for me is around 1974. Young might have won before that but I’d be nervous…

good post mate

Now I have something to add that asks for even more thought and something I always factor in, and some have called me on it because it's so damn slippery, and difficult to quantify.

Does the fact that Young trained at Frazier's gym bring in a human variance that goes against Young, making it unlikely that we would ever even see the best of Jimmy facing Joe? Would that psyche aspect be another barrier for Jimmy? I'm inclined to think so. I imagine that instead of a pure clinical assessment regarding skills, we are forced to take this odd variable into account Perhaps making the dates of that shift even later or maybe such a "changing of the guard" moment never taking place up to and including the Cummings fight? Was Jimmy made of steel in terms of his mental/emotional state? I do believe that Joe was.

A lot of people bring this up in the Holmes Ali affair, some using it to express that Holmes could not bring his A game to punish his "mentor". In Holmes case I have my doubts, I think Larry would have been glad to dispose of Ali as quickly as he could have. I think I'm in the minority on that one.

prime vs prime, Joe takes out Jimmy late.AFter Manila, Joe loses a wide decision to Jimmy.

Frazier