Has time been unkind to Smokin' Joe?

[PhillyPhan69]

It had been 35+ years since Joe was in his prime. Has time served (perhaps like dempsey?) to have diminished Joe in the minds of the masses? More and more Joe is seen losing to david Tua and other fringe contenders in mythical H2H match-ups. He gets sold short against most ATG's in these hypoteticals as well. He is labeled a ONE ARMED BOXER by many...He is touted as a guy with average power who could only hope his high work rate would carry him to victory against lesser condintioned boxers. How did this happen?

I spent the day watching old Frazier fights (Jones, Chuvalo, Ellis I, Foster, Ramos, Daniels, Stander, Quarry I & II, Ellis II). Frazier was touted as a guy who threw every punch with bad intentions...His power was compared to that od dempsey and Marciano....and time and again it was commented on how much power he had with BOTH hands. I was paying particular attention to the right hand and would guess it was in the 38-40% range of all his punches thrown..not quite one handed by any calculation. And while true to form that the left hook was the closer in most of these fights, it was generally set up by several body shots and upper cuts about half of which were from the right. He seemed to me to be comprable to any...ANY ATG HW EVER? Am I alone in this or has time diminished Joe to an after thought...left outside of many peoples top 10's and some even relegate him to top 15 status?

Is this just the way of History...Dempsey seems to have fallen of the charts although many of the day rated him higher than Louis...Marciano seems to be in this same boat and it appears that larry Holmes is headed down this path as well. Who of the last 10-20 years will history and time begin to diminish???? I'm not sure what my question was anymore?????

[Longhhorn71]

late 1969....up to the FOTC, Frazier was considered unbeatable by his era contenders and was probably rated #6 of All-Time.

Now he gets pushed way down the List.

He only lost to Ali & Foreman.

[GazOC]

late 1969....up to the FOTC, Frazier was considered unbeatable by his era contenders and was probably rated #6 of All-Time.

Now he gets pushed way down the List.

He only lost to Ali & Foreman.
I guess it depends on how much you go with the theory that great 13-15 stone heavies would stuggle with good 17-18 stone heavies.

[dpw417]

I think very highly of Joe Frazier...a fighter through and through. What amazed me is his intensity. I don't favor that many over a Joe Frazier, a true ATG. Good post PhillyPhan.

[Russell]

Some people seem to fault Joe for his personal "demons" and bitterness, which I feel is bullshit.

[Sonny's jab]

I consider him as great as Muhammad Ali.

[Vaile]

One man features at the center of the whole affair and that is George Foreman. Ali is overrated because of his win in less than satisfactory fashion over Foreman and Frazier is underrated because of his losses to Foreman. Styles make fights, Too much is made of the loss. People forget how good prime Frazier was offensively. I find it strange in all honesty he took Ali to the limit over forty five rounds and in my opinion came out of them fights with the most merit. Ali is ranked by most as One, while Frazier languishes on the wrong side of ten, invariably lower for the most part. Someone with his movement and power head to head would fare very well against most fighters.

[JohnThomas1]

One man features at the center of the whole affair and that is George Foreman. Ali is overrated because of his win in less than satisfactory fashion over Foreman and Frazier is underrated because of his losses to Foreman. Styles make fights, Too much is made of the loss. People forget how good prime Frazier was offensively. I find it strange in all honesty he took Ali to the limit over forty five rounds and in my opinion came out of them fights with the most merit. Ali is ranked by most as One, while Frazier languishes on the wrong side of ten, invariably lower for the most part. Someone with his movement and power head to head would fare very well against most fighters.

Two questions

How does Frazier come out of the 45 rounds better? The peak quotient card won't cut it as Ali was already past peak after the exile.

And how was Ali's victory over Foreman less than satisfactory?

[PhillyPhan69]

Two questions

How does Frazier come out of the 45 rounds better? The peak quotient card won't cut it as Ali was already past peak after the exile.

And how was Ali's victory over Foreman less than satisfactory?

I believe it was 41 rds.? 15+12+14=41??

[JohnThomas1]

I believe it was 41 rds.? 15+12+14=41??

You're prolly right :good, i was using Vaile's words.

[PhillyPhan69]

You're prolly right :good, i was using Vaile's words.

Any idea whos idea the 12 rds was? Ali's or frazier's or had it become a NY state rule?

[JohnThomas1]

Any idea whos idea the 12 rds was? Ali's or frazier's or had it become a NY state rule?

I truly have no idea but i am sure it won't be long before someone that does comments. I'll look in the mean.

[Titan1]

Any idea whos idea the 12 rds was? Ali's or frazier's or had it become a NY state rule?

Wasn't it an NABF title fight?

[PhillyPhan69]

Wasn't it an NABF title fight?

Yes, but Ali had fought for this title against Patterson in '72, and that was scheduled for 15 rds. although 2 Norton fights and the frazier fight had been scheduled for 12...had they changed their rules????

[Vaile]

Two questions

How does Frazier come out of the 45 rounds better? The peak quotient card won't cut it as Ali was already past peak after the exile.

And how was Ali's victory over Foreman less than satisfactory?




Yes admittedly Ali was not in his prime, just as Frazier wasn't for the most part. Fighters primes are debatable and subjective, but i will concede the point, quite to the extent and it's influence on the outcome; as i said it's all subjective. Although to me there is not a great deal in it. Given the fact that frazier was rendered virtually blind in one eye in the latter half of his career and had the right closed in the third fight too, rendering him more a less defenceless, in spite of which he still kept pushing; i think he deserves a lot of respect. As for the content of the fight i feel Frazier comes out on top he was the one pushing the agenda coming forward taking shots to land his own, where as Ali was content to do light flurries and point score near the end of the rounds. Obviously i'm generalising here to some extent, but i feel overall Frazier did the better work. They were both great fighters, i just don't believe the gap in their respective rankings should be so large.

As for the Foreman fight I just don't like the tactics he employed, if any other fighter fought in that manner they would be severly criticised for it. Granted the whole situation unfolded because of Foremans stupidity, it doesn't make the fight any more palatable though.


My mistake over the rounds 41 not 45. Been a long time since i watched the fights.

[Bokaj]

I think the defeat to Foreman is the thing that hurts Joe's legacy the most. No other ATG ever got blown out of the water like that when still close to his prime. But personally I think Frazier was great. He had great perfomances against Chuvalo, Ellis, Quarry and of course Ali. If he had been active in a slightly less competitive era he probably would have been in most peoples top 5.

I can't see any of Louis's or Marciano's opponents causing Frazier too much trouble.

[red cobra]

Yes time has certainly been unfair and unkind to Joe Frazier. How many great fighters of the past can you name that have had their GREATEST SINGLE FIGHT... THEIR GREATEST SINGLE MOMENT... taken away and locked up in a vault somewhere, NEVER to be seen as evidence of their greatest moment? If Joe Frazier is bitter and can't let go of his hatred of Ali, can you really blame him? The 1971 FIGHT OF THE CENTURY NEVER GET'S SHOWN, on any of the quadzillion different cable channels, whereas the 3rd fight, of course, gets almost continual airplay, shown again and again and again, and even the second fight gets some play, but never, ever, ever, ever the FOTC, which would surely, for those who have forgotten, and are not just mind-numbed Ali-bots and nuthuggers be a reminder that Joe Frazier was the clear, hardfought winner of that fight, and had his supreme moment in the sun. Can you imagine any other fighter getting this treatment, of having their greatest moment as a fighter censored so completely? Yeah, I'd say history, and all the Ali worshippers and the media powers that be, in their efforts to make a cult of Muhammad Ali have been pretty unkind to Joe Frazier.

[PowerPuncher]

Fraziers standing is hurt by his unadaptability. He fought 1 fighter who was a big puncher with a great offense and got blown away twice. This was the only Super HW he faced too.

This fact makes many pick big punching HWs over him, he hasn't shown he can beat this type of fighter and hence his lower ranking

[Dempsey1238]

Well the first fight is not hard to find, but the first fight does get aired ONCE in a blue moon, about 3 years ago they aired it.

[Bokaj]

I agree. To say that he gets ranked low because so few people have seen FOTC is just short of bizarre. Is there a single boxing fan who hasn't seen FOTC at least once?

I'm a big Ali fan, and I've seen it a lots of times and think it's a great fight. I have a hard time watching Ali's other losses because he is so crap in them, but that's not the case in FOTC. He just met a great opponent and didn't quite have the legs to stay away from him.

There are very few fighters I would favour against the FOTC version of Frazier.

[Dempsey1238]

I seen the fight, its a great fight. Frazier was ear his peak, I do think a few other greats could have taking that Frazier, but not many.

Foreman of couse.
Louis perhaps has the power to keep Joe off of him, which Ali lack. I think the ripping uppercuts, and short crosses would be the key for the win for Louis.

Marciano and Dempsey would be a war, 50 50 either way imo.

I dont see David Tua or Grant or Butterbean beating Frazier. The Kilt brothers may find Frazier easy to handle early in the fight, but they be gas out and Frazier would be all over them like a tiger.

Lewis would be defeated also imo.

[PhillyPhan69]

And why does my beloved PHILADELPHIA have a statue to commemerate a mythical boxer in Rocky, while largely ignoring Joe as well?

[mcvey]

It had been 35+ years since Joe was in his prime. Has time served (perhaps like dempsey?) to have diminished Joe in the minds of the masses? More and more Joe is seen losing to david Tua and other fringe contenders in mythical H2H match-ups. He gets sold short against most ATG's in these hypoteticals as well. He is labeled a ONE ARMED BOXER by many...He is touted as a guy with average power who could only hope his high work rate would carry him to victory against lesser condintioned boxers. How did this happen?

I spent the day watching old Frazier fights (Jones, Chuvalo, Ellis I, Foster, Ramos, Daniels, Stander, Quarry I & II, Ellis II). Frazier was touted as a guy who threw every punch with bad intentions...His power was compared to that od dempsey and Marciano....and time and again it was commented on how much power he had with BOTH hands. I was paying particular attention to the right hand and would guess it was in the 38-40% range of all his punches thrown..not quite one handed by any calculation. And while true to form that the left hook was the closer in most of these fights, it was generally set up by several body shots and upper cuts about half of which were from the right. He seemed to me to be comprable to any...ANY ATG HW EVER? Am I alone in this or has time diminished Joe to an after thought...left outside of many peoples top 10's and some even relegate him to top 15 status?

Is this just the way of History...Dempsey seems to have fallen of the charts although many of the day rated him higher than Louis...Marciano seems to be in this same boat and it appears that larry Holmes is headed down this path as well. Who of the last 10-20 years will history and time begin to diminish???? I'm not sure what my question was anymore?????
No time has actually been kind to Joe ,imo,one win over an ATG elevated him to the super strata he never reached those heights again.

[prime]

In mainstream culture, Frazier is sold terribly short. This tremendous fighter is almost completely unknown, and, to add insult to injury, a fictional boxer from his own hometown becomes a beloved idol worldwide. This is very important, if only financially, as Frazier cannot hope to milk his championship like, say, Ali has. Too bad. Personality goes a long way. If Frazier couldn't get the admiration he so richly deserved after FOTC, then he would never get it.

At least true fans will forever respect and admire this genuine titan of the ring. I never tire of pointing out his qualities. I have never seen more heart in a fighter than Smokin' Joe's. Though not particularly blessed physically for a heavyweight, he more than made up for it in pure desire, perseverance, honing of crunching power punching, and conditioning. He beat Muhammad Ali! He beat Ali! Fair and square. On the world stage.

To top it off, Frazier was a decent man as champion and throughout his career, always well-spoken and courteous, looking to do his talking in the ring.

This small man fares very well in all-time head-to-head matchups, against anyone you care to throw in with him. In fact, I favor him over greats such as Holmes and Marciano. Over a championship distance, he threw more wicked leather than Mike Tyson. His scarce height forced him to tread a perilous path with his no-nonsense, always-coming-in style, but he did it gallantly.

Watch Joe Frazier in his prime and see what boxing is all about.

[Vaile]

In mainstream culture, Frazier is sold terribly short. This tremendous fighter is almost completely unknown, and, to add insult to injury, a fictional boxer from his own hometown becomes a beloved idol worldwide. This is very important, if only financially, as Frazier cannot hope to milk his championship like, say, Ali has. Too bad. Personality goes a long way. If Frazier couldn't get the admiration he so richly deserved after FOTC, then he would never get it.

At least true fans will forever respect and admire this genuine titan of the ring. I never tire of pointing out his qualities. I have never seen more heart in a fighter than Smokin' Joe's. Though not particularly blessed physically for a heavyweight, he more than made up for it in pure desire, perseverance, honing of crunching power punching, and conditioning. He beat Muhammad Ali! He beat Ali! Fair and square. On the world stage.




To top it off, Frazier was a decent man as champion and throughout his career, always well-spoken and courteous, looking to do his talking in the ring.

This small man fares very well in all-time head-to-head matchups, against anyone you care to throw in with him. In fact, I favor him over greats such as Holmes and Marciano. Over a championship distance, he threw more wicked leather than Mike Tyson. His scarce height forced him to tread a perilous path with his no-nonsense, always-coming-in style, but he did it gallantly.

Watch Joe Frazier in his prime and see what boxing is all about.



Great post.

[JohnThomas1]

In mainstream culture, Frazier is sold terribly short. This tremendous fighter is almost completely unknown, and, to add insult to injury, a fictional boxer from his own hometown becomes a beloved idol worldwide. This is very important, if only financially, as Frazier cannot hope to milk his championship like, say, Ali has. Too bad. Personality goes a long way. If Frazier couldn't get the admiration he so richly deserved after FOTC, then he would never get it.

At least true fans will forever respect and admire this genuine titan of the ring. I never tire of pointing out his qualities. I have never seen more heart in a fighter than Smokin' Joe's. Though not particularly blessed physically for a heavyweight, he more than made up for it in pure desire, perseverance, honing of crunching power punching, and conditioning. He beat Muhammad Ali! He beat Ali! Fair and square. On the world stage.

To top it off, Frazier was a decent man as champion and throughout his career, always well-spoken and courteous, looking to do his talking in the ring.

This small man fares very well in all-time head-to-head matchups, against anyone you care to throw in with him. In fact, I favor him over greats such as Holmes and Marciano. Over a championship distance, he threw more wicked leather than Mike Tyson. His scarce height forced him to tread a perilous path with his no-nonsense, always-coming-in style, but he did it gallantly.

Watch Joe Frazier in his prime and see what boxing is all about.

Nice post mate, excellent. I agree Joe is getting sold short as the years slip by.

[JohnThomas1]

He had a glass chin and one arm. Even with that one arm, his power was overrated.

Another ID Legend. Jeez ya go thru em.

[Dempsey1238]

Now dont go blaming the Rocky movies for Frazier's underated or problems.
There are lots of things for fiction in honor. I mean take Kansas, The Wizard of Oz, is well EVEY were. I cant cross a street or go in a store with out the Wizard of Oz being show or a bill board or the Wizard of Oz on Ice.Rocky became loved world wide, because it was a good movie. Dont blame Rocky for Frazier's ill will.

I mean next we going to blame "Gone with the Wind" for Jack Johnson being less known or something.

[PhillyPhan69]

Now dont go blaming the Rocky movies for Frazier's underated or problems.
There are lots of things for fiction in honor. I mean take Kansas, The Wizard of Oz, is well EVEY were. I cant cross a street or go in a store with out the Wizard of Oz being show or a bill board or the Wizard of Oz on Ice.Rocky became loved world wide, because it was a good movie. Dont blame Rocky for Frazier's ill will.

I mean next we going to blame "Gone with the Wind" for Jack Johnson being less known or something.

I actually meant it as a joke...but if truth be told I still live just outside of Philly, but in their broadcasting area..and Joe is largely a forgotten commodity among Philidelphia legends!

[Lobotomy]

I generally rate Joe as my number four all time heavyweight. The notion that he was only a left hooker should have been torpedoed by his winning Olympic Gold with a broken left thumb, and the way he ripped open Jerry Quarry's face with a long straight right in their rematch.

Forget the notion that Frazier couldn't handle superheavyweights by citing the example of Foreman. George is an absolute genetic freak of nature, and one of the most physically powerful top heavyweights who has ever lived, but he only outweighed Joe by three pounds in Kingston, while Frazier actually outweighed Foreman by a half pound in their rematch. George was NOT the biggest heavyweight Joe ever fought. Don Smith, Manuel Ramos, Buster Mathis and Joe Bugner provide plenty of visual examples of how effective Smoke could be with modern sized superheavyweights. (All of them hit the deck, Bugner from a hook to the body.)

His 1980 draw with Jumbo Cummings involved his standing up to a very physically powerful bodybuilding opponent. Cummings was regarded as a competent heavyweight at that time, had a couple of late round knockout wins, and had only been beaten by Snipes over the ten round distance. After drawing with Joe, Cummings never won again. (In subsequent fights, Larry Frazier and Witherspoon couldn't take Cummings out either, so Joe was in good company. Yes, Smoke did get a gift draw against Cummings, but he was coming off a five and a half year layoff facing an until then rising contender who could hardly be described as a tomato can.)

Joe did considerably better in his rematch with Foreman than many others during George's first career, despite being over five years past his peak. Frazier got into round five against Foreman, better than Norton, Wepner, LeDoux, Denis (who was then undefeated), and Roman were able to manage. If Joe had remained on his feet through two or three more rounds, who knows what might have happened as round 12 crept closer? Foreman/Frazier II wasn't exactly Liston/Patterson II, was it?

Sure, I think time has been unkind to Joe, but this was accurately predicted immediately after his win in the FOTC by Phil Pepe. In Pepe's 1972 biography of Frazier, he flatly concluded in the penultimate paragraph that, "Fight again or not, beat Ali again or not, Joe Frazier would never stand with the great champions of all time. He would never have the appeal fo a Jack Dempsey or a Muhammad Ali. He would never become the second Joe Louis in public acceptance." Whatever one thinks of Pepe's hastily published book, Come Out Smokin', he pretty much nailed this anticipation directly on the head, at the very precise moment Frazier was at his absolute zenith.

However, the final paragraph Pepe wrote was the most important. "But he worked hard and he provided well so that his children would have a better life than he did. And he became one of only twenty-four men in modern boxing to hold the heavyweight championship of the world. That is one thing they could never take away from him. That's all Joe Frazier ever really wanted."

Footage of his greatest performances not involving an opponent named Ali are surfacing on-line more and more. Fans can better judge his quality for themselves, rather than simply rely on crappy reporting. His generalship is on display in the Quarry rematch. The tall Ramos fought very intelligently, utilizing an uppercut strategy one might expect to be perfect for beating Joe. But only the superhuman physical strength of a Foreman was able to make that work.

Ron Stander also tried using his physical strength to muscle Frazier around, and had a little more success than Rex Layne had with Marciano. Frazier thwarted Big Ron with his underrated mobility. Stander did not enjoy Foreman's height and reach advantages.

Could Foreman's best have beaten Frazier on March 8, 1971? George certainly would have had Joe in early trouble, but so did many of Joe's opponents who failed to beat him. Logically, Foreman would have always had Joe's number, but logic does not take into account heart and desire.

[Dempsey1238]

And why does my beloved PHILADELPHIA have a statue to commemerate a mythical boxer in Rocky, while largely ignoring Joe as well?

Because it came out of Sly's money. Philadelphia didnt pay for that statue. Rocky III did.

[yancey]

Frazier put Bugner down with a left hook to the jaw.

I generally rate Joe as my number four all time heavyweight. The notion that he was only a left hooker should have been torpedoed by his winning Olympic Gold with a broken left thumb, and the way he ripped open Jerry Quarry's face with a long straight right in their rematch.

Forget the notion that Frazier couldn't handle superheavyweights by citing the example of Foreman. George is an absolute genetic freak of nature, and one of the most physically powerful top heavyweights who has ever lived, but he only outweighed Joe by three pounds in Kingston, while Frazier actually outweighed Foreman by a half pound in their rematch. George was NOT the biggest heavyweight Joe ever fought. Don Smith, Manuel Ramos, Buster Mathis and Joe Bugner provide plenty of visual examples of how effective Smoke could be with modern sized superheavyweights. (All of them hit the deck, Bugner from a hook to the body.)

His 1980 draw with Jumbo Cummings involved his standing up to a very physically powerful bodybuilding opponent. Cummings was regarded as a competent heavyweight at that time, had a couple of late round knockout wins, and had only been beaten by Snipes over the ten round distance. After drawing with Joe, Cummings never won again. (In subsequent fights, Larry Frazier and Witherspoon couldn't take Cummings out either, so Joe was in good company. Yes, Smoke did get a gift draw against Cummings, but he was coming off a five and a half year layoff facing an until then rising contender who could hardly be described as a tomato can.)

Joe did considerably better in his rematch with Foreman than many others during George's first career, despite being over five years past his peak. Frazier got into round five against Foreman, better than Norton, Wepner, LeDoux, Denis (who was then undefeated), and Roman were able to manage. If Joe had remained on his feet through two or three more rounds, who knows what might have happened as round 12 crept closer? Foreman/Frazier II wasn't exactly Liston/Patterson II, was it?

Sure, I think time has been unkind to Joe, but this was accurately predicted immediately after his win in the FOTC by Phil Pepe. In Pepe's 1972 biography of Frazier, he flatly concluded in the penultimate paragraph that, "Fight again or not, beat Ali again or not, Joe Frazier would never stand with the great champions of all time. He would never have the appeal fo a Jack Dempsey or a Muhammad Ali. He would never become the second Joe Louis in public acceptance." Whatever one thinks of Pepe's hastily published book, Come Out Smokin', he pretty much nailed this anticipation directly on the head, at the very precise moment Frazier was at his absolute zenith.

However, the final paragraph Pepe wrote was the most important. "But he worked hard and he provided well so that his children would have a better life than he did. And he became one of only twenty-four men in modern boxing to hold the heavyweight championship of the world. That is one thing they could never take away from him. That's all Joe Frazier ever really wanted."

Footage of his greatest performances not involving an opponent named Ali are surfacing on-line more and more. Fans can better judge his quality for themselves, rather than simply rely on crappy reporting. His generalship is on display in the Quarry rematch. The tall Ramos fought very intelligently, utilizing an uppercut strategy one might expect to be perfect for beating Joe. But only the superhuman physical strength of a Foreman was able to make that work.

Ron Stander also tried using his physical strength to muscle Frazier around, and had a little more success than Rex Layne had with Marciano. Frazier thwarted Big Ron with his underrated mobility. Stander did not enjoy Foreman's height and reach advantages.

Could Foreman's best have beaten Frazier on March 8, 1971? George certainly would have had Joe in early trouble, but so did many of Joe's opponents who failed to beat him. Logically, Foreman would have always had Joe's number, but logic does not take into account heart and desire.

[yancey]

p.s. Frazier of 1970 (his real peak) survives early Foreman onslaught and takes him out in 9 or 10.

[yancey]

In mainstream culture, Frazier is sold terribly short. This tremendous fighter is almost completely unknown, and, to add insult to injury, a fictional boxer from his own hometown becomes a beloved idol worldwide. This is very important, if only financially, as Frazier cannot hope to milk his championship like, say, Ali has. Too bad. Personality goes a long way. If Frazier couldn't get the admiration he so richly deserved after FOTC, then he would never get it.

At least true fans will forever respect and admire this genuine titan of the ring. I never tire of pointing out his qualities. I have never seen more heart in a fighter than Smokin' Joe's. Though not particularly blessed physically for a heavyweight, he more than made up for it in pure desire, perseverance, honing of crunching power punching, and conditioning. He beat Muhammad Ali! He beat Ali! Fair and square. On the world stage.

To top it off, Frazier was a decent man as champion and throughout his career, always well-spoken and courteous, looking to do his talking in the ring.

This small man fares very well in all-time head-to-head matchups, against anyone you care to throw in with him. In fact, I favor him over greats such as Holmes and Marciano. Over a championship distance, he threw more wicked leather than Mike Tyson. His scarce height forced him to tread a perilous path with his no-nonsense, always-coming-in style, but he did it gallantly.

Watch Joe Frazier in his prime and see what boxing is all about.

Excellent post.

[Sonny's jab]

p.s. Frazier of 1970 (his real peak) survives early Foreman onslaught and takes him out in 9 or 10.

That's a distinct possibility.

Frazier was way out of shape in Jamaica in 1973. He just came in fat and walked straight into Foreman.

The 1976 rematch showed how Frazier was a superior boxer(the way he could slip most of Foreman's shots - Frazier's very underrated as a defensively skilled fighter ) but he was finished by then, about 225 pounds, effectively blind in one eye, and only had a few rounds in him. Unrecognizable from his prime.

The Frazier of 1970 was a long way better than both versions.

[JohnThomas1]

Joe did considerably better in his rematch with Foreman than many others during George's first career, despite being over five years past his peak. Frazier got into round five against Foreman, better than Norton, Wepner, LeDoux, Denis (who was then undefeated), and Roman were able to manage. If Joe had remained on his feet through two or three more rounds, who knows what might have happened as round 12 crept closer? Foreman/Frazier II wasn't exactly Liston/Patterson II, was it?


Frazier wasn't exactly facing the same version of Foreman either. His cloak of invincibility had been lifted and he'd struggled like hell in his fight right before Frazier. 2 of your other examples also faced post Ali Foreman, and i can't remember Wepner fighting him at all :huh

It wasn't exactly Liston/Patterson II for sure, that fight occurred immediately after their first bout while Foreman and Frazier fought 3 1/2 years later which included George's shattering defeat to Ali. I have little doubt George would have dished out the same treatment if the rematch had been immediate.

[Sonny's jab]

I think Foreman was still an awesome force post-Ali. He had trouble with Ron Lyle because Lyle was a damned good fighter and Foreman had only fought some gimmicky exhibitions over the previous 14 months. Lyle exploited weaknesses in Foreman that were apparent BEFORE Foreman fought Ali. Foreman would have NEVER walked through Ron Lyle, Lyle was a good boxer and a good puncher and as big and strong as George.

Frazier knew after the first fight with Foreman that he'd adopted a bad strategy, he'd shown Foreman no respect, he'd used hardly any defense, he'd. not trained hard enough, and he got beat down.

I think the 2nd Frazier-Foreman fight shows how Frazier at his peak would certainly not necessarily be over-matched versus Foreman. Frazier was about 50% of what he had been, and it's nonsense to suggest Foreman was similarly down-graded.

[McGrain]

Fight of the Century ruined Frazier. In addition to having had his Johnson over Jeffries Liston over Patterson type moment he fought the fight with some sort of blood pressure anomaly and was very, very unwell after that fight. It is my opinion that he was never the same again. It was the opinion in his camp, too. He was matched carefully fight after the fight and the only person working with Joe who thought he was up to the Foreman fight was Joe.

Not that you can write of those post FOTC losses - that does not work. And it's also not like Frazier was actually "shot". But the type of fighter Frazier is - high work rate, walk through etc., makes that 10-12% more crucial to him than to most fighters.

Some of this thinking is what keeps Joe in my top 5, all time.

[JohnThomas1]

I think Foreman was still an awesome force post-Ali.

Noway. Excepting Lyle Foreman never beat another top fighter post Ali (until the comeback) excepting a Frazier you consider shot. He had definitely lost something. On top of that others now had much more confidence going in.

Foreman would have NEVER walked through Ron Lyle, Lyle was a good boxer and a good puncher and as big and strong as George.


That's your opinion, but i certainly wouldn't cast it in stone.

Frazier knew after the first fight with Foreman that he'd adopted a bad strategy, he'd shown Foreman no respect, he'd used hardly any defense, he'd. not trained hard enough, and he got beat down.

Bad strategy? Last time i watched Frazier only had one. Foreman just blew him out of the water, too powerful and strong with Frazier just made to order. Fraziers vaunted left hook raised barely an eyebrow. Goerge made it look as easy as taking corn off a blind cocky. I have no reason to think any version of Frazier could seriously trouble that Foreman. I see these hypotheticals, if Joe did this, if Joe did that, if Foreman did this but at the end of the day it's very hopeful thinking.

I think the 2nd Frazier-Foreman fight shows how Frazier at his peak would certainly not necessarily be over-matched versus Foreman. Frazier was about 50% of what he had been, and it's nonsense to suggest Foreman was similarly down-graded.

Nobody said Foreman was similarly downgraded but if you think it was the same Foreman as the first fight you're just having a laff.

[mr. magoo]

I agree with those who say that Frazier was slipping by the time he fought Foreman in 1973, but I still can't see any version of Joe beating Goerge. The styles are simply all wrong here. Foreman had the right blueprint for beating up swarmers who lowered their center of gravity and who were generally shorter. Joe would have gotten nailed with those uppercuts and hooks everytime. I can't see Frazier weathering the storm for the 10 or 12 rounds that it would take to beat Foreman.

[Sonny's jab]

Noway. Excepting Lyle Foreman never beat another top fighter post Ali (until the comeback) excepting a Frazier you consider shot. He had definitely lost something. On top of that others now had much more confidence going in.

Pre-Ali Foreman hardly ever beat a top fighter either. He's got a win over Frazier in Jamaica, and a win over Chuvalo (a lower top-10 guy, who was just starting to hit back when stopped) and Norton (who you tell me froze up against punchers per se).

You're better off sticking to the Foreman-beats-Frazier-any-time line than making reference to other top fighters he beat, and when he beat them. His real accomplishment was beating Frazier.

You can argue that other fighters had more confidence going against Foreman, but does that apply to a badass like Ron Lyle ? Would Lyle ever have been intimidated by Foreman ? I seriously doubt it.

(Anyway, as it applies to Frazier I would say OVER-confidence was part of his downfall in the 1st fight)

Also, I would also say that Foreman's "aura of invincibility" lasted for all of TWO fights. Prior to him beating Frazier, he was considered a powerful but untested and inexperienced fighter. He had done nothing in the top flight to really intimidate any of the leading fighters.


Bad strategy? Last time i watched Frazier only had one. Foreman just blew him out of the water, too powerful and strong with Frazier just made to order. Fraziers vaunted left hook raised barely an eyebrow. Goerge made it look as easy as taking corn off a blind cocky. I have no reason to think any version of Frazier could seriously trouble that Foreman. I see these hypotheticals, if Joe did this, if Joe did that, if Foreman did this but at the end of the day it's very hopeful thinking.


Fair enough.
I think Frazier had nuances to his style and ring generalship that's he's rarely given credit for.
His lack of speed of head movement and his lack of any sort of lateral movement in the first Frazier fight is apparent, he plods in flat-footed. I've seen much better from Frazier.

I dont always take a one-sided match as evidence that those two fighters would always produce same result. I think Lloyd Honeyghan at his best doesn't necessarily gets destroyed by Mark Breland. In fact I think a peak Honeyghan might have beaten Breland. Yes, that's hypothetical. And I'm all for completely disallowing hypotheticals (though I've tried and I realized ESB classic tends to talk about nothing but hypotheticals).

Disallowing hypotheticals goes for all talk of a peak Frazier beating Foreman AND for all talk of Foreman beating a peak Frazier, or repeating the first fight in "immediate rematch".



Nobody said Foreman was similarly downgraded but if you think it was the same Foreman as the first fight you're just having a laff

Physically he was a bit bigger and stronger, IMO.

Some say stylistically he wasn't as good but I dont really agree. I dont think technical changes in Foreman ruined him at all.

Most of the "difference" is really based on psycho-babble talk of his "mentality" and confidence, which isn't easy to assess but may well have some merit. I dont think Foreman was particularly nervous or lacking in confidence going against Frazier a 2nd time though.

Personally I like the performance from Foreman in the Frazier rematch.

[mcvey]

None of the so called super heavies you mentioned could hit anywhere near as hard as Foreman

[round15]

I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Joe Frazier 1967 - 1971, just prior to the fight of the century was one of the GOAT heavyweights.

If one were to replace Ali in the FOTC with Foreman as Joe's opponent, the immediate conclusion is that Joe gets his butt whupped by George every time. All this is based on one performance in 1973?

I seriously can't see how Foreman would have KO'd the 203 lb - 208 lb Frazier. In fact, I don't think Foreman makes it past the 10th round against FOTC Joe Frazier. Much is made about how slow a starter Frazier is during the early rounds. Well, compared to the hand and foot speed of Ali, quite a few heavyweights are pretty slow. Ali himself said Frazier was the roughest and toughest fighter he ever faced and he had trouble hitting him cleanly in the FOTC.

I'll put my money on Joe Frazier, 1967 - 1971 against every heavyweight in history. Three fighters, Ali, Holmes, and Holyfield could potentially last the distance with this version of Frazier but end up losing unanimous decisions.
Foreman, Liston and Tyson are the only fighters that have any chance of knocking out a prime Frazier. There's no denying the power of these three fighters and they could have Frazier on the canvas early in the fight.
Everyone else gets knocked out inside the distance.

[Bokaj]

Louis could definitely knock him out. I'm not saying he would have, but it would always be a real possibility.

[yancey]

I agree with those who say that Frazier was slipping by the time he fought Foreman in 1973, but I still can't see any version of Joe beating Goerge. The styles are simply all wrong here. Foreman had the right blueprint for beating up swarmers who lowered their center of gravity and who were generally shorter. Joe would have gotten nailed with those uppercuts and hooks everytime. I can't see Frazier weathering the storm for the 10 or 12 rounds that it would take to beat Foreman.

It might well have taken 10 or 12 rounds for prime Joe to topple Foreman, but I think the real danger zone for Joe would be half that, maybe 5 rounds. After 5 to 6 rounds had passed, and the body punching of Joe took effect, Foreman's heart, spirit and resolve would have withered along with his lethal punch.

[mcvey]

It might well have taken 10 or 12 rounds for prime Joe to topple Foreman, but I think the real danger zone for Joe would be half that, maybe 5 rounds. After 5 to 6 rounds had passed, and the body punching of Joe took effect, Foreman's heart, spirit and resolve would have withered along with his lethal punch.
Based on what exactly? Foreman gassed out in two fights ,there was nothing wrong with his heart or spirit ,and he proved there was nothing wrong with his resolve by absorbing all Moorers punches and coming back to ko him ,showing his lethal punch hadnt withered,late in the fight.

[ChrisPontius]

Based on what exactly? Foreman gassed out in two fights ,there was nothing wrong with his heart or spirit ,and he proved there was nothing wrong with his resolve by absorbing all Moorers punches and coming back to ko him ,showing his lethal punch hadnt withered,late in the fight.


I don't think a peak Frazier would survive Foreman, but if he makes it into the 6th with his head still attached, things look good for him.

How often did the 70's Foreman have succes past the 6th? Ali stopped him, against Young he got knocked down although he did stagger Young in the 9th. But Frazier is no Young or Ali. If he's still there late, he won't allow Foreman to take a break or a breather, while that was possible against the former mentioned fighters who weren't as aggressive. What he did against Moorer is admirable, but he was a completely different fighter then: i don't think that proves that the 70's version of him had good stamina.

[SuzieQ49]

He did stop peralta in rematch in the 10th round

[Dempsey1238]

He stop, but not ko.

[SuzieQ49]

He stop, but not ko.


Well considering 90% of fighters through history wouldnt make it to the 5th round against him, is stamina that big a deal?

[mcvey]

I don't think a peak Frazier would survive Foreman, but if he makes it into the 6th with his head still attached, things look good for him.

How often did the 70's Foreman have succes past the 6th? Ali stopped him, against Young he got knocked down although he did stagger Young in the 9th. But Frazier is no Young or Ali. If he's still there late, he won't allow Foreman to take a break or a breather, while that was possible against the former mentioned fighters who weren't as aggressive. What he did against Moorer is admirable, but he was a completely different fighter then: i don't think that proves that the 70's version of him had good stamina.
If he had good stamina ,he wouldnt have gassed out ,would he!
I was questioning the attacks on his spirit ,resolve and heart. I agree if Joe makes it past the halfway mark his chances get better by the minute ,but I dont see that happening myself.

[ChrisPontius]

Well considering 90% of fighters through history wouldnt make it to the 5th round against him, is stamina that big a deal?

Well, for those 10% it is, yes.

And i wouldn't be too sure it's 10% if we're talking about top fighters.

That Foreman fought Lyle/Frazier/Norton/Ali/Young as top fighters.

Norton had a glass jaw, so no surprise there. Frazier is a come forward fighter. OK. Young easily went past 5. Ali went past 5 as well. Lyle made it into the 5th and nearly stopped Foreman.

so that's 40% that made it past 5, and if you consider how close it was with Lyle (who never really stopped anyone else besides glass chinned Shavers), that number lurks close to 50%.

[yancey]

Based on what exactly? Foreman gassed out in two fights ,there was nothing wrong with his heart or spirit ,and he proved there was nothing wrong with his resolve by absorbing all Moorers punches and coming back to ko him ,showing his lethal punch hadnt withered,late in the fight.

Based on thudding left hooks to the liver.

[mcvey]

Based on thudding left hooks to the liver.
How many kos did Frazier score with body shots ? How many times was Foreman down from body shots? Frazier hit Ali with body shots for 40 rds and put him down once. Frazier hit Bonavena with his hook all night in two fights and couldnt even drop him,something Ali and Ellis and Folley managed. Foreman at over 40 took left hooks from Gerry Cooney who hit harder than Frazier.Foreman took left hooks from Morrison who hit harder than Frazier.Foreman took left hooks from Briggs who hit hard ,Foreman took shots fromMoorer who hit hard ,his chin and body even at 42 are a damn sight more proven than Fraziers.

[round15]

Based on what exactly? Foreman gassed out in two fights ,there was nothing wrong with his heart or spirit ,and he proved there was nothing wrong with his resolve by absorbing all Moorers punches and coming back to ko him ,showing his lethal punch hadnt withered,late in the fight.

There's a monumental difference between the pace that a prime Joe Frazier would set and the pace that which Moorer set when he fought Foreman. Besides, old George was much smarter at pacing himself over 12 rounds than the young George. Young George was a mauler and a brawler, swinging wild and reckless in his early career.

Young George Foreman has proven to tire after the middle rounds in many contests. His power has virtually saved him from getting knocked out later. Listening to several of his post fight interviews validates my point. George sounded pretty gassed after beating Chuvalo, Frazier, Norton, Lyle, and of course Ali.

The only time I watched young Foreman pace himself was in the second fight against Frazier in Uniondale. I'll argue that this version of the young George Foreman was at or near his best, probably because he was admittedly still scared of Frazier. He didn't try to blast Frazier out early like he did in 1973, but used his jab and boxed with restraint and control. Frazier landed some good shots in that fight, but he was nowhere near the fighter that Ali fought in 1971.

[Sonny's jab]

Good posts, round15 :good

[round15]

He had a glass chin and one arm. Even with that one arm, his power was overrated.

Ask Quarry, Chuvalo, Ellis, Eddie Machen, Doug Jones, Manuel Ramos, Bonavena and even Ali, if Joe's power is overated. Even better, ask Quarry, Ellis and Joe Bugner specifically about Frazier's lack of a right hand? The same right hand was knocking Ali backwards in the FOTC rematch that Frazier neglected in the FOTC. I'll agree with the general consensus that Frazier doesn't have the natural power that Liston, Foreman, Shavers and Tyson possessed.

1967 - FOTC Frazier had arguably the most dangerous left hook in heavyweight history. Sure, it took Frazier 15 rounds to put Ali on the canvas, regardless of the controversial 10th round slip. Ali took some of the hardest punches from all the other heavyweights that supposedly hit harder than Frazier and wasn't knocked off his feet.

Prime Frazier was a relentless force that threw sharp, crisp hooks from both hands, landing to the head and body. In fact, I don't think there's another heavyweight in the history of the sport that featured as concerted a body attack as Smokin' Joe. As for Frazier's chin, let me remind you that Frazier took Ali's best shots and rarely took a step back. These are the same punches that KO'd Foreman in Zaire. Foreman knocked down a depleted Frazier six times and still couldn't keep him down. What does that say about Smokin' Joe's chin? Probably not a whole lot, but it speaks volumes about his heart and toughness. Frazier definitely did not have a glass jaw IMO.

[Russell]

How many kos did Frazier score with body shots ? How many times was Foreman down from body shots? Frazier hit Ali with body shots for 40 rds and put him down once. Frazier hit Bonavena with his hook all night in two fights and couldnt even drop him,something Ali and Ellis and Folley managed. Foreman at over 40 took left hooks from Gerry Cooney who hit harder than Frazier.Foreman took left hooks from Morrison who hit harder than Frazier.Foreman took left hooks from Briggs who hit hard ,Foreman took shots fromMoorer who hit hard ,his chin and body even at 42 are a damn sight more proven than Fraziers.

Frazier had the ultra durable Jerry Quarry & Bugner on their knees from single body shots.

[Russell]

And nobody you mentioned has the output or stamina of Frazier.

You're mentioning Shannon asthma brigs alongside a 15 round great like Frazier?

Morrison?

Lololol

[mcvey]

Ask Quarry, Chuvalo, Ellis, Eddie Machen, Doug Jones, Manuel Ramos, Bonavena and even Ali, if Joe's power is overated. Even better, ask Quarry, Ellis and Joe Bugner specifically about Frazier's lack of a right hand? The same right hand was knocking Ali backwards in the FOTC rematch that Frazier neglected in the FOTC. I'll agree with the general consensus that Frazier doesn't have the natural power that Liston, Foreman, Shavers and Tyson possessed.

1967 - FOTC Frazier had arguably the most dangerous left hook in heavyweight history. Sure, it took Frazier 15 rounds to put Ali on the canvas, regardless of the controversial 10th round slip. Ali took some of the hardest punches from all the other heavyweights that supposedly hit harder than Frazier and wasn't knocked off his feet.

Prime Frazier was a relentless force that threw sharp, crisp hooks from both hands, landing to the head and body. In fact, I don't think there's another heavyweight in the history of the sport that featured as concerted a body attack as Smokin' Joe. As for Frazier's chin, let me remind you that Frazier took Ali's best shots and rarely took a step back. These are the same punches that KO'd Foreman in Zaire. Foreman knocked down a depleted Frazier six times and still couldn't keep him down. What does that say about Smokin' Joe's chin? Probably not a whole lot, but it speaks volumes about his heart and toughness. Frazier definitely did not have a glass jaw IMO.
I think you overate Frazier's power,the most dangerous left hook in Heavyweight history? More dangerous than Dempsey's,Louis's,Liston's,Tyson's ? Frazier didnt have a glass chin but it was largely untested against big bombers.

[OBCboxer]

I think you overate Frazier's power,the most dangerous left hook in Heavyweight history? More dangerous than Dempsey's,Louis's,Liston's,Tyson's ? Frazier didnt have a glass chin but it was largely untested against big bombers.

He floored Ali with his left hook. That was something that didn't come easy.


Anyway, Joe can make a tough fight for a lot of Heavys in a H2H fight.

[mcvey]

He floored Ali with his left hook. That was something that didn't come easy.


Anyway, Joe can make a tough fight for a lot of Heavys in a H2H fight.
Sonny Banks floored Ali with a left hook ,so did Cooper,do you think Cooper could have floored say Liston? Frazier was a great fighter but his overated,imo.

[OBCboxer]

Sonny Banks floored Ali with a left hook ,so did Cooper,do you think Cooper could have floored say Liston? Frazier was a great fighter but his overated,imo.

Very underrated, you don't here him in terms of ATG. Which is what is happening now, people are saying his Left Hook is overrated and he couldn't stand up to big hitters.

Joe had one of the greatest Left Hooks of all time and he can take punishment.

[OBCboxer]

He also fought in one of the best era's of Heavyweight history. The only losses he has is one CONVINCING loss to Ali and one razor thin. Two blowouts to another ATG George Foreman. Overrated is not the proper term here, seeming as he beat a lot of good 70's contenders. Sure he did have a short prime but that was because of his swarmer style. Tyson had a short time at the top too, and went a decade without beating a fighter of consequence after that. Atleast when Frazier was on the slide he still beat soem contenders and got back into title contention.

Here are some of his better victories: Muhammad Ali, Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis (2x), Oscar Bonavena (2x), Zyglewicz, Jerry Quarry (2x), Bob Foster and George Chuvalo. These were all very good contenders and he beat Ali "The Greatest".

[yancey]

He also fought in one of the best era's of Heavyweight history. The only losses he has is one CONVINCING loss to Ali and one razor thin. Two blowouts to another ATG George Foreman. Overrated is not the proper term here, seeming as he beat a lot of good 70's contenders. Sure he did have a short prime but that was because of his swarmer style. Tyson had a short time at the top too, and went a decade without beating a fighter of consequence after that. Atleast when Frazier was on the slide he still beat soem contenders and got back into title contention.

Here are some of his better victories: Muhammad Ali, Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis (2x), Oscar Bonavena (2x), Zyglewicz, Jerry Quarry (2x), Bob Foster and George Chuvalo. These were all very good contenders and he beat Ali "The Greatest".

One of Frazier's more impressive victories in my mind was the 2 round knockout of Manuel Ramos on 6/24/68.

Sure, Ramos tailed off quite a bit in his career, but at the time he was coming off victories over Terrell and Machen and was regarded as a real comer in the Frazier fight.

Anyway, this fight shows that sheer, unrelenting pressure that I admired so much in Joe. He was hit by a hellacious uppercut in the first 40 seconds of the fight, but recovered and won the round. Round 2 was just awesome as he bullied the much taller Ramos all over the ring, knocked him down twice, and made him wave his gloves at Mercante in resignation.

[mcvey]

Very underrated, you don't here him in terms of ATG. Which is what is happening now, people are saying his Left Hook is overrated and he couldn't stand up to big hitters.

Joe had one of the greatest Left Hooks of all time and he can take punishment.
Sorry left out power after" his ",post should have read ",His power is overated imo".

[Bokaj]

Sonny Banks floored Ali with a left hook ,so did Cooper,do you think Cooper could have floored say Liston? Frazier was a great fighter but his overated,imo.

Ali was significantly stronger and had a better chin when he met Frazier. The Ali/Clay who faced Banks and Cooper wasn't yet fully developed.

If Frazier stayed in the fight with Liston his hook would start to become really dangerous. No fighter in history is immune to a hook like Frazier's IMO. For my money, Liston is the overrated fighter. I have him at number 10 in my list of ATG heavyweights for the moment, but I'm not sure he deserves that high a ranking. He would be a very dangerous opponent for Frazier, though.

[mcvey]

Ramos got his shot on the tenuous strength of having decisioned Terrell who was coming off two losses to Spencer and a royal arse whipping from Ali,Terrell was finished as a top fighter he never beat another top contender.Ramos beat a 34 year old Machen and had six known defeats before he fought Frazier[ his early record is obscure] he also had two draws with Joey Orbillo ,and Scrap Iron Johnson ,later to be bombed out in two by Quarry,Ramos was really a hyped up fighter ,early in the Frazier fight he staggered Joe ,who recovered quickly and landed a bomb ,I remember watching it on Tv ,Ali did the commentary he said ,as Ramos signalled he wanted out,"aint that terrible , he wants to go home".

[mcvey]

Ali was significantly stronger and had a better chin when he met Frazier. The Ali/Clay who faced Banks and Cooper wasn't yet fully developed.

If Frazier stayed in the fight with Liston his hook would start to become really dangerous. No fighter in history is immune to a hook like Frazier's IMO. For my money, Liston is the overrated fighter. I have him at number 10 in my list of ATG heavyweights for the moment, but I'm not sure he deserves that high a ranking. He would be a very dangerous opponent for Frazier, though.
Frazier 's hook wore guys out he didnt ko that many top guys with it ,Chuvalo was on his feet at the time of the stoppage,Ellis was on his stool,Quarry was on his feet.Foster was a LH,who never beat a top Heavy,Bonavena ,never went down in two fights,Machen was an old man Zylglewiz was nothing ,Daniels was a third rater ,Stander came from Tough Man contests.I didnt say Frazier couldnt take shots from big hard hitt ing heavies ,I said his chin was unproven against them.

[Bokaj]

Frazier 's hook wore guys out he didnt ko that many top guys with it ,Chuvalo was on his feet at the time of the stoppage,Ellis was on his stool,Quarry was on his feet.

Yeah, I know. That's why I said his hook would start to be dangerous if he stayed with Liston. I don't think he would knock out Liston with one punch, but he could well hurt him with one punch and that would spell trouble for Liston because of Frazier's unrelenting attack. The same applies to Liston. I don't think he would KO Frazier like he did Patterson (even Foreman couldn't keep him down, despite some of the most monstrous punches ever thrown in a boxing ring), but he could well hurt him, and that's always bad news for someone who only knows how to come forward.

Out of curisosity; other than Ali, was there anyone Frazier hurt badly but didn't finish off?

[Jack]

That's a distinct possibility.

Frazier was way out of shape in Jamaica in 1973. He just came in fat and walked straight into Foreman.

The 1976 rematch showed how Frazier was a superior boxer(the way he could slip most of Foreman's shots - Frazier's very underrated as a defensively skilled fighter ) but he was finished by then, about 225 pounds, effectively blind in one eye, and only had a few rounds in him. Unrecognizable from his prime.I think the people who base a negative opinion of Frazier because of this fight, should watch the rematch. Frazier fought a much better fight and came out with a highly respectable result, despite being in such a terrible state. If the Frazier who was shot could last 5 rounds, then you have to assume that Foreman blasting through him in 2 was a one-off. I think if they had fought again in 1973, the fight would have gone a lot longer than 2 rounds.

I think every fighter has underestimated an opponent at some stage in their career. Louis underestimated Conn. Ali understimated Jones. Tyson underestimated Douglas. The difference between those fights and Frazier/Foreman I, is that Foreman was a wrecking machine, who should have never been overlooked.

I also think the Stander fight needs to be looked at more. Frazier had a tough night with this guy - Why? I honestly think Frazier was done as a top level figher after the first fight with Ali. Prime Frazier would ruin Stander, whereas in 1972, they had a close fight. Surely this is also relevant?

Prime Frazier who understands the threat of Foreman would win a close fight by stoppage in the late rounds.

[Bokaj]

I think the fact that Frazier didn't look very good in the fights after FOTC have more to do with motivational issues than physical. I mean, his hunger must have diminished after such a great achievement. He probably felt he didn't have much left to prove. Otherwise he would have rematched Ali sooner to show that it wasn't one off. As it is he seems to have taken only pretty easy fights on paper after FOTC, so as not too take any unneccesary risks with his title. Obviously Foreman was a big miscalculation.

But in his comeback after that loss he started to look good again. In his second fight with Quarry he looked absolutely terrific, better than he did in their first fight. And this was at a time around which Quarry had some of his biggest wins (Shavers and Lyle).

[yancey]

I think the people who base a negative opinion of Frazier because of this fight, should watch the rematch. Frazier fought a much better fight and came out with a highly respectable result, despite being in such a terrible state. If the Frazier who was shot could last 5 rounds, then you have to assume that Foreman blasting through him in 2 was a one-off. I think if they had fought again in 1973, the fight would have gone a lot longer than 2 rounds.

I think every fighter has underestimated an opponent at some stage in their career. Louis underestimated Conn. Ali understimated Jones. Tyson underestimated Douglas. The difference between those fights and Frazier/Foreman I, is that Foreman was a wrecking machine, who should have never been overlooked.

I also think the Stander fight needs to be looked at more. Frazier had a tough night with this guy - Why? I honestly think Frazier was done as a top level figher after the first fight with Ali. Prime Frazier would ruin Stander, whereas in 1972, they had a close fight. Surely this is also relevant?

Prime Frazier who understands the threat of Foreman would win a close fight by stoppage in the late rounds.

Very good analysis.

The Stander fight was nationally televised and threw up all kinds of red flags to me.

Prime Joe stands a much better chance against GF than generally assumed.

[yancey]

I think the fact that Frazier didn't look very good in the fights after FOTC have more to do with motivational issues than physical. I mean, his hunger must have diminished after such a great achievement. He probably felt he didn't have much left to prove. Otherwise he would have rematched Ali sooner to show that it wasn't one off. As it is he seems to have taken only pretty easy fights on paper after FOTC, so as not too take any unneccesary risks with his title. Obviously Foreman was a big miscalculation.

But in his comeback after that loss he started to look good again. In his second fight with Quarry he looked absolutely terrific, better than he did in their first fight. And this was at a time around which Quarry had some of his biggest wins (Shavers and Lyle).

Frazier did look good in Quarry II, but in my judgment, both men were maybe 80-85% of what they were in their first fight.

That bobbing, weaving, punch slipping Joe of 67-70 became a more stationery target post FOTC, in my view of things.

Joe did use his right hand quite effectively in Quarry II.

[round15]

I think you overate Frazier's power,the most dangerous left hook in Heavyweight history? More dangerous than Dempsey's,Louis's,Liston's,Tyson's ? Frazier didnt have a glass chin but it was largely untested against big bombers.

I'm not old enough to remember Dempsey or Louis' hook and I barely remember Liston's hook. Tyson arguably had more power in his left hook than Frazier, I don't think his hook was a better punch than Fraziers. Remember, Frazier was a converted southpaw so most of his natural power is on his left side. Frazier's left hook while in his prime was a sharp, crisp, hard, accurate punch that did plenty of damage to his opponents.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Tyson's prime weight was between 213 - 217, whereas Frazier's was 203 - 208, based on weight during training and the weigh-in on fight night. By this rationale, it's easy to conclude that Tyson's hook was more destructive than Fraziers because he had more natural weight to his punch. More importantly though is the fact that Tyson favoured his right hand more than his left and he was a natural right handed fighter. I'll safely say Frazier's hook overall is better than Tyson's and still is the best in heavyweight history. Chuvalo got his cheek smashed, Ellis was never floored before he fought Frazier and the visual evidence on Ali's face and the knockdown in the FOTC illustrates the damage done by Frazier with his left hook.

If one were comparing right hands, then Frazier obviously is secondary to Tyson, Liston, Foreman, Shavers and most of the other big punching heavyweights that favoured straight right leads and right hooks. Still, some on this forum are adamant that Frazier had no right hand which I completely disagree with. Frazier had a better right hand then most give him credit for but it's his left hook that garners more attention when compared to other fighters.

[round15]

I think the people who base a negative opinion of Frazier because of this fight, should watch the rematch. Frazier fought a much better fight and came out with a highly respectable result, despite being in such a terrible state. If the Frazier who was shot could last 5 rounds, then you have to assume that Foreman blasting through him in 2 was a one-off. I think if they had fought again in 1973, the fight would have gone a lot longer than 2 rounds.

I think every fighter has underestimated an opponent at some stage in their career. Louis underestimated Conn. Ali understimated Jones. Tyson underestimated Douglas. The difference between those fights and Frazier/Foreman I, is that Foreman was a wrecking machine, who should have never been overlooked.

I also think the Stander fight needs to be looked at more. Frazier had a tough night with this guy - Why? I honestly think Frazier was done as a top level figher after the first fight with Ali. Prime Frazier would ruin Stander, whereas in 1972, they had a close fight. Surely this is also relevant?

Prime Frazier who understands the threat of Foreman would win a close fight by stoppage in the late rounds.

I agree with you. People forget that there was a reason way Foreman avoided Frazier after beating him and renegged on the immediate rematch clause in their 1973 title fight. He fought Jose Roman and Ken Norton instead because he knew an immediate rematch with Frazier wouldn't be an exact replay.

There no denying the fact that Foreman always would present a tough challenge for Frazier. What's ignored is the fact that Foreman never fought the very best Frazier, who was miles apart from the 1967 - FOTC version. Prime Frazier just prior to the FOTC would pose a much much tougher challenge for Foreman and was more than capable of knocking him out in the late rounds.

[mcvey]

I agree with you. People forget that there was a reason way Foreman avoided Frazier after beating him and renegged on the immediate rematch clause in their 1973 title fight. He fought Jose Roman and Ken Norton instead because he knew an immediate rematch with Frazier wouldn't be an exact replay.

There no denying the fact that Foreman always would present a tough challenge for Frazier. What's ignored is the fact that Foreman never fought the very best Frazier, who was miles apart from the 1967 - FOTC version. Prime Frazier just prior to the FOTC would pose a much much tougher challenge for Foreman and was more than capable of knocking him out in the late rounds.
Are you serious? Foreman avoided a rematch with Frazier,get real!Who would have paid to see it ?Foreman avoided Frazier? More like Frazier avoided Ali why did it take him 3 years to give Ali a rematch? Why did he fight 2 third raters instead of a ranked contender after beating Ali?Rematch clauses had been out lawed since the ladt Ingo Floyd fight and with good reason they tied up the title and stopped deserving contenders from getting a shot ,any clause would have been legally unenforcable and worht nothing .Foreman took on Norton perceived as a much more dangerous challenger than Frazier.

[janitor]

One thing that has to be said for Frazier when comparing him to other all time greats is that it took one hell of a fighter to beat him.

The worst fighters to beat Joe Frazier are Muhamad Ali and George Foreman.

Louis, Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, Foreman, Liston, Tyson, Lewis all lost to worse fighters than the worst person who beat Joe Frazier.

It almost seems as if he and Marciano had a set of limited atributes that never failed against a sub top 10 all time heavyweight.

[mcvey]

One thing that has to be said for Frazier when comparing him to other all time greats is that it took one hell of a fighter to beat him.

The worst fighters to beat Joe Frazier are Muhamad Ali and George Foreman.

Louis, Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, Foreman, Liston, Tyson, Lewis all lost to worse fighters than the worst person who beat Joe Frazier.

It almost seems as if he and Marciano had a set of limited atributes that never failed against a sub top 10 all time heavyweight.
Well apart from those two he didnt face many did he? Quarry is his best win,Ellis was stopped by punchers,Bonavena ran him close,Foster was a LH who flopped as a heavy, Marciano and Frazier? Marciano never defended his title against 3 unranked challengers,[Zyglewisz,Daniels and Stander ]. Plus a Mexican Heavyweight! a hyped Ramos who had 6 defeats and a draw with Scrap Iron Johnson on his record.Missing on Fraziers resume as champion are defences against Norton,Mac Foster and Liston ,who all had two things in common ,they were all big ,and they could all punch.

[Sonny's jab]

Mac Foster probably would have got a shot at Frazier if he could beat Quarry. But Quarry took him apart.

Joe Frazier certainly didn't duck Ken Norton. In fact, Frazier was one of the first people to really give Norton his dues, calling his praises long before anyone took Norton seriously. No one seemed interested in Norton before he beat Ali, they would have regarded him along the same lines as Stander had he gotten a shot at Frazier. Norton was considered definitely second-rate at the time.

[janitor]

[quote=mcvey]Well apart from those two he didnt face many did he? Quarry is his best win,Ellis was stopped by punchers,Bonavena ran him close,Foster was a LH who flopped as a heavy, Marciano and Frazier? Marciano never defended his title against 3 unranked challengers,[Zyglewisz,Daniels and Stander ]. Plus a Mexican Heavyweight! a hyped Ramos who had 6 defeats and a draw with Scrap Iron Johnson on his record.

If you look at Fraziers record pre FOTC, match it against the rankings, and the elimination tournament to replace Ali, you will see that he beat all the names worth beating.

He did a much more thorough number on the division than Foreman did for example.

Missing on Fraziers resume as champion are defences against Norton,Mac Foster and Liston ,who all had two things in common ,they were all big ,and they could all punch.

I have never bought into the idea that Frazier avoided punchers.

His problem was that he didnt avoid the most dangerous of them.

Mac Foster would have been a big hype, low substance fight, Foreman was to a lesser extent, Bob Foster was a more credible oponent on paper than either of them.

[OBCboxer]

Well apart from those two he didnt face many did he? Quarry is his best win,Ellis was stopped by punchers,Bonavena ran him close,Foster was a LH who flopped as a heavy, Marciano and Frazier? Marciano never defended his title against 3 unranked challengers,[Zyglewisz,Daniels and Stander ]. Plus a Mexican Heavyweight! a hyped Ramos who had 6 defeats and a draw with Scrap Iron Johnson on his record.Missing on Fraziers resume as champion are defences against Norton,Mac Foster and Liston ,who all had two things in common ,they were all big ,and they could all punch.

Ken Norton was not in the big time yet. Liston died the year he won the title. Mac Foster lost to Jerry Quarry the same year Frazier won the title.

This all happened in 1970.

[mcvey]

Mac Foster probably would have got a shot at Frazier if he could beat Quarry. But Quarry took him apart.

Joe Frazier certainly didn't duck Ken Norton. In fact, Frazier was one of the first people to really give Norton his dues, calling his praises long before anyone took Norton seriously. No one seemed interested in Norton before he beat Ali, they would have regarded him along the same lines as Stander had he gotten a shot at Frazier. Norton was considered definitely second-rate at the time.
Ok you first!Frazier didnt duck Norton ? well he didnt fight him did he?
Considered definitely second rate?Norton was ranked 9 in 72 and 3 in 73. Stander ,Daniels ,and Zyglewiz never were ranked at all.On a par with Stander ?Stander came from tough man contests he was a bar room brawler unranked and untested.In 70 Foster was no 5 ,in 71 no 5,title shot? NO! Another name for you to excuse Lyle no4 in 72 ,no5 in 73 title shot NO! Want anothe rpuncher who was ranked?Garcia no 10 in 70,no 8 in 71,no10 in 72,Now tell me Frazier took on more deserving challengers in Ziggy ,Stander and Daniels.

[mcvey]

[quote]

If you look at Fraziers record pre FOTC, match it against the rankings, and the elimination tournament to replace Ali, you will see that he beat all the names worth beating.

He did a much more thorough number on the division than Foreman did for example.



I have never bought into the idea that Frazier avoided punchers.

His problem was that he didnt avoid the most dangerous of them.

Mac Foster would have been a big hype, low substance fight, Foreman was to a lesser extent, Bob Foster was a more credible oponent on paper than either of them.
Bob Foster NEVER BEAT A RATED HEAVYWEIGHT,HE WAS STOPPED BY THE ONES HE MET,how was he a more worthy opponent than Norton or Foster both of whom ranked in the top ten?

[mcvey]

[quote]

If you look at Fraziers record pre FOTC, match it against the rankings, and the elimination tournament to replace Ali, you will see that he beat all the names worth beating.

He did a much more thorough number on the division than Foreman did for example.



I have never bought into the idea that Frazier avoided punchers.

His problem was that he didnt avoid the most dangerous of them.

Mac Foster would have been a big hype, low substance fight, Foreman was to a lesser extent, Bob Foster was a more credible oponent on paper than either of them.
Yank Durham kept Frazier out of the Elimination tournament ,which comprised Spencer ,Martin,Terrell, Quarry, Ellis etc. Preferrring to take on untested Buster Mathis ,who was unranked.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]
Bob Foster NEVER BEAT A RATED HEAVYWEIGHT,HE WAS STOPPED BY THE ONES HE MET,how was he a more worthy opponent than Norton or Foster both of whom ranked in the top ten?

Fosters reign at light heavyweight was obviously prety impresive. He was as credible an oponent as Spinks was for Holmes. Although a light heavyweight he was obviously a great fighter at this point.

Who had Ken Norton or Mac Foster beaten at this stage?

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]
Yank Durham kept Frazier out of the Elimination tournament ,which comprised Spencer ,Martin,Terrell, Quarry, Ellis etc. Preferrring to take on untested Buster Mathis ,who was unranked.

Yes but Frazier then beat everybody who finished in the top three of that tournament thus rendering the others beneath his notice.

[mcvey]

[quote=mcvey]

Fosters reign at light heavyweight was obviously prety impresive. He was as credible an oponent as Spinks was for Holmes. Although a light heavyweight he was obviously a great fighter at this point.

Who had Ken Norton or Mac Foster beaten at this stage?
They were ranked heavyweights ,the three nobodies Frazier defended against were not.

[mcvey]

[quote=mcvey]

Yes but Frazier then beat everybody who finished in the top three of that tournament thus rendering the others beneath his notice.
As Durham said let them eliminate themselves,you are hi jacking hind sight,at the time Terrell and Spencer were thought of as the favourites .litlle did we know Terrell ,was damaged goods and that Spencer would self destuct living the high life.Martin was a dangerous dark horse who could punch I saw him beat Spencer in London it was a great fight,Martin got a bad break against Ellis his lip tore open and he was tkod.It doesnt matter that these guys subsequently were exposed ,at the time trhey were seen as the real threats and Frazier didnt fight them,clever manage emnt ,?Undoubtedly,but dont put Joe up as some kind of , liston tearing through the division ,he wasnt and his reign was pretty undistinguished the firat time he took on the mandatory challenger he got decapitated.

[janitor]

[quote=janitor]
They were ranked heavyweights ,the three nobodies Frazier defended against were not.

Where were they ranked at the time, and exactly how did they have a better claim than the many heavyweights who were ranked higher?

Or even a long reigning light heavyweight champion?

Frazier took a couple of easy money title defences for sure but Foreman had a better claim on paper than any of these guys, and Quarry had a better claim for a rematch.

[mcvey]

[quote=mcvey]

Where were they ranked at the time, and exactly how did they have a better claim than the many heavyweights who were ranked higher?

Or even a long reigning light heavyweight champion?

Frazier took a couple of easy money title defences for sure but Foreman had a better claim on paper than any of these guys, and Quarry had a better claim for a rematch.
In the three years he was universally recognized as Champion[after beating Ellis] Frazier defended against one rated contender,[Ali] prior to being kod by Foreman.Is that a great resume for a champion?Mac Foster was no 5 in 1970.no 5 in 71 Liston was no8 in 70,Garcia was no 10 in 70,8 in 71 ,10 in 72,Norton was no 9 in 72 ,no 3 in 73 Total title shots? NONE!

[mcvey]

[quote=mcvey]

Fosters reign at light heavyweight was obviously prety impresive. He was as credible an oponent as Spinks was for Holmes. Although a light heavyweight he was obviously a great fighter at this point.

Who had Ken Norton or Mac Foster beaten at this stage?
Liston was no 8 in 1970

[mcvey]

[QUOTE=janitor]
Liston was no 8 in 1970
This was for OBC BOXER

[mcvey]

[quote=mcvey]

Fosters reign at light heavyweight was obviously prety impresive. He was as credible an oponent as Spinks was for Holmes. Although a light heavyweight he was obviously a great fighter at this point.

Who had Ken Norton or Mac Foster beaten at this stage?
Who had Stander ,Daniels and Bob Foster beaten?

[mcvey]

It had been 35+ years since Joe was in his prime. Has time served (perhaps like dempsey?) to have diminished Joe in the minds of the masses? More and more Joe is seen losing to david Tua and other fringe contenders in mythical H2H match-ups. He gets sold short against most ATG's in these hypoteticals as well. He is labeled a ONE ARMED BOXER by many...He is touted as a guy with average power who could only hope his high work rate would carry him to victory against lesser condintioned boxers. How did this happen?

I spent the day watching old Frazier fights (Jones, Chuvalo, Ellis I, Foster, Ramos, Daniels, Stander, Quarry I & II, Ellis II). Frazier was touted as a guy who threw every punch with bad intentions...His power was compared to that od dempsey and Marciano....and time and again it was commented on how much power he had with BOTH hands. I was paying particular attention to the right hand and would guess it was in the 38-40% range of all his punches thrown..not quite one handed by any calculation. And while true to form that the left hook was the closer in most of these fights, it was generally set up by several body shots and upper cuts about half of which were from the right. He seemed to me to be comprable to any...ANY ATG HW EVER? Am I alone in this or has time diminished Joe to an after thought...left outside of many peoples top 10's and some even relegate him to top 15 status?

Is this just the way of History...Dempsey seems to have fallen of the charts although many of the day rated him higher than Louis...Marciano seems to be in this same boat and it appears that larry Holmes is headed down this path as well. Who of the last 10-20 years will history and time begin to diminish???? I'm not sure what my question was anymore?????
COMPARE!
After beating Ali in 1970 Frazier defends in Jan 1972 against unranked Terry Daniels,
After losing to Frazier Ali beats Jimmy Ellis no 3 ,inJul 1971,Buster Mathis[top 20]nov71,Jurgen BlinGerman Champ Dec 71,all were stoppage wins.
In1972 Frazier defends against unranked Ron Stander.
In 1972 Ali beats Mac Foster[top 20]Chuvalo[top 20],Jerry Quarry top10],Al Blue lewis[top20]Floyd Patterson [top 20] Bob Foster lh Champ.
History unkind to Joe Frazier? History has been overly generous to Frazier imo.

[SuzieQ49]

[quote=janitor]
As Durham said let them eliminate themselves,you are hi jacking hind sight,at the time Terrell and Spencer were thought of as the favourites .litlle did we know Terrell ,was damaged goods and that Spencer would self destuct living the high life.Martin was a dangerous dark horse who could punch I saw him beat Spencer in London it was a great fight,Martin got a bad break against Ellis his lip tore open and he was tkod.It doesnt matter that these guys subsequently were exposed ,at the time trhey were seen as the real threats and Frazier didnt fight them,clever manage emnt ,?Undoubtedly,but dont put Joe up as some kind of , liston tearing through the division ,he wasnt and his reign was pretty undistinguished the firat time he took on the mandatory challenger he got decapitated.

A near 40 year old Liston floored and was giving your boy Leotis Martin a butt whoopin for 9 rounds........I would say Liston was still quite dangerous.

[mcvey]

[quote=mcvey]

A near 40 year old Liston floored and was giving your boy Leotis Martin a butt whoopin for 9 rounds........I would say Liston was still quite dangerous.
Liston would be dangerous all the time he was breathing.I dont think Fraziers people wanted to get anywhere near Sonny.Martin was an underated puncher ,he was losing to Sonny as you say,,Listons jab detached his retina and he was never able to cash in on his biggest win.He would have given Frazier an interesting night imo.

[SuzieQ49]

I agree, Leotis was sonnys former sparring partner, but Leotis was a good young contender who packed a dreadful punch and had a future ahead of him. liston essentially ruined his career despite losing the fight.

Mcvey, do you think fraziers management ducked mac foster, sonny liston, thad spencer, leotis martin, ernie terrell, ron lyle, earnie shavers?

[mcvey]

I agree, Leotis was sonnys former sparring partner, but Leotis was a good young contender who packed a dreadful punch and had a future ahead of him. liston essentially ruined his career despite losing the fight.

Mcvey, do you think fraziers management ducked mac foster, sonny liston, thad spencer, leotis martin, ernie terrell, ron lyle, earnie shavers?
Well he never fought them did he?I think Durham did a very good job with Joe ,but was caught asleep by Foreman ,in truth George looked very raw and clumsy we knew he could hit but most people thought Frazier would get under his looping shots and go to work,didnt reckon on that uppercut.Janitor makes the case that many of the names here were exposed as being less than they seemed but thats with hind sight,I think Durham steered Frazier away from Liston,Foster,and probably Martin and Lyle,throw in Shavers ,thats a lot of punches Joe somehow didnt get around to meeting.the Frazier fans on here wont have it but his legacy is pretty thin imo.A prime Sonny had too many tools for Joe imo,he could out box him and out punch him,Frazier wore you down,Liston busted you up and hurt you bad.

[Bokaj]

You make a really good point, McVey. Frazier was obviously carefully managed, not quite as carefully as Foreman, but still.

It seems pretty reasonable to say that Liston, Mac Foster, Lyle, Shavers and Foreman was the biggest punchers while Joe was around, and of them he only took on Foreman, with known result. That does raise questions.

[Bo Bo Olson]

One forgets he had diminished sight in his right eye, which was why his corner stopped the fight in Manila, he was shut eyed in one eye and near blind in the other.
That too is why he threw his right less and less as time went by.

[mcvey]

One forgets he had diminished sight in his right eye, which was why his corner stopped the fight in Manila, he was shut eyed in one eye and near blind in the other.
That too is why he threw his right less and less as time went by.
People also tend to forget that his biggest win was over a man who had been out for three and a half years and had 18 rds of competiton in 4 years, they also fail to mention that he was never able to duplicate this feat in two other fights.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Second fight had a lousey ref, that allowed Ali to get away with stuff.

Had Forman not lucky punched Moore, he'd not be well rated today.
That Mathis Frazier fight was a hell of a good fight.

At least Joe kept all his money.
Joe also haelped Ali out with money during Ali's "exile".

[Bokaj]

That sounds like a lot of bad excuses to me. Ali was the better fighter in the second fight, end of story. And what has money and him being generous to Ali to do with his pro record?

Personally, I rate Frazier highly, but there are some important names missing from his record. Being so clearly dominated by Foreman doesn't help either. Those are all good reasons to why he doesn't belong among the top 5 greatest heavyweights. I would probably place him at nr. 8.

[mcvey]

Second fight had a lousey ref, that allowed Ali to get away with stuff.

Had Forman not lucky punched Moore, he'd not be well rated today.
That Mathis Frazier fight was a hell of a good fight.

At least Joe kept all his money.
Joe also haelped Ali out with money during Ali's "exile".
Mathis wasnt rated in the top ten by the Ring when he fought Frazier neither did the fight get recognition from 90% of the states ,or the European Union or the BBBOC in England ,who issued a statement "We do not consider Buster Mathis a suitable opponent".

[Sonny's jab]

Mathis might not have been a suitable opponent but Frazier went on to beat Jimmy Ellis and Muhammad Ali, making him undisputed.

The first Frazier-Ali fight was the most significant fight of the entire era, and the most legit fight between TWO world champions in history. Both guys were undefeated and both seemed to have legit claims to being champion. On top of this, Ali is now often regarded as the greatest heavyweight champion in history - and Frazier beat him when the stakes were highest.

Now, if we assume it all true that Frazier "ducked" guys like Mac Foster and Ken Norton (which seems odd to me because neither were number 1 rivals when he was champ, and probably both had managers who were patiently steering them towards a shot), what does it matter ?
He beat Muhammad Ali in the most meaningful championship fight for decades.

[mcvey]

Mathis might not have been a suitable opponent but Frazier went on to beat Jimmy Ellis and Muhammad Ali, making him undisputed.

The first Frazier-Ali fight was the most significant fight of the entire era, and the most legit fight between TWO world champions in history. Both guys were undefeated and both seemed to have legit claims to being champion. On top of this, Ali is now often regarded as the greatest heavyweight champion in history - and Frazier beat him when the stakes were highest.

Now, if we assume it all true that Frazier "ducked" guys like Mac Foster and Ken Norton (which seems odd to me because neither were number 1 rivals when he was champ, and probably both had managers who were patiently steering them towards a shot), what does it matter ?
He beat Muhammad Ali in the most meaningful championship fight for decades.
Fraziers legacy largely rests on a prime Smokin Joe beating a not prime Ali,Frazier was a great fighter ,but I feel he gets his dues by and large,we dont know that Frazier ducked big punchers ,all we know is he didnt meet Foster,Lyle,Shavers,Norton,Martin ,Liston or Garcia.Thats alot of bangers to somehow miss,imo.

[ChrisPontius]

It's a shame that Joe gets such a raw deal today. A lot of people are trying to make his victory over Ali a hollow one because Ali was past it. What they conveniently don't mention is how Ali's legacy fights against Foreman, Frazier (that he was past it doesn't matter i suppose), Lyle, Shavers, etc all came several years after Frazier smoked him.

Frazier was involved in the most important heavyweight fight in boxing history and he won it.

[Bokaj]

He did meet Machen, Chuvalo, Bonavena, Mathis, Quarry, Ellis, Ali, Foreman and Bugner, but among the more prominent/dangerous fighters of his era he failed to meet Liston, Mac Foster, Patterson, Norton, Shavers, Lyle and Young. That's quite a few names missing.

No matter wether he ducked these fighters or if other circumstances came in the way, the fact is that they still are missing from his record. Ali met and defeated all of the fighters above (with the exception of Machen) and also have some other good names on his record like Moore, Cooper, Williams, Terrell and Folley. It is due to this difference, much more than to the fact that Ali is 2-1 against him in three hotly contested fights, that Ali is generally more highly regarded today.

[mcvey]

It's a shame that Joe gets such a raw deal today. A lot of people are trying to make his victory over Ali a hollow one because Ali was past it. What they conveniently don't mention is how Ali's legacy fights against Foreman, Frazier (that he was past it doesn't matter i suppose), Lyle, Shavers, etc all came several years after Frazier smoked him.

Frazier was involved in the most important heavyweight fight in boxing history and he won it.
And no one can take that away from him,Great fighter and it would seem a good man ,I think he gets his due recognition Chris ,he's certainly got enough defenders on this forum.Archie Moore beat alot of guys after Marciano kod him does that mean he was in his prime? Its funny how Frazier is shot when he meets Foreman in73 ,but an older Ali is still beating rated contenders 4 years later.When I said Ali wasnt prime I meant he wasnt in the best of condition ,he could have done with more action ,his legs weren't there,he regained his stamina with a busy schedule later but he wasn't prime for FOTC.,his prime was the 3 1/2 years he was away from boxing!
"I'm fighting all the guys Frazier wont fight!"ALI.

[Marciano Frazier]

That sounds like a lot of bad excuses to me. Ali was the better fighter in the second fight, end of story.
How? Explain to me exactly what was better about Ali's performance in the second fight than Frazier's.
It's not a bad excuse at all. Watch the fight. Ali's central tactic in the trenches throughout the whole match is to literally reach out, grab Frazier behind the head, pull him in, push his head down, and put his right hand on the inside of Joe's left to fully neutralize the hook. This same pose happens literally dozens of times- in fact, Eddie Futch reviewed the film and counted over 120 clinches instigated by Ali during the 12 rounds of that fight! It isn't mutual clinching of the sort that happens when the fighters' arms get tied up or they fall together; Frazier is coming in throwing punches and trying to initiate offense, and Ali is deliberately grabbing him, manhandling him and specifically working to minimize the action and stop Frazier from punching. This is a clearly illegal tactic and is making a very large difference to the fight, and Ali is literally never once called for it!

And even as it is, I still don't see where Ali clearly won that fight. There were a reasonable number of sportswriters who scored the match for Frazier. Ali outlanded Frazier by a good margin, but his offense was virtually all shoe-shining that barely made any impact on Joe, aside from the hard right to the temple that shook him towards the end of round two. Frazier was the one throwing serious punches and trying to make the fight.

While the scoring was not a rip-off, I think a draw or narrow win for Frazier would also have been reasonable, and it is certainly possible Frazier could have done better had Ali not been allowed to get away with consistent, repeated and deliberate fouling round after round after round.

[Bokaj]

I've discussed this in so many other threads, so I won't really get in to it here. I can only say that many of the punches Ali lands are good ones, that the clinching was much more mutual than most say (this was also the ref's take on it, by the way), that I have it 8-4 or 7-4-1 to Ali, and that there is no chance in hell that Frazier won the majority of the rounds. I have seen the fight lots of times. For me FOTC was substantially closer than this one.

[OBCboxer]

And no one can take that away from him,Great fighter and it would seem a good man ,I think he gets his due recognition Chris ,he's certainly got enough defenders on this forum.Archie Moore beat alot of guys after Marciano kod him does that mean he was in his prime? Its funny how Frazier is shot when he meets Foreman in73 ,but an older Ali is still beating rated contenders 4 years later.When I said Ali wasnt prime I meant he wasnt in the best of condition ,he could have done with more action ,his legs weren't there,he regained his stamina with a busy schedule later but he wasn't prime for FOTC.,his prime was the 3 1/2 years he was away from boxing!
"I'm fighting all the guys Frazier wont fight!"ALI.

Joe Frazier had a shorter prime than Ali mainly because of their styles. Ali was a guy who didn't go in their head first and trade with people, he also didn't take a lot of punishment. Frazier on the other hand had a short career at the top, because he was a head first slugger. He also took loads of punishment throughout his career which is bound to shorten any guy's career.

If you look at other sluggers like Tyson, Gatti, Holyfield and of course Frazier they all had short primes.

Now look at fighters with long primes at the top with guys like Holmes, Ali, RJJ and SRR.

[Bokaj]

True, and that's also why the boxers you named often are ranked higher, and rightly so.

Next to Ali a prime Frazier is probably the HW I enjoy watching the most. While I see Tyson as primarily a highlight-reel fighter who had many very boring and slow paced fights Frazier combined power, speed and sustained aggression better than anyone I've ever seen. There are fighters with more impressive records, though, while Joe's was FAR from unimpressive, of course.

[mcvey]

Joe Frazier had a shorter prime than Ali mainly because of their styles. Ali was a guy who didn't go in their head first and trade with people, he also didn't take a lot of punishment. Frazier on the other hand had a short career at the top, because he was a head first slugger. He also took loads of punishment throughout his career which is bound to shorten any guy's career.

If you look at other sluggers like Tyson, Gatti, Holyfield and of course Frazier they all had short primes.

Now look at fighters with long primes at the top with guys like Holmes, Ali, RJJ and SRR.
Ali took more punches from bigger punchers than Frazier ,he took the punches of the biggest hitters from the 60's through the 70's
Liston,Williams,Foster,Lyle ,Foreman,Shavers,Norton.To say Ali didnt take a lot of punishment is nonsense,he took too much punishment for far too long.
How come Frazier is ruined by the FOTC,yet Ali goes on for another 7 years,winning the title twice more and fighting ranked contenders as he goes?
Maybe its because he was that much better than Frazier ,ever thought of that? I'm playing devils advocate really ,I agree the reason Frazier 's prime was short,but I get a bit fed up with all this Joe was shot when he fought Foreman stuff,maybe if he had fought contenders after beating Ali instead of two nobodies ,he would have been in better shape to take on Foreman? Instead of cheapening the title taking on unranked patsies.

[ChrisPontius]

I don't think Frazier was shot for the Foreman fight at all. And i don't think it would've mattered, either. Foreman annihilates him, 1973 or 1971.

[mcvey]

I don't think Frazier was shot for the Foreman fight at all. And i don't think it would've mattered, either. Foreman annihilates him, 1973 or 1971.
An unbiased opinion from a Frazier fan! You know I respect Frazier, Chris but he is getting more medals here than Idi Amin.

[yancey]

You've got to love it.

If a Frazier fan says Foreman always annihilates Joe, it is because the fan is unbiased.

On the other hand, if another Frazier fan thinks prime Joe of 67-70 has a decent shot at surviving Foreman in the early, dangerous rounds (especially if wrestling moves by Foreman are not allowed) and taking out Foreman in the late rounds, it is because he either is not being objective or has an agenda. :roll:

[Marciano Frazier]

And no one can take that away from him,Great fighter and it would seem a good man ,I think he gets his due recognition Chris ,he's certainly got enough defenders on this forum.
Not proportionate to the number of naysayers who give him lip service and then proceed to rationalize away all of his achievements.

Archie Moore beat alot of guys after Marciano kod him does that mean he was in his prime?
Yes.

Its funny how Frazier is shot when he meets Foreman in73 ,but an older Ali is still beating rated contenders 4 years later.
Ali had better longevity than Frazier did. Is that a surprise, given their styles?

When I said Ali wasnt prime I meant he wasnt in the best of condition ,he could have done with more action ,his legs weren't there,he regained his stamina with a busy schedule later but he wasn't prime for FOTC.,his prime was the 3 1/2 years he was away from boxing!
"I'm fighting all the guys Frazier wont fight!"ALI.
It isn't as though Ali never stepped into a boxing ring between 1967 and 1970. He did some sparring/exhibition-type things, and the Quarry and Bonavena fights represent wins over two of the top five contenders for the championship! Hardly a fighter taking a tentative step out of retirement.

[Bokaj]

Well, in the Quarry fight he said himself afterwards that he was schocked over how tired he was when the fight ended in round 3, and that he didn't know what would have happened if not for the cut. In the fight against Bonavena he hardly looks impressive, and it's obvious that he doesn't dance around like he did before. You can hear Howard Cosell again and again state that he doesn't look like the fighter he once was. In his autobiography Ali, without relating it in any way to his perfomance against Frazier, says that it wasn't until the second Quarry fight that he felt that he had fully regained his conditioning.

But he was by no means shot or bad against Frazier. Very few fighters would have beaten that version of Ali, but Frazier did.

[groove]

What fighting exhibitions did Ali do in exile?

[Bokaj]

I can verify that he did some exhibitions during his exile (it's in his autobiography) even if I don't know the names. It wasn't on a very regular basis, though.

[yancey]

Frazier had less than 2 full rounds in the 12 months immediately preceding the FOTC.

Ali had 18 rounds against top-notch competition in the 6 months preceding the FOTC.

If anybody thinks that Ali laid away completely from the sport in those 3 years, they are mistaken.

If anybody thinks Ali was ever going to get into the ring for what he KNEW was going to be the fight of his life and one of the most defining sporting events of all-time and not be fully ready, they are mistaken.

Ali was 98% of his best for the FOTC.

Frazier was actually slightly past his peak for the FOTC, imo.

Joe's sin?

Having the audacity to beat an icon and media darling in their first and most important fight of their trilogy.

I guess he didn't read the script.

[groove]

Well Ali's performance against Bonavena prior to his fight with Frazier proved he wasn't yet ready to take that fight. Too much too soon. You can't be out of top flight boxing for over 3 years without losing a lot. Ali performed great against Frazier when you consider these points. Ask any fighter how hard it is to get back to your best after a long lay-off.

[RoccoMarciano]

It's a shame that Joe gets such a raw deal today. A lot of people are trying to make his victory over Ali a hollow one because Ali was past it. What they conveniently don't mention is how Ali's legacy fights against Foreman, Frazier (that he was past it doesn't matter i suppose), Lyle, Shavers, etc all came several years after Frazier smoked him.

Frazier was involved in the most important heavyweight fight in boxing history and he won it.

:good

[mcvey]

Well Ali's performance against Bonavena prior to his fight with Frazier proved he wasn't yet ready to take that fight. Too much too soon. You can't be out of top flight boxing for over 3 years without losing a lot. Ali performed great against Frazier when you consider these points. Ask any fighter how hard it is to get back to your best after a long lay-off.
Very true ,Ali was sloppy against Bonavena ,got caught with telegraphed punches and as he said himself was shook in the 9th,he needed a couple more fights before facing Frazier,18 rds in 3 1/2 years wasnt enough to get his stamina and timing back.

[mcvey]

Frazier was slightly past his peak ? On what do you base this?
Frazier was 26 years old and had boxed precisely 175 rounds of competiton as a pro Your statement is absurd!

[mcvey]

Not proportionate to the number of naysayers who give him lip service and then proceed to rationalize away all of his achievements.


Yes.


Ali had better longevity than Frazier did. Is that a surprise, given their styles?


It isn't as though Ali never stepped into a boxing ring between 1967 and 1970. He did some sparring/exhibition-type things, and the Quarry and Bonavena fights represent wins over two of the top five contenders for the championship! Hardly a fighter taking a tentative step out of retirement.
So Moore was in his prime at 40 . Have you ever been in a ring? No one is in there prime at 40 .So 18 rds of competition in 3 1/2 years is enough to take on the no 1 Fighter in the prime of his career? The Quarry fight ended prematurely due to the cut eye ,we dont know how Ali would have done had the fight gone into the later stages,he looked unimpressive to me against Bonavena and was shaken up in the 9th.Doing some "sparring exhibition type things" AINT FIGHTING.

[mcvey]

You've got to love it.

If a Frazier fan says Foreman always annihilates Joe, it is because the fan is unbiased.

On the other hand, if another Frazier fan thinks prime Joe of 67-70 has a decent shot at surviving Foreman in the early, dangerous rounds (especially if wrestling moves by Foreman are not allowed) and taking out Foreman in the late rounds, it is because he either is not being objective or has an agenda. :roll:
I'm sorry I can't take your posts seriously ,disagree with me by all means ,many do ,but when you make asinine comments like Frazier was past his peak for the FOTC,you dsq yourself in terms of credibility.The General Forum beckons you!

[yancey]

I'm sorry I can't take your posts seriously ,disagree with me by all means ,many do ,but when you make asinine comments like Frazier was past his peak for the FOTC,you dsq yourself in terms of credibility.The General Forum beckons you!

I don't give a rat's ass what you think of my posts.

Fact is, there are quite a few astute observers who understand that the actual peak years of Frazier were '67 to '70.

Again, I believe Frazier was SLIGHTLY past his peak for the FOTC. His blood pressure problems had been a issue coming into the FOTC and in fact Yank Durham advised Frazier to retire immediately after the FOTC.

[mcvey]

Frazier had less than 2 full rounds in the 12 months immediately preceding the FOTC.

Ali had 18 rounds against top-notch competition in the 6 months preceding the FOTC.

If anybody thinks that Ali laid away completely from the sport in those 3 years, they are mistaken.

If anybody thinks Ali was ever going to get into the ring for what he KNEW was going to be the fight of his life and one of the most defining sporting events of all-time and not be fully ready, they are mistaken.

Ali was 98% of his best for the FOTC.

Frazier was actually slightly past his peak for the FOTC, imo.

Joe's sin?

Having the audacity to beat an icon and media darling in their first and most important fight of their trilogy.

I guess he didn't read the script.
Durham advised him to retire because of the stick he took from Ali,up to that fight what great punishment had he taken?His most competitive fights had been with clumsy Bonavena,and a 7 rounder with Quarry.Frazier had been in action defending his title less than 4 months previously so he was not ring rusty at all,less than 2 full rounds in a year but 1 month over a year and he had 5 rounds aginst Ellis,I think that is selective fact finding on your part.
They are astute observers if they happen to agree with you is that it?,Frazier was 26 in the best shape of his life for Christ sake! Can you show a source for your assertions about Fraziers medical condition ,?There is nothing in Pepe's book to suggest he was in anything but prime shape for Ali.A fact that Durham agreed with in a Tv interview after the fight ,"Joe was in the best shape of his life ,and it showed"

[Marciano Frazier]

Well Ali's performance against Bonavena prior to his fight with Frazier proved he wasn't yet ready to take that fight. Too much too soon. You can't be out of top flight boxing for over 3 years without losing a lot. Ali performed great against Frazier when you consider these points. Ask any fighter how hard it is to get back to your best after a long lay-off.
Bonavena was a spoiler. No one looked good against him. Frazier himself hardly looked invincible against Ringo. To the contrary, it is very impressive that Ali became the one and only man ever to stop Bonavena in that match, and did it in the 15th round after a hard, bruising first 14! This thoroughly proves that: A. Ali was in very, very good shape at the time, and B. Ali was performing at an absolutely elite professional level. In his two fights since hiatus, Ali had: A. stopped Quarry faster than anyone else ever stopped him, and B. become the only man ever to stop Bonavena.

[Bokaj]

But already against Bonavena the lack of movement was clear to see, which it also was in FOTC. Nobody says he was shot, though. He was still very good, just not quite as good as 4 years earlier.

[mcvey]

Bonavena was a spoiler. No one looked good against him. Frazier himself hardly looked invincible against Ringo. To the contrary, it is very impressive that Ali became the one and only man ever to stop Bonavena in that match, and did it in the 15th round after a hard, bruising first 14! This thoroughly proves that: A. Ali was in very, very good shape at the time, and B. Ali was performing at an absolutely elite professional level. In his two fights since hiatus, Ali had: A. stopped Quarry faster than anyone else ever stopped him, and B. become the only man ever to stop Bonavena.
No one looked good against him ? I suggest you watch Oscar's fight s with Zora Folley and Jimmy Ellis plus an aging Floyd Patterson,if you thinkAli looked good aginst Bonavena ,you must have been drunk watching the fight.He stopped Quarry on a cut which proved jack shit.

[Bokaj]

He had never been as stationary before as he was against Bonavena and Frazier. What could be the reason for that except that he had good cause not to trust his stamina and legs enough to move around like he did pre-exile?

[Marciano Frazier]

No one looked good against him ? I suggest you watch Oscar's fight s with Zora Folley
He won the second one, so I don't imagine Folley was looking too good there.

and Jimmy Ellis plus an aging Floyd Patterson,
Those guys may have beaten Bonavena, but did they look good?

if you thinkAli looked good aginst Bonavena ,you must have been drunk watching the fight.
My statement that no one looked good against Bonavena obviously implies that I didn't think Ali looked good against him. However, Ali's result against Bonavena wass outstanding, since the likes of Frazier, Lyle, Martin, Patterson, etc. failed to produce even one stoppage win between them against him.

He stopped Quarry on a cut which proved jack shit.
Frazier also stopped Quarry on cuts. Stopping an opponent on cuts from punches is a perfectly legitimate means of winning a fight. It also generally means you're punching effectively. Ali stopped Quarry earlier than anyone else ever did. In fact, as I said before, Ali's results against both Bonavena and Quarry were the best results that anyone ever registered against either of them.

[mcvey]

He won the second one, so I don't imagine Folley was looking too good there.


Those guys may have beaten Bonavena, but did they look good?


My statement that no one looked good against Bonavena obviously implies that I didn't think Ali looked good against him. However, Ali's result against Bonavena wass outstanding, since the likes of Frazier, Lyle, Martin, Patterson, etc. failed to produce even one stoppage win between them against him.


Frazier also stopped Quarry on cuts. Stopping an opponent on cuts from punches is a perfectly legitimate means of winning a fight. It also generally means you're punching effectively. Ali stopped Quarry earlier than anyone else ever did. In fact, as I said before, Ali's results against both Bonavena and Quarry were the best results that anyone ever registered against either of them.
I think both Folley and Ellis dropped Bonavena ,so maybe they didnt look too bad,Folley gave him a boxing lesson .Zora was 36 when he lost the second fight by dec ,which was in Buenos Aires,Frazier stopped Quarry on cuts yes ,but he beat him up as well ,Ali didnt ,and after the Quarry fight Ali said he was gassing out.Ali stopped Bonavena but up till the ko didnt look impressive ,Folley in the first fight with Oscar won easily.I dont think Ellis had much trouble with him either.

[Bokaj]

I think Ali more or less was as close to his prime in FOTC as Tyson was when he took on Holyfield. There's no compelling reason to think otherwise. So, Marciano Frazier, do you think Tyson was in his prime when meating Holyfield?

[Marciano Frazier]

I think Ali more or less was as close to his prime in FOTC as Tyson was when he took on Holyfield. There's no compelling reason to think otherwise.
There's no compelling reason to think it's so. In fact, the differences between these scenarios far outnumber the superficial similarities (former champ who came back about a year ago from a legal hiatus loses to another champ).
Tyson had not beaten any elite fighters since returning from jail time, and in fact, would never beat an elite fighter again. Tyson lost every single major and career-defining fight he had after his jail-sentence. All of his greatest wins and elite accomplishments happened in the late '80s through early '90s.
Ali, on the other hand, had just beaten two elite contenders in his last two fights with highly-impressive outcomes and would go on to beat numerous more- in fact, most of Ali's greatest wins and career-defining accomplishments were still ahead of him when he first fought Frazier.

So, Marciano Frazier, do you think Tyson was in his prime when meating Holyfield?
Since you didn't even come close to establishing the first premise (that Ali was about as close to his prime against Frazier as Tyson was against Holyfield), and, in fact, that premise is evidently false, then this follow-up is obviously irrelevant.

[Robbi]

Not a fan of Frazier's style. The forward "bobbing and weaving" has never grasped with myself. His variety of offense and defense wasn't as varied as someone like Duran, although he's a much smaller specimen.

Frazier's left hook to the body and head must be respected among historians. It was certainly his most potent weapon. Ali would gladly testify, as would Ellis among others.

His reign was brief and he never regained the title. And apart from his FOTC against Ali he doesn't have many other "elite" heavyweight scalps on his record.

[Mendoza]

Not a fan of Frazier's style. The forward "bobbing and weaving" has never grasped with myself. His variety of offense and defense wasn't as varied as someone like Duran, although he's a much smaller specimen.

Frazier's left hook to the body and head must be respected among historians. It was certainly his most potent weapon. Ali would gladly testify, as would Ellis among others.

His reign was brief and he never regained the title. And apart from his FOTC against Ali he doesn't have many other "elite" heavyweight scalps on his record.

Frazier is linked with Ali, and as such, history is not unkind to him at all.

Frazier's body of work is quality, but his resume outside of Ali has some holes in it. Frazier did not enter the WBA tournament. The other fighters did. Frazier did not win back his title, and seemed to miss out on quite a few big fights ( Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Martin, Young ) that could have enhanced his resume.

Frazier is 1-4 vs Ali and Foreman with three TKO losses. This does not enhance his resume. You’d have to assume any all time great in the top 10 could at least match the 1-4 record vs Foreman and Ali, or do a bit better.

[Bokaj]

There's no compelling reason to think it's so. In fact, the differences between these scenarios far outnumber the superficial similarities (former champ who came back about a year ago from a legal hiatus loses to another champ).
Tyson had not beaten any elite fighters since returning from jail time, and in fact, would never beat an elite fighter again. Tyson lost every single major and career-defining fight he had after his jail-sentence. All of his greatest wins and elite accomplishments happened in the late '80s through early '90s.
Ali, on the other hand, had just beaten two elite contenders in his last two fights with highly-impressive outcomes and would go on to beat numerous more- in fact, most of Ali's greatest wins and career-defining accomplishments were still ahead of him when he first fought Frazier.


Ali did better in his second career because he had more overall quality. He could win even if his plan A didn't work, like he did against Foreman. Therefore he coped better with having somewhat diminished physical assets than Tyson did.

And Tyson did look impressive against the likes of Bruno, Golota and Stewart, so his comeback wasn't all that bad. Except for the losses to Holyfield, the rest of them came when he was 35+ years old. Ali also had three loses when he was 35+.

Tyson had kept in shape in prison and had been back to boxing and training regulary for 1,5 years before he met Holyfield. Ali hadn't even been training regulary for one year when he met Frazier. So I don't see why Ali should have regained more than Tyson.

Also Marciano Frazier, if Ali had fully regained his legs and his conditioning, then why did he move so little against Bonavena and Frazier? He moved well in the opening round against Quarry, but said himself that he soon gassed out.

[ChrisPontius]

Frazier is linked with Ali, and as such, history is not unkind to him at all.

Unfortunately, Ali's popularity sees to it that 95% of the time, Frazier's losses when he was past his best against Ali and Foreman are replayed, while the fight in which both fighters were much better, Ali vs Frazier I, seems to almost have been boycotted. Such a shame, i think this is the best fight in the entire filmed heavyweight history.

[groove]

I agree FOTC is a totally fascinating and one of the most exciting fights but the fact remains that guys like Jimmy Ellis took Bonavena to school and he wasn't in Ali's league pre-exile. Bonavena had 5 losses or so going in to his fight with Ali. Ali had no losses but nearly lost the fight. It doesn't take a genius to work things out and watch the fight to know how bad Ali was in the mid to late rounds. His footwork is non-existant - Cossell can't believe it's Ali fighting as he's so stationary and getting hit so much. Pre-exile Ali was footwork, footwork, footwork........

[Sonny's jab]

Frazier is 1-4 vs Ali and Foreman with three TKO losses. This does not enhance his resume. You’d have to assume any all time great in the top 10 could at least match the 1-4 record vs Foreman and Ali, or do a bit better.

1-4 against Ali and Foreman is better than 2-2 against McCall and Rahman, IMO.

[yancey]

Unfortunately, Ali's popularity sees to it that 95% of the time, Frazier's losses when he was past his best against Ali and Foreman are replayed, while the fight in which both fighters were much better, Ali vs Frazier I, seems to almost have been boycotted. Such a shame, i think this is the best fight in the entire filmed heavyweight history.

Agreed.

[Sonny's jab]

I think Ali was similarly past his best against Frazier (probably MORE past his best) than Tyson was against Holyfield.

(I actualy think Holyfield was at least as far removed from his best as Tyson was too)

Tyson DID actually beat Bruno very impressively in 1996, although Bruno's effort was crap. Still, no denying Tyson's movement and punching was good. Bruno at the time was rated highly, just come off a win over Oliver McCall which was better than Lewis had done.

Ali was probably further from his best, but he was no worse than he was later on against Foreman.

Only die-hard Ali supporters (who take everything Dundee and Pacheco say as gospel) really go in for that "Ali improved between '71 and '74" stuff.

Ali past his best beat Foreman. Frazier beat that same Ali (a slightly younger version).
And Ali was miles better than Tyson.

[Bokaj]

You have to admit that he moved more in 74 than he did in 71, though. Don't you think that had to do with improved stamina?

I would have to say that the Ali of FOTC was about level with the Ali in Manilla and the difference in outcome is mostly due to Frazier not being quite the same. Ali in 74 is the best version of the three IMO, but I am a die-hard Ali fan, so... It is hard to deny though that this is the only fight against Frazier that he moves in any way similar to how he moved in the 60's.

Without ever mentionening the fights against Frazier, Ali says in his biography that it wasn't until his second fight with Quarry that he regained his stamina.

[Sardu]

Smokin' Joe has recently auctioned of his 'Thrilla in Manila' robe and other mementos from his legendary career. I heard that he is experiencing some hard times financially and health wise. I hope everything works out for him.

[Sonny's jab]

You have to admit that he moved more in 74 than he did in 71, though. Don't you think that had to do with improved stamina?


No, I think he was trying to knock Frazier out in '71. And Joe was so quick on his feet and with his hands that Ali couldn't really out-move him much either. After a few rounds if Ali wanted to switch strategy he was so worn by body punches and Joe would just dig another one in and stop Ali in his tracks.

In '74 Frazier was slower and Ali was smarter.


I would have to say that the Ali of FOTC was about level with the Ali in Manilla and the difference in outcome is mostly due to Frazier not being quite the same. Ali in 74 is the best version of the three IMO, but I am a die-hard Ali fan, so... It is hard to deny though that this is the only fight against Frazier that he moves in any way similar to how he moved in the 60's.

Yes, his tactics, dancing and grabbing, were effective.
But a '71 Frazier looked a lot quicker and in '74 he had a little more trouble closing the gap (though when he did Ali would just neck hold him so that's a major factor too)

In Manila Ali tried knocking Frazier out again, and Padilla didn't allow much neck-holding.


Without ever mentionening the fights against Frazier, Ali says in his biography that it wasn't until his second fight with Quarry that he regained his stamina

That second Quarry fight went less than 7 rounds, and Ali didn't dance all through. And Quarry was never much effort for Ali.

Ali-Frazier 1 was actually one of Ali's most gruelling and fast-paced 15 rounders. He boasted about how many punches he threw and I cant think of any 15 round fight at heavyweight that demonstrated more stamina - for both men. It's up there with Marciano-Charles 1.

Ali might have moved less, due to his own strategy, his slight loss of youth, and Frazier's punches, but he punched more than ever and he took more punches than ever.
ALI'S stamina was amazing. But Frazier's stamina was MORE amazing.

[Bokaj]

That second Quarry fight went less than 7 rounds, and Ali didn't dance all through. And Quarry was never much effort for Ali.

Ali might have moved less, due to his own strategy, his slight loss of youth, and Frazier's punches, but he punched more than ever and he took more punches than ever.
ALI'S stamina was amazing. But Frazier's stamina was MORE amazing.

We obviously won't agree on this so this is the last I will say on the subject: Ali knew his own body so if he says that the second Quarry fight was the point when he felt good again I believe him. The first Quarry fight only went less than 3 rounds, but Ali said he was badly tired when it ended. Considering this and that he was much more stationary in his next two fights (Bonavena and Frazier) it's clear to me that he didn't trust his stamina and legs enough to move much. Also, while Dundee, Pacheko and Ali himself of course are partial, they are also the ones who knew most about Ali's condition, so what they say in the matter must carry at least some weight.

I'm utterly convinced that Ali wouldn't be standing right in front of Frazier if they met in 1967. By 1974 he had regained enough to move more, but he still wasn't quite where he was pre-exile, of course.

He was by no means in bad shape in FOTC, though. If he was, he hadn't survived the fight.

[mcvey]

We obviously won't agree on this so this is the last I will say on the subject: Ali knew his own body so if he says that the second Quarry fight was the point when he felt good again I believe him. The first Quarry fight only went less than 3 rounds, but Ali said he was badly tired when it ended. Considering this and that he was much more stationary in his next two fights (Bonavena and Frazier) it's clear to me that he didn't trust his stamina and legs enough to move much. Also, while Dundee, Pacheko and Ali himself of course are partial, they are also the ones who knew most about Ali's condition, so what they say in the matter must carry at least some weight.

I'm utterly convinced that Ali wouldn't be standing right in front of Frazier if they met in 1967. By 1974 he had regained enough to move more, but he still wasn't quite where he was pre-exile, of course.

He was by no means in bad shape in FOTC, though. If he was, he hadn't survived the fight.
Good post.

[yancey]

No, I think he was trying to knock Frazier out in '71. And Joe was so quick on his feet and with his hands that Ali couldn't really out-move him much either. After a few rounds if Ali wanted to switch strategy he was so worn by body punches and Joe would just dig another one in and stop Ali in his tracks.

In '74 Frazier was slower and Ali was smarter.



Yes, his tactics, dancing and grabbing, were effective.
But a '71 Frazier looked a lot quicker and in '74 he had a little more trouble closing the gap (though when he did Ali would just neck hold him so that's a major factor too)

In Manila Ali tried knocking Frazier out again, and Padilla didn't allow much neck-holding.



That second Quarry fight went less than 7 rounds, and Ali didn't dance all through. And Quarry was never much effort for Ali.

Ali-Frazier 1 was actually one of Ali's most gruelling and fast-paced 15 rounders. He boasted about how many punches he threw and I cant think of any 15 round fight at heavyweight that demonstrated more stamina - for both men. It's up there with Marciano-Charles 1.

Ali might have moved less, due to his own strategy, his slight loss of youth, and Frazier's punches, but he punched more than ever and he took more punches than ever.
ALI'S stamina was amazing. But Frazier's stamina was MORE amazing.

Good post.

[mcvey]

No, I think he was trying to knock Frazier out in '71. And Joe was so quick on his feet and with his hands that Ali couldn't really out-move him much either. After a few rounds if Ali wanted to switch strategy he was so worn by body punches and Joe would just dig another one in and stop Ali in his tracks.

In '74 Frazier was slower and Ali was smarter.



Yes, his tactics, dancing and grabbing, were effective.
But a '71 Frazier looked a lot quicker and in '74 he had a little more trouble closing the gap (though when he did Ali would just neck hold him so that's a major factor too)

In Manila Ali tried knocking Frazier out again, and Padilla didn't allow much neck-holding.



That second Quarry fight went less than 7 rounds, and Ali didn't dance all through. And Quarry was never much effort for Ali.

Ali-Frazier 1 was actually one of Ali's most gruelling and fast-paced 15 rounders. He boasted about how many punches he threw and I cant think of any 15 round fight at heavyweight that demonstrated more stamina - for both men. It's up there with Marciano-Charles 1.

Ali might have moved less, due to his own strategy, his slight loss of youth, and Frazier's punches, but he punched more than ever and he took more punches than ever.
ALI'S stamina was amazing. But Frazier's stamina was MORE amazing.
Ali moved less because he didnt trust his legs,he regained his stamina and footwork with regular fights,he was back in the ring ,4 months after the FOTC,fighting the no3 contender,and 4 months after that fighting again ,then a month later,imo he fought his way back into top shape,when I say he wasnt prime for FOTC ,I dont mean he was way past his best ,just that he wasn't 100% ready for Joe,in March 71.

[clark]

Ali was GREAT in Ali-Frazier I and so was Frazier. Remember how big
and important this fight was. Both fighters rose up for this one.
If Ali fought like he did against Joe, he would have put Bonavena
away early. Same with Joe. This fight meant so much to them
that they both really went for it. I also think Ali thought he would have an easier time then he did against Joe. Joe was possessed on this night.

[yancey]

Ali was GREAT in Ali-Frazier I and so was Frazier. Remember how big
and important this fight was. Both fighters rose up for this one.
If Ali fought like he did against Joe, he would have put Bonavena
away early. Same with Joe. This fight meant so much to them
that they both really went for it. I also think Ali thought he would have an easier time then he did against Joe. Joe was possessed on this night.

You are on target, except for the part about Ali expecting to have an easier time against Joe.

Ali rose to the occasion that night.

I think Ali and Dundee knew he was in for the fight of his life against Frazier.

Frazier was actually the betting favorite for the FOTC.

[Sonny's jab]

We obviously won't agree on this so this is the last I will say on the subject: Ali knew his own body so if he says that the second Quarry fight was the point when he felt good again I believe him. The first Quarry fight only went less than 3 rounds, but Ali said he was badly tired when it ended. Considering this and that he was much more stationary in his next two fights (Bonavena and Frazier) it's clear to me that he didn't trust his stamina and legs enough to move much. Also, while Dundee, Pacheko and Ali himself of course are partial, they are also the ones who knew most about Ali's condition, so what they say in the matter must carry at least some weight.


Yeah, I'm not saying Ali is wrong. I'm saying the Quarry fight didn't demonstrate that added stamina, therefore it's almost irrelevant. It's just a statement of how Ali felt.

There are statements from Frazier and his camp saying he had problems around the time of the FOTC, problems with his health and fitness. But why should we get into that ? Frazier and Ali looked superhumanly fit to the observing eye. The rest is all talk and trivia.

If we based all our assessments of fights on such statements we'd have endless contradictory statements and it would get very confusing. That's my take anyway.


I'm utterly convinced that Ali wouldn't be standing right in front of Frazier if they met in 1967. By 1974 he had regained enough to move more, but he still wasn't quite where he was pre-exile, of course.


He was a lot better pre-exile in my opinion.
Whether that equates to beating a prime Frazier is debatable, and not really important. It's styles and strategy that counts, both guys were smart and had many tools to fight with (something Frazier doesn't get enough credit for). Yes, I'd fancy his chances but Frazier's chances would be very high too.


He was by no means in bad shape in FOTC, though. If he was, he hadn't survived the fight

Yeah, I think he proved his greatness that night.

[clark]

Without a doubt Ali knew he would be in the fight of his life against Joe,
but maybe not quite to the level of what prevailed. Astonishing
punishment dished out by both fighters.

[clark]

To add more: Both fighters were well prepared. In that ring that night they both knew this was it. The big one. There is something to say about that extreme desire to go full out for something of this magnitude. This is why it's hard to compare different fights and
fighters and times and outcomes.

[Sonny's jab]

Ali moved less because he didnt trust his legs,he regained his stamina and footwork with regular fights,he was back in the ring ,4 months after the FOTC,fighting the no3 contender,and 4 months after that fighting again ,then a month later,imo he fought his way back into top shape,when I say he wasnt prime for FOTC ,I dont mean he was way past his best ,just that he wasn't 100% ready for Joe,in March 71.

Well, he sure as hell wasn't ready to BEAT Frazier, that's for sure.

But the excuses only go so far. Ali had just beat two of the leading contenders and was confident he'd beat Frazier, he was unbeaten 29-0, and quick to remind people he was the TRUE champion, "the greatest of all times".

Some of the fights after Frazier, when Ali was allegedly "fighting himself back into shape" - eg. Buster Mathis (Nov.'71) and Mac Foster (Apr. '72), which were the 2nd and 4th fights after Frazier - Ali looked DECIDEDLY OUT-OF-SHAPE. He looks pig fat and fights sluggish.

[MachineGunMitch]

Frazier is what a heavyweight fighter should be...Relentless and tons of heart

He beats Ali the greatest of all time IMO and goes on to fight twice more with Thrilla being quite possibly the best heavyweight fight of all time...

As for Forman,I think Forman could have beaten anyone that year
Shit happens........

Joe is a true top 10 of all time

[Marciano Frazier]

No, I think he was trying to knock Frazier out in '71. And Joe was so quick on his feet and with his hands that Ali couldn't really out-move him much either. After a few rounds if Ali wanted to switch strategy he was so worn by body punches and Joe would just dig another one in and stop Ali in his tracks.

In '74 Frazier was slower and Ali was smarter.



Yes, his tactics, dancing and grabbing, were effective.
But a '71 Frazier looked a lot quicker and in '74 he had a little more trouble closing the gap (though when he did Ali would just neck hold him so that's a major factor too)

In Manila Ali tried knocking Frazier out again, and Padilla didn't allow much neck-holding.



That second Quarry fight went less than 7 rounds, and Ali didn't dance all through. And Quarry was never much effort for Ali.

Ali-Frazier 1 was actually one of Ali's most gruelling and fast-paced 15 rounders. He boasted about how many punches he threw and I cant think of any 15 round fight at heavyweight that demonstrated more stamina - for both men. It's up there with Marciano-Charles 1.

Ali might have moved less, due to his own strategy, his slight loss of youth, and Frazier's punches, but he punched more than ever and he took more punches than ever.
ALI'S stamina was amazing. But Frazier's stamina was MORE amazing.
I strongly endorse the contents of this post.

[Marciano Frazier]

Frazier is linked with Ali, and as such, history is not unkind to him at all.
Are you kidding??? The fact that Frazier is linked with Ali, in the way he is, specifically causes history to be unkind to him. Ali is the most glamorous, media-glorified fighter of all time. Sports networks won't say a bad word about him. ESPN has now named Ali not only #1 heavywieght of all time, but even #1 pound-for-pound of all time!!! As such, all of Ali's failings and flaws are heavily censored and or excused away whenever they come up. Have you seen the Ali Ringside program on ESPN Classic? They show all of Ali's classic victories from the '60s, I believe they show both of the Quarry and Bonavena fights, and then they get to the Frazier fight, the announcers more or less say, "Yep, Ali had lost leg speed. Joe did win that one" in a somber tone of voice without showing a minute of footage, and then they jump a country mile ahead to get to Ali-Foreman and Ali-Frazier III (which are, of course, their all-time favorite fights)! Ali-Frazier III is shown literally over a half-dozen times per year on ESPN Classic and is constantly used as filler programming on ESPN, while Ali-Frazier I is all but banned from viewing. On virtually any popular media/public consumption program about Ali/this era, what happens is that the brodcasters hurriedly skirt past the first fight while minimizing its importance, talk as though Ali breezed through the second fight and won by a furlong (in reality, he won a somewhat debatable decision while getting away with a disgusting amount of deliberate fouling), and then blare the third fight everywhere, surrounded by numerous juicy soundbites praising Ali.

Frazier's body of work is quality, but his resume outside of Ali has some holes in it. Frazier did not enter the WBA tournament. The other fighters did.
Since he beat each of the finalists of the WBA tournament twice, along with a semifinalist twice, making him 6-0 (4 KOs) against three of the top four finishers (the only one he didn't fight was Patterson, who you would be writing off as an over-the-hill ex-champ anyway had Frazier fought him),his not having been "in the tournament" is about as transparently weak a stab at his resume as it gets.

Frazier did not win back his title, and seemed to miss out on quite a few big fights ( Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Martin, Young ) that could have enhanced his resume.
These are fights which did not happen because the guy was retiring about the same time Joe was coming to the top (Martin), the guy was Frazier's stablemate with the same management which had no intention of pairing them (Norton), the guy presumably would have fought Frazier had he not been blown out by Quarry in one round, leading to Quarry subsequently getting the headliner instead (Shavers), or Frazier was more or less alternating with fights between far superior foes by the stage of his career in which the guy was on top (Lyle and Young). Every champion in history has failed to face some of the top contenders of his era- and most of them have far bigger "gaps" in cleaning out their eras than Frazier does.

Frazier is 1-4 vs Ali and Foreman with three TKO losses. This does not enhance his resume. You’d have to assume any all time great in the top 10 could at least match the 1-4 record vs Foreman and Ali, or do a bit better.
This is a superficial number-spinning argument, sort of like a Klitschko detractor saying that Vitali Klitsckho is 0-2 against Lewis and Byrd with two TKO losses, and any top 50 heavyweight of all time would be expected to do better than that against them, so Vitali must not be in the top 50. What enhances Frazier's resume is not a cumulative paper record against Ali and Foreman (I don't think any Frazier supporter has ever used such an argument, either), but rather the fact that he defeated Ali when Ali was still unbeaten, not far removed from his prime, and in fact in the match where both men were closest to their absolute peaks, that he held Ali to a close, debatable decision in a rematch in which a very poor refereeing job allowed Ali to get away with egregious amounts of fouling, and that he gave Ali one of the most brutal wars of all time in their rubber match in Manila, one which Ali himself described as the closest thing he'd ever felt to dying. Frazier's performances in the Ali trilogy (particularly the first fight) are an enormous boost to his resume. Moreover, Frazier was extremely dominant and consistent in cleaning out a very strong field of top contenders (Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Machen, Chuvalo, Bugner, Mathis- a cumulative 10-0 with seven knockouts!), often in more dominant fashion than Ali himself did it. The only serious flaw in Frazier's record is the obliterations at the hands of Foreman, which are a considerable dampener, but are still only defeats to an established elite all-time great who was one of the biggest punchers of all time.

[Bokaj]

No matter the reason, names like Patterson, Liston, Mac Foster, Martin, Norton, Shavers, Young and Lyle are missing from his record and that takes away some from it. As does the fact that he got blown away by Foreman. There is no getting past that.

Since Joe got smoked by the only great puncher he met (Foreman), there is always gonna be some doubts to what would have happened had he faced the other big punchers of the era (Liston, Mac Foster, Lyle, Shavers). The fact that his records can't answer this record weakens it. What Futch said about Ali's management ironically enough seems to be very true when it comes to Frazier's.

The trilogy of fights against Ali only did his legacy good, as they should. And he did also have impressive showings against Quarry, Ellis, Chuvalo and others. But, as previously stated, his record is far from water-tight.

[ChrisPontius]

No matter the reason, names like Patterson, Liston, Mac Foster, Martin, Norton, Shavers, Young and Lyle are missing from his record and that takes away some from it. As does the fact that he got blown away by Foreman. There is no getting past that.

I'm not really sure about that.

Martin was retired by Liston (eye problems) while Frazier was taking on all comers. Bonavena in his 12th fight!

Mac Foster and Shavers both lost to Quarry, who Frazier thoroughly beat twice. While this does not prove Frazier to be superior to them, you can hardly blame him for fighting someone better than them.

Foster lost every time he stepped up; i don't see why he should be such a threat to Frazier. Dito with Shavers, who had a glass chin, weak stamina, and slow hands... basically he was mediocre in any department outside of power.

Norton, Lyle and Young only became established contenders when Frazier badly on the slide, i.e. past '74.

Norton reportedly did very poor in sparring sessions with Frazier. I don't want to give too much credit to sometimes unreliable sparring stories, but the fact that Norton performed horrible against pressure fighters/punchers does make it legible to believe.


A fight with Patterson would've been interesting to see, but i don't see how he was be a threat to Frazier. It would be Quarry vs Frazier all over, only Patterson visiting the canvas more often. Patterson was 34-37 years old when a fight between them was possible, and it should be noted that Quarry and Bonavena both beat him during that period, both of whom Frazier of course bested.

[mcvey]

I'm not really sure about that.

Martin was retired by Liston (eye problems) while Frazier was taking on all comers. Bonavena in his 12th fight!

Mac Foster and Shavers both lost to Quarry, who Frazier thoroughly beat twice. While this does not prove Frazier to be superior to them, you can hardly blame him for fighting someone better than them.

Foster lost every time he stepped up; i don't see why he should be such a threat to Frazier. Dito with Shavers, who had a glass chin, weak stamina, and slow hands... basically he was mediocre in any department outside of power.

Norton, Lyle and Young only became established contenders when Frazier badly on the slide, i.e. past '74.

Norton reportedly did very poor in sparring sessions with Frazier. I don't want to give too much credit to sometimes unreliable sparring stories, but the fact that Norton performed horrible against pressure fighters/punchers does make it legible to believe.


A fight with Patterson would've been interesting to see, but i don't see how he was be a threat to Frazier. It would be Quarry vs Frazier all over, only Patterson visiting the canvas more often. Patterson was 34-37 years old when a fight between them was possible, and it should be noted that Quarry and Bonavena both beat him during that period, both of whom Frazier of course bested.
Lyel and Norton were established contenders well before 74.Lyle was no 4 in 72 no5 in 73,Norton was no9 in72 no3 in 73,with Shavers at no 6.
Foster was no 5 for 3 straight years 69,70,71.In 69 ,when Frazierw as no 1 Martin was no4 ,Foster no5 ,liston no6.Liston was no8 in 70.Jose Luis Garcia, another big puncher with a ko win over Norton ,was in the top 10 for 3 straight years too no10 in 70,no8 in 71,no10 in72,thats a lot of big punching contenders Joe missed out on imo.Its very possible ,indeed likely imo ,that Frazier would have beaten them ,or at leat the majority of them,and certainly he would have been a heavy favourite to stop Patterson,the fact that most of these contenders turned out to be less than they promised isnt the issue that is hindsight,at the time they were perceived as very dangerous hard hitting contenders ,and Farzier didnt meet any of them.
The stories I read in the Ring and Boxing I at the time said that Fraziers sparring sessions with Norton were wars,sparring talk is fairly meaningless anyway,sparring isnt fighting ,you try out different things and great Champs like Marciano ,and Tyson have been sat on their arse in sparring.for the record I think Frazier would beat Foster,Norton,Garcia,convincingly,Lyle and Shavers could be tricky and also the aging Liston,Joe didnt have much time to get around to Martin so I give him a pass on that one,seem that Im allways nitpicking with Frazier,he was a great fighter,but the more Iread,I think he had a great manager too.

[yancey]

Are you kidding??? The fact that Frazier is linked with Ali, in the way he is, specifically causes history to be unkind to him. Ali is the most glamorous, media-glorified fighter of all time. Sports networks won't say a bad word about him. ESPN has now named Ali not only #1 heavywieght of all time, but even #1 pound-for-pound of all time!!! As such, all of Ali's failings and flaws are heavily censored and or excused away whenever they come up. Have you seen the Ali Ringside program on ESPN Classic? They show all of Ali's classic victories from the '60s, I believe they show both of the Quarry and Bonavena fights, and then they get to the Frazier fight, the announcers more or less say, "Yep, Ali had lost leg speed. Joe did win that one" in a somber tone of voice without showing a minute of footage, and then they jump a country mile ahead to get to Ali-Foreman and Ali-Frazier III (which are, of course, their all-time favorite fights)! Ali-Frazier III is shown literally over a half-dozen times per year on ESPN Classic and is constantly used as filler programming on ESPN, while Ali-Frazier I is all but banned from viewing. On virtually any popular media/public consumption program about Ali/this era, what happens is that the brodcasters hurriedly skirt past the first fight while minimizing its importance, talk as though Ali breezed through the second fight and won by a furlong (in reality, he won a somewhat debatable decision while getting away with a disgusting amount of deliberate fouling), and then blare the third fight everywhere, surrounded by numerous juicy soundbites praising Ali.


Since he beat each of the finalists of the WBA tournament twice, along with a semifinalist twice, making him 6-0 (4 KOs) against three of the top four finishers (the only one he didn't fight was Patterson, who you would be writing off as an over-the-hill ex-champ anyway had Frazier fought him),his not having been "in the tournament" is about as transparently weak a stab at his resume as it gets.


These are fights which did not happen because the guy was retiring about the same time Joe was coming to the top (Martin), the guy was Frazier's stablemate with the same management which had no intention of pairing them (Norton), the guy presumably would have fought Frazier had he not been blown out by Quarry in one round, leading to Quarry subsequently getting the headliner instead (Shavers), or Frazier was more or less alternating with fights between far superior foes by the stage of his career in which the guy was on top (Lyle and Young). Every champion in history has failed to face some of the top contenders of his era- and most of them have far bigger "gaps" in cleaning out their eras than Frazier does.


This is a superficial number-spinning argument, sort of like a Klitschko detractor saying that Vitali Klitsckho is 0-2 against Lewis and Byrd with two TKO losses, and any top 50 heavyweight of all time would be expected to do better than that against them, so Vitali must not be in the top 50. What enhances Frazier's resume is not a cumulative paper record against Ali and Foreman (I don't think any Frazier supporter has ever used such an argument, either), but rather the fact that he defeated Ali when Ali was still unbeaten, not far removed from his prime, and in fact in the match where both men were closest to their absolute peaks, that he held Ali to a close, debatable decision in a rematch in which a very poor refereeing job allowed Ali to get away with egregious amounts of fouling, and that he gave Ali one of the most brutal wars of all time in their rubber match in Manila, one which Ali himself described as the closest thing he'd ever felt to dying. Frazier's performances in the Ali trilogy (particularly the first fight) are an enormous boost to his resume. Moreover, Frazier was extremely dominant and consistent in cleaning out a very strong field of top contenders (Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Machen, Chuvalo, Bugner, Mathis- a cumulative 10-0 with seven knockouts!), often in more dominant fashion than Ali himself did it. The only serious flaw in Frazier's record is the obliterations at the hands of Foreman, which are a considerable dampener, but are still only defeats to an established elite all-time great who was one of the biggest punchers of all time.

Excellent, very astute post.

You have definitely got Frazier's role in the heavyweight division back then pegged extremely well. You must have been there.

Interesting that Frazier's performances in the Ali trilogy surely boost his actual resume, but at the same time work against him because, as you point out, only the fights won by Ali gets heavy play by ESPN, especially the Manila fight.

So very, very unfair to the true great Joe Frazier, but as you say, Ali is the media darling of all-time.

Oh,well.

[ChrisPontius]

Lyel and Norton were established contenders well before 74.Lyle was no 4 in 72 no5 in 73,Norton was no9 in72 no3 in 73,with Shavers at no 6.
Foster was no 5 for 3 straight years 69,70,71.In 69 ,when Frazierw as no 1 Martin was no4 ,Foster no5 ,liston no6.Liston was no8 in 70.Jose Luis Garcia, another big puncher with a ko win over Norton ,was in the top 10 for 3 straight years too no10 in 70,no8 in 71,no10 in72,thats a lot of big punching contenders Joe missed out on imo.Its very possible ,indeed likely imo ,that Frazier would have beaten them ,or at leat the majority of them,and certainly he would have been a heavy favourite to stop Patterson,the fact that most of these contenders turned out to be less than they promised isnt the issue that is hindsight,at the time they were perceived as very dangerous hard hitting contenders ,and Farzier didnt meet any of them.


Well, no one is claiming that Frazier is a top3 heavyweight of all time, but it seems you do hold him to that standard. Plenty of fighters that usually rank in the top10 of all time miss out on some fights.

It should be noted that Martin wasn't that great a puncher; that's just what Liston fans make him out to be.

Frazier's run after FOTC was unimpressive indeed; Stander and Daniels should not have been in the ring with him.


That said, you have to consider circumstances and timeline here.

Norton was nothing but a KO win on Garcia's record until he upset an underprepared Ali. Then they had the rematch in 73 and he got destroyed in merely 2 rounds by Foreman that same year.

So, i don't think it's valid criticism to say Frazier should've fought him before 74. After FOTC, Frazier fought only twice a year and seemed to be focused on other things than boxing. Of course that counts against his legacy, but if you look at the fighters he faced after Foreman: Bugner (ranked #5), Ali (ranked #1), Quarry (ranked #7), Ellis (unranked), Ali (champion), Foreman (#1 contender), then retirement.

So out of his 6 opponents after losing the title, only one of them was against an unranked opponent! That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Would you have been more satisfied if Lyle, Shavers (who dropped out of the rankings every year because he couldn't fight for any period without getting knocked out by someone) instead of #1 contenders or even champions?

I think Frazier should be criticed for the lacklustre reign between '71 and '73, but i don't think you can name many champions who fought 5 out of 6 of their last fights against top ranked contenders or champions; while being notably past their best themselves but only losing to the top guys in Foreman and Ali, the latter in close fashions as well.



The stories I read in the Ring and Boxing I at the time said that Fraziers sparring sessions with Norton were wars,sparring talk is fairly meaningless anyway,sparring isnt fighting ,you try out different things and great Champs like Marciano ,and Tyson have been sat on their arse in sparring.for the record I think Frazier would beat Foster,Norton,Garcia,convincingly,Lyle and Shavers could be tricky and also the aging Liston,Joe didnt have much time to get around to Martin so I give him a pass on that one,seem that Im allways nitpicking with Frazier,he was a great fighter,but the more Iread,I think he had a great manager too.

Well his resume isn't a perfect one, but as i said.... look at the top10. How many holes can you pick in Holmes' resume? Thomas, Dokes, Page, Coetzee, Norton rematch, Witherspoon rematch, Williams rematch.... some of those should've been realised but none of them were. Liston beat most of the top guys between 59 and 63, but between or after that he did very little. Did Liston fight 80% of his fights after losing the title against top ranked contenders but still get a lot of criticism for not facing a few punchers in the late 60's? How long was Tyson's reign? How consistant was Holyfield?

[mcvey]

Well, no one is claiming that Frazier is a top3 heavyweight of all time, but it seems you do hold him to that standard. Plenty of fighters that usually rank in the top10 of all time miss out on some fights.

It should be noted that Martin wasn't that great a puncher; that's just what Liston fans make him out to be.

Frazier's run after FOTC was unimpressive indeed; Stander and Daniels should not have been in the ring with him.


That said, you have to consider circumstances and timeline here.

Norton was nothing but a KO win on Garcia's record until he upset an underprepared Ali. Then they had the rematch in 73 and he got destroyed in merely 2 rounds by Foreman that same year.

So, i don't think it's valid criticism to say Frazier should've fought him before 74. After FOTC, Frazier fought only twice a year and seemed to be focused on other things than boxing. Of course that counts against his legacy, but if you look at the fighters he faced after Foreman: Bugner (ranked #5), Ali (ranked #1), Quarry (ranked #7), Ellis (unranked), Ali (champion), Foreman (#1 contender), then retirement.

So out of his 6 opponents after losing the title, only one of them was against an unranked opponent! That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Would you have been more satisfied if Lyle, Shavers (who dropped out of the rankings every year because he couldn't fight for any period without getting knocked out by someone) instead of #1 contenders or even champions?

I think Frazier should be criticed for the lacklustre reign between '71 and '73, but i don't think you can name many champions who fought 5 out of 6 of their last fights against top ranked contenders or champions; while being notably past their best themselves but only losing to the top guys in Foreman and Ali, the latter in close fashions as well.




Well his resume isn't a perfect one, but as i said.... look at the top10. How many holes can you pick in Holmes' resume? Thomas, Dokes, Page, Coetzee, Norton rematch, Witherspoon rematch, Williams rematch.... some of those should've been realised but none of them were. Liston beat most of the top guys between 59 and 63, but between or after that he did very little. Did Liston fight 80% of his fights after losing the title against top ranked contenders but still get a lot of criticism for not facing a few punchers in the late 60's? How long was Tyson's reign? How consistant was Holyfield?
The title of the thread is History unkind to Frazier? I would say no,I put him in 9th or 10th position all time champs.We are examining his reign to determine where he ranks are we not?We can get around to the others as and when.Liston was old when he lost to Ali and even older when he made his comeback fights after the Lewiston debacle ,top guys didnt want him ,too much risk for litte reward.How long was Tyson's reign? Considerably longer than Frazier'sTyson won the title from Berbick in Nov 86 and made 9 defences against ranked challengers before losing to Douglas in 90.Frazier won the tile in 71in FOTC,he made 2 defences against unranked challengers before being kod by Foreman in Jan 73 thats a reign of less than 3 years ,during which time he met no contenders.How consistant was Holyfield?
A case can easily be made for him being the most consistant heavy of all time,he was rated in the top 10 in 87,88,89,90,91,92 93,95,96,97,98,99,2000,2001,2002,being unranked only in 94,no one has come close to that for consistantcy.
Ive said Joe would probably have beaten most if not all of those names mentioned ,cetainly the idea that he personally ducked them is hard to beleive,but Durham was a clever pilot of Joe and ,thats a lot of coincidental evidence to just dismiss imo.End of the day the absence of those names on his resume ,and the fact that instead we have Stander and Daniels hurts his legacy ,I cant put him above Marciano in my top 10,so he is no 10 and being that he rates above Tyson at 11 I think I have been kind to him.

[Sonny's jab]

.How long was Tyson's reign? Considerably longer than Frazier'sTyson won the title from Berbick in Nov 86 and made 9 defences against ranked challengers before losing to Douglas in 90.Frazier won the tile in 71in FOTC,he made 2 defences against unranked challengers before being kod by Foreman in Jan 73.

That's interesting. You dont recognize Frazier as champion until he beats Ali, but you recognize Tyson from his win over Berbick.

[mcvey]

That's interesting. You dont recognize Frazier as champion until he beats Ali, but you recognize Tyson from his win over Berbick.
If you want to say Frazier was champ after beating Ellis ,ok , that was in Feb 70,thats a reign of 2 years 11 months a title defence against unranked Bob Foster gets included is that ok? Or do you want to go back to the Mathis fight where NY and outer Mongolia recognised the fight ,Mathis too was unranked by the way.So 3 title defences in 2 years 11 months against unranked challengers,satisfied with that?

[Sonny's jab]

If you want to say Frazier was champ after beating Ellis ,ok , that was in Feb 70,thats a reign of 2 years 11 months a title defence against unranked Bob Foster gets included is that ok? Or do you want to go back to the Mathis fight where NY and outer Mongolia recognised the fight ,Mathis too was unranked by the way.So 3 title defences in 2 years 11 months against unranked challengers,satisfied with that?
I dont really mind.
I think Ellis-Frazier was recognized unanimously as for the championship at the time, as Ali had announced his retirement that month so the two could contest his championship. Obviously when Ali gained a boxing licence later that year he called himself the champion still, and not without good reason (which again kind of cancels out any excuses he might use for not having enough tune-ups).
When Frazier beat Mathis the NY commision had a history of recognizing "world champion" and some had historical credibility, also there was some confusion over who was champion, due to Ali's expulsion. Of course, Ellis's WBA title was based on a more credible series of matches, and Ali was still recognized as champion by many. Frazier's claim was weak.

When Tyson beat Berbick it he was just one of three men recognized as "world champion". When he beat Smith there were two men recognized as champion (him and Spinks), with a third "title" vacant (IBF). Then on the night he beat Thomas there was THREE again (with the IBF calling Tucker champion). Then when he beat Tucker there were two again. Then when he beat Spinks that was when it was unanimously recognized.

Deciphering the political shennigans and disputes, it seems fair to say Frazier-Ali or Frazier-Ellis.
But the equivalent in Tyson's career perhaps ought to be Tyson-Spinks or Tyson-Tucker.

That's just my take.

[mcvey]

I dont really mind.
I think Ellis-Frazier was recognized unanimously as for the championship at the time, as Ali had announced his retirement that month so the two could contest his championship. Obviously when Ali gained a boxing licence later that year he called himself the champion still, and not without good reason (which again kind of cancels out any excuses he might use for not having enough tune-ups).
When Frazier beat Mathis the NY commision had a history of recognizing "world champion" and some had historical credibility, also there was some confusion over who was champion, due to Ali's expulsion. Of course, Ellis's WBA title was based on a more credible series of matches, and Ali was still recognized as champion by many. Frazier's claim was weak.

When Tyson beat Berbick it he was just one of three men recognized as "world champion". When he beat Smith there were two men recognized as champion (him and Spinks), with a third "title" vacant (IBF). Then on the night he beat Thomas there was THREE again (with the IBF calling Tucker champion). Then when he beat Tucker there were two again. Then when he beat Spinks that was when it was unanimously recognized.

Deciphering the political shennigans and disputes, it seems fair to say Frazier-Ali or Frazier-Ellis.
But the equivalent in Tyson's career perhaps ought to be Tyson-Spinks or Tyson-Tucker.

That's just my take.
Seems as good as anyones.

[Ezzard]

Frazier has the single greatest win in HW history and Schemling has the second but somehow both seem to get pushed to the side a bit.

[mcvey]

Frazier has the single greatest win in HW history and Schemling has the second but somehow both seem to get pushed to the side a bit.
Wll if you think Farzier beats Ali prime for prime and Schmeling beats luois prime for prime I would agree but boxing is rarely that simple is it?Pontious is a big fan of Fraziers ,but I dont think he would put Joe in his top 3,however significant his win over Ali.

[Bokaj]

As McVey I compare Joe's record to top 5 standard to answer the question of the thread, and my answer is no. I have him at 8 personally, and I think that's pretty fair. Tyson met more or less every good boxer there were for a fifteen year span (with the exception of Bowe, of course) and only lost to two men before he turned 35, but I have Frazier ahead of him. Liston fought just everyone who would fight him, but I have him at 10.

If there was no Foreman and Frazier had beat at least a couple of big punchers he would probably be in my top 5. It always amount to a lot of speculation when you speak of "ducking", but I can understand why Frazier's people preferred Joe Bugner and re-matches with opponents that Joe already had convincingly beaten (Ellis and Quarry) over fights with Shavers and especially Lyle. I would like to see how Frazier performed against them, and also how he perfomed against Norton, even if I can understand why they never met.

But I must say that it's strange if FOTC isn't aired more often. There is a FOTC special that's available on youtube, though.

[mcvey]

As McVey I compare Joe's record to top 5 standard to answer the question of the thread, and my answer is no. I have him at 8 personally, and I think that's pretty fair. Tyson met more or less every good boxer there were for a fifteen year span (with the exception of Bowe, of course) and only lost to two men before he turned 35, but I have Frazier ahead of him. Liston fought just everyone who would fight him, but I have him at 10.

If there was no Foreman and Frazier had beat at least a couple of big punchers he would probably be in my top 5. It always amount to a lot of speculation when you speak of "ducking", but I can understand why Frazier's people preferred Joe Bugner and re-matches with opponents that Joe already had convincingly beaten (Ellis and Quarry) over fights with Shavers and especially Lyle. I would like to see how Frazier performed against them, and also how he perfomed against Norton, even if I can understand why they never met.

But I must say that it's strange if FOTC isn't aired more often. There is a FOTC special that's available on youtube, though.
It should be called FSH ,Frazier's Shining Hour! Great fight,great performance,isnt that enough?

[Ezzard]

Wll if you think Farzier beats Ali prime for prime and Schmeling beats luois prime for prime I would agree but boxing is rarely that simple is it?Pontious is a big fan of Fraziers ,but I dont think he would put Joe in his top 3,however significant his win over Ali.

I don't put either in the top 3. This is not my point.

[ChrisPontius]

The title of the thread is History unkind to Frazier? I would say no,I put him in 9th or 10th position all time champs.We are examining his reign to determine where he ranks are we not?We can get around to the others as and when.Liston was old when he lost to Ali and even older when he made his comeback fights after the Lewiston debacle ,top guys didnt want him ,too much risk for litte reward.How long was Tyson's reign? Considerably longer than Frazier'sTyson won the title from Berbick in Nov 86 and made 9 defences against ranked challengers before losing to Douglas in 90.Frazier won the tile in 71in FOTC,he made 2 defences against unranked challengers before being kod by Foreman in Jan 73 thats a reign of less than 3 years ,during which time he met no contenders.How consistant was Holyfield?
A case can easily be made for him being the most consistant heavy of all time,he was rated in the top 10 in 87,88,89,90,91,92 93,95,96,97,98,99,2000,2001,2002,being unranked only in 94,no one has come close to that for consistantcy.
Ive said Joe would probably have beaten most if not all of those names mentioned ,cetainly the idea that he personally ducked them is hard to beleive,but Durham was a clever pilot of Joe and ,thats a lot of coincidental evidence to just dismiss imo.End of the day the absence of those names on his resume ,and the fact that instead we have Stander and Daniels hurts his legacy ,I cant put him above Marciano in my top 10,so he is no 10 and being that he rates above Tyson at 11 I think I have been kind to him.
As Sonny's Jab pointed out, it's not really fair to recognise Frazier as champ after he beat the linear champion but Tyson when he beat a beltholder.

Quarry had a peace of the title just like Berbick did. Frazier from 69 to 73 is about as long as Tyson from 86 to 90. Tyson was more consistent and active during his reign, but on the flipside he lost to a worse fighter and none of his wins comes close to beaten Ali.


Anyway, my point is that you can pick holes in all top10 candidates outside of Ali and Louis.

And to answer the topic's question: yes, i think history is being unkind to Frazier in that his best performance and the greatest heavyweight of all time rarely gets shown whereas the much more sloppy fight in which he loses is shown over and over.


And no, i wouldn't put Frazier in the top3 because of his win over Ali, but i do think he'd beat Ali peak for peak.... as much as you disagree.:D

[mcvey]

As Sonny's Jab pointed out, it's not really fair to recognise Frazier as champ after he beat the linear champion but Tyson when he beat a beltholder.

Quarry had a peace of the title just like Berbick did. Frazier from 69 to 73 is about as long as Tyson from 86 to 90. Tyson was more consistent and active during his reign, but on the flipside he lost to a worse fighter and none of his wins comes close to beaten Ali.


Anyway, my point is that you can pick holes in all top10 candidates outside of Ali and Louis.

And to answer the topic's question: yes, i think history is being unkind to Frazier in that his best performance and the greatest heavyweight of all time rarely gets shown whereas the much more sloppy fight in which he loses is shown over and over.


And no, i wouldn't put Frazier in the top3 because of his win over Ali, but i do think he'd beat Ali peak for peak.... as much as you disagree.:D
Maybe it's ESPN thats unkind then, not history,stylistically Frazier gives Ali as hard a fight as anyone ,I think we can agree on that.Do you put Ali in your top 3?I recognised Frazier as Champ after he beat Ellis as SJ pointed out to me the anomaly,that still gives us under 3 years as Champ , and 3 defences against unranked fighters.Imagine if Frazier had beaten Lyle ,Foster and Norton as Ali did , and he probably would have , he could be top 3 !

[yancey]

As Sonny's Jab pointed out, it's not really fair to recognise Frazier as champ after he beat the linear champion but Tyson when he beat a beltholder.

Quarry had a peace of the title just like Berbick did. Frazier from 69 to 73 is about as long as Tyson from 86 to 90. Tyson was more consistent and active during his reign, but on the flipside he lost to a worse fighter and none of his wins comes close to beaten Ali.


Anyway, my point is that you can pick holes in all top10 candidates outside of Ali and Louis.

And to answer the topic's question: yes, i think history is being unkind to Frazier in that his best performance and the greatest heavyweight of all time rarely gets shown whereas the much more sloppy fight in which he loses is shown over and over.


And no, i wouldn't put Frazier in the top3 because of his win over Ali, but i do think he'd beat Ali peak for peak.... as much as you disagree.:D

Good post, (which means I agree :yep ) but you are crediting Quarry with something he never had.

[Sonny's jab]

In my recently unveiled heavyweight list of all fighters from Dempsey's time onwards, I rate JOE FRAZIER #5

[mcvey]

How many people would put good post if the disagreed? :patsch

[yancey]

How many people would put good post if the disagreed? :patsch

Chill, McFey.

:yikes

[mcvey]

Chill, McFey.

:yikes
Why don't you put a decent post up instead of fringe feeding like some pugilistic Remora fish? If you dont like my posts fine ,rebut them with argument ,these silly little snipes are juvenile. Best Ring Announcers? That will get them racing for the keys!

[ChrisPontius]

Good post, (which means I agree :yep ) but you are crediting Quarry with something he never had.

Oh, maybe i am mistaken. I just remember that after Frazier busted up Quarry, the announcer talked about a potential unification bout with Ellis... and Ellis coming into the ring to taunt Frazier. Not a good idea, although he boxed the first two rounds beautifully.

[Bokaj]

These are the HW:s I have ahead of Frazier:

Ali and Louis: Needs no explanation does it?

Holmes: Also have names missing from his record, but he dominated the division for a longer period and have more wins against ranked contenders in my estimate (haven't counted, though). It also helps that he wasn't outclassed by any opponent while still near his prime and that he had a quite impressive comeback, which Joe hadn't.

Johnson and Marciano: Both dominated their own eras utterly which Joe didn't. It's far from unlikely that they wouldn't have dominated Frazier's era, but that's still just speculation.

Lewis: He beat just everyone there was to beat (except for Bowe, who ducked him) for a 10+ years period. He did suffer two bad losses, but avenged them emphatically. Was never dominated by anyone.

Foreman: I'm not completely sure he should be ahead of Frazier on my list, but for the moment he is. Frazier had a better record against ranked contenders, but Foreman's impressive comeback and the fact that he dominated Frazier head to head gives him a slight edge IMO.