Prime Charles vs. Prime Frazier 15rds.

[Joe E]

What are your thoughts my friends?Thanks.

[ChrisPontius]

I think Charles lacks the punch to keep Frazier off him and while it would be much more competitive than than Frazier-Foster (Frazier's peak fight), i think Frazier's heavy shots and constant pressure will wear Charles out to a TKO somewhere around the 10th round. Charles is a skilled veteran, but simply lacks the tools to beat Frazier, in my opinion. Frazier was at his very best against boxing type of fighters.

[janitor]

I tend to think that it would be like the Marciano fights only more one sided. Charles would certainly make it competitive though.

[Joe E]

I think it would be much like the first Marciano bout,only more competetive.Remember,Joe did'nt have much of a right hand and was a sucker for a right hook,cross.I do think however that Joe was stronger than Ezz and had a little more desire,enough to walk away with a 15 rd. decision.Thanks.

[mr. magoo]

Frazier takes this one by a long shot in my opinion. Joe fought a similar style to the Rock, only better. What's more, charles wouldn't have the advantage of speed over Joe the way he did against many of his opponents. Also, if the left hook of Jersey stopped Ezzard in his tracks, Frazier's left would send the Cincinatti cobra from Madison square garden to taledo.

Frazier by mid round KO.

[Mendoza]

I think the fight would be a bit like the Jimmy Ellis match, except Ellis was a bit harder to catch than Charles was. Charles liked to mix it up and brawl, which would be his mistake vs Frazier. I’d pick Frazier inside of six rounds. Bad match up for Charles.

[Marciano Frazier]

Frazier takes this one by a long shot in my opinion. Joe fought a similar style to the Rock, only better.
No, Frazier was a little bigger and quicker and not quite so wild, but he didn't have as good a right hand or offensive arsenal as Marciano, started slower, and probably didn't have quite so sturdy a set of whiskers. It's open to debate who was the better overall fighter, but it isn't reasonable to claim Frazier was just "similar to Marciano, only better."

What's more, charles wouldn't have the advantage of speed over Joe the way he did against many of his opponents.
Frazier was fast, but I beg to differ on the idea that he was as fast as Charles. Let us remember Charles was plenty fast at middleweight and light heavyweight, let alone heavyweight. I believe Charles was quicker, and he had the straighter, sharper punches, too.

Also, if the left hook of Jersey stopped Ezzard in his tracks, Frazier's left would send the Cincinatti cobra from Madison square garden to taledo.
Walcott's knockout punch was a highly unconventional shot set up with brilliant feinting and counterpunching. Frazier's hook had more raw power than Walcott's, but he didn't have that kind of subtlety to his style. Guys like Marciano, Satterfield and Ray also hit harder than Walcott, but couldn't do what he did to Charles. Besides which, Walcott only stopped Charles once in four fights.

[ChrisPontius]

Frazier and Marciano were surely similar in style - put relentless pressure on the opponent. But there are also some differences between them:

Frazier fought mostly in an orthodox way, bobbing and weaving, throwing textbook left hooks. Marciano had that weird "leaning back" style and was a lot less predictable than Frazier; he'd throw any punch and they weren't textbook punches 70% of the time. He also used a lot of feints and weird, unpredictable movements. I guess that's why master boxers like Walcott, Charles, Louis and Moore never really figured him out even though they all thought "i'll simply do this and that" when they saw him fight. Marciano also had a much better right hand than Frazier but gives up roughly 15 pounds to him.

[mr. magoo]

it isn't reasonable to claim Frazier was just "similar to Marciano, only better."


No comment that you can think of can be more just or fare than what I said. Frazier defeated the better oppsition, and did so for most of his career. He has more quality wins in just 32 victories than does Marciano in 49. Also, his power and handspeed were arguably superior and what was this comment about him not being as wild as the Rock? The guy was far more active, and utilized an incredible amount of upper body movement, that Marciano couldn't possibly match.


I believe Charles was quicker, and he had the straighter, sharper punches, too.


Quicker on his feet maybe. In terms of handspeed, Nuh uh. No way jose. Frazier would be able to close the gap on Ez' a lot faster than Marciano did.

Walcott's knockout punch was a highly unconventional shot set up with brilliant feinting and counterpunching. Frazier's hook had more raw power than Walcott's, but he didn't have that kind of subtlety to his style.

While it's true that Joe sometimes through that hook while lunging forward, I'mnot so sure Charles would see it coming. It was subtle enough. He pounded the hell out of Ellis and Ali, using that left. Those guys were both very good boxers, and one of them is commonly reffered to as the greatest.

Besides which, Walcott only stopped Charles once in four fights

If Frazier met Charles once, that would be there only meeting, and there would be no need for a rematch.

[JohnThomas1]

Frazier will wear down Charles and stop him, prolly a bit quicker than Marciano did.

[Hadrian]

ok louis didn't "figure out" the rock becasue he was a way faded old man-a prime louis would have been a whole different story. Frazier was a lot faster than the rock and had better defense-though not Marcianos chin. Power wise they were a toss up-Fraziers left hook was a lethal and historic punch...so was the Rock's right. Frazier was a bigger man and agaisnt charles that and his speed/power ratio would have made this very one-sided. The thing about guys like Charles and Gans and other old timers who fought succesfully from the low weight classes on up, is that they were phenoms like roy jones-but with more solidity as people (no basketball gigs etc). They really shouldn't be judged by how succesful they'd be against big heavyweights. Henry Armstrong would probably not have been too competetative against the top 10 middleweights (SRR is mostly consodered a welterweight on all time lists)...but he was probaly better than any of them as an all timer (certainly his placement is usualy higher than any of the middleweights on the lists).

[janitor]

No comment that you can think of can be more just or fare than what I said. Frazier defeated the better oppsition, and did so for most of his career.

He defeated Ali for sure but outside of that Rocky has the edge. If you ranked the top 10 fighters they beat combined then Ali would for sure take the first place but the next three or four would be Marciano victims.

[Marciano Frazier]

No comment that you can think of can be more just or fare than what I said.
I just explained why what you said was wrong, and you ignored it, edited it out and quoted one sentence which was just a statement of the opinion. Please respond to the points I made if you want to maintain the claim you're making.

Frazier defeated the better oppsition, and did so for most of his career. He has more quality wins in just 32 victories than does Marciano in 49.
Yes, but he also had four losses and was decked by a couple of relatively low-level fighters. Yes, I'm aware that he only had more losses because there was better competition at the time, but that's a double-edged sword- he also only had better wins because there was better competition at the time. Marciano was the more dominant and accomplished fighter in his own era.

Also, his power and handspeed were arguably superior
I agree that Frazier had better handspeed than Rocky, but he didn't hit harder. Try to mount a reasonable argument to that effect- it's virtually impossible. Frazier never knocked an elite-level opponent out cold with a single shot. He didn't take anyone's front teeth out with a knockout punch or finish them with one or two shots in the first couple rounds. He broke people down or took them with barrages. Marciano was clearly the more raw-powerful puncher of the two. He also had more two-handed power and a bigger arsenal of offensive weaponry.

what was this comment about him not being as wild as the Rock?
Um, I mean he was less wild. Marciano would sometimes throw big, heavily-committed shots with his whole body behind them and miss wildly. Frazier didn't do that as much. Hence, Frazier was less wild.

The guy was far more active, and utilized an incredible amount of upper body movement, that Marciano couldn't possibly match.
Frazier was more active in the sense that he was constantly moving his head, but in terms of punch output, if anything, Marciano has the edge.


Quicker on his feet maybe. In terms of handspeed, Nuh uh. No way jose. Frazier would be able to close the gap on Ez' a lot faster than Marciano did.
Watch film of them side-by-side. Charles has the quicker hands. His punches zip to their targets. Here:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Just compare. Frazier is plenty fast, but not on Charles' level. Charles' Sunday shots are lightning fast- look at the way he drills people in between their punches, and so crisply and right-on-the-button, too.

While it's true that Joe sometimes through that hook while lunging forward, I'mnot so sure Charles would see it coming. It was subtle enough. He pounded the hell out of Ellis and Ali, using that left. Those guys were both very good boxers, and one of them is commonly reffered to as the greatest.
Again, Frazier certainly hit Ali and Ellis with his left, but he didn't subtly maneuver them in and then throw and unorthodox counter shot sneakily through their guards to knock them unconscious, rather he broke their guards down and beat them into submission. He was more of a battering ram; he came in through the front door. That has its own merits, of course, as it can win you more rounds and wear the other guy down in case the one shot doesn't come, but it's certainly a lot different from what Jersey Joe Walcott did, and no one was successful in taking down a prime Charles in this way.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=janitor]He defeated Ali for sure but outside of that Rocky has the edge.

As Sonny's jab once put it to another poster on a different thread,

" outside of Ali ", isn't the reality. That was a classical fight, and probably a better victory than just about any that any other champion ever had. What's more, while Marciano may have beaten better names in Moore, Louis, Walcott, and Charles, Frazier fought slightly lesser names, but at least in their prime. Jerry Quarry for example, is considered by many as possibly being the best contender of all time. Frazier beat him 2x. Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis, Mathis, Foster, Bugner, Machen and several others were also very big names.

[janitor]

[quote]

As Sonny's jab once put it to another poster on a different thread,

" outside of Ali ", isn't the reality. That was a classical fight, and probably a better victory than just about any that any other champion ever had. What's more, while Marciano may have beaten better names in Moore, Louis, Walcott, and Charles, Frazier fought slightly lesser names, but at least in their prime. Jerry Quarry for example, is considered by many as possibly being the best contender of all time. Frazier beat him 2x. Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis, Mathis, Foster, Bugner, Machen and several others were also very big names.

So rank the top ten fighters both faced combined.

I doubt that either of them would be shamed by the list.

[mr. magoo]

I just explained why what you said was wrong, and you ignored it, edited it out and quoted one sentence which was just a statement of the opinion. Please respond to the points I made if you want to maintain the claim you're making.


Yes, but he also had four losses and was decked by a couple of relatively low-level fighters. Yes, I'm aware that he only had more losses because there was better competition at the time, but that's a double-edged sword- he also only had better wins because there was better competition at the time. Marciano was the more dominant and accomplished fighter in his own era.


I agree that Frazier had better handspeed than Rocky, but he didn't hit harder. Try to mount a reasonable argument to that effect- it's virtually impossible. Frazier never knocked an elite-level opponent out cold with a single shot. He didn't take anyone's front teeth out with a knockout punch or finish them with one or two shots in the first couple rounds. He broke people down or took them with barrages. Marciano was clearly the more raw-powerful puncher of the two. He also had more two-handed power and a bigger arsenal of offensive weaponry.


Um, I mean he was less wild. Marciano would sometimes throw big, heavily-committed shots with his whole body behind them and miss wildly. Frazier didn't do that as much. Hence, Frazier was less wild.


Frazier was more active in the sense that he was constantly moving his head, but in terms of punch output, if anything, Marciano has the edge.



Watch film of them side-by-side. Charles has the quicker hands. His punches zip to their targets. Here:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Just compare. Frazier is plenty fast, but not on Charles' level. Charles' Sunday shots are lightning fast- look at the way he drills people in between their punches, and so crisply and right-on-the-button, too.


Again, Frazier certainly hit Ali and Ellis with his left, but he didn't subtly maneuver them in and then throw and unorthodox counter shot sneakily through their guards to knock them unconscious, rather he broke their guards down and beat them into submission. He was more of a battering ram; he came in through the front door. That has its own merits, of course, as it can win you more rounds and wear the other guy down in case the one shot doesn't come, but it's certainly a lot different from what Jersey Joe Walcott did, and no one was successful in taking down a prime Charles in this way.


The point of this thread is to choose between who would win between Frazier and Charles.

..........I pick Frazier.............

.......... The End .............:hand

[Marciano Frazier]

The point of this thread is to choose between who would win between Frazier and Charles.

..........I pick Frazier.............

.......... The End .............:hand The point is to choose, and to discuss/debate our choices and why we make them- this is a discussion forum. Hence, the exchange of posts we just had. You made arguments in favor of a dominant Frazier victory, some of which I disagreed with, and thus I addressed them. You responded, gradually ignoring more and more of my arguments in favor of repeating yourself, until we came to this post, in which you ignored everything and apparently decided to redefine the purpose of the Classic Boxing forum/the threads contained therein.

[mr. magoo]

The point is to choose, and to discuss/debate our choices and why we make them- this is a discussion forum. Hence, the exchange of posts we just had. You made arguments in favor of a dominant Frazier victory, some of which I disagreed with, and thus I addressed them. You responded, gradually ignoring more and more of my arguments in favor of repeating yourself, until we came to this post, in which you ignored everything and apparently decided to redefine the purpose of the Classic Boxing forum/the threads contained therein.

Here is my last contribution to the debate, and maybe it'll meet your cirteria. Charles fought a boxer's type style, and came from a lighter division. Historically, Frazier ate up this sort of fighter. Onthe other hand, Charles had difficulty with swarmers, who fought similarly to Frazier. Does that guarantee that he'd beat Charles? The answer is no. There are never any guarantees when making fantasy matchups. But looking at trends which tended to reoccur in fighter's career's, is usually all we have to go with, or at least one of the few items available to us.

Does that work?

[mightyd40]

i would like to say that charles' skills would carry him to victory here but i think that fraziers pressure and mass would wear on him and stop him midway through the fight

[Hadrian]

marciano had some problems with charles for a while because he had slow feet and was kind of a plodder. Frazier could close the gap much quicker and could cut the other guys space very well-he trapped ali comnstantly. I think Joe would have knocked out charles in under three-similar to the foster fight-though i think charles was more wiley than BF and might have extended it a bit. That said, I don't think it means Frazier would be a sure thing against Marciano-I'd probably bet on Joe...but with lot and lots of reservation.

[achillesthegreat]

Definitely Frazier. I think he stops Charles.

[Joe E]

Great posts fellas.I did'nt think this thread would get this much action.Thank you.:happy

[Bummy Davis]

Prime vs Prime, I think Charles was a very skilled fighter and would give Frazier a lot more trouble than we would think,Frazier had the relentless style of Marciano but Charles was a sharpshooter and had power and would hit Frazier clean , Frazier was faster doulbling up on the hook than Marciano but Rocky had 2 styles(he was fast returning a 3-4 punch volley(2 fisted) and was less preditable to time(he was a rythym breaker) and when he had you hurt he took the luxury of throwing some weird CHOPPING rights and short rights and double left but he would widen his punches) Frazier you could catch coming out tof the crouch, Still I see the fight going hard,Charles may rock Frazier because of his pinpoint punching and Frazier would swell up, still I see Frazier getting stronger as the fight goes on to take it by TKO or close decision but Charles could pull it out but if we are Talking about the Frazier of ALI 1, I like him by a late stop

[JIm Broughton]

Joe takes this one probably by mid to late round stoppage. Charles did'nt have the firepower to keep Joe off of him and Joe was a Marciano type pressure fighter but faster. To beat Joe you either had to be able to box him from a distance like Ali or blow him away with sheer firepower like Foreman. Ezzard could'nt do either of those and that would be his undoing. Joe by KO around the 7th or 8th round.

[mcvey]

No, Frazier was a little bigger and quicker and not quite so wild, but he didn't have as good a right hand or offensive arsenal as Marciano, started slower, and probably didn't have quite so sturdy a set of whiskers. It's open to debate who was the better overall fighter, but it isn't reasonable to claim Frazier was just "similar to Marciano, only better."


Frazier was fast, but I beg to differ on the idea that he was as fast as Charles. Let us remember Charles was plenty fast at middleweight and light heavyweight, let alone heavyweight. I believe Charles was quicker, and he had the straighter, sharper punches, too.


Walcott's knockout punch was a highly unconventional shot set up with brilliant feinting and counterpunching. Frazier's hook had more raw power than Walcott's, but he didn't have that kind of subtlety to his style. Guys like Marciano, Satterfield and Ray also hit harder than Walcott, but couldn't do what he did to Charles. Besides which, Walcott only stopped Charles once in four fights.
Good post!

[janitor]

[quote]

As Sonny's jab once put it to another poster on a different thread,

" outside of Ali ", isn't the reality. That was a classical fight, and probably a better victory than just about any that any other champion ever had. What's more, while Marciano may have beaten better names in Moore, Louis, Walcott, and Charles, Frazier fought slightly lesser names, but at least in their prime. Jerry Quarry for example, is considered by many as possibly being the best contender of all time. Frazier beat him 2x. Bonavena, Chuvalo, Ellis, Mathis, Foster, Bugner, Machen and several others were also very big names.

Obviously Ali is the best oponent either of them beat.

Lets say that Quarry is the second best fighter Frazier beat.

Walcott, Charles, Moore and arguably Louis all fall in the zone between Ali and Quarry.

[janitor]

Having picked Frazier I will say that this would be a competitive fight and Frazier would not enjoy it.

A Charles win canot be ruled out.

[Amsterdam]

Having picked Frazier I will say that this would be a competitive fight and Frazier would not enjoy it.

A Charles win canot be ruled out.

But it can.

[janitor]

But it can.

Verry few outcomes can be ruled out between two world class fighters.

For example we cannot rule out a 42/1 underdog knocking out the champion.

[mr. magoo]

Having picked Frazier I will say that this would be a competitive fight and Frazier would not enjoy it.

A Charles win canot be ruled out.

A fair point,

As you said in a previous post " Few outcomes can ever be ruled out in a fight between two all time greats. " Or something to that effect. I'll agree that the speed, skill, stamina and other qualities that Charles possesed could prove troublsome for Frazier and other all time greats as well. I'm not entirely sure that I agree however, with your claim that Charles second tier wins were necessarily more notable than Frazier's. While Louis, Walcott, and Moore definately had hands down better legacies than Quarry, Ellis, Machen, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Bugner and Mathis, we have to at least consider that the second mentioned group were in their primes. Of course I'll make some concession for the fact that Walcott was the possible exception given, that he blossomed late and had a pretty good run, about the time he had his fights with Charles. In either case, it's difficult to give either man significantly more credit than the other for his wins. These issues as you well know, have been debated for decades, and will continue to be, long after you and I are both gone from this earth.

[frankwornank]

:yikes CHARLES WAS A HECK OF A FIGHTER BUT FRAZIER WAS TOO STRONG FOR HIM. MARCIANO BEAT CHARLES TWICE ON STRENGTH. I THINK FRAZIER WOULD DO THE SAME. THATS NOT TO SAY FRAZIER WAS AS STRONG AS MARCIANO.