Originally Posted by hernanday
True but Joe Frazier pretty much beats any heavyweight post 1970 save for Lewis, possibly Tyson, (foreman is a carryover). Yet his son who presumably had all his knowledge couldn't cut it. He had roughly the same genes so there is no reason why he be any worst or better in terms of athelticism. So clearly it is something more than its just conspiacy, when a guy's son of a top boxer is not very good. If anything Marvis should be an amazing boxer because all he had to do was beat one of the 500 guys who held titles during the 80s.
Seriously though if frazier can beat Ali, then he should have been able to prep his son to beat an inferior mover likeHolmes, it shouldn't have been round 1 ko.
A son does not necessarily possess the punching power, toughness and determination that their father did, as was the case with Marvis Frazier.
It's not difficult to understand, especially when you also take into account that Marvis grew up relatively well off while his father grew up relatively poor, as a result of Joe Frazier's hard work and success.
The sons of notable boxers rarely had to fight their way through poverty when their fathers had usually done so already, and were likely motivated to take up boxing due to their name recognition and the money that was going to be in it for them. They didn't have to carve out their names, wealth and fame by fighting. Motivation can be a huge factor in a sport as grueling as boxing.