How might Joe Frazier have left a stronger boxing legacy?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Exactly. And when he tried to adapt, he was uncomfortable and still ultimately made a mistake. He didn't lose the rematch with George because he was shot; He lost it because he traded a hook with his right hand at his waist with full commitment and he got blasted. Not a performance that ended the way it did because a fighter was faded.

Joe WAS faded in the rematch, and had a bit more success boxing and moving, but ultimately, couldn't help himself, and started trading. He was then, rather summarily, dispatched. Would happen at any point in his career, a prime Foreman is not the man to repeatedly exchange shots with. Limited trading, sure, but Joe wasn't used to limited trading; He liked to press the action and stay in the kitchen. Just a bad, bad call.

If you are under 6ft with a short reach, and an average jab, you are not going to out finesse a 6'3" banger, and if you get down in the trenches with him ,you come out without your head. No win situation.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by mcvey

If you are under 6ft with a short reach, and an average jab, you are not going to out finesse a 6'3" banger, and if you get down in the trenches with him ,you come out without your head. No win situation.

Ain't that the truth. I'm a puncher, and I struggle sometimes with that tradeoff when I fight other guys who can hit: To put myself into position to use my best tools, I give the other guy the opening to use his.

In Frazier's situation, that was a truism, AND he had every other disadvantage in the book: Shorter, weaker, a lesser fighter at range(Even young George had an underrated jab and straight right hand off it, which he used to hurt Joe in the corner prior to the thunderous uppercut that caused the second KD). He didn't have the speed in his hooks to beat George to the punch so soundly as to preclude George punching back, and he had the bad defensive habit of not getting his head off center after he threw...It's just all toxic. Joe's only advantage was stamina, and it's hard to wear a guy out and drown him when you are getting bounced like a basketball.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I don't like excuses. "I wasn't in shape." You are a professional effing fighter, a champion, for crying out loud. I'm not going to give you a damn pass for not doing your job, man, christ.

Definitely.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Definitely.

I get that guys like Frazier and Duran are legends, but a loss is a loss is a loss. It ain't a good excuse if you could have avoided it by acting right. If your gonna be fat and out of it, and get your ass kicked, guess what? You got your ass kicked.

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I think Magna means his reign after FOTC, and then it's undoubtly true. Two defences against unranked opposition and then being bounced around by the first ranked contender. That's almost Willard country.

Even if you feel that Frazier became undisputed champ when beating Ellis (which I suspect you do), he only had one good succesful defence of five in total (one of them unsuccesful). Hardly stellar material that either.

If you discount almost his entire reign as a major title world champion, fine. That's a great way to discount his run at the top level. Extraordinarily convenient if you had a bias against him, actually. In my infinite wisdom, I do not discount the majority of his reign. Like I consider guys like Hopkins' and Klitschko's entire reign with a major title, to be fair. So, looking at it that way, no, defending against Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis and the greatest of all time, I would not put that into the territory of one of the worst reigns ever, and consider it among the top five.

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I do NOT count Frazier as the man until he won the FOTC. Ali was the undisputed champ, stripped of his title unjustly, always vocally determined to return to boxing. Frazier never sat atop the heavyweights undisputed until he shut THE CHAMPION up in the FOTC.

He then, as Bokaj says, fought two fighters who weren't even national class, much less world class, both horribly undeserving, and was then wrecked by a heavy underdog contender who was still rather green. That's an awful reign as THE champion, right there.

Obviously, Frazier's reign as A champion is a good deal better.

Yes. This always happens though. Colour lines, siblings, self-imposed retirements, exiles, lineal "slowdowns", the division has been submerged in this kind of thing forever while guys build up with titles and have always been retroactively accredited for their full reigns where they've eventually garnered commonly accepted recognition (Holmes, Klitschko, Tyson).

You don't discount Mike Tyson's reign pre-Spinks, Holmes' reign pre-Ali, Klitschko's reign pre-Chagaev or COMPLETELY, etc. There's always something. Ali was screwed and if Joe couldn't finally defeat him over his comeback it would completely alter the perception of his legitimacy, but you simply cannot discount his entire reign with a major world title and act like he wasn't on top in the completely inescapable, for him, absence of Ali. Because he did the job and defended his title, and he stayed the course while other fighters tried to take what was his, no matter how bad the circumstances were of him getting it (the exile). His situation is no more discountable than any of these other guys.

So, no, it's not even slightly comparable if taken at the value it should've been, to Jess Willard and the like. Not even slightly. Saying he ended his run on weak successful defences is accurate. Saying his reign in its entirety is one of the worst is not. Does anyone say Tyson only defended against Bruno and Williams and then lost to Douglas? If they have, I've never seen it.

[MAG1965]

Beating Foreman would have proved something. If a fighter can beat a puncher and a boxer who is great usually that proves a lot for his legacy.

[ETM]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

Yet Ali is the one who gets shit for his opposition.

Ive never heard that. Followed boxing for a long time. Ive never heard anyone who follows the sport question Ali`s opposition. He fought everyone. Maybe they were joking.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I do NOT count Frazier as the man until he won the FOTC. Ali was the undisputed champ, stripped of his title unjustly, always vocally determined to return to boxing. Frazier never sat atop the heavyweights undisputed until he shut THE CHAMPION up in the FOTC.

He then, as Bokaj says, fought two fighters who weren't even national class, much less world class, both horribly undeserving, and was then wrecked by a heavy underdog contender who was still rather green. That's an awful reign as THE champion, right there.

Obviously, Frazier's reign as A champion is a good deal better.

This is an outrage.

With Ali in exile the fighters a man would have to beat to be considered great (from that point on) were Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena and the exiled champion. Frazier rounded them up and beat the lot! Thats his era right there. Throw in the fact that he also became the first to stop Chuvalo and had beat both jones and machen (jones who Ali never rematched and machen who his people avoided) and its a total clean up of the late 1960s.

Frazier dosnt need a pass for what went on after that point because he had paid his dues. Outside of Foreman all there was were contenders who had or would lose to better contenders he already beat.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by choklab

This is an outrage.

With Ali in exile the fighters a man would have to beat to be considered great (from that point on) were Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena and the exiled champion. Frazier rounded them up and beat the lot! Thats his era right there. Throw in the fact that he also became the first to stop Chuvalo and had beat both jones and machen (jones who Ali never rematched and machen who his people avoided) and its a total clean up of the late 1960s.

Frazier dosnt need a pass for what went on after that point because he had paid his dues. Outside of Foreman all there was were contenders who had or would lose to better contenders he already beat.

I consider him great. He's my #7 heavyweight.

The question was, how does he leave a stronger legacy? I told ya.

Retiring early artificially inflates his legacy. He'd never duck the fact that he DUCKED rematching Ali, ESPECIALLY after Ali regained the title and started to defend it. I think his legacy benefits from the fact that was a trilogy. All I can see that he could have done better, is actually DONE something with his undisputed title, like he did with his belt prior to FOTC, and not gotten obliterated by Foreman: Finding somebody else to fight before rematching Ali.

[Stevie G]

Originally Posted by ETM

Ive never heard that. Followed boxing for a long time. Ive never heard anyone who follows the sport question Ali`s opposition. He fought everyone. Maybe they were joking.

There are some who castigate Muhammad for fighting the likes of Rudi Lubbers and Jean-Pierre Coopman,while seemingly forgetting that Terry Daniels,Ron Stander and Dave Zygliewicz were at the same level.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by ETM

Ive never heard that. Followed boxing for a long time. Ive never heard anyone who follows the sport question Ali`s opposition. He fought everyone. Maybe they were joking.

I've seen it many times here on this forum. But partly they're are attempted wind-ups, I think.

[ThinBlack]

Fighting two worthwhile opponents after FOTC. Most likely Mac Foster, or Jeff Merritt.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Stevie G

There are some who castigate Muhammad for fighting the likes of Rudi Lubbers and Jean-Pierre Coopman,while seemingly forgetting that Terry Daniels,Ron Stander and Dave Zygliewicz were at the same level.

Difference being that Ali ,at 32 was three years older than Frazier when he fought Lubbers ,and his two previous fights had been with Ken Norton.For his fight with Koopman Ali was 34 years old, and his previous three fights were Bugner, Lyle ,and Frazier.In other words he was entitled to a couple of easy ones.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I consider him great. He's my #7 heavyweight.

The question was, how does he leave a stronger legacy? I told ya.

Retiring early artificially inflates his legacy. He'd never duck the fact that he DUCKED rematching Ali, ESPECIALLY after Ali regained the title and started to defend it. I think his legacy benefits from the fact that was a trilogy. All I can see that he could have done better, is actually DONE something with his undisputed title, like he did with his belt prior to FOTC, and not gotten obliterated by Foreman: Finding somebody else to fight before rematching Ali.

Frazier took it as far as he could by TFOTC....and thats far enough. He was obliterated by Foreman but that was just the natural order of things, he had cleaned house with his own generation and Foreman was the new. He hung around for money fights but that should not take away from what he did before.

Perhaps had Frazier kayoed old Patterson and Liston it would have helped his resume?

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by choklab

Frazier took it as far as he could by TFOTC....and thats far enough. He was obliterated by Foreman but that was just the natural order of things, he had cleaned house with his own generation and Foreman was the new. He hung around for money fights but that should not take away from what he did before.

So what, Frazier being obliterated by Foreman doesn't count because he had cleaned out a generation? What nonsense.

Ali and Louis cleaned out 2-3 generations and never got dominated like that anywhere near their primes. Naturally Frazier has to rank a fair bit below those two to start with.