Frazier - A Top 4 Heavyweight?

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by HomicideHenry

Frazier at one time stated he felt he was behind Marciano and Louis at #3, because he defeated Ali, but imo, I don't consider him a top 10 HW. Top 15 yes, but not top 10. I have always felt he lost both times to Oscar Bonavena, though he got the nod both times, and outside of victories over Mathis, Ellis and Ali, the rest of his challengers were either average at best or were on the downside [think Chuvalo].

That's interesting, especially the him losing to Bonavena part. What about Quarry? I think this is his best win (outside of Ali)

He lost twice to Foreman in devestating fashion, never fought Norton, and the so-called 'win' against Ali in their second bout---at BEST---can be argued as a draw or a straight up SD win for Ali, but that is just my opinion through my eyes. Whether he wants to admit to it or not, he will be a facet of Ali's legacy, not the other way around.

The so called win can't even be argued a draw. How do you seem him losing to Bonavena twice but think the 2nd fight can be argued a draw. It's a clear as day an Ali win as far as I'm concerned.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

I see. I don't think Frazier was that past it. And I think he deserves credit for Foreman being the first not only to beat him but demolish him. .

Absolutley.

[Maxmomer]

I think five is as high as I would put him, generally he falls in at around six or seven.

[OBCboxer]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

An old and returning Jeffires and a bunch of middleweights? I don't know... it's tough with Johnson because he has little on film. Just for Joe being the first to beat Ali I think he has a better resume. It's the constant middleweights, and suspicious dives/declines against some fighters that has my rating Johnson not too highly (Williard). In fact, I have Dempsey over Johnson who isn't even on your list.

Johnson's resume is better than Frazier's in my opinion; he just didn't beat the amount of names Johnson did even though he beat Ali. We really don't know what fights were dives (except Willard); so it's specualtion. Johnson beat names like Jeffries, Burns, McVea, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Jeanette and Ketchel. Dempsey won the title from the former Light Heavy champ Georges Carpentier, made two defenses and then took three years off. Johnson won the title from Tommy Burns (who I rate over Carpentier) and then defended his crown eight times. Johnson's accomplishments are greater than Dempsey's.

[round15]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Foreman does get points for the dual decimations of Frazier, but he also never landed Joe in his prime - Joe slipped badly after the beating Ali laid on him in I, but it was the mental slippage that hurt him the most I think. Having said that, it's fair to speculate that Foreman beats Frazier always.

McGrain, you hit the nail right on the head.

Foreman never faced or beat the prime version of Frazier. As I have said in past threads, even though he was only two years removed from the FOTC, there's a monumental difference between the quality of Joe Frazier 1967 - 1970 and the Joe Frazier that defended against Foreman in 1973. George never faced the same pressure, pace and left hook snap that Ali, Ellis, Quarry, Mathis and Foster felt. I'll admit that Joe was lucky to survive two tough fights against Oscar Bonavena, who was no pushover. These two wins, some say controversial, are testament to Frazier's work rate knowing in the first fight that he was seconds away from being TKO'd by Bonavena. In fact, I'd bet on Bonavena to give Foreman the same tough match that a past-it Gregorio Peralta gave him. Whether George KOs Bonavena, that's a different thread. Ali himself was lucky that the referee let him hover over Bonavena because he wouldn't have been able to knock him down as quick if the ref did his job making Ali go to the neutral corner. Ali knew that he had to finish Bonavena because he had barely anthing left himself.

Now, I'm not going to argue tooth and nail with those who conclude that Foreman always beats Frazier. There's two fights worth of proof that showed Frazier couldn't do anything against Foreman. Seven rounds and eight knockdowns is proof enough. However I will say that the Frazier who fought George Chuvalo, a stronger, bigger, fighter with half-decent boxing skills could definitely last a whole lot longer against Foreman. When I watched that fight, any time Chuvalo backed Frazier up, Joe would circle away from his power and counter with a jab and attack the body immediately again. He showed much better movement on his feet against a guy that made him move backwards, and if he treated Foreman with the same respect he gave Ali, his chances of winning improve more than significantly. People forget that Joe kept getting up against Foreman rather than taking his time and gathering himself. The gameplan was right in the second fight, backing up and jabbing while testing George's stamina However, Joe was practically shot in 1976 and he didn't have the quickness or endurance in his legs to attack George after the counter punches.

As for Joe Frazier's all time ranking,

Ali, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Marciano and Dempsey are the top five IMO. The next five are Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Holyfield doesn't make my top ten.

Joe probably cracks the top 5 if he had beaten Foreman.

[OBCboxer]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

But he lost to Bowe, who can be argued at that time as top 5 H2H HW fight. He lost a very close decision that he could've been awarded in the Moore fight and a fight in which Holyfield had problems with his heart (It's weird the situation. But Holyfield looks strangely tired). Then who comes back and becomes the second person to beat Mike Tyson not once, but twice!

In terms of his resume. You can argue he beats 3 fighters that that are top 10 in terms of H2H (With Bowe being in that peak at the time. While Tyson still a force). He beats 3 Top 10 HW ATG fighters in Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, and beats Bowe who is at his peak in H2H monster.

Let's check out the rest of his resume.

Moorer
Stewart X2
Mercer
Ruiz
Rahman
Thomas
Holmes

And he drawed Lennox Lewis in a very controversial decision. He has the cruiserweight thing as a bonus too. I understand he doesn't have consistent longjevity but he does have arguably the best resume of any HW champ. He regained the title a record 4 times and arguably 5 for his dubious loss to Valuev. Him fighting too long might be hurting his legacy.

Truthfully, I have Holyfield ranked #11 but I can see how you could justify a 5-10 spot largely on achievement, competetion, and resume. Nobody dominated the 90's and for him to regain the title 4 times says something.

Good post. On the flipside he beat very old versions of Foreman and Holmes. Past Prime Holmes gave Evander a very tough fight. His resume just doesn't stick out to me like the others which is why I rate him at 10, just ahead of Tyson.

[OBCboxer]

In regards to the Frazier-Foreman 1 fight. Frazier was past prime after the FOTC; it took a lot out of him. Look at his two title defenses after Ali, he doesn't look like the Joe before Ali. You'll come at me with the age factor and suggest that he was only 29. But he had taken so much punishment from his fights leading up to Foreman due to his style.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by OBCboxer

Johnson's resume is better than Frazier's in my opinion; he just didn't beat the amount of names Johnson did even though he beat Ali. We really don't know what fights were dives (except Willard); so it's specualtion. Johnson beat names like Jeffries, Burns, McVea, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Jeanette and Ketchel. Dempsey won the title from the former Light Heavy champ Georges Carpentier, made two defenses and then took three years off. Johnson won the title from Tommy Burns (who I rate over Carpentier) and then defended his crown eight times. Johnson's accomplishments are greater than Dempsey's.

Langford weighed 156 pounds, Jeffries was old and returning to the ring after a 6 year layoff. Ketchell is a terrific win but a win in where he was outweighed by 35 pounds and a fighter who weighed 170 pounds and gave up nearly 5 inches. Burns? Another fat 5'7 middlweight. He lost, no contested and beat Jeannette who had less than 20 fights on numerous occasions. One of those occasions is when Jeanette was 0-3 . And Bob was 44 years old. In context, his wins aren't that terrific. Either green fighters or small fighters. I actually like his Flynn victory.

Dempsey on the other hand, although maybe a less impressive resume destroyed much bigger men and better punchers. Dempsey won the title of Williard not Carpentier. He also beat the bigger Firpo, Gibbons and Jack Sharkey. The names aren't as good. But Dempsey destructiveness and historical impact can't be denied. Beating bigger guys is also more impressive than beating smaller men. I think there rankings are close, it's just you have Johnson much too high in my opinion.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by OBCboxer

Good post. On the flipside he beat very old versions of Foreman and Holmes. Past Prime Holmes gave Evander a very tough fight. His resume just doesn't stick out to me like the others which is why I rate him at 10, just ahead of Tyson.

But the old version of Foreman was still terrific with tremendous power. Some say old Foreman was better (I don't think so) but at least a thinking man's fighter. And Foreman of 91 was very game especially for that fight. Holmes was past his prime. Holyfield's resume is far better than Johnson who have ranked #4 who has wins over old man or small man.

In regards to the Frazier-Foreman 1 fight. Frazier was past prime after the FOTC; it took a lot out of him. Look at his two title defenses after Ali, he doesn't look like the Joe before Ali. You'll come at me with the age factor and suggest that he was only 29. But he had taken so much punishment from his fights leading up to Foreman due to his style.

So then you got to concede Frazier didn't have the pressure or effective aggression against Ali in the 2nd fight while Ali remains active and moving. That's of course is if Frazier is that much on the other end. 73 Frazier isn't prime but he isn't shot or as bad as people suggest to me. Mostly, he was overweight, a bit too confident and lived the glamor as champ. Physically, I don't know what he could've been capable of since he wasn't as serious as he should have been. Got to look at both sides, and in either case than that's Frazier's fault and not something we can genuinely discredit Foreman for.

[PhillyPhan69]

I rank him at #7....the highest I would consider is 6 the lowest is 10 (but I may have a Philly bias???)! I don't think he can justify a 1-2 placement due to Louis (my #1) and Ali...I do a Holmes, Marciano and Foreman to round out the top 5...Keeping head 2 head out of the equation I can't justify him surpassing these guys. I rate lewis at 6 and could see him going there but no higher. I flop Frazier and dempsey at 7-8 alot..with Holyfield at 9 Johnson at 10 and Liston 11..I can't go lower than 10. Just my take

[robert ungurean]

I could place Frazier in my top 6 or 7.

[Addie]

But he lost to Bowe, who can be argued at that time as top 5 H2H HW fight. He lost a very close decision that he could've been awarded in the Moore fight and a fight in which Holyfield had problems with his heart (It's weird the situation. But Holyfield looks strangely tired). Then who comes back and becomes the second person to beat Mike Tyson not once, but twice!

Nobody is criticizing Holyfield for losing to a very good version of Riddick Bowe, but he beat two faded versions of Mike. Once legitimate, and the second one was by default. Good win, but enough for a top 5 spot on the all-time great Heavyweights? Not for me.

In terms of his resume. You can argue he beats 3 fighters that that are top 10 in terms of H2H (With Bowe being in that peak at the time. While Tyson still a force). He beats 3 Top 10 HW ATG fighters in Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, and beats Bowe who is at his peak in H2H monster.

You're not looking at the full picture and that is how you're developing an argument for Holyfield. He beat past it versions of Holmes and Foreman, fighters who were really barely contenders themselves at the time. Foreman didn't even deserve the title shot he eventually got to Moorer, he was already losing to the likes of Morrison and of course, Holyfield. They weren't big scalps at that time. Those names don't do anything for me.

Let's check out the rest of his resume.

Moorer
Stewart X2
Mercer
Ruiz
Rahman
Thomas
Holmes

All good-average Heavyweights, fringe contenders. Nothing there to suggest he deserves to be among the top 5 greatest Heavyweights of all time, though.

And he drawed Lennox Lewis in a very controversial decision. He has the cruiserweight thing as a bonus too. I understand he doesn't have consistent longjevity but he does have arguably the best resume of any HW champ. He regained the title a record 4 times and arguably 5 for his dubious loss to Valuev. Him fighting too long might be hurting his legacy.

Arguably the best resume of any Heavyweight Champion? No chance. He regained the title instead of making successful title defences, and this was due to his inconsistency at title level.

Forget about his Cruiserweight status, I don't see how that's relevant here, and who are these names you mention? Holmes? Old man. Foreman? Old man. Tyson? Past his prime. The only great prime fighter he beat was Bowe, who weighed at least 11 pounds more than he did in the first fight. He gets full credit for Bowe, though.

Truthfully, I have Holyfield ranked #11 but I can see how you could justify a 5-10 spot largely on achievement, competetion, and resume. Nobody dominated the 90's and for him to regain the title 4 times says something.

I can't see an argument for top 5.

We speak about the hasbeens he defeated, the fringe contenders, and poor versions of once great champions, but he was far to inconsistant. Unlike Lewis, he failed to avenge all of his defeats, he was conclusively defeated by the two best fighters he ever fought (Lewis, Bowe), and struggled against journeyman and average fighters (Stewart, Cooper)

You have it about right. 11.

[HomicideHenry]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

That's interesting, especially the him losing to Bonavena part. What about Quarry? I think this is his best win (outside of Ali)

The so called win can't even be argued a draw. How do you seem him losing to Bonavena twice but think the 2nd fight can be argued a draw. It's a clear as day an Ali win as far as I'm concerned.

Quarry is a top five win for Joe, behind his win over Ali, then Mathis and Ellis.

Simple. Both men were older, slower. The fight was also uneventful, nothing of much importance went on in the fight, in comparison to the first and rubber matches [albiet its still 90% better than any HW fight you see on tv these days]. Ali played it safe, and Joe wasn't really fighting life and death either---you can make arguments for a draw or an Ali win, but never a win for Joe.

[PetethePrince]

Originally Posted by HomicideHenry

Quarry is a top five win for Joe, behind his win over Ali, then Mathis and Ellis.

Simple. Both men were older, slower. The fight was also uneventful, nothing of much importance went on in the fight, in comparison to the first and rubber matches [albiet its still 90% better than any HW fight you see on tv these days]. Ali played it safe, and Joe wasn't really fighting life and death either---you can make arguments for a draw or an Ali win, but never a win for Joe.

How did you score the Bonavena fights?

I can't see an argument for top 5.

We speak about the hasbeens he defeated, the fringe contenders, and poor versions of once great champions, but he was far to inconsistant. Unlike Lewis, he failed to avenge all of his defeats, he was conclusively defeated by the two best fighters he ever fought (Lewis, Bowe), and struggled against journeyman and average fighters (Stewart, Cooper)

You have it about right. 11.

I think you down a lot of his opponents especially a Foreman on that night. Tyson in 96 is a terrific win. Obviously it's not like beating Tyson in 88 but still. How is Lennox Lewis resume any better or more impressive? I have #11 but I can see a rationalization for #5. His performances haven't been steady. He beat those opponents that troubled him, he faced adversity, and stepped his game up when he needed to. He also is the record 4 time heavyweight champion. Compare his resume to Lewis. Holyfield's is superior.

[Addie]

I think you down a lot of his opponents especially a Foreman on that night.

Comeback Foreman was a good fighter, but he lost to the likes of Morrison and was getting dominated by Moorer up until the knockout. Nothing to write home about, not at all.

Tyson in 96 is a terrific win.

How is Lennox Lewis resume any better or more impressive?

You seem to put a lot of stock in reading what is written on paper. Lewis didn't have a win over Bowe, but he defeated every fighter that was ever put infront of him. The fights he did lose, he won rematches in devastating fashion. Holyfield didn't beat every fighter he faced, and he didn't avenge all of his defeats. Likewise, when the two fought, Lennox won both fights pretty clear cut. Isn't that the end of the argument right there?

He also is the record 4 time heavyweight champion

He kept losing it, that's why.