Does anyone believe Fraziers greatness took a hit with his losses to Foreman?

Yes. He looked downright amateurish against Ali in 1974.
Understandably, all things considered.

Well, they were building him up. RING magazine, like the rest of the boxing/sporting press is there to cover the sport and to build up future stars too.
Foreman was the 1968 Olympic champion, the natural heir, and maybe there were not that many colourful fighters around who weren't already veterans.

 

They were proved right anyway because as George Foreman was the next big thing. I just feel that in 1970, 71 and 1972 Ali was the more outstanding contender and Frazier HAD beat him.

If Foreman never registered above #7 or even #5 before fighting Joe Frazier I don't think many people would have had a problem with that.

Other champs usually beat about 3 rated guys before becoming an outstanding #1 contender. Ali had to beat Moore, lavorante and Cooper to land his first time around. Yet beating Ellis, Mac Foster and Mathis only served Muhammad #2?

 

He was ranked #2; Frazier was fudging an Ali rematch, his camp using excuses such as not liking the California points system and other complete shite. Joe probably wanted to rematch Terry Daniels and the like but was forced to fight a live body...then spent the rest of the 1970s avoiding other big guys who could bang like they had leprosy.


Foreman's ranking was too high for sure, but by beating the WBC's #3 (Chuvalo) got him a high ranking with them for a start. Being undefeated probably meant he was #2 by default, due to those ranked a bit higher- such as Quarry- falling off due to one or two losses. Still some of that sorry bunch were still rated ahead of your mate Terry Daniels.

He did- Peralta. So that's one ranked contender in two years... shocking really...but, incidentally, the same amount as the champion- Frazier. :yep


George's run to the title shot is not totally disimilar to Tyson's a decade or so later. Both beat a few top tenners; punching power & hype got them their title shots more than anything...both won easily and completely embarrassed their opponents.

 

Where Foreman should have been rated in your opinion is totally irelevant it is where he in fact WAS RATED that matters.

 

Really? Like who, 4-15 Terry Sorrell, 3-24 Clarence Boone, 1-14 Joe Murphy Goodwin?

And Peralta was ranked the first time they fought, in '70, not in '71.

 

Why did Mathis matter he was NEVER RATED? Going into the Frazier fight Chuvalo had lost to ALl of the best men he had faced,including
the following.
Baker
King
McMurtry
Rademacher!
Cleroux x2
Erskine
Folley
Patterson
Terrell
Corletti
Ali
Bonavena.

Frazier's camp picked 8th rated Chuvalo instead of
1Terrell
2 Folley
3 Spencer
4 Patterson
5 MIldenberger

None of whom he met,and you want to claim he cleaned out the division?



To equate Louis's title reign with Frazier's is not just innacurate it is an obscenity. Bettina lost to Bivins and there was a little thing called WW2 on during Louis's reign , this may have had some bearing on his defences. Louis was champ for 12 years he was defending his title more times in a couple of months than Frazier did in his entire reign. Louis defended his crown 7 times in 1941 should he have fought every week?atsch
Franklin was kod in 8rds by light hitting Bob Pastor ,[twice a Louis victim] in Feb 1942 ,and kod in 1 rd in his next 2 fights ,the window for him to fight Louis was not open very long ,plus he was the wrong complexion for $$$$ Going into the FOTC Frazier's best wins were Quarry, Chuvalo ,Ellis and Bonavena. None of them were ever the no1 contender

 

Ellis won the tournament for the title, that should count as him being the no.1 contender.

 

Ellis was never the number one contender.

Mathis fought Frazier for a "version" of the title [NYSAC] does that mean he should be rated?

 

What does Mathis have to do with what I just said? Ellis won the tournament, he was rated no.2, behind Frazier himself. That's as good as being no.1.

 

To the main question: No, it would just show that Joe was not invincible.

Joe was caught and never cleared. Can happen. Second fight and Joe was a damaged, war-torn fighter.

 

I think we all agree Frazier not fighting Foreman BEFORE 1973 is no big deal since Foreman WAS eclipsed by Muhammad Ali as a contender during this period. Therefore since Frazier was the only man to hold a win over Ali he quite literally, until meeting George, had cleaned out the division.

 

Mcvey is sore Frazier never fought Jose Roman....and Ernie Terrell....and old Floyd Patterson. Rather than unify the title and beat ALi.atsch

 

:clap.

Foreman was bottom feeding to maintain his ranking. Where as ALi was taking on Ellis, Mac Foster and Mathis....

 

You said because Ellis won an alphabet title he should have been rated number 1 .I pointed out that Mathis fought Frazier in an eliminator for a version of the title and asked if that meant he should have been rated ? It's a simple progression.

 

You are being childish now.

I pointed out that Frazier ignored the five contenders rated above him and instead fought Chuvalo , who was rated below him and had lost to every good man he had met. Frazier didnt fight any of those rated above him ,so the premise that he cleaned out the division is absolute bollocks.