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

Read post #168 and then slap your own forehead.

 

I don't agree that Quarry, Bonavena and Ellis were better contenders than Patterson, Liston, or a young Foreman

 

In the years they were relevant to this discussion (1968-1972)Quarry, Bonavena and Ellis were higher regarded than two faded has beens from the 1950s and an untested Olympian.

 

I already said I don't think Frazier completely cleaned out the division, but he did fought and beat the biggest names of that period, yet you continue to bring up names like Urtain or Garcia to make your case.

 

Actually its for you to makeYOUR case,you and others claim FRazier cleaned out his division , but none have you have demonstrated it. What you have all done is artfully change the goal posts by rewording the original untrue statement..

 

With hindsight it was an era. The Frazier era. He came out on top. It is a whole lot easier to inherit a title from a tired champion than take it from the winner of a whole elimination serries then beat the actual lineal guy too. Especially if the lineal guy is truckin' undefeated!

Spinks era my ass! You jest too much?

 

Huggy bear or not that's the guy who needed to be beat in order to be considered great. Who else was going to do that? Not Foreman! Remember Ali really wanted to expose Frazier as a paper champ, he came out bombing but was soon overwhelmed.

Why a longer reighn? It was as long as TYsons etc? Tyson never fought Witherspoon but still had his own era. Frazier did not miss out anyone whom was relevant for that period. It was an emphatic clean out of relevant fighters.

 

Ten fights in 4 years, only 5 against rated fighters.
Bull ****.

 

Exactly how most people see it.:good