Wladimir Klitschko vs Joe Frazier -- you know this is gonna be divided.

Mediocre? Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Peter I, Byrd, Pulev, Fury, Jennings, Chambers, Brewster II are NOT mediocre.

 

Frazier KO for me. Either way it ends early but I would side for a Frazier KO.

 

He hasn't fought Fury yet. Yes I think they are mediocre ,and that the division stinks. Povetkin is probably the best of those he has beaten, and he was given life and death by Huck. Byrd was an old fighter.Haye left his nuts in the dressing room,the rest weren't in with a realistc chance to start with, Pulev is HORRIBLE Jennings showed nothing but heart.Chambers should have taken up another sport because he has never relished combat. the other two are about as good as Rex Layne and that's being kind to them.Peter was an ill conditioned clubber whom a fat, over the hill Toney exposed. Brewster is a one paced journeyman. Anthony Joshua and Joseph Parker have shown more potential in their short careers than that bunch put together.

 

I hate to say it. But if Ali had never gone into exile, Joe Frazier would be remembered in much the same light today as a Jimmy Ellis or a Zora Folley.

 

There is less than no evidence to support that claim. Frazier beat nobody of such calibre to warrant the belief he beats either Klitchko brother, unless you count the Ali that had been forced into a 3 year exile shortly before they met. 13 more fights under his belt and we all saw what happened in 74.

 

I half agree and half disagree. Its true that the last 10-15 years have been a less than stellar era of heavyweights.. And some of the men Wlad faced were indeed sub par challengers or not even true challengers at all. But some of them were actually fairly good fighters.. Brewster was no journeyman as you labeled him as, though his career was on the down side in his rematch with wlad.. Byrd was washed up for the second fight but was prime for the first. Chagaev was a good fighter. Chambers was better than you lable him as and of course you agree that Povetkin was good. As per your comment about some of them being given less than a chance to start with, that says more about Wlad than it does them.

 

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool:rofl

 

Chuvalos comments were made years later when asked how hard Frazier hit.

You don't break eye socket bones if you do not hit very hard.

Ali...."no one hits as hard as Joe Frazier".

 

July 19, 1967, Frazier v George Chuvalo
In a brutal performance of pure power, Frazier fractured George Chuvalo's orbital bone under his eye so badly that Chuvalo needed reconstructive surgery to correct the injury, after his eye had dropped into the fault line fracture.

Above is well known boxing history. However it's new information for Foxi.

Frazier beat Bugner by three rounds. So not the close bout you claim.

Frazier post Ali 1 was not the same fighter so why are you even mentioning his last but against Cummings where Joe was a shot fighter?

 

Lots of fighters hit harder than Frazier I named about 20, just off the cuff.

 

Ring rated Frazier the 39th most powerful puncher ever in 2003.

 

Sure, Adamek and Byrd got knocked out by the Klitschko's, but how's that any different from what happened to all the Klitschko's larger opponents? They knock almost everybody out. And thanks.

 

Two questions.

1. Why are you a pathological liar?

Some folks are prone to exaggeration, but in your case exaggeration has long since been surpassed, and as a consequence your revisionist versions of past events are deliberate lies.

2. Why would anyone be expected to take your lies seriously when Ring Magazine and the boxing press at the time reported Chuvalo as having a broken cheek bone, and NOT a broken eye socket?

Here is your chance to tell us which one or more of the following was broken or fractured.

frontal bone
zygomatic bone
maxilla
sphenoid bone
ethmoid bone
palatine bone
lacrimal bone.

Of course it would be an added bonus if you would care to name both the hospital and the surgeon that performed this reconstructive surgery to George's eye.


There are some very good inventive posters on this forum, I wouldn't even bother trying to compete with them if I were you, they are out of your league. They are usually Tyson, / Pacman fanatics, or sentimentalist old timer fans who desperately want to live back in " the good ole days. ":hi:

 

Very well known history that the bone surrounding Chualos eye, call it what you will, was fractured by a Frazier left hook. This is not debatable. The fracture was a bad one as George had to go through major surgery. First you said it did not occur, then you said it was Chuvalos eyes being puffy stopped the fight. All shows you are making it up as you go along. Chuvalo stated what occurred in interviews which are available on the internet so why don't you do a little bit of work and find out the truth?

Frazier won his bout with Bugner by a 3 round margin.

Post Ali 1 Frazier was not the same fighter and at his worst in his last bout against Cummings. And you dare site this bout as a reason to conclude he could not punch hard? Shame on you and who do you think you are kudding?

 

You are going to need that J.C.B. again to dig your way out of the lies you keep telling.

In post 194 I wrote.

There is no mention of puffy eyes stopping the contest.

I also asked a simple question with 2 choices, both of which were comments by you.

1. Frazier had no right hand.


2. No one is saying Frazier couldn't punch with his right hand.

The enlarged above would ( a ) suggest that Frazier broke Chuvalo's cheek NOT his eye socket, and ( b ) he did indeed nearly close both of Chuvalo's eyes so the chances are he used his right hand to close the left one.

So again, if you can cast aside your propensity to tell lies, which one is it? 1. or 2.