Vitali Klitschko vs Joe Frazier

Again name a round he did all this?Nope


Vitali has very similar power to a 220 foreman no doubt,he doesn't need to be that powerful anyway,he certainly hits harder than bonevena doesn't he?Frazier simply would not reach Vitali,he wasn't elusive enough.fighting byrd would be much harder to do,Frazier would be a non factor and would make vitali work very little.

 

Pity that in the real world Vitali didn't live up to the hype by actual achievements.

 

Pity that plays no relevance in the likelihood of an easy to hit Cruiserweight sized swarmer beating him.

 

This thread isn't quite the farce the Marciano-Lennox one was, but it's getting there....any time you've got to twist the variables for all the negatives to manifest themselves in the fighter you want to lose to the one you like, you're pretty much admitting who you'd really favor at their best.

All the argument I've seen for Frazier so far is that the absolute best version of him may be able to take out a 41 year old Vitali, or that he can replicate anything Chris Byrd (who was the more skilled boxer) did.

Keep the dream alive, guys.

Maybe next we can make an Ike Williams vs Golovkin thread and we can hear all about how Ike would demolish him, too. After all, he's only 20 pounds smaller and has the much better resume.

 

:iamwiths:

 

He did it in nearly every round. If you had seen the fight you would know this.

 

Prime Frazier was easy to hit? Funny that Ali had so much trouble with him in their first fight.

 

Ali was not as accurate as people believe,i would say Fraziers head over the gloves defense was poorly trained,even Damato didn't care for his defense.And no ,Vitali was never backed up in that fight we all know this but you I guess?

 

Frazier won clearly but ate a lot of leather in that fight.

Understandable because Ali was a hell of a fighter, but when it came to defense, it's not like he was ever Locche-esque. Or Byrd-esque, for that matter.

That's not entirely his fault, as Joe made the most out of less than ideal physical gifts. His lack of great defense was driven by his need to get close to land the left hook. He was always going to have to absorb punishment because he didn't have the offensive diversity nor physical tools to box in different ways and win at the highest level. That's a credit to Joe.

I just don't like these matchups of gutty, gritty, smaller swarmer against skilled superheavyweights. Maybe that's an unfair bias on my part, but I can't take them seriously. It's always "well if everything goes perfectly for the little man and goes wrong for Vitali/Lennox/Wlad" and "just look at the names!".

And if we're playing that game, then we really should be seeing a ton of people picking Ike Williams, a great historical fighter with a great resume, to beat guys like Golovkin who are bigger and show potential, but are relatively unproven.

Yet people know better than to bother posting that in the first place. Only with the mystique of Heavyweight boxing does massive size differences among skilled boxers get completely marginalized. It's no insult to fighters like Frazier and Marciano to say that the division outgrew them.

 

False , he was 39 and was visibly on the best form of his career leading up to that fight.

He lost more than 2 rounds despite what you saw when you looked up the German scorecards. And all the rounds he won were razor close. On top of that he was ran from pillar to post all night. He would have been stopped if Chisora had serious power.

People seriously need re-watching of that fight.

 

You also think Tyson was close to losing to Tillis whats the point listening to you?:nut

 

I never said that.

 

My bad it must have been the other numb skulls in your crew...:good

 

I don't totally agree magoo but...OLA! I still use my flip-up phone and let my wife handle the I-phones.

 

Last time I checked, Golovkins second best win was taken out in nearly the same time Golovkin took, by a guy who was once 20 pounds lighter than Golovkin.