If Frazier had faced Louis's title Challenger's: Does he falter before 25-0?

If we are talking a peak Fraizer...

the one that turned up against Daniels, Stander, and Foreman could be in for a hard competitive fight against either man.

In reality it only took about one year from Ellis to Ali for him to fall off the horse.

Exactly, it don't have to be a Foreman blow out to be a loss.

 

Yes but when you marry up their timelines, you will see that Louis is fighting a lot more often, and being thrown in against the best, after a much shorter period.

Louis had been in with Carnera and Baer, before Frazier even got to Bonavena.

In that respect, Frazier is going to be facing a huge step up, in both the quality and quantity of his opponents.

 

Not if he defended against the Standers and Daniels of the 30's for two years.

 

There is a chance that he could best Frazier for sure, but he might find Louis more to his liking stylistically.

 

Braddock
Tommy Farr
Nathan Mann
Harry Thomas
Max Schmeling
John Henry Lewis
Jack Roper
Tony Galento
Bob Pastor
Arturo Godoy
Johnny Paycheck
Arturo Godoy
Al McCoy
Red Burman
Gus Dorazio
Abe Simon
Tony Musto
Buddy Baer
Billy Conn
Lou Nova
Buddy Baer
Abe Simon
Johnny Davis
Billy Conn
Tami Mauriello
Jersey Joe
Jersey Joe


Does Frazier go through that undefeated?

 

If you take peak Frazier and individually set that version up of him he could win these matches. But taking each fight through the normal trajectory of a career, no he does not go 25-0.
I could see him getting picked off around the first Pastor and Godoy fight back to back. That would already be his 8th and 9th title defense. No easy task. If he gets through that I could see a well worn Frazier losing around the Lou Nova bout.
No way does he make it.
Joe Louis was Joe Lous for a reason.

 

If it was on the time line on Joe Louis before WW 2 with 17 title defenses in
39 months then i don't think any HW could keep up that pace. Joe Louis was
a freak.

 

I think that many people underestimate just how hard it would be to replicate what Louis did.

There is a reason why nobody else has done it, or come particularly close to doing it.

Joe Louis was a 9.5 head to head, a 9.5 in terms of consistency, and a 9.5 in terms of longevity.

Take away any one of the three, and he wouldn't do it.

Somebody like Sony Liston or Mike Tyson is a 9.5 head to head, hut only a 6.5 or a 7, in terms of consistency or longevity.

Somebody like Floyd Patterson or Ezzard Charles, is a 9.5 in terms of longevity and consistency, but only a 7 head to head.

That is why nobody else has done it!

 

Right, and it's also much easier to do when you're facing some of the guys Louis was facing. It wasn't called what it was for no reason. Even while he was champion is was called that. Usually revisionist get a hold of things later and changed the storyline, here, the storyline was already written while he was Champion. That says a lot.

 

At the end of the day, you can only hang so much on it being a weak era.

Weak eras are ten a penny.

If all it took was a strong champion in a weak era, then we would have half a dozen champions like Louis.

I must also point out, that the idea of it being a weak era, hangs almost entirely on the fact that Louis was able to dominate it so easily.

I would also challenge you to point out any other fifteen year period of heavyweight history, that was consistently weak!

Do you start to see the common factor in all this!