He’d be a contender in any era but can’t see him being champ then. He’d split wins with the other contenders of the era.
He would sweep thru the bottom 5 of the top 10 of either era. Too much quicks and too much athlete for likes of Quarry, Cooper, Bonavena... He absolutely blasts Ingo. A Frazier bout has the potential of going life and death just because of styles but George and Muhammad both beat him.
No, quality changes from decade to decade, McCall and Bruno would not have been world champs while Ali was champ apart from in the late 70`s when Ali faded and struggling against lesser opposition, also Bruno and McCall could have beat Leon Spinks I`d say.
Frazier would have destroyed Moorer with ease, that amount of hooks coming at speed upwards while Joe using that head movement would be too much for Moorer, who couldn`t take that kind of powr at all.
I love Frazier but Mike was an excellent counter puncher with very quick hands. He could sting Joe. All of Joe's head movement didn't prevent him from getting hit. That's all about styles, not "greatness"... and I think that Joe would win the war later on. It just would be a lot sloppier than Ali or Foreman would win it.
It firstly depends how we define world champ. When McCall and Bruno held the belt there were 4 to choose from. But let's be more fair and compare ranking positions. Would either of them have ever gotten to be a top 4 fighter during the 60's and early 70's. Honestly one cursory glance at the rankings for that decade tells me they easily could have done so. It's not an exact science but in my mind beating a top ten guy is beating a top ten guy in any era. There will be anomalies like Leon Spinks for instance who might never have been a champion in any other era, but then again most consider the 90's to be the second best era and we saw Briggs and a 45 year old Foreman take the gold in that era so who knows.
