Joe Frazier?

I rate fighters based on what they did and also who they would beat in head to head. Marciano retired undefeated that cant be taken away from him. Much as I love Joe he wouldnt beat Marciano who was like Joe somewhat style wise but better, definitely hitting harder and Rocky was the best conditioned fighter maybe that ever lived.

 

As high as 5, as low as 10.

From the greatest era of heavyweights where many of the non-champions would have been champion in another era.

Practically cleared the list of contenders on his rise to the top. Some argue against his dominance or longevity, but he beat all relevant opponents in front of him during his prime.

Secured claim as greatest fighter in the world at one point.

Among the fighters with the biggest sense of never give up attitude.

 

Bottom half of the 10 for me.

 

There was so much to admire about Frazier’s work. You’d think a guy with that go forward style of his would be easy to jab, or hit effectively, but he wasn’t. He was always bobbing and weaving as he ploughed forward into the chest, battering away, parrying when needed, all the time ready to detonate that favourite weapon of his…the left hook. He was extremely difficult to fight against…unless your name was George Foreman…and he’s a deserved top 10-15 ATG. I haven’t done a list of HW ATGs for a while but the last one I did I think I had JF at no12. I may well have him a little higher as I’m remembering nostalgically just how damn good he was back in the day.

 

Heh Techks, as you've asked so nicely, I can explain my reasoning for having Marciano above Frazier, though like you I accept it's subjective, rankings are largely down to criteria & there is no right or wrong way to order them, just different opinions.

Marciano was 49-0, he was 7-0 in world title fights and his best wins include my #16 HW of all time Ezzard Charles x 2 (Ezzard was past his absolute prime), my #23 HW of all time JJW x 2 (again Joe likely a little past his apex), Roland LaStarza x 2, Archie Moore, Don Cockell, Harry Matthews, Rex Layne and a shot version of my #1 HW Joe Louis

Joe Frazier was 32-4-1, he went 5-2 in world title fights, his best wins include my #2 HW of all time Ali (who I consider past his very peak version, a few months back after a 3.5 year lay off), Jimmy Ellis x 2, Oscar Bonavena x 2, Jerry Quarry, Joe Bugner, Eddie Machen & Bob Foster.

I exclude H2H cross era predictions from my rankings, I solely focus on what they actually did in their own era.

My reasoning for ranking Rocky higher includes:

• Whilst I don't exclude Joe's win over Ali - it was one of the finest wins in boxing history - where fighters engage in a multi fight series, I tend to focus on who won the series. i.e., I do factor in Frazier's win of Ali into his ranking, but not to the same extent I would if they'd only fought the once & Joe won.
• Rocky's dominance impresses me. Not only did he win every fight, he had very few close fights, winning most by KO. People will point to his era being weak, with his best opponents being relatively small &/or past prime, and I do factor that in (Rocky's my #5 all time at HW, if my rankings were based on statistics alone he'd be somewhere in the top 3), but probably not to the extent other people do*
• Rocky has winning records over 2 x HWs (Charles and Walcott) that rank higher, imo, than anyone Joe has a winning record over (I give Marciano little credit for his win over a shot Louis).
• I don't see a huge difference in the quality of their best wins (imo this is needed to rank a less dominant fighter above a more dominant boxer), yet Rocky was more dominant. More wins, more successful title defences and no losses, whereas Joe was 1-4 vs the best two HWs he fought, including one who made him look like a child and blew him away twice (I appreciate I'm being harsh on Frazier here as Rocky never fought anyone as good as Ali or Foreman).
• *I don't make as much allowances as others for 1 era being stronger or weaker than another. It's difficult to quantify or be certain of how eras compare to one another. All we know for certain, is how a fighter did in their own era. So, being consistently dominant in a boxer's own era typically counts more highly for me, than being one of the top fighters in a supposedly "strong" era.

All that notwithstanding, as we've both acknowledged, it's all down to criteria, and I accept it's reasonable and justifiable to have Frazier ranked higher, depending on your criteria.

 

Excellent post. I rank Marciano higher, ether 3 or 4 depending on the day but think Frazier was much better H2H

 

I respect ur opinion but who knows what would happen since upsets occur throughout history too. As far as being undefeated, that just comes down to preference. I will take a fighter that has beaten better guys regardless if they're undefeated and Marcianos best wins r past prime guys. Not his fault just my preference.

BTW I like both and imho they're interchangeable.

I agree that dominance does factor in w criterias along w quality of wins. I lean more towards the later and like Ellis, Quarry n Ali over Marcianos Layne, Moore, Charles Louis n Walcott. Again just my opinion but I would lean more towards Marciano if Charles, Moore, Louis or Walcott were closer prime but that isn't Rockys fault. U can only beat who's available. Regardless both r ATGs.

 

Thank u Slugger n Price for making civil responses especially w ur breakdown Price. I tried to ask the question respectfully as well no Holmes rant lol.

 

I do have Unbeaten: Marciano... and Krams Frazier book I needa read as well.

 

No problem mate, your position ranking Frazier higher than Marciano is reasonable, even if I see it differently. One thing I'm sure we can both agree on, is they are both ATGs.

 

Cheers Swag. I'm not sure I'd use the word "much" better, but if pushed, I'd agree with you & pick Frazier, prime for prime, H2H. Being both bigger and faster is always an advantage that is tough for the opponent to overcome, though if there was ever a HW in history with the right attributes to overcome those dual disadvantages, than Rocky was he.

 

Joe Louis in his second fight with Schmeling certainly had as much to prove to the world and the world of boxing.

 

I have him tied with Tyson.

 

#6