Greatness of Joe Frazier

I think that there is a distinction to be made for sure. It's sort of instinctively understood that Hagler and Armstrong are different but that both harass the opposition with distance in the ring and I think the distinction to be made is about pressure on the space and pressure on the man. So Joe Louis put pressure on the space and tried to persuade the opponent that it was safe to punch or crucial to punch (put crudely). This is a pressure style, but it is not the same as Armstrong. Armstrong put pressure directly onto the man in that he moved on him and then tried to hit him if the man didn't move away. There's a reason that it's rare to weave these two styles and it's the reason Roman Gonzalez was so very special. But Armstrong's is the style thought of as definitive when one thinks of pressure-fighting...not Joe Louis, not Juan Manuel Marquez. Duran was another Gonzalez in that there were days when he just pursued the man but that's not the way he fought Leonard or Hagler and that's what I think of as his true style because that's the style that made him so difficult to fight. Duran therefore would not count as a pure pressure fighter.

 

Well if that's true, that is atrocious from Futch. Joe Frazier should be getting hit exactly how much Futch wants his fighter to be hit in the run up to a monumental fight like that, and not one punch more. If he was legitimately unable to control Joe's sparring partners, fair enough, pulling the spar was a nuclear option, and better than letting him get beaten up, but it's obviously atrocious handling.

I don't believe it for one minute though.

I think both these guys got hit a lot because they were pressure fighters. I'm not sure who got hit more and i'm not sure who got hit more clean. I won't get into a chat about "fundamentally" because I think we have different understandings of what that word means, but nobody has ever demonstrated to me that Frazier was harder to hit clean than Marciano.

 

No: FUTCH should control the sparring partner's output. What i'm saying to you is that if there are sparring partners beating Joe Frazier up, Futch needs to control their output. Futch needs to tell them to punch less and work on defence more. He should be able to get Joe 50 rounds of sparring if he feels that is what needed, and have Frazier hit no more than he was in six.

But i'm pretty sure, whatever this source all of this was made up, or at least mis-understood. Frazier will have boxed six because reasons, and getting hit too much would not have been one of them. There's a lot to unpack here, but I don't really see the point at this juncture tbh.

Why? Why seek quotes? Especially when it comes to heavyweights, this is about the worst approach you can take when it comes to heavyweights? You want me to google "quotes on Joe Frazier defence" and then copy and paste quotes in here to compare them with quotes you already have on Rocky to then determine whose quotes mean one of them has a better defence? Are you serious?

Look, there's been an infinite amount of punchstats stuff done on Muhammad Ali. That means there's been a lot of work on Frazier. Has there been any done on Marciano? You can pick, say, three rounds of each fighter and count how many times each of them is hit and ask for some peer review if you want. But what is absolutely not an option to explore this problem is asking me to google quotes on Joe Frazier.

Who cares? Why does that matter? Say the owner of the greatest hook in boxing history describes the way it works and it doesn't fit what's in your idea of some manual? Why would I care? Why should anyone? He's clearly describing the best way for him to do it. And what does it have to do with who will get hit more cleanly?

I think that Frazier's bob and weave wasn't arbitrary enough to be truly elite but he parried well, rode punches very well and was as good at countering shots that were landed on him as anyone i've ever seen. He pursued aggression in the ring as a strategy from both his opponent and himself.

Again, i'm not going to get into a discussion with what is "fundamental" with you because I don't think our understanding of the word is the same - I won't say this again, but I also won't be answering any questions about what is "fundamental."

I disagree with you that Marciano is a superior technician and i've already given you some of these reasons in earlier posts. You didn't respond.

 

I feel i've already explained this to you and I don't see how explaining it again can help. I'll try one more time, but then I will have to dip out.

Let's say, the situation you've evoked is real. Spar A is hitting Frazier too much. Eddie's job, specifically, is to pull Spar A in. "You're hitting the boss too much. Let him get under you I want to see what he's doing inside." Spar A replies, no problem. Continues to hit Joe too much. Eddie now has to fire him, and get a new guy in. It doesn't matter whether this happens once or sixteen times. Eddie's job is to get Spar A to hit Joe about the right amount over the rounds he needs to work.

What you seem to be saying is that Frazier was only capable of fighting six rounds in the eyes of Futch because of the amount of punishment he took. You seem to see this as some sort of indication that Joe Frazier had a worse defence then Marciano. What I'm saying to you is: no. That is not how elite sparring and training works. If Spar A is hitting the boss too much, you move onto Spar B. Then C. And so on. If a sparring partner is not co-operating, you remove him.

There is no way on God's green earth that the only way for a trainer like Eddie Futch to control sparring partners for an elite HW was to shorten the sparring. Really this is the key part i'm trying to communicate. Now, the six round part might have been true and there are lots of interesting reasons for it, but given how difficult just this part is proving, I'm not going to get into that here.

I won't discuss this subject any more, but in summary, it didn't happen like you think and it didn't mean what you think it means, so far as I am concerned.

Well don't do that please, I can do without the extra typing.

It's not wrong. It's the way he threw it. And I think you've misunderstood this anyway although i'm absolutely loathe to bring it up. But here goes.

This is what Frazier wrote about his left hook in his book:

"Lean forward and to the left slightly, but still keep your weight evenly distributed.As you're bringing the punch over, plant your left foot flat on the floor; anchor it. That's going to drive the punch."

Here is Hopkins describing his left hook.

"From my regular stance, i dip a little to the left and rotate my upper body slightly toward the left. My body weight shifts from both legs to mostly the left one. I'm not leaning all the way over and i'm not winding up with the punch. And i stay on balance. You must be on balance when you throw the hook. As i bring the punch up, i'm driving witht he left leg and at the same time bringing my hips around
well it results in a bad defence?"

These both stress - moving slightly to the left; keeping your weight evenly distributed; shifting your body weight through the left foot. Frazier sounds a little more left-footed. Now here's Joe Louis:

"Turn your body to the right, shifting your weight onto your right leg, throw the left arm in an arc to the opponent's head. Make sure to hit through the mark and not just at it, with the knuckles up at impact of blow. Practice to give you co-ordination of bodyweight and arm-power which brings about a snap in the blow, and gives it more force."

Clearly, Louis is the weirdest hooker here. Hopkins and Frazier are similar. I don't agree with you that Frazier's hook is "wrong". I think that is an insane thing to say. If he wanted to stand on his head when he threw it and got the same results, I wouldn't care about that, either.

I mean it might be an interesting discussion point if it wasn't so absolutely clear that Frazier when throwing big punches was so much better balanced than Marciano. Apart from speed, balance is the attribute where Frazier reigns most supreme over Marciano, it's one of the biggest differences between them travelling in either direction. So, yes, of course, when Frazier throws hooks in anger, he is more vulnerable to being hit back than when he's not, but it's also true of Marcaino and more so. Rocky is far and away "less correct" when throwing the big shots than Frazier is.

I think that Frazier's problems with balance were less than Marciano's problem with balance. Is it a "problem" - well yes, it is, but it was worth it for both of them. More so for Frazier because he was more controlled.

 

I don't know who James Gouge is, or what he said. I know who you are, what you've said to me, and I'm saying you've misunderstood. There's no way what you are assuming is real.

But Louis does "shift his weight":

"Turn your body to the right, shifting your weight onto your right leg."

The only difference between them is how they transfer their weight.

Hopkins and Frazier both want to shift through their left leg, Louis wants to shift through his right leg. Rather than saying he's weird, let's say he's the odd one out. Do you think that Marciano didn't shift his weight when he threw punches or something?

You're wrong; the way Frazier and Hopkins describe throwing a hook is the "correct" way to do it. Almost everyone will agree to transference of the weight through the lead leg. In fact i've never seen anyone describe throwing it through the right, although I did once hear an (unconfirmed) story that Ray Leonard threw it through his right.

You have made a mistake.

The difference between us is I don't think it matters that much. If it works it works. Louis and Frazier fundamentally disagree about the "proper" way to throw the hook. I consider those the two best hookers in heavyweight history. It's how it works in the real world that counts.

In the real world Joe Frazier was a better balanced fighter than Rocky Marciano. So even if you are correct (and you are wrong), the comparison still favours Frazier.

 

I think so, yes.

None taken, post when you want to, don't when you don't, it's meant to be fun.

I understand it. I understand what you've said.

You're wrong. You're wrong twice. I can't help that, and there's no other way for me to say it.