Frazier vs. Marciano

I don't know why you keep bringing up age. The 1st Ali bout took a lot out of him. We are talking about the Frazier that fought Ali, Foster, Ellis and Quarry. If your talking about age, 21 year old Quarry, would have beaten 21 year old Marciano.

By the way, when Liston lost to Marshall in Septemer 1954, neither one of them were rated. Marshall was 1st rated in the Light Heavyweight division in January 1955 and Liston was 1st rated in October 1958, so I really don't see much of an upset when Marshall lost, BUT I know what your talking about. On paper boxer "A" should beat boxer "B" every time BUT like you said, you never know until they actually fight each other.

 

Yes. Louis was well past his best. However, it is not clear that Walcott and Moore were not fighting as well as they ever had, and Charles was still winning most of his fights. His losses to Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were by disputed decisions. He was the same age as Ali was when he beat Foreman in 1974. There were plenty of experts who thought Ali was slipping. He had lost badly to Norton and barely squeaked by in the rematch, while Foreman was a peak 25, not 31 like Marciano.

 

True,

I certainly don't think that quarry would have survived meetings with Walcott, Moore, Charles and perhaps not even Lastarza. I do however think that a 1973 version of Quarry who defeated Shavers and Lyle could possibly have been Marciano's 5th or 6th best opponent, but who knows.

 

"I don't know why you keep bringing up age."

This sure sounds like the kettle talking about the pot. How many times have you mentioned the various ages of Marciano's opponents.

Clearly, if you are going to play fantasy games such as matching one fighter's opponents from one era with the opponents from another era, I think at least enough realism should be retained to note that fighters age. For example, if I ask how Dempsey would have done against Louis' opponents, it is not really fair to simply say Dempsey at his peak was better than Walcott. Louis was not at his peak when he fought Walcott. He was 33 and 34. The question you must ask is how would Dempsey do against Walcott at that age or at least a similar point in his career.

The same is true of Frazier and Marciano. What would Frazier do at a similar age or point in his career. He would be 31 when he fought Charles and 32 when he fought Moore. Frazier indeed was going back pretty severely by this time and victory would not be assured.

"21 year old Quarry would beat a 21 year old Marciano"

Marciano was in the army at 21. The facts in the real world is that he did get to start his career until he was 24 and still managed to become champion. Frankly, I think this argument is less than weak.

 

same old crap.

 

Thats a very weak arguement. I think the fact Louis sported a 8-1 record in his last 9 fights with 5 wins over top 10 ranked contenders, proves he was still very difficult to beat. I dont see Bonavena or chuvalo being able to outpoint joe louis, i just dont see it happening.

 

One could also make a case frazier did not do well against and did not fight the punchers of his era, making him a huge question mark against a Two handed knockout puncher like the rock

 

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing however, after giving this some thought, I have arrived at the conclusion that this statement requires closer examination.

Ellis's career at middleweight was nothing to write home about, and I think anyone can concur with that. The problem that I have with the ascertion that his failures at middleweight, quickley followed by a successful career at heavyweight, is summed up by the contenders of the late 60's being questionable in quality, is that it doesn't examine the whole story. Ellis lost 5 matches at middleweight, but when I look at the timing and circumstances of those fights, it is revealed to me that he had less than 20 pro bouts when he sustained those defeats and all came between age 21-23. His first defeat came at the age of 21, when he was a 5-0 prospect and facing an 80 fight veteran in a scheduled 10 round match.. The result was a decision loss. The rest of his losses were under similar circumstances. Additionally, I will argue that at 6'1", and fighting in the 150's to 160's range, it is likely that he was a bean poll at that weight and probably better suited to be fighting at either lightheavy or heavy. Lastly, we don't know what kind of changes may have occurred behind the scenes. Who was managing him? Who was training him? Did either of these things change?

That said, I think his brief run in the late 60's at heavyweight was an admirable one, and I'm not sure that I'd chalk it up to questionable comp. He did very well at eliminating the top fighters in the heavyweight tourny of '68 or whenever it was by beating Martin, Bonavena, Quarry and patterson. That's about as good of a run as most fighters can claim to have had within such a short duration. The title he eventually won was viewed by the public as more or less "plastic", but be that as it may, I'd say he earned it nonetheless.

 

You're leaving out the fact that Frazier started his pro career years earlier than Marciano did and thus had more wear and tear than Marciano did by his 30's.

When Frazier was 31, he had fought for 10 years. When Marciano was 31, he had fought for 6-7 years.

Marciano retired in 1955 when he had fought for 8 years.

 

In all fairness though, Marciano had fought in far more matches. By the time he was in his early 30's he had compiled between 45-49 fights as opposed to Frazier's 35 or whatever. Now you can say that Joe had some grueling battles that wore on him such as the FOTC and the Foreman beatings. But then again, what about Marciano's fights with Walcott, Lastarza, etc?

 

This needs to be taken into account,Marciano was a legitimate two handed puncher his left hooks had Louis on the floor.Despite what has been averred ,Iv'e yet to see evidence that Frazier floored ANYONE with his right.

 

I agree with your statement "at least a similar point in his career," BUT not at the same age. Most boxers reach their prime at a different age. Louis and Walcott were the same age, so at 21 to 33, Louis was much better, BUT as they got older, Walcott became as good or even better.

When I stated about Rocky's opponents, I didn't say or mean their age, I said about being past their prime years, age has nothing to do with it like I stated above. You even stated that Louis wasn't as good, in fact he was only a shell of what he once was.

When I stated that Louis had a record of 8-1 with only 3 KO's, I was saying that his biggest assist, punching power was gone, don't you agree. I also believe Walcott was at his best when he was well into his 30's. I believe his 3 greatest fights were the 1st Louis bout, the 3rd Charles bout and the 1st Marciano bout. His 3 bouts with Maxim were all close, and they could have gone either way in any of them, BUT Walcott got the verdict twice.

As far as Ellis goes, I agree with everything you said. Ellis was a middleweight until he hooked up with Angelo Dundee, who told him that his body wasn't made for such a light weight. After that Ellis gained some weight and coaching from the master and the rest is history.

As far as Quarry goes, in my opinion he would have held his own with any of Rocky's opponents at that time. Quarry was not an easy night for anyone.

 

I agree, BUT Frazier fought much better opponents especially earlier in his career then Rocky did. Frazier had 37 bouts in his career, against 13 (14 if you count Light Heavyweight Champion Bob Foster) top 10 contenders. When Rocky had 37 bouts he only fought 2 Top 10 contenders, LaStarza and Layne, his next bout was against Louis. When Rocky fought his last bout, he fought a total of 8 different top 10 contenders 11 times.

Like I stated before, you can't go by age or pick an equal timeline in their careers, fighters peak at different stages. The Frazier that went against Ali in their 1st bout, Quarry (1st bout), Ellis and Foster, in my opinion would beat Rocky at anytime during his career.

 

Not Really. according to newspaper reports, walcott deserved to win all three cleanly and clearly. first fight was a robbery.

That doesnt take away from the fact that louis was still a very hard man to beat, with his size jab skills he was very hard to outpoint. do we agree?


As for his punching power, i disagree it was gone. Lee Savold was knocked out by one punch from louis, Savold was extremley durable and marciano couldnt even floor savold. Future # 1 contender Nino Valdes was knocked out in one round in a live exhibition vs louis in 1951, pat valentino a durable contender was knocked out cold through the ropes by louis, watch it on youtube. Prime Ezzard charles and Prime Rocky Marciano both suffered huge welts and marks on there faces, surely louis couldnt mark up there faces this badly if he didnt have power left. Louis was a big guy, 6'2 215lb. Jimmy Bivins after his fight with louis that Louis speed and skills had diminished but that one thing he still posessed was his punching power, that louis could still hit very hard.

Only reason he didnt knockout some of these guys was because guys like brion and bivins were cautious defensive fighters who fought just to survive vs louis. Agramonte ran on his bicycle for 20 rounds to survive against louis, and even then one louis right hand put agramonte down in rematch for a 9 count.



He wasnt the menacing joe louis of old, no way shape or form, but he could still hit.

 

I dont see how frazier stands a chance trading blows with a 1951 rocky marciano of the rex layne or joe louis fights.