How many fighters would blow Frazier out?

A roll-call of the great heavyweights of history seldom fails to include Joe Frazier's name. Most boxing fans rank him in the top 10 of the last 120 years. However, many(perhaps most- let us see the result of this poll) seem to hold a very low opinion of him when it comes to his ability to even be competitive with a significant portion of the other top heavyweights of history.

It seems to be a sort of knee-jerk reaction, whenever a "Frazier-vs.-a-name-opponent-with-top-punching-power" subject comes up, to pop in with "Frazier would be crushed in the first five rounds." I've variously seen people declare that champions such as Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Tyson, Lewis, and even lesser fighters like David Tua and Wladimir Klitschko, would simply swamp Frazier and take him out early. It is also frequently argued, and often by these same people, that George Foreman would destroy Frazier in the first few rounds every time, to the extent that if they fought 10 times or more, the result would be the same in every single one.

Personally, this all seems very narrow to me. I scarcely see anyone argue that since, say, Ali could outbox Foreman and Liston, therefore any top boxer beats them. Perhaps if Liston hadn't beaten Machen and proven he could beat a top boxer, it would be a similar knee-jerk reaction to pick everyone from Tunney to Walcott to Young to Byrd to beat him, the way people do with Frazier and power-punchers.

I would also like to point out, as I've done many times before, that Frazier was significantly past his peak when he lost to Foreman; he was 202-207 in nearly all of his top performances, but 214 against Foreman, and this was not a gain made up of lean muscle. He had had only two fights in close to two years since the Ali, and both were unimpressive showings against mediocre opponents. Ken Norton, his sparring partner at the time, had told Yank Durham privately that Frazier had lost something since the Ali fight, and Durham had advised Frazier to retire. Frazier's attitude in his training camp before the Foreman fight was described by observers as being more akin to that of a millionaire directing a yacht cruise than a blood-sweat-and-tears warrior conducting a serious training camp the way it had been in the past. It is clearly evident from the facts and film that Frazier had lost ground both physically and mentally in the aftermath of the Ali fight.

Moreover, Frazier hadn't brought in any strategy different from the norm for the first Foreman fight; he was simply employing his usual barrel-in-and-break-him-up-close gameplan when he was annihilated that night. In the rematch, Frazier, now further deteriorated and nearly washed-up, brought a more well-thought-through and intelligent gameplan to the ring and was far more competitive- in fact, that fight was fairly close up until the fifth round.

Now, if we combined these two elements- having Frazier at his best and employing a more intelligent gameplan, I see no good reason to believe he wouldn't stand a respectable competitive chance. And Foreman, in my opinion and those of most fans, had an especially bad style for Frazier, far beyond his simply being a crushing hitter: Foreman was a very fast starter, he was exceptionally strong, allowing him to manhandle Frazier and force him into position, he had a huge array of devastating punches, and he was most formidable with underhanded hooks and uppercuts, which are more effective against Frazier's type of defense. With all this taken into account, I think this oft-seen train of thought- that if probably the most devastating puncher of all time, who has a very bad style for him, can demolish a declining Frazier, therefore an assortment of other hard-hitting fighters with far different styles and ability levels could do the same to a peak Frazier- comes across as a very strained and weak standpoint.