Higher P4P: Joe Frazier or Erik Morales

Absolutely. I didn't want to come across as though I was just trying to discredit the win. Ali on that night I'd still favor to beat all if not every Heavyweight that ever lived. Personally, I feel Ali ****ed himself over by showboating because he didn't have the stamina to fight it out for 15 three minute rounds like he could pre-exile. Frazier was fantastic, and it's the best version of Ali that was ever defeated. It's a better win than both Barrera and Pacquiao, I concede. Still, Ali of the 60's wouldn't be taking any of those shots lying on the ropes and we both know it.

Absolutely. Morales made hard work of In Jin Chi, and although the discussion has nothing to do with Marco, I feel Barrera and Marquez would have barely taken a solid shot against the same opponent. I'm of the belief that Morales would often consciously throw out the best game plan in favor of exciting the crowd. He was a great fighter when he fought to a gameplan, you only have to look at the first Pacquiao fight to know that.

Point taken. It's not Frazier's fault he wasn't a three world champion.

I completely agree with this. I must admit, I have learned a few things from this thread. I learn things all the time in the Classic, it's where the knowledgeable ones are at, and before I made this thread I thought Morales had a clear edge in the resume department. Now it's a lot closer, and can see arguments for either way.

By the way Popkins, you said you felt Marco's resume was slightly better than Morales. I asked you to elaborate on it, but you never did on the thread. If you could PM me your thoughts, I'd love to read them.

 

I just think it's a kop out. Some will compare each fighters careers in their respective eras one time, and then other times just say, "well, if they were the same size, Frazier would win so he gets my vote". I'm not really discussing who's the better fighter H2H, just in terms of P4P greatness, who would be placed above the other.

I concede that Frazier was the more efficient fighter at his best, but it surely has to count for something that Joe could only maintain at that level for three years. Morales, for all of his shortcomings, was at the top for a decade. Hell, I think Michael Nunn and Donald Curry were more effective fighters at their very best than Erik Morales, but Nunn especially wouldn't make anyone's top 100 P4P. Morales was always good enough to beat the best, and didn't lose his first professional fight until 2002 in a disputed decision.

Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree on this one.

 

You turned in a pretty solid post as usual, and you pretty much said everything there was to say. You compared their resumes, which by your own admission is super close. You seem to give Frazier the benefit of the doubt because of the Muhammad Ali performance, and although I don't disagree with you terribly, I'd rather give Morales the benefit of the doubt because of his superiority in terms of Longevity, and ability to rebound from defeat.

Joe Frazier wasn't fighting and beating the best in the division for 6 years.

Henry Armstrong, unlike Frazier, would get credit for fighting from Featherweight to Welterweight, and scoring more knockouts than either Frazier or Morales scored fights. Plus, many great fighters in the past could fight at the top level and win at the top level despite being past their prime. Frazier couldn't seem to do it. Do I think he achieved enough in that 3-4 year period to warrant him being rated above someone who was consistantly rated among the best fighters in the world for up to 10 years? Not really.

True, Frazier had a very hard division to contend with but Morales found himself in among the likes of Barrera and Pacquiao, both fantastic fighters in their own right. In Jin Chi, Hernandez, Chavez, these aren't world class talent, but I think they offer any of the Featherweights around at the time a hard nights work. Good, credible victories.

 

I wasn't discussing each fighters prime, only their ability to fight at the very top level and still win. Morales was doing that from '97-05.

 

I don't think Frazier did anything noteworthy after the Foreman demolition job in '73. He won the title 3 years prior to that, but I suppose a lot should be said for solid wins over Matthis and Quarry. I might have been shortchanging Frazier a little.

 

The Bugner victory doesn't really count for a whole lot, nothing more than arguably beating David Diaz, but I decided to only credit Morales for what he did during '97-05.

Frazier didn't really come close to regaining the title. He was taking a horrendous beating in round 13 and 14. It was all over, and I had Ali comfortably ahead going in the 15th.

I think Morales' time as one of the best in the sport ended in 05, Frazier's ended at around '73-'74.