Joe Frazier's resume is underrated

Who is underrating Joe Frazier

 

Frazier got the most out of what he had. An overachiever type. You have to admire his heart and will to win. Eddie Futch said Frazier had the worst body of any heavyweight champion.

Physically Frazier is a limited fighter, who only had one good punch. He was neither strong nor tall. His best weight was about 205 pounds. He didn't have a jab or right hand, and his reach was short. You knew exactly where he was going to be as he dipped low, the hook was often coming after it.

Joe could only fight one way, moving forward and considering he really wasn't a one-punch KO type of guy, that puts him into harm's way vs. any bigger punchers. Not durable. Frazier had issues with swelling too.

 

Joe Frazier has a wonderful resume for someone with that many fights.

That's why he's considered an all-time great with only 32 wins.

There aren't many Hall of Famers with fewer wins.

 

Like I said. It's a snapshot into what the rest of the fight might have looked like. I don't mean to say Sharkey would have probably won every round. I'm saying he probably would have put on a winning performance. To make it a draw he only had to win 4 more rounds out of 12. To win he just had to win 5. It's much more rational to think that Sharkey would have won based upon what we saw versus losing considering he won the fight. That's what I'm saying.

Let's not forget I'm not putting Sharkey levels above Schmeling. I'm saying they were on similar levels but put a gun to my head I'd pick Sharkey as better.

But you mentioned fighters on Schmelings resume that he lost to. Hamas and Neusel. Why is it wrong for me to mention fighters that Sharkey both lost to and beat? That's double standards. Phil Scott was not past prime. He was undefeated during in the 2 years prior to fighting Sharkey during which he was also ranked in the top 10. He stopped fighting because if he lost to Gains he said he would stop fighting. So he's a man of his word.

Paulino Uzcudun was in his mid 30s and in his last 3 fights when he had 2 out of 3 fights with Schmeling who was in his 20s. Uzcudun hadn't even been considered a legit contender since 1929!

Every name Sharkey beat was ranked in the top 10 at some point between 1924 and 1929 or ranked in the top 10 in the 30s.

Not he wasn't. He had the overwhelming majority of his fights prior to 1930. About 40 compared to only about 20 after 1930. Between 1930 and 1933 he only fought 5 times (1.25 times per year). His record was 3(2)-2(1).

Even fight? Absolutely not. Not sure which film you're watching. Schmeling showed grit by staying in the fight until the 10th but he was being outgunned in most exchanges up to the knockout. His aggression was entirely ineffective and Baer seemed to be toying with him.

Sharkey was 33 and incredibly past his prime (Literally his last fight) against an absolutely prime Joe Louis. To suggest that Max Baer is in any way a comparison to Joe Louis is a spit in the face of boxing. Max Baer on his best night wasn't half the fighter that Joe Louis was and he destroyed Schmeling. Schmeling got bombed out in the first round 2 years after Sharkey.

Where do you get these reports man?? Sharkey should have lost to Walker? Maybe you should read what the UP had to say about the fight https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Mickey_Walker_vs._Jack_Sharkey

Walker had a busted up face, was bleeding, and was staggered throughout the fight. If anything Sharkey was robbed.

He provided an excellent showing against Dempsey until the knockout. Apparently having the grit to fight killers even at the tail end of a career doesn't mean anything to you.

I didn't say Schmeling fought poor competition. That's your own inference. He didn't fight a single top heavyweight until 1929. From that point until his first retirement he fought only 18 times in 9 years. 5 of those guys weren't even in the top 10 and between 1930 and 1933 he fought barely once per year. Sharkey on the other hand was fighting top heavyweights starting in his 6th pro fight this explains the early losses that cloud his resume. About a year after turning pro he started winning consistently and only lost once to Bud Gorman who was at his best, beating the top contenders until he lost to Dempsey.

I was responding to the names you mentioned.

It was what it was for the time. I won't argue with you too much there. The prior champ only defended it successfully once in 4 years, the champ before that only defended it 6 times in 7 years, Tommy Burns was really active, then you have Jeffries who defended it 7 times in 5 years, Fitz didn't defend it once in 2 years, Corbett only once in 5 years. Do you see the pattern? Dempsey was one the most active champs up until that point.

It's definitely an indicator of how Louis might not be able to handle Dempsey's style. Dempsey was better than Godoy, better than Galento, better than every guy Louis fought except maybe Marciano.

That's a very fantasized version of the actual fight. No need to start getting disrespectful considering I could call you out on a lot of fights we've mentioned because your take on them is very different from what the footage and reports show.

I used a fraction. two thirds. It means 2 out of 3. Schmeling was definitely a pressure fighter and not a mobile boxer. He's constantly trying to push Baer onto the back foot in their fight.

Sharkey, Tunney, Tommy Gibbons, and arguably Billy Miske were all better fighters when Dempsey fought them than the 30 year old Max Schmeling that fought Joe Louis.

 

Yeah and Schmeling could knock him out. Or vice versa. Anything could happen, first three rounds are meaningless and I'd never use it as a proof of someone's superiority. Besides, Sharkey lost due to deserved DQ, it was his fault.

I'm not either, but Schmeling was better fighter overall to me. He has clearly the best win (Sharkey was knocked out quickly just in next Louis fight) and Schmeling got better against Sharkey in their series in my opinion. The rest of their resumes are comparable.

Fair enough.

Schmeling beat Uzcudun in 1929. It's on film:

This content is protected

Again, Uzcudun was ranked in 1929.

Yes, Schmeling won some rounds and usually landed more. Baer just ignored his power, he had amazing chin. I did a thread about scoring this round around year ago, it was close fight until the knockout.
Sharkey never fought against Baer, we don't know how he would fare against him.

Schmeling beat the same verison of Louis. I know that Sharkey was past his prime, but Schmeling also had his best years behind him then.

I never suggested he was, Louis is tiers ahead of Baer.

Yeah and Schmeling won just before Shakrey fight. Are you really trying to tell me that Schmeling didn't fare better against Louis than Sharkey? Max is the only fighter in history who beat prime Louis.

Or you can watch the video:

This content is protected

Of course it's not full fight, but Walker looks better on film and there are reports who questions this decision. It was definitely close fight and some people believed that Walker should have won. One thing is sure - Schmeling did far better against Walker than Sharkey.

I agree, Sharkey looked good against past prime Dempsey who lost to Tunney twice in the same period. He still got knocked out. I admire Sharkey's willingness to fight anybody, but he lost most of his big fights.

I agree, Shakrey started his career with much tougher schedule than Schmeling, who started as a LHW. The point is that Sharkey didn't lose only early on, he has losses before his prime, during his prime and past his prime. That's not only the matter of being too green.

So we are in agreement that Schmeling had two best wins and comparable resume otherwise?

But then you can find more similar proofs that Dempsey would not be able to beat Louis.

I made a thread about this fight with the longest available video from it and everyone picked Schmeling as a winner, some posters even called it a robbery. While I disagree, Schmeling won clearly to me:
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/jack-sharkey-vs-max-schmeling-ii-your-thoughts.646351/

Schmeling was a counter puncher with good head movement. Why people always use Baer fight as an example of how Schmeling fought is beyond me. It's his worst performance available on film. Why don't we talk about Louis, Sharkey, Uzcudun, Hamas or Walker fights?

What? Gibbons at HW and Miske better than Schmeling? Based on what exactly?

 

This.

 

Originally I responded to all of your points but this time I went back and deleted my responses to all but a few. You have questions that you need to answer because your standards do not line up. You have one for Sharkey but then others for Schmeling. It's totally biased.

Here they are:

Schmeling would not knock him out. That assertion is outlandish. The fact that a fighter wins the first 3 rounds of a fight and you think it is more likely that they will lose the rest of the fight or even get knocked out raises red flags upon your credibility. Clearly your personal bias is getting in the way. Sharkey was knocked out 4 times in 55 fights. Once to Dempsey, Louis, Carnera, and Rojas. Two of those were legit knockouts while the other two were against a completely shop worn Sharkey or a very green Sharkey against a top 10 heavyweight at the time. It could be argued that Sharkey was shop worn against Carnera. On top of all of that, Schmeling and Sharkey fought again and he couldn't so much as knock him down. Matter of fact in the second fight it was so unlikely that either would produce a knockout the the odds were 3-1 against it.

You just aren't being very honest in your assessment of these fighters because I've picked out loads of points that you've completely glossed over.

This is total and utter hypocrisy at it's finest. You show me 3 rounds of a 15 round fight and say that Sharkey should have lost his title to Walker yet when Sharkey dominates Schmeling for 3 rounds you suggest he was going to get knocked out or outboxed.

You are so biased man.

Considering Tunney was prime and very much might have been stopped in the second fight had the count been right I'd say that's nothing to be ashamed of.

And Schmeling doesn't? Schmeling lost during every point in his career. What is the point you're trying to make? During the 13 fights prior to Dempsey, Sharkey fought and beat 6 top ranked contenders in a 20 month period while going undefeated. All while being professional for 1.5-3 years. That's something Schmeling never did.

I can even go on. In the 10 fights after that he fights 7 top ranked contenders going 7-2-1 with 4 knockout victories. Then he loses to Schmeling by DQ while winning the early rounds and you've said yourself that you can tell the verdict of a fight by only 3 rounds. Then he fights Mickey Walker and Carnera. All 3 back to back.

Schmeling NEVER did this in his entire career. Sharkey's career from september of 1925-september of 1933 was mostly back to back fights against the best competition in the division! In summary from 1925-1933 Jack Sharkey fought 38 times, 24 of those were top contenders! 8 of those fights were against world champions of at least one weight division. Total record was 28-8-2 for that time period.

No, as I just explained Sharkey's resume blows Schmeling's out of the water. Schmeling has the single best win but Sharkey has the far better consistency in fighting top contenders. Sharkey fought more top 10 ranked heavyweights than times Schmeling even fought heavyweights.

 

I'm not saying that it's likely Max would knock Sharkey out. I'm just saying that assuming one fighter would win based on first three rounds. That's all, don't get too emotional with that. I'm just saying that you give too much credit to Jack for this fight.

As I said, I don't use video as my point. I just posted it here to show that Walker was competitive. Many reports questioned the outcome, Walker definitely impressed a lot of viewers. Schmeling definitely did better against Walker than Sharkey.

My point is that Sharkey lost to past prime Dempsey.

Sharkey was more active, but the difference is not huge. Let's not act like Schmeling didn't fight the best competition throught his prime.

I don't see any argument that shows how much better Sharkey's competition is.

 

Then what evidence do you have that suggests that Sharkey should have lost to Walker? You said he should have lost his title to Walker then proceed to post 9 minutes of the fight. You haven't shown any proof other than your word that Sharkey should have lost to Walker. If 9 minutes is an indication of who should have won then you have to accept that Sharkey would have beat Schmeling.

I thoroughly explained to you why Sharkey's resume is better than Schmeling's. He consistently fought the best opposition available for 8 years and a total of 38 fights. Schmeling never did that. The closest he came was between 1929-1938. He fought only 18 times. 10 fights against top 10 fighters. Going a total of 13-4-1. That's considered inactive compared to even today's fighters. Sharkey fought more than double the amount with even better quality competition. How do you defend that?

 

I didn't say he should have lost, but it was questioned who should have got the nod:
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...esult-in-the-history-of-gloved-boxing.502241/

Anyway, Schmeling did far better than Sharkey against Walker.

It's not, I already said that.

It's true that Sharkey was more active, but activity doesn't always mean superiority. Max had better top wins than Sharkey, while Sharkey had more depth. I prefer quality over quantity personally, it's not like Schmeling has only one good win or something.

 

I'm not going to argue with you over who had the best win over a middleweight. It's like being the tallest midget.

You're implying that Sharkey's quantity of opposition wasn't quality. It was quality. He had both quality and quantity. Schmeling just has the best single win which isn't surprising since he didn't have much ring mileage against top fighters and caught a young Joe Louis on the come up. It was honestly perfect timing to be honest. I still give credit to Schmeling but you can't forget that the second fight wasn't in any way competitive. Louis obliterated Schmeling and that itself gives credence to the idea that his win over Joe Louis wasn't a win over Joe Louis at his best.

 

The problem is that Sharkey was expected to dominate Walker, but he didn't. Instead, he fought a really hard fight that was called a draw. It should be held against Sharkey, when Schmeling dominated Walker.

Second Louis fight didn't mean much, Schmeling was past his prime. This "not at his best" Louis dominated (granted, past his prime) Sharkey. Schmeling was the only one at that time who was good enough to beat Louis. It's probably the best win in dvision history.

I'm not implying lack of quality from Sharkey's opponents, but Schmeling had a bit better best wins overall to me.

Sharkey was a great fighter but he never proved that he could beat someone as good as Louis. He lost against past prime Dempsey, he should have lost to Schmeling in rematch and he lost to Louis. He also lost to other very good fighters, who were not on Louis level. Sure, Schmeling wasn't the best fighter ever either, but I prefer what he showed in his career over what we know about Sharkey.

I don't want to attack Sharkey, his second fight with Max is one of my favorite HW fights to watch. Both were really skilled, both were elite at what they did, both were fine champions. I just prefer Schmeling, although you made some good arguments in favour of Jack.

 

Nobody cares. You're making the crutch of your argument hang on their performances against Mickey Walker, a tough all time great that could make a fighter like Sharkey look bad.

It means alot. If Max could completely dominate Joe Louis then he should have been able to at least give SOME sort of account for himself in the rematch. Instead he literally lost in the worst possible fashion. An utterly one sided first round knockout LOSS.

Best win in division history? Now I'm certain you have on rose colored glasses. I can think of about a dozen better wins. His win is great but not the best.

You said Sharkey has quantity while Schmeling has quality.

If Schmeling was so good that he was able to beat Louis and Sharkey never could have then why did Schmeling lose to Baer, Hamas, and Gypsy Daniels? These fighters couldn't hold a candle to Louis. I'll tell you why because Schmelings win over Louis is nothing more than a great experienced boxer beating an up and coming future atg who hadn't reached his best yet. It was proven when he did reach his best that Schmeling couldn't hold a candle to his ability.

It's fine to prefer one fighter over the other but it's something completely else when you have double standards.

 

You did the same with Baer and Schmeling, at least Baer was a heavyweight. Sharkey put up poor performance against Walker, I think that you at least agree than Schmeling did much better job against him.

As I said, he was past his prime and Louis was highly motivated against him. Their first fight was much closer to Schmeling's prime.

Name dozen better wins than a win against prime Joe Louis, at worst 2nd greatest heavyweight ever.

I said that Sharkey had more quantity, Schmeling had better quality. It's all relative, both of them had quality and quantity relative to worse fighters. They were great champions after all.

Because he fought poor fight against Baer (it happens to better fighters than Schmeling) and he was before his prime against Daniels, who was good and experienced fighter. I don't know much about Hamas loss, but he avenged it in brutal fashion.

Then why Louis beat Baer, Carnera, Uzcudun, Sharkey and Braddock in such a dominant manner in the same period? For some reason, only Schmeling was able to do that.

1939 Schmeling was not prime Schmeling. Come on, Louis was much closer to his best in 1936 than Schmeling in 1939.

I don't have double standards.

 

If I did that you would just continue to go even further off track into meaningless details. I'll say a dozen fights and you'll always have something to say in response. Not gonna waste my time.

You said he was even with Baer until the knockout. Which is it?

He fought Daniels after 4 years as a pro, had 41/70 fights under his belt, and was undefeated for the last 22 fights. If he wasn't prime for the Louis fight (which I agree he wasn't) then you're telling me that he was prime for less than 19 fights of his career. Give me the dates of his prime because according to you it's no earlier than 1929 and no later than 1936. There's no reason his prime should have been that short. He wasn't a busy fighter and he wasn't constantly fighting the best.

Carnera wasn't anywhere near as technically sound as Schmeling. Sharkey, as already explained ad nauseam, was well past his prime when he fought Louis. Uzcudun was well past his prime long before fighting Louis, the fact that you even mention his name is laughable. True rose colored glasses. Braddock hadn't fought in 2 years and wasn't ever in Louis' class at any point. Same with Baer. He could punch but technically he couldn't compete with Louis. That's where Schmeling had the edge.

They never fought in 1939.