Joe Frazier (FOTC version) vs Lennox Lewis (late 90s)

Quarry was indeed average boxer of level of Botha, Bugner etc. He had very good chin and huge heart but thats all.

 

Frazier got hit "A LOT" in the first five rounds against Ali because he was fighting Ali. Ali may not have had great "concussive force" in his punches, but they were a heck of a lot quicker, more frequent and harder to avoid than Lewis'. Being hit frequently by Ali hardly shows that you will be by Lewis.
A peak Frazier was quicker, sharper, harder to hit, and presumably would have stood up to punishment better than the Frazier who got blasted by Foreman, a fighter who, in my opinion, hit harder, had a considerably bigger array of power punches, was busier and more aggressive, and was more durable(allowing him to fearlessly take more risks) than Lewis.

 

Just because Lewis is bigger than Frazier does not mean he is stronger.

I dont believe Lewis to be a harder hitter than Foreman.

Whenever did Lewis show he could land so many clean, varied power punches over the course of two rounds as Foreman did against Frazier? I dont believe Lewis has the stamina to land so many sustained blows.

It is worth pointing out Frazier was still getting up at the end of the onslaught from Foreman. The guy never gave in, he was incredibly tough. I dont think Lewis could stop him, even on his very best night.

For me, Frazier loses the first 2 rounds against Lewis but builds gradual momentum, stopping Lewis around 9 or 10. We know Lewis could be stopped, although we never saw his response to a sustained battering, because he responded so badly to stiff single shots.

The debate on Lewis' actual prime is very telling. I have often thought that (unlike other ATGs) there is no 3 year phase in his career that looks particularly great, although he certainly gets marks for overall longevity.

On the other hand, Frazier was wonderful between '68 and '71, and very good before and after that.

 

Frazier was easy catched and KD by Bonavena, who had 1/3 of Lewis or Foreman power. Additionally Foreman and Lewis loved the guys who coming low, cause uppercuts matter and physical advantage. So it is doesnt matter if Frazier is on peak or not, both against LL and GF.

 

It wasn't just Ali who hit him plenty early on. Every good fighter did.
And if Ali can land plenty then Lewis can surely land some. I'm not talking about 40 punches a round like Ali but still a lot. Lewis was no slouch either. His punching power is a few categories higher than Ali's and his uppercut was outstanding. He'd take Frazier apart with it, in my opinion. After landing some he'll tie Frazier up on the inside, not giving Frazier a chance to work in his favorite space, like Ali did in their second meeting.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: i don't think any boxer in heavyweight history that does not punch extraordinairy hard can beat Frazier over 15, including a prime Ali, Holmes, Johnson or whoever. But fact is that Frazier got nailed plenty early on and while he can take a shitload of accumulative punishment without his game being affected much, he can't take those heavyhanded powershots from Foreman and i don't think he'll take Lewis', who are much sharper and faster.

 

If you knew something about Patterson's style, you'd know he was too old to be as effective anymore. His style (and Tyson's) was well-suited for a young man, similar to how swarmer is only good while he's young, after 30 he's getting worse quick.

I prefer to call the things what they truly are, instead of wearing pink glasses of historical revisionism.

Being a top 10 contender means absolutely nothing to me. If you actually look through ring ratings, you would see hundreds of names that are long forgotten, because they weren't good enough to achieve anything, other than short-lived top 10 ranking.
And if you looked up fight descriptions, you'd see plenty of fighters who "gave history's best fighters trouble", that means absolutely nothing either, sorry. Even the best fighters have bad matchups (such as Ali had against mediocre Norton) or bad days. We certainly have different definitions of what a "good fighter" is. The mediocrity of that heavyweight division was very well discussed in the press when that "tournament" was held.

Spoken like a man who's seen plenty of much more skillful and clever boxers than the mediocrity of Quarry's & Co.

Do you want to call every alphabet title (things like WBF, IBO, IBA, etc) world championship title too? Will do anything to cover up one's ignorance and just repeat what George Foreman said, who was well known for speaking silly things all the time. If I wanted, I could name half a hundred fighters from different weights, who never held a world champion title and still were better than Quarry.

Want to start a poll, or do you have some historians you are familiar with and who we can ask their opinion about this matchup? I can offer to ask Tracy Callis of what he thinks.

Ripped out of context.

Distorted quote. Why don't you repeat what I said exactly?

That was never a real title to most historians. There was only one true world champion back then.

Ignorance of styles specifics.

 

We ain't speaking about "most" heavyweights, we are speaking about Patterson in particular. Floyd was old and has lost a lot of effectiveness of his style due to age and injuries. A win over that Patterson means A LOT less than a win over younger healthy one (such as Liston's two wins over him, or even Johansson's).

I already gave here a list of "worst heavyweight champions" from the Ring dated May 1981, which is more or less contemporary source.
John Tate (WBA, 1979-80) 19.5
Primo Carnera (1933-34) 14
Marvin Hart (1905-06) 8
Leon Spinks (1978) 8
Ken Norton (WBC, 1978) 4
Ingemar Johansson (1959-60) 3.5
Jimmy Ellis (WBA, 1968-70) 2
Ernie Terrell (WBA, 1965-67) 1
Jess Willard (1915-19) 1

It's only when the Ali histeria reached it's top that those mediocrities started to get praised as very good or even great fighters.

David Tua was an even harder puncher than Shavers, and with better defense, chin and stamina, and unlike Shavers, actually has some good wins. Does anybody here claim he is more than mediocre contender?

Oliver McCall has a more solid chin than Chuvalo, and better skills, does anybody here claims he's more than an accidental champion and a mediocre contender the rest of the time?

John Ruiz beat plenty of rated contenders and titlists, and had Holyfield on the deck in the 2nd fight. Does he get any praise here, even though he was a better and much more successful heavyweight than Lyle?

See above "rankings".

Teddy Brenner, tha matchmaker at Madison Square Garden:
"The W.B.A. elimination tournament was a total success. It eliminated all eight fighters."
It's funny when people claim the win over Ellis, for example, was good, when Frazier was 4-to-1 favorite to the winner of the "tournament" and rightfully so, as it was a useless mismatch.

When you have certain quantity of better fighters than the one you are comparing them to, that fighter becomes a mediocrity.

Such as? Which of them considered Jack Johnson a false champ, and Langford the true one?

The most over-rated heavyweight epoch would be a better name. And Quarry didn't achieve anything much in it.

That's why he's an object of jokes everywhere for his work as a commentator? Compared to many other former or active boxers who tried this role, Foreman sounds stupid a lot of time with his comments.

Let's see, who's trying to cover up his mistakes here. From a previous post today:

Anybody sees word 'heavyweight' here?

Do you understand the difference between conditional sentences and simple sentences?
"If B, then A" and "Is A".

 

Yeah, they are particularly good at avoiding giving any actual evidence, other than general words and personal accusations, and the refusal to admit own mistakes.

 

Lennox Lewis is a great fighter. He didn't have an iron chin but it was reliable. Having said that, I pick Frazier to win via KO. Frazier is just too good, too busy, and too relentless. I'll edit this and elaborate more on it later. I just see Frazier getting past Lewis' jab, smashing the body repeatedly to wear Lewis, and then in the later rounds he starts nailing him. One advantage to Lewis is that he was a smart fighter and he knew that Joe Frazier was only 1.5 handed as he was blind on one eye.

 

PRE FOTC Joe Frazier(1966-1969) would KO Lennox Lewis inside 7 rounds. This version of Frazier probably gets knocked down early in the fight, but Lewis wouldn't have been able to handle this Fraziers' pressure, head movement, and body attack. Joe was probably at his absolute best and would give every heavweight in history a very tough fight.

FOTC Joe Frazier(1971) would probably KO Lewis inside 10 rounds. This version of Frazier who fought Ali was near his best, but his vision and blood pressure problems were starting to become an issue. The man was apparently holding out of cataract surgery so he could fight. Lennox is no Ali and if Frazier doesn't knock him out, Frazier wins via unanimous decision.

Kingston Jamaica Joe Frazier(1973) would get KO'ed by Lennox probably in 7rounds or less, kinda like his fight against Tyson. Lewis wouldn't destroy this version of Frazier the same way Foreman did because he lacks the ferocity. Still, this is probably the most beatable version of Frazier for most heavyweights. Frazier was far off his prime weight, out of shape and was considerably slower and weaker, especially vs Foreman.

Manilla Frazier(1975) would probably KO Lennox late in the fight, unless Frazier gets stopped himself. Lewis had more power than Ali but significantly les mobility. He would be an easier target for Frazier to hit, but he wouldn't be as tough an opponent as Ali was in 1975.