Sure - but this is superseded by what I referred to as 'Frazier [beating] a better class of opposition'. Comparatively, Marciano doesn't do as well as Frazier, in terms of the quality of his opponents. I didn't "throw out" the losses. They were clearly considered. How about other factors, like those I mention in favor of Frazier, which collectively make his case?
Does it, though? Frazier was no less than the third best man in what's essentially the unequivocal apex of the Heavyweight division. Marciano being number one in a much, much weaker division shouldn't overrule that. It's obviously just speculation as to whether Marciano would do better in Frazier's shoes (or vice versa, for that matter), but that's where you need to find a balance of what's more impressive. Maybe Marciano's placement as the number one of his time is more impressive, but definitely not so much so that it's 'a pretty heavy factor in his favour'. And let's be completely honest here, Marciano wasn't the number one of his time by a large distance. Charles and Walcott were both way past their prime, and would accomplish jack**** after their fights with Rocky, and yet they both gave him extremely hard fights and had they been prime, could have beaten him. Again, that's just speculation of course, but it's just to point out that Marciano wasn't head and shoulders above the men in his own era. A large quantity of other factors. It's actually quite an embarrassing comparison, given who they were losing to and who they beat.
Pretty cut and dry answer for me. Marciano had the greater career but frazier is better h2h It's odd seeing some people picking Frazier, when some of the top 10 hw lists I've seen from them have Marciano as higher
The only thing Frazier has in his favor is the best top win. That hardly seems enough to counter Marciano being the best of his day and his undefeated record.
Unequivocal apex according to who? Many people feel the heavyweights of that era are overrated and would lose to heavies of later eras. Today Frazier would be at a huge size disadvantage. Do we dock Frazier legacy wise because the heavyweights of his era were undersized and probably too small to compete in later eras? There are a number of heavyweights of later eras who accomplished less than Frazier but who many would pick to beat him head to head.
Most people? That's a minority rather than a majority. Most people take the view that you should look at it on a case by case basis. No more points than you should take away from Marciano... Speaking of which, are you actually going to respond to my points or are just gonna leave it here with some random ****?
The only point you have made in favor of Frazier is having the better top win. But aside from that his resume of wins is not terribly impressive. Ken Norton also beat Ali. Is he ahead of Marciano as well,?
If you can read properly, you'd know I've made many more points than that in this very thread. And if you take away Marciano's best win, it's not terribly impressive either.
If we take away his win over Walcott his resume is probably at least comparable to Frazier's minus Ali and he is undefeated whereas Frazier is not Also the eras argument could easily be turned against Frazier.
Frazier without Ali literally only lost to a prime George Foreman, someone who would the exact same to Marciano in the opinion of basically anyone. And I'd take prime Quarry and Bonavena over old Charles and Moore. Hell, I'd probably take Foster over those two. Layne was no better than Chuvalo, and LaStarza was no better than Ellis. With or without their best wins, Frazier's résumé is better than Marciano's. That's why I said it's what you prefer. And no matter how you slice it, the era thing doesn't make a big difference.
That isn't the only thing in Frazier's favor, though, as I've already pointed out. When you take Frazier's and Marciano's ledgers into respective context, Frazier's is better, if only for the fact that, on balance, he was beating better fighters in their prime. Marciano has, of course, solid names on his ledger, but it can't be denied that he caught a few of these at the right time, in terms of the stage they were at, in their careers. For Joe Frazier... ...a Prime Ali; Prime Ellis; Prime Quarry; Prime Bonavena; Prime Chuvalo; and Eddie Machen are collectively greater than... ...Marciano's Old Louis; a Past-Prime Charles; an Old Walcott; an Old Moore; Layne; and LaStarza. Nine successful defenses for Frazier is more than the six successful defenses for Marciano. That one of Frazier's successful defenses was against an undefeated Ali, which established him as, without doubt, the greatest heavyweight on the planet at that point, is just icing on an already sweet cake.
There wasn't a George Foreman in Marcianos era so how is the outcome of a hypothetical fight relevant legacy wise. Do we rate Frazier on his numerous losses to fighters from later eras? By that logic why not rate Povetkin ahead of Frazier? His only prime loss is to a guy who would have smashed Frazier
I'm not sure why you have quoted me in this, your latest post, above^^. Your response does not address any points I have made.
If one man is losing to someone who basically everyone deems better than both, while past his prime, I fail to see how that matters. If you include the Ali fights, then he has a win better than any of Marciano's, and a résumé better outside of that. If you include the Foreman fights, then you have a guy who's better than both who smashed Frazier, and would smash Marciano. If you wanna downgrade Frazier for losing, fair enough, that's why this is close, but the arguments you originally made (the ones which I was replying to in the first place) weren't this. You don't seem to be capable of grasping the fact that multiple factors add up to make a fighter greater. The fact Povetkin lost to Wlad, and the fact that Frazier lost to Foreman, means nothing here. Frazier has a better résumé than Pov, and was third best in a much better era. It's another embarrassingly flimsy comparison.
Fraziers resume consists of guys who would be cruiserweights by today's standards. Not really a great resume by the standards of today's heavyweight division If were going H2H than neither Frazier or Marciano probably make the top 25 both too small and not durable enough
