Lerena is 6-1, 230-35 pounds, he is not the same size as Joe Frazier. Lerena is bigger than any 70s contender other than Mathis (just look at the difference in the lean, strong Lerena and the fat Mathis). If size didn't matter there wouldn't be weight classes and if PEDs didn't help fighters wouldn't take them. JF as he was at his best in the 70s was maybe 5-11, and around 205. Lerena is 6-1, 230-35 with much less body fat than JF was carrying. You can say, "give JF what these guys are taking..." but that's not the question, it is JF as he was vs. Joseph Parker as he is now. Matching them as they were/are, not many would bet on JF.
If a fat Dillian Whyte can be competitive vs Parker, i will take Frazier over Parker any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Let's also not forget a 213 lb Michael Hunter stopping the "moster" in 256 lb Martin Bakole.
If a fat Buster Mattis and medicore Joe Bugner can be competitive with Frazier then I'm sorry I don't think he'd do well against modern HWs
Reassessments of old fighters often provoke this response, and the 70s have a LOT of emotional resonance with people. You should have seen what it was like in the early days of people realizing that superheavyweights should be favored over Marciano...
So what? People can be wrong. Go back a few years when people were saying a 220 lb Usyk was too small for Joshua. The posters on these forums (especially general forum) poster don't exactly have a great track record of predictions.
He was basically asking why people are fighting about the 70s versus the modern period so much. My post was explaining the dynamics. It's true that people are bad at predictions, but that point undermines all of us, equally. For all we know, Young Stribling would KO Ali.
Hi Buddy. You have nether said a truer word re: the 70s, and I am as guilty as the next 65 to 70 year old, there seems to be something about that decade that we will not consider the fact that were better, greater, fighters after then, well I mean we do, but grudgingly, is it the same with posters that " grew " up with fighters of the 60s/80s/90s/00s/ etc, are we full of nostalgia, because we were young, free, and in my case single in the 70s, does that influence our judgement, it shouldn't, but does it, or are we right inso much as, Ali/Foster/Monzon/Napoles/Duran/Olivares/Ohba/ are and will forever be atg, and do we bulk at suggestions their counterparts in the ensuing years could beat them ? this could be Freudian . stay safe ct, chat soon buddy. Mike.
Thanks, Mike. Yeah, I'm sure I'll have similar resistance to admitting the Klitschkos would lose against the generation of heavyweights 20 years from now. The times you grow up really do make a difference. And you're not alone; fans and fighters have been supporting the eras they grew up for a long, long time. I very much agree with you that the 70s were a great era. Not the best head to head, although I think the absolute cream of the crop could compete today. But it was larger than life. All the fights got made. The personalities were huge. There was lots of pageantry. Basically, everything went right in the 70s heavyweight division (except Howard Cosell.) Today, we are starting to see the big fights being made again. And the modern contenders truly are better on average than the 70s guys, IMO. But good grief, it is sterile in terms of pageantry.
Hi Buddy. Nail and head, you are onto something my friend, your not just a pretty face, with your permission I will also say that up till 1969 I had only read about the fighters I mentioned, with the exception of Ali, so to see Napoles, Olivares, etc, was truly mind blowing for a young fight fan like myself, changed my life forever, so yea, as Mary Hopkin said " those were the days... " always look to be educated and informed, when your name lights up my PC, no argument. stay safe buddy, chat soon. Mike.