Joe Frazier All-Time HW Rating

He has the highest quality HW win of all time, and while Ramos had a pretty crap record Frazier made him quit and that's not an easy thing to bring a Mexican fighter to do, a lot of pride and on a big stage

 

This content is protected

On this ATG list, Frazier is seventh, and that's quite realistic.
The list was created by members of this forum; it also lists which members they are.
Well the ATG list changes over time. Because some things take time to show. Lewis wasn't ATG HW fourth, or even third immediately after he finished his career.
My guess is that if a survey like this were done again - Wlad would be in the Top 10. The only thing that is not clear to me are the four people who voted here that Frazier is the GOAT - that is so far from reality.

 

I have him 5th , so top 5

 

I rate the boxers in my list for their career achievements, legacy and dominance over the competition they faced.
So, here is my list and it is flexible and can be changed but in general will look something like that:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Larry Holmes
6. Jack Johnson
7. Wladimir Klitschko
8. James J. Jeffries
9. George Foreman
10. Oleksandr Usyk
11. Evander Holyfield
12. Mike Tyson
13. Sonny Liston
14. Jack Dempsey
15. John L. Sullivan
16. Ezzard Charles (even as a heavyweight I placed him above Frazier)
17. Sam Langford
18. Joe Frazier
    
19. Vitali Klitschko
20. Jersey Joe Walcott

Depending on how much you value the victory over Ali and how low you rate old eras, you can place Frazier higher or lower but I really can't see him in top 10. Maybe top 15 at best but really don't have a place in top 10. So, after I thought more carefully I placed him 18th instead of 17th.

 

Thats a fun way to look at it but a bit self explanatory already. The fascination however and the reason sites like Forum 24 exists is to compare fighters of different eras head to head. This has thrilled fans and led to spirited debate for many decades in barber shops at family barbecues and Wednesday nite poker etc..

 

The problem with head-to-head comparisons across different eras is that people often imagine modern fighters like Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield stepping into the 1900s exactly as they were at their physical peak. That isn't a fair comparison.

If a modern boxer were raised and trained under the conditions of the early 1900s, he wouldn't have access to modern sports science, nutrition, strength and conditioning programs, recovery methods, or even the same medical care. He would almost certainly be smaller, less muscular, and not in the same physical condition we associate with him today.

Take Tyson Fury as an example. If he had been born and trained in the 1900s instead of the modern era, he would probably have looked even less athletic than the least fit version of Fury we've seen today. The same applies to virtually every modern heavyweight.

That's why head-to-head comparisons between fighters from different eras are so difficult. To compare them fairly, we have to account for the vastly different training methods, nutrition, and overall conditions under which they developed.

So, if we compare fighters from different eras, we had better asked the question would the worst, slowest, least athletic version of Mike Tyson would beat the best version of Jack Johnson? This would be a more fair comparison because there is no way Tyson to look in the 1900s as good as he was in the 1980s. Most likely Tyson in his peak in the 1900s would have looked little bit worse than in the Kevin McBride fight.

 

I agree, particularly when you consider that "modern sports science" includes Performance Enhancing Drugs. I suspect many posters have little idea the extent to which they enhance performance.

 

Alright here goes: Ranking fighters on a head to head basis I have only have 5 fighters I think Joe does poorly against at his best.
#1 George Foreman,,enough said
#2 Sonny Liston,, Sonny is all wrong for Frazier
#3 Mike Tyson,, he'd get to Joe early and have to drop him a half a dozen times, but he would.
#4 Joe Louis, his combo punches would bust Joe up, but he'd pay the price
#5 Ali, But remember , Frazier whipped his azz in the greatest fight of all time
There are other good fighters who'd give Joe trouble ,Holmes, Lennox and Wlad but unlike Ali, they never
had anything in front of them like Smokin Joe Frazier for 15 rounds.

 

I can find room for him in m top 10. He beat better opposition than Louis and Marciano. H2H I favor him over Rocky and it's a toss up with Louis.

 

10 or thereabouts.
If George Foreman hadn't existed then maybe a little higher.

 

10-12 depending on the day. One of my all time favorites, would have been great at cruiser too. FOTC is probably my favorite singular accomplishment in boxing for anyone's resume. Tenacious, heart of a lion, and better than we saw due to physical limitations from injury. He was truly an amazing fighter. When it comes to pure style and substance, few can match Joe Frazier. He is one of the most unique boxers ever and he managed to ply his craft in the most competitive heavyweight landscape ever. Huge respect for Frazier and I don't mind people having him as high as 5-6, but I personally have him around 11.

 

No way.

 

Yes way only Ali, Louis, Holmes and Foreman are definitively ahead of the smoking one

 

I can live with any ranking where Smoke is placed between 5 - 10.

Anything lower or higher and we have a problem.