Frazier-Marciano

Marciano for me.

A better two-handed puncher - Threw more consistently full forced punches than any heavyweight I can think of.

He has the better chin, and is the more patient and better conditioned of the two - With Frazier walking into him and eating his monstrous power, a la Foreman, I can only see Frazier getting stopped in the midrounds on this one.

 

I would favour Frazier think he would be coming forward more and putting Marciano on the back foot more often while landing the more accurate punches. Frazier via late TKO(cut) while being slightly ahead on the score cards.

 

I slightly favour Marciano for the following reasons.

1. Two hands
2. Two eyes
3. Slightly betther chin
4. Fraziers main vulnerability was to a right hand which was Marciano's forte

Having said this I am not risking any money.

 

Did Frazier have a problem with his eye? I agree with what you said. The interesting part about this match is, Frazier would far and away be the best puncher Marciano faced.

 

My understanding is that he was almost blind in one eye, certainly by the end of his career.

Makes you wonder what he could have done with two good eyes.

 

Nobody doubts that but would he actualy win?

 

Win or lose, both will be damage goods after the fight.

 

You are probably right.

 

Tyson.

None.

:wtf

 

I love both guys in there prime, both were fierce and determaned wariors, I think the difference is Marciano had both hands and was hard to hurt, I seen him stunned but never hurt

 

I think Frazier would win a tough fight, clearly. I certainly wouldn't bet on Marciano being stopped, though I think a Frazier UD is the best choice here.

You know, it's strange when it comes to frazier threads, because he is almost always underrated. It's like Carlos Monzon. You can pick faults in both guys, and whilst they are correct, both were almost unbeatable despite those faults. Are things like "Monzon was unspectacular" and "Frazier was one handed" true reasons to pick other opponents to beat them, when both men proved time and time again that despite those weaknesses they were both elite fighters? I don't think so.

I wonder how much these faults would really affect the outcome.

What is more important is speed and defence. Frazier avoided and blocked shots better, even against lightning quick fighters like Ali. Marciano was slow, had a good defence but threw a ton of shots. Frazier was fast threw a ton of shots had a great defence, so the logic would suggest Frazier would outland Marciano.

I think that's right. Out of ten times, I'd go with Marciano maybe three times. The rest would be either TKO (cuts) or point wins for Frazier.

Head to head, I think Frazier does better against more elite opponents too.

 

When Frazier had such a "great" defense, why did the slower than Marciano and wild-swinging Foreman TKO him twice that early and without any problems? Don´t answer now with things like "Foreman would always be the nightmare for Smokin Joe"...

 

Frazier was shot by the first Foreman fight. Out of shape, badly damamged by the first Ali fight and other tough bouts throughout his career.

Whenever we get a "prime for prime" matchup involving Frazier, people mention the Foreman fight, which goes directly against the idea of "prime".

The Frazier of the late '60's was a much better defensive fighter than the one who fought Foreman. Quicker reflexes, better chin, better blocking, and better movement.