Frazier won FOTC now defends title against Usyk for HW ATG No.1 ('71)

Well put.

For me, this is a bit of a no-brainer. Usyk is exceptional in the context of today's talent pool but, while he'd still likely be a player in the '70s - he wouldn't be exceptional, in my opinion.

Like you, I don't see the firepower to hold off an aggressive swarmer or even the more aggressive boxer-puncher types - and I simply dismiss the size argument. Usyk is no giant.

But he might be able to eke out a few useful results over the course.

 

There's no evidence that he would be able to beat a good fighter who's the same size as Foreman considering the only time he fought one he lost badly.
There's plenty his size, his movement, his southpaw stance Frazier has never fought someone who has Usyk's combination of style and size

Sure but we're not comparing their resumes we're comparing their skills and Usyk has demonstrated skills on par with any ATG. And I gave a rationale Frazier relies on being able to physically bully his opponents to win fights. When he couldn't he looked hopeless (Foreman) based on the fact Usyk constantly fights bigger fighters and they are not able to bully him (and in some cases he was able to physically bully them) I don't see how a smaller lighter heavyweight is going to be able to bully him.

 

Usyk has shown the ability to fight at an incredibe pace throwing 800, 900+ punches in 12 round fights. He is capable of bating Frazier by simply outworking him if he has to one should think. Why can't he simply beat Frazier in the trenches?

 

Two notable pressure fighters Usyk fought were Breidis and Chisora and he struggled in both fights, he's never met anyone on the level of Frazier so you're assuming he can deal with an ATG pressure fighter with no real evidence of it TBH.

And why would Usyk be able to beat Frazier in the trenches explain ? there is no way Usyk would be able exchange punches with Frazier and come out on top.

 

His punches aren't going to do much except get Frazier smokin' even more, Frazier was knocked down 6 times by Foreman and would have kept coming had it been 12 knockdowns

The difference between Foreman and Usyk is that one of them is regarded as one of if not the hardest punchers in the history of the sport with an 89% ko rate over 76 fights

Frazier has a 72% ko rate, with Usyk coming in at 66%

There are levels, Usyk is skilled but he's just not it, his swan song and alleged goat status is a potential win over what many consider to be one of the biggest abominations the sport has ever seen

 

I’m not sure that Usyk would be the appropriate challenger to determine #1 greatest of all time. And if Frazier defeated him and retired around 28-0 it would be questionable if even HE would be the GOAT with under 30 fights

 

He's bigger than Foreman was against frazier

 

Usyk has a lot to prove with regards to how he handles body shots if I’m gonna favour him to beat Frazier. I think he certainly has the tools, and is better than FOTC Ali who was actually quite rusty and looked like **** and sluggish against Bonavena and Quarry prior to Frazier.

That being said, I can’t get the glass body meme out of my head. I feel like Joe gets to him eventually.

 

What does Usyk have in common with Foreman?

Usyk isn't the same size as Foreman.
Usyk doesn't punch as hard as Foreman
Usyk doesn't have the style of Foreman
Usyk isn't as physical as Foreman
Usyk isn't as strong as Foreman

Your counterpoint holds zero merit.

The weight of evidence favors Frazier.

How much of a meaningful size difference, if there is any at all, do you think there is between Usyk and Ali?

Frazier coped with the greatest of all time - a 6' 3", 215lb Heavyweight with a 78" wingspan - a far superior fighter than Usyk, to boot.

The weight of evidence most definitely favors Frazier.

No. You categorically stated the following:

I have quite reasonably asked you to provide me with an example of when Usyk did to any of his opponents what Foreman did to Frazier. It's not comparing resume. It's me asking you to back up your statement with facts.

Can you?

Looks like you can't.

You then go on, in the same post, to state the following:

What do either of the above statements have to do with skills? Nothing.

They focus specifically on size and power. Usyk is not a particularly big modern heavyweight and he doesn't carry significant power. He didn't carry much power at Cruiserweight, either.

Your focus on a size difference - whatever that might be - without being able to sensibly articulate why it matters in real terms is next to useless. And I discount your pathetic goalpost shift to incorporate the idea that Frazier relies on physically bullying his opponents to win - That is a two-bit analysis which might as well say: "Boxer X relies on landing more punches on Boxer Y to win fights".

Do better.

 

I'm a fan of Usyk but I think Frazier would be an extremely hard opponent for him.

Styles make fights.

Usyk is not taller than Ali, he's not quicker than Ali and, let's say it as it is, Ali hit harder than Usyk.
Usyk is a great boxer who likes to box, he wouldn't push Frazier or try to get him out. That style of opponent suits Frazier well.
On the other hand, Usyk is southpaw and that could be a technical problem for Smokin Joe.

I can't see an easy win on any side here. It would be a hard and long fight for both, extremely competitive for sure.

 

Very balanced view from a Usyk fan props to you.

 

People seem to forget that size is relative Foreman was considered huge in the 70s but today he would be an average heavyweight
He's the same size as Foreman......
He punches harder then Ali and Ali was able to stun Frazier several times
We also don't know if he's as strong as Foreman but if he's strong enough to not be bullied by Joshua and Dubois who are both way bigger and stronger then Frazier I don't see how a small heavyweight will be able to bully Usyk.
If anything the weight of evidence favors Usyk

Usyk is physically bigger then Ali while being able to move just as well and his defense is way better then Ali's who got constantly hit by Frazier left hook. And if the second Ali fight is a good indicator Frazier can be outboxed and even hurt by a good outboxer so I don't see why Usyk can't replicate that performance considering he moves just as well while having tighter defense.

He walked down Bellow and Huck pretty effectively as well as walking down Hunter in their fight which honestly should have been a finish all around the same size as Frazier he was also walking down Joshua who is much larger then Frazier in the last round of their fight. If he has his opponent on the ropes he knows how to walk them down and end a fight.

He's not large in today's era but again size is relative in the 70s he would be a big heavyweight as both Ali and Foreman were and he's about the same size as Foreman. He carries plenty of power especially in heavyweight where has hurt every opponent he has faced so far all of them much bigger then him.
Do you think that size doesn't matter? I guess weight classes aren't a thing either right? There's a reason the saying that a good bigger fighter always beats a smaller good fighter is a thing. It seems you're too overtaken with narratives and are incapable of objectively assessing older fighters and how they compare to modern ones. But keep yapping old man

 

I don't think Ali hits harder then Usyk and Usyk defense is much better then Ali's he doesn't leave himself open for left hooks like Ali constantly did. Nor does he lay on the ropes letting someone pound on him

 

What does this^ have to do with anything we're discussing here? It's a pointless comment.

He isn't but it's academic anyway.

Several times? In the FOTC? I don't think so. Once in Ali/Frazier II, if memory serves.

And, how would you know that Usyk hits harder than Ali? How much harder, do you think? (These are rhetorical questions, by the way)

And while I very much doubt that he does, what does it matter, when we know a past-peak Frazier took the kitchen sink from Foreman and was eventually stopped on his feet still wanting to continue? (Another rhetorical question)

Again, you use a subjective viewpoint and irrelevant references to imply Usyk is somehow superior without any hard evidence in support.

Do the words 'tactics' and 'styles' mean anything to you? (Again, rhetorical)

Why? Because Usyk survived bigger fighters who used poor strategies and had considerably less skill than Frazier? Because you want to pretend that Frazier didn't beat a much better fighter than Usyk, in Ali?

The only evidence that seems to be mounting here is that you're either trolling or that you have genuine issues with putting together a rationale.

You just can't answer the question put to you, can you?

The second Ali/Frazier fight took place 3 years later. It's hardly relevant to this thread.

Repeating the statement that Usyk moves just as well as Ali doesn't make it so. We have both fighters on film and it seems fairly clearly where the differences in fluidity and agility lie.

There's no comparison between your examples and what Foreman did to Frazier. And, attempting to walk down Frazier would probably play right into Frazier's hands.

More obfuscation and deflection...

Not one part of anything you have put to me during this exchange has been objective, so you're in no position to credibly criticize my objectivity. All you have put forward are sweeping statements of opinion, irrelevant comparisons, inaccurate interpretations of the action from fights past and unintelligent questions.

In short you appear to be an RBG (Random Bull**** Generator) and I have little time for Random BS.

But a tip for the future. If you're going to charge someone with being overtaken by "narratives" it's probably best not to precede that charge with an idiom in support of your own trite point of view.

Have a good evening.

 

Thanks for the breath of fresh air fair take.