I'll give you Frazier, he certainly awsn't a very good athlete, but he was still in good shape when he was in his peak. Marciano certainly was always in good shape though. There's no doubt about that. Same with Bowe. Bowe of the Holyfield fight was in top shape. How can you say Holmes had a feminine shape. To me, thats bull****. http://www.thesweetscience.com/images/15434/Larry Holmes vs Ken Norton.jpg
It's a response to someone who was denigrating Jess Willard because he didn't look like Superman. My point is to illustrate that many great heavies haven't looked like Adonis yet were great fighters and in turn, great athletes. Don't believe the eye test. It's gay.
:good FOREMAN WAS ABSOLUTELY SUPERIOR TO WILLARD. BETTER BOXER, BETTER JAB,STRONGER,HARDER PUNCHER,HE HAD BETTER CHIN. WILLARD WAS JUST TALLER. BUT JOE FRAZIER WAS BETTER THAN JACK DEMPSEY, MORE COMPACT,STRONGER AND HEAVIER. HE WAS BETTER PRESSURING, HE HAD MORE STAMINA AND MORE HEART
If Bentonmade that comment he must have said it befoe the 80's ... Frazier was an Adonis compared to the Tubbs/Page/Witherspoon gang ..if cuts made champs , Tom Sharkey, Cleveland Willams and Ken Norton would have been all time greats ..
dont really know about stronger...by all reports dempsey was strong.... he was heavier..but it was basically fat..if you actually look at the tale of the tape on the guys....dempsey is the biger man. more heart? i dont know? how do we decide that....its not like dempsey was tyson who quit in fights or anything... more stainma....ummmm.... he was "better" at pressuring in the sense that he did it all the time..becasue that is al he could do. Dempsey was able to stay back and take a look at who he was fighting.... i will say foreman is definitly better then willard in most every way..maybe not jab though..young foreman didnt really use his jab all that well.
No, people are not. If the post intrigues you, read back in the thread to find the context and what it was referring to. Sorry to be a ***** but it would save a lot of misunderstanding.