Give one attribute that a fighter lacks to made him unbeatable.

The gauntlet of Bugner, Quarry, Ellis, Bonevena? (lol), and an Ali win that was avenged twice over

now put him in with Lewis' record of: Morrison, Tua, Mercer, Tyson, Vitali, Briggs, Grant, Bruno, Ruddock, Gary Mason, Holyfield, Golota. List goes on. Joe is flattened by most. Too big too strong.

 

Honestly number 3 should be in question when he didn't fight 4,5,6 and 7 and was 1-4 against 1 and 2. He beat 8-12 but besides Bugner those guys were smaller and Bugner gave him trouble. Frazier still won but still shows that Frazier did noticeably worse against bigger opponents and this was a real weakness of his.

I agree with you about the superiority of the 70s over the 90s and am not otherwise defending his point he made in post 26. Theres no reason to think Frazier couldn't outperform Tyson. But talking just about the 70s hes bringing up a fair point. Frazier gets elevated above a lot of 70s fighters who could have beaten him because of career timing that makes him a champion with many defenses those guys lack.

 

Theres really 2 types of chins. One that resists going to sleep and the one that keeps you on your feet and is more tied to balance. Louis's former chin was fine the latter was the problem.

Knockdowns not being counted and Louis not letting fights go the distance mostly rendered Louis's weakness irelevant. Louis loses Walcott I with the modern scoring system but you take that weakness away nothing about his career changes. He'd be more formidable in hypotheticals but in terms of fight outcomes everything would be the same.

 

Your casual dismissal of the great Joe Frazier is ridiculous.For a start anybody who knows anything about
boxing would put Joe Bugner on a par,at the very least ,with fellow brits Mason and Bruno.Yep,that Joe Bugner
who was beaten by a past-prime Joe Frazier.Plus, anybody with a reasonable knowledge of the noble art
would make Frazier vs Holyfield a 50/50 fight.
It is perfectly logical to assume that Frazier could at least equal Holyfield's success during the 90s.
You need to do some homework mate.

 

Andrew Golota with poise under pressure.

 

That's funny. Buster Mathis (who Joe Knocked out) could beat about half that list Morrison, Briggs, Grant, Mason, the version of Tyson Lewis beat. He wasn't even one of Fraziee's 5 best wins

 

The fact that you believe Mercer and/or Tua would beat “Frazier tier guys” makes me happy, i.e. knowing there someone out there posting on this forum that knows less about boxing than I do.

 

Who do you consider to be 4, 5, 6, and 7 amongst the heavyweights of the 70's? Because from my count, Frazier beat Ali (#1), Ellis x2 (somewhere under Norton, could possibly be placed #5 considering the win over Quarry, and his real bad losses were past his prime), Quarry x2 (anywhere under Norton, also possibly #5), and then wherever you wanna put guys like Bonavena, Chuvalo, and Bugner. He was from the same stable as Norton, Young was his sparring mate, so he wasn't gonna fight either of those guys, either.

I personally don't think that Frazier was "noticeably worse" against bigger opponents, Ali was 6'3, Mathis was 6'3, and Bugner was 6'4 (who Joe fought while past his prime and still turned inside out...), but he COULD struggle against opponents that could take and give out a good punch. It's why a lesser version of Frazier had struggled against Bonavena, and could get rocked against Machen- And the post FOTC Frazier got handled so easily by Foreman.

I'm not personally making for a case of 70's > 90's, I just thought that the "he was only #3 in his era" was quite dumb. I personally think the best version of Tyson would beat the best version of Frazier.

Who personally do you think Frazier gets unfairly elevated over? Who're the fighters that Joe didn't fight in his era, but could've beaten him? I sure hope you're not saying that you think Lyle or Shavers would've beaten Joe.

 

Norton, Young, Lyle and Shavers are the fighters being alluded to. Among top 15 guys from that era theres also Wepner.

Then theres Terrell from the previous era. No Liston, Terrell,Folley or Cleveland Williams from the 60s. They were all varying degrees of old but Machen and Chuvalo were the least threatening of the group.

I think Frazier beats Shavers most nights even if Shavers was dangerous. I would pick Norton, Jimmy Young and Lyle to beat Frazier.

 

Well for a start Frazier has Jimmy Young for breakfast.Do you really think that the guy who defeats the 1971 version of Muhammad Ali loses to Young. Look,I happen to think that Young was an excellent heavyweight,sadly overlooked in heavyweight history.
However he was levels below the FOTC version of Ali.
I know gym-stories are usually to be taken with a pinch of salt,but when Eddie Futch says a prime Smokin'Joe always got the better of Ken Norton in sparring perhaps it is significant
Remember a peak Norton lasted no longer against Foreman than a past-prime Foreman did.
As well for Ron Lyle , well ok that be a dangerous fight for Joe ( or for anybody ) but if Jerry Quarry could beat Lyle it's a pretty good bet that Smokin'Joe could as well.

 

Crying TROLL! Doesn't cut it anymore, much like how being 5'11 and 215, with a mid-at-best resume will get you very hurt.

 

Uh uh ! No,you still need to do that homework son.That 5' 11'' 215 warrior soundly defeated large,world-class
heavyweights like Buster Mathis and Joe Bugner.
Just take your time and think about this.
Mid-at-best resume ? Beating a near prime Muhammad Ali is a '' mid-at-best '' resume ? For crying out loud !

 

Would being as dedicated as Usyk still get him outboxed by Andrew Golota? He wasn’t himself YES but his IQ was unchanged.

 

Huh? Joe Bugner and Mathis? Where would they be ranked today do you think? How about the 90s - 80s? Neither of those guys were that good, world class yes but in the grand scheme… two paddy cake punchers with not much dog aren’t the best examples of why he’d succeed against other big guys… and Frazier was 205-210lbs at his best - he also trained up in weight…