Has time been unkind to Smokin' Joe?

Excellent, very astute post.

You have definitely got Frazier's role in the heavyweight division back then pegged extremely well. You must have been there.

Interesting that Frazier's performances in the Ali trilogy surely boost his actual resume, but at the same time work against him because, as you point out, only the fights won by Ali gets heavy play by ESPN, especially the Manila fight.

So very, very unfair to the true great Joe Frazier, but as you say, Ali is the media darling of all-time.

Oh,well.

 

Well, no one is claiming that Frazier is a top3 heavyweight of all time, but it seems you do hold him to that standard. Plenty of fighters that usually rank in the top10 of all time miss out on some fights.

It should be noted that Martin wasn't that great a puncher; that's just what Liston fans make him out to be.

Frazier's run after FOTC was unimpressive indeed; Stander and Daniels should not have been in the ring with him.


That said, you have to consider circumstances and timeline here.

Norton was nothing but a KO win on Garcia's record until he upset an underprepared Ali. Then they had the rematch in 73 and he got destroyed in merely 2 rounds by Foreman that same year.

So, i don't think it's valid criticism to say Frazier should've fought him before 74. After FOTC, Frazier fought only twice a year and seemed to be focused on other things than boxing. Of course that counts against his legacy, but if you look at the fighters he faced after Foreman: Bugner (ranked #5), Ali (ranked #1), Quarry (ranked #7), Ellis (unranked), Ali (champion), Foreman (#1 contender), then retirement.

So out of his 6 opponents after losing the title, only one of them was against an unranked opponent! That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Would you have been more satisfied if Lyle, Shavers (who dropped out of the rankings every year because he couldn't fight for any period without getting knocked out by someone) instead of #1 contenders or even champions?

I think Frazier should be criticed for the lacklustre reign between '71 and '73, but i don't think you can name many champions who fought 5 out of 6 of their last fights against top ranked contenders or champions; while being notably past their best themselves but only losing to the top guys in Foreman and Ali, the latter in close fashions as well.

Well his resume isn't a perfect one, but as i said.... look at the top10. How many holes can you pick in Holmes' resume? Thomas, Dokes, Page, Coetzee, Norton rematch, Witherspoon rematch, Williams rematch.... some of those should've been realised but none of them were. Liston beat most of the top guys between 59 and 63, but between or after that he did very little. Did Liston fight 80% of his fights after losing the title against top ranked contenders but still get a lot of criticism for not facing a few punchers in the late 60's? How long was Tyson's reign? How consistant was Holyfield?

 

The title of the thread is History unkind to Frazier? I would say no,I put him in 9th or 10th position all time champs.We are examining his reign to determine where he ranks are we not?We can get around to the others as and when.Liston was old when he lost to Ali and even older when he made his comeback fights after the Lewiston debacle ,top guys didnt want him ,too much risk for litte reward.How long was Tyson's reign? Considerably longer than Frazier'sTyson won the title from Berbick in Nov 86 and made 9 defences against ranked challengers before losing to Douglas in 90.Frazier won the tile in 71in FOTC,he made 2 defences against unranked challengers before being kod by Foreman in Jan 73 thats a reign of less than 3 years ,during which time he met no contenders.How consistant was Holyfield?
A case can easily be made for him being the most consistant heavy of all time,he was rated in the top 10 in 87,88,89,90,91,92 93,95,96,97,98,99,2000,2001,2002,being unranked only in 94,no one has come close to that for consistantcy.
Ive said Joe would probably have beaten most if not all of those names mentioned ,cetainly the idea that he personally ducked them is hard to beleive,but Durham was a clever pilot of Joe and ,thats a lot of coincidental evidence to just dismiss imo.End of the day the absence of those names on his resume ,and the fact that instead we have Stander and Daniels hurts his legacy ,I cant put him above Marciano in my top 10,so he is no 10 and being that he rates above Tyson at 11 I think I have been kind to him.

 

That's interesting. You dont recognize Frazier as champion until he beats Ali, but you recognize Tyson from his win over Berbick.

 

If you want to say Frazier was champ after beating Ellis ,ok , that was in Feb 70,thats a reign of 2 years 11 months a title defence against unranked Bob Foster gets included is that ok? Or do you want to go back to the Mathis fight where NY and outer Mongolia recognised the fight ,Mathis too was unranked by the way.So 3 title defences in 2 years 11 months against unranked challengers,satisfied with that?

 

I dont really mind.
I think Ellis-Frazier was recognized unanimously as for the championship at the time, as Ali had announced his retirement that month so the two could contest his championship. Obviously when Ali gained a boxing licence later that year he called himself the champion still, and not without good reason (which again kind of cancels out any excuses he might use for not having enough tune-ups).
When Frazier beat Mathis the NY commision had a history of recognizing "world champion" and some had historical credibility, also there was some confusion over who was champion, due to Ali's expulsion. Of course, Ellis's WBA title was based on a more credible series of matches, and Ali was still recognized as champion by many. Frazier's claim was weak.

When Tyson beat Berbick it he was just one of three men recognized as "world champion". When he beat Smith there were two men recognized as champion (him and Spinks), with a third "title" vacant (IBF). Then on the night he beat Thomas there was THREE again (with the IBF calling Tucker champion). Then when he beat Tucker there were two again. Then when he beat Spinks that was when it was unanimously recognized.

Deciphering the political shennigans and disputes, it seems fair to say Frazier-Ali or Frazier-Ellis.
But the equivalent in Tyson's career perhaps ought to be Tyson-Spinks or Tyson-Tucker.

That's just my take.

 

Seems as good as anyones.

 

Frazier has the single greatest win in HW history and Schemling has the second but somehow both seem to get pushed to the side a bit.

 

Wll if you think Farzier beats Ali prime for prime and Schmeling beats luois prime for prime I would agree but boxing is rarely that simple is it?Pontious is a big fan of Fraziers ,but I dont think he would put Joe in his top 3,however significant his win over Ali.

 

As McVey I compare Joe's record to top 5 standard to answer the question of the thread, and my answer is no. I have him at 8 personally, and I think that's pretty fair. Tyson met more or less every good boxer there were for a fifteen year span (with the exception of Bowe, of course) and only lost to two men before he turned 35, but I have Frazier ahead of him. Liston fought just everyone who would fight him, but I have him at 10.

If there was no Foreman and Frazier had beat at least a couple of big punchers he would probably be in my top 5. It always amount to a lot of speculation when you speak of "ducking", but I can understand why Frazier's people preferred Joe Bugner and re-matches with opponents that Joe already had convincingly beaten (Ellis and Quarry) over fights with Shavers and especially Lyle. I would like to see how Frazier performed against them, and also how he perfomed against Norton, even if I can understand why they never met.

But I must say that it's strange if FOTC isn't aired more often. There is a FOTC special that's available on youtube, though.

 

It should be called FSH ,Frazier's Shining Hour! Great fight,great performance,isnt that enough?

 

I don't put either in the top 3. This is not my point.

 

As Sonny's Jab pointed out, it's not really fair to recognise Frazier as champ after he beat the linear champion but Tyson when he beat a beltholder.

Quarry had a peace of the title just like Berbick did. Frazier from 69 to 73 is about as long as Tyson from 86 to 90. Tyson was more consistent and active during his reign, but on the flipside he lost to a worse fighter and none of his wins comes close to beaten Ali.


Anyway, my point is that you can pick holes in all top10 candidates outside of Ali and Louis.

And to answer the topic's question: yes, i think history is being unkind to Frazier in that his best performance and the greatest heavyweight of all time rarely gets shown whereas the much more sloppy fight in which he loses is shown over and over.


And no, i wouldn't put Frazier in the top3 because of his win over Ali, but i do think he'd beat Ali peak for peak.... as much as you disagree.

 

Maybe it's ESPN thats unkind then, not history,stylistically Frazier gives Ali as hard a fight as anyone ,I think we can agree on that.Do you put Ali in your top 3?I recognised Frazier as Champ after he beat Ellis as SJ pointed out to me the anomaly,that still gives us under 3 years as Champ , and 3 defences against unranked fighters.Imagine if Frazier had beaten Lyle ,Foster and Norton as Ali did , and he probably would have , he could be top 3 !

 

Good post, (which means I agree :yep ) but you are crediting Quarry with something he never had.