How much of a legacy boost would Frazier get if he fought Shavers, Norton, or Lyle

I suspect Frazier should have only faced Ali once. Point blank refused to fight him again.

That would have "boosted his legacy" in the minds of the modern revisionists.

Fighting Ali (who is generally regarded as the best HW ever) THREE TIMES seems to have Frazier pegged as a "loser".

Frazier is easily the most underrated of the heavyweight champions.
The fact that some might even begin to think he needs a win over Earnie Shavers (who lost to Stander & Quarry, among others) to significantly boost his historical standing is a shame, IMO.

 

Well the notion of him only fighting Ali once was never going to happen. In fact, people would have berrated him further for not giving Ali a due rematch, and needless to say, he would have had to pass up on what was arguably his best paydays. I agree that Frazier was underrated by most fans, experts and historians. Some people have Dempsey, Johnson, and Jeffries ranked above him, which in my opinion is just plain wrong. I do feel however, that Frazier could have faced the likes of Norton, Lyle, and possibly Shavers ( but not a necessity. ) Fighting some of these guys might have at least diminished the criticism that he avoided big punchers, or just couldn't beat them.

 

The whole outlook on Frazier is skewered by revisionism.

Norton and Lyle didn't have reputations for being harder hitters than Quarry, or even Chuvalo, Bonavena, Manuel Ramos.

Ron Lyle wasn't considered much of a fighter at the elite level until 1975/'76. Even then he wasn't considered too hot.

Quarry was rated higher than all of them.

If Frazier had ducked rematches with Ali , or retired in 1971 he'd be 1-0 against Ali and rated higher by people using this fuzzy logic against him.
No one cares much about Ali beating Foreman only once and then ducking him. In fact, Ali's number 1 rankings rests in large part on the Foreman fight.

 

Not by much.

Stays about the same.

These would be past his prime, I guess, post-1973, so it wouldn't impact at all on his overall standing, IMO.

Same as above.

 

Then he'd be locked in the top5 for sure. I'd rate him higher than Holmes.

These depend much on circumstances. The window of oppurtunity for these fights was mostly post-1975, when Frazier was well past his best if not shot. It wouldn't take that much away from his legacy. Although it would matter how he'd lose. If he loses by first round KO's like Norton did later in his career, it would take some away.

If Frazier is anywhere near his best, he'd beat the by you metioned fighters rather easily i think.

I wouldn't be suprised if Shavers doesn't hear the second bell, Norton would be gone within 5 (can't fight good enough on the backfoot) and Lyle might gamely go the distance in a losing effort.


I think you emphasize the 1-4 a bit too much. It should be taken into account, that

a)

Foreman and Ali are opposition as good as it gets.

b)

More importantly: Frazier was well past his best in every single one of his losses. While his lack of longitivity should count against him, i think he'd beat Ali prime for prime more often than the other way around.
Tyson also lost 100% to the best fighters he faced, but that was (among others) because he was past his best against Holyfield and Lewis, though he was still very good in the Holyfield fights.



I will add that i think Foreman would've destroyed him regardless of the stage of his career, though.

 

I think Frazier was a Class above those 3 and other than getting caught, I dont see those 3 being able to take what Joe had, Lyle gives him the toughest fight because of style but I saw what Quarry did to a prime Lyle so I dont think Frazier would have a problem, Frazier primed against a Prime Ali in the 1st fight and went downhill from there on, part of it was sudden fame,partying,woman, Frazier had a short prime but was class while it lasted