How would history view Norton and Frazier if they never beat Ali?

Plenty of people have tried to argue he is a top 20 heavyweight which I find silly given I can't rank him higher than 5th in his own era. He also had a very brief prime.

 

What's to stop him from continuing to fight the best after losing his title? Holyfield didn't suddenly stop fighting top opponents after losing to Bowe. It seems a strange argument that Frazier suddenly doesn't have any obligation to face Lyle etc because he lost his title

 

How many HW champions have 3 wins better than Bugner, Quarry and Ellis after they lost the title?

 

If one thinks he won all three against Ali, top 20 probably isn't unreasonable. Maybe not even all three are needed.

Haven't made a top 20 myself, but just off the top of my head it doesn't sound crazy. Without Ali it would be a different matter, of course.

Which are the 20 HWs you think are locks above Norton seen to resume?

 

You threw out Lyle as a response to those that say that Joe cleaned out, but that is said in reference to his reign. That generation of fighters.

 

After Joe Frazier lost his title, he fought Muhammad Ali two times, George Foreman again, Jerry Quarry again, Jimmy Ellis again and Joe Bugner.

Joe literally continued to fight the best. Not only the best, the VERY best.

Joe had NO obligation to fight Ron Lyle. How was he obligated to fight Ron Lyle?

If you couldn't get past Jerry Quarry, nobody was "obligated" to fight you.

 

The point is he didn't clean out his era or even come close. And dismissing someone because of a bad loss is silly. Foreman lost to Jimmy Young yet beat Frazier easily.

A lot of good fighters are missing from Frazier's resume whom he could and should have fought.

 

By that logic nobody owes Wilder a fight due to his mediocre resume

 

Well he fought Quarry after losing the title after Quarry beat Shavers AND Lyle. Had he fought Shavers and Lyle instead, people would've accused him of ducking Quarry and rightfully so.

 

He already decisively defended Quarry so legacy wise I don't think it makes sense to rematch a guy he already beat without controversy. He would have been better off legacy wise seeking out new guys to beat.

Generally fans don't expect fighters to rematch they decisively beat unless the opponent does something compelling to force a rematch.

Lewis never gave Ruddock or Bruno rematches but I haven't seen it ever brought up to criticize him.

 

Circular reasoning does exist as a valid concept - but it doesn't hold in the extremely oversimplified manner that some are trying to apply here.

The false claim of circular reasoning in this instance shouldn't steer us away from a valid observation.

While Ali and Frazier were already great in their own right BEFORE facing one another - and still proving themselves as such AFTER the fact of the FOTC, as two greats engaging one another - they arguably and legitimately brought out the best in one another, not least in respect of intangibles such as heart, will, determination and courage. Even Ali would've suffered in terms of legacy in some measure IF he had never engaged Joe.

Without Joe, we might never have seen the extents to which Ali could be pushed and remain viable, win, lose or draw. In its own measure, the same can be said of the competition that Norton presented. In the rematch vs Ken, we arguably saw the most in form and most well-conditioned version of Ali during his second career, the prior loss to Norton being very much the catalyst for same - and Ali rode that "best form - second career" wave from Norton 2 through to the match in Zaire.

Also, the belief (that Norton's success in the first fight only came by way of a complacent, poorly conditioned Ali), was well squashed given the closeness of their rematch.

 

Part of being great is ability to handle different styles. Evidence pretty heavily points to Norton being incapable of dealing with punchers including guys who were far from achieving greatness in their own eras. This factors into how people are rated.

 

I know how fighters are rated. Evidence points to Norton being KO'd by, arguably, the TOP 3 punchers of the day and for all time. Evidence points to Norton being KO'd later by Shavers and then Cooney when he was well past his best. Also, the term puncher doesn't necessarily denote a style, the landing of power shots come by way of a number of delivery systems - aside from power, you certainly wouldn't suggest Foreman, Shavers and Cooney as having the same style. Otherwise, Norton dealt pretty well with a reasonable range of styles.

 

Lol first it was “What's to stop him from continuing to fight the best after losing his title?” Now it’s “Well Quarry was better than Shavers and Lyle but he already fought Frazier lolz”

Their’s moving the goalposts then theirs changing the venue. What a clown.

 

Cleaning out an era involves beating all or most of the top guys something Frazier manifestly didn't do. I don't see anything about changing goalposts. As far as Quarry being better than Lyle I would disagree given Lyles subsequent development.

Moreover ABC logic doesn't work in boxing. Norton beat Quarry but lost to a guy Quarry beat