Joe Frazier (FOTC version) vs Lennox Lewis (late 90s)

His next two fights after defeating Ali were especially "solid", for sure. More "solid" than the 'bum of the month club' (not my words, from one of the books about Ali, printed in 1975) Ali took after that defeat.
Sorry, but Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, Chuvalo, Machen were mediocre fighters. What he had done as an amateur is totally irrelevant.

 

Yeah,

And Mccall, Rahman, Golata and most of the others Lewis faced were just fantastic... LOL....

You're proabably one of the few, perhaps even the first, that I've ever heard to call some of those guys mediocre. Do you even know anything about those fighter's credentials, or are you just talking BS, because you've never seen them fight? Don't come back to me with numbers off of boxrec either, as this won't convince me that you're knowledgeable on that period.

 

Perhaps you should read some magazines and newspapers from that time, to see how contemporary sources called them? Ah, but of course, those sports editors and journalists didn't know nothing about their credentials and never saw them fight.

 

I have a lot of Ring magazine from the 1970's and, just for one name, Jerry Quarry is highly rated by them. Rightly so, too. He was a very good fighter, who could have been a champion in a number of periods.

I'll have to look up the others some time, but I know for sure The Ring liked Quarry.

 

Lewis being a great fighter is more relevant than size in this argument. Frazier would annhilate a lot of big fighters - Lewis would stand a bigger chance because of his skills.

And the point about Lewis not being agressive is right. However, you say he knocks Frazier out in 4. How? Frazier was a constant attacker, and Lewis, like you said would be on the backfoot, punching in ways he didn't specialise in. Short punches were not what we ever really saw Lewis do, but Frazier WOULD force that.

Lewis on the backfoot + Frazier on the attack constantly = Stylistic nightmare for Lewis.

Maybe he would win like that, maybe not, but because the fight would go that way, I don't think a knockout would happen for Lewis.

 

This fight can go long and Frazier can win by TKO if Lewis gets sloppy. However, the most likely outsome I see is a Lewis KO/TKO somewhere around round 4. When Lewis lets his punches go in combinations (and for my money he's the best combination HW puncher since Joe Louis) he can KO just about anyone. I don't see Frazier standing up to too many right jab/left hook/right uppercut barrages.

 

Well, I'm just saying what I see. This isn't "my logic", just an honest assessment of what I see.

The Lewis of the period around the Ruddock fight was raw in comparison. He had a wide-footed stance and lazy footwork, was often VERY scrappy in his attacks (check the Tyrell Biggs '91, Frank Bruno '93), threw some wild haymaker rights, (some were very crude), and rarely threw short, snappy punches.

The fighter who fought Morrison and Mercer had tighter footwork, threw short punches, tight combos, and body shots. Many people credit his improvement to his teaming up with Manny Steward.

Then again, others still will tell me he improved even more later on (1997 - 2000) but I'm not sure and if so then that contradicts your point that he was getting a bit old, which I thought was valid.

 

Liking someone (and Quarry fights were good entertainment) doesn't mean they are more than mediocre boxers (skills, abilities, or achievements).

 

How do you figure that Jerry Quarry was mediocre? My understanding of the word mediocre, is that it typically refers to being average or insignificant. Depending on who you talk to, mediocre can also be used to describe something that's rather shitty as well. That being said, how does a guy who's in the hall of fame, and has wins over Earnie Shavers, Floyd Patterson Ron Lyle, Mac Foster and Buster Mathis, all of a sudden get the title of being average, insignificant or shitty? On the otherhand, you probably consider most of the fighters he beat mediocre to, right?

 

I like Lewis by stoppage. His size, class and power make him the fave in this one.

 

I've read many publications, and heard ample interviews from the time period under which these men performed. What's more, I 've seen many of their fights. While some of them may have had their critics, as do all fighters in every era, they were also very highly reguarded as being great fighters with exceptional abilty.

Do you not think that Mr. Lewis had his fair share of critics?

 

Looking at his fights (there are plenty of them for Quarry) and reading contemporary opinions (without history revisionism).

 

Frazier is too much man for Lewis to handle.
Frazier wins on will power alon in this one.

 

Which sports writers have spoken ill of Quarry that you can think of? Also, you never addressed my list of guys whom he beat. Shavers, Patterson, Lyle, Foster and Mathis were not mediocre fighters. In fact, although Jerry never won a title, he beat what was arguably better comp than a lot of lineal champions did.

I just don't see calling a guy of this description mediocre. Quarry was not only a phenominal fighter, he was quite possible the best boxer who never won a world championship.

 

Patterson was old. Lyle was slightly better than mediocre, but nothing special. Shavers, Foster and Mathis are mediocre boxers too. I would not rank Quarry in my All-Time Top 50 heavyweights, he doesn't have the merits, nor does he have the abilities and skills to rank high.
Please, spare me of this fairy tale. Sam Langford was the best boxer ever who never won a world championship. Quarry is light years behind Langford, both accomplishment-wise and head-to-head.