Joe Frazier or Rocky Marciano : Who do you ranked higher ?

I don't agree.

Just taking a look at their fights against Linear Heavyweight Champions...Frazier's 1 win and 2 losses to Ali and 2 losses to Foreman are not equal to Marciano's 2 wins over Charles, 2 wins over Walcott, and 1 win over Louis...with no losses...in my opinion.

 

well i rank joe higher. the 49-0 says nothing to me in terms of a record. it ain't marciano's fault. he fought who ever there was. but fact is it wasn't the greatest era in terms of quality. and i believe if the two would fight eachother joe would win. so frazier just above marciano

 

Rocky Marciano imo.

Sure Fraizer may have the Ali win, but I think Rocky beat better fighters overall.

Moore, Charles and Walcott or legends or near legends to the sport.

That and Rocky does get extral points for cleaning out his era.

Its impossible to ask Marciano to beat Ali or Foreman because these guys were not around during there hey his day, so you rank him on what they did in there own time, and Marciano in his own time was Ali were Fraizer was more like I suppose Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott if you will. Champ, great figther, but not relly the best of his era.

I think guys that are the best of there eras, and clean out there eras should get the top spots, hench why Holmes gets dock points for his failing to clean out his era.

 

Dempsey is hanging on a thread. I have to look at Lewis. Holmes and Johnson are close. I hear the criticism of Holmes ducking a lot of fighters and taking the easier fights. I think he got a bit lazy as the 80's were rolling on. Johnson, I give some slack because he I feel didn't want to fight Langford, Mcveay, etc. But these fights probably never could've happened in reality, however, I feel factors made it very difficult for Dempsey to get a fight off with a black man or Willis for that matter when he was champion too. Dempsey did try, after all. Johnson may have used the color line for just as much benefit too. Dempsey deserves more criticism for it.

Lewis and Holyfield are like on the cusp of the list.

I know you rank Liston high. I know this forum loves him, he wasn't in my top 10 till I joined. Is he above Tyson for you? Do you feel it's difficult to justify? Where does Marciano/Foreman rank for you? And how Liston over Foreman? I think Foreman has underrated skills. The Foreman against Frazier to Ali is a noticeable difference. I actually think his transformation is much more obvious than Tyson's supposed decline. He fell in love with his power, throw bombs, and stop throwing straighter punches. He was jabbing Frazier, and was much more compact with his puncher in that fight. At his best, he was hard to out-box. Young Foreman was so messed up. Ali knew he couldn't dance circles around Foreman without the high risk and of getting tired. Foreman could really corner the ring and nail on you. With the right frame of mind he was deadly and an underrated boxer.

 

Ellis was a failed middleweight. The guy lost to Rubin Carter 6 years before Frazier. Lost to Fullmer, Benton, got Koed by Shavers in 1 round and lost to Lyle and Bugner. Walcott was much better.

You have to remember, Charles was a terrific fighter and even Heavyweight. He was much closer to his peak in the Walcott fights then when he fight Marciano in my opinion.

Louis, was not over the hill. He was still a game and solid fighter. He was a different animal from the one that comeback to fight Charles and Marciano. Are 33 year olds really over the hill? Walcott also beat him the 1st time by most peoples accounts.

Would Quarry or Ellis have beaten Joe Louis in 1947? I don't think so. Walcott was of course a product of his times. So his chance came later in his career. A man with a rough life, starving and trying to feed his family during the Depression. So he was, a little erratic and in some ways blew some fights (The Layne one for starters). However, on terms of abilities and wins I think he's definitely ahead of Ellis and Quarry.

 

Very fair points. I shall re-consider. I do admit that I try to give the old fighters (Pre Louis) a little slack and more of a chance. Different times and less precedence for them when coming up. It has to count for something...

Yes, this is really what saves and vindicates Liston for me. Even for how disgraceful that second loss to Ali was.

Okay, that seems fair. Just to play devil's advocate. How many great fighters does that the Douglas that beat Tyson beat? In a sense, it sort of sucks for Tyson. Douglas was a fighter that had the tool but just couldn't bring it together. He was motivated and had nothing to lose after he lost his mother. He puts on a brilliant performance against what was thought to be an indestructible machine. Now, people just remember Tyson lost to Douglas. But that Douglas beats a lot of great fighters. Tyson lost to a brilliant Douglas. Not the Douglas we all remember as a one time hit. That night, that hit would've done a lot of other magic. Shame the magic happened on Tyson's account.

Eeks. Foreman #11 is a tough one to swallow.

No, Foreman isn't ranking there because of his profound skills. His abilities (Punching power, size, range) were all quite natural. I think he had a good jab (At least a top 4 honestly) and I think he had quite possibly the best uppercut in HW History (Maybe up there with Shavers, Tyson, and Lewis). I think his dispatchment of Frazier and Norton are far greater than Liston's of Patterson, even if it took him 1 round longer. I think the quality at the top of his resume is stellar, but his depth isn't there in his 70's run but he does have some names. I think his 21 or so consecutive KO streak in his late 80's comeback was good, even if they were against mostly tomato cans. His performances in losses to Holyfield, and Morrison were good too.

His brief title run/defensive wasn't great but it's alright. His victory over Moore to become the oldest HW champion of all time (Shattering the 37 year old record from Walcott) is groundbreaking, especially when against a 26 year old fighter in arguably the 2nd greatest decade in HW History (Behind the last decaded he had a belt in).

So being a champion in the golden age and then the next best era is pretty special. But also, doing at the age of 45, while having good performances is wins/losses is special. He beat Briggs, who is a name you will see Lewis get credit for with his resume. That was at the old age of 48. Pretty damn incredible if you ask me.

Liston cleaned a division, and beat some good names but does the top of his resume really compare with Foreman's? Does his achievements?

Also, I give some credence to Foreman and Frazier for being (I think the only from ATGs) Olympic Heavyweight Gold Medal Champs. That's a nice little bonus to their achievements. Having Foreman at #11 is greatly underrated him I believe. I also think you have to underrated him H2H too since I do believe he is much more difficult to out-box than most belief (Mostly due to his bout with Jimmy Young).

 

I hate how once you vote you can't see how others voted...

 

Foreman had Frazier coming at him ,kamikaze style ,though stylistically and physically he had no choice,Foreman had to go to Ali.
Foreman is definitely underated in one specific area , he cut the ring off very effectively ,unlike his predecesor Liston, who followed you around.

 

I think Douglas' perfomance against Tyson is one of the truly great ones. Forget about the stories of Tyson rolling around in tons of cokes in all of Tokyo's brothels, and just look at Douglas jab, lateral movement, inside fighting, combinations and - not least - finishing. I've never seen a 6' 5' 235 lbs guy showing off such skill at any other time. That includes Bowe and Lewis.

As for Rocky and Joe, I have Marciano higher. Sure, it seems very unlikely that he would have faced Ali three times and Foreman two times without losing, but at the end of the day that's only speculation. What we do know for a fact is that he faced a similar amount of top contenders and never lost. We can't say that about Frazier. Ergo...

 

It's so tough to say. And because it's Douglas, there's a stigma attached to it. You can't say Douglas would beat Holmes, or Frazier, or Mariciano, etc because he proved to be a dump with unfulfilled talent. But he was incredible that night. Shooken and jiving, jabbing, the footwork going in and out, controlling distance, etc. It's a really great performance. I think he beats Holyfield, just not by KO. He didn't just beat Tyson, he whooped him every round. Talk about a bad performance. What other bad nights compare to that for other fighters (Besides early KO's. But Tyson had the chin to take it so that ain't fair).

I think a case can be made for him being above Rocky, but don't have that. I think he is just ahead of a lot of the other people in your top 10 I guess.

I disagree with this. Remember that article Chris Warren posted not too long ago? Even Ali didn't plan the rope a dope, he tried out-boxing Foreman in the 1st round but realized it would be a tough task. He cut the ring off very well, so Ali then averted to the rope a dope. I think the Young fight gets so overplayed. This is the core reasoning to Foreman getting so out-boxed. Ken Norton tried to box Foreman, and he got destroyed. Yes, I know he sucks going backwards but still... Foreman with his right mentality and that jab was a solid boxer. If a 48 year old Foreman with straighter punchers can out-box Briggs than I feel a Foreman of 72-73 would be disastrous for a lot of boxer. And he doesn't need to out-box a lot of them if he can just knock them out. His stamina gets a little overstated too. He didn't get to PR to get accustomed to it enough for the Young fight, and Ali was in Africa while he was just banging on Ali for 8 straight rounds. For me, the Young fight gives an impression that Foreman was exposed. I just don't buy that as much as others. That Foreman wasn't right mentally and he had changed his whole style/plan for fighting to avoid a tiring out moment like in Zaire.

If Foreman at 48 outboxes Briggs, does that say so much about a lineal champion in the 90's or how much better Foreman was in the 90's or how much overstated boxers can out-box him.

I think Holmes has one tough fight against him with Foreman. Way way tougher than most believe. I'd favor Holmes, but still. I also think Foreman has a very very tough fight with Liston. And Foreman blasting Liston out is not a surprising outcome. Foreman, obviously does away with Dempsey, Frazier, and Marciano types. I also pick prime Foreman vs Tyson. I think Foreman gets underrated on ability and H2H I guess.

 

Exactly. Douglas was phenomenal. It wasn't just a bad night for Tyson. His lateral movement, jab, control of distance, even inside fighting was extremely impressive.