joe frazier vs all larry holmes oppenents//???

Put larry holmes against fraziers comp and his record would be like 35-2.

 

You are a very astute observer, which means I agree with everything you said.

 

Frazier most likely beats them all one on one. But does he beat them all over a straight 7 year period without a loss?

 

I'll take Ali out, because I read part of Holmes' book and Ali may have had him defeated mentally before he go into the ring had they met earlier. Witnesses say that Holmes use to get the better of Ali in sparring. I really don't want to make this call now.

I say Holmes beats everyone else on Frazier's resume.

I think Frazier loses to Ali (ha ha), Tyson, and Holyfield(though not at the time Holmes faced him).

 

Joe fraziers style of fighting would not allow him to last 7 years as a champ.

 

holmes fought alot of ham and eggers during his title reign. he also didnt give rematches in close fights, failed to unify the title, and failed to take on many deserving alpha champs of that era.


I think the comparison your asking for is to hard to make, for fraziers prime ended early and didnt last 7 years.

 

Well he beat about 20 similar opponents between 1966 and 1974, and only lost to Ali and Foreman. He also BEAT Ali.

 

Against the level of opposition Holmes faced I believe it would.

Frazier was beating Machen and Chuvalo in 1967 and he was beating Bugner and Quarry in 1973/74.

So, he was quite capable of reigning for 7 years if not for George Foreman.

 

No offense intended dude, but you're really starting to sound like a broken record with that tired old line. Yes, I agree that Holmes didn't always give the most deserving men a crack at the brass ring, but Frazier's resume wasn't entirely flawless either. He fought plenty of " ham and eggers " such as Ron Stander, Dave Zyglewicz, Terry Daniels, Manual Romos, Buster Mathis, an aging Machen, and an aging former lightheavy Foster. He also won the title from former middleweight Jimmy Ellis, who was off for 17 months prior to their fight. Ali was a great win no doubt, but Muhammad had only fought twice in a near 4 year period, and would beat Joe in their next two meetings. Frazier only had 4 true title defenses, seeing as how the NYSAC title was not recognized as a legitimate world body by most states. He was destroyed far worse by a great puncher than Holmes ever would be. Wrap it all up with the fact that Frazier was shot by about the age of 31, whereas Holmes remained competitive into his 40's, and I'd say you have quite an argument in Holmes favour. It's kind of like what Chris told you the other day, selection bias is a wonderful thing when you want it to be.

Frazier was a great fighter, but lets not get too hung up on this " Holmes fought ham and eggers ", or " Holmes never unified ". Criticism is not a one way street.

 

Frazier would easily walk through all of Holmes opposition

 

While Muhammad Ali was better than anyone Holmes ever beat during his reign, Frazier's second tier opponents were not better than Holmes' in my opinion. Ellis, Quarry, Mathis, Daniels, Zyglewicz, Ramos, Chuvalo, Machen ( aging ), and Bugner, were arguably no better than Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Witherspoon, Weaver, or Berbick. Holmes fought a lot of young prospects coming off of good wins, and many big punchers as well. The same can't exactly be said for many of Frazier's opponents. Quarry defeated a lot of rated fighters, and was an all time great contender in my book, but his size limitations, and tendency to cut would make it difficult for him to succeed during the 80's. In fact, I'm not so sure that Frazier would have a cake walk against Gerry Cooney either, given Cooney's size, power and aggressiveness in the early rounds. Such a combination tended to be lethal for Joe Frazier.

I'll give Frazier his win over Ali above anything Holmes ever did, but frankly I think Holmes' resume is better from a depth standpoint.