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

I disagree.
The only valid point you have in your favour is that Holmes beat a few monstrous punhers in there (Smith, Cooney, Shavers) who were almost certainly harder hitters than the best punchers Frazier fought, but they weren't particularly good fighters.

Sure, Frazier fought a few ham-and-eggers too, but not more than Holmes fought.
Frazier certainly fought less rank novices.
Guys like Bonavena, Ellis, Chuvalo, Quarry, Bugner were all reasonably well seasoned
and pretty decent.

Frazier's resume WITHOUT Ali win is at least on a par with Holmes' IMO.

Following the win over Ali, Frazier could have continued to fight ham-and-eggers and second-raters, avoided Foreman, given Ali no rematch, and I reckon he could have reigned until the late 70s, that would be akin to Holmes' glorious reign.

 

Well, Frazier held a version of the title since 1968 so you could say he made more than 4 defences.
I mean, Holmes' claim to the title is hard to pinpoint too.
But I accept that as far as defenses go he had probably at least 12.

Vast number of more fights against ranked opposition ?
You'll have to be precise with the numbers and who qualifies as "ranked opposition".

Frazier was fighting contenders from his 12th pro fight so he's not an easy act to beat.
You might be right but I want to check the numbers, I find the "vastly more" bit a bit unlikely.

Zyglewicz and Stander were crap.
But so were a load of guys Holmes fought.

Yeah, but none of this is persuading me Holmes has more depth to his resume than Frazier even without the Ali win.
It seems around equal to me.

Frazier has other "good wins", but it all depends how we define it. Apply the same standards to Holmes and Frazier and I doubt Frazier's resume lags behind Holmes' at all.
(And this is even while we are - for some unexplained reason - ignoring Frazier's win over Ali !)

You suggest that Frazier would have been stripped in a hypothetical situation where he ducks dangerous opposition in the 70s, but do you forget that LARRY HOLMES WAS STRIPPED ?

It seems not to have diminished his standing in your eyes.

I dont agree that Frazier would have run out of ham-and-eggers to beat.
Muhammad Ali seemed to be able to find enough (Wepner, Coopman, Dunn) to keep him going. And Frazier was still capable of beating better fighters.

I think it's been established that Holmes DID avoid fights with the top ranked heavyweights late '83 - late '85, and perhaps earlier.
I dont make a big deal of it and I dont believe it massively affects his legacy but looks like it happened.

On the other hand it is accepted that Frazier fought the highly dangerous Foreman when there were arguably a few others guys whose credentials were equal to big George's.
Frazier COULD HAVE ducked Foreman but he didn't.

 

Leroy Jones.

 

Historically the NYSAC was a major player in deciding champions in these situations.

I believe many bodies outside the USA recognized Frazier too.
I dont know about the WBC.

So, you're a WBC man ?
You believe Muhammad Ali was only a TWO-TIME heavyweight champion and Michael Spinks was NEVER champion ?

19 ?
But he was stripped in 1983.
Why are you counting his wins over Smith, Bey and Williams ?

I dont have the magazine or governing body rankings from Frazier's and Holmes' era at hand so I cant tell you.

It was YOU who made the statement about Holmes' beating vastly more ranked opponents than Frazier, so the onus is on you.
Back up your claim with solid facts if you want to be taken seriously.
If I made a definite claim to the contrary I'm sure you would demand me to back it up or shut up.

Okay. Same thing. Tell me the rankings, alphabet or otherwise, of Frazier and Holmes opponents.

Holmes had MORE fights, but Frazier was world champion after 25 fights, had already beaten several contenders (incl. he two men you highlighted as his best wins aside from Ali), while Holmes' first 25 wins AT BEST contain a couple of wins over fringe contenders.
It's wrong to make a straight comparison : you imply Holmes fought twice as many therefore he must have more wins over good fighters, but I dont think you would disagree with my description of their first 25 fights.
Once you acknowledge that one fighter can squeeze more quality into the same number of fights than another then it stands to reason that the overtall numbers of wins dont tell the full story.

Sure he could have been.
I'll have to hear your answer to whether you recognize Holmes has champ until '85 to respond about Frazier.

So far I'm confused about your views on the championship.
You're fairly adamant that Holmes won the title from Norton, but I suspect you recognize Holmes as champion in '84 and '85 too.

I know Ali beat good men in his second reign.
Comparing Frazier and Holmes is the point.
Look at Holmes' last six or seven defenses - I dont believe he was fighting the top-ranked contenders.

Aside from Ali and Foreman, (who were getting set to fight each other) Quarry was still the man to beat in 1974.
Quarry actually deserved a shot at Foreman more than Frazier did.
Quarry had beat Ron Lyle and Earnie Shavers impressively in 1973, he's the best available contender when Frazier fights him again.
Also, Quarry gave Frazier a decent scrap a few years earlier.

Bugner was ranked highly too.

I agree.

 

Oh for **** sakes, the IBF which is the fragment of the title that Spinks held wasn't even in existance in 1978, and most people viewed Norton as the true lineal champion that years given that his third fight with ALi was a concensus robbery, and Spinks refused to give him a shot. I thought you knew about the picture of the 70's.

He was stripped in 1983 by the WBC, but the newly formed IBF crowned him as there champion, while Page went and got his ass kicked, leaving no doubt in most peoples' heads as to who the real champ was.

Well then lets assume that they were ranked.

Bull****. You started this whole thing by stating that Frazier's comp was better, so maybe you should make the distinction as to how many ranked men each fighter fought.

I wish I had the resources, but as I said before, I doubt that very many of his opponents weren't top 10. How often does a number 15 or 20 guy get a title shot?


I really don't have the time nor the desire to respond to the rest of this post.

 

Nothing more to add here except the selective bais quote from Chris is a gem.

 

Mike Weaver improved greatly after the Holmes fight because of a surge in his confidence, but Holmes never rematched him, that Weaver could have upset Frazier but he could have upset Holmes in a rematch too

 

Weaver could have possibly upset Holmes in the rematch, but its not something that I would have bet money on. In his biggest victory over John Tate following the Holmes fight, Weaver was outboxed handedly by Tate until finally KOing him in the 15th. Tate was not quite the boxer that Holmes was, and nor was he as durable. Weaver also had poor performances against Michael Dokes, and also took some time off between 1981, and 1982 due to injuries. Meanwhile, Holmes was cleaning up the division by beating guys like Cooney, Berbick and Snipes. He also had a fairly active year in 1980 defending his belt four times. I'm not convinced that Weaver would have won a rematch with Holmes. I also think that people feed way too much into the concept that Weaver was deserving of a rematch. Yes, he gave a galant effort against Larry, but it wasn't like he went to the scorecards and was robbed. He was dropped by an uppercut in round 11, and was barely fighting back in the 12th, when the fight was stopped against the ropes. Some of the fans booed at the stoppage but there shouldn't have been much controversy there in my opinion

 

Weaver was a 19-8 trailhorse when he fought Holmes and he staggered Holmes and gave him a few scares before he dropped Weaver and the ref stopped it with Weaver standing. Weavers best fights were after Holmes and the 1st fight vs Dokes was a robberry (quick stoppage by the ref and the rematch was a draw (most thought Weaver won) but Holmes was not looking to fight Dokes that fast either,nor Thomas and Tate was no slouch until he got bombed out by Weaver(devastating Ko) and Holmes somehow avoided the unification with Tate...the question should be( how would Frazier do with Holmes opponents and also how would FRAZIER DO VS THE OPPONENTS HOLMES AVOIDED
Weaver
Tate
Dokes
Page
Coetzee
Thomas

 

This is the bottom line.

On the other hand Frazier would have totaly kicked ass while he was as his best. There would have been no controvesy.

 

Holmes's prime didn't last 7 years either, he fought on and won for about 3-4 years after his prime. The Cooney fight was his last prime fight IMO. I won't get into the other crap with you, because I know you will never change your feelings on that even if everyone in the whole world told you.

 

Cooney and Shavers both have a punchers chance, even though I feel they would get blown out quickly. Weaver would have a shot, and the Witherspoon that fought Larry could trouble Joe.