Joe Frazier vs. Evander Holyfield

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Remember Fraziers kin Smokin Burt Cooper almost took Evander out and that pressure style gave Evander fits, I could see Frazier overwelling Evander with the pressure and power but I could also see Evander coming back and battling back, both men had heart and it could go down to the wire...the guy with least damage does not have to win this one....Frazier gets my vote but I would not bet the farm on it just the cow

 

Frazier gets off the floor to win a close UD.

But it would be a close one, with a lot of close rounds that could go either way.

Both men would not leave the same way they came in.

 

Holyfield on points......[ 116-112 ]

 

Well, i don't know how good a comparison Tyson is.

First of all, i would not call Tyson a pressure fighter. Especially not when Holyfield fought him; he was a puncher at that point, often looking for one big punch. Frazier works way different.

Holyfield could avoid most the punches from Tyson rushing in, counter him and tie him up because Tyson rushed in in spurts with big bombs. Here is where him and Frazier differ. Frazier comes forward less quick, but at constant speed and 3 minutes a round. It's a lot harder to use the strategy that Holyfield used against Tyson for that, especially if you have to keep it up for 12 or 15 rounds, while Tyson slowed down significantly after the 5th.

Also, Tyson became as calm as a sleeping baby when he was tied up. Always had been. Frazier was more wild and more of an inside fighter than Tyson. Frazier is a completely different fighter. You are right that he would've rather died than succumbed to Ali (which nearly happened in their third fight), but i don't see any reason to think he'd submit against other fights as he showed no signs of quitting after being tagged hard and often by Quarry, Bonavena, not to mention the countless Foreman-knockdowns. Frazier was all heart, just like Holyfield.


I also think Holyfield being overtrained for the Cooper fight and in front of an Atlanta crowd is a bit of an excuse. One fight he's overtrained, the other he has Steroid-itus, the other he was hepatitus C, etc. The fact is that before the Tyson fight, he nearly always slugged it out when he got tagged. I don't think the hometown crowd had much play in that. The Bowe rematch was maybe the only time when he didn't.

Now i don't really think Frazier wins this fight because of the Cooper fight (Frazier also had a close one with Bonavena), but i don't really buy into those excuses. Every fighter has his off-nights, especially at heavyweight where one punch can do so much.


Now, one question for you. You think that if Holyfield lands the stuff that Ali did, he stops Frazier. Alright. But i think it's worth noting that when Holyfield's power seemed to increase after bulking up, this happened somewhere past 1994. His knockdown of Mercer, Bowe and Tyson all happened past that point. But his workrate also went down quite a bit, usually no more than 40 punches a round. So i don't think it's likely that he lands as much as Ali, who threw 61 punches a round (15 rounds) during FOTC.
The 89 Holyfield did throw a lot more punches, but i think his power was a lot less and probably of the level of Ali or worse. He hit Thomas with a shitload of punches but never knocked him down. He needed a lot with Dokes. Stewart (KO'd in 1 by Tyson) went the distance. Old Foreman took something like 14 shots in a row without that much trouble. He outlanded Bowe by something like 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 during the first four rounds, yet he came out as the more damaged and tired fighter.

So..... finally to my question, considering Holyfield has had stamina problems, how do you think he will cope with Frazier's pressure and workrate ?

 

Id say Joe wins on a TKO with the ref stopping it because of Evanders heart

 

Tyson was a puncher who applied alot of intelligent pressure early on in a bout and earlier in his career. You are correct that he devolved into a puncher as his career wore on without Rooney, but I disagree that this devolution was as simple as you suggest. Tyson did apply monstrous pressure early on against Holyfield and stunned him in the first seconds of the bout. Tyson may have also slowed down because he was on automatic pilot after a Holy shot on his whiskers in round 5. Both Frazier and Tyson were forward motion punchers who blitzed guys -Tyson could not apply sustained pressure over 15 rounds like Joe but he punched harder than Frazier, and he was more dangerous early.

They are not mirror-images, but both men are on the shorter side, punched hard and often, and relied on forward motion. Holyfield had trouble with big guys who outweight him by 30 pounds and who could box and punch. He never had trouble the style in question here. He knew how to tame it, counter it, and catch his man coming in. He was, as Tyson made clear a great counter puncher.

I agree, but the power and strength differential count here as well. Frazier was 205 at his best. Tyson was 218. Holyfield could stand in with 220 Dokes.... I don't think Frazier would be moving Holyfield backwards. I think that Holyfield would make it a point to move Frazier backwards. Frazier was not as durable as Tyson and that may be problematic because Holyfield would land on Frazier. Whether you want to throw in 1989 Holyfield or 1996 Holyfield, it doesn't make such a difference except in terms of how much Holyfield settled down on his shots (he did so more later, whereas earlier it was more about volume).

Frazier was more of an inside fighter but I think that Ali's willingness to give Joe his ribs made the overstatement Frazier's skill in there commonplace. He was skillful inside, yes, but especially when a man gave him his ribs to feast upon. I don't doubt for a moment that Holyfield could tie him up in there and neutralize him.

Frazier would never submit... but I don't discount his being stopped anyway.

Cooper was having his best night. I think that Holyfield should have and could have made it easier and the overtraining excuse is an excuse that may be valid. I don't discount it anyhow. Cooper was also shall we say... Frazier's charge. Not nearly as good, but the style is unmistakenly reminiscent. Remember how easily Holyfield punched around that crab defense? He penetrated Foreman's version of it just as easily. This is another problem Frazier would have. Holyfield made this defense look porous every time he dealt with it. His repertoire of shots was vast. There was no shot that he didn't throw very well.

Additionally, Holyfield's tendency slug cost him when? Against Bowe and Lewis. Frazier was nothing like either of them. Holyfield outslugged a revamped Dokes, Cooper & Tyson, Mercer, Stewart, Moorer and Foreman (when he wanted to).

I think I may have already answered the first part of your question... Holyfield, was barely 200 when he faced Tillis in his HW debut. He was wise to be careful at first. He did not settle down quite as much and opted instead to fight the big guys as Spinks and Conn did before him -volume boxing. This doesn't necessarily mean that he "couldn't punch" until he bulked up. It means he wasn't settling down on his shots and driving in on them. Your point is well-taken in that he did decrease the volume. I think that it is merely a matter of age and perhaps a health scare.

As per Thomas and Bowe, I don't think that his inability to drop them means much. He hurt them which is indicative of power. Bowe was 30 pounds heavier than Holyfield and Holyfield managed to stun him regardless in the first fight. Let's not forget that he took the title from the 40 pounds heavier Douglas with one shot.

As for Foreman... well, his chin was as sturdy as it gets but I saw his leg going left after one exchange.

Holyfield had strange stamina problems since the first fight with Stewart as early as 1989 --but it is a better assertion that Holyfield did at times have stamina problems. Personally I think it manifested itself against large men sometimes -Stewart, Bowe, Lewis. I don't think it would be a factor against a smaller guy, no matter his how busy he was.

Anyway, Bowe's, et al., effects on Holyfield don't suggest at all what Frazier's effects would be. Qawi, Cooper, and Tyson are far closer to Frazier and Holyfield had no real problems with any of them.

The short answer is that I don't see the stamina factor playing in as much here as the style factor.

 

A good description, his stamina was weirdly inconsistent at times. I don't think i've ever seen another case like it.

 

If we are talking peak Holyfield he wins, probably fairly easily. Frazier could not fight off the back foot, and yet he would not be strong enough to push prime Holyfield back IMO.

Holyfield would (eventually) walk though Frazier in a similar manner to Foreman.

Holyfield TKO10.

 

This content is protected

This is a string of rather weak rationalizations. If we're going to say a fight "proves nothing" simply because someone was excited/"overtrained"/debatably-past-peak, then nearly all your potential fodder in arguing against Frazier is out the window.

This content is protected

He wouldn't. Holyfield didn't have Ali's height, nor his reach, nor his speed, nor his workrate, nor his endurance.

This content is protected

Qawi was a shrimp compared to Frazier and didn't have anything close to his kind of power, while Tyson had the size and power, but was sorely lacking in the stamina, pressure/workrate and heart departments at that stage. In a meeting of both of these guys' best attributes, we find Frazier.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Watch the first Bonavena fight- in the middle and later rounds, Ringo is able to muscle Frazier backwards at times, but Joe just keeps on at work. The sort of equivalency you're trying to draw between him and Tyson is badly unmerited here.

 

You're retort reads like you've been personally attacked.

The Cooper fight proves nothing, first of all, because it is one fight. One fight proves nothing. That is not a "rationalization", that is keeping in mind that a representative sample needs more than one example. I suppose you would argue that Louis' age was not a factor against Marciano? Or that the Duran of New Orleans was the functional equivalent of the Duran of Montreal? Or that the Tyson who faced Douglas was no different than the Tyson who destroyed Berbick? If you understand the sport, then you are compelled to answer nay to all of the above. Would your reasoning then be a "series of weak rationalizations"? I don't think it is weak to assert that Holyfield was not at his best against Cooper. Fighters are trained to reach their performance peak as close to fighttime as possible. I remember that Holyfield had missed the boat with the Cooper fight because Tyson had backed out.

Agree or disagree, the assertion begins with a weakness of Holyfield -his proneness to go toe-to-toe, which could cost him against some of the greats.

I said "IF" -nowhere did I suggest that Holyfield was an Ali type of fighter. In fact, he is better off against Frazier because he is NOT an Ali type of fighter.

Qawi was known as the buzzsaw. He fought similarly to Joe. Tyson was shorter, aggressive, elusive, and hit like hell. There are similarities to Joe.

(One would think that I was comparing Fraizer to Gene Tunney.)

These examples, and the Cooper/Foreman examples suggest that Holyfield could handle nonstop aggression by a shorter man who can hit hard and who employed the cross-arm defense. These are representative examples that are relevant to the question, not "fodder that is out the window."

The sort of equivalency you just tried to suggest between Holyfield and Bonavena is far less merited.

Joe did not "keep on at work" when moved back -he had to reset. Bonavena would periodically push Frazier off of him. He was not consistently forcing Frazier backwards -which is precisely what Evander would do because he knows what I know and what George knows and what Joe knows: Joe Frazier is not effective when not coming forward.

The first Bonavena fight was Joe's 12th. He went down twice in one round. Bonavena was shorter than even Joe and about 205. The first KD was a right counter. The second was a left hook thrown while he was moving Joe backwards. After Joe gets up, Bonavena goes right at him and Joe moves backwards and was completely out of his game.

Watch the fight again. After the KDs, Bonavena would still at times "outmuscle" Joe and move him or push him backwards -but it was not part of his strategy to win because he simply did not capitalize on it after the initial success. What he would do was push/move him back and then lay off and start stepping backwards himself -he did this almost inevitably. Bonavena was trying to catch Joe coming in. That strategy isn't good enough because Joe was elusive and was allowed to fight his fight comfortably.

I would go so far as to to say that if Bonavena pressed forward while punching, instead of allowing Joe's forward motion by moving backwards, he would have stopped Frazier that night.

 

A very good matchup. Joe KO's Evander in the later rounds, probably between the 9th and 11th. Evander is still not a true heavyweight even though he dominated as a cruiserweight. No heavyweight since his retirement could handle the pressure speed of Joe Frazier. FOTC Joe Frazier gives every heavyweight in history a very tough fight.

 

The fans win, obviously!

 

Why should Frazier be forced to fight a juiced-up cheater like Holyfield? What next, "Joe Frazier vs. a guy with a horseshoe in his glove"?

 

You have a very good point. :good