Joe Frazier vs. Rocky Marciano

IMO Folley and Jones would have beaten Matthews. Folley beat and drew with Machen, and he was pretty good. Jones only loss at Light Heavyweight, was to Hall of Famer Harold Johnson.

 

I would say that Matthews didn't lose to a lightheavyweight at all. He lost in 1943 to rated middleweights Eddie Booker and Jack Chase in slightly over the weight bouts. He would then go nine years before losing again, this time to Marciano. He was not yet 21 when he lost to Booker and Chase.

In a career of twenty years, Matthews lost to Jackie Blair as a 15 year old.

His losses after reaching 20, to Booker, Chase, Marciano, and Cockell, were all to men rated at one time or another in the top five of their divisions. Truthfully, Foster, Jones, and Folley were all beaten by more second-tier fighters than Matthews.

 

Old Fogman,

Jack Hurley pretty much admitted he coddled Matthews. Despite his great winning streak, he wasn't exactly beating the murders row.

I don't think it's fair of you at all to lump folley in there. Folley was a very good fighter. Better than Machen arguably.

 

Zora Folley beat Eddie Machen, Henry Cooper, George Chuvalo, Bob Cleroux, Mike DeJohn, Bob Foster, Oscar Bonavena, Doug Jones, Nino Valdes, Wayne Bethea, Alex Miteff, Alonzo Johnson. Most of these men were at/near Ring Magazine top 10 at the time Folley beat them.


In comparison


The only Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight Matthews beat was Rex Layne.



Folley not only has one of the best resumes in heavyweight contender history, but he was also hosed out of a title shot by pattersons camp, who ducked him for years. Folley might have beaten patterson. we wil never know.

 

Give me the exact quote.

Hurley selected opponents he felt Matthews could handle, but Marciano and Layne were the champion and the #2 contender in the 1952 ratings. Murphy and Nardico were top five lightheavyweights at their best, and Matthews had earlier beaten Hostak at middle.

Marciano and Layne were rated two of the top four heavyweights in the world in 1952. Fighting men like that is not exactly coddling.

Ring Magazine picked Matthews as the best all-around fighter in the world in their Feb, 1952 issue, replacing Robinson. I remember Bill Gore saying on ESPN that quite a few experts thought Matthews had the style and boxing skill to take Marciano in 1952.

 

1. Layne is one more top ten heavyweight than Foster defeated.

2. Folley definitely has a better resume at heavyweight than Matthews but he has an even greater advantage over Foster who never beat a rated heavyweight or even someone who was probably close to being rated when he fought them.

3. It is reasonable to think Matthews would have been a tough fight for Folley. Marciano ko'd him, but Folley was simply not a Marciano level puncher.

 

I can't see it.
Folley was rated in the top 10 in the World in the Heavyweight division for 128 months, from Feb. 1957 to Feb. 1968.
Foster was rated in the top 10 in the World in the Light Heavyweight division for 121 months, from July 1964 to March 1976.
Jones was rated for 74 months from June 1960 to March 1967.
Matthews was rated for 49 months from Feb. 1942 to Feb. 1955.

Folley beat some of the very best Heavyweights of his era. Only Liston and maybe Patterson were better at that time. I really can not see Matthews beating him, Jones or Foster.

 

No it's your opinion. I was having a joke with the guy because this thread comes up quite a bit.

 

Well Rondon was already KO'd by Bennie Briscoe and Jose Gonzales at middleweight so I do not think this was a great achievement

 

bob foster was one of the greatest light heavies ever and you have great light heavies like m. spinks, charles, moore doing well in the heavyweight division. it turns out they fought the big fights at the right time. no light heavy is gonna beat a peak ali or frazier. frazier demolished foster and a comeback ali toyed with him. the best of the light heavy contenders to beat a great heavy was gene tunney (and dempsey was past his best). he had the adaptability and boxing intelligence to go all the way. he's the only other fighter i pick who coulda spontaneously adapted like ali did v foreman.n ali saw alot in tunney that he saw in himself (actually ali said he was the most scientific fighter of the lot from that era).

 

1. Spinks, Charles, Moore, Tunney, etc did well in the heavyweight division. Foster didn't. Not only did he not win, he did not give very impressive performances. He was not, after all, the only lightheavyweight to meet top heavyweights, but Tunney beat Dempsey, Spinks beat Holmes, Conn gave Louis at his peak a great fight, Moore dropped Marciano. Tommy Loughran and Harold Johnson beat slews of heavyweight contenders. Foster's contemporary Gregorio Peralta fought a close fight with Foreman and drew with Bonavena and Lyle. Foster is in a minority in looking so consistently inept against top heavyweights.

2. "No light heavy is going to beat a peak Frazier"--Perhaps, but that does not make losing badly to him a proof of much of anything.

3. Foster is a great lightheavy---who did he beat at lightheavy to prove this? It seems to me his record is more like that of Matthews than that of someone like Tunney or Moore. Statistically impressive, but with few or no wins to prove Foster was really top echelon. HHascop pointed out that Foster is considered by historians a top level lightheavy and Matthews not considered. I think one who simply studied the facts of their records without knowing how they are rated historically would have a tough time judging who was better.

 

Matthews is relatively unspectacular from what i've witnessed.He didn't make much impression on me.