Joe Frazier vs. Rocky Marciano

"Folley at his best is very hard to beat"

But Doug Jones and Alejandro Lavorante beat him, and indeed knocked him out.

"Zora Folley would beat Michael Spinks"

I can't agree with that one.

 

"I think Murray was as good, or better, than Terrell."

This I agree with. Murray had a punch.

 

All of this is peripheral, in my judgement. I don't care if this writer thought Terrell won. Beating a Machen who fought a draw with Elmer Rush in his next fight and then lost to Karl Mildenberger is not that big a deal.

"embarressingly inept" and might be "competent" in a year or two if he develops a right, which, by the way, he never did. is pretty devastating criticism.

Foster should be defended not by whom he lost badly to, but by whom he defeated or looked good against. My major point is that Terrell is not such a super fighter that Tunney, Conn, Moore, Spinks, etc are all going to lose automatically to him.

 

"Why should I care what this writer says?"

(By the way, in fairness to the man, this was Martin Kane, the boxing writer for Sports Illustrated.)

No reason to care what this writer, or for that matter any other writer says at all, I guess. Writers hold their positions because they are good writers, not necessarily good judges of boxing, most of the time. That is why we have these debates. In the absence of film, they are basically our only source.


The debate seems to be growing more heated than it should. As you pointed out accurately, Foster only defeated nondescript opponents at heavyweight. I agree that the great lightheavies of history would have probably lost to Ali and Frazier. Where I disagree is in seeing Terrell and Folley as being so formidable that they are likely winners over all the great lightheavies of history. Where I would take my strongest stand is against those who argue that Ali and Frazier easily beating Foster somehow proves they would have an equally easy time with Tunney, Conn, Moore, Spinks, etc. Those men proved they could fight at heavy. Foster never did.

 

"He is also effective."

To a degree. We might dismiss a one-sided loss to Ali, but losses to the ordinary Spencer and Ramos are harder to explain away. Martin Kane criticized the referee in the Machen fight for losing control of the fight and allowing excessive clinching and wrestling. I wonder to what extent Terrell's career backed up because the refs were instructed after the Ali loss to not allow excessive holding.

I have not disputed the MJ report, but this is what you typed---"anyone scoring it for Terrell scored it by 'a very close margin'" Also neither I nor SI nor anyone else disputes that Terrell had a good left jab. What else he had is in dispute.

It seems to me all this MJ report says is that it was a close fight and those who felt Terrell won voted for him by a narrow margin. Am I missing something? The quote you gave does not actually say what percentage thought Terrell in fact won.

 

His humiliating 15 round loss to Ali in which he was physically and mentally torn apart took a lot out of him, and explain those losses. Terrells resume prior to Ali speaks for itself.

 

"It brought him the WBA HW title"

We seem to differ on how important this is. This might be a generational thing. I am definitely an old fogey. You seem to represent modern thinking.

I don't see winning a paper title from an over-the-hill fighter who had lost very badly to Floyd Patterson the previous year as proving anything at all. I might argue that Terrell and all his "championship" opponents prior to Ali were really second tier contenders, at least at this point in their careers.

 

"Terrell's resume prior to Ali speaks for itself"

Which fighter would you consider one of the top three heavyweights in the world when he defeated them?

 

"Straps, at least the top ones, are indicative of status"

Not to me. Eddie Machen was rated #9 contender at the end of 1964 by Ring Magazine. How was beating the #9 contender give you status? You are just a trifle more bureaucratic than I am.


I admit I might just be an old fogey, or old school, but in my world you have to beat the best to claim to be the best.

 

I'm going with Marciano in this one. Rocky was just too awesome for Joe