Joe Frazier vs. Superheavyweights

I've been reading what you have to say, but all your facts are wrong or twisted to your advantage. You don't know any of the absolute truth regarding any of the situations you are talking about.

Example #1: "Frazier had three title defenses as a champion."
Don't know where you got that number. At that time (during Frazier's era) there was a serious cluster@*#& to who was considered the champion. To many people Frazier became champ after beating Ali (in 1971), and had two title defenses after that. Some people consider when he beat Jimmy Ellis (in 1970) and unified the WBC, WBA, and NYSAC parts of the title and defended those belts four times (the 5th being the loss to Foreman). Some will go as far to say he won it in 1968 against Buster Mathis while the WBC and WBA were figuring out how to fill Ali's absence and that was defended that five times and stopped recognizing it when he fought Bob Foster. However, if you count that entire period he was considered some form of champion you could take it from 1968 to 1973 with a total of nine defenses. You've got two, four, or nine defenses to choose from here to make your argument and you choose three which isnt even an option.

Example #2 "Frazier was 1-4 vs Ali and Foreman"
Really? You're going to go this route? What a horrible construct of an argument. Ken Norton went 1-3 against Ali and Foreman. Tyson went 0-2 against Lewis and Douglas. Larry Holmes went 0-3 against Michael Spinks and Mike Tyson. George Foreman went 0-5 against Tommy Morrison, Jimmy Young, Ali, Holyfield, and Shannon Briggs. Frazier did do better second time around against Foreman when he tightened up his boxing skills however he was absolutly shot by that time and partially blind in one eye. Honestly, I don't think you know anything about how tough it was for Smokin' Joe or how his career went.

Example #3 "...And though I have not seen the film..."
Haven't seen the film? Then why in the hell are you talking about it? If you can't have any real proof to backup your argument, it's an even dumber idea to try to bring in obscure & unchecked information to save your position.

Example #4 "Since some here are very reluctant to agree with facts, it makes me question their intellectual honesty, which is something that greatly differs from an opinion."
You are in the exact same boat sir. You've been spitting out misinformation*. If I were a mod and this part of the forum required actual cited information, I would ban you for life. You're not the only offender, but I see in this debate you're falling apart trying to cover your ass. Sometimes I find it important to step down and be humble about my actions. If I'm wrong, I must accept it, see where I went wrong, and learn from it. So I'm guessing you're just too damn stubborn to admit anything other then to you assume you're right. Stop trying to assume any of this silly bull**** and accept some humility in your life. Hell, go research some facts and come back blazing in this argument. You know, try to win this one "out of the fridge" since you're obviously "on the ropes".

*misinformation - Incorrect information that uninformed people use to sound like they know something. They use this incorrect info in arguments and they make "waves" of people who might take this info as their own and create an entire discourse of wrong information. The best answer to misinformation is to educate yourself and use correct properly cited info.

 

HE Chins are best tested when they are hit. Take Foreman out of the equation if you must. Frazier by his own admission was close to t TKO loss to Bonevenna, who really is not a big hitter. Other guys who hardly landed anything serious such as Roams, and Stander buckles his knees, and a passive Bugner stunned Frazier too. By no means did Frazier have a good chin. If he did, the occasional shots that landed clean on him would not have a pronounced effect.

 

If you have to use an ancient Roy Jones to make points, you are really grasping for straws. Yes, I think Foreman walk though of Frazier in less than two full rounds is far Worse then Louis lasting many with Schmeling.
I really do not consider Schmeling an ATG. To re-phrase, Frazier was blown out in his prime or near prime worse than any other ATG heavy has been before or since.

Frazier ducked out of the invitation to crown a champion via tournament with the WBA. Instead he fought for the " New York State " title, which is not even a world title belt. I acknowledge Frazier as world champion after he beat Ali in 1971, not before. I also think his two title defenses as champion were absolute rips offs. The Foreman fight was not, but to see guys saying the competition in title fights stink today, and completing ingoing the fact that popular champs like Frazier fought even worse boggles the mind.

Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty means? I said form memory Bear floored Lewis and knocked him out of the ring when his back was to the ropes. Yes, Louis did flip over the ropes. Was it a pure somersault? Maybe not, but much of what I am saying here is fact, not from memory.

 

Don't often agree with you Mendoza, but still must give you props for taking it from every angle and still not going down.

Personally, I think both sides have good arguments. The truth is that it's very hard to say for sure. The fact that Futch picked Frazier over Bowe makes a strong impresssion on me, though. And I have earlier picked Bowe in this match-up.

 

I'd say Joe Frazier became champ when he beat Jimmy Ellis for the WBC [vacant], WBA[Ellis defending], and New York[Frazier defending] straps in February, 16th 1970.

From that run you can say he KO'ed Ali's sparring partner, KO'ed the best light heavyweight at the time, defeated one of the very best heavyweights of all time in one of the very best heavyweight fights of all time, then filled it with two crappy defenses before getting shut down by Foreman.

To have beaten Ellis, Foster, and Ali in a row is impressive. Not to mention the fact he fought Quarry and Bonavena (twice!) before the WBA/WBC/NY title run and holds a TKO over George Chuvalo.

 

I'm not buying it. Maybe your are putting more stock into alphabet or USA state titles than I am.

Ali was the un-defeated and lineal champion, and active in 1970. By that definition, Ali was the champion. While beating Ellis who won the WBA tourney means something, it was not enough.

And speaking of the WBA, why did Frazier opt out of this tournament?

As for Frazier not fighting punchers, he never meet Liston, Mac Foster, Leotis Martin, Ernie Shavers, Kenny Norton, or Ron Lyle.

The path his management took was to fight guys where he had a stylistic advantage over smaller men who were not big punchers. Or in Bugner's case a big man who was afraid to commit to throwing punches. The one exception was Foreman of course.

 

I see you always rate Ken Norton highly, at least a less than Prime Frazier got up 6 times and if the Ref did not stop the fight he would have walked into George again. Lets not forget Joe got up 6 times from some of the hardest and accurate punches Foreman ever threw. Foreman Destroyed Norton but so did Garcia, Shavers and later Cooney but Norton was also put down by journeyman Scott Ledoux 2 times in there draw.

As far as when Frazier became Champ...there was a legitamate unification fight between Frazier and Ellis and a lot of people favored Ellis...well I think everyone believed Frazier made it clear with his dominant and decisive victory over Ellis and Frazier took Ali's best punches in fight 1 and hurt Ali very badly in the 11th and 15th rds...Foreman,Lyle,Bonavena,Liston and Cleveland Williams could not claim the same durability that Frazier showed against the acurate punching Ali

You are judging Frazier by one fight Foreman and lets not Forget Frazier got up battered and bruised for the 6th time ready for more....Was it Foremans power that was suspect or did Frazier have a good chin and recup...It only took Rahman and McCall one punch to Flatten Big man Lewis for the 10 count did they hit harder than Foreman in your opinion ? or did Frazier have a better chin than Lewis?

 

I think Lewis took some good punches in his career without showing a bad effect. He was also caught. I think both of Lewis' KO losses were due to his own ego, and shock more than him not beating the count.

Ref's stop fights much faster these days. Lewis did beat the count vs. McCall. He did not vs. Rhaman, but perhaps age, Lewis own arrogance, and Rhaman landing a clean right hand had a lot to do with it.

I don't see a huge difference in durability between Lewis and Frazier. Neither had good chins vs big punchers. You could argue Lewis' was better because he took some pretty good shots without being as shaken up.

I do see a difference in willingness for Lewis to meet big punchers. Lewis face a boat load of bombers, Morrison, Tua, Vitali, and Tyson.

I think Frazier had a lot of heart, but in the 3rd match with Ali, its not like he pushed Futch out of the way to answer the bell for the 15th. If Frazier did some acting to show Futch he was ok, he might have seen the final bell.

 

The key point is this: What kind of standards are you using to appraise Frazier's chin as being weak? That he got KD'd by Foreman? Well, I guess Lyle, Chuvalo and Norton have glass jaws, too. That he was caught cold by Bonavena? Well, ****, even Pacquiao took a few drubbings when he was a kid; Duran was downed by De Jesus on more than one occasion. And it's all irrelevant, anyway. Ultimately, neither of the Klitschkos have the style or the ability to put Frazier down, and neither of them will have any reply when he gets inside and starts uncorking.

 

I'd hate to break it to you, but there's one glaring piece of info you're missing. Muhammad Ali officially retired to allow the winner of the Joe Frazier vs. Jimmy Ellis bout the rite to be considered the undisputed heavyweight champion. He did this on February 1st, 1970. Following into Septemeber 11, 1970 when he announced his fight with Quarry in Georgia.

Mendoza, as much as "you're not buying it" other documents and history state otherwise. Revisionist only works if there's actual proof. Your rules for judging fighters seem strictly arbitrary. As a man [I'm talking about myself here] attempting to become a boxing historian who is an accomplished and graduated English major I see you ignoring many traditional rules in which you hold an argument. Case in point, you're refusing actual history. Ali officially retired to allow this giant build up to a fight with him and Frazier. This way Ali could say he not only came back, he built up his comeback to eventually fight against the very best fighter that held the official title at this time. Officially Frazier was champ when he unified all the straps against Ellis. Officially Ali retired to allow the winner of the aforementioned fight to become the official world heavyweight champion. At the same time, Ali still remained to be the only other former champ[in good health] that hadn't lost his title before he retired.

 

I'm bumping this to make it clear to Mendoza, but not without some extra information to make it worthwhile.

Even the Ring acknowledged the Frazier vs. Ellis winner to be the new official heavyweight boxing champ. In your argument you literally have no official ground to stand on. Only the grounds you created. Which are misinformed.

 

Your an idiot. Frazier was green in that fight against Bonavena. We saw what happend to Bonavena in their second fight, Frazier disposed of him rather easily. Fighters get stunned, it happens. I guess Vitali has a glass jaw for being hurt against the mighty Corrie Sanders.