Joe Frazier vs Tua & Holyfield

I'm afraid that boxing doesn't work like that...

 

Right, but there is no question who had that the harder hook. It was Morrison. As it was Fraizer could keep the pressure on, grinding away, while Morrison had to be careful not to punch himself out.

 

You are right, it does not. But this is the scenario a certain poster suggested, and going by those rules, that's what's gonna happen.

 

No, slugfest doesn't mean that you completely forget about defense. Morrison was a less accurate puncher with worse defense, worse chin and far worse stamina. He'd have no chance against Frazier, with the exception of very lucky punch.

 

Tua and Holyfield together would batter Joe Frazier, 1 good man can’t beat 2 good men in a fight, it’s very rare. On my way home from work today I battered 4 armed men but apart that it’s extremely rare. If Joe Frazier had a baseball bat then it could be a different story here

 

I'd pick Morrison to beat Frazier in an actual fight. He's stronger, just as fast, hits harder and he even has a better chin.

 

Frazier was galaxies ahead of Morrison as a fighter. Much better defense, much higher workrate, much better stamina and clearly a better chin. Morrison looks fast for first few rounds before he gassed. Frazier was fast even in the 15th round.

Morrison has nothing on Frazier outside of size and maybe power. That's not enough to overcome massive disadvantages he had.

 

Frazier probably is more elusive and has better stamina, that's about it. There's no proof whatsoever he had a better chin.

 

But there is a proof who had a better power, right?

 

You can make an estimation of that from the damage they did to their opponents when they connected. Morrison clearly hit harder.

 

Very crude estimation, which isn't any better than a guess who had better chin.

 

Are we assuming Frazier somehow maintains the exact same peak level of performances for all 6 fights? Or does he have wear and tear?

Against Tua, he wins a very difficult first two fights by decision, but by the 3rd fight he just isn't the same after so much wear and tear he eventually gets stopped in the 6th.

Holyfield he wins the first, then loses the next two. Hoylfield was just as tough and had great stamina himself. I think the first fight would be a war for the ages and holy being holy would oblige him in a close range fight. Then holy decides to box and wins a much more clear decision the 2nd fight. 3rd fight Frazier's body is starting to break down and Holy stops him within 10.

A guy like Frazier ages like milk. His extremely aggressive, high work rate style combined with his injury ridden body means he couldn't possibly perform at his best in a 3 fight serious against elite competition.

 

Valid factors but don't we assume each man is at his best unless otherwise specifically stated?

 

This is true. Joe style of fighting rarely lead to longevity.

 

In a one off singular match sure. But I don't see the point in unrealistically having two fighters at their peak 3 fights in a row with no wear and tear. It would often be the exact same match over and over.