Joe Frazier's management style- READ THE FULL FIRST POST

How many times have I addressed this??? Since this is the EXACT SAME THING you've been saying since before the great flood and beyond, I will repost my own words yet again:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Furthermore, your interpretation of Norton and a 1970s Patterson as "punchers" is very questionable, and you have YET AGAIN ignored the ENDLESSLY REPEATED fact that Norton and Frazier were sparring partners, stablemates, and close friends, and thus the match was both impractical and unwanted.

What will it TAKE to get you to stop skirting the fact that Frazier fought Foreman by option in the first place??????????? LOSING DOES NOT EQUAL NOT FIGHTING. Frazier's management DELIBERATELY PICKED FOREMAN FOR A TITLE DEFENSE- FOREMAN WAS THE BIGGEST, YOUNGEST, HARDEST-HITTING CONTENDER ALIVE AND WAS A 37-0 GOLD MEDALIST COMING OFF 21 CONSECUTIVE KNOCKOUTS. I have asked you COUNTLESS TIMES TO EXPLAIN THIS, AND YOU ARE

This content is protected

This one is an abuse of the year-end RING rankings. Norton and Lyle were ranked higher than Quarry at the end of 1974 BECAUSE Quarry lost to Frazier and was then inactive for the second half of the year. Norton had just been toasted by Foreman when Frazier fought Quarry in '74, and Ron Lyle was busy fighting the "washed up" Jimmy Ellis we're going to hear about below. Frazier, interestingly enough, had actually been hoping for a rematch with FOREMAN, but failed to receive it and took on Quarry- who had already smeared Lyle and blitzed Shavers, making "Why did Frazier fight Quarry instead of the fearsome Lyle?" a rather silly objection- in order to get another crack at Ali.

The Ellis fight was A TUNE-UP. He was fighting ALI later that year. Do you think EVERY FIGHT he has has to be a mega-fight meant to prove his legacy to all of history? By this criteria, you could say ANYONE ducked just about ANYONE.

No, actually, those guys were NOT rated above the majority of Frazier's actual opponents (Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena in the late '60s, Ali and Foreman in the mid-'70s) at the time he fought them. There is a clear and factual reason- not related to "ducking"- that a fight with Norton was impractical and unwanted. Patterson was losing to Frazier's opponents, never a serious threat while he was champion, and retired before he lost the title- Joe ducking Patterson is just a silly suggestion. Shavers and Lyle COULD have been fought in the brief windows of time Frazier had between his fights with Ali and Foreman in the mid-70s, but there was no particular REASON for these fights to happen. The fact that Frazier's management CHOSE FOREMAN as an opponent for their man OPTIONALLY, not once, but TWICE, obviously indicates that they weren't afraid of fighting punchers; Lyle and Shavers fights just never materialized- just like fights with Young, Terrell, Mildenberger, etc., who were certainly NOT big punchers, never materialized- and Joe was, for the most part, alternating between fighting Ali and Foreman, who were MOST CERTAINLY higher-ranked than Lyle or Shavers, and one of whom was an even BIGGER puncher.

Shavers and Lyle, yes. Patterson and Norton, not necessarily. I see no clear evidence they hit harder than several of Frazier's opponents; in the case of Norton, the evidence suggests he was NOT a big puncher, since he never even scored a knockdown against a serious contender.

1. You have STILL never explained the first fight. Either you discuss the choice to take that match in context of your theory, or you drop the theory.
2. This fight ALSO refutes your theory, as your weak rationalization here betrays. You're saying that Frazier's people were too afraid to fight Lyle because of his punching power, but because Foreman, who hit HARDER than Lyle, had a close scrape with this guy who they themselves were too afraid to fight, they were willing to take on George, who had easily the most impressive knockout resume in history, by choice, AGAIN?

 

Joe Frazier's management in early 1972:
"Let's take Terry Daniels and Ron Stander."
"How come?"
"Because, that way we can avoid the otherwise-inevitable showdowns we fear so greatly against Ron Lyle and a 37-year-old Floyd Patterson [ ]."

Joe Frazier's management a few months later at the end of 1972:
"So, who're we gonna start up with next year?"
"Uh, let's mix it up... how about this guy George... Foreman?"
"Meh."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see something wrong with this picture?

 

You don't get it- I'm not "ignoring" the rankings you posted. I'm saying they're clearly not persuasive. When I used the '60s rankings, the point was that if one is ACTIVELY FIGHTING the hardest hitters in the top 10 and then ACTIVELY FIGHTING the absolute best contenders in the world, then he is CLEARLY NOT ducking punchers. However, if one is NOT actively fighting all of them, as Frazier was not in the mid-70s, it does not then automatically follow that that individual must be DUCKING them.

But you don't think they thought Ron Lyle, who had already been thrashed by Quarry, or Earnie Shavers, who had already been thrashed by Stander (!), Quarry, Bob Stallings, etc., were beatable?! You haven't adequately addressed the point AT ALL.

And again, this simply does not account for anything- it's amazing how far you're going to rationalize this. They're ducking Ron Lyle, who Foreman JUST KNOCKED OUT, they're ducking Earnie Shavers, who has been knocked out by multiple Frazier victims and is nowhere near Foreman's level, but they're fighting Foreman, who is bigger, stronger, younger and more dangerous than either of those guys?

 

Before I begin discussion in this post, let me note that I appreciate that you have finally begun attempting to address my arguments rather than flatly ignoring them and responding by repeating the same points I was addressing.

No, actually, the logic you used was not the same of mine, for the following reasons:
Posting rankings and then saying "He fought X" does not constitute logic in and of itself; what I was saying with the rankings and history I discussed earlier in this thread was that if one is ACTIVELY FIGHTING the best punchers in the top 10 and then ACTIVELY FIGHTING the clear best fighters in the top 10, it is then UNDENIABLE that that individual is not ducking punchers, since that individual is actively demonstrating to the opposite. However, if there is a particular instance where the fighter chooses an opponent arbitrarily and that opponent does not fit one of the above categories, it DOES NOT logically follow that that fighter must be DUCKING or "AVOIDING" the fighters fitting into those categories; otherwise, for example, it is "clear as day" that Wladimir Klitschko is ducking Wladimir Virchis, as Virchis ranks higher and hits harder than at least two of Wlad's last three opponents. Note that I believe the idea that Klitschko is ducking Virchis to be ridiculous; however, it is the logical equivalent of the arguments you are forwarding in this discussion.

Lyle beat Mathis in his final professional fight when Mathis came in at a disgusting 263 pounds. Frazier being "lucky on the cards" against Johnson is complete hogwash.

"Scrap

This content is protected

This content is protected

won the hearts of 9,155 Olympic Auditorium fans Thursday night, but that is all he won in his 10-round battle with Joe

This content is protected

."
-Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1967
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An Upset by 'Scrap

This content is protected

Held to Decision Win
By DAVE TAYLOR
Dogged underdog George (

This content is protected

This content is protected

, the heavyweight fireplug from

This content is protected

, lost a lopsided 10-rounder to the world's No. 2 man,

This content is protected

This content is protected

, but it was as good as an upset in the minds of screaming fans at Olympic Auditorium Thursday. "
-The Independent, May 5, 1967
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"

This content is protected

Is Victor
Unbeaten

This content is protected

a punishing fight Thursday before more than 9,000 fans in Olympic Auditorium."
-Port Arthur News, Friday, May 5, 1967
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You fail to mention, of course, that Lyle went to a split decision with Bugner, who an off Frazier soundly UD'd, went the distance with a washed-up Ellis, who Frazier destroyed twice, once while he was actually in his prime, and was decisively thrashed by Quarry, who Frazier dismantled twice, went the distance with a shot Manuel Ramos, who Frazier wiped out in two while he was in his prime, and was stopped by a single barrage from an utterly lethargic Ali, who couldn't do anything like that to Frazier in three meetings.
Lyle did not do better against Bonavena than Frazier did in their rematch, and he faced a Bonavena whose major victories were all well in the rear-view mirror. His doing better against Foreman is an incredibly weak argument for the view that Frazier ducked him, since Frazier proceeded immediately after this bout to fight Foreman himself!

If you want to make a contest out of common-opponent results, Lyle the monstrous puncher is 7-3 with a grand total of 3 knockouts, compared to Frazier's 12-4 with 7 knockouts, giving Joe a substantially superior winning percentage AND knockout percentage, in spite of having the MUCH tougher end of the bargain, with five of his fights against Ali and Foreman to Lyle's two and most of his opponents much closer to their peaks.

From what I can see, the only "big-time punchers" Lyle fought during his career of relevance were Foreman and Shavers, and then he faced Cooney while shot; Frazier fought Foreman twice (which easily trumps facing Foreman and Shavers once apiece) and was scheduled to face Kallie Knoetze while shot and coming out of retirement, but pulled out with hepatitis. The gap you're envisioning here is imagined.

Since this is another weak attempt at argument-from-common opposition in which you cite the one example that favors you and then stretch sanity to the limit with a two-degrees-of-separation rationalization that relies on a fight that took place two years after Frazier retired:

Shavers' win/loss record against common opponents with Frazier- unless I'm overlooking someone in the sea of no-names that comprises most of Shavers' record- stands at a .500 average 3-3 with 3 knockouts. Frazier's record against common opponents with Shavers is 8-2 with 6 knockouts. The contrast here is even more pronounced. If this doesn't illustrate to you how far below Frazier's league this guy was, I'm not sure what will.

On the other hand, if one runs a common-opponent comparison of Joe Frazier and George Foreman, these are the results:
Foreman's record comes to 3-1 with 3 knockouts, as compared with Frazier's 4-2 with 2 knockouts. Notice, unlike Shavers and Lyle, who were vastly inferior, Foreman has a BETTER record against common opponents than Frazier and a BETTER knockout percentage, too. Not only that, but Foreman was bigger, younger, stronger, had a better overall record, had a better knockout record, was an Olympic Gold Medalist, and personally defeated one of these men in the ring himself. If Frazier's management were unwilling to fight punchers except for ones they viewed as "beatable," they would have taken Lyle and Shavers LONG BEFORE they would ever have agreed to fight Foreman, let alone face Foreman TWICE.

1. Actually, Frazier stopped Quarry faster than Norton did.
2. I have explained time and time again why a fight between Frazier and Norton was impractical and unwanted. I have even made a separate thread dedicated entirely to this point. It is a SILLY move to match the two top fighters from your stable against each other and guarantee a loss for at least one of them without any pressing reason for the match to take place. Furthermore, Frazier and Norton were close friends and Frazier himself stated that he did not wish to face Norton in a real bout. And reportedly, the word from those who saw them spar was that Norton was no match for Frazier anyway. As there was no pressing reason for the fight to happen, it would have been difficult and it would have been unwanted by both fighters, what is the point? There is a clear, verifiable explanation why this fight did not happen; why do you persist with a completely unsubstantiated version of history which relies on nothing more than speculation, rather than accepting the well-recorded historical account?