Joe Frazier's resume is underrated

He had nothing to prove the man needed a rest.

 

Pfft you're honestly a goose if you believe that.

 

You seem to be under the mistaken misapprehension that I am obliged to explain my criteria for ranking fighters to you.I can assure you that this is not the case.
NB. Prime for prime Schmeling does not beat Louis.

 

.

That is not how being the world champion works,as champion you have an obligation to the title and to the boxing fans to defend your title against the deserving contenders .For two years Frazier did not do that.

If you don't want to fulfil that obligation, and need a rest then retire,relinquish your title and then,if you wish to resume your career, work your way into contention to challenge for it again.
During this "rest" period Ali fought 8 times, beating.
Ellis
Blin
Chuvalo
Lewis
Mathis
Foster
Quarry
Patterson
Bugner
Seems he didn't feel the need for a rest.

 

You are not obliged of course, but if you want to have discussion with me then it would be nice to know your approach. If you don't want to have discussion with me, then fair enough.

Louis was definitely in his prime against Schmeling. He beat Baer and Carnera a year before first Schmeling fight, then beat Sharkey just after this loss. Sure, he improved as a fighter in the eary 1940s but that doesn't make him out of prime. There was nothing suggesting that Louis wasn't good enough before Schmeling fight and nothing he showed after proved that.

If you are talking about their rematch, then you know that Schmeling was past his prime.

 

Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey didn't do that even once during their title reigns.

 

Legendary trainer Ray Arcel was of the same opinion as myself,but of course you would know better.

 

True. He should have mentioned Ramos instead. And Mathis?

 

1.There were no rankings when Johnson was champion.
2. Johnson signed to defend his title against Jeannette[ twice,]Langford and McVey the fights were vetoed by the authorities.
3.Johnson was champion during the White Hope era White America had no interest in seeing two blacks contest the heavyweight title.
4.Johnson received bigger purses for defending against white challengdrs than he could have gotten fighting black contenders
5.Frazier drew poor gates in the two mismatches he defended his title in.
6.Dempsey defended against Tunney whom Wills had refused to fight.
7There was a colour bar operating.

 

I know that but we can rate challengers reasonably well without ranking and it's fair to say that most of Johnson defendes were not against top men.

He defended against Jim Johnson, so I think that it was possible to get other black fights if he really wanted to.

I know that and I don't blame him for these choices. Still objectively, his title reign was quite weak for someone with that many defenses. I rate Johnson highly because of his pre-title career, not because of his title defenses. Again, not his fault but it's a fact that he didn't fight the best.

I agree, see my reply above.

I don't rate fighters based on gates. Frazier defended against many quality opponents.

Credit for him, that's his best title defense. He lost it.

 

Frazier won a spurious NY title over the unranked Mathis defended against the unranked Ziggy was steered clear of the WBA tourney defended against the unranked Foster,Stander,Daniels and the crap Ramos who had one win of any note,over the shot Terrell.
He has one great win, avenged twice ,and five very good ones,Bonavena x2,Quarryx2,Ellis.
He doesn't make my top 10,others may put him where they like.

 

How many good wins does Dempsey have by this standard?

 

This is a thread about Joe Frazier and where posters rate him.

 

Something similar, minus Ali?

 

Yes, that's why I don't see any reason to pick Dempsey over Frazier.