Joe Frazier's resume is underrated

Yes and to know why each poster rank someone at that spot, it would be nice to know explaination and comparison to fighters someone rates higher. Just saying "I have Joe 10th" or something like that is pointless without explaination.

 

I don't either.

 

Rocky, Joe, Tyson, Lewis, Wlad, Holy... They are all hard to tell apart ranking wise for me. Foreman, Liston, Dempsey and Jeffries are somewhat below imo, though.

 

As for the thread, is Joe's resume really underrated. Aren't most agreed that he cleaned out the top guys of the late 60's and then also a still very good Ali?

I mean, I don't see much nitpicking at all when it comes to Joe's resume. It's not like with, for example, PBF:s, where wins are disregarded if they didn't came demonstrably on a fighters absolute peak (as if that is the standard). Most can accept that Ali wasn't at his very best in '71 but that it still was a very good win since Ali still was very good. And on Ellis, Quarry and Bonavena you don't get "they were all shite, because they all really lost to past prime Patterson". Instead they are regarded as the best of that generation of HWs.

So where is the underrating?

 

I take the thread as a why isn't he rated higher type thing. He's usually around 7-12 with 7 being uncommon. I think the thread might be aiming at that but could be wrong.

 

Ok. But 7-12 just sounds reasonable to me based on how the OP describes Joe's resume (a description I agree with). Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, Wlad and probably Johnson, all have many more wins over ranked opposition of a similar quality to Joe's opp (with the exception of Ali), so if 7-12 is too low I'd like to hear more about why. It should hinge, in that case, on the Ali win, which isn't unreasonable.

 

I didn't volunteer the info you asked me to justify my choices.I owe you nothing by way of explanation.

 

Each to their own.

 

You don't but then this debate is pointless... Either you don't have clear criteria (which is fine, most sports fans don't) or you don't care about discussion and post here for no other reason than to just share his opinion. Everything is fine then, but I don't get this approach on sports forums...

 

I wouldn't at all. A worn, past prime Dempsey knocked Jack Sharkey clean out at his best and I do believe that was a legitimate knockout. Sharkey was just as good as Schmeling if not slightly better.

You have to consider styles at this level too. Dempsey's style was practically kryptonite with Louis. He'd force Louis to fight on the back foot and get into a shootout. Can't see a Dempsey v Louis happening without Louis being knocked down. Does Dempsey get to stand over his downed opponent? I'd say if he could he certainly sparks Louis but if not then it's a bit of a trickier bout. Would have been one of the greatest heavyweight fights in history imo if it happened.

 

Schmeling was better than Sharkey, he beat him in their rematch, but got robbed.
Could you show me list of Dempsey's best wins?

Louis didn't struggle against pressure fighters, he dominated most of them. Nobody who comes in a ring with Louis to brawl is a kryptonite for him. Did Louis ever lose in a brawl?

Louis was fine fighting on back foot, he was rare example of fighter that was just as dangerous going backward as going forward.
Knocking down Louis is far from finishing the job.

If so, then Louis would also be allowed to stand over Dempsey. That would be painful for Jack.

Definitely, I agree here. Dempsey had abilities to win this fight, I just don't see any reason to make him favorite. Louis fought more dangerous opponents than Dempsey.

 

I don't doubt Dempsey's abilities, he was a monstrous puncher and excellent fighter. His resume is very thin for an ATG fighter. Sometimes I give him benefit of doubt because of how talented he was, but I can't do that against Louis who was just as talented and much more proven.

 

The issue with Frazier's resume. Ali, Foreman, Norton and Lyle fought pretty much everyone in the 1970's.

Had Frazier fought Lyle, Norton, and Shavers, then he'd have a really good resume. We would also see how he matched up with other punchers besides Foreman.

 

He fought Foreman twice and Bonavena twice.

 

The issue with Frazier's resume. Ali, Foreman, Norton and Lyle fought pretty much everyone in the 1970's.

Had Frazier fought Lyle, Norton, and Shavers, then he'd have a really good resume. We would also see how he matched up with other punchers besides Foreman.

Yes, but the other top fighters int he 1970's had more fights and IMO fought better opponents. I don't see Liston, Martin, or Mac Foster on Frazier's resume. Nor do I see Lyle, Norton, Shavers, Young or Patterson.

Frazier picked two no-names for title defenses, had he fought and beaten any two of the people I mentioned, his resume would have been better to much better depending on the names.