You could argue that Frazier would be the best Louis fought, and had a crouching / bobbing and weaving style that gave him trouble. I'd side with Louis, mostly because Fraizer wasn't that hard to hit by a skilled boxer, and Louis had a jab and an accurate straight right hand. This would not be Frazier vs Ellis, Louis could hit and Joe would quickly have to respect his power. Once hit flush by Foreman, Frazier crumbled. Louis hits in that zip code. I would not write off a Frazier upset however, Louis had a leaky defense and suspect chin when hit too. Best guess, Louis in 5 rounds. Neither fighter would give up easily.
The amount of people writing off Frazier here is unbelievable. Prime Frazier is an ATG for God's sake. Have a word with yourselves. Louis was not a God. Frazier would give him some DAMN problems to deal with.
It's troubling that you play the part of such a fanboi that you refuse to acknowledge numerous factors crucial to a potential outcome in this one. People can see with their own eyes just what sort of starter Frazier was in numerous readily available bouts. The one i proffered is proof enough that Frazier was not, and i quote, "an exceedingly slow starter". Instead of blindly rehashing everything you readily accepted at face value actually have a look and digest. Indeed Frazier was often more effective around round 5 and onward, when an opponent even lasted this long!!! Frazier was a swarmer and it doesn't take a genius to realise opponents were at their freshest, fastest and most tuned in at the start of their bouts. By the later rounds Frazier had already started to grind them down with his sustained pressure and indeed PUNISHMENT from the start of the contest. Again, this was with opponents that could get past the what Joe offered up prior and with so many stoppages prior to round 4 that wasn't actually that many. By contrast Frazier's underrated defense and superb stamina would have him still hammering as if he'd just came out. In short once Frazier had started to grind down his opponent over the first, lets say 4 rounds said opponent slowed down and was in a position where Joe could up the ante and really pound away at a less mobile and more easily accessible target. Was Frazier "an exceedingly slow starter"? Not at all. It doesn't take much thinking considering his multitude of early stoppages and then one can simply go and watch for themselves. Was he a fast starter? No. That is a Mike Tyson. The funny thing is Louis himself could be vulnerable early, getting dropped right off the bat a few times and also struggling with Galento. He was also dropped early in sparring on two occasions by Walcott before he was pushed out of camp.
The slow starter mantra is very reminicent of Howard Cosell. He would take a half truth and repeat it ad nauseam until it was deemed gospel by some.
Just take a step back and realise how arrogant and condescending you make yourself appear for once. I believe your previous account '' Houdini '' was banned for this exact same reason.
We all share some of the blame for this. If we didn't constantly challenge Perry's cliches and half-truths with facts and logic, he wouldn't have to spout out these vague references to his experiences in the 1970s.
I've asked him in what capacity he was involved in the sport,be it boxer,trainer,manager,referee,judge,corner- man,no reply so far.
Louis didn't take Galento apart ? It looks like he did. Totally battered him. Galento was a mess, stumbling around like a drunk on his knees, blood streaming out of his face. What more do you want ?
Louis was on his arse and hurt at other times. He was nailed by left hooks at various points. Taking someone apart is one sided - this was not remotely close.
