Marciano vs Frazier: Who had the better chin?

Which historians?

 

I suggest you could ask a few and find out for yourself.

 

You're trying to make this more complicated than it needs to be, but you're ironically making it way too simple.

Your argument basically boils down to: Vitali had a better chin simply because of his single minded mentality and approach. This would suggest Wladmir would be better at taking a punch if he simply had a more straightforward attitude and stopped thinking too much. That's obviously a very unlikely conclusion because you are once again saying someone like David Price could have an iron chin with the right state of mind.

 

I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims.YOU are!
It is up to YOU to prove your claims,not ME to disprove them!
NB Primary sourced quotes will be acceptable! lol

 

The better chin goes for Rocky, say whatever you want about this man, but he was unique in many ways, no matter what he lacked as a boxer.

 

There’s a very popular thread all about how problematic Moore and Walcott would be for Joe Frazier on this very forum. Maybe you could look into this for some of your primary sources?

 

I was wondering the same thing.

 

Those are forum posters! Hardly historians. One of them is the biggest joke on the forum and was previously permabanned, and one can't bring himself to admit he finds Frazier overrated despite saying things like "folks on this forum sometimes go overboard with him like he was just this unstoppable, ever advancing T Rex with a left hook who all things being equal would chop down anything placed in front of him through sheer will, heart and determination, or die trying."

and "There are people who seem to think Joe would take out any human being that’s put in front of him, if not King Kong himself. If that’s not overrating, it’s at least being a bit unrealistic."

 

Don’t be so hard on yourself. Most guys here are every bit as qualified as any boxing historians.

 

Regardless of if they are as qualified as "any boxing historian" (which at the very least 2 out of the 3 aren't) they are not historians nor do they even identify as such.

 

Anyone with an interest in boxing history can identify as a boxing historian. You know this.

I would even class you as somewhat of a boxing historian based on your Clarance Williams knowledge alone.

 

Fair enough. I consider myself a boxing historian and rank Cleveland Williams as the greatest of all time, therefore the statement "at least one boxing historian ranks Cleveland Williams the greatest of all time" rings true correct?

 

You got caught out again chok.

You know this.

Accept, admit and move on.

It will work out better.

 

You’re as qualified as anyone too. I would of course prefer Gilbert Odds view on all matters Cleveland Williams mind!