Prime Charles vs. Prime Frazier 15rds.

I think Charles lacks the punch to keep Frazier off him and while it would be much more competitive than than Frazier-Foster (Frazier's peak fight), i think Frazier's heavy shots and constant pressure will wear Charles out to a TKO somewhere around the 10th round. Charles is a skilled veteran, but simply lacks the tools to beat Frazier, in my opinion. Frazier was at his very best against boxing type of fighters.

 

I tend to think that it would be like the Marciano fights only more one sided. Charles would certainly make it competitive though.

 

Frazier takes this one by a long shot in my opinion. Joe fought a similar style to the Rock, only better. What's more, charles wouldn't have the advantage of speed over Joe the way he did against many of his opponents. Also, if the left hook of Jersey stopped Ezzard in his tracks, Frazier's left would send the Cincinatti cobra from Madison square garden to taledo.

Frazier by mid round KO.

 

I think the fight would be a bit like the Jimmy Ellis match, except Ellis was a bit harder to catch than Charles was. Charles liked to mix it up and brawl, which would be his mistake vs Frazier. I’d pick Frazier inside of six rounds. Bad match up for Charles.

 

No, Frazier was a little bigger and quicker and not quite so wild, but he didn't have as good a right hand or offensive arsenal as Marciano, started slower, and probably didn't have quite so sturdy a set of whiskers. It's open to debate who was the better overall fighter, but it isn't reasonable to claim Frazier was just "similar to Marciano, only better."

Frazier was fast, but I beg to differ on the idea that he was as fast as Charles. Let us remember Charles was plenty fast at middleweight and light heavyweight, let alone heavyweight. I believe Charles was quicker, and he had the straighter, sharper punches, too.

Walcott's knockout punch was a highly unconventional shot set up with brilliant feinting and counterpunching. Frazier's hook had more raw power than Walcott's, but he didn't have that kind of subtlety to his style. Guys like Marciano, Satterfield and Ray also hit harder than Walcott, but couldn't do what he did to Charles. Besides which, Walcott only stopped Charles once in four fights.

 

Frazier and Marciano were surely similar in style - put relentless pressure on the opponent. But there are also some differences between them:

Frazier fought mostly in an orthodox way, bobbing and weaving, throwing textbook left hooks. Marciano had that weird "leaning back" style and was a lot less predictable than Frazier; he'd throw any punch and they weren't textbook punches 70% of the time. He also used a lot of feints and weird, unpredictable movements. I guess that's why master boxers like Walcott, Charles, Louis and Moore never really figured him out even though they all thought "i'll simply do this and that" when they saw him fight. Marciano also had a much better right hand than Frazier but gives up roughly 15 pounds to him.

 

No comment that you can think of can be more just or fare than what I said. Frazier defeated the better oppsition, and did so for most of his career. He has more quality wins in just 32 victories than does Marciano in 49. Also, his power and handspeed were arguably superior and what was this comment about him not being as wild as the Rock? The guy was far more active, and utilized an incredible amount of upper body movement, that Marciano couldn't possibly match.

Quicker on his feet maybe. In terms of handspeed, Nuh uh. No way jose. Frazier would be able to close the gap on Ez' a lot faster than Marciano did.

While it's true that Joe sometimes through that hook while lunging forward, I'mnot so sure Charles would see it coming. It was subtle enough. He pounded the hell out of Ellis and Ali, using that left. Those guys were both very good boxers, and one of them is commonly reffered to as the greatest.

If Frazier met Charles once, that would be there only meeting, and there would be no need for a rematch.

 

Frazier will wear down Charles and stop him, prolly a bit quicker than Marciano did.

 

ok louis didn't "figure out" the rock becasue he was a way faded old man-a prime louis would have been a whole different story. Frazier was a lot faster than the rock and had better defense-though not Marcianos chin. Power wise they were a toss up-Fraziers left hook was a lethal and historic punch...so was the Rock's right. Frazier was a bigger man and agaisnt charles that and his speed/power ratio would have made this very one-sided. The thing about guys like Charles and Gans and other old timers who fought succesfully from the low weight classes on up, is that they were phenoms like roy jones-but with more solidity as people (no basketball gigs etc). They really shouldn't be judged by how succesful they'd be against big heavyweights. Henry Armstrong would probably not have been too competetative against the top 10 middleweights (SRR is mostly consodered a welterweight on all time lists)...but he was probaly better than any of them as an all timer (certainly his placement is usualy higher than any of the middleweights on the lists).

 

He defeated Ali for sure but outside of that Rocky has the edge. If you ranked the top 10 fighters they beat combined then Ali would for sure take the first place but the next three or four would be Marciano victims.

 

I just explained why what you said was wrong, and you ignored it, edited it out and quoted one sentence which was just a statement of the opinion. Please respond to the points I made if you want to maintain the claim you're making.

Yes, but he also had four losses and was decked by a couple of relatively low-level fighters. Yes, I'm aware that he only had more losses because there was better competition at the time, but that's a double-edged sword- he also only had better wins because there was better competition at the time. Marciano was the more dominant and accomplished fighter in his own era.

I agree that Frazier had better handspeed than Rocky, but he didn't hit harder. Try to mount a reasonable argument to that effect- it's virtually impossible. Frazier never knocked an elite-level opponent out cold with a single shot. He didn't take anyone's front teeth out with a knockout punch or finish them with one or two shots in the first couple rounds. He broke people down or took them with barrages. Marciano was clearly the more raw-powerful puncher of the two. He also had more two-handed power and a bigger arsenal of offensive weaponry.

Um, I mean he was less wild. Marciano would sometimes throw big, heavily-committed shots with his whole body behind them and miss wildly. Frazier didn't do that as much. Hence, Frazier was less wild.

Frazier was more active in the sense that he was constantly moving his head, but in terms of punch output, if anything, Marciano has the edge.

Watch film of them side-by-side. Charles has the quicker hands. His punches zip to their targets. Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY4Woi4LYjI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esv1SbtTD_Q&mode=related&search=
Just compare. Frazier is plenty fast, but not on Charles' level. Charles' Sunday shots are lightning fast- look at the way he drills people in between their punches, and so crisply and right-on-the-button, too.

Again, Frazier certainly hit Ali and Ellis with his left, but he didn't subtly maneuver them in and then throw and unorthodox counter shot sneakily through their guards to knock them unconscious, rather he broke their guards down and beat them into submission. He was more of a battering ram; he came in through the front door. That has its own merits, of course, as it can win you more rounds and wear the other guy down in case the one shot doesn't come, but it's certainly a lot different from what Jersey Joe Walcott did, and no one was successful in taking down a prime Charles in this way.