The point of this thread is to choose between who would win between Frazier and Charles. ..........I pick Frazier............. .......... The End .............:hand
The point is to choose, and to discuss/debate our choices and why we make them- this is a discussion forum. Hence, the exchange of posts we just had. You made arguments in favor of a dominant Frazier victory, some of which I disagreed with, and thus I addressed them. You responded, gradually ignoring more and more of my arguments in favor of repeating yourself, until we came to this post, in which you ignored everything and apparently decided to redefine the purpose of the Classic Boxing forum/the threads contained therein.
Here is my last contribution to the debate, and maybe it'll meet your cirteria. Charles fought a boxer's type style, and came from a lighter division. Historically, Frazier ate up this sort of fighter. Onthe other hand, Charles had difficulty with swarmers, who fought similarly to Frazier. Does that guarantee that he'd beat Charles? The answer is no. There are never any guarantees when making fantasy matchups. But looking at trends which tended to reoccur in fighter's career's, is usually all we have to go with, or at least one of the few items available to us. Does that work?
i would like to say that charles' skills would carry him to victory here but i think that fraziers pressure and mass would wear on him and stop him midway through the fight
marciano had some problems with charles for a while because he had slow feet and was kind of a plodder. Frazier could close the gap much quicker and could cut the other guys space very well-he trapped ali comnstantly. I think Joe would have knocked out charles in under three-similar to the foster fight-though i think charles was more wiley than BF and might have extended it a bit. That said, I don't think it means Frazier would be a sure thing against Marciano-I'd probably bet on Joe...but with lot and lots of reservation.
Prime vs Prime, I think Charles was a very skilled fighter and would give Frazier a lot more trouble than we would think,Frazier had the relentless style of Marciano but Charles was a sharpshooter and had power and would hit Frazier clean , Frazier was faster doulbling up on the hook than Marciano but Rocky had 2 styles(he was fast returning a 3-4 punch volley(2 fisted) and was less preditable to time(he was a rythym breaker) and when he had you hurt he took the luxury of throwing some weird CHOPPING rights and short rights and double left but he would widen his punches) Frazier you could catch coming out tof the crouch, Still I see the fight going hard,Charles may rock Frazier because of his pinpoint punching and Frazier would swell up, still I see Frazier getting stronger as the fight goes on to take it by TKO or close decision but Charles could pull it out but if we are Talking about the Frazier of ALI 1, I like him by a late stop
Joe takes this one probably by mid to late round stoppage. Charles did'nt have the firepower to keep Joe off of him and Joe was a Marciano type pressure fighter but faster. To beat Joe you either had to be able to box him from a distance like Ali or blow him away with sheer firepower like Foreman. Ezzard could'nt do either of those and that would be his undoing. Joe by KO around the 7th or 8th round.
Having picked Frazier I will say that this would be a competitive fight and Frazier would not enjoy it. A Charles win canot be ruled out.
Verry few outcomes can be ruled out between two world class fighters. For example we cannot rule out a 42/1 underdog knocking out the champion.
A fair point, As you said in a previous post " Few outcomes can ever be ruled out in a fight between two all time greats. " Or something to that effect. I'll agree that the speed, skill, stamina and other qualities that Charles possesed could prove troublsome for Frazier and other all time greats as well. I'm not entirely sure that I agree however, with your claim that Charles second tier wins were necessarily more notable than Frazier's. While Louis, Walcott, and Moore definately had hands down better legacies than Quarry, Ellis, Machen, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Bugner and Mathis, we have to at least consider that the second mentioned group were in their primes. Of course I'll make some concession for the fact that Walcott was the possible exception given, that he blossomed late and had a pretty good run, about the time he had his fights with Charles. In either case, it's difficult to give either man significantly more credit than the other for his wins. These issues as you well know, have been debated for decades, and will continue to be, long after you and I are both gone from this earth.