Prime Joe Frazier vs. Todays Heavys

The thread starter must be grinning his ass off right about now- nothing starts a good old fashioned emo-pissing match like a 70's heavyweight and the prospect that they maybe, just maybe, could lose to a modern heavyweight.

The only reason Marciano's record hasn't been broken is because none of the top 20 heavyweights of the 70's had a time machine to come to this era, apparently.

 

The sooner you learn that size means nothing, the better. Wlad would TRY to fight Frazier at a safe distance. It doesn't mean he'd actually be able to do that as Frazier applies the fastest pressure in HW history. Pressure and workrate are thinga Wlad doesn't deal well with, infact, it's why he was KO'd more than once. Frazier and Marciano are the two worst fighters you can match up with Wlad. Frazier KO's Wlad easily.

Vitali's style plays right into Frazier's hands as it is like a poor man's Ali style. Again, size means nothing and Frazier can land on Vitali easy as his defense is nothing special. He stands upright with his hands down and pulls back when punched at, which is a big no-no against Frazier. Vitali is wide open for Frazier sunday punch, the left hook and it could tear up his face for a late TKO. If not, Frazier simply outworks Vitali to a decision and Vitali doesn't have the workrate or stamina that Frazier does.

 

Size doesn't mean anything...until it does. Billy Conn would've won the heavyweight championship if his bout with Joe Louis were 12 rounds and not 15, as he got knocked out in the 13th in a fight he was winning.

Conn weighed 174 lbs for that fight, 25 less than Louis.

How would that same Conn do against a 217-220 lb George Foreman, who wasn't as good as Louis? Would you pick him to outlast a world class fighter 50 lbs bigger that hits that hard? I wouldn't.

That's the crux of the problem here- Frazier gets hit, and in fights with Wlad and Vitali he'd be taking shots from world class fighters with Hall of Fame power that are 40 lbs bigger than he is.

If Frazier had the ability to deal with THAT easily, he must surely be kicking himself for not doing more with his actual career.

 

And at the same time, Wlad hasn't had to deal with anything like Frazier's bob and weave. He's 1-1 against an absolutely **** poor imitation in Lamon Brewster.

But to sidestep the "emo pissing contest", these fights would have been explosive, and the correct side would have had the answer to their question in five rounds or less.

Personally, I think the correct side is Frazier.

 

I've no problem with those who prefer one side or the other, I just don't like to see either get painted out as something they're not, which is an easy out. Particularly when there's no evidence that Joe Frazier put forth that says he easily defeats great big fighters- the same way neither Klitschko fought someone who was the same as Frazier.

That Frazier gets every benefit of the doubt when it's an unknown for both sides suggests to me that people like to pick who they want to win and build the case, instead of looking at it first and letting the odds make the call. That's why I consider it "emo-pissing" match- people already go into these things already knowing who they want to win and can get quite defensive/pissed off when a case gets built that might suggest otherwise.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. I just like to see how heated the process gets over something that can't ever be proven right or wrong. It's like watching Star Trek fanboys fight over which crew was better, only with boxers. :good

 

I know what you mean man. We all have certain agendas, the trick is not to let them completely overshadow reason and common sense. The trouble for Frazier in this argument is Foreman, the trouble for Wlad is that his best wins probably all lose to Jerry Quarry or Earnie Shavers.

Oh, and DS9 ftw!

 

Beats everyone with easy all KO's as well

 

I'll get right to the point.

Chambers (208) vs Dimitrenko (253)- 44 pound weight difference. Chambers wins wide UD.

Lamon Brewster (226) vs Wlad Klitschko (243)- 17 pound weight difference. Brewster wins by TKO.

Frazier (204) vs Mathis (243)- 39 pound weight difference. Frazier wins by TKO

Joe Louis (206) vs Buddy Baer (250)- 44 pound weight difference. Louis wins by 1st round KO.

Sam Langford vs Sam McVea- 20 pound weight difference on average. Langford got the better of McVea in their series together.

You see, size really means nothing. Conn could have outboxed Louis if he didn't start to fight stupidly late in the fight.

It's not about size, Conn simply doesn't have the durability to survive Foreman's shots. Plus Foreman's and Louis' styles are not the same, moot point.

Size doesn't mean power, look at Valuev for example. While Wlad and Vitali have power, they haven't KO'd a good prime opponent. Vitali couldn't even KO an out of shape aging Lewis. You can also say the same for Wlad. Also, Wlad didn't KO Brewster when he was still relevant in the division, instead he was KO'd. Brewster had a style like Frazier but not 1/20th as good and still beat Wlad. Wlad and his brother can't deal with serious adversity, Frazier will bring plenty of it to them. They simply can't handle Frazier.

Yea it's a real shame that he couldn't handle a huge stylistic disadvantage and a horrible strategy going in. It's not like he is a top 10 HW all time; which is something both Klitschko's are far away from right now.

 

Let me also add that Wlad and Vitali's style is nothing like Foreman nor do they bring the type of power. There is no possible way they pull a 'Foreman' on Frazier.

 

Cool.

 

Thanks bruh!

 

I wasn't being shitty either man, I seriously give props to whoever can put up a detailed argument to back up their view- even if I'm never the one doing it. :good

 

Excellent post man. :good

 

You're an idiot if you belive todays heavyweights would easily smoke heavyweights in the past. I bet you believe Haye, James Toney, and Ibraigmov are A level boxers and would beat Ali in his prime. There isn't that much of a size difference between heavyweights in the 70's and 2000's, other than the fact that todays heavyweights don't train as hard which is why they weigh 220lbs and over.

As for the Klitschko's yeah there 250lbs+, but that's because there from Eastern Europe, who are known to be very big. I bet you a prime Holyfield would give Wlad a tough fight and possibly win, who at one time was taking heavy shots from Riddick Bowe weighing in 202lbs.

 

Yeah, pretty sure I never said that about all modern boxers dominating past ones, although I can't necessarily disagree with you about the idiot bit. The issue I had was the attitude that anyone from the Disco era could destroy today's heavies without breaking a sweat.

My main point is that when people are biased towards one era or another, they use only the strongest points of their argument while focusing completely on the other side's weakest to make the fights seem infinitely easier than they would be in reality.

How far some people go to prove points that can't ever be proven is what I found entertaining about the whole thing, and still do. hi: