What would be the odds on Frazier unifying the present day belt's?

This question is very similar to asking how Jesse Owens would have done in the 100 metres against the modern sprinters of Usain Bolt, Yohan Blake, and Tyson Gay. The answer is obviously that Owens would have been destroyed, and the same is true of Frazier. To think otherwise is just fanciful.

Many hardcore boxing fans who know a lot about the sport or who may have watched it for many years find it emotionally appealing to believe that past greats would be able to compete evenly with modern fighters; it's a bit like a child believing that his dad can beat Superman in a fight. In sports with an objective measure of quality, such as the 100 metres, marathon, high jump, etc, nobody argues that guys from 50 years ago can defeat the modern athletes - the notion would be ludicrous. For most sports, however, there's no objective criteria, so arguments are made, but the basic conclusion that modern athletes would beat past ones still holds.

If Frazier was time-travelled into an 8-man WBSS tournament with the likes of Joshua, Fury, Wilder, Parker, Povetkin, and so on, a sensible bookmaker would be happy to offer odds of 100/1 on him winning.

 

He smokes Parker, 48/52 AJ, get's bombed out by Wilder.

 

No it isn't.

That is a hackneyed argument, with little merit; on account of it being akin to comparing apples to oranges.

 

I think that it is likely that he would have had some sort of career at cruiserweight, but I can't see the cruiserweight division holding him for long.

At heavyweight he would have class on his side, but the fact that his style was ill suited for longevity, would work against him.

He could perhaps unify, but the cards would have to fall in the right way, in order for him to do it.

 

I'd give AJ a very good chance to beat Foreman. The first big man with a solid punch he met, Ron Lyle, he barely escaped. AJ is bigger than Lyle, better skilled and technically better with quicker hands. Foreman's only chance is to KO AJ early. Not just knock him down, stop him. Problem is, Foreman was wide open himself and AJ's defense is better and Foreman's usual victim wasn't 250 pounds super heavy punchers with fast hands. I don't think a 70's George Foreman beating AJ is a foregone conclusion, especially beating AJ easily. I think he'd have to get up off the deck to do it, if he did it at all.

 

Not necessarily. The equipment and track that Owens ran on would be the culprit for the most part. I was listening to a TedTalk where the presenter said that if Owens raced Bolt and you adjusted for the equipment and track, Owens would only be a single stride behind Bolt. And with it being that close, Owens could very well have out ran Bolt.

 

Wish I had a nickel for every time there most active thread on classic was a heavyweight one. I'd have, at least, have enough to retire on.

 

I don't think boxing in general has advanced far beyond what it was in times past. Yes, training regimens may have, but not skill levels. For example, Max Schmeling used some of the same tactics against Louis that Mayweather used in more modern times.

Are there any light heavies today who Ezzard Charles couldn't reasonably be expected to beat? Or any light heavies that we KNOW would just utterly destroy and wipe out Archie Moore circa 1952?

Are there any welter's today that it just goes without saying that they would just massacre Kid Gavilan or Sugar Ray Robinson or any of the welter's of the 1980's like Sugar Ray Leonard, Wilfred Bentiez or Tommy Hearns?

Now the thing is when it comes to heavies, admittedly, some of the older heavies were quite crude. And, then you have the issue of heavyweight's getting bigger. I was watching Lennox Lewis and Tommy Morrison and my dad commented on how the heavies of today looked much bigger than the heavies of his teenage years like Frazier and Ali. Does size matter? Yes!

But only when all else are approximately equal. But the bigger man can afford to give away skill because he is bigger and typically stronger. Would I pick Joe Louis against Valuev? Yes! Would I pick Lennox Lewis against Valuev? Again, yes! Despite the fact that Valuev is significantly bigger than both.

On the other hand would I pick Louis against Vitali Klitchsko or Lennox Lewis? I don't know. And the reason I don't know is due to the size difference. If they were more Louis size, then yes, I would pick Louis to beat both.

Also, I think the modern day heavyweight really on refers to the top tier fighters like Bowe, Tyson, the K2 brothers, AJ, Lewis etc. But they don't represent the average, run of the mill 200+ pound heavyweight contender. I think when Roy Jones moved up and beat 225 pound John Ruiz at 193 pounds, he showed the many modern day heavies could be taken by many old time heavies. Because Ruiz represents the average modern day heavy more than does a prime Mike Tyson or Anthony Joshua.

So is it far fetched to think that Eddie Machen, all 195 pounds of him could've beaten John Ruiz? Or that Floyd Patterson, on the right night, could've out boxed Hasim Rahman? Or that Jersey Joe Walcott could've made a fool out of say Chris Arreola? Not in my opinion.

But I wouldn't pick Machen to beat the K2 brothers. I wouldn't pick Patterson to beat Lennox Lewis and I wouldn't pick Walcott to beat a young Tyson.

 

Put Frazier on modern steroids, HGH and EPO n I think he would carve his way through the current team of pretenders n amateurs.

I imagine with his workrate, increased punching power, increased ferocity, technical skills and hand and foot speed he would be pretty hard to beat.

If a fat middlweight like Toney or a chubby natural light heavyweight like Chris Byrd can be helped so much by modern sports science and fight competitively with so called modern heavyweights imagine how it would help Frazier.

Evan Fields anyone .....

 

Some overstatements and exaggerations but more than a kernel of truth in this. Older heavyweights receive a level of hero worship among classic fans that I seldom see in other sports, and its made possible by the fact there are no ways to objectively measure or compare fighters across eras. There's definitely an emotional element to it too--can you imagine how devastated some of these guys would feel if a 1971 Joe Frazier hopped out of a time machine and got pounded out in a handful of rounds by a Joshua, Wilder or Ortiz? Some of them really seem to think that calling a fighter an ATG gives him super powers or something. But ATG or not, Frazier was a very small, hittable, straight-ahead, one-dimensional/one-punch heavyweight, who would have a hard row to hoe against the top big men of today. He'd probably win some and lose some.

 

Hi Kev, I believe you are underestimating Frazier's defensive abilities and his overall offense, amigo.

Frazier was an Olympic Gold medallist and a great amateur too, not some unskilled type as you seem to think. He was left hand dominant but his right hand was still a good punch, especially to the body and much like Mike Tyson he had a very good jab for his size and reach.

Joe was also better defensively than many think. Watch the early rounds of the FOC and you will see that Ali had great difficulty landing his jab on Frazier. Joe was a lot harder to hit with a left jab than guys like Liston and Foreman who fight in the straight up n down old school " British " style.

Ali hit Foreman at will unlike Frazier.

When fresh Frazier wasnt THAT easy to hit. The underneath punches were more of a problem for Joe. He was always a bit vulnerable to the left hook and right uppercut himself. Like most fighters as Joe tired he became easier to hit as his up n down, side to side head movement became less pronounced.

Holyfield fought pro at weights lighter than Frazier ever did yet he went very well against these so called modern heavyweights who to my eyes are mainly unskilled oafs in my opinion.

Even Anthony Joshua who does throw nice , straight punches with great power is an extremely primitive fighter as far as footwork and defensive techniques go. He is VERY inexperienced as far as pacing himself and knowing how to fight a good 12 rounds ( let alone 15 rounds )

I will say that in my opinion most of these so called " Big Men " of today are actually blown up dudes full of PEDS or fatties like Chris Arreola.

I believe a fighter like Joseph Parker would actually be a smaller fighter without his " supplements " than Holmes or Ali. He has less reach and isnt any taller. He is alos VERY inexperienced and has barely fought any rounds.

These so called modern heavy's include a 6 ft 7 inch guy with possibly the worst balance and technique I have ever seen ( and a record that is absolutely padded with non entities ie Wilder ), a Cuban guy who's age may be in the 40s and who has a record also full of bums ( Ortiz ) , a Kiwi bloke who has basically beaten nobody ( Parker ) , a hulking behemoth with molasses like speed and little power ( Pulev ) and a collection of old men ( Haye ), has beens- never were's ( Bellew ) and mediocrities like Dillian Whyte and mentally ill guys - dope cheats who never fight ( Fury ). Add a blob like Baby Jarell Miller and its not exactly a great divison in my view.

To make matters worse compared to fighters from the pre 2000s era these guys are all SO INEXPERIENCED at fighting at the top level. Most contenders simply sit on their rankings and wait for a title shot.

Formerly the accepted procedure was for contenders to fight each other, gain experience and eventually get a title shot at the champ.

There were always exceptions of course, Rademacher vs Patterson & Dempsey vs Carpentier comes straight to mind as old examples of dodgy mismatches made by cunning promoters

I still believe if Frazier had access to modern sports science he would roast most of these inexperienced non entities. His heart and fighting spirit was WAY above what most of the heavyweights in the top ten have shown.

Cheers Man.

 

Imagine if an oldie like George Foreman came back two decades after his own era and tried to compete. Wouldn't win a fight against any of the top 20 at his peak let alone as an old man. In two decades the sport would have passed him, Ali and co by.

 

I think Peralta may have been #10. Doesn't affect your point tho.

 

Frazier had a superheavyweight left hook and toughness. He had a short career & a shorter peak. His 26th fight was the FOTC & he learned much in that battle but that was the best he would ever be again.

Frazier had a big out of the ring life, he trained hard no dought but after the FOTC he played with his band & he played with the girls & the sudden fame of beating Ali made him a superstar. That being said he still beat Quarry again(Quarry beat,Shavers,Lyle & Mac Foster) and he stopped Ellis again, he fought life & death battles with Ali & got up 6 times vs George Foreman.

Today we have some very Big Champions (not without flaws) but these men have had successful amateur careers. Joshua looks like the real deal, Vlad took his hand off the trigger when he had him hurt, he should have went for it all but to Joshuas credit he came back from a KD. Wilder has crazy power & can KO anyone and the Cuban Ortiz is a strong southpaw. Parkers a strong guy but I think Joshua will prevail in this fight. As good as they are at this stage of their careers Joe Frazier (who beat Ali) would be a tough guy to beat. Frazier may get a title but not all three is my thought, maybe 2...I think Joshua gold medal also not reckless & has a strong offense may be too strong.

Frazier had a short prime but the Frazier who hurt Ali in the 11th & dropped him in the 15th is not an easy fight for anyone but I also see exceptional talent in the 200lb division & the superheavyweight division (Joshua, Wilder,& a few others coming up so not an easy field