Both had winning fight s over ATG s. Frazier with Ali, hearns with Duran and a disputed draw with leonard. Each had there bogey man in foreman and Hagler. They had a exciting style, most of the time looking for a big ko and both had a couple of devastating loss s. They were each seen as dangerous but vulnerable and had later life hard matches with legend s ali and leonard. Who iyo is the greater fighter in there time?
i would go Hearns. Titles in numerous divisions, wins over ATG's Duran and Benitez, the rematch with SRL, a superb late career win over a highly regarded and favoured Hill. Newer fans would not realise how big Hearns win over Cuevas was either. He was a feared man and regarded as being right in the mix with Hearns, SRL, Benitez and Duran. He's also got a multitude of wins over solid opponents as well. It's very hard and some might say more than a little bit unfair judging weight jumpers vs Heavyweights.
Im a big fan of both these guys. It's interesting to see how some people view there legacy s and different opinions. I wouldn't pick Joe over hearns solely on him been a heavy. I try to look at there individual achievements what ever the weight division. Both accomplished a lot and both had crushing defeat s. They both were seen as below there main rivals despite giving them the hardest fight s of there careers. Weight differences don't mean anything to me, it's what they achieved in there fighting life's. But good points made as usual.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...type thing. I think Hearns accomplished more overall...But Frazier had the much better career defining and historical moment in beating Ali...So weighing it out...Frazier had the bigger impact.
Frazier. The "World Heavyweight Champion" was (probably not now) the most prestigious sports title in the world, by far.
If you take away his win over Ali, Frazier has a much lesser record. Hearns was dominant over many years and a winner in many weight classes from welter to Lt heavy.
Frazier had a great win over ali when ali wasn't far off his prime, hearns ko d a still dangerous Duran. On balance on that one it's Joe, but hearns went on to many more top level wins after losing to leonard while frazier struggled after his loss to foreman to regain past glory s. Half and half.
I agree with you, but some might rank the fact that Frazier established dominance over a division (although for a short while) over Hearns exploits over several weights. But dominating wins over Cuevas, Benitez and Duran as well as the one over Hill... That goes a long way for me. Long enough in this case.
For sure. Ring had Frazier a bit ahead in their Greatest 80 fighters article but it's Hearns for me. Fraziers dominance may or may not have been influenced by Ali's exile. For me not having to get past Ali to win the title is mildly notable. I'm not trying to go all negative on Frazier, just airing thoughts.
Frazier had the left hook, Hearns had the right hook. Nuff' said they are equally good in their own way.
Hearns achieved much much more and beat alot more A level fighters. Jimmy ellis beat the same guys frazier did but frazier has that one win over ali. While his efforts in the thrilla in manilla are certainly appreciated i think that Frazier's legacy is greatly enhanced by Ali. Frazier had a bigger stage(the HW division) and the bigger fights, but take any one guy(lets say leonard) out of Hearns' resumee and he would still be a top ATG. I dont think a jimmy ellis type guy could beat most of Hearns resumee.
Frazier legacy was largely built on his Ali trilogy. Same as Rocky Graziano with Tony Zale. Frazier rule as champ was 3 years and had last title fight with Ali after 5 years. Hearns won title in 5 divisions and last title he won against a legitimate LHW in Virgil Hill 10 years after winning title from Cuevas at WW. So yes the Hitman.
