Why is it tht Frazier is praised so highly???

Its common to throw them in because of who they beat.

 

Fraizer is rated so highly because ali is rated so highly.

if you have ali at 1 or 2 with liston at 15, foreman at 16, holmes at 17, and fraizer at 18 it completly underminds placing ali at 1 or 2

in similar fassion if someone has dempsey at 3 they usually have tunney in their top 10

and if they pick louis for 1 then youll usuall find marciano in the top 10 with schmelling and baer some where in the top 20.

 

"Fight of the Century - the greatest fight in boxing history"
Pure BS...

 

I've actually ranked him ahead of George for some time now. I can obviously see the counter argument, but I've just felt that he was overall more proven against the best opposition of his day. I think it's very hard to rank Foreman properly. His record is very different from most greats.

 

I liked your post up to this sentence.

 

Well,being one of the best heavyweights of all time helps a bit.
He's in most people's all time top 10 heavyweight list. Fifth in my own.
Great swarming pressurising fighter. Durable. Only George Foreman could have dismantled him the way that he did. Call the Ali that Joe fought three times past it,if you like but the 1970-75 Ali would have been a handfull for any prime all time great,and he'd have beaten many of them at that stage in his career.
Four losses in his career. To Ali and Foreman. Not a record to be sneezed at.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Ken Norton didn't beat a near prime Ali? He beat the best damn version of post-layoff Ali.And,I might add,did it in a far more decisive manner than Frazier managed to do so.Norton gave Quarry a violent pasting,lost a close,disputed decision in a rematch to Ali,and has a very strong case for deserving the decision against Ali in their third meeting - the same Ali who,just a year earlier,had beaten Frazier into submission.



And nobody regards either Norton or Bowe as legends,and Norton's induction to the IBHOF has been questioned on various occasions on this forum.

 

But Vince, Joe weighed over 240 pounds when he took up boxing to lose weight at age 16, in large part because he was having trouble fitting his legs into his pants. Even for the few professional bouts where he managed to come in just under 200 pounds, his thighs measured 27 inches. The man was and is a fire hydrant, stubby, thick and a natural endomorph, with a tremendous concentration of weight between his chest and knees. He'd have to be diseased or an anorexic to get down to cruiser.

He had a reputation for possessing excellent physical strength, until faced with the freakish Foreman, who years later shoved around the steroided Morrison like a rag doll. But during his rematch with the slab chested JQ, he was shoving back Jerry's arms in the clinches with rapid ease. And although he was noticeably tiring at the end of his rematch with Bonavena, it was the powerful Ringo who was retreating behind his jab.

Willie Pastrano weighed over 250 pounds when he originally took up boxing to slim down, and later made his professional debut as a featherweight in 1951 before rapidly putting on lean body mass and topping out at 192 in 1957. But Smoke had an entirely different physical template, lost as much weight as he possibly could have, and still was never lighter than a HW. Like Foreman, he was a heavyweight from the get go.

 

Good points. You may be right. But sometimes fat guys look like heavyweights, but then when they lose the weight, in fact they are not. I've never seen Frazier in person; I just know that compared to Ali, Foreman, Bugner, guys like that, he looked small.

 

beating Ali and fighting the best.

 

frazier's 1-4 against ATGs, he's whack! :nut

 

Yeah, i think I've seen better fights too, although it's enjoyable.

Basically Joe is a little overrated. He beat an Ali that had lost a couple of steps one time, and gave good efforts the other two. Like Schmeling, he lost to the big slugger of his era conclusively, and beat some good contenders along the way.

As far as I see it, if Frazier deserves top10 rec for Ali, I feel like Schmeling should get the same or similar treatment for Louis.

 

Ken Norton beat an unmotivated Ali(not Norton's fault) but once Ali was in his best shape for the trilogy he won though he squeked by Norton so I give Norton props for that. The third fight was post-Manila and Ali was not the man of the second fight anymore so I don't count that much. Norton beat a faded Quarry so I don't count that much either. How did Ali beat Frazier into submission? Frazier admitted he would've died that night and they both beat each other up plus Futch stopped that fight hence Frazier's bitterness towards him for a while. Needless to say Frazier beat better versions of Ali & Quarry, ones I feel wouldn't have much of a problem with Norton.

Some do. On some Klitschko threads in Classic I see people regard them as ATGs, I shake my head to that lol.

 

Ali was on the best run of his entire life.Foreman had recently won the title,and,unlike Frazier,seemed willing and eager to fight Ali.There was absolutely no reason for Ali to be unmotivated.He just happened to be in the same ring with a man that simply proved to be his greatest rival.He never did truly get the upper hand over Norton.


If there was much of a difference between the Ali that fought Frazier in Manila,and the version that fought Norton in Yankee stadium,it certainly wasn't much.

Frazier claimed "he would've died that night".What would you expect him to say? I willingly quit and accepted defeat? Fighters rarely do that.There is no greater shame in boxing than quitting(not my personal opinion,mind you),and Frazier retired on his stool a beaten,battered,defeated man.He had nothing left to offer,and he knew that.Eddie Futch merely acted on behalf of his own fighter.