Wlad Klitschko v. Joe Frazier

Elaborate.

 

The way Vlad has looked lately is impressive but Frazier was a pressure fighter and could punch, Vlad would look to use the jab and throw the right and the hook when an opening appeared and could Jar Joe early but Frazier could put on the pressure to the body and head and it could come down to a few early exchanges, If Vlad pop shots and hurts Joe from the outside early on, he could end it, but if Joe recovers and gains some ground on the inside and goes to the body and head with the hook, he could take the steam out of Vlad and finish him....interesting matchup....could be a quickie or it could be a war.....I give Vlad the edge right now

 

Wladimir Klitschko is not George Foreman. Foreman can take a punch and has a good uppercut. Klitschko doesn't have an uppercut to speak of. Joe will just slip that jab and pound the body and tap that weak chin of Wlads. Frazier takes this in the mid / late rounds.:good

 

You're damn right Foreman isn't Klitschko. Klitschko actually has a defence and can throw a straight 1-2 much faster than Foreman despite being bigger. It's true that he lacks a good uppercut though. I think Bummy's analysis of the fight is spot on.

 

Good post, I agree with your overall take on it. I'd like Frazier's chances a hell of a lot more if he had a better chin, but I suppose the exact same thing could be said for Wlad as well. If Frazier wins, I think it's more likely to come later in the fight- like the 7-9 range, contingent on a combination Wlad gassing from throwing too much and from Frazier wearing him down on the inside. If it were to end before that, I think Wlad would be more likely to win since I think Frazier would have to take some serious punishment for that strategy would work.

Alot of fighters think the way to beat Wlad is to hit him with power shots and get inside. They say they'll be willing to take the damage, but they become alot more gunshy once they actually feel how hard he hits. The biggest question is how much punishment Joe can/will take to get to the inside and do his damage. That's the key to the fight.

Another key would be who's refereeing this fight. If the ref doesn't stop Wlad from clinching once Frazier did get inside, I'd actually put money on Wlad winning by stoppage. A guy who'd let them fight would really be a boon for Frazier's chances.

Right now, I'd put it at 55 Wlad/45 Frazier because of those reasons. Either guy winning wouldn't surprise me.

 

Look how busy frazier was in his fights, Klitschko would fold under Joes pressure, stamina counts and Joe has it.

 

Small, weak fighter with a ton of heart who has problems with big, tall punchers, bad matchup versus Wlad. And one thing Wlad can do, when the time comes, is punch. And one thing Wlad is, is strong. Wlad just kills smaller fighters. It takes a big fighter with either fast hands or extensive durability to give him problems.

Now, these things are all theoretical. So theroretically, if Frazier were to win he would have to bait Wlad into gassing himself. I'm just not sure Frazier could stand up to the expenditure of effort Wlad would put on him, such was his durability against big, tall punchers.

 

frazier ko s wlad!

 

This is probably the best analysis I have so far heard.

 

Foreman beats Klitshcko by murder.

 

Wlad is no Foreman with his style I can see Wlad causing trouble early on but Frazier surviving it and going on to win, I just don't think Wlad has the stamina to go with a prime Frazier.

 

frazier UD.

 

Yes there is a lot of reasoning behind this assertion. You think it is an accident that the heavyweights of today as a whole are behemoths compared to those of the past?

Observe the heavies over the course of the last century. You will find them steadily becoming taller and heavier up to about the mid eighties. A part of this is because the human race is slowly getting bigger. This is documented fact (research this yourself - I am not going to do it for you). The other part may be because of what was gradually learnt about training and nutrition.

But since the mid eighties there has been a quantum leap in the size of the heavyweights. And the pace of this increase in size seems to be rising. The reason for this growth spurt, I feel, is not far to seek. Advanced nutrition including engineered food and supplements and even more important, the great 'D' word - I am not going to spell it out. I personally feel that training advances in this growth spurt has had only a minor role to play.

Michael Spinks, a slender lightheavyweight, built himself up to a very functional +200 lbs heavyweight at the beginning of this period I am talking about. Soon afterwards, Evander Holyfield went up from cruiserweight to a very muscular 215 pounder and accomplished great things. In contrast, poor old Bob Foster (a great LHW champ)could never gain past about 185 even though he was as tall as Muhammad Ali. And Jimmy Ellis came in soft and lost all effectiveness when he came in but only 10 pounds heavier (195 to 205) against Joe Frazier. There are plenty of other examples.

Fighters of earlier eras fared no better. Maybe they could gain weight. But I am talking about functional, muscular, effective weight.

Best regards.

 

I don't care if Wlad was 8 feet tall.Frazier would chop him down.I cringe everytime I picture Frazier landing that lefthook full force on Wlad!

 

A lot of what you say might be true.
Thing is, I've seen Muhammad Ali and Lennox Lewis up close, and they are about the same size.
And I'm 6'3 and 215 pounds myself, so I have a decent perspective of what I'm looking at.

Heavyweights in the last 20 years have gone in for more weight training and most of them like to carry fat. This "bulk" is rarely effective. Most of these guys cant move, they "push" their punches. They lean and plod. They suck.
There are a FEW exceptions.

The actual size of heavyweights hasn't increased since the 60s or 70s, just a lot of fighters got lazy and heavy IMO.
Ali, Norton, Foreman, Lyle, Terrell, Liston, Bugner were all big.