The REAL WK vs Frazier resume comparison

And this isn't even his best work. Tells you how good Elroy is at this. Still, not bad. No names, nothing besides a bunch of talk about weight, an insane number (500-1000x :lol1:) to represent how much better Wlad is. Solid, if not remarkable. And that 500-1000x is "completely objective". :lol1::lol1: Solid troll work IMO. Too bad he didn't triumphantly cried FACT!! That would have been awesome.

First off, Wladimir Klitschko has already beaten 2 opponents off the top of my head, Lamon Brewster and Samuel Peter which are basically Dreadnought class versions of Joe Frazier. In fact with years of modern training AND years of steroids, there's very little hope that Frazier would ever be as formidable as these guys. Elroy always takes trolling to another level.

The embarrassing behavior of klit fans knows no end. Just very sad.

I admit him putting you on ignore after making that thread is weak . Really weak. I retract this stAtement Lol you have him on ignore yourself Smh With the exception of weltz , it seems to be a common trait amongst the emotional klitterati to put guys on ignore that they disagree with Man up.

Take into consideration that Ali most probably would have given Frazier a comprehensive beating had they fought a few years earlier than they did, when Ali was in his real prime. Ali would probably have made Frazier look like an amateur. Plus the post-prime Ali went on to beating Frazier twice.

..this kid is classless, and stupid! You can acquire class to a degree but you can't fix stupid!

Elroy tha god troller And this isn't even his best work. Tells you how good Elroy is at this. Still, not bad. No names, nothing besides a bunch of talk about weight, an insane number (500-1000x :lol1:) to represent how much better Wlad is. Solid, if not remarkable.

I admit him putting you on ignore after making that thread is weak . Really weak.

Elroy tha god troller

2 points of contention there. That's not altogether true for a start. Both Peter and especially Brewster did go to the body. Problem was, they both fought in an era where there were longer opponents who were able to keep the shorter ones at bay. In Frazier's era, even the most skilled boxers could not properly box, like Ali for instance, he was not able to keep the shorter Frazier off of him. Obviously today, if Frazier TRIED to get inside, as almost all boxers try to do against Klitschko and even the lesser boxers, he would be either nullified by distance, tied up in a clinch or most often and quickly decisively, countered with power and timing the likes of which he never knew about. The inside game has regressed because the outfighters got better. Much MUCH better, and harder punching too. As I've already alluded to, I outlined Peter and Brewster because they were significantly shorter guys like Frazier. The ONLY way these guys can succeed against long boxer-punchers like Klitschko is by either getting in and out and counterpunching (like Haye) which requires the most extreme speed and athleticism, timing and reflexes OR by boring through the assault to end up inside. Peter and Brewster could not succeed at this. Frazier could only because his opponents were so weak. Tyson and Povetkin are shorter too, I know. I DO consider them Super-Frazier's too in a sense except they were unnecessary to consider because they are/were completely superior to Frazier in every way imaginable, whereas Brewster and Peter are really not much better skillwise just much stronger. You mentioned the difference in workrate.. Obviously Joe Frazier is 30-40lbs smaller than these guys. Also obvious is that just one punch from Brewster and Peter was worth more than a whole rounds worth from Frazier. I completely disagree with your synopsis of longer fighters being able to keep opponents at bay being more affluent in Klitschko's era. I would argue that the same style would work; but takes a fighter with a lot of heart to pull it off. This is why you never did see that many fighters like Frazier. It's not an easy style and skilled long-range fighters have always been around. This is not exclusive to the modern era. Yes, Peter and Brewster went to the body; but it wasn't the key hallmark of their game plan, as it was with Frazier. Bodywork was his bread and butter as the left hook was his calling card. People only remember the hook; but it was merely the icing on the cake. His work rate and his body attack were what put him on top. There is nothing "obvious" concerning whether or not Frazier would be able to get inside today against long-range fighters. This is purely subjective. I could argue that today's long-range fighters have never seen a fighter of Frazier's tenacity and persistence and wouldn't know how to handle it when he wouldn't give up and stop attempting to penetrate their defense or jab. There's no one out there like that now.....they've never seen it before, so it's an unknown. We simply don't know what would happen. I also would not compare Povetkin and Tyson to Frazier as they also do not rely on attrition. Povetkin and Tyson are very, very similar; but not so much with Frazier. Tyson was a dynamic explosive force in the early rounds; but faded late. Frazier was just the opposite. The only thing Tyson and Frazier had in common was their height and their hook. Nothing is "obvious". At least, not where I'm standing. Frazier is vastly underappreciated, IMO; but I think this is due predominantly to the fame of his one punch and his five most famous bouts, four of which he lost.....two to one man, two to another man; both with completely different styles. One he gave hell, the other he couldn't get budge. Ultimately, my observation has been that styles make fights; and given that Frazier's style is an anomaly these days, it's very difficult to ascertain how it would do in the current environment. I do not think is should be so readily discounted, though. I've often said it would take a fighter with Frazier's style, who was good at it and had a lot of heart like Frazier did (it take monstrous heart to get off the canvas 6 times, as he did agasint Formean in bout 1) to defeat a Wladimir Klitshko. IMO, no other style would be as effective or push him as hard. Problem is.....no one fights like that anymore because it is too hard of a style and shortens careers.

Yes, they all moved forward; but so did George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, and others. Moving forward is a technique and it defines the type of style you have; but there's more than one way to move forward. Frazier moved forward, bobbing and weaving and then worked the body on the inside and tried to stay on your chest. Peter moved forward as did Brewster; but both wanted to land punches from outside, not inside as their power was smothered if they got in to close, where Frazier excelled. Being aggressors make them similar; but no more than comparing Foreman to Tyson. Both moved forward, both were powerful; but they did not fight the same way. 2 points of contention there. That's not altogether true for a start. Both Peter and especially Brewster did go to the body. Problem was, they both fought in an era where there were longer opponents who were able to keep the shorter ones at bay. In Frazier's era, even the most skilled boxers could not properly box, like Ali for instance, he was not able to keep the shorter Frazier off of him. Obviously today, if Frazier TRIED to get inside, as almost all boxers try to do against Klitschko and even the lesser boxers, he would be either nullified by distance, tied up in a clinch or most often and quickly decisively, countered with power and timing the likes of which he never knew about. The inside game has regressed because the outfighters got better. Much MUCH better, and harder punching too. As I've already alluded to, I outlined Peter and Brewster because they were significantly shorter guys like Frazier. The ONLY way these guys can succeed against long boxer-punchers like Klitschko is by either getting in and out and counterpunching (like Haye) which requires the most extreme speed and athleticism, timing and reflexes OR by boring through the assault to end up inside. Peter and Brewster could not succeed at this. Frazier could only because his opponents were so weak. Tyson and Povetkin are shorter too, I know. I DO consider them Super-Frazier's too in a sense except they were unnecessary to consider because they are/were completely superior to Frazier in every way imaginable, whereas Brewster and Peter are really not much better skillwise just much stronger. You mentioned the difference in workrate.. Obviously Joe Frazier is 30-40lbs smaller than these guys. Also obvious is that just one punch from Brewster and Peter was worth more than a whole rounds worth from Frazier.

They all had come forward styles. Brewster had atleast, in reality far more, heart than Frazier. Peter had the same bob and weave style as Frazier I think closely (except with the overhand right being his money shot). All of them ate punches for breakfast, marched straight forward into their opponents. The only difference is that Frazier had a glass jaw not suitable for that style against hefty hard hitting opposition, and Brewster and Peter had iron chins even compared to such opposition. AND Brewster and PEter could punch holes through reinforced concrete, whereas Frazier could probably not punch through the surface tension of a still pond of water :lol1: Those are the main differences I see. None had appreciable skills. I also think, objectively speaking, from a factual point of view, the resume of Lamon Brewster is approximately 20x better and that of Samuel Peter approximately 100x better than Frazier's also. Yes, they all moved forward; but so did George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, and others. Moving forward is a technique and it defines the type of style you have; but there's more than one way to move forward. Frazier moved forward, bobbing and weaving and then worked the body on the inside and tried to stay on your chest. Peter moved forward as did Brewster; but both wanted to land punches from outside, not inside as their power was smothered if they got in to close, where Frazier excelled. Being aggressors make them similar; but no more than comparing Foreman to Tyson. Both moved forward, both were powerful; but they did not fight the same way.

I'm not going to post a real long response because, ultimately who was better between Wlad and Joe is opinion. However, I do want to point out a key mistake in your analysis. You said Peter and Brewster are dreadnaught versions of Frazier. This is simply untrue. Their fighting styles were absolutely nothing like Joe's. The only thing they had in common with Frazier was the left hook, which is merely one weapon in the arsenal and does not define a style. Frazier was an attrition fighter like Marciano and Armstrong. He started slow and as he warmed up, he threw more punches, looking to take your head off with the left, if he could. Peter was a bomber, as was Brewster. Their work-rates weren't even close to Frazier's; and both were predominantly head-hunters, whereas Frazier loved going to the body to drop your hands in order to take your head off. Both might have appeared to look like Frazier from a height differential to Klitschko; but did not fight like him. It is not a good comparison. They all had come forward styles. Brewster had atleast, in reality far more, heart than Frazier. Peter had the same bob and weave style as Frazier I think closely (except with the overhand right being his money shot). All of them ate punches for breakfast, marched straight forward into their opponents. The only difference is that Frazier had a glass jaw not suitable for that style against hefty hard hitting opposition, and Brewster and Peter had iron chins even compared to such opposition. AND Brewster and PEter could punch holes through reinforced concrete, whereas Frazier could probably not punch through the surface tension of a still pond of water :lol1: Those are the main differences I see. None had appreciable skills. I also think, objectively speaking, from a factual point of view, the resume of Lamon Brewster is approximately 20x better and that of Samuel Peter approximately 100x better than Frazier's also.

I'm not going to post a real long response because, ultimately who was better between Wlad and Joe is opinion. However, I do want to point out a key mistake in your analysis. You said Peter and Brewster are dreadnaught versions of Frazier. This is simply untrue. Their fighting styles were absolutely nothing like Joe's. The only thing they had in common with Frazier was the left hook, which is merely one weapon in the arsenal and does not define a style. Frazier was an attrition fighter like Marciano and Armstrong. He started slow and as he warmed up, he threw more punches, looking to take your head off with the left, if he could. Peter was a bomber, as was Brewster. Their work-rates weren't even close to Frazier's; and both were predominantly head-hunters, whereas Frazier loved going to the body to drop your hands in order to take your head off. Both might have appeared to look like Frazier from a height differential to Klitschko; but did not fight like him. It is not a good comparison.

There seemed to be quite a convention going on in that thread. I really like how that guy "refuses" to put me on ignore so that he can track me and intervene at will, until he chooses he doesn't want any intervention and temporarily flips it over for awhile so he can have his fun. There's a whole subforum called history dedicated to that stuff but that's not good enough apparently.

Vladimir has a far more impressive career, overall. For anybody to rate Frazier above Vlad in any way, is actually laughable.