Is Joe Frazier really an ATG?

[Weltschmerz]

There's nothing wrong with Wlad's resume. He fought the best available, and still does. You can do all the name dropping from 'the golden era' you want, it's irrelevant. The best have always been the best. Look at Wlad's dominance and longevity. He still adds to it over the next few years.

In historical terms of heavyweight boxing, Wladimir is right up there next to Louis, Ali, Holmes, Dempsey. Wlad is among those guys now. Wlad will only add to his outstanding legacy as icing on the cake over the next 2-3 years. He has been the best amateur in the world too. 1996 Olympic super heavyweight gold medal. As a pro, he's been the King of his era, bar none. You can drop all the names you like once again, but Wlad has the KO percentage, title defenses, longevity and dominance backing his argument up. He tops every single category. It doesn't matter if you're talking about knockout percentage, title defenses, record, length of reign, whatever. Klitschko is near the top in every single category.

[yoz]

I like Wladimir; he's my favourite HW boxer. Still, if I had to rank him now he'd be in the top 10-15. When all is said and done, he's retired, and the next generation is coming through i'll likely revise that upwards, perhaps to 5-10. H2H he stands a chance against most of the top 15, aside from a few.

[yoz]

There's nothing wrong with Wlad's resume. He fought the best available, and still does. You can do all the name dropping from 'the golden era' you want, it's irrelevant. The best have always been the best. Look at Wlad's dominance and longevity. He still adds to it over the next few years.

In historical terms of heavyweight boxing, Wladimir is right up there next to Louis, Ali, Holmes, Dempsey. Wlad is among those guys now. Wlad will only add to his outstanding legacy as icing on the cake over the next 2-3 years. He has been the best amateur in the world too. 1996 Olympic super heavyweight gold medal. As a pro, he's been the King of his era, bar none. You can drop all the names you like once again, but Wlad has the KO percentage, title defenses, longevity and dominance backing his argument up. He tops every single category. It doesn't matter if you're talking about knockout percentage, title defenses, record, length of reign, whatever. Klitschko is near the top in every single category.

These are all valid points, and some of them should assist his ranking.

Wladimir has been unfortunate that his era of dominance has coincided with a somewhat patchy generation of heavies/promotional disputes preventing good fights being made. That said, he has dominated almost every fighter he has been in the ring with (under Steward), ducked no-one, and H2H would stand an excellent chance against most of the top 10 ATGs.

[LacedUp]

the frustrating thing is hes been wasting his prime years against guys like pianetta,,mormeck and leapai. I know its mostly not his fault but it is what it is. I also think he showed signs of regressing in his last fight with povetkin. now,,,,he may go on to beat guys like pulev,,,fury and wilder but even if he does its not good enough to put him up in the top 5. hes a victim of a bad era

Unfortunately for him, he's placed in an era with not too many good, nevermind great fighters. But he doesn't get make-up points for that.

There's nothing wrong with Wlad's resume. He fought the best available, and still does. You can do all the name dropping from 'the golden era' you want, it's irrelevant. The best have always been the best. Look at Wlad's dominance and longevity. He still adds to it over the next few years.

In historical terms of heavyweight boxing, Wladimir is right up there next to Louis, Ali, Holmes, Dempsey. Wlad is among those guys now. Wlad will only add to his outstanding legacy as icing on the cake over the next 2-3 years. He has been the best amateur in the world too. 1996 Olympic super heavyweight gold medal. As a pro, he's been the King of his era, bar none. You can drop all the names you like once again, but Wlad has the KO percentage, title defenses, longevity and dominance backing his argument up. He tops every single category. It doesn't matter if you're talking about knockout percentage, title defenses, record, length of reign, whatever. Klitschko is near the top in every single category.

There's nothing wrong with it for the era he's in.

But compare it to other fighters' resumes' and it becomes quite clear that there's a distinct lack of talent there. There's not even a standout win for him, or a standout night.

I struggle to think of a single fight where he was particularly outstanding.

That's simply not top 10, nevermind top 5 worthy.

[Weltschmerz]

Unfortunately for him, he's placed in an era with not too many good, nevermind great fighters. But he doesn't get make-up points for that.



There's nothing wrong with it for the era he's in.

But compare it to other fighters' resumes' and it becomes quite clear that there's a distinct lack of talent there. There's not even a standout win for him, or a standout night.

I struggle to think of a single fight where he was particularly outstanding.

That's simply not top 10, nevermind top 5 worthy.

He's been outstanding in most of his wins, actually.

[LacedUp]

He's been outstanding in most of his wins, actually.

He most certainly have not and we both know that.

[LacedUp]

These are all valid points, and some of them should assist his ranking.

Wladimir has been unfortunate that his era of dominance has coincided with a somewhat patchy generation of heavies/promotional disputes preventing good fights being made. That said, he has dominated almost every fighter he has been in the ring with (under Steward), ducked no-one, and H2H would stand an excellent chance against most of the top 10 ATGs.

I agree with you here. However, plenty of fighters have gone through eras and ducked no one and won a lot. Not many have kept on going for this long, but then they might add in with some quality wins.

I just find it incredibly hard to put Wlad over the following fightes:

Ali, Holmes, Louis, Foreman, Johnson, Lewis, Holyfield, Frazier and to an extent, Dempsey. He's battling it out with Tyson, Marciano, Liston, Charles, Langford, Jeffries, Wills and those guys for the spots after.

[Weltschmerz]

So lets have a short look at the hall of fame career of Frazier.

In his second fight, Frazier right away gets floored by a dude by the name of Mike Bruce. It was in other words pretty clear that Frazier was chinny, long before facing Foreman.

Result? The Frazier management intends to protect their fighter, which translates into avoiding not few of the heavy hitters we had in the Golden Era. This means Frazier fights a lot of bums while building up his HOF/ATG career, whichever you want it. Frazier then goes on to getting floored by Oscar Bonavena 2 times, almost resulting in a TKO victory for Bonavena. Frazier instead gets a dodgy decision win.

Frazier later fights George Johnson and is handed what many believe is a gift decision after receiving a beating all night by Johnson. Frazier then beats the human punching bag George Chuvalo, as well as Tony Doyle and Marion Conner. In the meantime, Ali has been stripped of his title, but Frazier fails to participate in the 8 man elimination tourney arranged. Instead, Frazier fights the unskilled Buster Mathis and picks up a regional belt. Fast forward to Jerry Quarry, one of Fraziers career best wins.

Then the first Ali fight. Best fighter Frazier ever faced. But Ali was past prime already and was coming back after his long layoff. Ali hardly trained for Frazier on top of this. IMO Ali won the first Frazier fight, but hey, that's just me. Frazier spent 3 weeks in hospital after the fight ffs.

The rest we all know. Destroyed by Foreman twice and convincingly beat by Ali twice more. Fraziers career after the first Ali fight is mildly put unimpressive.

Is this ATG stuff???

[soul_survivor]

waiiiiiiiiiiiiit....a regional title against Mathis? You do realise that up until the 70s, the New York state commission regularly crowned world champions right? They'd been doing it till the early 20th century, they've had champions such as SRR, Moore if I'm not mistaken held their LHW title.

Plus, Frazier woudl go on to win the WBA crown off Ellis, remember there were only 2 titles at the time, WBA and WBC and the WBC title, vacant at the time ,was also on the line.

Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, Mathis and even Chuvalo were all world top 10 ranked heavies. Who else was he supposed to fight?

In the 70s we can say that he should have fought Shavers, Norton, Lyle and a few others but Frazier was very inactive post 71, fighting only 10 times in 10 years. In that time he faced Ali and Foreman twice each. Quality > Quantity. Yes he lots but he was all but done by 73.

Oh and Frazier holds an impressive win over foster, yes he was a LHW but it was common for guys to move up to challenge HW champs back then.

I don't see any problem in Frazier's work.

[strykr619]

Don't get me wrong I respect the guy for his toughness and heart but is he really an all time great?

He's known for getting absolutely destroyed by George Foreman and for losing a trilogy to Muhammad Ali, probably the greatest HW of all times.

I know he did beat Ali once but that's it, he lost to "The Greatest" two times. Of course it's not a shame to lose a fight to Muhammad Ali.

But, lets be honest here, winning one fight against coming back from 4 year break Ali is not enough to be considered an ATG.

Frazier was robbed btw in that 3rd fight with Ali, he should have won that fight.