Is Joe Frazier really an ATG?

[Elroy1]

Only a total agenda driven moron would call Joe Frazier "featherfisted" and Norton's power as "non-existent". Which explains why you would. The rest of your analysis is mostly fictional as well.

Except all of my analysis is shared among many other "analysts" not "historians" or "great trainers" mind you.

Is the general view "world wide", not in America and certainly not on the US in fans over 40. Fancy that discrepancy! In non-US countries, the recognised greatest from the US is of course Mike Tyson. Only boxing fans of this generation even KNOW of Frazier and have only HEARD but not SEEN Ali to know how bad they really were.

And my analysis on such things as CHIN and POWER are bases on solid facts. Like KO's, KO losses, weight and quality of opposition, and observational evidence.

What do you bring to the table instead? F/A!

It's my job to EXPOSE fiction WITH fact.

Joe Frazier failed to KO his 200+ oppoennts and only ever KOed a single opponent over 225 in MAthis who gassed! The average opponent size today!

Norton has barely any 200+ KO wins.

These guys were PERCEIVED to have hard punches because they mainly only fought.

- Cruisers
- Bums
- Cruiser/Bums

Please note too, that the larger/better HW's they DID fight compiled their own records against this much smaller, ****ter criteria as well! Thus contributing to the nostalgic delusion.

[Scott9945]

Except all of my analysis is shared among many other "analysts" not "historians" or "great trainers" mind you.

Is the general view "world wide", not in America and certainly not on the US in fans over 40. Fancy that discrepancy! In non-US countries, the recognised greatest from the US is of course Mike Tyson. Only boxing fans of this generation even KNOW of Frazier and have only HEARD but not SEEN Ali to know how bad they really were.

And my analysis on such things as CHIN and POWER are bases on solid facts. Like KO's, KO losses, weight and quality of opposition, and observational evidence.

What do you bring to the table instead? F/A!

It's my job to EXPOSE fiction WITH fact.

Joe Frazier failed to KO his 200+ oppoennts and only ever KOed a single opponent over 225 in MAthis who gassed! The average opponent size today!

Norton has barely any 200+ KO wins.

These guys were PERCEIVED to have hard punches because they mainly only fought.

- Cruisers
- Bums
- Cruiser/Bums

Please note too, that the larger/better HW's they DID fight compiled their own records against this much smaller, ****ter criteria as well! Thus contributing to the nostalgic delusion.

Your idea of "facts" is laying out stats based strictly on size. If you took the time to thoroughly research your worthless criteria you'd see that Frazier KO'd several of the limited number of opponents that were more than 225, not just one. Norton had too many KO's over 200 lb+ opponents to even bother to count. So if you're going to be a size queen, at least use real facts to back up your ****** theories.

[AntonTheMeh]

he's an all time great heavyweight. p4p is another story.

[Dr Rumack]

The question you have to ask here is whether or not Joe Frazier would live with a modern super-athlete like Tyson Fury. It seems unlikely.

[Elroy1]

Your idea of "facts" is laying out stats based strictly on size. If you took the time to thoroughly research your worthless criteria you'd see that Frazier KO'd several of the limited number of opponents that were more than 225, not just one. Norton had too many KO's over 200 lb+ opponents to even bother to count. So if you're going to be a size queen, at least use real facts to back up your ****** theories.

Yes sorry, I pulled up the wrong table...

I was considering natural HW's not former Cruisers but alas, the point still stands.

These OTHER bigger guys that Frazier fought for instance like

Turnbow (8-13)
Stander (37-21)
Smith (11-7)

Can you see the difference between these guys and the larger guys of subsequent eras?

They were ALL bums, wake up Scott!

None of those opponents have any relevance today whatsoever!

The problem with nostalgists like you is you can only focus on 1 thing at a time, like "oh but they fought big guys too" or "oh but this little guy way good quality".

You always fail to look at the whole picture.

Anybody with decent skills was piss weak
Anybody with appreciable strength was a full on bum.

That^ approxiamately sums up the AVERGAGE 1970's boxer!

[Elroy1]

The question you have to ask here is whether or not Joe Frazier would live with a modern super-athlete like Tyson Fury. It seems unlikely.

Anyone who thinks that Fury couldn't wallop out Joe Frazier is a ****in idiot!

[Caught Square]

The question you have to ask here is whether or not Joe Frazier would live with a modern super-athlete like Tyson Fury. It seems unlikely.

Indeed, they call him '2 fast' for a reason:

[Scott9945]

Anyone who thinks that Fury couldn't wallop out Joe Frazier is a ****in idiot!

After watching Fury get dropped hard against Steve Cunningham, who could argue with that?

But Fury will beat the extremely mediocre Chisora.

[Scott9945]

Indeed, they call him '2 fast' for a reason:

And they didn't have physical conditioning like that in the 1970's.

[Elroy1]

Indeed, they call him '2 fast' for a reason:

Objectively, Fury IS about as fast as Frazier! Which is surprising since Fury is around 60lbs and a foot larger than Frazier!

And mind you, given you image, let's not forget that Frazier was at one point FATTER than Fury and Fury at his fittest, is lean and almost 6-packed!