DARK SUN: Remembering Joe Frazier

Great article on Frazier here: http://thecruelestsport.com/2014/11/11/dark-sun-remembering-joe-frazier/

"From 1968 to 1971, with Ali in exile, Frazier was the dominant heavyweight force in boxing and when Ali returned to settle matters once and for all, it was Frazier who won. The Ring rated Frazier the top-ranked heavyweight in the world for six consecutive years—from 1967 to 1972—a distinction few fighters can claim. Frazier was also voted The Ring “Fighter of the Year” three times."

Great fighter and a good read.

Was watching a recent interview with former LH champ Bob Foster the other day. BTW Bob was not in great shape, seems to be suffering from dementia or something and would forget he what he was saying half the time. Anyway Bob was talking about his retirement party and how Joe Frasier dropped by to drive him to a hotel where the function was being held.

Bob said that Joe was a heavy, heavy drinker throughout his career and that night in the car he creamed off an entire bottle of whisky whilst driving to the venue which was 15 minutes away.

How he achieved all that you mentioned with a drinking habit beggers belief but they were something else back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmeIfvB2rqE

hazharrison wrote:Great article on Frazier here: http://thecruelestsport.com/2014/11/11/dark-sun-remembering-joe-frazier/

"From 1968 to 1971, with Ali in exile, Frazier was the dominant heavyweight force in boxing and when Ali returned to settle matters once and for all, it was Frazier who won. The Ring rated Frazier the top-ranked heavyweight in the world for six consecutive years—from 1967 to 1972—a distinction few fighters can claim. Frazier was also voted The Ring “Fighter of the Year” three times."

In fairness the Ring had Spinks number 1 from 1985 - June 1988............

But hey Frazier is a top 10 heavy for me and unlucky to be overshadowed by the greatest personality in sports history.....

Shame he seemed so bitter at the end..

Frazier great fighter, I don't know exactly were I put him on top 10 but he is definitely there. Only ever lost to 2 other guys, one of them was the greatest ever heavyweight by a mile and the other was possibly the biggest hitter

Definitely one of my favourite fighters.He would never have beaten Big George though,no matter how many times they fought. I saw him in New Zealand in the mid 70s after he had been fighting in Australia. I didn't know he had a drink problem.I think I'd have to put him in my top 20 heavy weights.

Top 20 mate? I take it you would least have him nearer 10 than 20?

Frazier was one of the all time great Heavyweights who as highlighted in this thread already is remembered as the man who lost to Ali and Foreman. He made nine defences of the legitimate Heavyweight championship and proved himself a more than worthy champion when he beat Ali before which he'd beaten numerous talented fighters.

We should remember him more for what he achieved than for who he lost to.

He would make a damn fine cruiserweight today.

Frazier was a great, no question. Olympic champion, world champion and the only man to beat Ali close to Ali's prime.

Be nice if one day someone could write an article on Frazier/Ali without seemingly an agenda one way or another.

Ignoring the personal vitriol between the two and sticking to boxing. If I was writing the counter to this I'd be pointing out that despite the ring's ratings he was only actually really world champion after the Ellis fight, wasn't champion for that long, beat a post prime Ali... Only someone who'd not seen Ali pre Vietnam would ever say he even looked like the same fighter afterwards. Other than that, his win column includes decent but hardly stellar opposition. Was he this unbeatable beast of a fighter who fought blind, partied hard and left it all in the ring in the fight of the century?  He didn't win all his previous fights at a canter, the first bonavena fight for example was close to disaster and a wafer thin decision.

It's like all fighters, you can put whatever spin you want on it. Either he peaked with the fight of the century and should be judged up to and including that, or he had a losing record against a post prime Ali and got tonked twice by foreman, not only the only great fighters he fought, but the only real quality he fought.

It's entirely unfair that he's judged on those losses but it's also rose tinted to excuse them.

He had clearly proved himself the best bar Ali, by 1970, but without the fight of the century his record  was clearly very good, but not that spectacular in my view. However, For the fight of the century alone, where he produced the goods against Ali, in his biggest fight on the biggest stage imaginable, he absolutely deserves his place with the greats.

milkyboy wrote:Frazier was a great, no question. Olympic champion, world champion and the only man to beat Ali close to Ali's prime.

Be nice if one day someone could write an article on Frazier/Ali without seemingly an agenda one way or another.

Ignoring the personal vitriol between the two and sticking to boxing. If I was writing the counter to this I'd be pointing out that despite the ring's ratings he was only actually really world champion after the Ellis fight, wasn't champion for that long, beat a post prime Ali... Only someone who'd not seen Ali pre Vietnam would ever say he even looked like the same fighter afterwards. Other than that, his win column includes decent but hardly stellar opposition. Was he this unbeatable beast of a fighter who fought blind, partied hard and left it all in the ring in the fight of the century?  He didn't win all his previous fights at a canter, the first bonavena fight for example was close to disaster and a wafer thin decision.

It's like all fighters, you can put whatever spin you want on it. Either he peaked with the fight of the century and should be judged up to and including that, or he had a losing record against a post prime Ali and got tonked twice by foreman, not only the only great fighters he fought, but the only real quality he fought.

It's entirely unfair that he's judged on those losses but it's also rose tinted to excuse them.

He had clearly proved himself the best bar Ali, by 1970, but without the fight of the century his record  was clearly very good, but not that spectacular in my view. However, For the fight of the century alone, where he produced the goods against Ali, in his biggest fight on the biggest stage imaginable, he absolutely deserves his place with the greats.

Spot on Milky.................Boxing is full of agendas..........Duran kicked Leonard's butt by all of one point in the first fight...........But when Leonard boxed in the second......Well Duran hadn't trained and was out partying all the time......

Duran lost to Hearns because he was a bigger guy at 6ft 1 and 154..............Despite Barkley being 6ft 1 and 160...........

...........Liston threw both Ali fights apparently........If you don't like Ali !!.............God forbid Ali should beat a one dimensional big hitting bully with a good jab !!............

Leonard got a beating off Hagler......Despite dancing like Wacko Jacko and throwing bolo punches in the last round...

No doubt some Dempsey fans back in the day reckoned Tunney wouldn't have made the count and call it 1-1...

You get my drift...........

You have to wonder how good Smokin Joe would have been if he had not been blind as a bat in one eye all his career. Might have found it easier to have avoided Foremans huge swings for a start.

hogey wrote:You have to wonder how good Smokin Joe would have been if he had not been blind as a bat in one eye all his career. Might have found it easier to have avoided Foremans huge swings for a start.

Couldn't fight on the back foot...........Foreman was bigger and shoved him back.......

Had three eyes he'd still have been trashed..

Not so sure, if he could have avoided some of them big shots some of his own might have landed. Though i suspect the Foreman he was in the ring with that night would have destroyed any fighter in history.

So George was technically more gifted that night than when he fought Ali ??

No, but he was in a much better place physically and mentally and he was super hungry. I think Ali beating Foreman was one of the greatest wins in all of sports history not just boxing, however i also think if they had had a rematch in the USA 6 months later Foreman would have won his title back.

Foreman is a beast but I think everyone is too excited about the Frazier Win. Yes he bounced around an ATG. Maybe Frazier didn't have the tools for big George but Ali proved to have them past his peak. Imo Larry also would of out boxed any version of George and if Lewis could avoid getting tagged he would of beat George as well.

Pick Tyson as a 50-50 and I believe Vitali might have a good chance.

hogey wrote:No, but he was in a much better place physically and mentally and he was super hungry. I think Ali beating Foreman was one of the greatest wins in all of sports history not just boxing, however i also think if they had had a rematch in the USA 6 months later Foreman would have won his title back.

Conjecture...and Supposition...

I think Foreman destroying Frazier and then going and doing the same to another great in Ken Norton tells you that Foreman was a bit special, thats what makes Ali's defeat of him such an incredible achievement.
It is a funny thing with that era Frazier was Ali's equal but could not handle Foreman, Ali beats Foreman but has no real answer to Norton's style, Foreman destroys people that beat Ali but loses to him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hogey wrote:No, but he was in a much better place physically and mentally and he was super hungry. I think Ali beating Foreman was one of the greatest wins in all of sports history not just boxing, however i also think if they had had a rematch in the USA 6 months later Foreman would have won his title back.

Conjecture...and Supposition...

Your not wrong mate, but thats what makes talking about it interesting

He was special................But Norton was a bully who couldn't fight off the back foot and bottled it..

Frazier didn't bottle but was made for Foreman....

Foreman is like a better version of John Mugabi..Feed him guys that are there and he's the best fighter in history........Give him a puzzle to solve like Norris and he's average..

No surprise he struggled with Young and Lyle..

Number 4 on my list though.

Yes... but so is every fantasy match up in history.

I tend to agree, though. I think Zaire was a one and done. Foreman would not fall for the same trick twice, and I'm not sure Ali could have come up with an alternative plan to beat someone that much stronger, younger, more powerful. He was also helped by slacky ropes, and the fact that no one in George's camp thought it unwise to throw 60 hayemakers a round in that heat and humidity.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was special................But Norton was a bully who couldn't fight off the back foot and bottled it..

Frazier didn't bottle but was made for Foreman....

Foreman is like a better version of John Mugabi..Feed him guys that are there and he's the best fighter in history........Give him a puzzle to solve like Norris and he's average..

No surprise he struggled with Young and Lyle..

Number 4 on my list though.

Top 4 is very high. Though he did win back the title as an old man so that wont do him any harm. I don't know where I place George, maybe 6 or 7.

There are reasons to believe that Frazier might have been able to do better against Foreman under different circumstances, I guess (not trying to take away from Foreman's win in Jamaica, mind you, though I think we can all agree that Frazier was pretty shot by the time of their rematch).

Should stress that Frazier was definitely still in or around his peak when Foreman mauled him, certainly to the point where you can't accuse George of getting a past it Frazier at the right time, but the Fight of the Century probably did take a bit out of Frazier as the article highlights. Frazier at his best came in around 203 - 205 lb, up to an including his win over Ali - after that point he was coming in a good 10 lb, sometimes even about a stone heavier than that for his next few bouts (Foreman included). Accounts from Mark Kram's 'Ghosts of Manila' (great, great book, well worth a read) show that Yank Durham and Futch were concerned with Frazier's weight and conditioning post-FOTC and that he could no longer train with the same intensity, losing that extra half-step.

Frazier was still formidable in 1973, but maybe a slightly fresher version of him might have caused Foreman a few more problems.

That said, even though he could have taken it to later rounds and managed to land more shots of his own on Foreman, it's hard to see how he'd have ever beaten Big George. Just a bad styles match up for him. Foreman threw uppercuts, a punch that Frazier was always open for but one which the likes of Mathis, Ellis, Ali etc didn't have in their arsenal. Frazier was very set in his ways (understandably, because if your formula is winning all the time, why change it?) and was used to weaving in and the other guy getting up on his toes and trying to diffuse him going away - again, the Mathis and Ali fights being perfect examples. Foreman on the other hand didn't budge and just shoved Frazier off, something Frazier couldn't adapt to because he'd never had to before, really.

Frazier had a decent jab coming forward when he opted to use it, and in a way being able to get so close to Foreman without having to jab his way in proved a negative because it just encouraged him to discard all forms of defence. Even when he'd been decked and was hurt, Frazier couldn't / wasn't willing to take a step back, cover up or try to buy time to clear his head. Frazier at his best could be very hard to hit cleanly and with a bit more patience he might have been able to take Foreman in to deeper waters, but ultimately his game was probably just too centred around forward momentum for him to have ever avoided getting sledgehammered for a full fight.

hogey wrote:You have to wonder how good Smokin Joe would have been if he had not been blind as a bat in one eye all his career. Might have found it easier to have avoided Foremans huge swings for a start.

Balls, he had an eye problem that was treated and controlled with drops before fights...it never hampered his vision. It was only very late on in his career that he took the quite extraordinary step of trying to fight whilst wearing contact lenses.

kingraf wrote:Yes... but so is every fantasy match up in history.

I tend to agree, though. I think Zaire was a one and done. Foreman would not fall for the same trick twice, and I'm not sure Ali could have come up with an alternative plan to beat someone that much stronger, younger, more powerful. He was also helped by slacky ropes, and the fact that no one in George's camp thought it unwise to throw 60 hayemakers a round in that heat and humidity.

Not so sure kingy. He was throwing 60 haymakers a round and still not clearly winning. What else was George going to do? Throw 40 a round to pace himself and lose on points? Sluggers tend to come undone when they meet a rock jawed guy who can counter punch.

Styles make fights... And physical traits do too. Foreman all wrong for Frazier, Ali all wrong for foreman, norton all wrong for 70's Ali... Don't think it would be so much the case with 60's Ali... Etc

Going hell for leather for eight rounds in those conditions is stupid. Simple as. It's incredible that Ali withstood the barrage, as a few of Foreman's shots were proper Suzie Q's, but the balance of probability probably went against the guy draining himself out. Congo is really incredibly hot and humid round this time, moreso before the rains.

I think, honestly, Foreman coulda beaten, Ali on points. Dont think Foreman would be do inclined to go fetching him from the ropes again, and Ali really wasn't going to win a fight against Foreman in the middle of the ring.

He might of had a chance with better tatics with an old Ali (still doubt he would of won,Ali would of found another way) but he would of had no chance with the 67 version. It would of been like picking the legs off a spider.

Agree it was suicide, but in my view he was never going to knock Ali out and would likely lose on points regardless. But hey, it's all conjecture

We will never know. What we do know is Ali knocked him out!

To be honest, I think a pre Vietnam Ali would definitely have lost. Just think he'd go and get too cute, and get caught late as the legs started going. Tough to dance when you're being hit mate, a lot harder than lying back on slacky ropes. Angelo said Ali was tiring in the sixth vs Liston, think he'd be near dead after ten dancing against Foreman (hard to see pre Nam Ali going to the ropes).

kingraf wrote:To be honest, I think a pre Vietnam Ali would definitely have lost. Just think he'd go and get too cute, and get caught late as the legs started going. Tough to dance when you're being hit mate, a lot harder than lying back on slacky ropes. Angelo said Ali was tiring in the sixth vs Liston, think he'd be near dead after ten dancing against Foreman (hard to see pre Nam Ali going to the ropes).

Also tough to hit a guy that's dancing!

No chance Raf in hell does someone as slow as Foreman beat Ali before in 67. Sorry I will change it to a punchers chance if he wins the lottery and lands the bomb

Hard, maybe, but not impossible. Foreman isn't a one legged Cleveland Williams. Someone as slow as "slow" as Liston was dead even with Ali after six on the cards. Henry Cooper dropped despite being neither Speedy Gonzales, nor having the anvil power of George. Barring that oaf Terrel, no one faced after Liston, pre 67 went into the fight bigger and stronger than Ali. You'll find its a lot easier to close someone down and impose your will on them, when they aren't two inches taller with half a foot longer reach and five-ten pounds taller.

I wont change my opinion on this (progress Dave). I really only give Foreman a punchers chance. Think Ali would have no problem with George. I actually think a Manny trained Lewis would also beat George handily but it is just my opinion mate, I have been wrong loads before.

No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

Yes because beating Folley, Terrel and a shot (quite literally) Williams is the barometer for being the greatest. 1967 Ali was up to then, probably as fine a physical specimen as there'd ever been in boxing, yes.... But come on, his game plan was a lot easier to execute against people he dwarfed (and Ernie Terrel)

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

Have not seen a pile of Liston but what I have read and been told he would beat the s..t out of Foreman

Styles make fights Tyson in 87/88 would have a much better chance against pre exile Ali than Foreman would.

One day I'll understand why battering Floyd Patterson seems to upgrade your ratings so much.

Just don't rate Foreman against fantastic boxers who can take a punch (Ali) or fantastic boxers who are bigger (Lewis)

Doing it against Liston upgrades your rating quite a bit and outspeeding Patterson isn't exactly the easiest thing to do in the world Raf.

Doing what exactly against Liston? The fight was a draw heading into the sixth, and that was a (insert age) old Listón. Outspeeding Patterson is a pretty decent achievement, I suppose. I've never questioned Ali's speed, so not sure of the relevance. I just don't see what pre 67 Ali did that makes him above reproach.
Liston is of course a fantastic win, but hardly a shutout. The rematch was what it was, but after that, you have to forgive me for not thinking Ali putting away a steady diet of undersized triers, a shot contender, a beat up former champion, and Terrell means absolutely no one has a chance against him.

I think you need to stop looking at the names but rather how he did it, using blind speed that nobody could have coped with and a jab that was second to none.

The old excuses for the Liston fight crop up all the time, you can take the scorecards at face value all you want Raf but it doesn't tell the whole story of the fight does it. Whereby it was only close on the scorecards because he was running for the best part of a round and a half because he couldn't see, not because he was being matched on a skill level.

AdamT wrote:Just don't rate Foreman against fantastic boxers who can take a punch (Ali) or fantastic boxers who are bigger (Lewis)

Foreman would have laid Lennox out.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

I strongly doubt the Ali of '67 would have withstood Foreman. He was less sturdy and less experienced at taking his licks. Ali spent hours conditioning his body to withstand Foreman's ferocity.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance with Ali in 67 let alone Foreman who was far too lumbering, he also didn't fight anything like Liston who was far more technically and tactically astute.

I strongly doubt the Ali of '67 would have withstood Foreman. He was less sturdy and less experienced at taking his licks. Ali spent hours conditioning his body to withstand Foreman's ferocity.

Foreman wouldn't have got NEAR the '67 version of Ali (widely regarded as the finest version of any HW)

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Just don't rate Foreman against fantastic boxers who can take a punch (Ali) or fantastic boxers who are bigger (Lewis)

Foreman would have laid Lennox out.

Not a given by any stretch... Lewis bigger, heavier (Foreman 6'3 220lbs, Lewis 6'5 250lbs), better jab, just as big a punch and certainly wouldn't be intimidated by Foreman. One his day, firing on all cylinders, I pick Lewis to keep Foreman behind the jab, bang over that straight right hand and have Foreman angry enough to forgo any notion of subtlety and walk onto a big shot. Not saying if George lands, he doesn't trouble Lewis but Lennox is far and away a better boxer than Foreman

I'm pretty sure Wladimir would get through a one legged Williams, Folley, Mildenberger, and Terrell without much damage. More likely coast through them all without breaking out of second. I mean come on!! Beating Liston, Foreman, Patterson, Foreman, the gap tooth, and Norton (even though I thought he lost all three) is enough for Ali to be the greatest, there's no need to pretend he was mesmerising hall of famers from 1966-67.

Like Louis, not just who he beat but HOW he did it. You think anyone would be interested in a lumbering, pawing, negative Wlad when some would still recall the spectre of Carnera

On that note, I think it's perfectly valid for Haz to now pen his thesis on Golovkin being the greatest middleweight in the history of humanity because he sparked Macklin, Stevens, Adama and Rubio... Because HOW he's done it has just been remarkable.