As we all know, a guy can look like a killer against good opponents yet fails to impress against the very best (Golovkin-type). Sometimes a certain style or attributes can expose a weakness in fighter's game (Tito-style). Joe Frazier never beat a great nor even a very good puncher. Guys like Quarry, Bonavena or Ramos could punch some, but they weren't truly big hitters, not even in the class of Bowe or such. A guy with Frazier's style usually is vulnerable against hitters. Granted, Frazier had fabulous defense but without a solid chin it only helps so much. Mike Tyson had bit similar style. He would have been remarkable evrn without his chin, but he also proved his chin (and defense) against some true bangers such as Bruno, Smith and Ruddock, which is why we can safely pick him over almost everybody. Frazier never did that. Now, I believe everybody would pick Joe over Bruno or Ruddock. But how can we know for sure? Why do we simply assume that his style is going to work against big hitters, even though that style - continuous pressure - was obviously vulnerable? I am not saying Frazier couldn't beat them, but there are question marks because of the lack of proof. Also I want to point it out that despite the title I am not lashing against Frazier per se, but the logic. If a fighter does otherwise a spectacular career (like Joe definitely did), we tend to overlook some factors and instead assume stuff to complete the picture.
I always said the Klitschko's would have a great chance Vs Frazier for the very reasons you outlined....he always reacted badly against big men who hit hard.....people laugh it off. I think Lewis beats him. I think Bowe beats him.
Wait, so lemme get this straight - Naoya Inoue, with his incredibly shitty resume, is a threat to give a prime Wilfredo Gomez a "run for his money" in your words, without a shred of proof that Inoue can beat a fighter of that caliber, but there isn't sufficient evidence to pick Frazier over Frank Bruno? Ohhh, ok.
I don't think people would laugh off the notion of Vitali beating Frazier. I think most would view Wald too mentally soft to pull it off.
This is not that difficult Yes, me assuming that Inoue is good enough to give Gomez a good fight is a guess. There isn't enough proof and I have never claimed so either. It is an assumption. There isn't proof that he couldn't do it, either btw. Here, there isn't proof that Frazier could take Bruno's punch. NOR is there proof on the contrary. Everybody (including me) realizes that Inoue's case isn't proven, it is an assumption by me (I'll say that one again). Almost everybody acts as if Frazier had proven he could beat big punchers (he gets picked over most of them), although he hasn't. That is the point of the thread For the record, I'd pick Frazier over Bruno.
The guys I most strongly favor Frazier to beat - based on styles - are Holyfield and Holmes. I think Joe is a nightmare for both guys. Lewis KOs Frazier. Too big, too much firepower. Frazier beats Bowe IMO, though I'm sure many will disagree. Two reasons: 1. Bowe never met a hook he could avoid. 2. Bowe didn't hit like Foreman.
Of course not 100% proof as anything can happen. However, there can still be more and less proof. Had Frazier beaten someone like Ron Lyle for example, we would know more about him. The quality of chin is extremely essential for a fighter. Making assumptions without proof is perfectly fine too. In fact it is inevitable when we make any type of picks. The point is, we should be able to recognize the assumptions from proven facts. When we discuss legendary fighters, we tend to overlook this obvious point, hence the Frazier example
The nature of hypothetical matchups between great fighters is they are a best guess and nobody can prove that one fighter would beat another, but when you take a guy like Frazier, an ATG, and put him in a ring with someone who isn’t, like Frank Bruno for example, I can feel pretty confident I know what’s going to happen without it having happened. What Frazier lacked in size against some fighters he made up for in other areas. That wouldn’t be enough against some big fighters but against bigger guys with big punches who couldn’t finish him off early, those intangibles would start to have an impact. Not every big puncher is a Foreman-level big puncher.
On general level of course this, but we all know how important the styles are when we analyze a fight. Cliff Etienne was a top-10 contender briefly and the boxing media had proclaimed that he had a solid chin as he had beaten Lamon Brewster and Lawrence Clay-Bey. Now, he is remembered for having one of the poorest chins of TV level fighters. Michael Grant was thought to have a good chin as well Since we don't have much proof, it COULD be that Frazier had similar problems, though naturally on a 10x higher level than the guys mentioned
