Tyson Fury vs Joe Fraizer

Mantis Toboggan

This thread Needs to close. It's embarrassing to legend that is Joe Frasier. Frasier is a legend but in reality Fury would knock his head off.

thierry14

Tyson Fury wrote: »

This thread Needs to close. It's embarrassing to legend that is Joe Frasier. Frasier is a legend but in reality Fury would knock his head off.

Big statement from the poor mans Nikolai valuev.

badabing106

No one is taking anything away from Frazier. Frazier will always be remembered as one of the great heavyweight champions, a legend and a sporting icon. That will never change. No one is comparing careers, if they were, Fury wouldn't be worthy enough to tie fraizers shoe laces.

When people say that Frazier would win by early ko without giving a reason. They are just offended by putting Fury in the same sentence as Frazier.

thierry14

walshb wrote: »

With those left hooks that would be missing by yards?

I'm pretty sure you agree that a young Mike Tyson would be able to ko Fury.

Mike is even smaller than Frazier in height and reach, why would Frazier not be able to ko Fury then?

He's been down against Cunningham, Pajkic and a few others, none of them with much ko power and all alot shorter.

walshb

thierry14 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you agree that a young Mike Tyson would be able to ko Fury.

Mike is even smaller than Frazier in height and reach, why would Frazier not be able to ko Fury then?

He's been down against Cunningham, Pajkic and a few others, none of them with much ko power and all alot shorter.

It's not near as simple as comparing the height of each man. Speed, delivery, positioning, feet and other factors play a part. Look at some other posts, Tyson is a far more complete offensive machine. I can see Fury containing the much more predictable and slow Frazier. Tyson offers much more speed and punching variation and ferocity. He would kill Fury withing a couple of rds. He could punch from all angles with both hands. Frazier was Mr left hook, end of!

As to Tyson's height being shorter than Frazier. Both men were pretty much the same height. A listing doesn't tell the whole story.

FTA69

thierry14 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you agree that a young Mike Tyson would be able to ko Fury.

Mike is even smaller than Frazier in height and reach, why would Frazier not be able to ko Fury then?

He's been down against Cunningham, Pajkic and a few others, none of them with much ko power and all alot shorter.

I'll refer you to my earlier post. Mike Tyson was not smaller than Frazier and his physique was far more impressive, he was a lot stronger and a hell of a lot faster. He also had a ridiculously elusive defence and threw combos which contained a variety of debilitating punches. Mike Tyson would annihilate Frazier.

I've great time for Frazier, but he was a man of his time.

Littlehorny

Why don't we look at this debate another way. How would Fury fair if he was operating in the 70s? If he didn't have modern sports science, nutrition and training. I guess my question is if Fury fought Frazier in 1973 or 4, who would win?

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Why don't we look at this debate another way. How would Fury fair if he was operating in the 70s? If he didn't have modern sports science, nutrition and training. I guess my question is if Fury fought Frazier in 1973 or 4, who would win?

Look, modern science and diet cannot take away from the fact that he is 6 feet 9 and 250 lbs. It's a silly analogy IMO. 70s or today he beats the stuffing from Frazier. Really, what is Fury doing today as regards training that is so much more advanced and superior than what the best 70s HWs were doing?

There are IMO 70s HW men who would be competitive today. The main point with Fury and a few others today is their ridiculous physical advantages, not their boxing skills and ring generalship, as good as it may be or not be.

That is why they are better than many of the smaller HW men today, and why I feel they would be too good for the smaller men from the 70s.

The same with the Klits. They are not somehow technically superior to all the past HW men. They are two vey big and athletic and technically good HW fighters. Their clear advantage over the 70s is NOT their technical skills or ring generalship alone, it's a combination of that, and their size. Their size and physicality is the main difference between them and Norton and Foreman and Frazier and Ali and Shavers and Holmes and others.

Littlehorny

Yeah the Klitchko's are one thing , but Fury? Come on, he is no good. Just a huge, strong, game fella. He once hit himself in a fight for god's sake. Steve Cunnigham was a cruiserweight champ and he had Fury is loads of trouble. The KO of Cunnigham was illegal as well. he lifted Cunnigham's head up with left arm and hit him with his right.
He just looks like a big slob to me sometimes imo.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Yeah the Klitchko's are one thing , but Fury? Come on, he is no good. Just a huge, strong, game fella. He once hit himself in a fight for god's sake. Steve Cunnigham was a cruiserweight champ and he had Fury is loads of trouble. The KO of Cunnigham was illegal as well. he lifted Cunnigham's head up with left arm and hit him with his right.
He just looks like a big slob to me sometimes imo.

I didn't mean to imply that Fury was equal or really comparable to the Klits. It was more the size and physicality. And, Fury presents even more size and physicality than them. So although they are superior technicians and boxers, he makes up for it somewhat with his size, making it massively difficult for the likes of Frazier.

One_More_Mile

Joe put much better fighters than fury on the floor, regardless of eras the man was relentless. Any discussion is subjective but Joe Frazier went to war with some of the greatest heavy weights that ever lived. Fury In my eyes has a lot to prove

Big Ears

Littlehorny wrote: »

Yeah the Klitchko's are one thing , but Fury? Come on, he is no good. Just a huge, strong, game fella. He once hit himself in a fight for god's sake. Steve Cunnigham was a cruiserweight champ and he had Fury is loads of trouble. The KO of Cunnigham was illegal as well. he lifted Cunnigham's head up with left arm and hit him with his right.
He just looks like a big slob to me sometimes imo.

My god !, Muhammed Ali and Lennox Lewis would never have done anything line that.

Are you sure disliking the chap (and therefore likely having a bias against him) is preventing you from realising he has an excellent jab (from either hand), fantastic foot speed and footwork for a Heavyweight, nevermind a behemoth of a heavyweight and good hand speed ?

Fury is vulnerable to overhand rights, that's pretty much the reason he fought Southpaw against Chisora in his last fight. His chin while not problematic, certainly isn't granite, although he does recover well. They are his main weaknesses, and the reason Cunningham dropped and hurt him.
Cunningham is actually a pretty decent fighter, and his only other loss at heavyweight is a dodgy decision to Adamek. He's actually fighting an IBF eliminator in his next bout.

Disregarding his defensive flaws, Fury is actually a fantastic fighter, offensively he's as good a heavyweight as anyone out there.
Ring magazine rank him the #3 contender in the World and for me they're right on the money with that.
He's not perfect, but he's developed into a very, very good fighter (despite once punching himself in the face ).

Henno30

Littlehorny wrote: »

Yeah the Klitchko's are one thing , but Fury? Come on, he is no good. Just a huge, strong, game fella. He once hit himself in a fight for god's sake. Steve Cunnigham was a cruiserweight champ and he had Fury is loads of trouble. The KO of Cunnigham was illegal as well. he lifted Cunnigham's head up with left arm and hit him with his right.
He just looks like a big slob to me sometimes imo.

Naazim Richardson if it was the other way around: "That's an old Philly gym move from a guy named Blind Joe McJones from back in the day. I guess Mr Fury won't have seen anything like that over in the UK."

ebbsy

I remember watching him fight on the undercard of the Dunne/Poonsawat fight, in a drunken haze one of my friends said to me " he has the same name as Tyson but doesn't fight like him".

He couldn't shine Joe's boots in my opinion.

walshb

The thread is going nowhere. Folks are more interested in comparing the names and eras as opposed to how Fury and Frazier match up in a fight. That is what is being asked.

Larsso30

fury, beating an all time great. the same fury who struggled against john mcdermott.

Jesus wept.

HigginsJ

walshb wrote: »

The thread is going nowhere. Folks are more interested in comparing the names and eras as opposed to how Fury and Frazier match up in a fight. That is what is being asked.

You are right of course, but you can't simply overlook the names.

Claiming some random HW would beat an all time great will always get peoples ire & rightly so.

The greats are the greats and debates as to who would come out on top between them are fun, a debate like this just comes across as downgrading the achievements of a legend.

Larsso30

Show me what Fury has done, whats his best achievement? BEating Steve Cunningham? Derek Chisora?

Do me a favour

Larsso30

Show me what Fury has done, whats his best achievement? BEating Steve Cunningham? Derek Chisora?

Do me a favour :eek:

walshb

Larsso30 wrote: »

Show me what Fury has done, whats his best achievement? BEating Steve Cunningham? Derek Chisora?

Do me a favour :eek:

He hasn't lit the world on fire, but he still beats the tar out of Frazier!

One_More_Mile

walshb wrote: »

He hasn't lit the world on fire, but he still beats the tar out of Frazier!

Stop embarrassing yourself

walshb

One_More_Mile wrote: »

Stop embarrassing yourself

Fine debating there!

Registered Dolphin

The 100m version of Tyson Fury would beat the beat the best 100m sprinters of the 70's. Athletes today are way ahead of back then.

efb

walshb wrote: »

He hasn't lit the world on fire, but he still beats the tar out of Frazier!

How? Why? I can't see it. Fury is very limited

walshb

efb wrote: »

How? Why? I can't see it. Fury is very limited

I posted my reasons earlier.

barney4001

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Hall of fame legend being compared to a journeyman I suppose would be what he's alluding to

to compare fury to Joe Frazier or even the rivals Joe fought through his career is obnoxious to my way of thinking about boxing matches

barney4001

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=147&cat=boxer


http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=479205&cat=boxer

i think haye would destroy fury if he put his mind to it probably price as well

shamrock55

People go on about romantic notions of smokin joe beating fury, suffering jesus the only romantic notion hear is the notion that fury would have any hope in hell against one of the greatest heavy weight boxers ever,frazier every day of the week.

megadodge

Without actually giving my opinion on what I feel would be the outcome, the most standout thing for me in this debate is, as usual, the 'everything-in-the-old-days-was-better' brigade refuse point blank to give any breakdowns or technical analysis of how a fight between a 5'10" cruiserweight and a 6'9" 18+ stone opponent would pan out.:rolleyes:

Instead of the utterly useless "Frazier hammers him" answers, why doesn't someone give a little credibility to that argument by actually telling people HOW he'd go about it.

shamrock55

megadodge wrote: »

Without actually giving my opinion on what I feel would be the outcome, the most standout thing for me in this debate is, as usual, the 'everything-in-the-old-days-was-better' brigade refuse point blank to give any breakdowns or technical analysis of how a fight between a 5'10" cruiserweight and a 6'9" 18+ stone opponent would pan out.:rolleyes:

Instead of the utterly useless "Frazier hammers him" answers, why doesn't someone give a little credibility to that argument by actually telling people HOW he'd go about it.

He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how

walshb

shamrock55 wrote: »

He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how

Ridiculous answer in fairness. How does his fists connect with a man so big, and a man that will also be throwing his fists with 250 lbs behind them? Maybe a stepladder, Fury told to stay still, and Joe pounds away? Unless you believe that Joe gets the job done by beating Fury into submission around the belly section?

Fall_Guy

shamrock55 wrote: »

He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how

I really feel people think that it is a knock on frazier to suggest he would struggle with Fury and therfore they jump to defend him without thinking about the fight properly. In recent times we have seen Fury displaying good footwork, excellent handspeed and a very effective jab. People have mentioned being knocked down by a man of similar size to Frazier (Steve Cunningham) and while there is no denying that in that fight Fury left himself wide open to a counter overhand right by fighting with a wide-open style, he has since shown himself to be able to fight a much more disciplined fight if he so choose.

Also, for all Frazier's many many qualities (and they are many), I would believe Cunningham to be a far faster fighter. Frazier's money punch was also a left hook which he threw almost exclusively, which would be quite a feat to land with much power left in it by the time it reached the chin of a 6'9 even if he was able to work his way inside.

Without wanting to be disrespectful to a great great fighter, I would imagine a match between the two men being similar enough to Chisora's more recent effort against Fury, all be it with Frazier showing more relentlessness in his efforts to close the distance on Fury to fight more effectively.

Let's say he did have more success in closing the distance, I don't really see how that leads to guaranteed victory for Frazier either...while many are pointing to the Cunningham fight as evidence of Fury's weaknesses, it also shows show he can effectively bully a smaller man, as he lay all over Cunningam in close, bullied him and beat him up quite comprehensively.

The more I think about it, the more I see it being a horrible night for Frazier.

megadodge

shamrock55 wrote: »

He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how

Oooohh that's brilliant stuff!

Won't be long now til Boxnation come knocking on your door willing to part with big dosh in exchange for your razor-sharp boxing analysis.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Won't be long now til Boxnation come knocking on your door willing to part with big dosh in exchange for your razor-sharp boxing analysis.

That gave me a nice chuckle!

weemcd

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I really feel people think that it is a knock on frazier to suggest he would struggle with Fury and therfore they jump to defend him without thinking about the fight properly. In recent times we have seen Fury displaying good footwork, excellent handspeed and a very effective jab. People have mentioned being knocked down by a man of similar size to Frazier (Steve Cunningham) and while there is no denying that in that fight Fury left himself wide open to a counter overhand right by fighting with a wide-open style, he has since shown himself to be able to fight a much more disciplined fight if he so choose.

Also, for all Frazier's many many qualities (and they are many), I would believe Cunningham to be a far faster fighter. Frazier's money punch was also a left hook which he threw almost exclusively, which would be quite a feat to land with much power left in it by the time it reached the chin of a 6'9 even if he was able to work his way inside.

Without wanting to be disrespectful to a great great fighter, I would imagine a match between the two men being similar enough to Chisora's more recent effort against Fury, all be it with Frazier showing more relentlessness in his efforts to close the distance on Fury to fight more effectively.

Let's say he did have more success in closing the distance, I don't really see how that leads to guaranteed victory for Frazier either...while many are pointing to the Cunningham fight as evidence of Fury's weaknesses, it also shows show he can effectively bully a smaller man, as he lay all over Cunningam in close, bullied him and beat him up quite comprehensively.

The more I think about it, the more I see it being a horrible night for Frazier.

^superb

/thread

Halloween Jack

megadodge wrote: »

Without actually giving my opinion on what I feel would be the outcome, the most standout thing for me in this debate is, as usual, the 'everything-in-the-old-days-was-better' brigade refuse point blank to give any breakdowns or technical analysis of how a fight between a 5'10" cruiserweight and a 6'9" 18+ stone opponent would pan out.:rolleyes:

Instead of the utterly useless "Frazier hammers him" answers, why doesn't someone give a little credibility to that argument by actually telling people HOW he'd go about it.

Still go back to Holyfield valuev, the size difference is even bigger and a decrepit Holyfield gave the bigger man a good fight. Tyson is obviously a better fighter than valuev but A prime Frazier is better than a ridiculously shot holyfield. Then you have the likes of manny beating a much bigger margarito. I the post I've quoted you don't provide any technical analysis either, just state relative heights and weights. (Haven't read the whole thread, so you may have provided such earlier.)

It's a fight Id love to watch, the only thing I'd say is we don't know that much about fury at top level, he's fought a string of bums thus far and hasn't exactly looked stellar most of the time. In saying that has displayed good skills at times and has got better over the last while.

Big Ears

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Still go back to Holyfield valuev, the size difference is even bigger and a decrepit Holyfield gave the bigger man a good fight. Tyson is obviously a better fighter than valuev but A prime Frazier is better than a ridiculously shot holyfield. Then you have the likes of manny beating a much bigger margarito. I the post I've quoted you don't provide any technical analysis either, just state relative heights and weights. (Haven't read the whole thread, so you may have provided such earlier.)

It's a fight Id love to watch, the only thing I'd say is we don't know that much about fury at top level, he's fought a string of bums thus far and hasn't exactly looked stellar most of the time. In saying that has displayed good skills at times and has got better over the last while.

In fairness it wasn't the first time Holyfield fought a much larger opponent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvJ90_eZErw

Holyfield beat Valuev off the back foot, counter punching and letting combinations go, darting in and back out again. It was also the worst performance of Valuev in any fight since he moved beyond domestic level.
But stylistically it's a hard comparison to make between those 2 with Frazier and Tyson. Tyson Fury is the one with the quicker footwork, and the one who would look to dance away and move. Frazier on the other hand isn't going to look to score jabs and counter with overhand rights off the back foot.

Same story with Pacquiao and Margarito, it was the bigger man who wanted the fight on the inside there and was unable to close the distance and get the toe to toe war he wanted. The main questions re: Frazier vs Fury is could Frazier possibly close the distance without having to take an inordinate amount of punishment in doing so, and if he can, whether he can actually land that left hook to Tyson's head, and if not whether the body attack would do sufficient damage to Fury.

Here's Frazier winning the title vs Buster Mathis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE10Ps-n74A

A very competitive affair till Frazier takes over late on and gets the stoppage. Mathis was 6'3 (76 inch reach) and weighed 243 1/2 for the fight.

Of course you could say Joe was a bit green and would perform better against big men as his experience increased. So maybe the next time he faced a big man of the time, about 5 years later he'd fair pretty well

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

.....well maybe not, but afterall that is an ATG in George Foreman.

So what about another big fighter of the time who was pretty average. The 6'4, 221 Joe Bugner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2VlPnMUNKI

again that wasn't his best performance.

So it seems Joe tends to struggle with the bigger men. Of course you could say Ali was a bigger man of the time, at 6'3 he certainly was tall for the era. But when he was in his younger days, 24 years old he weighed in at just 201 and 204 and was just 212 when he fought Frazier the 2nd time, in his 30's, so I wouldn't consider him a big opponent. With that said he was far bigger than most guys Joe fought.

Halloween Jack

Top post mate;)

Alfred Borden

Just came across this thread. Thought it was a joke, then saw Joe compared to nobodies like Fury, Chisora and Cunningham. Dont care what era the fight takes part in, Joe stops Fury very early.

walshb

Raf32 wrote: »

Just came across this thread. Thought it was a joke, then saw Joe compared to nobodies like Fury, Chisora and Cunningham. Dont care what era the fight takes part in, Joe stops Fury very early.

But how? That is what is being asked. How does a one handed, and one punch fighter standing 5 feet 10 get to Fury's weak points consistently whilst also avoiding artillery from a man so much bigger, and a man who can throw every punch in the book with 250 lbs behind them? Tossed and thrown around with ease whilst being peppered all night with shots. It's like man vs boy here. Too much physical advantages being given to a man who will use them well.

Gringo180

walshb wrote: »

But how? That is what is being asked. How does a one handed, and one punch fighter standing 5 feet 10 get to Fury's weak points consistently whilst also avoiding artillery from a man so much bigger, and a man who can throw every punch in the book with 250 lbs behind them? Tossed and thrown around with ease whilst being peppered all night with shots. It's like man vs boy here. Too much physical advantages being given to a man who will use them well.

Same way Haye beat that monster Valuev. Fury isnt clever enough to go all fight without been caught and when Frazier catches him its lights out. This fight lasts 5 rounds max and thats being kind to Fury.

walshb

Gringo180 wrote: »

Same way Haye beat that monster Valuev. Fury isnt clever enough to go all fight without been caught and when Frazier catches him its lights out. This fight lasts 5 rounds max and thats being kind to Fury.

This is the problem. Looking at other fighters and comparing them to Frazier. Frazier is nothing like Haye, and fights nothing like him. Joe fights one very predictable way. Simple as that. Marches forward swinging a left hook. That won't cut it against Fury.

BTW, Valuev is atrocious. I'd give Joe a much better chance at beating Valuev than at beating Fury.

megadodge

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Still go back to Holyfield valuev, the size difference is even bigger and a decrepit Holyfield gave the bigger man a good fight. Tyson is obviously a better fighter than valuev but A prime Frazier is better than a ridiculously shot holyfield. Then you have the likes of manny beating a much bigger margarito. I the post I've quoted you don't provide any technical analysis either, just state relative heights and weights. (Haven't read the whole thread, so you may have provided such earlier.)

It's a fight Id love to watch, the only thing I'd say is we don't know that much about fury at top level, he's fought a string of bums thus far and hasn't exactly looked stellar most of the time. In saying that has displayed good skills at times and has got better over the last while.

In the post you quoted, the very first words were "Without actually giving my opinion on what I feel would be the outcome...".

I haven't stated anywhere who I think would win!

I was commenting on the very consistent manner of arguing by those who believe old-timers are virtually always better than their modern counterparts. It's just dogmatic "because I said so" type stuff and the very next post after mine highlights it - "He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how".

Do you not think it remarkable that the nostalgic amongst us never wax lyrical about the old-timers in sports where you can actually measure the performance? I wonder why that is?

But of course, when you CAN'T measure the performance, we never hear the end of how the moderns just can't compare. WHAT A BLOODY COINCIDENCE!!

And that's my whole point. It's an old pet hate of mine.


BTW I'm a big Joe Frazier fan. And I still haven't given my opinion on who I think would win, but whoever wins wouldn't do it easily.

Halloween Jack

megadodge wrote: »

In the post you quoted, the very first words were "Without actually giving my opinion on what I feel would be the outcome...".

I haven't stated anywhere who I think would win!

I was commenting on the very consistent manner of arguing by those who believe old-timers are virtually always better than their modern counterparts. It's just dogmatic "because I said so" type stuff and the very next post after mine highlights it - "He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how".

Do you not think it remarkable that the nostalgic amongst us never wax lyrical about the old-timers in sports where you can actually measure the performance? I wonder why that is?

But of course, when you CAN'T measure the performance, we never hear the end of how the moderns just can't compare. WHAT A BLOODY COINCIDENCE!!

And that's my whole point. It's an old pet hate of mine.


BTW I'm a big Joe Frazier fan. And I still haven't given my opinion on who I think would win, but whoever wins wouldn't do it easily.

Fair point. I actually think boxing lends itself to these types of comparisons moreso than other sports, at the end of the day its just 2 blokes in a ring and its only really the heavies that have seen a marked difference in the fighters. And its probably only the heavies that are contentious in this way, in terms of reputation we're comparing roberto duran to somebody like degale, thats probably what winds people up.

People talk about improvements in sports-science etc, but boxing really isnt at the forefront of that kind of stuff, in the way say cycling is. Its still very much a spit and sawdust type game with fight-game wisdom passed down from master to apprentice.... Likewise improved technology hasnt made much difference to the game like it has in other sports, the trend toward analytics hasnt really taken hold in boxing, i wonder is it useful? Boxing seems too qualitative for numbers to be too important though im open to correction.

Deiseboy01

Initial thoughts was that this was a wind up, second thoughts too when the opening poster stated that Marco Huck beats Frazier, but the debate has been interesting.

I see the limitations Frazier has but he pushed possibly the greatest heavy all the way and beat him once, Tyson Fury has beaten a number of UK level deadbeats plus Derrick ****ing Chizora and possible the stand out on his resume Cunningham, how that gets him recognised as a better fighter than Frazier alludes me.

I think Frazier gets close, smashes Fury s flabby midsection, Fury drops the arms and head and gets tagged, repeatedly and stopped.

Shabra

megadodge wrote: »

In the post you quoted, the very first words were "Without actually giving my opinion on what I feel would be the outcome...".

I haven't stated anywhere who I think would win!

I was commenting on the very consistent manner of arguing by those who believe old-timers are virtually always better than their modern counterparts. It's just dogmatic "because I said so" type stuff and the very next post after mine highlights it - "He would beat him to a pulp with his fists thats how".

Do you not think it remarkable that the nostalgic amongst us never wax lyrical about the old-timers in sports where you can actually measure the performance? I wonder why that is?

But of course, when you CAN'T measure the performance, we never hear the end of how the moderns just can't compare. WHAT A BLOODY COINCIDENCE!!

And that's my whole point. It's an old pet hate of mine.


BTW I'm a big Joe Frazier fan. And I still haven't given my opinion on who I think would win, but whoever wins wouldn't do it easily.

That's it really, if there was a definite metric by which boxing ability could be measured I'don't be fairly certain the Klitcshkos would be ahead of the 70's greats. Just like Usain Bolt is ahead of the 70'Sorry sprinting greats.

Larsso30

walshb wrote: »

He hasn't lit the world on fire, but he still beats the tar out of Frazier!

seriously, that is nonsense.

Hes bang average at best. if bulgarian taxi men are putting him on his arse, joe destroys him.

Littlehorny

Ali said that Frazier was the toughest man he ever fought and called him great after there third fight where they were both out on there feet after 14 rounds fought at a higher pace than todays heavyweights.
If Ali had a hard time with Frazier with his footwork, speed of hand and solid chin then Fury doesn't have a hope.

walshb

Littlehorny wrote: »

Ali said that Frazier was the toughest man he ever fought and called him great after there third fight where they were both out on there feet after 14 rounds fought at a higher pace than todays heavyweights.
If Ali had a hard time with Frazier with his footwork, speed of hand and solid chin then Fury doesn't have a hope.

Ali was 6 inches shorter and 35 lbs lighter than Fury. What Frazier got to do vs. a faded Manila Ali won't be what he gets to do against Fury. He will be lucky to land a single clean head shot all night.

terrymccarthy05

barney4001 wrote: »

I would consider this an insult to the memory of joe frazier to be compared with the likes of fury

your are right