BoxRec

Collins2000 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:
You'll need to dumb it down for him, P4P. He aint very smart.

Maybe I am not as dumb as you cocksucker!!!

Well empirical evidence suggests you are one of the least intelligent and easily the least knowledgable of the regular poster on here.

Yeah, right.... and you come second....Are you satisfied? Do you know more than I? Do I care?

Can't we all just get along?

yancey wrote:Can't we all just get along?

Yawn.

"yeah foreman wasn't the cleanest fighter but when you got little to no skill and all power, you gotta pull some unorthodox sh*t once in a while

by the way, IMO joe frazier of 1970 would have a greater chance and possibly have beaten big george[/quote]

Definitely agree that the prime Frazier of 69-70, with his greater head movement and bobbing weaving, would have stood a greater chance against Big George.

In fact, if Frazier got to round 5 in decent condition, I think the odds of him ultimately prevailing increase by the minute.

All of this dependent on a strong referee who won't permit George to push and shove." - Yancey

You are behaving as if Foreman pushing Frazier was critical to his success. There is no escaping this much --- Frazier, at any time in his career, took two & three shots to land his own blows. We know he can't take what Foreman dishes out, so the question becomes --- can Joe avoid getting hit? --- an on-rushing fighter is always going to endure a lot of punishment, & this is why George beats any version.

Also, it's time people came down from the exaggerated, "Joe was fat, Joe was past his best" storyline. Both are true to some extent, but let's be real about this --- here was the Heavyweight champion, eight years into a pro career without defeat, & with a victory three fights previous over arguably the greatest Heavyweight champion in history. Here, in Jamaica, was a great, great fighter. World-class, & all-time. It was not even close.

Bottom line, in my book --- Foreman always lands against Frazier, & Smokin' Joe can never take what Big George dishes out.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"yeah foreman wasn't the cleanest fighter but when you got little to no skill and all power, you gotta pull some unorthodox sh*t once in a while

by the way, IMO joe frazier of 1970 would have a greater chance and possibly have beaten big george

Definitely agree that the prime Frazier of 69-70, with his greater head movement and bobbing weaving, would have stood a greater chance against Big George.

In fact, if Frazier got to round 5 in decent condition, I think the odds of him ultimately prevailing increase by the minute.

All of this dependent on a strong referee who won't permit George to push and shove." - Yancey

You are behaving as if Foreman pushing Frazier was critical to his success. There is no escaping this much --- Frazier, at any time in his career, took two & three shots to land his own blows. We know he can't take what Foreman dishes out, so the question becomes --- can Joe avoid getting hit? --- an on-rushing fighter is always going to endure a lot of punishment, & this is why George beats any version.

Also, it's time people came down from the exaggerated, "Joe was fat, Joe was past his best" storyline. Both are true to some extent, but let's be real about this --- here was the Heavyweight champion, eight years into a pro career without defeat, & with a victory three fights previous over arguably the greatest Heavyweight champion in history. Here, in Jamaica, was a great, great fighter. World-class, & all-time. It was not even close.

Bottom line, in my book --- Foreman always lands against Frazier, & Smokin' Joe can never take what Big George dishes out.[/quote]

I think pushing and positioning Joe around like Foreman was allowed to do in the early going helped lead to the eventual clubbing around that Joe got in Jamaica.

Joe, imo, also took Foreman lightly and was overweight and several years past his prime. I am in the camp that believes Joe was never the same fighter he was after the FOTC. He did rise to the occasion against Quarry in '74 and for Manila, but still, nothing like the bobbing, weaving, relentless machine of 67-70.

I do admit to some bias when it comes to Smokin' Joe.

Nice discussing the merits of the subject, then.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Nice discussing the merits of the subject, then.

Sorry, Goodnight, Irene, about being a smartass in the previous post.

I do feel pretty strongly that Foreman got away with stuff in boxing, and that open glove shoving of opponents to either keep them away or position them within his punching radius is just dead wrong, imo. He did that kind of stuff to more people than just Frazier.

As far as Frazier-Foreman goes, I recognize there is a real style matchup problem for Frazier to overcome, but I do think prime Joe has a decent (maybe 40% or thereabouts) chance to be somewhat cautious in those first few extra dangerous rounds with George, get in enough of his body shots to wear on George and take him late. If he is pushed away like Mercante allowed, then George is most likely always going to win.

Have a good day.

p.s. I touched up those prior remarks.

Jim Trunzo would be proud of these fantasies...

Collins2000 wrote:Jim Trunzo would be proud of these fantasies...

Who is Jim Trunzo?

yancey wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:Jim Trunzo would be proud of these fantasies...

Who is Jim Trunzo?

Ever heard of google?

Collins2000 wrote:

yancey wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:Jim Trunzo would be proud of these fantasies...

Who is Jim Trunzo?

Ever heard of google?

What on earth do we need google for when we have the fully upgraded and state of the art "Collins2000" at the ready? And since when does a fully antiquated...uh I mean automated search engine develop such an attitude?



Anyway Jim is the guy who develped the computerized fight simulator based on the old board game Title Bout....

The problem with it's usage is that just as in real life, if the same fighters fight over and over again you get all sorts of different outcomes. Sort of like it was in the old days when fighters DID fight over and over again and....you guessed it....you never got the same exact outcome twice.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

yancey wrote: Who is Jim Trunzo?

Ever heard of google?

What on earth do we need google for when we have the fully upgraded and state of the art "Collins2000" at the ready? And since when does a fully antiquated...uh I mean automated search engine develop such an attitude?

Here he is, boxrec's self-proclaimed funny man. Zero knowledge of boxing but 70 years experience as a clown.

Buzz, after all your years in showbiz, surely you know it's better when you have the crowd laughing with you rather than at you.

"Sorry, Goodnight, Irene, about being a smartass in the previous post.

I do feel pretty strongly that Foreman got away with stuff in boxing, and that open glove shoving of opponents to either keep them away or position them within his punching radius is just dead wrong, imo. He did that kind of stuff to more people than just Frazier.

As far as Frazier-Foreman goes, I recognize there is a real style matchup problem for Frazier to overcome, but I do think prime Joe has a decent (maybe 40% or thereabouts) chance to be somewhat cautious in those first few extra dangerous rounds with George, get in enough of his body shots to wear on George and take him late. If he is pushed away like Mercante allowed, then George is most likely always going to win.

Have a good day.

p.s. I touched up those prior remarks. " - Yancey

No problem

George Foreman is, was, & always will be my all-time favourite fighter. We all have our blindspots to some extent.

And in the case of your all time faves...sorry to say Ray but Irene's man beats yours all to often.

Ahem..then again my fav beats both of yours with his clean crisp popping jab and resilence.

My second fave just gets KO'd but after a good showing ofcourse.

Robinson wrote:And in the case of your all time faves...sorry to say Ray but Irene's man beats yours all to often.

Ahem..then again my fav beats both of yours with his clean crisp popping jab and resilence.

My second fave just gets KO'd but after a good showing ofcourse.

George would be all over Larry, & squeeze him right out of that comfortable personal space he needed. Joe wears him down.

Larry would be pleased to know that, after all these years, he does have a fan though

One thing we both can agree on...is that Holmes versus Frazier, Foreman would be one damned fun fight to watch.

I think Frazier-Holmes'd probably look quite a bit like Ali-Frazier I --- a closely fought, painfully bruising contest in which both men come out hurt. I honestly think Foreman-Holmes is close to a 50-50 call. I can see either man winning, in truth.

One final potshot, Robbo --- resilience? Two words --- Renaldo Snipes

He got of the canvas and won. Was looking good, got I suppose a tad over confident. Bam...gets up.


Jimmy Young showed the same with your man :)....except...

Foreman was past his prime, Holmes was in his. In any case, Foreman went down through exhaustion --- Holmes was almost goneski, LOL. That much, & Jimmy Young, Renaldo Snipes ain't.

Snipes and Young both have plenty in common..cool names for one.

In any case, Holmes got back up and did what he needed to win.

Foreman found god and lots of food and never got back inside the ropes until ten years later.

Foreman was still pretty handy in 1977. About as handy as Frazier was in 1973.

Who ranks higher on career accomplishment, in everyone's book? (I'm gonna throw this question out there, & see what comes of it).

Foreman or Holmes?

I think Foreman would win out, simply because he won the title again in his second coming.

that however does not mean he would win in a fight between the two.

What is the real shame is that Foreman retired before they met (which would have been in Holmes favour ill admit) and that neither man faced one another as grandparents in the 1990s.

Holmes has stated he hates Foreman with a passion, but Larry seems to hate everyone with a passion. I don't think he ever forgave Foreman for not going through with the 1999 Birthday Bash (though it was not George's fault).

I think Holmes' biggest trouble is that he still nearly wants to fight everyone.

He does hold on this hate to much...perhaps he is still frustrated for whatever media that is out there that may not show him the respect he feels he deserves.

I like Foreman alot and he seems like perhaps the better person, but I am a fan of Holmes the man as a fighter..

on a side note I think if Ali-Foreman 2 happened then Foreman wins....say it happens in 1975-76.

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: Ever heard of google?

What on earth do we need google for when we have the fully upgraded and state of the art "Collins2000" at the ready? And since when does a fully antiquated...uh I mean automated search engine develop such an attitude?

Here he is, boxrec's self-proclaimed funny man. Zero knowledge of boxing but 70 years experience as a clown.

Buzz, after all your years in showbiz, surely you know it's better when you have the crowd laughing with you rather than at you.

I disagree...it does not matter where the laugh comes from as long as it comes...Even Andy Kaufman would endure the great long anguished pregnant pause in hopes that at some point the laugh might arive whether with him, at him, or simply because it broke the painful silence.......even if it took the wrong bus before it's much delayed arival.

C'mon zero knowledge? During the year I used to read without contributing (you remember the good old days) I learned ten things.


1.Boxing is a sport which is easier to get a ticket for now than it was years ago.
2. Combatants wear gloves
3. The events are held inside a squared ring
4. The ring card girls are usually attractive]
5. Some enthusiasts at forums think they know it all and are often a bit on the eccentric side.
6. There is certain relentless nature to some forum contributors who though enthusiastic about the sport have little in the way of social skills, writing skills, even if they have a bit of knowledge of the sport.
7. A great technique of those un-named folks is to build themselves up by imagining that the denegration of others makes for a great and delightful elevator ride for themselves.
8. I simply enjoy the sport, reading about the sport, and find this forum perhaps the single most interesting place to pick up some insight and knowledge regarding the sport in spite of a few contributors that lack the instinct to know that as nice as it is to be important it's even more important to be nice.

9. Collins tells me he is the most advanced pugilistic pontificator the planet has ever produced, and will most likely only be best appreciated far after he has shuffled off his mortal coil. I have come to agree with him on the latter aspect of this claim.

10. granberry/terap is perhaps his only real competitor within the great arena of keyboard warriors. And neither have an appreciation for any sort of attempt to interfere or engage in their great and ongoing debate. Sadly the great competition between them has created tension betweent them as predictable as it is insurmountable.

oh...and 11. Neither Collins nor granberry will be inviting me over or buying me a drink anytime soon.

Warning: Don't cross them lest they release the full fury of their verbage upon your primitive digital scratchings.

And now I must return to my court sentence of being the ongoing and ever faithful enabler of Collins and the endurer of granberry.......