Page 2 of 2

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 12 Mar 2018, 15:42
by Ambling Alp II
Ruthless-RKO wrote: 10 Mar 2018, 08:43 I think the 3rd fight is underrated.. All 3 were good..
When I was a kid, the third fight was often referred to as the greatest heavyweight ever. I still agree with that opinion. If you didn't know anything about the fighters and didn't know which one was 1st, 2nd , and 3rd, most people would probably assume that the third fight was when they were younger.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 12 Mar 2018, 21:21
by Kalan
Anybody with any boxing knowledge knew these were 2 faded fighters... Both thick around the waist.. Both way overweight.. Both leaning all over each other the whole night with Ali grabbing Frazier around the head all night.

Only in the 1st couple rounds was Ali warned to stop holding... After that Padilla gave up and pulled Ali hands from Frazier's head and neck more than 100 times... Generally if a referee warns a fighter for fouling about 20 times they start taking points... But this is Ali and he's special... He'll never stop holding because he knows no points will ever be taken... Padilla's solution was pulling Ali's hands off Frazier's head again and again and again and again, all night long -- while saying "Stop holding, stop holding, stop holding, stop holding, stop holding."

Frazier was physically ill... Anybody who read the papers would know he was suffering from hypertension, high blood pressure, an enlarged heart and numerous health problems.. His vision was also terrible and he was said to be almost blind in one eye.. He was so exhausted in the 14th he couldn't throw with any strength at all..

Frazier threw flat, flaccid listless, lifeless dead, limp swings in the 14th... That’s why Ali tore into him.. If Ali could punch at all he would have eradicated Joe right there. Frazier barely made it to his corner at the bell he was so used up. They were forced to call it. The fight went longer than Ali-Holmes with the same senseless damage inflicted.. Physically damaged athletes shouldn’t retain licenses to box.. The only explanation for these fights is greed.. The love of money.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 12 Mar 2018, 21:27
by oogiebe
Kalan wrote: 12 Mar 2018, 21:21 Anybody with any boxing knowledge knew these were 2 faded fighters... Both thick around the waist.. Both way overweight.. Both leaning all over each other the whole night with Ali grabbing Frazier around the head all night.

Only in the 1st couple rounds was Ali warned to stop holding... After that Padilla gave up and pulled Ali hands from Frazier's head and neck more than 100 times... Generally if a referee warns a fighter for fouling about 20 times they start taking points... But this is Ali and he's special... He'll never stop holding because he knows no points will ever be taken... Padilla's solution was pulling Ali's hands off Frazier's head again and again and again and again, all night long -- while saying "Stop holding, stop holding, stop holding, stop holding, stop holding."

Frazier was physically ill... Anybody who read the papers would know he was suffering from hypertension, high blood pressure, an enlarged heart and numerous health problems.. His vision was also terrible and he was said to be almost blind in one eye.. He was so exhausted in the 14th he couldn't throw with any strength at all..

Frazier threw flat, flaccid listless, lifeless dead, limp swings in the 14th... That’s why Ali tore into him.. If Ali could punch at all he would have eradicated Joe right there. Frazier barely made it to his corner at the bell he was so used up. They were forced to call it. The fight went longer than Ali-Holmes with the same senseless damage inflicted.. Physically damaged athletes shouldn’t retain licenses to box.. The only explanation for these fights is greed.. The love of money.
you really suck the life out of the room, don't you.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 12 Mar 2018, 23:32
by Kalan
No I don't... I'm an enlightener and that's the true story of Ali-Frazier III ....

However, their 1st fight WAS great ..... except for stretches where Ali rested on the ropes hiding behind his gloves.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 13 Mar 2018, 12:21
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
- The best of the series will always be a personal choice, however in classic truly great fights I prefer mutual prime or near prime timelines and no doubt the first fight fit that criteria. It also had enough high end boxing styles clash mixed in with some slugging and strategies to show boxing at it's best and most skilled. Most now say Frazier won it walking away, but it was a draining, damaging fight of 15 rds and back then politics intruded on people and press views about the fight.

As to the Manilla, most knew both had seen better days, but Joe made Ali quit by demanding to have his gloves cut off by Angelo. Joe is up bouncing like the energizer bunny in his corner when the ref stops the fight because the Frazier monitor of Ali's corner couldn't make his way through the crowds to inform Futch who pulled the plug prematurely by Joe's way of thinking. I have no doubt Ali was ready for a REAL KO loss, and he did collapse after Futch pulled the plug much like he did in the Foreman fight.

As to their physical states during their trilogy, let's look at Ali first:

Had 29 fights with all 5 of his losses occurring where he looked like spit. Undefeated until 1973 where he busted his jaw against Norton. Previously he'd looked like spit against an overweight, inactive prediabetic Mathis, struggled with Mac Foster, two more fights with Norton, struggled by Bugs and took punishment from Chuvalo, busted eye by Bob Foster, looked a clueless clubfighter against Lubbers, lost the studio rassle with Frazier where Ali pulled a sucker move on Joe and lucky to be allowed to hold Joe in their rematch, lucky the ref didn't stop the fight in his ill advised ropadope against Foreman where he urinated so much blood that Ferdie and Herbert banned him from the 10 mil Foreman rematch, took horrendous beatings looking like spit against Wepner and Lyle, utterly clowned by Bugs and Young, looked spit against Evangelista, utterly brutalized by Shavers, and then the tragedy of Spinks x2, Holmes and Berbick.

If that was the sum of his career, yikes!!! Idiotolators gonna always claim he floats down in a golden mist to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee before floating away in his golden cloud.

Frazier had 10 fights excluding Cummings, lost four, two to Ali where he was very competitive, and two to Foreman who used him as a basketball. Not a long career for a HOF fighter, but packed to the hilt.

Took a few rds to figure out Daniels, looked clubfighter against Stander, but he knocked both out fairly easily when he finally timed them, won a close one against Bugs, was close to his stellar 1st performance in the Quarry rematch, two great fights that series, wide ahead on points before stopping Ellis, so really Joe didn't retire because of he wasn't competitive, he retired due to physical ailments unrelated to boxing like congenitally high blood pressure and one blind eye due to a childhood accident as I recall and supposedly losing vision in his good eye after being scratched by Mercante in the first Ali fight. He could've continued knocking out lesser fighters for a few more years, but didn't want to end up the way Ali ended. Someone should've pulled the plug on Ali after the Wepner fight exposed him badly, but he was still earning the NOI some good coin and he still remembered what happen to Malcolm after he left the sect.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 15:43
by Kalan
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 13 Mar 2018, 12:21 [Ali was] utterly clowned by Bugs
First time I've ever heard that Bugner clowned Ali... Ali was an easy winner at 34... "Bugs" lost unanimously to Marvis Frazier (9-0) at 33 and his fight with a washed up Joe Frazier at 23 was another loss where he hit the canvas.

Famed LA Times sportswriter Jim Murray said Bugner fought Ali "like he was trying to hide under a bed." .... Bugner threw so few punches Murray wrote "I don't know why Bugner wore gloves. I guess his hands were cold." Bugner was one of the suckiest fighters I've ever seen... His only attribute was a very thick skull that allowed him to absorb a pounding.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 15:55
by oogiebe
Kalan wrote: 15 Mar 2018, 15:43
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 13 Mar 2018, 12:21 [Ali was] utterly clowned by Bugs
First time I've ever heard that Bugner clowned Ali... Ali was an easy winner at 34... "Bugs" lost unanimously to Marvis Frazier (9-0) at 33 and his fight with a washed up Joe Frazier at 23 was another loss where he hit the canvas.

Famed LA Times sportswriter Jim Murray said Bugner fought Ali "like he was trying to hide under a bed." .... Bugner threw so few punches Murray wrote "I don't know why Bugner wore gloves. I guess his hands were cold." Bugner was one of the suckiest fighters I've ever seen... His only attribute was a very thick skull that allowed him to absorb a pounding.
I saw that fight when it happened. It was a snorer where Bugner never applied himself. He was rather "Sucky."

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 16:54
by handsofstone
The 3rd fight is the best IMO, both guys were past their primes but it made for a more entertaining fight, ive never really cared for the 1st fight too much, it was a massive occasion and it was a great fight but I thought Frazier won it comfortably, I'm not a fan of watching post exile Ali, he spoils too much, ties up, lays on the ropes and constantly smothers, the jabs and the lightening combinations are just cameos, ive seen pretty much all of his fights and even the 15 rounders he wins easily can be boring

I actually thought the 2nd fight was decent but I can probably name 10 trilogies I prefer more than Ali/Frazier

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 19:37
by oogiebe
handsofstone wrote: 15 Mar 2018, 16:54 The 3rd fight is the best IMO, both guys were past their primes but it made for a more entertaining fight, ive never really cared for the 1st fight too much, it was a massive occasion and it was a great fight but I thought Frazier won it comfortably, I'm not a fan of watching post exile Ali, he spoils too much, ties up, lays on the ropes and constantly smothers, the jabs and the lightening combinations are just cameos, ive seen pretty much all of his fights and even the 15 rounders he wins easily can be boring

I actually thought the 2nd fight was decent but I can probably name 10 trilogies I prefer more than Ali/Frazier
Absolutely!!! :clap:

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 15 Mar 2018, 21:13
by oogiebe
golden oldie wrote: 15 Mar 2018, 20:45
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 13 Mar 2018, 12:21
- The best of the series will always be a personal choice, however in classic truly great fights I prefer mutual prime or near prime timelines and no doubt the first fight fit that criteria.
I have to hand it to you. I honestly believed the genuine Walter Mitty on this board was KOLON, but you knock him totally into a cocked hat. You could even give that other idiot Stephen King a run for his money. Let us get this clear. You are claiming a guy who has a 3 year 7 month enforced lay off, then 2 fights, and a mere 5 months later is either in, or close to his prime. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

As to the Manilla, most knew both had seen better days, but Joe made Ali quit by demanding to have his gloves cut off by Angelo. Joe is up bouncing like the energizer bunny in his corner when the ref stops the fight because the Frazier monitor of Ali's corner couldn't make his way through the crowds to inform Futch who pulled the plug prematurely by Joe's way of thinking. I have no doubt Ali was ready for a REAL KO loss, and he did collapse after Futch pulled the plug much like he did in the Foreman fight.
I humbly apologise for mentioning the insignificant nonentity Stephen King in the same breath as someone with your imagination. You could without doubt put both Enid Blyton, and Lewis Carroll to shame.

The rest of your nonsense simply isn't worthy of response.

On a serious note, my advice to you would be to copy and paste some of the most fantasmagorical bullcrap you have written on here, and send it to EVERY publishing house in Murica. The law of averages states one of them will be stupid enough to sign you up, for the novelty value, if nothing else. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
No one would believe it...;-)

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 16 Mar 2018, 06:03
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
golden oldie wrote: 15 Mar 2018, 20:45
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 13 Mar 2018, 12:21
- The best of the series will always be a personal choice, however in classic truly great fights I prefer mutual prime or near prime timelines and no doubt the first fight fit that criteria.
I have to hand it to you. I honestly believed the genuine Walter Mitty on this board was KOLON, but you knock him totally into a cocked hat. You could even give that other idiot Stephen King a run for his money. Let us get this clear. You are claiming a guy who has a 3 year 7 month enforced lay off, then 2 fights, and a mere 5 months later is either in, or close to his prime. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

As to the Manilla, most knew both had seen better days, but Joe made Ali quit by demanding to have his gloves cut off by Angelo. Joe is up bouncing like the energizer bunny in his corner when the ref stops the fight because the Frazier monitor of Ali's corner couldn't make his way through the crowds to inform Futch who pulled the plug prematurely by Joe's way of thinking. I have no doubt Ali was ready for a REAL KO loss, and he did collapse after Futch pulled the plug much like he did in the Foreman fight.
I humbly apologise for mentioning the insignificant nonentity Stephen King in the same breath as someone with your imagination. You could without doubt put both Enid Blyton, and Lewis Carroll to shame.

The rest of your nonsense simply isn't worthy of response.

On a serious note, my advice to you would be to copy and paste some of the most fantasmagorical bullcrap you have written on here, and send it to EVERY publishing house in Murica. The law of averages states one of them will be stupid enough to sign you up, for the novelty value, if nothing else. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

- Get yer ol' gran to change yer bib and diapers.

No one should have to smell yer pitiable personal defilement.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 16 Mar 2018, 12:58
by Kalan
Right.... Old-n-moldie is posting from the moon...

Were he allowed to return to Earth, the stench might wipe out the entire Human Race.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 16 Mar 2018, 21:57
by oogiebe
golden oldie wrote: 16 Mar 2018, 21:30 Considering both YOU and the cretinous Broughton Swing Rules are Murican, and therefore by extension verminous scum, I will obviously treat your reposts with the contempt they deserve.

Make no mistake, given the choice in a football match between a Taliban 11, and the fukking subhuman U.S.A. I would be cheering for a 6 - 0 win for the Taliban.

You are the SOLE reason human beings in the rest of the Western world are being murdered whilst going about their business, by lunatic Islamists.

If you would just fukk off back to your sh,it tip country, and keep your retarded noses out of the worlds affairs, earth would be a much safer place.

P.S. But don't forget to keep selling guns to half witted kids so you can hopefully kill enough of each other, that the rest of the planet can live a happier way of life.

P.P.S.

Follow the filthy RIGHT WING party line, and blame ALL the gun crime in Murica on the black folks aged 24 - 35.
Dude...that was freakin' impressive...!

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 16 Mar 2018, 22:23
by oogiebe
golden oldie wrote: 16 Mar 2018, 22:16 Seriously.

The best thing America can do, is to accept different factions of Islam have ALWAYS hated each other, and ALWAYS will. So let them get on with it, and F O. home.
Agreed. But we have friends in the area too, so it makes it 'complicated.' It's like Vietnam...they were fighting for "thousands" of years and every imperial power made a go of it and failed. We left them alone and now they are an outstanding emerging market. Go figure. I don't make the decisions, I just bang my head against the wall! :brick: :brick: :brick: :brick:

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 02:33
by Kalan
Keep blasting your head against the wall oogiebe.... That's the most productive thing you could possibly do... :clap:

America fights such stupid wars like Viet Nam and Iraq because the defense industry always prospers when we do.... These stupid presidents like Johnson, Nixon, Bush, and Trump push for military aggression because they believe it will make them super popular.. They think a common enemy will make everyone pull behind the president.. I also believe they receive graft from the defense industry... The presidency is too powerful in the US... It's not a place for idiots like Trump...

War is now too dangerous because somebody could run a remote controlled nuclear bomb laden submarine into LA Harbor and explode it... We wouldn't know who it was and we'd probably strike North Korea.

I believe America is in great peril.... Our debt is so great from stupid wars and the Great Recession (over 20 Trillion) That if interest rates start rising like they always have historically, we're sunk... We won't be able to pay the interest on US Bonds and T-Bills without hyper inflation... The dollar will fall like a rotting redwood and take 30 to 50 million jobs with it... It will be a worse economic disaster than the Great Depression... I see it happening within 10 years, and maybe a lot sooner...

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 06:15
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
- Kalan, nukes ain't impact bombs, so your sub scenario ain't happening.

The most likely accident is someone releasing a missle or constructing something like a suitcase bomb strategically timed.

And HG Wells proposed your economy/war boom and bust cycle at the start of the 1930s in The Shape of Things to come, and boom and bust rules the west enhanced by war.

As to Ali starting his comeback at age 28 and no longer prime, let's look further. I remember very well being 28 at the height of my powers and hormones, so that claim would seem to be for couch potatoes who never had a prime.

I didn't care for runners and entered a 10 K on a dare. Never ran more than a mile slowly as punishment by gym coaches. Start at the back of 3500 runners and was soon passing up the world record holder@100M who had oodles miles in training. I was literally running cross country hurdles at time to pass up the grazing herd. Then we hit a killer grade, but then the sweeping downhill where I had passed up all but the 200 serious runners. Hit the wall at 8 K and had to walk as some including my buddy who was a steady 2 miles a day runner about the same age passed me, where I ran to a 47 min finish.

I was a stud who coul do stuff like that because I was very physically active. Anyone who thinks the undefeated super stud wasn't prime at 28-29 with two previous fights to put him in active fight shape is seriously stupid, but all our thousands of years of wars have killed off our best and brightest leaving us ruled cowardly stupes.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 11:57
by oogiebe
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 06:15 - Kalan, nukes ain't impact bombs, so your sub scenario ain't happening.

The most likely accident is someone releasing a missle or constructing something like a suitcase bomb strategically timed.

And HG Wells proposed your economy/war boom and bust cycle at the start of the 1930s in The Shape of Things to come, and boom and bust rules the west enhanced by war.

As to Ali starting his comeback at age 28 and no longer prime, let's look further. I remember very well being 28 at the height of my powers and hormones, so that claim would seem to be for couch potatoes who never had a prime.

I didn't care for runners and entered a 10 K on a dare. Never ran more than a mile slowly as punishment by gym coaches. Start at the back of 3500 runners and was soon passing up the world record holder@100M who had oodles miles in training. I was literally running cross country hurdles at time to pass up the grazing herd. Then we hit a killer grade, but then the sweeping downhill where I had passed up all but the 200 serious runners. Hit the wall at 8 K and had to walk as some including my buddy who was a steady 2 miles a day runner about the same age passed me, where I ran to a 47 min finish.

I was a stud who coul do stuff like that because I was very physically active. Anyone who thinks the undefeated super stud wasn't prime at 28-29 with two previous fights to put him in active fight shape is seriously stupid, but all our thousands of years of wars have killed off our best and brightest leaving us ruled cowardly stupes.
Well said! :clap:

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 12:26
by Kalan
BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 06:15 - Kalan, nukes ain't impact bombs, so your sub scenario ain't happening.

The most likely accident is someone releasing a missle or constructing something like a suitcase bomb strategically timed.

And HG Wells proposed your economy/war boom and bust cycle at the start of the 1930s in The Shape of Things to come, and boom and bust rules the west enhanced by war.

As to Ali starting his comeback at age 28 and no longer prime, let's look further. I remember very well being 28 at the height of my powers and hormones, so that claim would seem to be for couch potatoes who never had a prime.

I didn't care for runners and entered a 10 K on a dare. Never ran more than a mile slowly as punishment by gym coaches. Start at the back of 3500 runners and was soon passing up the world record holder@100M who had oodles miles in training. I was literally running cross country hurdles at time to pass up the grazing herd. Then we hit a killer grade, but then the sweeping downhill where I had passed up all but the 200 serious runners. Hit the wall at 8 K and had to walk as some including my buddy who was a steady 2 miles a day runner about the same age passed me, where I ran to a 47 min finish.

I was a stud who coul do stuff like that because I was very physically active. Anyone who thinks the undefeated super stud wasn't prime at 28-29 with two previous fights to put him in active fight shape is seriously stupid, but all our thousands of years of wars have killed off our best and brightest leaving us ruled cowardly stupes.
Nukes can be detonated remotely.... or with timing devices.... or a contingent of suicide bombers could detonate them.... So nuke laden submarines guided into major harbors is the greatest terrorist threat... Russia or China could do it and say their intelligence indicated it was North Korea -- or North Korea could do it because they're ruled by an egotistic A-hole. The worst thing is we wouldn't have a clue who did it because any evidence would be destroyed.

Prime for people who take care of themselves -- i.e. eat right... sleep right... have the right workout regimens after work... and don't chase tail 8 nights a week, but get their ass to bed and sleep -- is 18 to 40... Klitschko looked great at 41, but I think he could have maintained that a little better than he did... You can always do better. I don't believe in "optimum."

I ran for over 20 years... I used to run 5 to 7 miles in 30 to 42 minutes.. Whenever I moved I would plot out several running courses within driving range of the house beforehand... I would figure out a way to scale any fence or enter and exit any golf course or track & field setup quickly.. I would plot courses through parks, schoolyards or wherever there was a swing set or bars where I could knock off pull-ups or bar routines... I'd run at the crack of dawn when there were few other runners out... "How come you don't run with rest of us?" .... "Cuz you guys get up so late and are too damned slow." ..... I always thought it was stupid for boxers to run in a pack or for lightweights to run with Heavyweights. Everybody should run at their own pace instead of somebody else's... Cover the ground at a good pace instead of trudging along like bunch of old ladies.

I always believed in weight lifting for strength training... People who call it "Body Building" are stupid. Body Builders go for show muscles and try to peak their biceps. They're looking for size, volume, symmetry, and striations which is a different concept entirely. Athletes are looking for speed, power, spring, strength, flexibility, agility, balance, and toughness. For some lamebrains if you have any kind of physique or musculature you’re going to be slow. It’s really funny that AJ won all his fights by KO and is the best Heavyweight in the world making 10’s of millions of dollars if he’s so damned slow.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 19:35
by Cojimar 1946
What does the USA have to do with Islamist attacks in France and Britain? Why are the Islamists going after non-American countries in their issue is with America? Plenty of Islamists were angered at depictions of the prophet Muhammad as well as western support for the Israelis which would still be issues even if America withdrew into isolationism.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 21:34
by oogiebe
golden oldie wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 21:32
Cojimar 1946 wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 19:35 What does the USA have to do with Islamist attacks in France and Britain? Why are the Islamists going after non-American countries in their issue is with America? Plenty of Islamists were angered at depictions of the prophet Muhammad as well as western support for the Israelis which would still be issues even if America withdrew into isolationism.
It is quite simple.

The Islamists consider ANY nation they consider to be " allies " of what they call " The Great Satan " ( Murica ) as fair game. What most Muricans are too stoopid to understand is whilst your government is chest thumping about your Middle East trade deals ( the sale of weapons ) the big potato ( Saudi Arabia ) is paying you with the right hand, and sponsoring the very people who blew your WTC to bits with their left hand.

Again the reason is simple. They vehemently resent what they call INFIDELS aggressively occupying their sacred ( Mecca ) land.

So F.O. home, and force the oil companies to accept there are alternative forms of energy, and therefore they can shove their billion dollar bribes up their sh'it boxes.
Try not to hold back...

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 17 Mar 2018, 21:51
by oogiebe
golden oldie wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 21:46
oogiebe wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 21:34
golden oldie wrote: 17 Mar 2018, 21:32

It is quite simple.

The Islamists consider ANY nation they consider to be " allies " of what they call " The Great Satan " ( Murica ) as fair game. What most Muricans are too stoopid to understand is whilst your government is chest thumping about your Middle East trade deals ( the sale of weapons ) the big potato ( Saudi Arabia ) is paying you with the right hand, and sponsoring the very people who blew your WTC to bits with their left hand.

Again the reason is simple. They vehemently resent what they call INFIDELS aggressively occupying their sacred ( Mecca ) land.

So F.O. home, and force the oil companies to accept there are alternative forms of energy, and therefore they can shove their billion dollar bribes up their sh'it boxes.
Try not to hold back...
I won't, don't worry. Please don't take it personally, because you are far from the only country run by halwits. The moronic British prime minister is now trying to puff her saggy chest out at Vladimir Putin. Is she having a fukking laugh? Anyone can tell simply by looking at him, he is a mass murderer with a lemonade top. He is a Genghis Khan, but in the 21st century. No hiding in bunkers below the White House, Kremlin, Westminster, Tiannamen Square (or wherever ) shouting orders for him. If they ever kick off, he would lead from the front.
We're good, bro...It's a scary world out there, and our futures are in the hands of imbeciles. To be kind.

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 18 Mar 2018, 23:41
by BroughtonRulesRefuge
- I'd say it's been long accepted that Ali was prime to prime matched against Joe in the first fight no matter what any nattering Gollums of the moldy type have to drool about.

It was thusly seen as a superfight then and now even if just short of one of the greatest alltime fights. Joe was a bad style matchup like Rocky was to Louis, not a big deal save to those overly predisposed to Ali worship gloriously gutted in the day.
:TU:

Re: Ali v. Frazier: The Fight of the Century (was it the best of the trilogy)

Posted: 19 Mar 2018, 00:24
by Kalan
Both Ali and Frazier were so hittable they took serious beatings in their 1st fight... A lot of punishment was dealt out.

In their rematch and rubber match Frazier was done in by health problems... anybody with knowledge of his condition knew Smokin' Joe was in a bad way physically... The fact that he beat other washed up fighters, or punching bags like Bugner when he was sick, had no bearing on his ability to fight a top Heavyweight at that time.