BoxRec

Broomhall wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Broomhall wrote:There is NO evidence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 1973. An unbeaten fighter gets beat and people start looking for reasons other than the obvious one. The guy that won the fight was better.

Frazier may not have been the same AFTER the fight with Foreman as the nature of the defeat was so humiliating and so complete. He went to the well with Ali, but came away from that fight with a W and increased confidence. Physically and mentally he was in a good place prior the Foreman fight prior.

I guess next it will be a thread next "prime George Foreman V prime Ali" after all Foreman was clearly in decline when he fought Ali.....

You must be trolling me. Even after the reasons I stated you still have the balls to say "There is NO evedence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 73. He was not the same physically and mentally for the Foreman fight. Look at the Frazier who beat ali and the one Foreman beat. I see a very different Frazier. If you cannot see the difference between them you are ignorant. I refuse to believe you believe the crap your writing. Frazier was prime for Foreman but Foreman was past it for Ali? You are either a foreman fanatic or a troll. There are literally no other explanations.

I am neither a Foreman fanatic or a troll. According to you a fighter aged 29 coming off the best win of his career is in decline. And yet ALL the evidence says that Frazier was good mentally and physically going into the Foreman fight. Because he fought a bad fight or was naive tactically DOES NOT make him past his best. You havent stated ANY reasons why Frazier had apparently (according to you) gone into such a dramatic decline.

If Ali had hit like Frazier he would have got him out there quick as well. Frazier wasnt exactly hard to hit. The truth is Frazier got iced.

The only reason Frazier was "different" was because Foreman nailed him early and didnt let him go.

Frazier was hard to hit. Moreso than Ali according to Chuvalo. If Ali had Frazier's power he would get Ali out quicker? Lmfao. Frazier had one of the greatest chins of all time. Bugner said out of all his oppenents (which included Ali) Frazier had the best chin. What evidence is there Frazier was good mentally and physically for Foreman? What evidence is there that Foreman was past it against Ali? As for "You havent stated ANY reasons why Frazier had apparently (according to you) gone into such a dramatic decline." You are lying once again. I have stated a numerous amount of evidence. You are just ignoring it. Just stfu biased clown.

Broomhall wrote:

Yup, and the second fight with Ellis comes in 1975 which is two years after 1973. This was after his loss to Foreman in 1973. I say it was this fight that destroyed him, and before this fight he was as good as he ever was.

Many undefeated fighters are ruined by a first devastating loss, and Fraziers undoing was the first Foreman fight. We all could come up with many undefeated fighters who are not the same after a major KO loss, but it is much harder to think of a young fighter on winning run who is "in decline"

Yeah, but the original question was did Foreman fight Frazier in his prime... and Foreman fought Frazier twice... I think the general consensus is that Frazier was (at least physically) at his peak the first go around... the second go-around, he obviously wasn't the same man. Alot of people will call the "Thrilla in Manila" the greatest fight in heavyweight history, but I generally disagree as it was a fight clearly between two men passed their best years. Frazier, after the first Foreman fight was never the same--- or as I would argue after the FOTC he was never mentally or emotionally the same fighter. Ali, for that matter, certainly was closer to his "prime" in the FOTC than he was in later years. And of course, as I pointed out before of Frazier's degenerative arthritis and vision, going into Manila and with Foreman again.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Broomhall wrote:

Yup, and the second fight with Ellis comes in 1975 which is two years after 1973. This was after his loss to Foreman in 1973. I say it was this fight that destroyed him, and before this fight he was as good as he ever was.

Many undefeated fighters are ruined by a first devastating loss, and Fraziers undoing was the first Foreman fight. We all could come up with many undefeated fighters who are not the same after a major KO loss, but it is much harder to think of a young fighter on winning run who is "in decline"

Yeah, but the original question was did Foreman fight Frazier in his prime... and Foreman fought Frazier twice... I think the general consensus is that Frazier was (at least physically) at his peak the first go around... the second go-around, he obviously wasn't the same man. Alot of people will call the "Thrilla in Manila" the greatest fight in heavyweight history, but I generally disagree as it was a fight clearly between two men passed their best years. Frazier, after the first Foreman fight was never the same--- or as I would argue after the FOTC he was never mentally or emotionally the same fighter. Ali, for that matter, certainly was closer to his "prime" in the FOTC than he was in later years. And of course, as I pointed out before of Frazier's degenerative arthritis and vision, going into Manila and with Foreman again.

Nobody thinks Frazier was prime the first time around.

abdelfadeeli wrote: Nobody thinks Frazier was prime the first time around.

Are you effing cracked?

HomicideHenry wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote: Nobody thinks Frazier was prime the first time around.

Are you effing cracked?

Show me one expert who thinks he was prime in the first fight.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote: Nobody thinks Frazier was prime the first time around.

Are you effing cracked?

Show me one expert who thinks he was prime in the first fight.

Well.... lets look at it this way... FRAZIER (NOT FOREMAN) on that night was a solid 3.5 to 1 FAVORITE on the odds.

If that isnt an indication of Frazier's "prime" then I don't know what would be.

HomicideHenry wrote: Nobody thinks Frazier was prime the first time around.

Are you effing cracked?[/quote]
Show me one expert who thinks he was prime in the first fight.[/quote]

Well.... lets look at it this way... FRAZIER (NOT FOREMAN) on that night was a solid 3.5 to 1 FAVORITE on the odds.

If that isnt an indication of Frazier's "prime" then I don't know what would be.[/quote]
just because Frazier was the favorite that doesn't mean he was prime. Ali was the favorite to beat Spinks so surely he prime when he lost to Spinks. Liston was a 7:1 favorite to beat Ali (which I believe was bigger than 3.5) was Liston prime? Maybe you think Tyson was prime when he lost to Holyfield since he was the favorite to?

You asked for ONE indication whether he was in his prime or not... so I gave you "odds"...

Mind you, another indication is that Frazier was also UNDEFEATED... going into that first Foreman fight...

His last three fights was the FOTC, Terry Daniels and Ron Stander... then he loses to Foreman...

IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Foreman fight, Frazier he defeats Bugner, loses a close decision to Ali, and then TKO's Jerry Quarry (who alot of people thought was still at his peak too)...

Maybe you can argue he lost that "umph" because he lost to Foreman and mentally/emotionally was shattered... however, physically, he was still capable of beating pretty much the top contenders. After all, Ali had just fought Bugner, so Frazier wanted Bugner as well. Ali and Frazier rematched, it was close. Frazier then beats Quarry--- and Quarry was coming off of a six fight win streak (6-0-0, 5 kayos) against the likes of Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, and Tony Doyle. The first time Frazier fought Quarry (1969) Frazier stopped him in 7 rounds. This time around, Frazier did it in 5 rounds.

HOWEVER... after Quarry, it seems Frazier slowed down (alot) because his next fight was the Ellis rematch, and he looked like crap. Then came Manila, where he looked excellent, and then came the second Foreman fight and he was ultimately destroyed. So, I think its more than fair to say that as late as 1972-73 Frazier physically was still all there--- mentally he wouldnt get that 'boost' until losing to Ali in that rematch, and we saw him come back in a vengence flooring Bugner and poleaxing Quarry, and of course Manila.

1975, even Manila considered, he wasn't at his physical best anymore--- but he did regain that mental edge.


Also, it must be noted that in the Foreman REMATCH... Frazier was a 7-5 favorite... *strangely enough*

Even a vintage Joe Frazier didn't match up well with George Foreman of the 1970s.

- Chuck Johnston

abdelfadeeli get out of here, you been beaten in an argument the way Foreman beat a top Frazier.

HomicideHenry wrote:You asked for ONE indication whether he was in his prime or not... so I gave you "odds"...

Mind you, another indication is that Frazier was also UNDEFEATED... going into that first Foreman fight...

His last three fights was the FOTC, Terry Daniels and Ron Stander... then he loses to Foreman...

IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Foreman fight, Frazier he defeats Bugner, loses a close decision to Ali, and then TKO's Jerry Quarry (who alot of people thought was still at his peak too)...

Maybe you can argue he lost that "umph" because he lost to Foreman and mentally/emotionally was shattered... however, physically, he was still capable of beating pretty much the top contenders. After all, Ali had just fought Bugner, so Frazier wanted Bugner as well. Ali and Frazier rematched, it was close. Frazier then beats Quarry--- and Quarry was coming off of a six fight win streak (6-0-0, 5 kayos) against the likes of Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, and Tony Doyle. The first time Frazier fought Quarry (1969) Frazier stopped him in 7 rounds. This time around, Frazier did it in 5 rounds.

HOWEVER... after Quarry, it seems Frazier slowed down (alot) because his next fight was the Ellis rematch, and he looked like crap. Then came Manila, where he looked excellent, and then came the second Foreman fight and he was ultimately destroyed. So, I think its more than fair to say that as late as 1972-73 Frazier physically was still all there--- mentally he wouldnt get that 'boost' until losing to Ali in that rematch, and we saw him come back in a vengence flooring Bugner and poleaxing Quarry, and of course Manila.

1975, even Manila considered, he wasn't at his physical best anymore--- but he did regain that mental edge.


Also, it must be noted that in the Foreman REMATCH... Frazier was a 7-5 favorite... *strangely enough*

Tyson was undefeated going into the douglas fight so was he prime to? Ali was undefeated going into the Fotc so surely he was in his prime. I'm not even sure if Frazier was prime for the fotc, He broke his ankle the previous year and was never as mobile again. Mentally he wasn't at his best because he wanted to kill Ali with every shot. You could MAYBE try to squeeze in an argument Frazier was prime for he FOTC. But your argument to insinuate Frazier was prime for the first Foreman fight is ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting Frazier was prime for the Foreman rematch?

NO because with Ali and Tyson the signs of decline were clearly there. With Frazier there were no such signs. And no I dont think anyone would say that Frazier was in top form for the rematch with Foreman.

Frazier, prime or not got his ass handed to him twice.



end of thread

abdelfadeeli...

Are you suggesting...

You're saying he wasn't in his prime for the FOTC...

He turned pro in '65 and you cant say he was "prime" until '67 when he beat Chuvalo?

So are you suggesting he was in his "prime" from '67-70, or in another respect, from Chuvalo to Foster?

Broomhall wrote:NO because with Ali and Tyson the signs of decline were clearly there. With Frazier there were no such signs. And no I dont think anyone would say that Frazier was in top form for the rematch with Foreman.

Yes there were signs that Frazier wasn't prime after the FOTC. Frazier almost died. He went to the hospital and never fought for the rest of the year. He gained so much weight, He lost his motivation, not to mention half his defence, timing, and accuracy.

HomicideHenry wrote:abdelfadeeli...

Are you suggesting...

You're saying he wasn't in his prime for the FOTC...

He turned pro in '65 and you cant say he was "prime" until '67 when he beat Chuvalo?

So are you suggesting he was in his "prime" from '67-70, or in another respect, from Chuvalo to Foster?

No i'm not saying that. I'm saying im not sure if he was prime in the Fotc. I'm suggesting he was prime from 68-71

Broomhall wrote:NO because with Ali and Tyson the signs of decline were clearly there. With Frazier there were no such signs. And no I dont think anyone would say that Frazier was in top form for the rematch with Foreman.

By the way, i'm still waiting for your proof that Foreman was somehow past it for Ali. Did his grueling fight with Ken Norton take something out of him?

Cus... i'll be honest with you... if he wasnt "prime" when he fought Ali the first time... then Joe Frazier is without question the greatest heavyweight of all time... I mean think about it... if he wasnt at his best, then Ali never fought Frazier at his best, or anywhere close... so, under your logic, if Frazier wasnt at his best, then Frazier is far greater than anyone ever realizes.

HomicideHenry wrote:Cus... i'll be honest with you... if he wasnt "prime" when he fought Ali the first time... then Joe Frazier is without question the greatest heavyweight of all time... I mean think about it... if he wasnt at his best, then Ali never fought Frazier at his best, or anywhere close... so, under your logic, if Frazier wasnt at his best, then Frazier is far greater than anyone ever realizes.

I said I'm not sure if he was even prime in the FOTC. I never said he wasn't. Ali fought a prime or close to prime Frazier.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Broomhall wrote:NO because with Ali and Tyson the signs of decline were clearly there. With Frazier there were no such signs. And no I dont think anyone would say that Frazier was in top form for the rematch with Foreman.

By the way, i'm still waiting for your proof that Foreman was somehow past it for Ali. Did his grueling fight with Ken Norton take something out of him?

It was irony dude. I was basing it on your logic that Frazier was coming off his best form of his career so according to you this made him past his best. Therefore using your logic whenever any fighter loses when they are in the best form of their lives they must also be past their best.

It is confusing but this seems to be how your mind works

Broomhall wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Broomhall wrote:NO because with Ali and Tyson the signs of decline were clearly there. With Frazier there were no such signs. And no I dont think anyone would say that Frazier was in top form for the rematch with Foreman.

By the way, i'm still waiting for your proof that Foreman was somehow past it for Ali. Did his grueling fight with Ken Norton take something out of him?

It was irony dude. I was basing it on your logic that Frazier was coming off his best form of his career so according to you this made him past his best. Therefore using your logic whenever any fighter loses when they are in the best form of their lives they must also be past their best.

It is confusing but this seems to be how your mind works

You are just writing the part of the event that suits your argument. Don't worry I'll post the rest. His blood pressure went dangerously high. He had trouble with High Blood pressure even before that fight. It was a combination of the magnitude of the event, the incredible stress he put is body through in training and of course the actual fight itself. Norton dominated Frazier in sparring after the FOTC. It was usually the other way around.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Broomhall wrote: It is confusing but this seems to be how your mind works

You are just writing the part of the event that suits your argument. Don't worry I'll post the rest. His blood pressure went dangerously high. He had trouble with High Blood pressure even before that fight. It was a combination of the magnitude of the event, the incredible stress he put is body through in training and of course the actual fight itself. Norton dominated Frazier in sparring after the FOTC. It was usually the other way around.

add to that His wife Florence commented, “Joe has bad headaches but he’ll be alright. But not the same! No, not the same!"

abdelfadeeli wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Broomhall wrote: It is confusing but this seems to be how your mind works

You are just writing the part of the event that suits your argument. Don't worry I'll post the rest. His blood pressure went dangerously high. He had trouble with High Blood pressure even before that fight. It was a combination of the magnitude of the event, the incredible stress he put is body through in training and of course the actual fight itself. Norton dominated Frazier in sparring after the FOTC. It was usually the other way around.

add to that His wife Florence commented, “Joe has bad headaches but he’ll be alright. But not the same! No, not the same!"

Here's an opinion of an expert Jose Torres: “I, for one, think that Joe didn’t look at all like that indestructible machine…my conclusion: Frazier has lost interest in the sport of flat noses…Well, Joe Frazier is a Pro. He has made a lot of money. He is ready to retire. Anytime. And now is anytime…He proved to be the best man of his time…Joe Frazier became the most important athlete that night of March 8, 1971 when he displaced Muhammad Ali as number one.”

I'm drinking the Kool Aid, Abdeel, and I have started chanting the mantra.

"None of Joe's losses count at all as he was no longer in his prime."

"None of Joe's losses count at all as he was no longer in his prime."

"None of Joe's losses count at all as he was no longer in his prime."

How long before I get my "Joe's My #1" badge?

Giancarlo wrote:I'm drinking the Kool Aid, Abdeel, and I have started chanting the mantra.

"None of Joe's losses count at all as he was no longer in his prime."

"None of Joe's losses count at all as he was no longer in his prime."

"None of Joe's losses count at all as he was no longer in his prime."

How long before I get my "Joe's My #1" badge?

They do count. At no time have I disputed that. The losses are on his record. There is nothing you or I can do to change that. Please don't put words in my mouth and talk for me. I have no problem talking for myself.