BoxRec

who's talking Frazier? i'm confused.

Its a running issue on this forum with our own Yancey that Foreman beat Frazier predominantly owing to shoving. I thought you were referencing that.

My mistake

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its a running issue on this forum with our own Yancey that Foreman beat Frazier predominantly owing to shoving. I thought you were referencing that.

ah, i suppose i was referencing it, in a way. but just by way of saying at mid-range Foreman's only alternative to getting his face broken to bits would be to push off hard and often with his colossal arms.

Early knockdowns for Foreman, then Louis coming back and stopping his bigger opponent late!

Counter-puncher wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its a running issue on this forum with our own Yancey that Foreman beat Frazier predominantly owing to shoving. I thought you were referencing that.

ah, i suppose i was referencing it, in a way. but just by way of saying at mid-range Foreman's only alternative to getting his face broken to bits would be to push off hard and often with his colossal arms.

Irene gets it wrong again.

I have said several times that I wish the Frazier-Foreman affair in Jamaica would have been refereed better, in that Foreman did get away with illegally pushing off Frazier, which was taught to him by his camp. Without the push-offs, Frazier indeed would have had a better chance to get to the inside and stay there, which was his only path to victory, imo.

At the same time, I have NEVER said the push-offs was the "predominant" reason Frazier lost to Foreman in Jamaica. More important to the outcome was the fact that Frazier was definitely past his peak, was never the same after the FOTC, was more interested in his music than boxing, as witnessed by being under-trained and coming in heavy by a good 8-10 pounds, and last but certainly not least, terribly underestimating Foreman's power and the bad style match (for Frazier) that Foreman presented.

I shouldve picked another of your many excuses, then.

29-year-old, 27-0-0, 4-1 odds-on, undefeated in nearly ten years as a pro Joe Frazier --- shot-to-bits in Jan of 1973. Not just past his peak, but a crippled, wheelchair-bound husk. Wheres a violin emoticon when you need one? D

I think the weight is my favourite excuse --- EIGHT POUNDS (what, 3kgs!?) on a natural 205-210lb Heavyweight...LMAO

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I shouldve picked another of your many excuses, then.

29-year-old, 27-0-0, 4-1 odds-on, undefeated in nearly ten years as a pro Joe Frazier --- shot-to-bits in Jan of 1973. Not jurt past his peak, but a crippled, wheelchair-bound husk. Wheres a violin emoticon when you need one? D

I think the weight is my favourite one --- EIGHT POUNDS (what, 3kgs!?) on a naturat 205-210lb Heavyweight...LMAO

"I should have picked another of your many excuses" Irene

So you admit you were wrong in saying that I'm running around saying the Foreman push-offs were the predominant reason Frazier lost, right?

As to Frazier coming in bloated, it is not the weight itself, but what the fact that he came in heavy represented.

In other words, he undertrained and underestimated Foreman.

To compete against Ali and Foreman, a lesser physical speciman like Frazier HAD to to be at the absolute top of his game.

But whatever. I grow weary.

Sure. I admit I got lost in your labyrinth of excuses. I did get it wrong. Lets see if youre man enough to admit the weight excuse for Frazier is flat-out PATHETIC.

The thing is, we both actually agree Frazier was not at his best when he first met Foreman...but you are in complete denial as to what condition Frazier was actually in. He was a stone-cold bad ass who no other HW not named Ali couldve beaten in 1973.

He was certainly in SIGNIFICANTLY better sorts than Ali in 1971, which you're happy to hold up as Frazier's crowning glory and wont suffer excuses for.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Sure. I admit I got lost in your labyrinth of excuses. I did get it wrong. Lets see if youre man enough to admit the weight excuse for Frazier is flat-out PATHETIC.

The thing is, we both actually agree Frazier was not at his best when he first met Foreman...but you are in complete denial as to what condition Frazier was actually in. He was a stone-cold bad ass who no other HW not named Ali couldve beaten in 1973.

He was certainly in SIGNIFICANTLY better sorts than Ali in 1971, which you're happy to hold up as Frazier's crowning glory and wont suffer excuses for.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

The Frazier of '73 in "SIGNIFICANTLY better sorts" than the Ali of '71???



Ali of 3/8/71, which, btw, was one of the greatest peaks of his career, considerably outpoints the Frazier of 1/22/73. The Frazier of that time period took forever to knock out Terry Daniels and couldn't do it against Ron Stander. Both household names, right? Frazier was never the same after the FOTC. Some of you cannot understand that some fighters like Frazier have short peaks and then drop off considerably whereas some fighters like Ali can have longer peaks, with much less precipitous drop-off. And throw out the chronological age stuff, okay? It doesn't really figure in this.

But whatever. I grow weary. I'm having a precipitous drop-off.

Daniels and Stander got their asses KICKED. Any HW in the world not named Foreman or Ali would have lost to Frazier, and that was the UNIVERSAL opinion in 1973, except everyone thought Foreman, too, was fodder.

This is one I havent seen from you before, I must admit. Frazier somehow struggling to beat Daniels and Stander. How many excuses is that now? Lets run a tally...

Weight (The weakest of your many excuses. I knew you wouldnt give this one up)
Under-prepared (Probably true)
Couldnt whip Stander or Daniels (He cruised through both)
Took Foreman lightly (True)
Past his prime (True, but youre utterly delusional as to the reality)
Pushing (Another limp line. Frazier never bent the rules? Youre in la-la land)

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Daniels and Stander got their asses KICKED. Any HW in the world not named Foreman or Ali would have lost to Frazier, and that was the UNIVERSAL opinion in 1973, except everyone thought Foreman, too, was fodder.

This is one I havent seen from you before, I must admit. Frazier somehow struggling to beat Daniels and Stander. How many excuses is that now? Lets run a tally...

Weight (The weakest of your many excuses. I knew you wouldnt give this one up)
Under-prepared (Probably true)
Couldnt whip Stander or Daniels (He cruised through both)
Took Foreman lightly (True)
Past his prime (True, but youre utterly delusional as to the reality)
Pushing (Another limp line. Frazier never bent the rules? Youre in la-la land)

You simply don't know what you are talking about, bud.

'69 Frazier would have BLITZED the likes of Daniels and Stander in short order.

Daniels would have gone down and stayed down from the first big hook, instead of getting back up 3 or 4 times like he did and lasting several rounds in '72 like he did.

If you study the Stander fight closely, Frazier was actually staggered in the first round and spent much of the fight on his toes, staying on the outside and preferring to cut up Stander rather than going in and finishing him. Frazier by that time period had lost that joy of fighting edge and was mainly sticking around for one last big payday with Ali.

Elmersalsa, if you happen to be reading this, please come in and further educate Irene about these fights.

He needs help.

Elmer is your back-up!?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Elmer is your back-up!?

Actually, I don't need any back-up, but you were wearing me out with your misconceptions, so I was hoping to pass you off on Elmer.

I don't know much about Elmer, but his take on Frazier's mental and physical state post-FOTC is right on the money.

flatnoseflynn wrote:Early knockdowns for Foreman, then Louis coming back and stopping his bigger opponent late!

I agree early knockdowns, but think once he has Louis hurt Foreman finishes the job.