BoxRec

I thought I was cranky.

Evander wrote:I thought I was cranky.

Sorry if I came off that way. Over zealous maybe,a bit spirited,but I really enjoy a healthy give and take.I'm having fun with this. By the way, I like dogs and kids.

..general patton wasn't legally sane.

Jaclem wrote:..general patton wasn't legally sane.

You're right. He was making it with his niece and wanted to attack Russia and probably ignite WWIII at the cost of millions of lives,but he was the only American general feared by the Germans.

A lot of Americans say we fight with one hand tied behind our backs.

Marvin Hagler.

Ambling Alp wrote: Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever, but he wasn't 10 times as good as the #2 guy.

Interesting, I made a similar point about Ruth on the Frazier thread in regards to Ali. I didn't see your post, I hope you didn't think I was ripping off your ideas. Great minds think alike, as they say


--------------
Marvin Hagler is not overrated.

Marvin Hagler is not overrated.

Oh yes he is. Can you say SUGAR RAY LEONARD?

Great middleweights do not get beat by fat welterweights.

Marvin Hagler is one of the most over rated champions in boxing history. He made a career of beating blown up welterweights in a time when there were no real legitimate middeweights with any talent. Then along comes Sugar Ray Leonard, who sees Hagler is a stumbling plodder. He makes a fight plan and makes the MW champion of the world look like a rank amatuer and takes the MW title from one of the worst MW champs in history. That is what happened, it is not up for debate. Hagler stunk, he was not great. Hagler was maybe a bit above average........which is all he needed to be at that time in the middleweight division..

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We've heard your argument.

Are you not doing the same thing?

I have sat here from the git-go and read all this Hagler BS. Someone needs to put you Hagler clowns back to reality.

Pipino Cuevas,when he was champ,was considered indestructible in Mexico. There was even a song written about him called "Pipino is My Champion". One time he was in a car crash and his head went through the windshield and he walked away unhurt. Evedently Tommy Hearns right hand hit a lot harder than that windshield. Pipino's industructibility was crushed when he lost his title to Hearns. Cuevas was never the same after that loss.

Lots of great fighters lost to smaller fighters at the end of their game.

Your are full of shit Decagon. You Hagler clowns always say he was a the end of his game or past his prime, etc.etc.etc. Like Leonard wasn't over the hill himself when he BEAT Hagler.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.....

If it was meaningless, then why does it bother you so that Hagler got beat fair and square? Could it be that your boxing idol was made to look a clown by some one named Sugar Ray Leonard, who actually had boxing skills, unlike Hagler.

Jeesh just watch Hagler's fights........he wasn't that good.......

Well of course that is it, I am an idiot. I should have known that. But being an idiot I guess I really could not be expected to know that. Guys like you are needed in the world to tell me that I am an idiot.

Thank you, and here I always thought I was only a dumbshit......

Of course, because we've said this same thing several times, but you are too dumb to remember.

Well maybe I am deaf and dumb, and never heard you to begin with?

Anyone who wins the Heavyweight Title deserves a degree of reverence,but reluctantly I'm going to throw some dirt on the reign of Smokin' Joe. He wins the vacant title by crushing a blown up asthmatic Jimmy Ellis. Defends against Foster who never beat a good heavyweight. Then solidifies the title with a decision over Ali who had lost his legs and resorted to a lot of holding,leaning against the ropes and shaking his head. It would have been a great fight if we could have seen Ali fight Joe in 68 but that's another story. Then Joe defends against Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. Who were those guys? Then Foreman destroys him in Jamaica-end of his title reign. Now if you want to throw in his other bouts: Ali II and III go ahead,but he lost. And a very definitive fight that doesn't get much notice:Foreman's second destruction of him in New York.

Give me a break. He brought stability & clarity back to a division that needed it. He annihilated Jimmy Ellis. What more could he have done in that fight in your eyes? Did Ali do better against Ellis? God no.

Who were Terry Daniels & Ron Stander...who was Brian London? Henry Cooper? Karl Mildenberger?

People talk about Ali's alleged three & a half year lay-off (only two actual years he was inactive, 1968-69) as though it were three & a half decades. It seems Ali loses more & more of his ability whenever this fight is re-hashed.

Frazier unified splintered titles, which is more than today's losers will ever achieve. He bested every top Heavyweight in the world for almost five years, in which he became the undisputed, undefeated, unquestionable Heavyweight champion of the world. When he lost? It was to an all-time great fighter, at the top of his game, giving the performance of his life.

I would just love to see what the outcome would have been had Ali lifted the title from Frazier, & en route to a return match, become lazy, overweight & quite complacent in meeting a largely unknown Foreman against whom he was a 3-1 favourite & had little idea what he was walking into. It happened with an inferior opponent named Kenny Norton against whom Ali was a 5-1 favourite, exactly in the mould of the above scenario, & he lost.

Frazier could never have beaten Foreman. However, without the previews against Frazier, Roman & Norton, months of planning, getting in shape & developing & formulating fight plans, Ali in 73 would have been caught unawares & knocked out.

Frazier loses 4 out of 5 fights with Ali and Foreman,3 are stoppages. Ali,past his prime, stops Foreman,beats Frazier twice(severely damaging his eye in the 3rd fight). By the way Ali had Frazier almost out in the 2nd fight in rd.2 when the timekeeper rang the bell after only 2 minutes. Foreman loses to Ali and demolishes Joe twice. In this trilogy Ali beats Foreman and Frazier 3 out of 4, all past his prime and 2 are stoppages.Ali had lost his legs in 1970. We all saw it when he fought Bonavena. Even Cosell thought that Ali was sick that night. That's when he started to take a pounding. A 3 year lay off for a fighter does him no good. Look at Dempsey,Robinson,Louis. Granted the last 2 had age against them,but Ali was a fighter that was on his toes for most of a 15 rounder weighing 210 pounds. He had lost that lilt. He couldn't dance like he used to.

"Frazier loses 4 out of 5 fights with Ali and Foreman,3 are stoppages." - dagosd

You should repeat these names back to yourself until the gravity sinks in. Who else did he lose to? Only these legends of the ring. Foreman lost to Jimmy Young. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Lewis to Hasim Rahman.

You skipped over the fact that Frazier's performance in Manila ruined Ali.

"Ali went to Manila as an is, but left as a was."

It works both ways. Frazier was wrecked, but you didn't acknowledge Ali was as well. Look at his performances between beating Foreman in 74 & Frazier in 75, & then after Frazier.

"...by the way Ali had Frazier almost out in the 2nd fight in rd. 2 when the timekeeper rang the bell at 2 minutes..."

Clay-Cooper I, anyone?

I can't imagine what more someone like Joe Frazier, who gave up all physical advantages every time he stepped into the ring, should have to have done to get his due.

Finally, no one ever beat a prime Joe Frazier. Muhammad Ali in 1971 was the majority of what he was when he left in 67. He was no shell. But he was after fighting Frazier in Manila.

Ray leonard. Performed horribly against Terry Norris when he should have won and almost as poorly in the first Hearns fight (you're blowing it son!!!)

Just a terrible stratigist. Get's an F+ from me.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"Frazier loses 4 out of 5 fights with Ali and Foreman,3 are stoppages." - dagosd

You should repeat these names back to yourself until the gravity sinks in. Who else did he lose to? Only these legends of the ring. Foreman lost to Jimmy Young. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. Lewis to Hasim Rahman.

You skipped over the fact that Frazier's performance in Manila ruined Ali.

"Ali went to Manila as an is, but left as a was."

It works both ways. Frazier was wrecked, but you didn't acknowledge Ali was as well. Look at his performances between beating Foreman in 74 & Frazier in 75, & then after Frazier.

"...by the way Ali had Frazier almost out in the 2nd fight in rd. 2 when the timekeeper rang the bell at 2 minutes..."

Clay-Cooper I, anyone?

I can't imagine what more someone like Joe Frazier, who gave up all physical advantages every time he stepped into the ring, should have to have done to get his due.

Finally, no one ever beat a prime Joe Frazier. Muhammad Ali in 1971 was the majority of what he was when he left in 67. He was no shell. But he was after fighting Frazier in Manila.

You're right on these points. You won't get any argument from me. Ali suffered terrible damage after Frazier III. And I agree that the most solid hit he ever received was from Cooper. Dundee probably saved him by tearing his glove. But since I've joined this forum there has been a lot of diminish8ing of fighters like Ali(I was a part of the Norton controversies),Ray Robinson,Marvin Hagler,Rocky Marciano,and Joe Louis as examples. I've never seen any slights on Joe who I consider a 1st ballot Hall of Famer. He utilized all the abilities that he had and compensated what was left with his heart.

Btw to dagosd looking back at my posts, I think they may have come off a little obnoxious, which was not my intent, so I apologise for that.

I just feel that Frazier had to overcome so much pain & punishment in every fight, not just his big ones, that I think most of the other great HW's would probably have crumbled to the canvas had they been in the same position for extended periods, & for that Frazier earns my heartiest respect.

I enjoy your posts. You back up your comments with examples and although sometimes I disagree, I understand the truth isn't black and white. I don't like these fellows who call a fighter a bum and then don't explain themselves. Or they're talking out their ass.
I got on this forum because there are very few people I can have an intelligent conversation with. Maybe it's my age. I'm 60. Many younger people have little frame of reference. There was a recent documentary on our Television on the history of WWII. The producer said one of his motives was because when he asked younger people about the subject they thought the US fought on the side of the GERMANS!
Keep thinking things thru. If I have to use boxing as my platform to express some thought,I'm enjoying the rapport I'm having with you
With Respect,Roger

ringsider wrote:Well of course that is it, I am an idiot. I should have known that. But being an idiot I guess I really could not be expected to know that. Guys like you are needed in the world to tell me that I am an idiot.

Thank you, and here I always thought I was only a dumbshit......

No, you are 1 notch higher than just a dumbshit, mate. You are a boring dumbshit.

ringsider wrote:If it was meaningless, then why does it bother you so that Hagler got beat fair and square? Could it be that your boxing idol was made to look a clown by some one named Sugar Ray Leonard, who actually had boxing skills, unlike Hagler.

Jeesh just watch Hagler's fights........he wasn't that good.......

Your posts aren't that good. Hagler's fights were usually quite excellent.

Hagler was getting older and slower. If it had been a 15 rounder Hagler would have probably won a decision. I think that's something that people don't pay enough attention to when it comes to the Leonard-Hearns and Leonard-Hagler fights. The difference of those three rounds, either way, was usually the difference in the fight. Leonard fought a great fight, I think his performance is sometimes underlooked by fans today, but Hagler hardly got embarrassed, and Hagler was a great champion. And, from what I can tell, it seems that a slight majority of boxing fans thought Hagler won. I personally could go either way on that question.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Who were Terry Daniels & Ron Stander...who was Brian London? Henry Cooper? Karl Mildenberger?

Oh please. Ali couldn't get fights in the United States at that stage because people were boycotting him, so he had to fight in Europe. Those were the best available opponents he could fight, along with Chuvalo in Canada. Those were his options. Frazier was just looking for a couple of tune ups, I agree he shouldn't be faulted for that, but its not really the same situation.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:People talk about Ali's alleged three & a half year lay-off (only two actual years he was inactive, 1968-69) as though it were three & a half decades. It seems Ali loses more & more of his ability whenever this fight is re-hashed.

That's ridiculous. If a fighter doesn't fight from October of 06 to October of 07... that's a one year layoff. I don't think that's too hard to calculate. Ali was off for 43 months, and that would impact almost any fighter.

I agree that if Ali had been champion in 73 and had fought Foreman, there would be a chance of Ali underestimating George. Emphasis on the word chance. But Ali had a clear style advantage over George, as George had over Frazier, and that was the difference.

As for dagosd... Joe Frazier is rather underrated at times. To me he's a better fighter than Marciano, for example. Frazier got stuck in the deepest era in Heavyweight history, and yet had a remarkable career. Frazier would have cleaned up with Louis or Marciano's opponents.

Jimmy Ellis' record speaks for itself, he wasn't the best but he was a pretty good fighter who beat some solid opponents.