BoxRec

WHEN the HELL was FRAZIER in his PRIME BEFORE HE TURNED PRO

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:WHEN the HELL was FRAZIER in his PRIME BEFORE HE TURNED PRO

This thread makes you think so

Frazier haters are on the force on this thread I see. I'm not even that big of a Frazier fan but the hating he gets on here is ridiculous.

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

So was Tyson against Douglas and Ali against Frazier, but we still have to read long, convuluted, bias reasons why Tyson and Ali were past prime when they were met with their first lost yet Frazier was still prime when he was met with his. We Have not heard about Louis being past prime when he lost to Schmeling yet but we will.

abdelfadeeli wrote:Frazier haters are on the force on this thread I see. I'm not even that big of a Frazier fan but the hating he gets on here is ridiculous.

Stop it please.

It really narks me when people trot out that 'haters' line just because they don't like it when others criticise someone they like.

It's such a school playground insult.

I'd love to throttle the person that first coined it, because they have a lot to answer for.

I hate biased posters like every poster on this thread (with the exception of some including Yancey and the great john L. Sorry if I forgot you)

abdelfadeeli wrote:I hate biased posters like every poster on this thread (with the exception of some including Yancey and the great john L. Sorry if I forgot you)

Biased; as in those who have an opposing opinion to your own biased opinion?

I like Frazier.Another fun one to watch.Tough as nails and a nightmare for most heavies
in history.But styles make fights and Foreman has the style to beat Frazier.Nothing biased just my opinion

Is this thread still running???

Ok Ok OK I admit Frazier was not in his prime when he fought Foreman first time even through he was only 29 and had only 26 pro fights at the time of the fight, was coming off the best win in his career, the majority of his wins coming in less than 6 rounds, was an Olympic Gold medallist after a relatively short amateur career.....he was clearly past his best.

Now can we leave this alone?

Syntax Error wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:I hate biased posters like every poster on this thread (with the exception of some including Yancey and the great john L. Sorry if I forgot you)

Biased; as in those who have an opposing opinion to your own biased opinion?

I have repeatedly stated I have no problem with those who have opinions differing from mune. What I do have a problem with is stating Frazier was prime in 1973 yet stating Tyson was past prime when he faced douglas. 1973 Frazier was 6 years older and was far more damaged than 1990 Tyson. I realize people peak at different ages/times in their career, but NO ONE is past it at age 23, in fact most boxers haven't reached their prime at that age let alone passed it.

MAN I for one would never hate on THE GREAT JOE FRAZIER just trying to point out that he was in his PRIME when he lost his heavyweight tittle he was undefeated undisputed LEGEND.

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:MAN I for one would never hate on THE GREAT JOE FRAZIER just trying to point out that he was in his PRIME when he lost his heavyweight tittle he was undefeated undisputed LEGEND.

In my opinion Frazier had clearly lost some of the fire he had before the first fight against Ali by the time he fought Foreman. He was not doing as much work in the gym and there were reports of him having the worst of some sparring sessions. Lets not forget the numerous injuries especially to his back that he had suffered.

In an interview before the Ali fight he states that Ali is his final goal and that he might retire when he wins. To Broomhall and HomicidalHarry (or however the fornicate it's spelt) I have a quote so be very careful about lying about it: "But most men, when they start out, have goals. I mean, they going to do this and going to do that. Well, from the beginning, Clay has been the man. The one I wanted to beat. You're never sure you'll ever get there, get to the Big One, but I have. All the goals have been met and now there's one left—Cassius Clay. And I got him March 8th."

abdelfadeeli wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:MAN I for one would never hate on THE GREAT JOE FRAZIER just trying to point out that he was in his PRIME when he lost his heavyweight tittle he was undefeated undisputed LEGEND.

In my opinion Frazier had clearly lost some of the fire he had before the first fight against Ali by the time he fought Foreman. He was not doing as much work in the gym and there were reports of him having the worst of some sparring sessions. Lets not forget the numerous injuries especially to his back that he had suffered.

In an interview before the Ali fight he states that Ali is his final goal and that he might retire when he wins. To Broomhall and HomicidalHarry (or however the eff it's spelt) I have a quote so be very careful about lying about it: "But most men, when they start out, have goals. I mean, they going to do this and going to do that. Well, from the beginning, Clay has been the man. The one I wanted to beat. You're never sure you'll ever get there, get to the Big One, but I have. All the goals have been met and now there's one left—Cassius Clay. And I got him March 8th."

ALI WAS IN DECLINE FOR ALI/FRAZIER 1, AND DURAN WAS IN DECLINE AS SOON AS HE GOT SHOWERED AND DRESSED AND LEFT THE AREA AFTER THE BRAWL IN MONTREAL BECAUSE HE REACHED THE TOP OF THE PEAK PARTIES THE WOMEN BETTER WATCH OUT FLOYD.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:I hate biased posters like every poster on this thread (with the exception of some including Yancey and the great john L. Sorry if I forgot you)

Biased; as in those who have an opposing opinion to your own biased opinion?

I have repeatedly stated I have no problem with those who have opinions differing from mune. What I do have a problem with is stating Frazier was prime in 1973 yet stating Tyson was past prime when he faced douglas. 1973 Frazier was 6 years older and was far more damaged than 1990 Tyson. I realize people peak at different ages/times in their career, but NO ONE is past it at age 23, in fact most boxers haven't reached their prime at that age let alone passed it.

As I said, you do seem to have a problem with people who have a differing opinion to you, otherwise you wouldn't label them as 'haters', or denigrate them for disagreeing with you.

I happen to agree with you that Frazier had lost something by the time he fought Foreman in 1973, but I don't know that with absolute certainty & I would never denigrate someone else who thought differently because none of us truly know.

As for Tyson; again, it seems illogical that a 23 year old could be past it & I agree with you about him, but in hindsight, what cannot be denied is that Tyson was not the same fighter after 1989.

Whether that was because he was past it, or because of poor training & preparation; only he can answer that.

Syntax Error wrote: As I said, you do seem to have a problem with people who have a differing opinion to you, otherwise you wouldn't label them as 'haters', or denigrate them for disagreeing with you.

I happen to agree with you that Frazier had lost something by the time he fought Foreman in 1973, but I don't know that with absolute certainty & I would never denigrate someone else who thought differently because none of us truly know.

As for Tyson; again, it seems illogical that a 23 year old could be past it & I agree with you about him, but in hindsight, what cannot be denied is that Tyson was not the same fighter after 1989.

Whether that was because he was past it, or because of poor training & preparation; only he can answer that.

I would even argue the Tyson of 1989 was worse than the one who beat spinks. Tyson got himself into drugs, Tyson abandoned the amazing defence and head movement that got him to the top. Tyson fired the managing team that helped him get there. Tyson got himself in the washington and givens shit. Tyson stopped training. Tyson was fornicating japanese prositutes prior to his fight with douglas. Tyson hired Don King and his managment. Tyson stopped taking boxing seriously.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Syntax Error wrote: As I said, you do seem to have a problem with people who have a differing opinion to you, otherwise you wouldn't label them as 'haters', or denigrate them for disagreeing with you.

I happen to agree with you that Frazier had lost something by the time he fought Foreman in 1973, but I don't know that with absolute certainty & I would never denigrate someone else who thought differently because none of us truly know.

As for Tyson; again, it seems illogical that a 23 year old could be past it & I agree with you about him, but in hindsight, what cannot be denied is that Tyson was not the same fighter after 1989.

Whether that was because he was past it, or because of poor training & preparation; only he can answer that.

I would even argue the Tyson of 1989 was worse than the one who beat spinks. Tyson got himself into drugs, Tyson abandoned the amazing defence and head movement that got him to the top. Tyson fired the managing team that helped him get there. Tyson got himself in the washington and givens poo. Tyson stopped training. Tyson was effing japanese prositutes prior to his fight with douglas. Tyson hired Don King and his managment. Tyson stopped taking boxing seriously.

But none of that makes him past his prime. It makes his judgement bad, it makes his attitude bad and it makes his form bad-I think it often unfair on the fighters who turned up, prepared and ready to fight, in this case Foreman and Douglas to write them off as catching Tyson and Frazier on the slide.

An example of this is the first Louis/Schmeling fight when Louis spent much his training time on the golf course. This was louis fault he was an athlete in his prime but trained badly and fought a bad fight. IMO this is what happened to Tyson-except unlike Louis Tyson continued on his self destruct path-whereas Joe got back on track.

Remember this is JUST an opinion-so please dont get cross.

Broomhall wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Syntax Error wrote: As I said, you do seem to have a problem with people who have a differing opinion to you, otherwise you wouldn't label them as 'haters', or denigrate them for disagreeing with you.

I happen to agree with you that Frazier had lost something by the time he fought Foreman in 1973, but I don't know that with absolute certainty & I would never denigrate someone else who thought differently because none of us truly know.

As for Tyson; again, it seems illogical that a 23 year old could be past it & I agree with you about him, but in hindsight, what cannot be denied is that Tyson was not the same fighter after 1989.

Whether that was because he was past it, or because of poor training & preparation; only he can answer that.

I would even argue the Tyson of 1989 was worse than the one who beat spinks. Tyson got himself into drugs, Tyson abandoned the amazing defence and head movement that got him to the top. Tyson fired the managing team that helped him get there. Tyson got himself in the washington and givens poo. Tyson stopped training. Tyson was effing japanese prositutes prior to his fight with douglas. Tyson hired Don King and his managment. Tyson stopped taking boxing seriously.

But none of that makes him past his prime. It makes his judgement bad, it makes his attitude bad and it makes his form bad-I think it often unfair on the fighters who turned up, prepared and ready to fight, in this case Foreman and Douglas to write them off as catching Tyson and Frazier on the slide.

An example of this is the first Louis/Schmeling fight when Louis spent much his training time on the golf course. This was louis fault he was an athlete in his prime but trained badly and fought a bad fight. IMO this is what happened to Tyson-except unlike Louis Tyson continued on his self destruct path-whereas Joe got back on track.

Remember this is JUST an opinion-so please dont get cross.

Good post and good examples.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:MAN I for one would never hate on THE GREAT JOE FRAZIER just trying to point out that he was in his PRIME when he lost his heavyweight tittle he was undefeated undisputed LEGEND.

In my opinion Frazier had clearly lost some of the fire he had before the first fight against Ali by the time he fought Foreman. He was not doing as much work in the gym and there were reports of him having the worst of some sparring sessions. Lets not forget the numerous injuries especially to his back that he had suffered.

In an interview before the Ali fight he states that Ali is his final goal and that he might retire when he wins. To Broomhall and HomicidalHarry (or however the eff it's spelt) I have a quote so be very careful about lying about it: "But most men, when they start out, have goals. I mean, they going to do this and going to do that. Well, from the beginning, Clay has been the man. The one I wanted to beat. You're never sure you'll ever get there, get to the Big One, but I have. All the goals have been met and now there's one left—Cassius Clay. And I got him March 8th."

You haven't got tired of dealing with the schmucks who actually think Frazier was prime in '73?

You've got way more patience than me.

yancey wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:MAN I for one would never hate on THE GREAT JOE FRAZIER just trying to point out that he was in his PRIME when he lost his heavyweight tittle he was undefeated undisputed LEGEND.

In my opinion Frazier had clearly lost some of the fire he had before the first fight against Ali by the time he fought Foreman. He was not doing as much work in the gym and there were reports of him having the worst of some sparring sessions. Lets not forget the numerous injuries especially to his back that he had suffered.

In an interview before the Ali fight he states that Ali is his final goal and that he might retire when he wins. To Broomhall and HomicidalHarry (or however the eff it's spelt) I have a quote so be very careful about lying about it: "But most men, when they start out, have goals. I mean, they going to do this and going to do that. Well, from the beginning, Clay has been the man. The one I wanted to beat. You're never sure you'll ever get there, get to the Big One, but I have. All the goals have been met and now there's one left—Cassius Clay. And I got him March 8th."

You haven't got tired of dealing with the schmucks who actually think Frazier was prime in '73?

You've got way more patience than me.

One of them even implied Frazier was prime in 1976.

abdelfadeeli wrote: One of them even implied Frazier was prime in 1976.

No one said that Abdel.

Giancarlo wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote: One of them even implied Frazier was prime in 1976.

No one said that Abdel.

Of course Giancarlo comes into an argument that had NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. You are right they never said this. I'm not disputing this. At no point have i disputed it. They implied it.

abdelfadeeli wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote: One of them even implied Frazier was prime in 1976.

No one said that Abdel.

Of course Giancarlo comes into an argument that had NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. You are right they never said this. I'm not disputing this. At no point have i disputed it. They implied it.

Like you implied anyone who isn't humping Joe's leg is a 'schmuck'?

abdelfadeeli wrote: One of them even implied Frazier was prime in 1976.

No one said that Abdel.[/quote]
Of course Giancarlo comes into an argument that had NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. You are right they never said this. I'm not disputing this. At no point have i disputed it. They implied it.[/quote]

Like you implied anyone who isn't humping Joe's leg is a 'schmuck'?[/quote]
I have no problem with differing opinions. What I do have a problem with is ignorance.

abdelfadeeli wrote:I have no problem with differing opinions. What I do have a problem with is ignorance.

Who has given any incorrect facts?

I can only see opinions.

Those with differing opinions are ignorant?

Giancarlo wrote:

abdelfadeeli wrote:I have no problem with differing opinions. What I do have a problem with is ignorance.

Who has given any incorrect facts?

I can only see opinions.

Those with differing opinions are ignorant?

The ones who said Frazier was prime in 1973.