What most people don't understand about Frazier-Foreman II.

Hyperbole opinion piece.

Associated press states Frazier edged round 2 and describes him winning round 4.

 

NY times June 15th 1976
"Foreman 8-5 pick to win tonight's fight"

So much for your post that Frazier was the betting favorite.

Nytimes June 16 1976
"Foreman stops Frazier in 5th round. Foreman scored in the early going with a two fisted attack."

"Frazier tried mightily during one sided bout"

 

NY Daily News June 16th 1976. **** Young
"Foreman won every round although the Coliseum crowd cheered Fraziers every punch whether it landed or not".

 

I rest my case.

Might as well believe the earth is flat.

I'm done here. Study up on subjects before you form an opinion.

 

Frazier was actually a 7-5 favorite.

 

But you knew that would happen....

 

Untrue.
"One Las Vegas bookmaker had Frazier as a 7-5 favorite." Box rec

That's ONE bookmaker. One bookmaker does not provide the official betting odds for any fight. Odds for this bout were officially 9-5, 8-5 favoring Foreman.

NY Times headline the day before the fight.
"Foreman 8-5 pick to win tonight's fight"

Now I am officially done with this ****py thread.

 

But you already said you're done with the thread and keep coming back for more. :think

 

I just watched the fight again and there's no way in hell that Frazier won the 2nd round the fourth was close. The announcers called it a draw but awarding it to Frazier isn't undefendable.

 

I wonder where that re**** "super***69" went after I replied to him. :think

 

He lasted an extra 2.5 rounds. That's only impressive because the first was even more one-sided. Winning a round doesn't mean a whole lot when you're taking a beating and getting knocked down and get stopped way before the final bell. As I said, it's ridiculous to try and build one-sided 5 round beatdown into some hope of Frazier winning. Do you think George Chuvalo had the blueprint to beat Foreman too?

The one we're talking about.

So Ali wasn't prime in 71 but magically recovered it when he was a year older? Right. Just quoting your own words. You described Frazier as shot, legally blind and arthritic when he fought Foreman the second time, so he must also have been shot, legally blind and arthritic when he faced Ali six months earlier. You've also said Frazier was not in his prime when he lost to Foreman in 73, so he must have been even more past it when Ali beat him in 74.

 

Sure there is. Foreman was throwing a lot but failing to land much of note. Frazier scored with clean counter hooks and jabs, some did move Foreman.

I feel 4 was clear Frazier round, Foreman had one good punch and was immediately countered.

 

I watch the fight, I trust my eyes.

The associated press saw the same fight I did, good enough for me.

I'm not as impressed as others with Foreman swinging at air.

 

I was at the fight. The crowd was all for Frazier & George was the bad guy. Everyone could sense after the first round it was not going to work for Joe and the result was academic.

Anyone that has ever gone to fights and had good seats can get a feel of things and everyone there can feel it and taste it.

The result was pretty much like the Chavez--Ahn fight live. nobody felt at any time Ahn was going to win. All he could do was survive and that's all Joe was able to do himself.

 

Um no, his knockdown were decreased by 3x. He lasted more than double he did in 1973

Yes it does. As I've said (for like the millionth time now), considering Frazier's condition at the time. Your inability to follow the post amuses me.

It wasn't a "one-sided 5 round beat down" the associated press had it even going in to the fifth. You always bring this up, then ignore it when I answer you.

Funny you mention it because Chuvalo was trying to employ a plan similar to the rope a dope. His words, not mine. He believed it was a premature stoppage. I may agree.

You're not quoting my words. You're literally just putting them in my mouth. I said Ali had shaken off the ring rust by then and would've beaten 72 Frazier.

Um no, the thrilla in Manila is what ****ed him up most of all and deteriorated Frazier the most. This is widely know, you'd have to be pretty stupid to imply this was the same Frazier that was in Manilla.
You've also said Frazier was not in his prime when he lost to Foreman in 73, so he must have been even more past it when Ali beat him in 74.[/QUOTE]
He wasn't prime in 1973. Or 1974. The one who faced Ali in 1974 however, was better than 1973 Frazier who faced Foreman. As I've said before, after 1971 he became a very different fighter. He didn't have the same vision, timing, speed, arguably chin, reflexes, and defense.