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

It's funny you say this. In another thread, you religiously defended your claim that much of the press thought Frazier was ruined in Ali I and that Foreman was a real threat to win.

I and others argued with you in that thread that Foreman was crude, hadn't fought quality opposition and that Frazier was a clear favorite. Now, you are using our argument.

This proves what others have been saying on here - that you contradict yourself to fit whatever agenda you have.

in sum, i cannot take you seriously. You have been exposed.

 

Really?


Frazier going on a two year party from 71 to 73 is well known. He didn't train for Daniels or Stander either, and thought Foreman was nothing special either.

The Daniels fight met with harsh press, crticizing his conditioning, champion lifestyle, and Torres wrote he had no interest in the sport anymore, and Sugar commented it was time for his testimonial...all before the Foreman fight was even signed.

 

Yes he essentially had a 2 years vacation when he defended against 2 no hopers and p*ssed on his title. He wasn't in top shape for George , but whose fault was that?

 

He only got knocked down twice instead of six times. He lasted five rounds instead of two. You find that impressive. I don't. The numbers for one fight were slightly less bad than the other. Both were still beatdowns. It's damning with feint praise.

I very much doubt you lived through that era. I'd be surprised if you're more than 12 years old. You argue like one.

Whether you make Ali's prime 67 or 72, the FOTC was still the one when they were both nearest to their primes. I don't know why you won't just acknowledge that.

So he was arthritic when he fought Ali too. And I suspect he was already legally blind by the time he stepped in the ring in Manila. Funny I haven't seen a 'what most people don't understand about The Thrilla in Manila' thread from you listing all those excuses.

Do you think Frazier would have fared better against Foreman if he'd been "angry" with him?

You have two Fraziers. The one who fought Ali, who you have to build up because you don't want to discredit Ali's wins over him. And the one who got blasted out by Foreman, who was old, shot, fat, unmotivated, legally, blind, arthritic, disinterested, washed up, yada, yada but miraculously overcame all those problems whenever he fought Ali (and indeed anyone else) even though they were fighting him in the same four year period. Btw Ali faced a 215lb Frazier in Manila.

No you haven't. You just came up with a thousand excuses as to why Frazier performed so poorly against Foreman compared to how he fared against Ali.

A troll accusing someone else of trolling! You didn't actually answer that one either.

 

I don't really pay attention to alt's and this sort of thing, but your opinion certainly seems to mirror Swag's a lot.

And let's face it, for the most part Swag is way out there.

 

Staying out of the way a while longer isn't the same as being competitive. If you want to celebrate Frazier staying upright a massive three rounds longer and only being knocked down twice, then by all means go nuts. The bottom line is the same: still brutally KO'd long before the final bell after multiple knockdowns. It was a beat down. Frazier didn't look for one moment like he was going to win. Foreman never looked like he was going to lose.

And by your own reckoning, further away from his prime, and further from his best comeback year.

Typing out a load of words isn't the same as answering a question. What's your proof that his arthritis and eyesight significantly worsened between Manila and Foreman II?

I doubt it. Anger isn't going to overcome a massive stylistic, size, strength and power disadvantage.

In the eight months between Ali III and Foreman II?

Which is nonsense and just a lame excuse to give Ali credit for beating Frazier but not Foreman. He could raise his level for Ali because he had the right style and strengths to give him hell. He couldn't for Foreman because Foreman's style and strengths were all wrong for him. As his respective results and performances against them demonstrate.

Yes I'm unwilling to accept your thousand excuses when you're applying them selectively.

He did only do slightly better. Getting knocked out in five rounds instead of two is not some massive improvement. You think the 1975 Frazier who was 2.5 years older, heavier, had more mileage and worsening health issues and was basically two fights from retirement was better than he was in 1973? The main reason he looked better in 74 and 75 is because he wasn't fighting Foreman.

 

I have to go along with this break down.

 

But, you don't have to move as much, your heavier body can take more power due to mass.

But of course, Foreman were bigger and heavier than Frazier whatsoever. But 220 pounds still out lasts 205 pounds any day of the week.

David Tua was a modern type of Frazier with more mass, power and chin.

He could have traded with Foreman - not light versions of Frazier.