Let me know what the nonsense parts are. I’m happy to explain them. If you can not locate the nonsense then I shall assume you endorse the facts I raise.
Your agenda is that we must rule Rocky out, that Frazier maintained his prime after 1971 and that Rocky has to share the same fate as a man in decline having his worst night ever. My “agenda” is we can’t rule anything out.
Yes, being nearly 40 years old with more than 10 losses (many by ko) and having a LONG career (more than 60 fights in an era where you could be fighting 5-7 times a year) is pretty washed up in any era. For the record, i thought wladmir klitshko was as shopworn as walcott and moore when joshua beat him. He had dominated for more than 7 years with over 20 ttle defenses but it was obvious he was no longer the same fighter and then retired after being stopped by joshua...just like walcott. Moore did nothing significant after losing to rocky either and was stopped by patterson after beating a few decent guys.
I meant their styles. Both were tough, iron chinned short neck guys with tons of stamina, three good body shots and pressed forward. Obviously rocky had a better career. If people are gonna use peralta and ted gullick to make their case for rocky theres nothing outrageous about using chuvalo.
So apparently frazier was "washed up" ("on the verge of retiring"( after beating ali despite being in his 20's, undefeated, and went on to win against quality, ranked opponents (ellis, quarry etc)... ...but 40 year old walcott, who DID retire right after LOSING to rocky, wasnt "washed up"... But theres no agenda here...
Yeah, it's crazy. Actually loses to fighters don't prove that Charles was past-prime for Rocky because they were close; actual wins posted by Frazier don't prove he wasn't washed up because they are over fighters he beat before...but the fact that he couldn't recreate arguably the greatest heavyweight performance of all time against the greatest heavyweight of all time, Muhammad Ali, do prove that Frazier was approaching washed up or past prime or whatever. It is twisted, tortured logical gymnastics from a poster who rejects more simple logic specifically because they are simple.
You know, that is a fair point. I take that on board. Walcott was old and Frazier young. Walcott was a defensive guy, cute skills for most of his career and Frazier was a blood and guts warrior.. Walcott after the war he had with Marciano certainly was finished. That’s possibly especially why Jersey Joe looked so bad in the rematch. Walcotts punch resistance was most likely shot to pieces after the 3 minuets or so he was out cold after Rocky knocked him out. Similarly after that career threatening, draining war with Ali, where Frazier “left it all in the ring” to win against Ali (and was treated in hospital afterwards.. requiring a long recovery and light opposition until 1973) probably meant Joe took a knock to his punch resistance too.
I thought old mongoose was still a ranked heavyweight all the way to the 1960s as well as defending his light heavy title including classic battles against that French guy ( I forget his name)
I don’t think there is anything twisted about offering an alternative train of thought. I have said all along Foreman can win too. Do you think it twisted to believe we must entirely rule out Rocky? Too much hangs on Joe Frazier without considering the recovery he needed or that his career as an elite fighter was practically over in 1971. Practically.
Why do you keep asking me this when i've answered it? I must literally have answered it six ****ing times.
Sorry, Yes I know, You can’t entirely rule out Rocky either. What I meant was, since you also don’t entirely rule Rocky out, what is twisted about saying Frazier had declined past making comparisons with Rocky? I think some could think it twisted to persevere with the Marciano/Frazier comparison. As for the part where Charles getting split decision losses to good current opponents like Valdes and Harold Johnson, that were as least as good if not better than guys he defended his title against, well I don’t think it does show a decline. Charles in his prime dropped a close loss to Elmer Ray. So I don’t think dropping a disputed decision to Layne (who he beat back more than once) was any different to that. Incidentally Charles beat Ray back too. Charles sparked Satterfeild and Wallace. These were not evidence of a faulted veteran on his last legs. Frazier winning fights over Quarry and Ellis who were as faded as he was just show he was still ahead of them. Shot fighters facing each other still produce winners. Look at Holmes knocking out Weaver and Smith in rematches years later? A lot of people subscribe to the thrilla in Manila as being too good a fight “because they were both shot”. Barry mcguigan said this in a documentary. That was his opinion. I think they both excelled themselves because they were great competitors. It probably still represented the best two fighters out there because I don’t think anybody else had the opportunity to raise their profile. These individuals cast such a shadow over the rest of the division.
The Roccophobes pioneered and subscribe to a level of intellectual disconnect too. Their mantra says we must completely rule Rocky out against Foreman because Frazier maintained his prime after 1971. Translation = Rocky must share the same fate as a man in decline having his worst night ever.
Yes, absolutely correct. Glass City is full of trash. Moore reigned on as Light Heavyweight Champion until 1962, having never lost the title in the ring. After Marciano, he defend his title by knockout against top contenders Pompey, Tony Anthony, & Durelle x2. As late as 62, he registered a draw against future Champion Pastrano that the associate press had him winning 8-2. He was rated as heavyweight as late as 62, when he destroyed Lavorante.