Joe Frazier vs. Superheavyweights

Yup. I caught that immediately. I should be awarded a medal or perhaps a cookie.

 

Must be using spell check tho

 

Interesting, sounds a bit similar to old WALDO ducking Lewis, by taking a dive against that golfer bloke.

 

Fixed...

And the circle jerk continues.

 

Still fought more punchers than Frazier[/quote]


Agreed. Frazier could have made fights with Liston, Martin, Mac Foster, Ernie Shavers, Ron Lyle, and Kenny Norton.

 

I'm guessing Mendoza is doing a Cotto20 and creating a new account to actually have someone to back him up

 

I think he has presented several interesting points which no one has responded to convincingly.

Not that I totally agree with him, but there is a typical big circle jerk going on here over a fighter who made 80% of his reputation off one fight and who has no resume in regards to a superheavy fighter. Yet, the sheeplike masses are content repeating verbatim and ad nauseum the same line of **** that's been going around for 40 years. The very concept that times change is as foreign.... well, Bill Hicks said it best... "Some folks wouldn't know a new or original idea if it ****ed them up the ass."

 

Nope. Sorry to disappoint you. Ask the admin person, he'll tell you my IP address is used by Mendoza only.

As Semaus said, there seems to be a tendency on this board to glance away from any points that go against the main stream...even if the film, news reads, and evidence is points to the contrary,

 

Yes, we all live in lalala land.

Going against conventional thought is good and fine. Seamus is just anti-norm. He's an egoist.

 

Seamus: We thank you Prometheus for showing us the light. We could never have reached such lofty , rarified air of Klitschko nut licking without you ...

For the record, neither of you is remotely treading down new paths ... most of the modern fans think like you two. Your thoughts on this topic are not unique, they are common and current.

 

Seamus can speak for himself. He is more than capable.

I don't think Frazier had a top level chin at all. In fact, I say it was suspect vs punchers. If a seasoned historian strongly disagrees with this, its news to me.

Getting back to the topic of some refusing to look at the other side of the coin:

1 )If a list of top 10 heavies is made, I dare say Frazier chin is 1st or 2nd worst on the list. Perhaps 3rd if someone creates an odd list. My point is Frazier chin was not very good, and fantasy match up or all time lists at heavyweight are often loaded with punchers.

2 ) I'd also say Frazier beat the least amount of punchers on the same list.

3 ) Some Frazier's title defense were complete rip offs, even by today's standards.

Are the above comments main stream here? I offer an invataiton to debate them.

BTW, I do like watching Frazier.

 

Mendoza/Povetking or Ying/Yang ... nothing is funnier than guys ripping Frazier and applauding the Quitchkos in the same argument. Not even worth disecting . In all my years on Boards this is the best of the best!

 

Mendoza, seriously dude, you are preaching to the choir. I do however agree with most of what you pointed out, but that's because I have arrived at them on my own. These guys beliefs are pretty much set in stone, and it's pointless debating with them.

 

I always thought of myself as an egotist.