Joe Fraizer stops 243 Lb Buster Mathis in 11 rounds

This content is protected

 

Frazier beat Quarry, Quarry beat Mathis, uh oh Buster might beat Joe.

No, Joe stops Buster, "linear logic" worked. I had to do it

 

Hed beat liston

 

Many people were outside Madison Square Garden that evening, protesting the fight as many people still favored Muhammad Ali as the World Heavyweight Champion, Ali had been stripped of his belt, the year before when he was convicted of Draft Evasion on June 20 1967, Ali also lost his boxing license as he was labeled a convicted felon. But this victory over Buster Mathis was a great victory for Smoking Joe Frazier on March 4 1968.

 

And i can bring up when larry holmes went life and death with ken norton, gerry cooney obliterated ken norton, then larry holmes schools gerry cooney. Like i said linear logic can work but it doesnt always work

 

Very true but Ken Norton was a washed up spent fighter when Gerry fought him, no really big deal beating up an old man. Everyone acts like Cooney hit the jackpot when he crushed a couple of ancient relics like Ken Norton and Jimmy Young. How come his management did not put Gerry in with a prime Tim Witherspoon and Pinklon Thomas. If money to be made was the reason, very greedy. Gerry was nice guy but nice does not cut it.

 

Im not denying that. Imo Kenny was past when fighting Holmes and especially cooney

 

I won an easy bet that night with Larry Holmes. the guy that I bet with kept saying that Cooney crushed Ken Norton, the jaw busting ex marine. I sked him how long ago did he break Muhammad Ali's jaw? When he replied 1973, my answer was exactly. I just laughed, easy bet.

 

He would chase Dempsey out of the ring.

 

This content is protected

 

A better analogy would be Shavers-Holmes-Norton. Because Shavers destroyed Norton soon after he'd given Holmes a very tough fight, and Holmes beat Shavers both before and after that.

 

I'm not so sure of that. I would take a prime Liston over Frazier. It would be a punishing fight for sure.

 

Actually, linear logic works more often than it doesn't. That's why people fall back on it. That's why there are fights that are considered upsets ... because the upsets go against linear logic. But upsets aren't common. That's why they are upsets.

You say "life and death" like Holmes lost. But Holmes didn't lose to Norton. He won.

Holmes beat Norton and Holmes beat Cooney.

Ali beat Evangelista, Shavers and Spinks. Holmes beat Ali. So Holmes beats Evangelista, Shavers and Spinks. (Which he did.)

Snipes beats Berbick and draws with Scott Frank. Holmes beat Renaldo Snipes. So Holmes beats Berbick and Frank. (Which he did.)

Holmes beat Witherspoon. Witherspoon lost and won against Bonecrusher. Holmes beat Bonecrusher (twice).

Michael Spinks beat Holmes (twice). Holmes beat Cooney. Spinks beats Cooney.

Of course, upsets happen within there. But you get the point. If 10 fights follow linear logic, and one doesn't, you can't say linear logic doesn't work when it does the vast majority of the time.

 

I say life and death because some consensus of the boxing community actually think holmes lost that fight. It was a split decision and norton got the bad end of the stick. Extremely close fight. And upsets are relatively common, just not prevalent. We've had how many upsets this year ? The great Lomechenko getting outboxed ? Whyte getting knocked out by a 40 year old? Didn't everyone think wilder was going to knock out fury ? Etc and there are more to come. Upsets happen when the public perception of a fighter is different from the reality of things.

Forrest beat mosley, mayorga beats forrest. Mosley beats mayorga.

Jones beat barrera, barrera beat morales, and morales beat jones

Taylor beats hopkins, pavlik beats taylor, hopkins beats pavlik

Then theres leonard, Hearns and Hagler

Linear logic can work. Did i ever say it cant ? i just said it doesnt ALWAYS work.

And actually as a matter of fact holmes was robbed in the second spinks fight. Go watch it and score it yourself and there would be noway to go against linear logic in that case because they both beat cooney so thats a bad example.

 

Leonard, Hearns and Hagler? Leonard beat Hearns. Leonard beat Hagler.

Fury was the favorite over Wilder this year.

There was no pattern leading up to Whyte-Povetkin, other than both had beaten Wach and both had been knocked out by Joshua.

And Hopkins beating Pavlik was an upset.

Pulling a random upset out of bag doesn't negate all the fights that followed a logical pattern.