Cus D'amato - No Swarmer Beats Foreman?

Tyson would be a different kettle of fish himself. He brought some things to the table the typical swarner, pressure fighter, pit bull type of boxer didn't quite have. First thing is speed of hands, explosive power, the ability to counterpunch at midrange. A variety of punches, a complete arsenal.

I agree with those who say they wouldn't bet on it though. Mike had a bit of a glass mind. If I had $ on him and by the 3rd round he's biting his gloves, tightening up, leaning throwing 1 punch at a time. I would tear my betting slip up.

 

Tyson would have knocked him out ... way too fast... Foreman is very over rated

 

I'm a Frazier fan but I don't see him beating George that nite or maybe not even at his very best. You asked question if Frazier was shot in Kingston how did he put Ali through the ringer two more times? "Shot" is a specific condition when referring to a boxer.
Your legs are gone, reflexes dulled etc.

Frazier as you touched on he had lost focus and coasted after FOTC. His health condition is probably understated more than anything, more than his eye issues. His manager and advisors were in his ear to retire. Good advice probably but a great competitor is gonna want to continue especially with the $ he could generate.
There's no question that Joe wasn't the fighter he had been a couple of years earlier. That's not an excuse its really a fact. Mostly from a mental standpoint, Frazier was not physically shot but he had lost alot of his drive.
It's documented what Eddie Futch saw when he arrived in Jamaica a few weeks before that fight. He didn't like what he observed about that camp. He saw Frazier more or less partying, singing. Futch recounted a night he had to pull Frazier off of a stage as he was belted out songs. (Joe was a terrible singer by the way)

He watched Frazier work with Norton in the gym in preparation for Foreman and Norton was taking it to Joe. Futch took Norton aside and asked him why he was working so easily with Frazier. Kenny said "he seems to have lost his drive" Futch remembered Joe Frazier had always handled Kenny in the gym previously. 'Source CornerMen' Ronald k. Fried.
That along with Frazier being 10lbs over his peak fighting weight and its rather obvious that it's not so much an excuse but the truth. Eddie Futch wasn't a Saint but his character and integrity carry more weight than most of the characters in boxing. Frazier gained much of that drive back after his humbling loss to Foreman and he almost won the heavyweight championship of the world back in 1975.

None of that is to say that he could have beaten George Foreman. It's reasonable to assume Frazier would have put up a better fight had he been sharp. Gave Foreman something to think about.

FYI the weights in Manilla are not accurate. Reportedly taken close to a week before the bout. Neither guy was that heavy. Both in outstanding condition.

 

There must be stronger evidence than this for this quote to have half the credence it is getting.

seems like this quote is written in stone…yet the earliest evidence comes from a 2003 article coming years after Cus Died?

can we really buy this On the strength of “Someone heard Don king (of all people) said Steve Lott said Cus says”

 

I did not have any excuses for any defeat of Frazier. I think you're confusing me with someone else. As a matter of fact, I argued against potential excuses for Frazier's second loss against Ali and disputed Ali's tactics had any potential effects on the outcome.

All I said was, The Frazier that defeated Foreman was not anywhere near the best swarmer in the heavyweight division. Does anyone here here really think that version of Frazier was better than prime Dempsey (who might actually fare better than Foreman than even prime Frazier) or Marciano?

Last I watched the fight (as I said it's been a while) Frazier though by no means washed up, was a fair bit slower and fatter. He did not even look faster than Foreman.

 

I watched it again recently as well...and actually wondered it this Frazier was better (at least in some ways) than the one Foreman first trounced.

 

People aren't angry because his views don't align with their's (hell I actually agree with some of what he's posting). The problem with this guy is he's unnecessarily aggressive and a ****ing dick for no reason. Pugguy actually stated some things that are aligned with some of the stuff Bah Lance is saying. The difference is, their was not an ounce of hostility in this post. That's why it's much better received.

 

I was referring to the first bout where Frazier looked terrible. Frazier in his 2nd bout with Foreman did a lot better than given credit for. He was at an all time career high, and partially blind in an eye. Despite this, he actually lasted longer than anyone Foreman beat in his first career, and the first person to answer the bell for the 5th round without being dropped (Peralta being the exception for both). This alluded the likes of Norton, Chuvalo, Lyle, etc.

 

It was a general comment and not directed at you I had to put it somewhere.

 

You know my opinion of "Bollocks" and why I hold it. Pugguy,like Yourself is a gentleman and a fine poster.

 

Thanks, you are on my favorites as well! Bah Lance, just doesn't know how to express his opinion without being aggressive, and resorting to personal insults, which is all the more surprising given his supposed age. This is behavior I'd expect from a child.

 

I just watched the Foreman-Kirkman fight. He literally shoved him into the mat to start the fight.

 

I just watched and you were right. Foreman just comes and shoves him to the ground to start the bout

 

Unbelievable. Holmes did a take down of the smaller Spinks to start their rematch but it was a tad bit more artful.

 

And posters asked why George wasn't a fan favorite in his first iteration. As Wilt Chamberlain said nobody roots for Goliath.