Cus D'amato - No Swarmer Beats Foreman?

Frazier winning would be a ridiculous take as he was clearly KOed lol.

I think my definitive point was Frazier was in too poor condition to really draw such an authoritarian conclusion about Foreman vs truly elite swarmers. Frazier was 10-20 lbs over his best weight in these fights and really wasn't the FOTC hungry beast anymore.

It was then brought up..you would still expect him to put up more of a fight. I mentioned that he did in the rematch.

For some reason this has went off the rails and I clarified so many times Im beginning to consider why I ever came back this place. It's truly frustrating that instead of discussion we just got strawmen and hyperbole...

My clarified thoughts:

(copied from my other post as only so many times I can say the same thing)

"Frazier wasn't winning the fight, it wasn't even, and Foreman was rightfully ahead. But that doesn't mean it wasn't competitive. Some rounds were close and Frazier made Foreman work for it, got in some good shots of his own, and avoided being in danger for 4 rounds. That's competitive by any realistic definition."


I'm at a loss as to why the communication is breaking down so badly. I suppose I don't equate "putting up a fight" and "competitive" to "winning the fight" in fact I have hard time believing anyone really does.

It's just a washed up Frazier being competitive with Foreman cracks the narrative. Again...this isn't Liston/Patterson, even though posters here really really really want it to be .

 

Or Tyson, Or Lewis, Or Bowe, Or Mercer, Or the great Valuev. Or even the old Foreman who slept Moorer with one punch.

 

One hundred percent on the money.

 

There isn't a logical argument against my point. Not a single one in this thread.

After Janitor's initial response every other reply I've made has been "I didn't say that, I said this.". One guy I will give props to for at least asking who I would pick over Foreman.

Frankly, bored already with the strawmen again....they are worthless on a message board so I'm not sure if this is deliberate or just incredibly poor reading comprehension. What happened to just disagreeing and giving your take.

 

I think he's right.

 

Yes it is fine to introduce those new ideas-& things we largely agree on anyway, I just could not tell if you thought what you introduced was something I differed with.

I will have to rewatch the fight. Your perception of how well Frazier did is certainly different than most & what I remember.
However if he threw less, that is reasonably interpreted as less aggressive.
I did think he was more avoidant-that is just an observation.

I would not say losing a round clearly against a fighter you are heavily favored against & KO within 5 is a problem.
But it largely comes down to whether Frazier was at all competitive.

 

I do not think Ali would have gotten a stoppage if not for the problem at the end of round 2-it sounds like you agree-but he might have been in real trouble & had an impact on the fight.

However why would you say Frazier may not have won the fight if not for the 133 clinchings?
Which included endless neck grabbings & neck pulls.
I see no reason to presume to know who would win, because Frazier was constantly & illegally thwarted, & still won rounds.
Also in Manilla he was even more far gone & it was neck & neck & if it is true Ali was about to quit...Could have gone either way.

It is not reasonable to doubt if grabbing & leaning your whole body weight on someone is cheating.
Especially if you use the opponents habit of pushing as evidence-they are both clearly cheating, against the rules, & should have been stopped.
However you are not saying Foreman did nearly as much shoving in Zaire, or it had the same impact as Ali's violations are you Swag?

 

I disagree he was "more far gone" in Manila. Difference between both versions of Frazier were clear as day. Frazier did not show nearly the intensity he did in the first bout of the trilogy, nor the latter. He was better in the next fight, against an Ali who was worse, and still lost.

Hell, Perez by his own admission disliked Ali's grabbing, and scored it against him but STILL gave Ali 1 more round.

Did it make the fight easier than it could've been? Yes, most likely.

Is their a huge possibility Frazier would've won if not for it? Hell no. Historical evidence points otherwise. Frazier was not beating Ali that night. And he is my number 1 favorite fighter.

 

That version of Frazier certainly wasn't "the best swarmer in heavyweight history", but I agree no swarmer in history beats Foreman.

 

He's back!

 

Frazier was on the decline when they faced each other, he clearly had visibility problems.

 

The boxing God Mike Tyson

 

You are honest & fun to talk to Swag!
Although I think you miss a couple things.
Don't you think the intensity he was able to show was greatly limited by a very skilled, big & strong grappler constantly holding & pulling him down?

Also he was especially intense in the first & third fights when he was able to build up a head of steam.
But don't you think his absolute skills-like Ali's-had eroded by late 1975?
Does not mean he was not still remarkable & could marshal himself for a great performance-even with his health & vision issues.
As your all time favorite you must appreciate this already!

LeBron James was far better statistically years ago & has not been near the best in the regular season for the better part of a decade, although in the post-season, he has continued to perform at GOAT level.
Edit: from 34-36 his production was way down.
But in the post season over that time he played more minutes than any individual season in that span, & was easily the best player in the playoffs & finals.

Perez should never have ALLOWED Ali all that grabbing.
Ali got far more out of the hug & smother-fest than the small penalty he incurred.
He should have been warned early like in the next fight, so that if he continued he would have to be sanctioned & lose the fight.

Anytime you have an ATG fighter-in the heart of his "second prime" allowed to continually cheat, & the other guy is thwarted & does not try to cheat (or do it automatically, or get away with cheating...)

You cannot expect that the "victim" will win.
Nor can you know who would win in a straight up fair fight!

I am not favoring Frazier under an even playing field.
But we cannot know who would have won if it unfolded fairly.

A good topic for a separate thread!

 

Thank you!

This is also one of his other fights, I haven't watched in quite a while because I just wasn't a fan. It was very boring to me. I think even Foreman walked out and when asked why he said 'because it stinks" or something along those lines.

But from what I remember, he was definitely not up to it like he was in the 3rd fight nor the first fight.

Tbh, I see no evidence of this. He only had 2 fights separating his 2nd and 3rd encounters with Ali, and both were one-sided beatdowns of past it opponents whom he'd already had the mental edge over as he'd defeated them years earlier.

He was still remarkable, but evidently was not up to it. He didn't seem motivated in the least. I think Manila Frazier was the best Post FOTC Frazier.

No dispute. I agree completely. But I also think the same should've applied to Foreman. And I disagree with how little you're attempting to downplay the effects of it. Foreman was shoving Frazier and maneuvering him forcing him to reset, from the beginning bell. This was amplified when Frazier lands a good left hook, that Foreman clearly felt which Pugguy mentions. Before that, it's somewhat competetive with Frazier getting inside a couple times. Foreman would've won regardless, but it would've been far harder without it imo.

Using this logic, wouldn't it also ring true for Foreman VS Frazier?

 

I am not saying that you are wrong, but that doesn't mean that you would expect Foreman to jut annihilate him.