I already put this in the " who loves Joe Frazier thread " , but I think its good listening and debate between the hosts, and deserve's a thread of its own. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h60IdN9FcY[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suTcZJO5IXg&feature=related[/ame]
I have seen the actual video of this show. Howard Stern bias here knows no bounds. Frazier was 10X more talented is the most nonsensical thing you could say. Howard goes about dissing Futch, and gets half his **** on the subject of that rivalry and third fight wrong. He makes it seem like Frazier was winning and this "what was this trainer" doing. It's clear he only received snippets of information from the documentary rather than watch it, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten so much facts wrong. And that's information from an incredibly biased documentary as is. Stern thinks Frazier was better and won the series and they all buy that Ali wasn't getting up as if they know what he was thinking in his head. I actually like Stern but he's incredibly ignorant here. Of course, he and the documentary have a point but we all know that about Ali. Robin asks the right questions, "Did he call him Clay before this." The answer is yes.
Sounds like two people who don't really know anything about what they are debating. Stern goes waaaaaaaaaaaay overboard and comes out with some down right offensive ****.
I saw that clip as well. I was never a fan of Howard Stern, nor any of his equally obnoxious counterparts, ie. Mancow, Steve Dahl, etc.. He made an ass out of himself by defaming Muhammad Ali, and proved that he hasn't a clue on the subject of boxing.. He referred to Joe Frazier as " the true hero of the 1970's. " Christ the man's record during the decade was 8-4.
Ali>Frazier. Sad to some, but true. Doesn't make Frazier any less great, mind you, but the ignorance on Ali's clear victory in Manila sometimes makes me arch an eyebrow. How that can be shaped into anything but an Ali win is beyond me. Muhammad was well and truly in front, and Frazier was staggering around like a drunk with his eyes shut in the 14th. Love Smoke, met Smoke, Smoke is a great man and a hero, but the revisionist history with Manila needs to stop.
One could easily argue that the first fight was between one prime athlete and a rusty, past his prime athlete, and I would make that argument, but I can see your point. Still, Manila and how it went down gets rewritten to a serious pro-Frazier slant all the time.
I wouldn't know. I can't tell how much of anything he says is for a wind-up rather than what he actually thinks. It's the essence of an average radio host's life, I think.
