joe frazier vs lucas browne?? how does it go ?

For f.uck's sake stop all this drivel. Ruddock?!?!? Is this the same Ruddock that had his a.rse handed to him by a green Lennox Lewis? Ypu've got to be kidding me! You bunch of idiots keep going on about weight and you are entirely missing the point. Great champions are a rare breed and have a mixture of qualities which set them apart. Ruddock was NOT a champion because he just didnt have the right mix and psychological make up to make it at that level. It's stating the obvious that fighters like Ali definitely did have the right stuff which is why he was a champion. Stop going on about a fighter being x pounds heavier as if this is an insurmountable obstacle to another fighter beating them. Great champions would rise to the top in any era they would fight in otherwise Holyfield, a Cruiserweight, would never have challenged and competed with modern day behemoths.

 

Methinks ears is on the wind up?

 

you are correct..regardless no sense debating on the comparison here...reality is Foreman was pollaxed by Lyle...we want to forget J.young out boxed and tied Foreman also up being 210 pounds or so...see Foreman is /was under the assumption he was unbeatable then...imaginge a a nearly 240 Ruddock against either Young or frazier...total joke....foreman to his credit WAS giant in HIS time however he is nothing of the like in another era..and 90's fighters MANY would batter 70's foreman any realist would agree.

 

so why did a left hooker of 180 pounds who had to hide weights in his pockets at weigh in ,do that to even fight ali almost k.o him ,with the help of a bell and a corner man who prolonged time using ILLEGAL tactics?:-(

 

Foreman was rusty vs Lyle?Another excuse...whats more funny is foreman fought young smarter than ali...he lost b/c he rreally wasn't that good to begin with....another big puncher..yes he was the SECOND best HW of the 70's but that's b/ everyone else was not consistant!DForeman fought Frazier when he was overwieht ..actually foreman at 6'3 vs a 5'11 guy is pretty dumb to compare when fraziers naturally weight was 200/205...Foreman looked huge while outweighing a short overweight 220224 guy the SECOND fight right?....lol...anything else?:roll:

 

Foreman never weighed over 225 for Frazier...he wqaas actually outweighed he looked bigger than FrAZIER BECAUSE MAYBE HE WAS AROUND 5 inches taller and frazier was soft AS COULD BE? Compared to foremans natural frame?Tyson was a SOLID 216 or so ,vs Ruddock both fights...you must have beer goggles on because Ruddock eaily looked like a different weight class fighting Tyson...Again Frazier isn't REMOTLy muscular like Tyson...Ruddock DWARFED him!No other way to put it..you are not really watching these fights your breakdown shows this..Ruddock was nearly 240 the 2nd fight Tyson slimmed to around 216...foreman was outweighed by a soft looking OLD FRAZIER...ARE YOU DRINKING WHEN YOU WATCH THESE FIGHTS?..RUDDOCK/FOREAMAN is NO COMPARISON WHO THE BIG MAN IS,ONLY A HIGH OR DRUNK PERSON CANT SEE THAT,TAKE YOUR PICK?atsch


P.S Foreman at 250 plus had the best chin in boxing history arguably...not 215/220 70's Foreman! :nono

 

again you must be drinking or high then..complete foolish claim when Ruddock is clearly much bigger and wider than 220 foreman of the 70's,even 230 foreman didnt have Ruddocks girth.I didn't even reference the first Tyson fight,i referenced Ruddock at 240 b/c he weighed in at 238 pounds in the rematch while Tyson slimmed down to around 215/216...whats next Frazier looks bigger than Tyson?:roll: