The Brown Bomber vs Big George.

Wicked Sam, cheers, that's a start eh?

I also feel it's hard to give Foreman more than the one round.

 

No, I don't think this is right, I think i'm right in saying that Frazier connected less than Ali did.

But regardless, it was Frazier who slept that night upon a bed of ice in hospital, Frazier who was in and out over the next couple of months (and would have been "in" entirely if it were up to his doctors.

It is said that Frazier nearly died.

He's since admitted that there "may have been something in {the rumours that he was not the same fighter after Ali I}", something he denied for years previously.

Yeah, I agree with this.

 

"They" (pundits magazines whoever) may have, i'll take your word for it.

But I doubt it would have mattered to Joe who was on the front of what magazine.

Joe himself concerning the time after Ali I: For the first time in years I was not cosumed by boxing. I felt free to lay back and have some fun.

He was definitely taking it easier in training and he was definitley seeking out a lower calibre of opponent.

Joe is also pretty explicit about the cataract on his left eye getting worse.

Finally, here's what Joe had to say about Foreman himself and how he was percieved in the run up to their first fight: As a result of his feeble opposition, his record was seen as a work of deception by boxing insiders, including quite a few of the boys in the press.


It should be said to balance this that Frazier always denied underestimating George Foreman, but i've always felt that the thing didn't read like that. I feel that between what his first fight had taken out of him and his eye trouble, Joe himself felt he wasn't the same fighter and was taking what he saw as easier fights, keeping Ali on hold.

People may have seen George as champ in waiting, perhaps they even saw him as an ATG in waiting, but Frazier sure as **** didn't.

 

**** you.

I raised Frazier's claims about taking Foreman seriously specifically to provide balance to what I wrote and then offered my opinion on it. Most guys - most guys who post here - fail to provide proper balance to their arguments at all, just offer their opinions.

I've had a couple of people compliment me on my objectivity and I'm proud of that because it's important to me.

You're the first guy stupid enough to think that offering an opinion on the counter argument that most guys don't even bother to present when laying out their argument is bias. Good for you.

What, who cares in an argument about the value of Foreman's win over Frazier? Is that your question you idiot?

It impacts the value of the win that's why I care. Though if you can be bothered go back and read my original post where I admit the win is huge anyway and compliment Groove on the post that started all of this.

Boxing is a composite sport. Frazier is an idiot for taking Foreman slightly more lightly than he should have.

But if you go back and pay attention to what was orignally said i called Frazier on underestimating Foreman "relative to the quality of the opponent".

 

Of course.

Do you think Frazier is my favourite fighter or something?

Yes. What do have to say about Mathis' condition before the Frazier fight?

Generally speaking this is the case, yes. Ali was not alone in thinking that hard fights were won as much in training as in the ring. What is your point?

Why on earth are you saying this?

If you're talking about my feelings on Liston-Ali being thrown you have some work to do my friend. Possibly you've not bothered to read everything i've wrote about it. But i've dismissed a great deal of what was in Night Train - thanks - and picked up loads of other bits and peices over the years from sources as varied as Mafia, Ghosts of Manilla and - if you can beleive this - i've seen the fight.

Most of what I feel about Lison-Ali was laid out in my back and forth with Chris some months ago. If you'd bothered to read that you wouldn't now be opening your mouth and spewing total BS.

Most of all I love how you've brought this up about two months after we had quite a nice wee discussion about it just because we've fallen out over something else.

Women quite often do that when they're in the huff.

I laid out a detailed argument concerning my position. You failed to engage with any of it and instead tried to trap me in a question about ALi's power. I may be wrong about Braddock. You failed to show it so completely i'm astonished you've brought it up here.

Failing to proove your point, or really engage with the opposing point and STILL bringing the argument up later because it still bothers you is also something a grumpy woman might do



Feeling hormonal?

 

Which box did you check?

 

I hate Boxrec and hardly ever go near it, sometimes use it for verification, that's it.

Nothing I can do about that.

You could have of course. By proving the accusations above, which because of your mysterious reluctance to engage me, despite your apparently superior position are now boundless accusations backed by nothing.

If my argument was pitiful yours was more so. I'd go so far as to call it non-exsitant.

Well done for entirely misreading another situation you tit.

I love Braddock. I'm quite clear about it. If you pay attention to what is said to you you would probably know that.

Louis doesn't need any help from me.

That's nice of you! You're one of these guys who picks and choses his arguments - the ones you think you can win, I guess - rather than tries to engage with the problem.

In spite of the fact that you've accused me of a variety of different things in this thread you haven't bothered to back your position or apologise or even acknowledge my argument.

Right. I absolutley agree.

What the **** does that have to do with anything?