(Poll) Is Joe Fraizer Overrated?

[prinzemanspopa]

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

Who gives two ****s about paragraphs, pay attention to the content. You brought up Michael Spinks and failed to give any sort of evidence in the differentiation between the two. You only gave an opinion. You take a look at Fraziers and Spinks' careers, they are very similar in competition on their resume, yet your OPINION somehow outweighs everything, right?

I do.Hence my suggestion.It makes for difficult reading and makes it a whole lot more difficult to respond to.


No,they're not similar in competition.Spinks fought and beat better opposition than frazier did.He moved up,against all odds,and beat a guy who is regarded as a great in his own division.When did frazier ever rise up,against all the odds,and accomplish such a feat?

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

Frazier had two disastrous fights with one of the best and biggest punchers in history, but I guess that's not good enough for you? That should discredit his entire career, right? Why are you so smug about your bias? It's no secret you're the biggest troll on this entire forum.

And he was knocked down eight times in total.I don't care how much of a puncher foreman is,no elite fighter should be getting knocked down that often as early as frazier was in the first fight.


The fights proved that he had a glass jaw and he never fought another puncher to prove that he could actually take a punch from a real banger.

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

No Frazier was not at a better stage in his career. What else did Frazier accomplish after-wards? Not very much. Ali at least went on on to beat Norton and Shavers, a better caliber of opponents than Frazier went on to face. They are similar in age, only Ali started his career 5 years before. Frazier has had lots of health problems, and many of them are apparent now. They are pretty well documented health problems in Frazier during this period, it's not some bull**** he made up as an excuse 20 years later.

Ali facing and beating better opposition has nothing to do with him eing at a etter stage in his career.That's just a fighter who doesn't cherry pick his way around the division.He was clearly shot against both Norton and Shavers(a man frazier ducked).Picking up highly disputed decisions against both.

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

Now you're making the mistake of accusing me of saying Joe was the best in the 60's or 70's, ha. I find it pretty funny because you also have forgotten Boxing is business and it's no different as to how things work nowadays. Ali was the only fighter of that era who was able to get into the ring with the majority of great heavyweights. There was only like 2 giant punchers like Foreman during that era and Frazier didn't fight them, so automatically he was a ducker? I know this is normally your argument in other threads, but you also forget at how many fighters there are out there to fight, and these big punchers were the ones who racked in the paydays at the time.

This is incorrect.Ali certainly was not the only heavyweight who went out of his way to fight all top contenders in his division.Jerry Quarry did the exact same thing,as Ron Lyle(another contender frazier ducked) also did.


frazier had a history of avoiding punchers.from very early in his career right till the very end of his career.Plenty of punchers in that era that were ranked in the top ten,that Ali and Quarry managed to fight,whom frazier didn't fight.

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

Are you seriously comparing the Evangelista fight with the Thrilla in Manila? You're crazy to think if that holds any weight with the fight that is considered probably one of the most competitive fights of all time. Obviously Frazier's resume won't look to hot compared to the fighters in the 20's-40's, but it's very apparent that boxing became much more of a business than having the best fight the best. Especially with the inclusion of Don King and Bob Arum. You're personal vendetta against Frazier is extremely apparent.

Have you even seen the Evangelista fight? He was as competetitive,won as many rounds as frazier did in their third fight.Seems like your discrediting Evangelista rather than me discrediting Ole Smoke.



I'm glad that you've acknowledged frazier's cherry picking,though.After reading what you posted,I'm not entirely sure what we're arguing about.

[Southpaw Great]

Michael Spinks>>>>>Joe Frazier

[#1Assassin]

frazier in his prime was like a monster.

[CRESCENDOPOWER]

Originally Posted by JerseySugar

Michael Spinks>>>>>Joe Frazier

Jesus F-ing Christ Almighty!

[NChristo]

Originally Posted by CRESCENDOPOWER

Jesus F-ing Christ Almighty!

Michael Spinks easily has an argument to rank ahead of Joe Frazier imo, he dominated in one of the strongest LHW eras and has an argument for #1 LHW of all time. Then he left undefeated to move to heavyweight and scored some decent wins untill Tyson beat him.

[Uturn]

Prime Frazier was the real deal, no questions asked.

[BG_Knocc_Out]

Originally Posted by prinzemanspopa

I do.Hence my suggestion.It makes for difficult reading and makes it a whole lot more difficult to respond to.


No,they're not similar in competition.Spinks fought and beat better opposition than frazier did.He moved up,against all odds,and beat a guy who is regarded as a great in his own division.When did frazier ever rise up,against all the odds,and accomplish such a feat?







And he was knocked down eight times in total.I don't care how much of a puncher foreman is,no elite fighter should be getting knocked down that often as early as frazier was in the first fight.


The fights proved that he had a glass jaw and he never fought another puncher to prove that he could actually take a punch from a real banger.








Ali facing and beating better opposition has nothing to do with him eing at a etter stage in his career.That's just a fighter who doesn't cherry pick his way around the division.He was clearly shot against both Norton and Shavers(a man frazier ducked).Picking up highly disputed decisions against both.







This is incorrect.Ali certainly was not the only heavyweight who went out of his way to fight all top contenders in his division.Jerry Quarry did the exact same thing,as Ron Lyle(another contender frazier ducked) also did.


frazier had a history of avoiding punchers.from very early in his career right till the very end of his career.Plenty of punchers in that era that were ranked in the top ten,that Ali and Quarry managed to fight,whom frazier didn't fight.









Have you even seen the Evangelista fight? He was as competetitive,won as many rounds as frazier did in their third fight.Seems like your discrediting Evangelista rather than me discrediting Ole Smoke.



I'm glad that you've acknowledged frazier's cherry picking,though.After reading what you posted,I'm not entirely sure what we're arguing about.

Well for one, it's a bit different when you were in the top of the division (the heaviest division, of course) and steady making title defenses. Spinks had the luxory of starting at a smaller weight, much different. But it's very common to see LHW's make it as heavyweights considering their body frames are very similar, only difference is body types. That's why you can see many similarities in natural size, and a lot of the time the only difference is how much meat you got on the bone which is where metabolism and many variables take hand. Sure every now and then you get a Klitschko like monster, but 90% of heavyweights are naturally not much bigger than anybody around the 175-200 lb divisions (obviously there are exceptions, but this is generalizing). So when you're heavyweight champion of the world, making your title defenses against solid competition. So when you're on top of the world after beating Jimmy Ellis for the vacant WBC title (probably the biggest title sanction), how are you going to look like the underdog in any fight? How would Frazier get his chance to rise up like so? Especially when you're undefeated at the time and have feared power? You're almost never going to look like the underdog. So you're questioning as to why Frazier had never done so is almost irrelevant in this comparison seeing as how Frazier wouldn't really have the option. And once again, you're opinion is thrown out there as a fact. "No Heavyweight contender should be knocked down that many times", yet you don't care how big a puncher Foreman is? Foreman, the man who cam back for a second career only off power and won the Heavyweight championship. Most the fighter Foreman fought were down after the first knockdown. Frazier was ABLE to get up. Frazier never tried to prove he could take a punch? Then why did he take the rematch with Foreman? He had a glass jaw based on the fights he had with arguably the heaviest puncher of all time? That's a shame to be knocked down by George Foreman? Hahaha, your logic is so flawed. So I suppose everyone that Foreman, Shavers, Galaxxy, both Klitschko's, and Louis knocked out ALL had glass chins? How many times has Frazier been down outside of Foreman fights? Once or twice? Nothing notable. It's actually pretty amazing seeing as how Heavyweights obviously hit much harder than any division and also when you have that body frame, your punching power is increased, but your punch resistance isn't as amplified. Also you have to note the fact that lifting weights and other strength exercises are much more expressed in the division compared to the others due to the enthusiasm to have more power to sacrifice speed. How does not beating top opposition make you not at the top of game? Once again, flawed. Plus you didn't even give an reasoning behind it. Ali was still sharp enough to take on experienced fighters and edge them out as Frazier was taking out lesser opposition. Ali was definitely in the better stage of his career than Frazier by putting on much better performances. Funny that you take when I said that Ali was the only one who fought everyone statement so literal. How big of a name is Quarry? How big of a name is Lyle? How much have they accomplished? Let me restate it because your trying to find small things in my post to boast and attack about. Ali was THE only fighter to fight the majority of top fighters in this era and be successful. No, there weren't very many punchers during Fraziers early career that would gain anything out of beating them. See, this is where your accusations have to put in perspective of how many fighters are out there, how many are contenders, etc. Go back and read my piece on the last post because it's another great reply to your "avoiding punchers" accusation. Have you noticed a trend here at all? Everything you state has been what YOU think. And no, I'm not discrediting the Evangelista, I'm simply stating that the Thrilla was a much more competitive fight than Evangelista. When I say such, you have to add in the factors of the pace of the fight, punches traded, punches thrown, work-rate, everything, not the amount of rounds won and lost. It's like saying when Chad Dawson takes off rounds and shells up against the ropes and lets his opponent smack his gloves competitive. You only have so much time on this Earth to fight opponents that I'm pretty sure fighters around worrying about evening out what kind of opponents they should face in categories like punchers, boxers, counter-punchers, slick fighters, etc, etc, etc. You can always make a case for 99% of fighters and accuse them of not fighting a certain type. Here's a common one these days. Why hasn't Manny Pacquiao fought any slick African-American fighters? Pretty vague, right? Or why hasn't Khan fought as much good opposition at the age of 23? Your accusation of him ducking punchers is so vague, especially when you take into account of him fighting Foreman. Why did he fight him if he was afraid of punchers? Especially against the biggest and most successful puncher of that era? Twice for that matter. Make any sense? Giant punchers are hard to come by. It's like saying someone is avoiding one person in a crowd of 200, yet he can't find him.

[Spartacus Sully]

Foreman is one of the most overrated punchers of all time.

what happens when you try to spin people in circles then push them real hard about the head?

They Fall down!!!!!!! Guess what they do then????? They get back up barely phased and slightly confused.

Im sure we can all name multiple people that one of the Hardest punchers of allllllll time had no problem spinning around in circles and pushing down till he won. 40 some TKO's, thats 40 well still gotta have some tkos so ill cut it in half, thats 20 some times that the hardest puncher of all time had multiple oppertunities to knock some one the f**k out, but couldnt.

Foreman, the most overrated puncher of all time.

know how many tko's dempsey had? 5/51. marciano? 1/43. fitzsimmons? 8/60. louis? 20/51. Jim jeffries? 7/15. Foreman? 40/68!!!

[BG_Knocc_Out]

Originally Posted by Ruby Robert

Foreman is one of the most overrated punchers of all time.

what happens when you try to spin people in circles then push them real hard about the head?

They Fall down!!!!!!! Guess what they do then????? They get back up barely phased and slightly confused.

Im sure we can all name multiple people that one of the Hardest punchers of allllllll time had no problem spinning around in circles and pushing down till he won. 40 some TKO's, thats 40 well still gotta have some tkos so ill cut it in half, thats 20 some times that the hardest puncher of all time had multiple oppertunities to knock some one the f**k out, but couldnt.

Foreman, the most overrated puncher of all time.

know how many tko's dempsey had? 5/51. marciano? 1/43. fitzsimmons? 8/60. louis? 20/51. Jim jeffries? 7/15. Foreman? 40/68!!!

Still managed to knock people down/out with succession regardless, didn't he? If this was aimed at me and my argument, it shouldn't matter whether the manner he knocked people out by, he still managed to do it to many opponents. My intended argument wasn't about raw force. In regards to your post, I'll correct myself in saying he was one of the hardest punchers of all time, and rephrase it to one of the most SUCCESSFUL punchers of all time.

[Spartacus Sully]

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

Still managed to knock people down/out with succession regardless, didn't he? If this was aimed at me and my argument, it shouldn't matter whether the manner he knocked people out by, he still managed to do it to many opponents. My intended argument wasn't about raw force. In regards to your post, I'll correct myself in saying he was one of the hardest punchers of all time, and rephrase it to one of the most SUCCESSFUL punchers of all time.

well aimed at you and the hundreds of other people that claim foreman to be one of the hardest punchers of all time when talking of how fraizer some how managed to stand up 6 times and was still willing to continue....well no duh all foreman did was push fraizer over. A truck going 5 mph can knock me over tons of times and i imagine illl still be able to get up....Though after being hit by a 1 lb fast ball things might be diffrent.

just saying that foreman wasnt a fast puncher so in that friazer went down 6 times dosnt really mean anything because foreman wasnt punching him in the chin as much as he was spinning him around and pushing him down with his fists. while at the same time that fraizer was able to get up 6 times after being beaten down by the hardest puncher of all time dosnt really say anything either because this hardest puncher lacked speed in his punch the speed that causes ones brain to remain still for a few seconds after the head allready has started moving, foreman lacked the speed that tests chins and ko's people.

ones ability to or not to stand up to foreman isnt about ones chin.

Sucessful puncher sounds good.