Ah, to be a struggle enthusiast in the 1970s! Undoubtedly, there were more all-time superstars in that century than any other, especially in the heavy section: Three males — Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, and George Foreman— all had genuine claims as Mount Rushmore-worthy heavyweights. Plus, a third — ex-Marine Ken Norton — would’ve been a major contender in any time.
Advertisement
But when those four fighters competed against each other, the outcomes were like rock-scissors-paper: Ali could beat Foreman by KO but could n’t beat Norton. ( Ali fought Norton three times, and despite the scorecards, Ali lost all three fights. ) Norton was able to defeat Ali, but Foreman had to remove his mind. Meanwhile, Frazier always gave Ali hell, but could n’t match up against Foreman whatsoever: Foreman and Frazier fought twice, and each time, Frazier was just obliterated. ( Fun fact: When Frazier came to the ring for his fight against Foreman, a young Mr. T accompanied him as his bodyguard. )
Ali is regarded by everyone as the greatest heavyweight of all time. ( Joe Louis deserves consideration, too. ) Director is typically in the best five all the time, and Frazier is in the top ten. Norton might be in the bottom 20. But when they fought, you may put those ranks out the window.
Styles make battles.
All soldiers have strengths and weaknesses. As wonderful as Ali was, he kept his hands very low and was always prone to pins, Ã  , la Frazier and Henry Cooper. Foreman had a shovel propensity to push through everyone in front of him, but he struggled with action and moving. Although it may have been harder than a Sizzler sirloin, it took a few sessions to start smoking, which made him vulnerable in the first sessions.
Styles make battles.
Advertisement
David versus Goliath is probably the second instance of this. In a real game between the two — where they battled in sword-to-sword fight — David would’ve been decapitated. But a war of weapons voided Goliath’s advantages. In everything, his weird size made him a juicy goal for David’s hammer.
Styles make battles.
For Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, we’re dealing with two pretty weak soldiers. Trump may be excessively abrasive, aggressive, and self-absorbed, Harris has mistaken confidence in her ability to puzzle people with her bulls hooey. Neither is mainly attractive.
Their strengths are utterly opposite, to: Harris is a magnificent artist when reciting somebody else’s materials. You can tell how fast she was able to firmly establish her relationship with the Democrat foundation when she addresses a welcoming audience. Trump’s power is his ability to connect with people while ad-libbing. The most remarkable Trump moments and speeches are not his teleprompters; they are his soul.
If Harris may stay her talking points like Velcro, she will win the debate. As long as she can use that” serious adult” expression ( s ) and stay within the boundaries of her material, she’ll do just fine.
But if Trump you force her inside of her satisfaction zone— if he can push her to ad-lib — you’ll hear echoes of Howard Cosell’s eternal call:” Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier”!
Advertisement
Trump’s additional strength is that he’s a Giant Orange Wrecking Ball. One’s better at wielding panic for proper benefit. But, no matter how much preparation Harris puts in, Donald Trump almost certainly will say or act in a way that makes her to depart from her notes.
Trump may also benefit from the lack of a real audience. He is much more knowledgeable than Harris about how “real” people respond to the spoken word. Without a life viewers, her propensity for crazy word salads will dramatically increase. Even ChatGPT could n’t understand why he might have made her say something that was so forced and awkward.
The removal of a theater market also poses a threat to Trump: As a normal performer, he feeds off the power of audiences. Without them, he can sometimes be unexpectedly low-energy. But trying to entertain viewers also can produce him little, meanspirited, and extremely aggressive. It cost him the second argument against Biden in 2020 because of it.
As a risk/reward statement, I’d prefer a more restrained Trump to a hyper-aggressive Trump. Finally, he learned his lesson from his 2024 conversation with Biden: When your player is self-destructing, stay out of his manner!  ,
The more the limelight stays on Kamala Harris, the better for Trump.
The more the government watches the REAL Kamala Harris, the one who speaks spontaneously and has to think on her toes, the more her figures may swell, just as sunshine is the greatest cleanser. Being a substitute for Trump and Biden was her greatest visual trait. Was she tired of both of them? Voting for Kamala!  , That’s why this discussion is so risky for her. She’ll eventually need to be recognized for who she is rather than just defined by what she is n’t.
Advertisement
Fighting is the drama of the unknown, as Larry Merchant of HBO once said. At any time, something does happen, but success is not guaranteed. But aesthetically, certain fighters are round nightmares. Trump will leave with a unanimous decision if he can remain organized and allow Harris to wring her own way into difficulties.  ,
And if things go properly, he is near the present with a late-round knock.
