What most people don't understand about Frazier-Foreman II.

Your factually incorrect first sentence derails the post

 

what? Since last week.

you still call people re****ed, dumbass, etc. and you post a zillion times because you can't handle not having the last word. Signs of immaturity.

 

So who won Round 2 and 4 in your eyes and why? The crowd got a lot to cheer for in those rounds.

Prior to the inevitable knock out did Frazier not have success in evading and countering Foreman?

Bizarre ****ogy, the Chavez fight is closer to Foreman 1.

 

I have to agree on that.

Ali has too many unique stoppage wins to be considered a soft puncher.

The Bonavena knockout was incredible late power.

 

new year, new me brev.

 

It was a one sided bout. So says the vast majority of eye witness sources. Watch the bout yourself. Joe was continually staggered and out punched. When trapped along the ropes he was hit full bore with Foremans body shots. Brutal. Frazier landing a few jabs and hooks here and there does not win for him a round. Especially when there was no effect from these blows.

 

For their rematch, I suspect Futch and Frazier may have been banking a lot on the fact George had never produced a knockdown beyond the fifth round, while Joe could still pack considerable power as the stanzas added up to double digits. Thing is that Clancy prepared Foreman for that strategy with a controlled approach.

Smoke had utilized movement and angles with Chuvalo and Stander previously (Stander particularly banked everything on backing Frazier up), and Jumbo Cummings would later also attempt to bully him into reverse gear, which Joe was able to neutralize with quick side stepping. (I think a draw between Frazier and Cummings was a reasonable verdict.)

I can't see Joe surviving the second round of Bonavena I with Foreman in Ringo's place. (The three KD rule was in effect for both Bonavena I and Foreman II. Futch saved Frazier the indignity of a third knockdown and automatic stoppage in their rematch.)

Could Joe pull off a Patterson-Ingo II and reverse history in a rematch if he gets through an introductory bout intact without Ali having first depleted him with an FOTC type war? He was moving well at the end of four rounds with the shorter Stander, so maybe. He does have to get through the first several rounds, after which his power should remain intact, and he did inflict some facial damage on George in their rematch. Maybe a prime version of Frazier could swell his eye enough to compromise George's vision against that hook.

Superior size and physical strength alone wasn't enough to beat Frazier. Foreman had monstrous punching power on top of that, but again, no knockdowns beyond round five until his second career. To beat him, Joe would need to drown him in deeper water, very possibly in a situation where he'd need a stoppage from behind to win.

 

All George. Sometimes live fights attended gives a whole different perspective. Especially compared to the Howard Cosell call of the fight.

Joe was like an amatuer juggler with 12 things in the air. All you have to do is wait and something is going to drop. same thing with the fight---George was not going to lose the fight and it was so easy to sense and feel in there. Frazier was doing nothing to prevent the inevitable. Why do you think the crowd became so quiet?

If you don't like the Ahn comparison, here's another one then---Lewis--Morrison. Fans pre-fight all for Tommy, 30 seconds into the fight everyone knew he was going to lose.

 

So he went down twice instead of six times and dragged out the fight a couple more rounds before being brutally KO'd again. Whoopee do. All I can say is you must be easily impressed.

Who cares how the Associated Press scored it? The full fight is easily available. The fight wasn't close. Frazier couldn't beat Foreman. Dragging it out a couple more rounds was only delaying the inevitable, and so it proved.

Yeah Chuvalo who has an excuse for every one of his many losses. His manager was screaming for the referee to stop it.

You said Ali was "nearest to his prime in 1972" and that Frazier was "much closer to his prime" than Ali was over their series. Even though, according to you, Frazier wasn't prime in 1973 or 1974 and post-1971 "didn't have the same vision, timing, speed, arguably chin, reflexes, and defense". By your reckoning, that puts Ali nearer to his prime than Frazier when Ali finally beat him. Ali lost to the best version of Frazier he faced.

Do you think Thrilla in Manila made Frazier legally blind and progressively arthritic? Do you think Ali would've KO'd Frazier inside five rounds in 1976 or would it have been another life and death struggle?

So Frazier was better in 74 when Ali beat him than he was in 73 when Foreman beat him? Even though he was another year older, had more mileage and was coming off a brutal six knockdown KO? Was he also better in 75 than he was in 73?

The funny thing is in diminishing Foreman's wins over Frazier you're also diminishing Ali's wins over Frazier. You make me laugh with the somersaults you're doing to justify your contradictory agendas.

 

I disagree.

Go watch the fight, the second round wasn't even competitive, and the fourth round I think Frazier landed 4 left hooks, but the main difference was that George wasn't landing one punch at a time, rather he was landing combo's.

I watched it and thought there was no clear winner in that round. Forced to choose I probably would have given it to Foreman. The problem with some people judging fights, (I'm not saying you) is that when one fighter is clearly behind and maybe lands 2-3 punches a round and then lands 6-7 he will sometime be awarded the round, if it was a close round, even if he was still outlanded and neither fighter was hurt.

In terms of the fight plan, while it really was Frazier's only option, this wasn't his natural style, and I don't think he could ever have beaten George regardless of which style he used.