Prime frazier vs 94 foreman

George knocks him out. Frazier does fairly well, for a while, but runs into a bomb and soon after is stopped. Foreman is just too powerful for Joe.

 

Joe and quite easily. George gets utterly outworked and landing a bomb won't save him. He landed dozens of bombs in Kingston before Joe went over. And at 45 he wouldn't have been able to follow up with the kind of barrage that overwhelmed Joe.

Foreman in 94 was a year on from failing to knock out Tommy Morrison and the year's inactivity hadn't made him a better fighter. I know styles make fights and Joe wouldn't employ the tactics Morrison did. But Joe was a legitimate top ten all timer. Does anyone seriously believe they can make a case for Foreman ca 94 being anywhere near that level?

 

Easy win for Frazier.

 

That's not really true. The first and second knockdowns were from singular blows. That second knockdown Frazier was out from that one blow and woke up when he hit the canvas. Crushing uppercut.

 

With respect, I disagree, Perry. The first knockdown came a couple of punches after Joe had almost gone over from a jab. Watch the replay. Joe had been getting the worse of it for a while by the time he went down and he was on wobbly legs well before the punch that toppled him.

As for the second knockdown, there's a clue in the title. He had already been down and had been getting steadily beaten up for a while although you're absolutely right that the uppercut that finally got him down was brutal in its power and timing. But I can't call that a one punch knockdown either.

And that version of George was way more dangerous than the 94 Foreman who had just gone 12 with Tommy Morrison and who would then go 12 in his next fight with Axel Schulz. Kingston George takes care of both of those in the same night - and has room to spare for Jerry Judge.

 

You needed a back foot stick n move strategy to beat Foreman. Frazier would be running into him all night and would suffer the same fate. Plus the cross arm defence would protect him from Joe's primary weapon. Joe has nothing to protect him from those savage corkscrew uppercuts.

 

Frazier would win the decision simply because Foreman didn't have anymore the agressivity or relative speed to get to Frazier. Smoking Joe would score some blows by bobbing and weaving and probably would be more cautious than usual after tasting a couple of Foreman uppercuts. Don't forget that Frazier was floored multiples times by Young Prime Foreman before the bout was called over. A prime Frazier vs an Old Foreman isn't the same fight at all. The endless stamina tank of Smoking Joe would allow him to score some points by outspeeding Foreman on the inside, then back off when the bear wakes up. Frazier UD 9-3 in a lopsided one.

 

Disagree. Joe had two shots and was obliterated both times. He does not find a way to make a third bout a win. Foreman is just all wrong for Joe in every manner conceivable.

 

Frazier leans right over (As always) after landing on Foreman and then gets knocked out FAST by an uppercut. Theres nothing Frazier can throw to even make Foreman blink...Morrison/Briggs/Cooney and Moorer all hit harder than Frazier. Holyfield hit the guy with 15 unanswered shots....total mismatch.

 

Tommy Morrison fought a 20 years past prime Foreman and won on points. If they had fought 20
years earlier TM would have been ko in 2 . On this basis yes Frazier who was way superior to
Morrison would also beat Foreman on points in 94.

 

If Joe adopted a similar game plan to the one Eddie Futch implemented in 1976 he may win a decision. He probably would`t do that in his prime. Frazier was a little tank and that is the wrong way to fight Foreman. I think it would be more competitive than `73 because Foreman was much slower but he probably stops Frazier late in a good fight.

 

Joe had two shots at Foreman when George was in his mid 20s not his mid 40s as he would have been in 94. You seriously don't think those extra 20 years on George might not help prime Joe?