Cus D'amato - No Swarmer Beats Foreman?

Excellent.

 

Frazier's success in the rematch is comparable to Tyson's approach to swarming. Lots of rhythmic movement in search of countering opportunities. Tyson absolutely could beat Foreman, no offense to Cus, who we know was often overprotective of his fighters.

An elite swarmer is rare to begin with. There's a reason they were largely generational, look at the gaps between Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, and Tyson. Maybe Tua could have been the guy but he dropped the ball with his conditioning too early. Sultan seemed to not have his heart in the game...though most would agree... including Tyson that Sultan and Tua had the raw ability.

 

He could beat Foreman, but I do not favor him to. You are correct about the other points.

 

"No swarmer beats Foreman" is an absolute.

Just by some of us saying...maybe Tyson or Dempsey even if not a favorite we would lay money on is enough to challenge such a concrete claim. It means we doubt the absolutism of Cus's analysis. And we should. There are no absolutes in boxing ever.

My challenge is rooted more in the evidence we have. I don't think Foreman bouncing a poorly conditioned Frazier and the suspect Norton is enough evidence for this absolute statement. Foreman's surprising problems in the rematch with Frazier further emphasis my doubt.

Something to consider, Foreman's power is an X factor but people forget how poor Frazier looked in his title defenses prior to Foreman, he was a sitting duck. After the brilliance of Fight of the Century...memories skip ahead to the Foreman fight. Just as Tyson looked poor against Bruno prior to Douglas.

 

I love Frazier and his more defensive tactics in the Foreman rematch might’ve lent to his lasting a few more rounds than the first fight.

However, Foreman under Clancy, fought a far more patient, metered and considerately paced fight than he did in Jamaica.

The approach wasn’t so much necessary against Joe - it was to better school and condition Foreman for the future against all potential styles, particularly more naturally elusive styles against which the “old” Foreman might well gas before getting the job done.

No disrespect to Joe, but Foreman’s performance in the rematch was similar to a boxer in sparring, working on and looking to strengthen certain features of his game.

To crystallise the point, just IMO, I think if he was inclined, Foreman probably could’ve done more or less the same number he did on Joe in Jamaica and put Joe out in roughly the same short order. However, he wouldn’t have learnt anything new from the experience.

Technically speaking, in the rematch, I think George actually looked that much more impressive than the first fight with Joe.

 

A slugger against another slugger can come down just to who lands first, for example Foreman vs Lyle could of gone different on another day.

 

I appreciate your observation of the differences between the two fights. But I can't share view point.

Foreman was very relaxed in the first Frazier fight and didn't go for the kill until he dropped him. In the rematch, Foreman is throwing lots of big swings at a high volume, he's just missing them due to the increased movement of Frazier and he was getting tagged in the face a lot...which even if it wasn't hurting him is not pleasant. Didn't his eye even start to swell?

Frazier gassed out and stopped moving after a big effort in Round 4 cause he was in bad condition. Foreman himself was looking tired in Round 4 after he stepped on the gas in 3. I don't see this as some great strategic effort from Foreman. As usual, he swung and swung until he found his target or gassed out trying.

Again...I will emphasize Frazier is 20 lbs heavier than his best performance..and Foreman is near his prime pinnacle here.

 

Since you've put this out there. Which swarming heavyweight
in history beats Foreman in your opinion.

 

You know I did not debate anything you wrote right?
I agree there are no absolutes in sports competitions-although some things are overwhelmingly likely.
But those who who lay money on others against Foreman only proves that they believe he has a chance-maybe they like the long os/payoff-that does not logically challenge the concrete claim-but logic does.

I do not believe Foreman had much of anything I would label a "problem" with Frazier in their second fight.
Not more than one round was deserved for Frazier. That he took his time, or even if he could not blow him out as easily-Frazier's style was less aggressive to drag the fight on-does not leave much room for doubt.

I also do not think Tyson looked "poor" against Bruno-either time.
Showed some imperfections yes.

Frazier was a sitting duck only for a very few possible boxers even in 1973. Foreman is the one definite guy.

 

Perfect response.

 

It doesn't matter if you debated me or not, I was sharing my thoughts on your points of which many I was favorable.

I think missing in bunches is a problem, getting tagged in the face by clean blows that caused visible swelling is a problem. Losing a clear round against an overweight fighter you were expected to blow out is a problem, Just because Foreman ultimately won doesn't eliminate these things. Round 3 was the only time before the KO that Foreman was clearly dominant. Round 1 and 2 he was active and aggressive to little success.

I wouldn't classify Frazier as being less aggressive in the rematch. I think he simply used more upper body movement on his way inside. More selective in his out put maybe, but only because he was 20 lbs overweight and wanted to make his punches count and Foreman with his reach and catching ability is a difficult target for a shorter man to begin with.

I know Cosell was freaking out when Frazier fought off the ropes but that was hardly unique. He actually did that against Quarry in the first match from memory.


Was Frazier a sitting duck for "only a few"? Do we know that, he was matched very selectively after "Fight of the Century"

 

Im hesitant to select a favorite but the ones with the best opportunity:

Dempsey and Tyson. Holyfield of Bowe I who used swarming tactics if that counts.

I would be curious what FOTC Frazier could do with his endless gas tank and constant movement. Marciano would be interesting.

I think the big 4 elite swarmers on the right night could beat anyone. They are lightning in a bottle oddities for a reason. What they lack is longevity.

 

"Frazier's success in the second fight" What success surviving more rounds? here is the fight ,how many rounds does Frazier win?
I say NONE!
"Foreman's problems?" What would they have been? Was he at any moment in the fight ,in trouble? Behind on points? What a crock !
[url]George FOREMAN vs Joe FRAZIER 2 | FULL FIGHT | Boxing KNOCKOUTS - YouTube[/url]
Surprisingly good commentary by Cosell.imo.
"Frazier was not less aggressive in the second fight." BS! He spent half of the 4 and a half rounds going backwards!
Foreman missed punches? Hello? Making an opponent miss does not earn you points unless you make him pay for missing by landing your own shots!
Foreman had a discoloured eye WOW! One single punch can cause that.
The fact that Frazier went into the 5th rd, by boxing a reactive instead of proactive fight is seen as some kind of victory.lol
It's a blatant example of clutching at the proverbial straw to endeavour to prove some agenda driven point,and in the process show how smart someone is.Well it dismally failed ,and they AIN'T!

 

You do realize Holyfield did fight past prime version
of Foreman , though he did win, it was a much tougher
fight than anyone thought it would be. Also, Holyfield
himself said Foreman was the strongest and hardest
hitting heavyweight he's faced. This fight took
place almost 20 yrs past Foreman's prime, in 1991.
What if this fight was held in in 1972 or 73?
Would Holyfield survive the much quicker version
of Foreman?
If any fighter is made to be destroyed by Foreman
it's Dempsey. He's simply too small and to easy to
hit.
Tyson would be a serious threat. But Foreman's
physicality is the difference. Tyson like most
fighters has to set his feet to get his power
Foreman would push him off balance, or hold
him close and smother his attack when he does
get close enough to start his offence.
Though Tyson is better skilled and quicker than
Frazier, he doesn't have his toughness and will power.
Could Tyson, even in his prime handle the psychological
"Bigger Bully".
Not one like Mitch Green who was no serious threat
in the ring, and his act was easily seen through by
Tyson. But one like Liston or Foreman fighters with
the skills to back up those intimidation tactics.
I like prime Foreman against all of them,
and one of them, with shocking ease.