Frazier Vs Foreman 2

True re Joe.

Trying to be that bit more mobile and fighting against type would’ve placed a good measure of extra strain on the fuel tank, not to mention the energy sapping punishment he took, and then was all the wars behind him anyway….. - and finally, Joe was 224 1/2 lbs (counter productive to his more evasive strategy) - 9 lbs more than the already heavy 215 1/2 lbs he was for Manila.

Poor Joe was really up against it even before the first bell sounded -

 

Joe would be the poster child for the title: WHEN A LEFT HOOK WASN'T ENOUGH

How do you defeat am opponent who is better than you in every way?

someone who is bigger, stronger, taller , more powerful with a better defense and offense?

When your best weapon is sporadically used, and laughed off in the rare event it lands, and you are being outhit 25 - 1

Answer/ You don't

 

Norton won the 3rd fight with Ali, he was robbed by the judges.
Ali had to resort to cheating in order to beat Frazier in their 2nd fight. And he was about to quit himself in the 3rd.

 

Foreman fought a very good fight. He was punching sharp, using his jab, applying smart pressure. He threw the kitchen sink at Joe in spots when he had him cornered. Frazier did a good job of making George miss a ton a punches.
Backing to the ropes was Joe's ultimate undoing. In the center of the ring he did fairly well landing crisp counters but not enough of them and couldn't put anything together. When Frazier did manage to land a hook or pop George with his jab it only seemed to make Foreman mad.

The gameplan itself was a sound one. It would be a painful one to execute though. If your gonna try to take a guy into deeper water ( that's your only chance) it might be a good idea to get in the best possible condition.
I don't understand the logic there from Frazier if there was any. Maybe it was simply the million dollars he was offered.

 

Foreman was probably more formidable in the 76 rematch than he was in 73. He was even more confident. The difference being Frazier wasn't coming into him like in Kingston.

 

I always found this fight interesting for a number of reasons ... Frazier was on his last legs post Manila but Joe being Joe it had to be proved to him ... just to get in the ring again w Foreman took guts ... I'm sure Joe figured he knew what he was getting himself into , he'd try a new strategy and see how it played out ... He'd show he could diversity, use his brains , tire Foreman out and then capitalize when Big George tanked ... let's face it, Joe was never going to trade w George from the opening bell and win .. styles, size , power all against him .. it wouldn't matter if it was 1970 Joe or 1976 Joe ... I feel this was possibly Foreman's best fight of the seventies ... he was actually tested a bit , showed patience and pace, used a strong hard jab, threw crushing body shows with his own body behind them , punched straight early, did not wail away stupidly, picked his spots and showed monster strength and power .. I don't think he dialed it in at all but fought a very smart, brutal fight .. some guys have other guys numbers and George had Joe's ..

This content is protected

 

Norton absolutely felt he was robbed in the third fight and the overwhelming number of writers covering it felt the same .. you are interpreting what he said incorrectly .. Ali got a gift and no one knew it more than he did ..

 

The headlines in the New York papers the next day described it as a robbery without a gun. 21 sportswriters ringside 17 of them scored the fight for Norton. This is 1976. Most of the old school writer who hated Ali were long gone replaced by many of the younger generation. Ali at the peak of his popularity.
It was simply a bad decision. Ken Norton who loved Ali as they were great friends didn't bad mouth Ali or have any personal animosity towards him. Ken simply said "Ali never hit me hard the whole fight"

Take a break. Revisionist history is hardwork. Your doing the heavy lifting.

 

If you think Frazier was one-dimensional and only had the left-hook, you may've been watching his fights, but you haven't seen anything.

 

Actually he wasn't on both counts.

Foreman was one of those guys who never handled his first ever defeat very well at all, truth be told.

It's well documented how that loss sent him on all sorts of silly. He may have been confident against Frazier after making mincemeat of him the first time but it's grossly incorrect to claim he was more confident than he was when he'd never tasted defeat as a pro and had come to strongly believe he was virtually invincible.

 

Ali Norton 3

Mercante had Ali ahead by 8‐6 with one round even. The judges, each had Ali ahead, 8‐7. On the scorecard of The New York Times, Ali also earned eight rounds, Norton seven.

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/09/29/...d-retains-his-heavyweight-crown-champion.html

• Unofficial AP scorecard: 9-6 Ali; unofficial UPI scorecard: 8-7 Norton.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Ken_Norton_(3rd_meeting)

It was a man I would come to know quite well over the next decade but at the time knew only from television: Sugar Ray Leonard. The whole ride back we chatted about the fight. He, like me, thought Ali had won the fight. I remember saying that I believed he had won eight of the 15 rounds, and I had a pretty good view to back up my opinion.

I was close enough to see the vapor from the fighters' breath in the chilly night air. I was close enough to see that late in the fight, Ali's lips and the tip of his nose were reddened by the cold. I was close enough to know they were talking to each other all night, although not close enough to make out the words.

And I was close enough to see that all Norton really had were muscles.

Earlier today, I watched a tape of the fight for the first time since seeing it live. And guess what? Ali still won. Only this time, I gave him 9 rounds.

https://www.espn.com/new-york/columns/story?id=5247526