could old man Foreman have KOd Joe Frazier all the same

There is a huge difference between Joe Frazier 1971 and Joe Frazier 1974!

 

Indeed. There's also a significant difference between '91 Foreman and '94 Foreman.

 

He was old, his reflexes had slowed, and he couldn't crack heads like he used to. That is why he adopted a more reactive style with a cross armed defense. Against Frazier's speed and work rate, this would not be enough to hold him off. This time he would not be able to keep Frazier at bay, and the fight would probably end with some sort of mercy stoppage.

 

The same way Alex Stewart swelled Georges head up, the old Foreman was not the finisher he was at 25. He will hit Joe ,stun him, maybe knock him down,but old George won't stop the young Frazier. I am very well aware of Joe's limitations style wise, but what are you asking? a 45 year old man to beat arguably one of the top ten heavyweights of all time in his prime?

 

Lol Tommy Morrison is bigger than Frazier, hits harder than Frazier, has faster hands than Frazier and could fight moving backwards. I am not talking about some historical speaking crap you casual fans like to use. Also Foreman took Alex Stewart lightly. Frazier's style is so basic. There is nothing he could do that would help him beat Foreman. Maybe if Foreman was 60 and Frazier was 25 I might give Frazier a chance then.

 

George beat Michael Moorer in 1994, Joe Frazier is being told to consider retirement by his manager in 1973.

 

Lol Tommy Morrison was a much better fighter skill wise and power wise compared to Frazier. Morrison landed numerous hooks on Foreman. Foreman walked through them. Frazier was a one dimensional fighter. Foreman would still beat Frazier around the ring even as a old man.

 

Listen,, no way Frazier beats a 25 year old George Foreman, ever. But 45? Morrison? Geez.

P.S. I've been going to,and watching boxing for 50 years. Not casual by any means

 

Right - So put a '73 Frazier (the same year he faced a young Foreman the first time) in there, with the older '91 George, who was still showing himself to be a force (and this, 3 years before he regained the title) and we have a Frazier, who is perhaps just as susceptible - even to the slower Foreman.

 

Oh so you are just a clueless fan then? Joe Frazier was a good fighter but for the most part he didn't fight bigger heavyweights doing his era. He fought Foreman and lost, He never faced Norton, Lyle, Cooney and guys like that. Tommy Morrison was a party boy who couldn't keep his man parts in his pants and contracted HIV. That has nothing to do with his skill and power in the ring. Frazier had to come forward. That was the only way he could fight. Morrison could move better, not to say he was a great mover but better than Frazier ever was. So because he could go 12 with Foreman doesn't mean Frazier could.

 

He couldn't even beat Briggs!

 

No shot.

 

Don’t sweat it bro! He calls people Kid or casual when he runs out of intelligent ideas or words (oddly does not take to long by the way), rather than you know having an exchange of ideas. The solace is that he will likely get banned yet again soon, and we can avoid these infantile interjections

 

It's hard for me to believe that the version of Frazier who beat Ali would not beat an old Foreman. But this is the only version of Frazier who could be an old Foreman...

 

No, I don't think so, especially if Joe was at his absolute peak instead of slightly past it. I think Mr Clean George would eat a lot more hooks than Fro George and lose a wide UD with two puffy eyes, or maybe even get knocked out in the late rounds. He's still a very live underdog, but I'd be willing to bet on Frazier by clear-cut decision.

I wouldn't bet my car, but I' bet enough that I'd have to eat rice and beans for a couple months if I lost.