FOTC Frazier vs 1973 Foreman

Many years ago Larry Merchant said it best concerning Frazier and Foreman ,,," no man who comes to George Foreman can survive"

 

How are you going to respond to me saying "it isn't that simple" by saying the same thing...?

In regards to Bonavena, no he was not "closing the gap". Has it been a while since you watched it? Bonavena actually moved around Frazier and used a heavy jab. He tried timing him on the way in with hooks and would clinch Frazier whenever he got close and shoved him back. He didn't allow Frazier to get comfortable and was walking him into big punches and that's what led to the knockdowns.

Sound familiar...? The writing was on the wall. Bonavena used many of the same tactics Foreman did early and it proved to be effective against a come forward swarmer.

The first Bonavena fight happened in 66 long before the wear and tear of the fight if the century. Frazier showed vulnerability early in this fight. He showed vulnerability early against Ali and he showed it again against Foreman. 3 strikes and you're out. It sometimes took him a couple of rounds to get his rhythm going and reach top speed and intensity. His bobbing and weaving weren't at their best in the early rounds.

He was able to time and get to Ali because Ali was backing up or moving side to side. This meant that his punches had less steam on them as he was on his toes. Ali was also mostly throwing straight shots and flurries down the middle which were fast, but predictable. Once Frazier got the range and timing down, he could bob and weave under Ali's punches and then step in. Unlike Foreman and Bonavena, he had no answer other than clinching or trading. He did not have a big left hook or uppercut, nor did he shove Frazier back or pivot him.

Yes the competitive element was taken away, because Foreman skillfully took it away. That's the part you're either not getting or refusing to acknowledge.

Again, it was not Foreman simply pouncing on Frazier early and landing first. He had an excellent game plan to exploit the flaws in Frazier's style and lack of early round intensity. Those flaws were there with or without the fight of the century. It's just that Foreman had the tools and skills to exploit them and Frazier's team severely underestimated his boxing ability assuming Foreman was just some big inexperienced slugger.

Not one person has said that's the only version of Joe Frazier and the same thing would happen regardless. What I am saying is that even a healthy Frazier would have been vulnerable to being pelted with heavy jabs, pivoted, shoved, and manipulated to get walked into shots. His bobbing and weaving left him vulnerable to uppercuts. Everyone knows this and that's why the best trainers have their guy practice the uppercut if they're facing a swarmer. We see Frazier struggle when people use those tactics long before he fought Foreman and against other opponents. So attempting to downplay the win and take credit from Foreman assuming it was simply "wear and tear" doesn't make sense. Because the game plan was excellent and had more to do with being able to skillfully carry out than Foreman simply getting to his guy first..

 

in regards to Bonavena, this was not the complete Frazier that Ali fought.

not in the first fight.

Ali was NEVER more predictable than a 1973 George Foreman. The odds in the Frazier V Foreman fight were based on the credibility of Foreman’s career up to that point. The damage of the first Ali fight was not evident until Frazier fought Foreman.

Yes once Foreman could establish what Frazier had left it was a cakewalk. Frazier was wrong for a guy like that in 1973

it was the right game plan for the version of Joe Frazier that George Foreman fought. The odds on that fight were based entirely on the ali Joe fought. That is the problem.

yes. I wholeheartedly agree that Foreman had the perfect template for beating a post FOTC Joe Frazier.

A healthy Frazier tied to a chair would have been susceptible to exactly what happened to him in 1973. Yes. 1971 Joe Frazier would have been a lot more capable. He might have landed first. Imagine that?

Pro boxing is a wear and tear sport. You either think Joe Frazier’s well documented hospitalisation after the Ali fight happened or you don’t.

was it though? Let’s think about that. Frazier was into his singing and quite a bit heavier than expected. The referee Arthur mercante was in the same hotel and said there was a lot of singing and partying going on in Joe’s room. He knew Foreman. He had handled his fight with Boone Kirkman. The result of the fight still suprised him. Read his book.

 

I agree with that

 

Of course, but the signs were there early on that he was vulnerable early. They were there before and after the fight of the century so the vulnerability cannot be dismissed. Even in his prime against quarry and mathis he showed some openings and had to gather himself a few times.

I explicitly wrote that it occurred in the 2nd fight at least twice so I'm not sure why you wrote this.

I have watched Frazier's entire career. He was a late round boxer who got stronger as the fight progressed. Dozens of people have written about this and drew the same conclusion. I'm not sure why you're nitpicking common knowledge especially when it's on film even in some of his earlier fights.

You need to watch some of Foreman's earlier fights against guys like Gullick and Chuvalo. He had very underrated ring craft and was slowly developing into the perfect anti swarmer. The heavy jab, guard manipulation, shoving, cutting off the ring, pivoting the opponent, walking guys into shots, and uppercuts were all there even as a rookie. It's just that most opponents weren't that good and he often blasted guys out early so people wrote him off as a talented heavy hitter and not much else. It wasn't until the Frazier fight that he had perfected his style and put all the tools together on a big public display.

Actually Ali could be very predictable. You're confusing raw talent speed/reflexes with being hard to read. If you didn't panic and took your time stalking Ali and waiting for your opening rather than just swing at him wildly you could time him. Even a limited B level guy like Henry Cooper realized Ali had a lot of bad habits and waited patiently before pouncing.

Frazier got better and better as the fight wore on and he got Ali's rhythm and patterns down. He did a lot of the same things over and over and got comfortable--he'd only change tactics if he was badly hurt or frustrated that he couldn't land consistently. And yes, Ali was a good tactician and good at adapting but in the fight of the century he was still very rusty and was also looking down on Frazier not respecting his skill. His wife at the time even warned him to take Frazier more seriously.

Frazier was always wrong for Foreman. You aren't beating him if your game plan is to step forward constantly with a steady Bob and weave leaving you open for uppercuts.

It was always the right game plan. Bonavena was a limited boxer who didn't have half of George's talent or size and he came close to stopping Frazier early. You completely ignored this after I explained what happened because you evidently either didn't see Frazier vs Bonavena 1 or you hadn't seen it in a while and were talking nonsense.

Even when Frazier tried to make adjustments in the rematch with Foreman it just delayed the inevitable. He tried backing off but he couldn't actually mount an offense on the back foot or deter Foreman from stepping in with those heavy jabs. He still couldn't do anything about being pivoted or made to walk into shots. He still couldn't figure out how to use his head movement in a way that didn't lead to him getting timed.

I'm fully aware Frazier was past his prime, the point is his style was like wood to campfire against Foreman. The second loss cannot solely be attributed to him no longer being at his best, he just couldn't deal with the clash of styles even after studying tons of footage and bring better prepared.

Why do you put words in people's mouths or invent imaginary scenarios and exaggerations that you know they didn't mean? I've been polite and here you are writing goofy bull**** as usual.

Frazier did land first a few times in both fights. The problem is Foreman had a granite chin and had the height/reach to hit him right back or push him away. Frazier was never in a million years going to blitz him early like Dempsey vs Willard and take him out. Every time Frazier got close Foreman grabbed or pivoted him and made him reset. He was not a 1 punch KO specialist and needed time to grind down opponents, especially someone as big and tough as Foreman. I cannot envision any scenario where he makes that pressure style work if Foreman uses the same tactics of the first fight even when fully healthy and motivated. It's a bad matchup.

If you disagree just leave it at that, no point in going back and forth for 10 pages when you know I've made up my mind.

I never said the hospitalization didn't happen. Nor did I say Frazier didn't have any wear and tear.

You are once against creating a straw man and failing at basic reading comprehension.

I said you cannot place the blame for Frazier's loss solely on wear and tear or the fact Foreman just happened to land first. That is an over simplification of events.

Whose book, Frazier's? I did read it.

He doesn't make 1/4 of the excuses fanboys and people like you make. When asked about the foreman fight he keeps things very simple and just says stuff like "man that big guy could hit" or "had the wrong game plan".

If it isn't the hospitalization, it's the singing and weight gain. This narrative is no different from Duran partying after beating Leonard or Tyson smashing japanese hotel maids before Douglas. They are not valid excuses whatsoever. And more importantly, Frazier did not use them either.

To what degree frazier was physically diminished is open to interpretation. He took about a year off after the fight of the century. Then he had two fights against c level opponents and took them both out in under 4 rounds each without taking any real damage and then fought Foreman the following year. So that's 1 year just relaxing and another year with light competition. Even if he took significant damage after fotc, him and his camp obviously felt he recovered if they fought not once, but twice and then took on Foreman.

The only on going issues with Frazier at that point were his eye that had poor vision but that was always an issue. And Frazier didn't make excuses for that either.

You do this in literally every Foreman/Liston/Williams thread to diminish the win. But when people point it out you attempt to gas light and act as if you're unbiased.

 

the Gullick fight I have studied. Gullick beat George to the punch. He just didn’t have enough pop in his punches. Gullick even Landed and exposed openings a peak Frazier might have capitalised upon to dramatic effect. Certainly worth consideration.

Foreman was perfect against Joe Frazier. I take my hat off to that effort. He landed first. He stayed on top. It was brilliant.

never as predictable as a 72 George Foreman.

Frazier was having aTokyo Douglas, life on the line effort against Ali. His response to Ali’s rhythm and patterns had more to do with Frazier being first, being driven to dictate the action than anything that came after this fight when the deterioration set in.

That seals it then.

Frazier in 1973 was always wrong for Foreman. Absolutely. Daniels and Stander were no preparation for the serious threat Foreman turned out to be. Before this Frazier had been nursed back to fighting form after the career threatening win over Ali that had famously hospitalised him.

Bonavena was a strong, awkward, unpredictable lump. Foreman was indeed a far greater proposition. But Whilst Frazier should have been more advanced by the time he fought Foreman compared to when he fought Oscar, the wear and tear of the Ali fight and subsequent hospitalisation had its effect. Style wise, Bonavena, a short puncher, a physical brawling character was able to neutralise and frustrate Frazier rather than time him at arms reach like Ali and Foreman tried. Foreman being more successful since he came after Ali and hit that much harder.

his Style, in its past prime state is a separate issue to the fighter Frazier was against Ali. With his stutter step Frazier could beat a faster fighter than Foreman to the draw. Was landing his best punches from round one on. Ali was faster than Foreman. Something proven much later in the flesh even when Ali met Foreman in 1974.

not in 73.

Arthur Mercantes book. I recommend it.

I never dismiss the win Foreman had over that version of Frazier. I credit him with doing as good a job as anyone could against 73’ Frazier.

 

I still feel Foreman fought a diminished Frazier in both fights, however I ultimately can't minimize what he did that first time. It was a sensational win...perhaps the most awe-inspiring annihilation of an undefeated heavyweight, whom even then was recognized as an ATG.

Even the Tyson/Spinks pales in comparison, because Spinks never beat anyone the level of an undefeated, under-30 Ali to get where he was. And, of course, Frazier was a through and through heavyweight.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Statistically Frazier was absolutely the best active HW in the world at that time. Nobody can knock what Frazier had done by then. He was tops. Foreman took care of business.

 

It was the first fight I ever saw, I was very young. My father was absolutely dumbstruck, he'd seen both the Ellis knockout and the FOTC on closed circuit when it happened, and both he and seemingly everyone else considered Frazier in contention with Joe Louis as perhaps Greatest.

 

Yes Gullick had some success but even a young George was doing some of the same tactics that would show time and time again that he knew how to deal with short pressure fighters. He wasn't worried about getting hit because he knew he had a solid chin and would inevitably land more than the shorter guy with his gorilla arms and rough tactics. A sophisticated brawler.

I find that hard to believe because you can't just leave it at that and keep making excuses for Frazier to diminish the win. And you do this with several boxers similar to Foreman and only then coincidentally.

If he was so predictable how did he get 99% of his opponents to walk right into clubbing shots? It's not like he had blazingly fast hands, in fact his punches were very slow and he came right at you in a fairly linear fashion.

If you are bobbing and weaving up and down and you know your opponent mostly just throws straight shots down the middle like Ali, it's easier to predict and dodge the shots before stepping in. With Foreman he was throwing looping hooks and uppercuts and walking Frazier into things. Frazier intimidated most opponents and made them back off, but with Foreman he he was facing a guy who wouldn't give an inch and had the tools to exploit the flaws in his style.

This is maybe the 3rd time you've changed the words if what I said so that you can agree with yourself and pretend like you are agreeing with me. I didn't just mean 1973, I meant in general. You play these games and then wonder why people get tired of talking to you.

As I said, if you disagree that all versions of Joe would likely lose just leave it at that. No send in having a long drawn out 10 pages discussion when both of us have made up our minds.

I never said stander and Daniels were the best test for Frazier in preparation. My point was he had a whole year of inactivity to recover and then those two opponents didn't land much or add much wear and tear. So essentially 2 years to recover. The main issues were blood pressure and problems with the kidneys From excessive strain (likely all the rapid head movement he was doing). Those issues had subsided and he was cleared by the hospital within weeks, let alone 2 years after the fight of the century. So no, they are not valid excuses.

In regards to blood pressure, I myself have had high blood pressure before. Just last week in fact mine was around 180 due to severe stress and exhaustion. Two days ago it dropped to 135. It's ridiculous to use high blood pressure as an excuse when he was inactive for a year and mostly just partying and singing with two easy opponents the following year. He wasn't worked up or angry at all leading up to the foreman fight. Basic medical science disagrees with this narrative. So unless the doctor wrote a note saying he had ongoing severe high blood pressure issues leading up to the Foreman fight it's not valid.

Actually Bonavena being shorter than Foreman with shorter arms just proves my point. Thank you.

A 5'11 guy with rugged ability was able to use some of the same tactics Foreman did and still managed to produce 2 knockdowns. The jab, counter hook, clinching, and shoving were All their. Frazier walked right into shots and got timed on the way in. And it wasn't because he was fighting a very tall long armed opponent, it just further showed a flaw in his style that Bonavena exposed.

I have already explained to you why Frazier was able to land on Ali despite Ali being faster. It's about styles.

Not ever. He was not an early round blitzing KO artist and even if he tried that, Foreman's style would always be a problem and so would his chin. He didn't have the power to take him out early either, the guy needed several rounds to put away past his prime Machen and obese Mathis.

I'll check it out.

You're dismissing it right now by saying 73 Frazier and by making excuses for a condition he had two whole years before the fight when the doctors had cleared him to continue fighting. It's very passive aggressive and you think people are too dumb to notice.

 

this dumb quote of always wrong cause of him being beat twice is bull like why wouldnt the match be different when joe was way better in his early years

he gave ali trouble who was way faster then George and way better at keeping his distance from punches why wouldnt he give George problems who didnt have good defense and was slow it makes no logical sense

 

No version of Frazier beats Foreman

 

Even The very very best version of Frazier against the very worst version of Foreman though? Who wins that fight?

 

What do you mean by the worst version of Foreman ? Which one is it ? 97 Foreman or young inexperienced Foreman ?

 

Take your pick. There are worse versions of everyone.