frazier fotc 1971 vs foreman 73.

I agree with you. I've seen your posts for a long time now and your a respected boxing poster here like Burt, try to ignore this kid and hopefully he will blow away soon.

 

I have it 3-1 in a massacre. You have it 2-2 and think it was close. Big difference. As mentioned Frazier I am sure can duck and slip 40% or more of Georges punches. However that 60% or less that land will knock him out. Old or prime Frazier it would not matter much. Foreman just hits too hard.

 

So silly. Berbick was never a great fighter or even a good fighter. Ali was in the early stages of what he has now so not just an old Ali...a very sick Ali. Berbick did not have the style, speed or talent to beat a prime Ali.

Frazier was past his prime but he did not have the style to beat prime Foreman. Everyone worth his salt knows this as fact. Foreman Kos any Frazier 10 out of 10.

Start a poll. Prime Foreman vs the Frazier from 1971...who wins.

 

Berbick didn't have the anything to beat Ali at any stage except when he had no buisiness being in the ring anymore.

 

Frazier loses every time. Frazier just didn't have what it took to beat Foreman. Bad match-up stylistically because foreman was bigger, stronger and hit harder with both hands. The only edge that frazier had was stamina, which really wouldn't be a factor because he would always be blown out inside of 5 rounds.

 

What a terrible comparison- Frazier was the undefeated heavyweight champ in his 20s; Ali a near-40 year old man who'd been beatn by a novice and looked like he was auditioning for Zombies Dawn of the Dead in his previous fight. A completely garbage string of sentences, just about worse than anything Thommo ever posted. The worse thing is, you weren't even embarrassed by it, bringing it up yet again.


Your ****-weak argument about Frazier being in worse condition than Ali is simply deluded and based, on what, "according to posters" in another thread- real concrete evidence that is :!:. The only evidence you need is how bad Ali looked before Berbick and after Berbick (by that i mean he didn't fight again, such was his condition and his age); Frazier was champ due to beating everyone before Foreman and had a fair few good performances after he was smashed by George.

Houdini is merely one of the vast vast majority of people who love boxing thinking Foreman always beat Frazier. The club is plentiful and still going strong; the "Frazier beats George" club closed down through lack of membership years ago.

 

-I see you are putting words in my mouth to try to make this something other than a dispute about a single round. Between the two of us, there is only one round in question. I honestly wouldn't describe this as a "close fight" or a "massacre." Neither really seems an accurate descrpition and I'm not interested in arguing specific semantics anyway.

I would say a washed up Frazier troubled a very busy Foreman with his movement but ultimately succumed to his relentless pressure in the 5th. That's how I would describe what happened here.

-We don't have exact punch stats on this fight, but I can say with certain Foreman probably landed at a much lower percentage than that. I would say less than 10% and what scored wasn't exactly on the button until Frazier was for the taking in the 5th round. If Foreman was landing 60%, this fight would have been a repeat of the first. Frazier wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds and by your admission, won round 4.

-In this fight I see Frazier prove he could neutralize Foreman's jab and uppercut with his movement, and that he could land his jab and left hook cleanly. He also stood up to some Foreman power shots and regrouped from being hurt in Round 3 to have a strong round himself in 4. These are things that seemed an impossiblity for him in the first fight. Make no misake this was a surprising performance from Joe and even though he still lost, this was not a copy of the first fight or worse as expected.

 

There is no pause to think about anything.

Prime Foreman would not have fought as he did the second bout. He would have gone for the kill as he did in round 5. Both fights showed Frazier just can't take what George dishes out. He is just too powerful and Joe is there to be hit with Foremans hardest punches.

Prime Frazier would go into a fight with Foreman fighting just one way. Movement? Prime Joe is not moving ..he is coming forward in a very predictable style. He would be hit by sledgehammer blows just like he was hit in both fights and those blows would knock him out. The only fighters to beat prime George were tall stand up defensive boxers...that's not Joe Frazier. If he does move it won't be long since Foreman was a master of cutting the ring.

 

-I saw a confident Foreman going for the kill at the start of the bell, never taking a step back, jabbing constantly at Frazier's head, and swinging for the fences with wide sweeping hooks and uppercuts every chance he got. He didn't do anything different in Round 5 that he did in Round 1, the difference is Frazier had slowed down over the course of the fight and was an easier target.

Your assumption that Foreman carried Frazier for 4 rounds until it was time to go for the kill, just isn't consistent with the action that unfolded. If you can't see Foreman aggressively pursuing Frazier the entire fight, than I'm sadly going to have to question your ability to analyze a fight at even the most elementary level. Don't make yourself look like a clown, and just awknowledge Frazier's movement created some problems for Foreman. You can still argue and believe he will always have Frazier's number without such embelishments.

-Prime Joe was always moving. It's what he did. Foreman only lost to Young and Ali in his prime run, that's true. But that's not going to stop me from considering other fighters or styles in fantasy situations. I'm not interested in broad generalized "rules of thumb" as they never seem to work, I find it more interesting and perhaps accurate to analyze each unique fighter and circumstance.

 

4man wud hev olweis krasht Frazier, iven if deir eijes wer riverst

 

Even a 1994 Foreman would have been a live underdog against the Frazier of Kingston.


As I and so many others have stated,George was simply all wrong for Joe. Frazier would always have been hell for Ali and someone like Larry Holmes,whereas Muhammad and Larry would always have found Foreman an easier proposition than Frazier.

 

More silly posts. Frazier in his prime is doing one thing...moving towards his opponent bobbing and weaving. In fight two he was trying to move side to side trying to be cute making George miss but being rocked whenever George connected. The Foreman who fought Frazier in fight two was the laid back pace yourself Foreman. remember Clancy was his trainer and he emphasized that George was so powerful there was no need to be so aggressive that stamina became an issue. Both men prime George would be throwing cannon shots aggressively pursuing Joe and Frazier would be meeting him head on. yes Joe will make Foreman miss some punches but he is still there to be hit. Can't do that with George. He hits too hard.

 

If,in their second fight,George had come out with all guns blazing like he did in Kingston,he'd have stopped Joe in one. Even in defense mode,Joe would have got hit with too many shots.

 

Foreman set up the victory in Kingston by landing his jab and uppercut to intially floor Frazier and put him on rubber legs, he struggled to do that in the rematch.

Once Frazier was hurt, all bets were off and we have the famous images of Foreman pushing him around and crushing him with those sweeping hooks.

 

George was certainly very hesitant in the early rounds of their rematch. It was sad watching Joe in that one. He should never have got in the ring again after Manilla.