George Foreman Circa 1969 V Joe Frazier Circa 1970

He travelled, sang mostly and came in overweight for every fight he had post Ali in his title defences. He wasn’t in his prime for Muhammad either IMO just reaching the end of or just past it. He got up with the same enthusiasm for Foreman as his poor defences the scales don’t lie. Frazier also wasn’t exactly a spartan outside of his “job” a lot of Tyson’s poor showings are slid because he wasn’t there truly, the same can be said of Frazier for Foreman

 

Foreman ko. Foreman was a much better fighter, puncher and boxer than Frazier. Frazier could land hurtful punches but he was never a knock out artist. He moved forward in straight lines and was easy to hit which was effective and exciting against the right opponents but not against a big upright puncher like Foreman, who was at his wrecking ball best during this period.

 

1. He didn’t knock out 12 people. He knocked out 11 and went the distance with two very beatable individuals.

2 Did you see the people he knocked out? Not exactly a murderers row.

3. He definitely didn’t just go out there and smash Frazier. He definitely used “learned pro skills” or more specifically a tactic he was specifically taught for by his corner. and used his jab in an excellent manner to hold Frazier off or to make him duck into one of those uppercuts.

It’s a complete myth that he just swung away until Frazier fell. He was very composed, had an excellent game plan specifically to beat Frazier, was very accurate with his punches and had an excellent jab that night to hold Frazier off or made him sick into those thunderous uppercuts.

His jab wasn’t nearly as good, in ‘69 and he was quite literally twenty years old, hadn’t finished growing and filling out so he likely wasn’t as strong either.

 

Close enough, and one of them was Chuck Wepner who was pretty tough and got his face melted. And Foreman used his jab a lot in that fight, so he had a jab in 1969. In his third fight.

Did he jab Frazier to death or just nuke him with a tight uppercut? Foreman had a great jab but really he baited Frazier with sweeping uppercuts, brought one tight as Frazier bobbed and that was the beginning of the end. I don't know how Foreman, in a fight that stretched to reach 2 rounds, could have been "holding Frazier off".

Frazier was trying to bully him and basically ran into a stone wall. Every time he bobbed into Foreman's chest, those big Fore-arms stopped him. He had no momentum, landed maybe one grazing right hand and was basically neutralized completely. Was Frazier physically weaker post 1971? Or was it his eyesight and reflexes that deteriorated? His body looked to be in form.

So Joe Frazier lasting a couple more pity rounds vs a mentally broken Foreman in 1976 counts, but Frazier turns from absolute peak in 1971 to absolute tire fire in 1973 despite having two tune-ups where he took little damage in the interim? Doesn't make sense to me. Frazier is an overachiever with tons of heart and a good gameplan for his body type, but even as a big Frazier guy, I just don't see it.

 

The more experienced WBA Champion Joe Frazier who easily dispatched Jimmy Ellis on Feb 16 1970 easily defeats a very green George Foreman fresh off of his 1968 Olympic Gold Medal win. Joe was headed to a 1971 confrontation against former undefeated champion Muhammad Ali in March. That version of Joe Frazier was hungry, wanting to destroy the shadow of Ali who had never lost his title in the ring. George with all of his thudding blows had never seen a left hook like that of Frazier. I believe that Smoking Joe stops a gassed Foreman late, TKO 10.

 

Two factors:

1. Does Foreman know how to block Frazier's left hook? When they fought, Foreman partially or completely blocked many of Frazier's hooks. Frazier did not have a hard right to the head, and as such, his only major weapon was taken away.

2. Does Foreman know how to push Frazier away to create room?

If the answer to #1 and #2 is even a partial yes, Foreman wins.

However, i can see Frazier winning if Foreman does not know how to block his hooks and push him off.

50-50 fight. This is the only scenario in which Joe has even a small chance. 71 Foreman beats any Frazier.

 

It would have to be a 3 round bout according to amateur rules.

 

Frazier suffers a few knockdowns to secure a UD.

 

Wepner was not even a trial horse. In his next fight, he was brutally stopped and dropped by the geriatric Liston, and he'd also been previosuly stopped by unknowns.

Upon what footage do you base this off of?

As I said in my earlier post, Foreman used his jab to prevent Frazier from getting inside, and used it to set up his nasty uppercuts.

OK, now I know you haven't watched the fight. It's very well known that Frazier landed a couple of decent hooks which Foreman shook off like they were nothing.

This content is protected

If you watch the beginning of the fight, it's somewhat even and Frazier is getting inside and landing some decent hooks one of which temporarily stuns Foreman, which is when he resorts to his antics of muscling Frazier around.

Both imo. Their were talks of him being past his prime, and out of shape even before the Foreman bout.

Now you're manufacturing a strawman. I never once mentioned the '76 bout.

 

Others mentioned the '76 fight.

There's newspaper accounts of the Wepner fight that state he tore him up with the jab.

Desert Sun, Volume 43, Number 13, 19 August 1969
"George Foreman probably turned up with the best left jab that has been seen in Madison Square Garden in a long time. At least that's the opinion of Wepner."

Frazier threw a few but they didn't really land great. I've watched the fight a bunch. The second fight was the one where Foreman got his eye swollen a bit and Foreman said the cheeky "That's the Joe Frazier left hook" line if I remember correctly.

Frazier couldn't get past the arms well. And when he did, his punches got rolled a bit anyway. I under-appreciated the effects of the jab, because honestly, I think the forearms and the posture breaking was the deciding factor more than any jab-distance management. Frazier closed the distance several times and wasn't able to do anything with it. This is just a bad style matchup. I think my recapitulation of the fight is closer than yours, which posits that Foreman was struggling to keep Joe off of him, whereas I saw a pretty calm destruction with Foreman hardly breaking a sweat.

Regardless, you really haven't outlined what would change. What would change? I understand being a big fan of Frazier, how can't you be? The man was amazing, but every man has limitations and styles make fights. Your heart is seeing for your eyes in this case. I didn't see any struggling, nor could I interpolate or extrapolate any struggles coming from this matchup for Foreman.

 

Tbh, I would say Frazier didn’t necessarily have trouble finding Foreman with the hook.

As soon as Joe connected with his first solid hook, Foreman introduced or at least seriously ramped up the shoving - as simple as that.

George felt it and made no bones about getting Frazier off him - whatever it took

Not that 73 Frazier would’ve beaten GF in Jamaica but the manhandling (illegal) made no mean contribution to Foreman’s success and/or degree of success.

Foreman posted a terrific performance vs Chuvalo back in ‘70 but in either round 1 or 2, even Chuvalo caught GF with a hard left hook that shook him and had him blinking.

 

Even George Foreman stated in an interview That I Got Caught By Joe's Left Hook, George winced at the thought of it.

 

I thought I was the only one who noticed!! As I stated above, watching the film I thought it was Frazier who actually landed the first solid blows, temporarily stunning Foreman which is when Foreman immediately started the shoving. Fight was actually fairly even before that, and Frazier actually got inside regularly from what I saw.

Unfortunately I later learned my "heart was seeing for my eyes".

 

Fair enough, but I've watched bouts after this one including the Chuvalo bout and his jab was not nearly as pronounced.

As has been stated before the manhandling started, Frazier was actually landing some decent shots and actually stunned Foreman temporarily.

I agree they may have had a bigger effect. But the jab had plenty of importance as well, to hold Frazier off from getting inside and setting up those uppercuts.

Foreman didn't seem to be able to get Frazier off him, that effectively until he started the manhandling.

OK this is ridiculous. Foreman himself said it wasn't as easy as he made it look and he looked tired at the end.

1. Frazier was younger, faster, and in better condition in '70.

2. Most important, he seemed to have much better recovery as displayed against Oscar Bonavena.

3. Foreman was still very green. Yes he had 11 or so KOs, but 9 of them were against men with losing records. The other 2 weren't anything special to say the least.

4. Most importantly, I don't think Foreman would've even had this game plan at this point in his career, and even if he did I doubt he would've been able to enforce it).

"Your heart is seeing for your eyes in this case." Please don't try to gaslight me. Frazier is my 2nd favorite fighter yes, but I have no issues with objectivity. He's not even in my top 5 H2H and I don't think any version of Frazier beats Jamaica Foreman. As a matter of fact, Foreman is my #3 H2H and #3 GOAT Heavyweight.