I recall him saying " underneath George, underneath ". Was it Georges natural ability that thwarted Frazier or was it Moore's gamelan?
The Foreman plan was to jab and move a half step. Then load up. They knew Joe would be walking in just a nanosecond after the jab. That is when George was supposed to launch his big powershots & he had 4 of them to go to. Uppercuts from both hands/hard right hand/left hook. And Joe would get hit walking into them. That was planned by **** Saddler and Sandy Saddler, not so much Archie is my understanding. But Archie would have had to agree with the pre-fight strategy. And also, that is just the strategy part of things. The fighter has to listen and obey and execute. Lots of guys don't do that, but George did. He used other tactics/strategy against Norton which was equally effective and deadly. But that stuff sure didn't work against Muhammad Ali. Very interesting part of the sport of boxing how certain things work real well against certain opponents and fail against others, isn't it?
As a sidenote, a number of years ago, I recall reading, that bar his own people, not many gave Foreman a chance of winning that fight.
Total nonsense and more proof how ones abilities is overshadowed by legend...frazier was 20 pounds overweight by the second match,he was clearly past his prime after the first Ali fight and really Foreman as poor of a boxer he was in the 70's would have k.od Fraizer in any year regarless because of his heavy hands which was Fraziers biggest weakness.
what was the norton gameplan? I always felt norton in theory might give george problems. Obv not, but
I am more than aware of Foremans ability to be able to have beaten Frazier at any time, what was said before the bout was the opposite. A well respected boxing writer had stated that not many gave George a chance of winning, stating Foreman was seen to be strong, but clumsy and amateurish and Fraziers left hook would see George off early.
well its the same nonsense of always labeling Ali as the underdog in all his big fights when in reality he greatly had the upperhand,the biggest one was the painted picture of Foreman who was only around 4 pounds heavier than Ali and shorter.sports writers in general vastly overate fighters ,specially fromk those eras,im not really overly impressed by any sports writers break down of fighters..cox who is probably the most known today from yesteryear,says the most outlandish comparisons,and is the definition of hyping things up.Its pretty clear foreman would have k.od Frazier under any circumstance what the writers of then lacked is a simple ability to know Frazier didn't fare well with hard punchers,his struggles with bonevena would have showed who the clear favorite would have been.
I didn't say Frazier wasn't the favored,i CLEARLY said how ones name overrides there actual abilities and they were clear underdogs not who the favored on paper is,if you read what I was referring to you wouldn't look so dumb ,go play in traffic.:good
Factual correction: Foreman is, at the lowest height ever listed for him, 6' 3", at least as tall as Ali, who was that or 1/2" shorter.
