I'm probably in the minority on this one, but I believe Joe Frazier would have done a lot better against Foreman if he showed up at or near his prime weight, 205 1/2 lbs. It's easy to conclude that George would destroy Frazier every time they fought, based on the 1973 title fight and the rematch in 1976. I don't think Foreman would have been able to handle the same Frazier that beat Ali in the FOTC. There's no denying that George might have had Joe on the canvas early in the fight, but I think Frazier would have stopped George around the 9th or 10th round.
I think Frazier once said he doesn't think he would have ever been able to beat a prime Foreman. Ali, thru his taunts, had motivated Frazier to an unhuman type effort to personally beat Ali up. George was different. He came to center ring .....put that Liston type stare on you.....then began to bounce you off the canvas as many times as necessary. But who knows....they were both great fighters.
I'll say this - Frazier was damaged goods after the first Ali fight. He was never, ever, right again. His chances would be improved.
But those styles are impacted by the mental/physical attributes of the protaginist. Frazier was better fed, less well trained, and most of all, slower when he fought Foreman.
Frazier only knew one way how to fight. Even if he were a little faster on his feet and had slightly better stamina, that doesn't matter, as he'd be coming to Foreman and getting caught by those hooks and uppercuts all the time. His being lighter will make it easier to push him away too for Foreman, excessive weight was making Frazier more durable and less easy to push him around, simple physics.
Agreed. It seems like Frazier's lack of durablity vs big punchers, and come forward style make him a likely loser vs Foreman any way you slice it. Frazier's hook did not do enough damage to Foreman when it landed either. While I think Frazier's hook had great speed and stamina to it, it might have been a bit over rated power wise, and he often needed to land several good ones to put some guys away. Lyle's right hand seemed harder and look what that did to Foreman.
I think people use a little bit much black and white here. Foreman would still be favourite, but a faster, fitter and more focused Frazier would have a better chance of surviving the crucial first 3 rounds than the Frazier who fought him in 1973. If a prime Frazier was still in the fight after 3 rounds I would give him a solid chance of beating Foreman.
I think you put it absolutley perfectly here; I do object, though, to this idea that there is "no difference" between Frazier's potential performance v Foreman pre-Ali, and the reality of his physicality post-Ali. For Frazier, it was a double whammy. His body was malfunctioning going into the first fight with Ali, and there are those that say he was close to death afterwards. Certainly, his protracted hospital stay and bed of ice indicates there was a very serious problem. In addition, Frazier had conquered his Mount Everest and slipped mentally. It happened to many of the great HW's, Liston upon lifting the title, Johnson upon beating Jeffries, having beaten Ali, his nemisis, Frazier was just not as focused or driven. He was suddenly refusing the fine advice of the folk around him too. Significant.
Speed and mental focus won't change his tactics or style in general, and it's the matchup os two styles that was giving Frazier most troubles here, it wasn't lack of condition or mental weakness, he was pushed and pounded around, and he had no answer whatsoever. Although there had been examples when exceptional durability allowed a fighter with great disadvantage in everything else to come the victor, but this is not the case. Pre-Ali Frazier had troubles against primitive, but physically strong Bonavena both times. Frazier could stand a thousand punches from Ali, but he succumbed to a ten punches from Foreman not because of being worn-out or out of shape, but because the two have a different caliber of artillery.
He was all of that no doubt, but a lack of conditoning usually only makes a difference after several rounds. Perhaps he was on the physical decline and mentally a bit unprepared, but we must be careful not to fall into the trap of making it a 'fact.' Frazier was the heavyweight champion, who not long before had beaten his great nemesis Ali. He was being challenged by an undefeated pro with big power and who was a former Olympics gold medalist. Surely he could not be that lacking in motivation? Surely he was, if not 100% prepared, at least 85% prepared? Sure, he could never peak again like he did for Ali, but I've seen some people (not saying you, just saying in general) who have almost made it sound like Joe was a cripple when he fought Foreman, which I think is total nonsense. What bothers me about this matchup was that in the first fight, Joe hit George with at least two (if not three) pretty decent hooks, and they didn't even make Foreman blink. He walked through them and continued to hammer Joe. If Frazier can't dent George's chin, this one will be over quickly.
This isn't really true though, is it? I mean sharpness, mental and physical, are a reality, are they not? I consider it a fact. Yeah, this part of your post is fair. Lacking in motivation is not how I would put it, no. But you've made a differentiation of 15% here. I would say it is the top 1-3% that makes guys like Joe, Rocky, Roberto special - in Joe's case, 2% would be enough to make me wonder about a peak for peak match up - but not for long for reasons already outlined. Broadly speaking, we agree. Now, how do you think '67 Ali does against Ken Norton? 1-2 with one disputed? Or 3-0. I think it would be 3-0.