Heavier means, Frazier would have even less chance at moving the mountain of the man than he did the younger version. He couldn't manhandle the young, trim Foreman. He definitely won't manhandle the immovable old man version. Slower is meaningless if Frazier still can't get to him, and he definitely would not be able to. It's widely accepted that old Foreman defensively was better than his younger version, despite being slower. And his jab was arguably better, I'm pretty sure George himself has said this before. What he lost in speed he more than made up for in craft. That crouch, load up hook simply wouldn't work on either version of Foreman. There is simply no way Frazier would beat Foreman (maybe the Foreman that fought Briggs or Schultz but that's it), even younger, older Foreman was too far a bridge for Frazier, just a bad matchup. Not sure why this is even being disputed. Nothing I'm saying is outlandish. Qawi was a crouch and explode hooker, Frazier was a crouch and explode hooker. How would one not realistically look immediately at the parallels. Was Frazier better than HW Qawi, absolutely. But Foreman against that style..............
Yes, Frazier caught Foreman with a solid hook and that`s when Foreman decided he needed to finish him, sitting back being patient and not frenzying will get Foreman smashed, he`ll eat tons of hooks.
Because old George, as great as he was, wasn't the same. Michael Moorer on his best day was nowhere near Joe Frazier. Mosr certainly not the hyper amped up FOTC Frazier. Get Frazier pissed off enough, as in the FOTC, top heavyweights lose imo. George would be getting hit way too much. Look at Alex Stewart, floored twice early. George had little left after that. Alex Stewart...do I need to say this... ain't Smokin Joe.
Why would he manhandle him? He wouldn't need to. Why would he "definitely not be able to to" I highly doubt an older Foreman would be able to shave Frazier off of him. Frazier would make him pay for extending his arms and leaving himself open. Foreman in his younger years was actually quite fast, which is why he was able to get away with his tactics. It didn't help that Frazier himself had also deteriorated somewhat since TFOTC. Since we're taking Foreman's word here, he also said Frazier would've beaten him at both their bests. I'd agree he used his jab MORE in his second career, but when he used his jab in the 70s, inconsistent as it was, it was a thing of beauty. It was described as the best jab since Joe Louis (though I'd argue Liston's was better but that's another argument for another day). Their's nothing simple about this. 1991 Foreman was very different than 1973 Foreman and was quite frankly a shell of himself Foreman had trouble with an aging Qawi early in the fight, and ahead on one point on one card and two points on the other.....and admitted he found Qawi difficult to hit. If he would've beaten Frazier as effortlessly as you described I'd expect a much better performance.
