Smokin Joe Frazier

[Robinson]

What is "chin".

I have found it often relates to style, condition and where the guy
puts himself...and then.....how susceptble they are to being concussed
or their powers to recovery.

In any case, his chin as you out it would no doubt be the 'same'.

Weight does not neccesarily relate to condition. One can be the same
weight for two fights, but in a lot different condition. The fact does remain
is that Frazier was not in his best shape (regardless of weight) against
Foreman. And condition makes a big difference from the opening seconds...
you feel different when you are in good or bad shape...your timing, movement,
beat etc is on or off.

There are many ways of going straight forwards, but Frazier threw a better
jab in that period and was not a left hook happy one trick mule.

In any case, Foreman was supreme in that first bout against Joe. He did
the right things to get such a devastating win. BUT...I stated I do not
find it hard to see it going Fraziers way had it been a late 1960s Joe.
Though if I was to bet money on it...I would put it on Foreman by
stoppage. I just do not go for the whole....fighter A has fighter B's
number period mindset.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Yes, weight of course doesn't tell the whole story. People tend to focus on Frazier's being out of shape, though --- which, I grant, he was --- & push it a little far. The outcome was so convincing, & Frazier so incapable of dramatically altering his style --- that I can't see him ever winning. I think hindsight also hurts Foreman a little, here. He had beaten some good competition, but no one close to Frazier's level --- a Frazier pretty damn close to his own prime, I might add (how many thought Frazier past his peak at the time? Very few, if any). Two years & two fights had passed since his masterclass against Ali. He was close to his peak, & not as far off top-form as people sometimes intimate. Foreman was a heavy underdog, not because he was looked upon lightly --- as I stated, he'd already beaten some decent opposition, & was Olympic-pedigree. Rather, it was because people had such a healthy respect for the champ.

IMO, Frazier wasn't ever a one-trick pony. When do you think he stopped throwing to the body? I never saw him give that up. Some people think of Frazier's left hook as the be-all & end-all of his offense --- the way I've always seen it is, his bodyattack was what truly defeated his enemies. The left hook, beautiful blow that it was, was icing for the cake which was his ever-consistent, ever-feverish assault downstairs.

Frazier's left hook, for mine, punctuates his offense --- it doesn't define it.

[Robinson]

He always was a body banger. No disputing that. But Frazier set the
left hook up less often after the Ali fight. he also seldom used the
right hand as a power shot there after also.

That is what I mean by one trick pony.

[yancey]

Yes, weight of course doesn't tell the whole story. People tend to focus on Frazier's being out of shape, though --- which, I grant, he was --- & push it a little far. The outcome was so convincing, & Frazier so incapable of dramatically altering his style --- that I can't see him ever winning. I think hindsight also hurts Foreman a little, here. He had beaten some good competition, but no one close to Frazier's level --- a Frazier pretty damn close to his own prime, I might add (how many thought Frazier past his peak at the time? Very few, if any). Two years & two fights had passed since his masterclass against Ali. He was close to his peak, & not as far off top-form as people sometimes intimate. Foreman was a heavy underdog, not because he was looked upon lightly --- as I stated, he'd already beaten some decent opposition, & was Olympic-pedigree. Rather, it was because people had such a healthy respect for the champ.

IMO, Frazier wasn't ever a one-trick pony. When do you think he stopped throwing to the body? I never saw him give that up. Some people think of Frazier's left hook as the be-all & end-all of his offense --- the way I've always seen it is, his bodyattack was what truly defeated his enemies. The left hook, beautiful blow that it was, was icing for the cake which was his ever-consistent, ever-feverish assault downstairs.

Frazier's left hook, for mine, punctuates his offense --- it doesn't define it.

Perceptive thoughts about Frazier's body attack.

I don't know how old you are, GI, but I KNEW Frazier was losing it the night he cut up and stopped Ron Stander on national TV. Some people, including the SI writer, were impressed by Frazier's performance that night but the warning signs and red flags were evident. Frazier was staggered by Stander in the first and he seemed to be losing his punch and aggressiveness and JOY in fighting. I thought right then that he was hanging around for one more big payday with Ali.

Frazier was overweight, undertrained, past his peak, and overconfident for Foreman. He was ready to be taken. The style matchup, swarmer vs slugger, is a bad one for Frazier, but let me tell you, it was a far cry from the peak Frazier of '69-'70 and the fighter he was when he stepped into the ring in Jamaica that night. No way that he was just past it.

Prime Frazier is a live underdog with prime Foreman. Frazier has to be made to understand he is facing the most dangerous puncher he has ever faced. He must be extra cautious against the uppercut as he goes in in those early rounds. There must be a referee that will enforce the rules and not let George get away with positioning Joe on the outside in HIS punching zone with the push-offs and other moves. If (and of course this is all "ifs") Frazier gets George to round 4, lays on the chest, works the body, then I think it might have been surprising how quickly and convincingly the tide might have turned.

Sometimes things that can look devastating one way can take a surprising turn when the game is changed. Sometimes a fighter that looks potentially awesome early on can wilt and turn into something else once he feels the tables turning. I think there is that possibility with '69-'70 Frazier taking on George, even with the style problem.

Certainly a better prospect than "a snowballs chance in hell."

[Goodnight, Irene]

Fair play, mate. I still don't see how Frazier either absorbs or avoids Foreman's punches, which, to my thinking, spells certain doom.

No knock on Frazier for that, even from those who may agree with me. Foreman beats nearly any HW champ in history, on his best night. Of the significant swarmers (Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Tyson), I give Dempsey the best shot, & that's slim. Unless you were to count Jeffries as a swarmer. His chances would be considerably better than the rest, perhaps. Difficult to say for sure.

[I Feel Fine]

I Feel Fucked is now Moe.

DD

Thank you.

I would not favor prime Frazier to beat prime Foreman, to say the least. To say that 60s Ali in his prime might reverse a couple of rounds and get the close decision against Frazier, who he beat twice in later fights, is one thing. To say that 60s Frazier would beat the man who dropped him six times and stopped him in two rounds requires a bit of imagination. Frazier was always a slow starter, and you don't beat Foreman by walking into his uppercuts. Joe's strategy in the second fight seems like delaying the inevitable.

[hhaehre]

So Joe didn't take a beating in the first Foreman fight? And despite the fact that Joe was essentially blind in one eye, obese and well past his prime, he still landed more effective punches in the rematch.

Of course he took a beating in the first fight but some have the idea that he was so much better in the second and I think he was even worse. In the second fight it looked like Joe knew he couldn't win and it was the first and only time I saw that in Joe. He may have landed more effective punches but that did not take much considering he probably landed in single digits in the first fight. He lost all rounds in the second fight in my opinion.

The thought isn' that the old decrepit Joe would have had a chance against George, but that the prime, much quicker and healthy Frazier could have slightly adapted his style to take Foreman deep and then stop him when George invariable weakened later in the fight. Hardly a stretch for any reasonable observer.

Well I just don't see it and most of all I don't see Joe adapting his style. He fought one way his entire career with the exception of Foreman II and unless he knew what Foreman could do to him why would he adapt his style ? You assume that he had the experience of the first fight and was in his prime which makes it more than hypothetical imo.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The last two sentences of the above post are something I touched on. John L argues Frazier may've changed his style somewhat, but, as we saw in Jamaica, Frazier attacks Foreman head-on. You can't assume he's fought Foreman twice, figured him out, & then give that knowledge to the prime Frazier in a one-off battle. Doesn't work that way --- to say nothing of the fact Frazier can't adapt his style in any significant manner, anyway. I'd like to adapt my body so I could fly --- you won't see it happen, though.

If George Foreman knows what happens when he fights Muhammad Ali in Africa, he never signs for the fight to be held there, & perhaps, given Ali is considered no contest for him, never signs for the fight, period. Enjoys a happy, healthy reign, probably until the end of the decade.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Frazier only knew one way. In his prime he would have plunged into Foreman with ferocity and he still would have been bobbing and weaving into sledgehammers. I love Joe, but he doesn't beat George in 100 fights. Same thing as Holyfield/Tyson, sometimes a guy has another guy, no matter what.

[hhaehre]

Frazier only knew one way. In his prime he would have plunged into Foreman with ferocity and he still would have been bobbing and weaving into sledgehammers. I love Joe, but he doesn't beat George in 100 fights. Same thing as Holyfield/Tyson, sometimes a guy has another guy, no matter what.

I'd give a prime Tyson more than a healthy chance against Holyfield

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The problem would be that he would have to fight a prime Holyfield. Mike would never be competitive.

[hhaehre]

The problem would be that he would have to fight a prime Holyfield. Mike would never be competitive.

Ot but here goes:
That's a mighty bold statement you make there. I would certainly pick a prime Tyson over a prime Holyfield. Holyfields hw career is one of hyperbole. If you look at it with any kind of objectivity you will find some good and entertaining fights but you will not find a dominating long reigning champion.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Being a dominating champion and being dominant over Mike Tyson's mind and style are two different things entirely. If every defense was mike tyson, Holyfield would break Joe Louis record. But he had his own flaws that could be exploited, Mike just wasn't a guy who would ever be able to do it.

Holyfield also took on the best possible opposition, his whole career. You're going to lose some when you go at it like that.

He was physically and mentally stronger than tyson. That's what did it more than anything else, and none of that changes ten years earlier. The fight would be more exciting, as they both threw more punches in their youth. But the end result is the same, Mike getting his ass whooped. Evander had his number and both of them knew it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The problem would be that he would have to fight a prime Holyfield. Mike would never be competitive.

Not saying who I'd favour, but, two words --- Bert...Cooper.

[Robinson]

And it is the Cooper and Qawi fights that lead me to believe that
Holyfield and Frazier would be an exciting pick em match up.

I think what damaged Holyfield is that he got in his head that
a weeks notice, rehabed Cooper was not a threat to take serious
so his game and mind was effected by this arrogance.

In any case a 1991 match between these two would have been
vastly different to a Tyson-Holy bought of 96-97. Either man
had the other's number then.

[yancey]

And it is the Cooper and Qawi fights that lead me to believe that
Holyfield and Frazier would be an exciting pick em match up.

I think what damaged Holyfield is that he got in his head that
a weeks notice, rehabed Cooper was not a threat to take serious
so his game and mind was effected by this arrogance.

In any case a 1991 match between these two would have been
vastly different to a Tyson-Holy bought of 96-97. Either man
had the other's number then.

You're right, Frazier-Holyfield is a hell of a matchup.

Smoke would prevail, late stoppage.

[I Feel Fine]

I think Frazier beats Holyfield, though I suspect it would go the distance.

[Collins2000]

"yancey" is still shilling away for his frazier.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Frazier, IMO, would win a very tight decision (perhaps an MD, like the one Holyfield dropped to Moorer in '94) over twelve rounds, his effectiveness having suffered quite visibly under Holyfield's combinations & vastly superior physical strength in the clinch. Bowe showed what a good bodyassault could do to Holyfield's petrol tank, though --- & Frazier's is plainly better, as good as Bowe's downstairs game was.

Over fifteen, the Heavyweight version of Holyfield never convinced me he'd have the lungs to last. A late-rounds corner stoppage, with Holyfield absolutely gasping for oxygen, would be my bet in Frazier's favour, over fifteen. When the match is at the peak of its competitiveness (seen, IMO, in rounds six-through-eleven), it would be epic. I can just envision a tiring Holyfield sucking it up, taking stock & firing back furiously, trying to get Frazier out of there. Frazier'd respond in kind, & the crowd would consider their ticket worth every nickel.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The problem would be that he would have to fight a prime Holyfield. Mike would never be competitive.

Not saying who I'd favour, but, two words --- Bert...Cooper.

And? Bert Cooper took a horrific beating, Tyson wouldn't have had any fun in Atlanta that night.

[Ezzard]

Being a dominating champion and being dominant over Mike Tyson's mind and style are two different things entirely. If every defense was mike tyson, Holyfield would break Joe Louis record. But he had his own flaws that could be exploited, Mike just wasn't a guy who would ever be able to do it.

Holyfield also took on the best possible opposition, his whole career. You're going to lose some when you go at it like that.

He was physically and mentally stronger than tyson. That's what did it more than anything else, and none of that changes ten years earlier. The fight would be more exciting, as they both threw more punches in their youth. But the end result is the same, Mike getting his ass whooped. Evander had his number and both of them knew it.

Agreed. Tyson would beat common opponents more convincingly but he wouldn't beat Holyfield.

[hhaehre]

The problem would be that he would have to fight a prime Holyfield. Mike would never be competitive.

Not saying who I'd favour, but, two words --- Bert...Cooper.

And? Bert Cooper took a horrific beating, Tyson wouldn't have had any fun in Atlanta that night.

He came in on a weeks notice and put Holyfield on the floor. To suggest with certainty that Tyson could not knock out Holyfield is absurd.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

The problem would be that he would have to fight a prime Holyfield. Mike would never be competitive.

Not saying who I'd favour, but, two words --- Bert...Cooper.[/quote]


And? Bert Cooper took a horrific beating, Tyson wouldn't have had any fun in Atlanta that night.[/quote]

He came in on a weeks notice and put Holyfield on the floor. To suggest with certainty that Tyson could not knock out Holyfield is absurd.[/quote]

Why? Because he was stopped by Bowe with hepatitis or Toney at 41?

Cooper hurt him and twenty seconds later he was getting stomped on. I'm sure Tyson would have handled the 200 UC that Cooper did with a smile.

They fought 14 rds when Holyfield was supposed to be finished and Holyfield was never in trouble.

You like Frazier over Foreman & tyson over Holyfield and I'm absurd? Ok

[hhaehre]

He came in on a weeks notice and put Holyfield on the floor. To suggest with certainty that Tyson could not knock out Holyfield is absurd.

Why? Because he was stopped by Bowe with hepatitis or Toney at 41?

Right, because without hepatitis, a hardened heart, age or what have you, Holyfield was actually knockout proof. You may like Holyfields chances vs. a prime Tyson (I don't) but to categorically dismiss a Tyson victory is foolish to say the least.

You like Frazier over Foreman & tyson over Holyfield and I'm absurd? Ok

Yes you are absurd if you don't think Holyfield could possibly suffer a ko at the hands of a prime Tyson.
In case you get tired of making things up, this is what I actually wrote on Frazier-Foreman.

Foreman had Fraziers number and I don't think it would have been different with a prime Frazier. Somkin Joe would have to take Foreman deep into the fight to succeed but I fear he would not last more than 5 rounds or so, even in his prime.

[yancey]

Frazier, IMO, would win a very tight decision (perhaps an MD, like the one Holyfield dropped to Moorer in '94) over twelve rounds, his effectiveness having suffered quite visibly under Holyfield's combinations & vastly superior physical strength in the clinch. Bowe showed what a good bodyassault could do to Holyfield's petrol tank, though --- & Frazier's is plainly better, as good as Bowe's downstairs game was.

Over fifteen, the Heavyweight version of Holyfield never convinced me he'd have the lungs to last. A late-rounds corner stoppage, with Holyfield absolutely gasping for oxygen, would be my bet in Frazier's favour, over fifteen. When the match is at the peak of its competitiveness (seen, IMO, in rounds six-through-eleven), it would be epic. I can just envision a tiring Holyfield sucking it up, taking stock & firing back furiously, trying to get Frazier out of there. Frazier'd respond in kind, & the crowd would consider their ticket worth every nickel.

Exactly as I see it. Frazier on a merciful late stoppage.

15 rounds is the real championship distance, I think most of us would agree.