Foreman-Frazier ll

[ThatOne]

When people make the case that if they fought at different times the outcome would have been different. I watched their rematch in 76 and Frazier actually looked worse. He wasn't the same fighter backing up,

If you argue he was past it at 32 that's ok. But the post-Zaire Foreman wasn't the monster of 1973.

[Goodnight, Irene]

When people make the case that if they fought at different times the outcome would have been different. I watched their rematch in 76 and Frazier actually looked worse. He wasn't the same fighter backing up,

If you argue he was past it at 32 that's ok. But the post-Zaire Foreman wasn't the monster of 1973.

You arrived too late for it, but we recently had that very argument. Some members here contend Foreman was a better fighter, post-Zaire. I think he went downhill. Both had seen better days --- Frazier's problems were more physical, & more pronounced, overall. Foreman, mentally, just never really recovered from his first loss.

[ThatOne]

When people make the case that if they fought at different times the outcome would have been different. I watched their rematch in 76 and Frazier actually looked worse. He wasn't the same fighter backing up,

If you argue he was past it at 32 that's ok. But the post-Zaire Foreman wasn't the monster of 1973.

You arrived too late for it, but we recently had that very argument. Some members here contend Foreman was a better fighter, post-Zaire. I think he went downhill. Both had seen better days --- Frazier's problems were more physical, & more pronounced, overall. Foreman, mentally, just never really recovered from his first loss.

I watched the second fight recently. This isn't a Rocky movie where Rocky changed his style to fight Clubber Lang and even in the Rocky movie he reverted to his old style. Frazier was effective, bobbing and weaving. He wasn't the same fighter backing up. Sometimes cliches are true and in this case the cliche that "styles make fights" is true. But with a wrinkle; Fraaier could only fight with one style.

[dempseyfire]

When people make the case that if they fought at different times the outcome would have been different. I watched their rematch in 76 and Frazier actually looked worse. He wasn't the same fighter backing up,

If you argue he was past it at 32 that's ok. But the post-Zaire Foreman wasn't the monster of 1973.

You arrived too late for it, but we recently had that very argument. Some members here contend Foreman was a better fighter, post-Zaire. I think he went downhill. Both had seen better days --- Frazier's problems were more physical, & more pronounced, overall. Foreman, mentally, just never really recovered from his first loss.

I watched the second fight recently. This isn't a Rocky movie where Rocky changed his style to fight Clubber Lang and even in the Rocky movie he reverted to his old style. Frazier was effective, bobbing and weaving. He wasn't the same fighter backing up. Sometimes cliches are true and in this case the cliche that "styles make fights" is true. But with a wrinkle; Fraaier could only fight with one style.

He wasn't effective but he lasted longer b/c he was fighting a much more defensive fight . . .not rocket science.

[ThatOne]

Exactly. Because he didn't have the skill set to alter his style or I should say his relative lack of size made it hard for him to alter his style.
It was sad watching him hop around instead of bob and weave.

[Mr E]

I am among those who believe that the 224 1/2 pound Foreman of the Frazier rematch was the best Foreman ever. Before Zaire, I don't think he had the mental toughness to win a grueling fight against a really motivated opponent, nor had he either the sense or, perhaps, the ability, to pace himself.

I love the way Foreman fights in the Frazier rematch -- aggressive without being reckless, moving in behind that thunderbolt straight left hand, which he followed with hard, straight rights. He consistently beat Frazier to the punch throughout that fight, not because he had the quicker hands but because he was throwing straighter, more disciplined punches. Great night for the big fella, IMO.

[Goodnight, Irene]

He had no business letting that version of Frazier survive so long.

The best Foreman would've smoked the Frazier of the rematch in absolutely no more than two rounds. Perhaps even one, on a good night.

[Robinson]

Frazier approached that fight alot differently. Hence
him surviving longer.

Foreman was not as 'raw' though he was still powerful,
he was steady, patient and had his game plan set out
before him. That Foreman in my opinion was a better
animal than the Jamaica express train.

Here is a lil thing to think about...

Losing like Foreman did makes you think things through,
makes you change your methods, training and knocks
your arrogance down a level. You work on form,
and so on so as to make sure it does not happen again.

Frazier was not the cat of 1969-71, he knew this, so he
fought in some ways like a Marvis of his better bouts,
some what evasive and boxing minded. Frazier knew that
he could not take clean shots from Foreman, he knew he
had to have a game plan. He knew what he needed to do
to win.

When you lose a fight you look at things differently often
than the guy that won it. The loser usually has to change
his game plan, cos he klnows what he did wrong.
The victor usually thinks he has the other guys number,
because he knows what he did right.

That is why this is an interesting fight to me, that gets under
appreciated.

[ThatOne]

Frazier approached that fight alot differently. Hence
him surviving longer.

Foreman was not as 'raw' though he was still powerful,
he was steady, patient and had his game plan set out
before him. That Foreman in my opinion was a better
animal than the Jamaica express train.

Here is a lil thing to think about...

Losing like Foreman did makes you think things through,
makes you change your methods, training and knocks
your arrogance down a level. You work on form,
and so on so as to make sure it does not happen again.

Frazier was not the cat of 1969-71, he knew this, so he
fought in some ways like a Marvis of his better bouts,
some what evasive and boxing minded. Frazier knew that
he could not take clean shots from Foreman, he knew he
had to have a game plan. He knew what he needed to do
to win.

When you lose a fight you look at things differently often
than the guy that won it. The loser usually has to change
his game plan, cos he klnows what he did wrong.
The victor usually thinks he has the other guys number,
because he knows what he did right.

That is why this is an interesting fight to me, that gets under
appreciated.

Respectfully, that fight proves the limitations of Joe Frazier and that Foreman always had his number.

He gets mucho merits for winning the FOTC but major demerits for his abysmal performances against George Foreman.

Ditto for Ken Norton and his competitive fights with Ali.

Them's just the facts.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I don't know if I would criticise Frazier all that heavily for the fights with Foreman --- if for no other reason than it appears likely to me the other (somewhat) stylistically-similar greats of the division (Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson) likely would not have fared much better, if at all, against the Foreman who appeared in the ring for The Showdown At Sundown. It's one thing if a guy has your number (as in the case of Barkley against Hearns, or Mosley, with Forrest --- or even Ali with Norton, for that matter), when the opponent is a lesser man, but when he's an all-timer like Foreman is? Nah, I'll give Frazier a (relative) pass.

The one possible exception down through the ages --- maybe --- would be Jeffries. Under the right circumstances & settings, Jeffries, perhaps, would've been able to best Foreman.

[allworld80]

The one possible exception down through the ages --- maybe --- would be Jeffries. Under the right circumstances & settings, Jeffries, perhaps, would've been able to best Foreman.

Two different eras. The style Jeffries used would have gotten him rolled up like a cheap rug in no time. Foreman walks right through it.