George Foreman Circa 1973 V Joe Frazier Circa 1971

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 21 Dec 2009, 09:07

Who wins and how?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Dec 2009, 09:26

Frazier walks in...Foreman hits him repeatedly...fight ends.

1,000 times, in a 1,000 different settings, the outcome ain't changin'. Put every dime I ever earned on it, brojam.

maninthemiddle · Post by **maninthemiddle** » 21 Dec 2009, 09:32

Have to go for Foreman every time. I am one of those who thinks that if Foreman had been a bit more savvy with Ali he would be right at the top of most peoples all time list.
Not surprised he never got a return I think it would have been a lot closer second time around.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Dec 2009, 09:34

maninthemiddle wrote:Have to go for Foreman every time. I am one of those who thinks that if Foreman had been a bit more savvy with Ali he would be right at the top of most peoples all time list.
Not surprised he never got a return I think it would have been a lot closer second time around.

Did you vote for Foreman to actually floor him for a ten-count, though? I can't see that, really --- the Frazier of '71 was in better shape, & slightly more difficult to hit, so I think he survives to at least see the ref wave it off...for the third time, incidentally.

I await Yancey's analysis with baited breath 8)

SaadOffTheDeck · Post by **SaadOffTheDeck** » 21 Dec 2009, 10:39

I must have had a dream about this one. George pounds him off the canvas like a basketball until his hands hurt and the ref can watch no more.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 21 Dec 2009, 11:58

Foreman by knockout every time.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Dec 2009, 18:16

Of the ten votes, only six are for Foreman. Someone has Frazier knocking Foreman clean out.

Why are there no explanations?

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 21 Dec 2009, 18:20

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Of the ten votes, only six are for Foreman. Someone has Frazier knocking Foreman clean out.

Why are there no explanations?

I'm waiting for Yancey.

John Galt · Post by **John Galt** » 21 Dec 2009, 18:45

For me this is an over/under fight. Foreman would have to get Frazier early or Frazier would get him later. I remember the 1973-77 Foreman as a fighter who was less effective with each passing round. Some say he had bad stamina, some say it was his pacing. In this match up, the first 3 rounds are Foreman's, the next two are dangerous for Frazier, but Frazier should be fighting more evenly, after that the fight should be Frazier's. If the fight went into the 6th I don't think Foreman would make it to 15 or even 12.

The best Frazier was a bobbing weaving fighter who should be hard to hit by a ponderous swinger like Foreman. In addition, if Frazier could work Foreman's body in rounds 4 and 5, it should diminish Foreman's remaining power. I would probably take Frazier but I would be nervous until the 6 or 7th round.

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 21 Dec 2009, 18:53

John Galt wrote:For me this is an over/under fight. Foreman would have to get Frazier early or Frazier would get him later. I remember the 1973-77 Foreman as a fighter who was less effective with each passing round. Some say he had bad stamina, some say it was his pacing. In this match up, the first 3 rounds are Foreman's, the next two are dangerous for Frazier, but Frazier should be fighting more evenly, after that the fight should be Frazier's. If the fight went into the 6th I don't think Foreman would make it to 15 or even 12.

The best Frazier was a bobbing weaving fighter who should be hard to hit by a ponderous swinger like Foreman. In addition, if Frazier could work Foreman's body in rounds 4 and 5, it should diminish Foreman's remaining power. I would probably take Frazier but I would be nervous until the 6 or 7th round.

Interesting

So how did Frazier deteriorate to the point of not even giving George a competitive fight two years later. The classic retort is that he was a shot fighter at 29 years old. IMHO, that comes perilously close to the Tyson fanatics argument that he was somehow past it for his fight with Buster Douglas at twenty four years old.

He came at Foreman like he came at Ali and everybody else. It just didn't work against Foreman.

John Galt · Post by **John Galt** » 21 Dec 2009, 19:08

To me, the story of the fight was Joe Frazier's weight. He weighed around 215, and the added weight didn't look good. To me, the added weight indicates that he didn't train for the fight the way he did for Ali, Ellis, and others. He probably took Foreman as more of a Stander, or Daniels than he did as a legitimate threat.

In addition, there have been rumors of serious health issues for Frazier, I don't know if those rumors are true or not. Regardless, he just didn't seem like the same boxer against Foreman or Daniels or Stander that he had been earlier. Maybe the desire and intensity was lacking.

I know I am in the minority in picking Frazier, but to me Foreman was a fighter with a huge stamina/pacing problem, and big, wide, telegraphed punches. The best Frazier should be a difficult target for a wide swinging boxer. I think Frazier would have survived for 3, been in a dogfight for 2 more, then would have taken over.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Dec 2009, 19:11

Precisely, ThatOne. Last time around this argument surfaced, it frankly astonished me to see the extent to which Frazier was, "so far past-it" when he first fought Foreman. Bullsh!t. He did deteriorate somewhat, & also took Foreman lightly, but people lost perspective on it. The other thing people harp on about is the weight --- all eight pounds of it, as though Frazier were lugging around a volkswagon strapped to his waist.

Galt is trying to make the point that Frazier, "should" be hard to hit for a wild swinger like Foreman. Well, lots of people should've been hard to hit for Foreman, watching his technique. Fact is, very few were. Why? Because the man simply jumped on them from the opening bell. He doesn't even need to do that against a man who is walking straight at him, & has a proven inability to absorb the punches thrown his way.

Show me a fight in which Frazier took someone out late & didn't absorb a beating. There aren't too many, are there?

To me, it's such a simple equation. You have to accept a fighter like Frazier is going to be hit, & hit often by Foreman, so where's the case he survives? There isn't one. Foreman is just going to stand there while Frazier works his body, Galt? LOL. It's almost as if you've never heard of their first fight. Either that, or we are back to the ridiculous claim Frazier, "had badly deteriorated" since the FOTC, a whole three bouts earlier.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Dec 2009, 19:12

Of course, right on cue --- Frazier's weight

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 23 Dec 2009, 18:59

joe looked too heavy in foreman 1 - he looked pretty clumsy and out of sorts too. looked better in the second fight IMHO. if frazier 1971 version had fought george i give him a good chance due to his connecting fairly regularly with his left hook. yes he is coming straight at george and will get heavily tagged but his bobbing movement allows him to stay in the fight until george feels the pace. joe has the better power punch and could easily KO foreman.
the damage joe picked up against ali is a major factor in the outcomes against george in my opinion.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 23 Dec 2009, 20:14

Frazier could, "easily" KO Foreman?

Nothing came easy for Frazier against world-class (let alone, all-timer) opposition with his style. Foreman was knocked out once in nearly eighty fights --- half of which came after his thirty-seventh birthday.

Btw, if anyone's forgotten, Frazier lands the left hook --- cleanly & sharply --- in both fights with Foreman. He doesn't budge. Frazier never beats Foreman unless he can beat him down over time, & how does that happen? It doesn't, short of Foreman simply standing there & letting Frazier beat on him like a heavy bag.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 24 Dec 2009, 11:45

the 1971 version of frazier never landed a single left hook on foreman in both fights. its conjecture. however, yes, the other version of smokin joe did catch george with little effect. in my view joe was a lesser man in every dept of his art in both foreman fights because of his heroic efforts against ali.

i say "easily" in the sense that it is, for me anyway, easy to imagine joe starching george with that hook, which you do not seem to credit with any potency at all.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Dec 2009, 16:58

Ah, of course --- Frazier hit Foreman with the left hook in 1973, not 1971 --- & they were such vastly different punches.

You are willing me to be confrontational.

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 24 Dec 2009, 17:05

Big George gets no respect on this board.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Dec 2009, 17:10

I think you'll change your mind if you're around a little longer. He gets his due, for the most part.

It will always be so while I'm around 8)

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 24 Dec 2009, 19:37

its a funny thing about power and punching with confidence. its just as important as making the right moves or taking a shot. this game is all in the mind, as well you know.
come on, be as confrontational as you want to be, its only a thread.

yancey · Post by **yancey** » 24 Dec 2009, 19:47

John Galt wrote:For me this is an over/under fight. Foreman would have to get Frazier early or Frazier would get him later. I remember the 1973-77 Foreman as a fighter who was less effective with each passing round. Some say he had bad stamina, some say it was his pacing. In this match up, the first 3 rounds are Foreman's, the next two are dangerous for Frazier, but Frazier should be fighting more evenly, after that the fight should be Frazier's. If the fight went into the 6th I don't think Foreman would make it to 15 or even 12.

The best Frazier was a bobbing weaving fighter who should be hard to hit by a ponderous swinger like Foreman. In addition, if Frazier could work Foreman's body in rounds 4 and 5, it should diminish Foreman's remaining power. I would probably take Frazier but I would be nervous until the 6 or 7th round.

Excellent analysis. Almost exactly as I see it.

Another point that needs to be added is that a competent job must be turned in by the third man in the ring. The push-offs and assorted wrestling moves of Foreman must be nipped in the bud early.

My only question would be is how badly of a wad would Irene's panties be in when she sees her hero George collapse into a blubbering, quivering heap of inviable tissue mass along about the 10th.

Buzzsaw Frazier circa 1969 undoubtedly is one of the most dangerous H2H heavies of all-time.

John Galt · Post by **John Galt** » 24 Dec 2009, 19:50

There is a big difference between a motivated, hungry athlete and an unmotivated, satisfied athlete. Age, prime years, etc. have little to do with it. When an athlete no longer has the desire to train hard, and prepare correctly, the athlete is not the same. It can happen at any age.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 24 Dec 2009, 19:55

Console yourself with all the fantasies you like, Yance --- I'll settle quite happily for the reality, mate --- Foreman 2 Frazier 0 (in fights which weren't even competitive), & a general consensus across the Boxing community Foreman had his number, any day, any time

Dare to dream 8)

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 25 Dec 2009, 16:11

thats why there is an inherant problem with this thread.
we are not discussing how foreman beat joe twice (and i totally agree about georges domination in both of those) HOWEVER we ARE meant to be using our critical faculties to discuss what would happen in the title of the thread.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 25 Dec 2009, 18:56

It should be blindingly obvious what happens.

A question like this one should be some sort of elementary knowledge test for budding Boxing fans