Joe Frazier Circa 1970 V George Foreman Circa 1973

[yancey]

I couldnt get past the word, "fluke," to see if I agreed or not

I effing KNEW you were going to have a comment on the word "fluke."

Whereas I TOTALLY agree with elmersalsa's description of Frazier post-FOTC, I don't necessarily agree with the usage of the word "fluke",


but......................



Wasn't it quite interesting that Foreman's camp would not give Frazier a rematch?

[raylawpc]

I couldnt get past the word, "fluke," to see if I agreed or not

I effing KNEW you were going to have a comment on the word "fluke."

Whereas I TOTALLY agree with elmersalsa's description of Frazier post-FOTC, I don't necessarily agree with the usage of the word "fluke",


but......................



Wasn't it quite interesting that Foreman's camp would not give Frazier a rematch?

So, what exactly do you call what happened on June 15, 1976?

[Goodnight, Irene]

I couldnt get past the word, "fluke," to see if I agreed or not

I effing KNEW you were going to have a comment on the word "fluke."

Whereas I TOTALLY agree with elmersalsa's description of Frazier post-FOTC, I don't necessarily agree with the usage of the word "fluke",


but......................



Wasn't it quite interesting that Foreman's camp would not give Frazier a rematch?

Well arent you astute. You figure on the sun rising this morning ahead of time as well?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I couldnt get past the word, "fluke," to see if I agreed or not

Elmer is a pretty smart guy - I think it was just poor word choice. I don't think it was a fluke, by the dictionary definition of the word, and he meant Foreman was fortunate to meet Frazier when he did.

That said, I'm not so sure Frazier could have done much better even at his absolute best against any 1972-1977 version of Foreman. I love Joe Frazier - he's my favorite champion of all-time. But sometimes there is somebody out there against whom you just don't match up well.

In his prime Joe probably would have bobbed and weaved into uppercuts with even more authority.

[yancey]

I couldnt get past the word, "fluke," to see if I agreed or not

I effing KNEW you were going to have a comment on the word "fluke."

Whereas I TOTALLY agree with elmersalsa's description of Frazier post-FOTC, I don't necessarily agree with the usage of the word "fluke",


but......................



Wasn't it quite interesting that Foreman's camp would not give Frazier a rematch?

So, what exactly do you call what happened on June 15, 1976?

By rematch, I meant Foreman giving Frazier a chance to regain the title if Foreman won their first fight.

Which the parties had agreed on, but which the Foreman camp reneged on.

Maybe the huge public demand for a Foreman-Joe "King" Roman title fight superceded any prior agreements, right?

The 1976 business, when Foreman was an ex-champ and Frazier just a shell, doesn't figure at all into what I meant by a rematch.

[ThatOne]

Bullcrap! I don't see it that way. Ali could not hit him as cleanly as he wanted it to in first fight. And he was faster than Foreman.

Ali and Foreman are two different fighters. Ali fought backing up. Foreman waited for you to attack him and then he would wallop you.

If they fought one hundred times Foreman would beat him one hundred times. Maybe you need to watch both fights again. They weren't even close enough to imagine how Frazier could make the necessary adjustments to win.

Maybe you need to see Smoking Joe in his prime. That fight with Foreman in a way, was a FLUKE. The only thing GREAT was that he beat an undefeated champion at the time. But that champion already lost something after the Fight of the Century. He fought 2 tomato cans after that, and those tomato cans lasted 5 rounds. In his prime, Smokin' Joe would have smoked them before the second round. There was no bobbing nor weaving. The desire of fighting was not there. Even some boxing experts at the time was questioning Frazier's will to fight after the Fight of the Century. He already banked 2 million dollars. He had a singing R&B group or band and was not training like he used to. It was clearly that he lost it. He lost something.

I wonder what the pick in this forum would be if we match the Frazier in his prime against a Foreman in decline or when he fought Jimmy Young. What would they say? Foreman would also ahniliate Joe? Oh, Foreman must be Superman!

No. Foreman wasn't Superman. Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young, Axel Schulz, Shannon Briggs, and Tommy Gunn proved that though I would argue that Young and especially, Gunn, Schulz*, and Briggs * beat the ghost of George Foreman. But Joe Frazier was made to order for him ; a smallish fighter with limited reach and a swarming style.

Isn't it interesting that all of George's losses came against "cutesy" fighters or fighters that adopted a "cutesy" style against him. Maybe there's a pattern there and maybe that pattern suggests something.

Your suggestion that Joe Frazier could have beat the George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young carries no weight. The George Foreman who lost to Jimmy Young had just manhandled Joe Frazier for the second time a scant nine months earlier.

Big George was all wrong for him.


*both questionable decisions but that's boxing

[raylawpc]

I effing KNEW you were going to have a comment on the word "fluke."

Whereas I TOTALLY agree with elmersalsa's description of Frazier post-FOTC, I don't necessarily agree with the usage of the word "fluke",


but......................



Wasn't it quite interesting that Foreman's camp would not give Frazier a rematch?

So, what exactly do you call what happened on June 15, 1976?

By rematch, I meant Foreman giving Frazier a chance to regain the title if Foreman won their first fight.

Which the parties had agreed on, but which the Foreman camp reneged on.

Maybe the huge public demand for a Foreman-Joe "King" Roman title fight superceded any prior agreements, right?

The 1976 business, when Foreman was an ex-champ and Frazier just a shell, doesn't figure at all into what I meant by a rematch.

I hoped that was what you meant.

Well, Foreman wouldn't be the first fighter who failed to give an immediate rematch to the champ he defeated. The problem with those rematch clauses is that somebody has to be willing to enforce it by stepping up to promote the fight. I don't remember a huge cry for a rematch immediately after George beat Joe. (In fact, I don't remember any cry at all.) And I don't remember any promoter wanting to promote an immediate rematch.

I'm not sure when Joe would have fought him while George was champ. After losing to Foreman, Frazier won a decision against Bugner (in which he didn't look good), and then lost to Ali. By May 1974, I think many folks had written Joe off. Nobody was talking about a Foreman-Frazier rematch. Of course, Joe redeemed himself by his stellar performance against Quarry, but by then Foreman had signed to fight Ali, or was close to signing. In any event, that was the fight for which everyone was clamoring. Maybe if George had defeated Ali . . . but, of course, that didn't happen.

[Crease]

I wouldn't bet on Joe at 25 to 1. He can't beat George.

I tend to agree with this, Joe Frazier was NEVER going to beat George Foreman.
Regardless of what versio of "Smokin' Joe" turned up, he would always just get overpowered and clubbed until he was knocked out of the floor.

But Frazier was pretty consistent, he beat all the contenders he faced between the late 60s & the 70s (apart from George Foreman). Foreman just had Frazier's number, it happens in boxing...

[elmersalsa]

Ali and Foreman are two different fighters. Ali fought backing up. Foreman waited for you to attack him and then he would wallop you.

If they fought one hundred times Foreman would beat him one hundred times. Maybe you need to watch both fights again. They weren't even close enough to imagine how Frazier could make the necessary adjustments to win.

Maybe you need to see Smoking Joe in his prime. That fight with Foreman in a way, was a FLUKE. The only thing GREAT was that he beat an undefeated champion at the time. But that champion already lost something after the Fight of the Century. He fought 2 tomato cans after that, and those tomato cans lasted 5 rounds. In his prime, Smokin' Joe would have smoked them before the second round. There was no bobbing nor weaving. The desire of fighting was not there. Even some boxing experts at the time was questioning Frazier's will to fight after the Fight of the Century. He already banked 2 million dollars. He had a singing R&B group or band and was not training like he used to. It was clearly that he lost it. He lost something.

I wonder what the pick in this forum would be if we match the Frazier in his prime against a Foreman in decline or when he fought Jimmy Young. What would they say? Foreman would also ahniliate Joe? Oh, Foreman must be Superman!

No. Foreman wasn't Superman. Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young, Axel Schulz, Shannon Briggs, and Tommy Gunn proved that though I would argue that Young and especially, Gunn, Schulz*, and Briggs * beat the ghost of George Foreman. But Joe Frazier was made to order for him ; a smallish fighter with limited reach and a swarming style.

Isn't it interesting that all of George's losses came against "cutesy" fighters or fighters that adopted a "cutesy" style against him. Maybe there's a pattern there and maybe that pattern suggests something.

Your suggestion that Joe Frazier could have beat the George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young carries no weight. The George Foreman who lost to Jimmy Young had just manhandled Joe Frazier for the second time a scant nine months earlier.

Big George was all wrong for him.


*both questionable decisions but that's boxing

George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young would destroy the Joe Frazier of the FOTC? All wrong for Frazier my ass. I have never believe in such theory. Of all the great performances of the last 40 years, Frazier win over Ali in fight #1 should be without a doubt, one of the top 3 greatest performances between 2 excellent heavyweights. Maybe the great Salvador Sanchez win over the great Wilfredo Gomez or the great Roberto Duran win over another great, Sugar Ray Leonard were right up there. Frazier was a very skilled heavyweight, especially on the inside. Some People believe that a fight with Foreman in his prime Frazier would never get inside? He got inside with Ali. And what happened to the Greatest? An ass whupping. Fair and square.

Of the last 40 years, I cannot recall a fighter that had more grit, heart and determination than Smokin' Joe. Especially when he was at his very best. In his prime, he was a supreme fighting machine. Maybe the great Evander Holyifield or Ali or Duran had as big of a heart inside the ring as Frazier.

It make me laugh some theories in here.

Some of these theories are:
1. Leonard "Did not fight his fight" in the ass whupping by Duran. Well, Duran was not supposed to win, regardless.
2. When Ali loses to Frazier was that Ali underestimated Frazier. Ali had a 3 year layoff. Ali was not in his prime.
3. Hearns will always beat Duran at any weight class...I differ from many in here. I believe from 154lbs on up, Hearns wins. But from welterweight down, Duran wins. It will also be the case for Leonard.
4. The great Wilfred Benitez will always beat Duran in any weight class, too. Wrong style for Duran. I guess Jimmy Young was a WRONG STYLE for Ali. He would also beat Ali in Ali's prime, right?...Give me a break.

[elmersalsa]

So, what exactly do you call what happened on June 15, 1976?

By rematch, I meant Foreman giving Frazier a chance to regain the title if Foreman won their first fight.

Which the parties had agreed on, but which the Foreman camp reneged on.

Maybe the huge public demand for a Foreman-Joe "King" Roman title fight superceded any prior agreements, right?

The 1976 business, when Foreman was an ex-champ and Frazier just a shell, doesn't figure at all into what I meant by a rematch.

I hoped that was what you meant.

Well, Foreman wouldn't be the first fighter who failed to give an immediate rematch to the champ he defeated. The problem with those rematch clauses is that somebody has to be willing to enforce it by stepping up to promote the fight. I don't remember a huge cry for a rematch immediately after George beat Joe. (In fact, I don't remember any cry at all.) And I don't remember any promoter wanting to promote an immediate rematch.

I'm not sure when Joe would have fought him while George was champ. After losing to Foreman, Frazier won a decision against Bugner (in which he didn't look good), and then lost to Ali. By May 1974, I think many folks had written Joe off. Nobody was talking about a Foreman-Frazier rematch. Of course, Joe redeemed himself by his stellar performance against Quarry, but by then Foreman had signed to fight Ali, or was close to signing. In any event, that was the fight for which everyone was clamoring. Maybe if George had defeated Ali . . . but, of course, that didn't happen.

Maybe the majority did not like Frazier at all, anyway. It was a popularity contest in the 70s.

[raylawpc]

By rematch, I meant Foreman giving Frazier a chance to regain the title if Foreman won their first fight.

Which the parties had agreed on, but which the Foreman camp reneged on.

Maybe the huge public demand for a Foreman-Joe "King" Roman title fight superceded any prior agreements, right?

The 1976 business, when Foreman was an ex-champ and Frazier just a shell, doesn't figure at all into what I meant by a rematch.

I hoped that was what you meant.

Well, Foreman wouldn't be the first fighter who failed to give an immediate rematch to the champ he defeated. The problem with those rematch clauses is that somebody has to be willing to enforce it by stepping up to promote the fight. I don't remember a huge cry for a rematch immediately after George beat Joe. (In fact, I don't remember any cry at all.) And I don't remember any promoter wanting to promote an immediate rematch.

I'm not sure when Joe would have fought him while George was champ. After losing to Foreman, Frazier won a decision against Bugner (in which he didn't look good), and then lost to Ali. By May 1974, I think many folks had written Joe off. Nobody was talking about a Foreman-Frazier rematch. Of course, Joe redeemed himself by his stellar performance against Quarry, but by then Foreman had signed to fight Ali, or was close to signing. In any event, that was the fight for which everyone was clamoring. Maybe if George had defeated Ali . . . but, of course, that didn't happen.

Maybe the majority did not like Frazier at all, anyway. It was a popularity contest in the 70s.

Maybe among the general public. But I think Joe was quite popular among the hard core fans. And I know for a fact that Yank Durham had few enemies among the other managers and promoters. Everybody has a few enemies, but Yank had a reputation of being okay to work with.

But that aside, what promoter wanted the fight? What boxing writer demanded a rematch on Joe's behalf? Heck, I was a big, big Frazier fan back in the day (still am), and I didn't think Frazier deserved an immediate rematch after the shellacking he got. Boxing is as much a business as a sport, after all. Who was gonna promote it except, maybe, somebody in Philly?

[ThatOne]

Maybe you need to see Smoking Joe in his prime. That fight with Foreman in a way, was a FLUKE. The only thing GREAT was that he beat an undefeated champion at the time. But that champion already lost something after the Fight of the Century. He fought 2 tomato cans after that, and those tomato cans lasted 5 rounds. In his prime, Smokin' Joe would have smoked them before the second round. There was no bobbing nor weaving. The desire of fighting was not there. Even some boxing experts at the time was questioning Frazier's will to fight after the Fight of the Century. He already banked 2 million dollars. He had a singing R&B group or band and was not training like he used to. It was clearly that he lost it. He lost something.

I wonder what the pick in this forum would be if we match the Frazier in his prime against a Foreman in decline or when he fought Jimmy Young. What would they say? Foreman would also ahniliate Joe? Oh, Foreman must be Superman!

No. Foreman wasn't Superman. Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young, Axel Schulz, Shannon Briggs, and Tommy Gunn proved that though I would argue that Young and especially, Gunn, Schulz*, and Briggs * beat the ghost of George Foreman. But Joe Frazier was made to order for him ; a smallish fighter with limited reach and a swarming style.

Isn't it interesting that all of George's losses came against "cutesy" fighters or fighters that adopted a "cutesy" style against him. Maybe there's a pattern there and maybe that pattern suggests something.

Your suggestion that Joe Frazier could have beat the George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young carries no weight. The George Foreman who lost to Jimmy Young had just manhandled Joe Frazier for the second time a scant nine months earlier.

Big George was all wrong for him.


*both questionable decisions but that's boxing

George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young would destroy the Joe Frazier of the FOTC? All wrong for Frazier my ass. I have never believe in such theory. Of all the great performances of the last 40 years, Frazier win over Ali in fight #1 should be without a doubt, one of the top 3 greatest performances between 2 excellent heavyweights. Maybe the great Salvador Sanchez win over the great Wilfredo Gomez or the great Roberto Duran win over another great, Sugar Ray Leonard were right up there. Frazier was a very skilled heavyweight, especially on the inside. Some People believe that a fight with Foreman in his prime Frazier would never get inside? He got inside with Ali. And what happened to the Greatest? An ass whupping. Fair and square.

Of the last 40 years, I cannot recall a fighter that had more grit, heart and determination than Smokin' Joe. Especially when he was at his very best. In his prime, he was a supreme fighting machine. Maybe the great Evander Holyifield or Ali or Duran had as big of a heart inside the ring as Frazier.

It make me laugh some theories in here.

Some of these theories are:
1. Leonard "Did not fight his fight" in the ass whupping by Duran. Well, Duran was not supposed to win, regardless.
2. When Ali loses to Frazier was that Ali underestimated Frazier. Ali had a 3 year layoff. Ali was not in his prime.
3. Hearns will always beat Duran at any weight class...I differ from many in here. I believe from 154lbs on up, Hearns wins. But from welterweight down, Duran wins. It will also be the case for Leonard.
4. The great Wilfred Benitez will always beat Duran in any weight class, too. Wrong style for Duran. I guess Jimmy Young was a WRONG STYLE for Ali. He would also beat Ali in Ali's prime, right?...Give me a break.

What you fail to realize is that Ali and George Foreman are two different fighters with styles that could not be more different. It's like comparing a Ferrari with a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. And just because Frazier beat Ali one time out of three doesn't mean he could ever beat George Foreman.

Riddle me this. I hate the phrase but it's appropriate here. Why did Frazier and Norton give Ali all kinds of trouble yet Ali dispacthed of Foreman, who destoyed Frazier and Norton?

Perhaps the styles of the respective boxers had a little bit to do with it.

Young had a style that would always make Ali look bad. But the young Ali with his speed and reflexes would have looked much more impressive than the 34 year old, 230 pound , out of shape blob that won a controversial decision in Landover Maryland.

[Rambo]

LOL On this board fighters primes are so extreme, is there REALLY that much difference between Joe Frazier 1970 & 1973? The fight would probably have gone the same way

[BoxBuzz]

LOL On this board fighters primes are so extreme, is there REALLY that much difference between Joe Frazier 1970 & 1973? The fight would probably have gone the same way

With buzz saws like Frazier, commonly referred to as "swarmers", the thoughtful answer may be "yes".

For those who relied heavily on power, perhaps less so, and for those with sterling ring generalship maybe the same. (And you can argue that Joe had a bit of all three, but in the end, it was his endurance, and forward gear that may define his "prime".) When his eyesight was good, and his endurance at it's peak, he rarely needed (nor did he choose) to take a step back. Fighters like Joe don't typically come with "extended" warranty plans.

[ThatOne]

LOL On this board fighters primes are so extreme, is there REALLY that much difference between Joe Frazier 1970 & 1973? The fight would probably have gone the same way

With buzz saws like Frazier, commonly referred to as "swarmers", the thoughtful answer may be "yes".

For those who relied heavily on power, perhaps less so, and for those with sterling ring generalship maybe the same. (And you can argue that Joe had a bit of all three, but in the end, it was his endurance, and forward gear that may define his "prime".) When his eyesight was good, and his endurance at it's peak, he rarely needed (nor did he choose) to take a step back. Fighters like Joe don't typically come with "extended" warranty plans.

If he was so "done" after the FOTC why was he able to have two more competitive fights with Ali and take apart Jerry Quarry and beat Joe Bugner?

Why aren't you willing to pay credence to the notion that when a "little man" swarms a "big man" with pole axes for fists it's not going to end up well for the "little man"?

Even Sun Tzu in "The Art Of War" would suggest a "Pickett's Charge" on a vastly more powerful opponent is not going to end well. Perhaps a little deception is in order but Smokin Joe was incapable of that.

[yancey]

LOL On this board fighters primes are so extreme, is there REALLY that much difference between Joe Frazier 1970 & 1973? The fight would probably have gone the same way

With buzz saws like Frazier, commonly referred to as "swarmers", the thoughtful answer may be "yes".

For those who relied heavily on power, perhaps less so, and for those with sterling ring generalship maybe the same. (And you can argue that Joe had a bit of all three, but in the end, it was his endurance, and forward gear that may define his "prime".) When his eyesight was good, and his endurance at it's peak, he rarely needed (nor did he choose) to take a step back. Fighters like Joe don't typically come with "extended" warranty plans.

Very well said.

[elmersalsa]

No. Foreman wasn't Superman. Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young, Axel Schulz, Shannon Briggs, and Tommy Gunn proved that though I would argue that Young and especially, Gunn, Schulz*, and Briggs * beat the ghost of George Foreman. But Joe Frazier was made to order for him ; a smallish fighter with limited reach and a swarming style.

Isn't it interesting that all of George's losses came against "cutesy" fighters or fighters that adopted a "cutesy" style against him. Maybe there's a pattern there and maybe that pattern suggests something.

Your suggestion that Joe Frazier could have beat the George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young carries no weight. The George Foreman who lost to Jimmy Young had just manhandled Joe Frazier for the second time a scant nine months earlier.

Big George was all wrong for him.


*both questionable decisions but that's boxing

George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young would destroy the Joe Frazier of the FOTC? All wrong for Frazier my ass. I have never believe in such theory. Of all the great performances of the last 40 years, Frazier win over Ali in fight #1 should be without a doubt, one of the top 3 greatest performances between 2 excellent heavyweights. Maybe the great Salvador Sanchez win over the great Wilfredo Gomez or the great Roberto Duran win over another great, Sugar Ray Leonard were right up there. Frazier was a very skilled heavyweight, especially on the inside. Some People believe that a fight with Foreman in his prime Frazier would never get inside? He got inside with Ali. And what happened to the Greatest? An ass whupping. Fair and square.

Of the last 40 years, I cannot recall a fighter that had more grit, heart and determination than Smokin' Joe. Especially when he was at his very best. In his prime, he was a supreme fighting machine. Maybe the great Evander Holyifield or Ali or Duran had as big of a heart inside the ring as Frazier.

It make me laugh some theories in here.

Some of these theories are:
1. Leonard "Did not fight his fight" in the ass whupping by Duran. Well, Duran was not supposed to win, regardless.
2. When Ali loses to Frazier was that Ali underestimated Frazier. Ali had a 3 year layoff. Ali was not in his prime.
3. Hearns will always beat Duran at any weight class...I differ from many in here. I believe from 154lbs on up, Hearns wins. But from welterweight down, Duran wins. It will also be the case for Leonard.
4. The great Wilfred Benitez will always beat Duran in any weight class, too. Wrong style for Duran. I guess Jimmy Young was a WRONG STYLE for Ali. He would also beat Ali in Ali's prime, right?...Give me a break.

What you fail to realize is that Ali and George Foreman are two different fighters with styles that could not be more different. It's like comparing a Ferrari with a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. And just because Frazier beat Ali one time out of three doesn't mean he could ever beat George Foreman.

Riddle me this. I hate the phrase but it's appropriate here. Why did Frazier and Norton give Ali all kinds of trouble yet Ali dispacthed of Foreman, who destoyed Frazier and Norton?

Perhaps the styles of the respective boxers had a little bit to do with it.

Young had a style that would always make Ali look bad. But the young Ali with his speed and reflexes would have looked much more impressive than the 34 year old, 230 pound , out of shape blob that won a controversial decision in Landover Maryland.

To me, there is no such thing as styles make a fight. You just better than the other fighter and that is it.

Frazier gave Ali an ass whupping in Ali vs Frazier I.
In Ali and Frazier III both were shot.
I guess you forgot Ali vs Foreman fight #2. Would Ali win that one in 1975 or '76 or '77?

In boxing, you are as good as your last fight. Nobody has a prime forever. And it is logical. You are getting hit in the head here and there. Some guy might give you a detached retina beating or you just had a hard fight that took a toll on you for ever. That was the case with Frazier vs Ali I. The fight was BRUTAL, but Frazier CLEARLY won handling Ali a good beating. And he beat him good. He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not. But we cannot take away Smokin' Joe's victory. It was the greatest victory in boxing's biggest and most anticipated fight of all-time.

Ken Norton, to me, beat Ali all 3 times they met. I cannot tell if Norton could beat Foreman in a rematch or the fight would be the same way. These were 4 extraordinary heavyweights that each one of them could beat the other and viceversa.

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson. He gave Foreman a boxing lesson. Does that mean that Young beats Ali in his prime also? Maybe yes, maybe not. But I could never say that Young was all wrong for Ali and Foreman. Let the fighters fight and see what happens.

[ThatOne]

George Foreman that lost to Jimmy Young would destroy the Joe Frazier of the FOTC? All wrong for Frazier my ass. I have never believe in such theory. Of all the great performances of the last 40 years, Frazier win over Ali in fight #1 should be without a doubt, one of the top 3 greatest performances between 2 excellent heavyweights. Maybe the great Salvador Sanchez win over the great Wilfredo Gomez or the great Roberto Duran win over another great, Sugar Ray Leonard were right up there. Frazier was a very skilled heavyweight, especially on the inside. Some People believe that a fight with Foreman in his prime Frazier would never get inside? He got inside with Ali. And what happened to the Greatest? An ass whupping. Fair and square.

Of the last 40 years, I cannot recall a fighter that had more grit, heart and determination than Smokin' Joe. Especially when he was at his very best. In his prime, he was a supreme fighting machine. Maybe the great Evander Holyifield or Ali or Duran had as big of a heart inside the ring as Frazier.

It make me laugh some theories in here.

Some of these theories are:
1. Leonard "Did not fight his fight" in the ass whupping by Duran. Well, Duran was not supposed to win, regardless.
2. When Ali loses to Frazier was that Ali underestimated Frazier. Ali had a 3 year layoff. Ali was not in his prime.
3. Hearns will always beat Duran at any weight class...I differ from many in here. I believe from 154lbs on up, Hearns wins. But from welterweight down, Duran wins. It will also be the case for Leonard.
4. The great Wilfred Benitez will always beat Duran in any weight class, too. Wrong style for Duran. I guess Jimmy Young was a WRONG STYLE for Ali. He would also beat Ali in Ali's prime, right?...Give me a break.

What you fail to realize is that Ali and George Foreman are two different fighters with styles that could not be more different. It's like comparing a Ferrari with a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. And just because Frazier beat Ali one time out of three doesn't mean he could ever beat George Foreman.

Riddle me this. I hate the phrase but it's appropriate here. Why did Frazier and Norton give Ali all kinds of trouble yet Ali dispacthed of Foreman, who destoyed Frazier and Norton?

Perhaps the styles of the respective boxers had a little bit to do with it.

Young had a style that would always make Ali look bad. But the young Ali with his speed and reflexes would have looked much more impressive than the 34 year old, 230 pound , out of shape blob that won a controversial decision in Landover Maryland.

To me, there is no such thing as styles make a fight. You just better than the other fighter and that is it.

Frazier gave Ali an ass whupping in Ali vs Frazier I.
In Ali and Frazier III both were shot.
I guess you forgot Ali vs Foreman fight #2. Would Ali win that one in 1975 or '76 or '77?

In boxing, you are as good as your last fight. Nobody has a prime forever. And it is logical. You are getting hit in the head here and there. Some guy might give you a detached retina beating or you just had a hard fight that took a toll on you for ever. That was the case with Frazier vs Ali I. The fight was BRUTAL, but Frazier CLEARLY won handling Ali a good beating. And he beat him good. He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not. But we cannot take away Smokin' Joe's victory. It was the greatest victory in boxing's biggest and most anticipated fight of all-time.

Ken Norton, to me, beat Ali all 3 times they met. I cannot tell if Norton could beat Foreman in a rematch or the fight would be the same way. These were 4 extraordinary heavyweights that each one of them could beat the other and viceversa.

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson. He gave Foreman a boxing lesson. Does that mean that Young beats Ali in his prime also? Maybe yes, maybe not. But I could never say that Young was all wrong for Ali and Foreman. Let the fighters fight and see what happens.

" He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

-elmersalsa

I think you contradicted yourself but that's for another discussion however I admire your candor.

Styles do make fights. Knowing the styles and skills of the two fighters is a handy guide to how a fight will turn out but, of course, it is not always dispositive. However in this instance it clearly is. Again, I defer to the great Cus D'Amato:

"It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

[elmersalsa]

What you fail to realize is that Ali and George Foreman are two different fighters with styles that could not be more different. It's like comparing a Ferrari with a Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. And just because Frazier beat Ali one time out of three doesn't mean he could ever beat George Foreman.

Riddle me this. I hate the phrase but it's appropriate here. Why did Frazier and Norton give Ali all kinds of trouble yet Ali dispacthed of Foreman, who destoyed Frazier and Norton?

Perhaps the styles of the respective boxers had a little bit to do with it.

Young had a style that would always make Ali look bad. But the young Ali with his speed and reflexes would have looked much more impressive than the 34 year old, 230 pound , out of shape blob that won a controversial decision in Landover Maryland.

To me, there is no such thing as styles make a fight. You just better than the other fighter and that is it.

Frazier gave Ali an ass whupping in Ali vs Frazier I.
In Ali and Frazier III both were shot.
I guess you forgot Ali vs Foreman fight #2. Would Ali win that one in 1975 or '76 or '77?

In boxing, you are as good as your last fight. Nobody has a prime forever. And it is logical. You are getting hit in the head here and there. Some guy might give you a detached retina beating or you just had a hard fight that took a toll on you for ever. That was the case with Frazier vs Ali I. The fight was BRUTAL, but Frazier CLEARLY won handling Ali a good beating. And he beat him good. He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not. But we cannot take away Smokin' Joe's victory. It was the greatest victory in boxing's biggest and most anticipated fight of all-time.

Ken Norton, to me, beat Ali all 3 times they met. I cannot tell if Norton could beat Foreman in a rematch or the fight would be the same way. These were 4 extraordinary heavyweights that each one of them could beat the other and viceversa.

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson. He gave Foreman a boxing lesson. Does that mean that Young beats Ali in his prime also? Maybe yes, maybe not. But I could never say that Young was all wrong for Ali and Foreman. Let the fighters fight and see what happens.

" He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

-elmersalsa

I think you contradicted yourself but that's for another discussion however I admire your candor.

Styles do make fights. Knowing the styles and skills of the two fighters is a handy guide to how a fight will turn out but, of course, it is not always dispositive. However in this instance it clearly is. Again, I defer to the great Cus D'Amato:

"It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

In what I contradicted myself? People wanted to make excuses when Ali lost to Frazier. He lost the biggest fight of his career and that was it. Everybody loses. Of all the fighters that could have beaten Ali, circa 1965 to 1967, Smokin' Joe could be one of them. And why not? Another one would be Larry Holmes in my own opinion. Now Foreman? mmmm...If he lost to an Ali in decline, how much more when Ali was at his peak?

I cannot phantom Foreman beating Frazier when Frazier was at his very best. He just beat a champion that was undefeated, ready to be taken. That was it. Those left hooks would have been too detrimental for Big George. He never faced someone that could throw that left hook in that fashion. He caught Smokin' Joe in an off night.

Now, about styles makes fights. The great Sonny Liston beat the crap out of Floyd Patterson. Ali beat the crap out of Liston. That means Patterson beats Ali?

What happened to Patterson with Ali, sir?

[ThatOne]

To me, there is no such thing as styles make a fight. You just better than the other fighter and that is it.

Frazier gave Ali an ass whupping in Ali vs Frazier I.
In Ali and Frazier III both were shot.
I guess you forgot Ali vs Foreman fight #2. Would Ali win that one in 1975 or '76 or '77?

In boxing, you are as good as your last fight. Nobody has a prime forever. And it is logical. You are getting hit in the head here and there. Some guy might give you a detached retina beating or you just had a hard fight that took a toll on you for ever. That was the case with Frazier vs Ali I. The fight was BRUTAL, but Frazier CLEARLY won handling Ali a good beating. And he beat him good. He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not. But we cannot take away Smokin' Joe's victory. It was the greatest victory in boxing's biggest and most anticipated fight of all-time.

Ken Norton, to me, beat Ali all 3 times they met. I cannot tell if Norton could beat Foreman in a rematch or the fight would be the same way. These were 4 extraordinary heavyweights that each one of them could beat the other and viceversa.

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson. He gave Foreman a boxing lesson. Does that mean that Young beats Ali in his prime also? Maybe yes, maybe not. But I could never say that Young was all wrong for Ali and Foreman. Let the fighters fight and see what happens.

" He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

-elmersalsa

I think you contradicted yourself but that's for another discussion however I admire your candor.

Styles do make fights. Knowing the styles and skills of the two fighters is a handy guide to how a fight will turn out but, of course, it is not always dispositive. However in this instance it clearly is. Again, I defer to the great Cus D'Amato:

"It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

In what I contradicted myself? People wanted to make excuses when Ali lost to Frazier. He lost the biggest fight of his career and that was it. Everybody loses. Of all the fighters that could have beaten Ali, circa 1965 to 1967, Smokin' Joe could be one of them. And why not? Another one would be Larry Holmes in my own opinion. Now Foreman? mmmm...If he lost to an Ali in decline, how much more when Ali was at his peak?

I cannot phantom Foreman beating Frazier when Frazier was at his very best. He just beat a champion that was undefeated, ready to be taken. That was it. Those left hooks would have been too detrimental for Big George. He never faced someone that could throw that left hook in that fashion. He caught Smokin' Joe in an off night.

Now, about styles makes fights. The great Sonny Liston beat the crap out of Floyd Patterson. Ali beat the crap out of Liston. That means Patterson beats Ali?

What happened to Patterson with Ali, sir?

This thread is about Frazier and Foreman as much as you want to make it about Ali and Frazier.

And this is your exact quote regarding the status of Frazier and Ali during their first fight:

"He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

If you don't think you contradicted yourself there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

And your analogy about Liston, Patterson, and Ali makes no sense. Ali is 4-0 against those two. And I am precise and careful with my words. I said looking at a fighters style is a guide to how he will will do against another fighter. I never said it was dispositive. You also have to look at other factors like their size and skill set

As the great Cus D'Amato said "It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

[BoxBuzz]

Well to spin the subject a bit and bring Tyson into the mix.......At the end of the day, regardless of how remarkably gifted Joe or Mike were, I would not bet on either of them against George. I feel this way regarding Tyson because he was scared of George and that would have likely led to Mike's first publicly demonstrated self implosion, which is why I believe he would have fared even worse than Joe, who did not lack in the confidence dept.

Can you possibly imagine Tyson getting up over and over again like Joe? Going back for more? That's nearly a laughable thought when you ponder the history of both fighters.

[elmersalsa]

" He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

-elmersalsa

I think you contradicted yourself but that's for another discussion however I admire your candor.

Styles do make fights. Knowing the styles and skills of the two fighters is a handy guide to how a fight will turn out but, of course, it is not always dispositive. However in this instance it clearly is. Again, I defer to the great Cus D'Amato:

"It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

In what I contradicted myself? People wanted to make excuses when Ali lost to Frazier. He lost the biggest fight of his career and that was it. Everybody loses. Of all the fighters that could have beaten Ali, circa 1965 to 1967, Smokin' Joe could be one of them. And why not? Another one would be Larry Holmes in my own opinion. Now Foreman? mmmm...If he lost to an Ali in decline, how much more when Ali was at his peak?

I cannot phantom Foreman beating Frazier when Frazier was at his very best. He just beat a champion that was undefeated, ready to be taken. That was it. Those left hooks would have been too detrimental for Big George. He never faced someone that could throw that left hook in that fashion. He caught Smokin' Joe in an off night.

Now, about styles makes fights. The great Sonny Liston beat the crap out of Floyd Patterson. Ali beat the crap out of Liston. That means Patterson beats Ali?

What happened to Patterson with Ali, sir?

This thread is about Frazier and Foreman as much as you want to make it about Ali and Frazier.

And this is your exact quote regarding the status of Frazier and Ali during their first fight:

"He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

If you don't think you contradicted yourself there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

And your analogy about Liston, Patterson, and Ali makes no sense. Ali is 4-0 against those two. And I am precise and careful with my words. I said looking at a fighters style is a guide to how he will will do against another fighter. I never said it was dispositive. You also have to look at other factors like their size and skill set

As the great Cus D'Amato said "It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

Bullcrap. Once Frazier gets inside as he did with Ali, it's all Joe Frazier. What analogy of Liston-Ali-Patterson does not make sense? That is what are you implying! "Styles makes fights" right? Ain't each one of them had their own style?

Foreman did not know how to fight inside. He gets tired after 5 rounds. And he never had the heart of Frazier. He beat Joe while Joe was probably not interested fully to the sport. The FOTC did not do him good. It was brutal. This makes sense: "You are as good as your last fight"

[yancey]

" He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

-elmersalsa

I think you contradicted yourself but that's for another discussion however I admire your candor.

Styles do make fights. Knowing the styles and skills of the two fighters is a handy guide to how a fight will turn out but, of course, it is not always dispositive. However in this instance it clearly is. Again, I defer to the great Cus D'Amato:

"It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

In what I contradicted myself? People wanted to make excuses when Ali lost to Frazier. He lost the biggest fight of his career and that was it. Everybody loses. Of all the fighters that could have beaten Ali, circa 1965 to 1967, Smokin' Joe could be one of them. And why not? Another one would be Larry Holmes in my own opinion. Now Foreman? mmmm...If he lost to an Ali in decline, how much more when Ali was at his peak?

I cannot phantom Foreman beating Frazier when Frazier was at his very best. He just beat a champion that was undefeated, ready to be taken. That was it. Those left hooks would have been too detrimental for Big George. He never faced someone that could throw that left hook in that fashion. He caught Smokin' Joe in an off night.

Now, about styles makes fights. The great Sonny Liston beat the crap out of Floyd Patterson. Ali beat the crap out of Liston. That means Patterson beats Ali?

What happened to Patterson with Ali, sir?

This thread is about Frazier and Foreman as much as you want to make it about Ali and Frazier.

And this is your exact quote regarding the status of Frazier and Ali during their first fight:

"He beat Ali when both of them were at their absloute peak. Maybe the layoff hurt Ali, maybe not."

If you don't think you contradicted yourself there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

And your analogy about Liston, Patterson, and Ali makes no sense. Ali is 4-0 against those two. And I am precise and careful with my words. I said looking at a fighters style is a guide to how he will will do against another fighter. I never said it was dispositive. You also have to look at other factors like their size and skill set

As the great Cus D'Amato said "It's suicide against Foreman if you're short and fight a swarming attacking style like Marciano or Frazier,"

Bullcrap. Once Frazier gets inside as he did with Ali, it's all Joe Frazier. What analogy of Liston-Ali-Patterson does not make sense? That is what are you implying! "Styles makes fights" right? Ain't each one of them had their own style?

Foreman did not know how to fight inside. He gets tired after 5 rounds. And he never had the heart of Frazier. He beat Joe while Joe was probably not interested fully to the sport. The FOTC did not do him good. It was brutal. This makes sense: "You are as good as your last fight"[/quote]


Agree.

To me this fight is all about Frazier getting to the inside and staying there.

Not nearly the farfetched idea some of you guys seem to think.

[ThatOne]

Big George didn't need to fight inside. That's for small men. He used his eighty two inch reach to murder smallish opponents before they ever got close.

Look what Foreman did to Norton and Frazier in their second fight after Norton's and Frazier's trainers cried to the refs about his pushing, as if Big George was the only fighter who found a short cut. He still poleaxed them, without the pushing...

Joe Frazier had about as much chance of beating George Foreman in a boxing contest as Precious has of beating Halle Berry in a beauty contest.

[yancey]

Forget the second Foreman-Frazier fight. Bury it out back. Put it in a fricking rocket ship and send it to Neptune. Frazier was an ABSOLUTELY SHOT FIGHTER in '76 and what happened is
not relevant in this discussion.

sigh.....

The Frazier of '69-'70 does indeed stand a viable chance of getting to the inside of '73 Foreman and sticking there. If prime Frazier gets inside and stays there, Foreman would wilt. Once Foreman started floundering things would go relatively quick and it ends somewhere around 7 rounds.