What if? Foreman vs Frazier - March 8 1971

[yancey]

I agree that Joe left a lot in the FOTC but I think Foreman would have been too much for him at any time. Same as I think Foreman would have been too much for Mike Tyson. Tyson knew that too. It's all a matter of styles.

^

This is a quite reasonable opinion. I can accept this.

The style match up of smaller swarmer coming into a big slugger is indeed not a good one. (for the swarmer)

Still, Frazier at his very best had a viable (35%) chance of overcoming the disadvantage, imo. He has to get tight, stay tight, and get past those first 4 rounds in decent shape. Then the tide might very well have turned.

But if it's 35% you should bet on Foreman and say that he's a favourite here.

Some Ali fans will never, ever forgive Joe for prevailing in the Big One, aka the FOTC.

Oh, pls. Not again with that bullshit that everyone who says sth wrong about Frazier must be Ali's fan or vice versa. There is the same crap in football with Messi and Ronaldo like they're only these two and nobody else.

1. I have consistently said that prime '73 Foreman would be the favorite to beat ANY version of Frazier, because of the terrible style disadvantage for the swarmer.

Do you understand what "35%" and "viable" mean in this situation?

Let me help you, since you are obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It means Foreman is likely to win, but that prime Frazier has the potential to pull off the upset.

2. I don't believe nor have I ever indicated that one is EITHER a Frazier or Ali fan, no in between.

Do you know the difference between the word "some", which I used, and the word "everyone", which you are using?


You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

[HomicideHenry]

There is an element of truth in the thought process that Joe was 'done' after defeating Muhammad Ali. The man personally felt that there was no other worlds to conquer. His style in the ring, and the wear and tear in training, not to mention the quality of opposition he faced--- he simply knew that the FOTC was the best he ever could be, and never would be the same man ever again. I read a few accounts, where it said Joe wanted to retire on top after the Ali fight, and that Futch wanted him to. But, alas, pride and money.

Had he retired after the FOTC, who knows where we would rate him today. Joe always felt he was right behind Marciano and Louis. So it is an interesting proposition when you think about it. I think mentally Joe wouldn't be there to face Foreman after having defeated Ali, because who else really mattered?

[yancey]

There is an element of truth in the thought process that Joe was 'done' after defeating Muhammad Ali. The man personally felt that there was no other worlds to conquer. His style in the ring, and the wear and tear in training, not to mention the quality of opposition he faced--- he simply knew that the FOTC was the best he ever could be, and never would be the same man ever again. I read a few accounts, where it said Joe wanted to retire on top after the Ali fight, and that Futch wanted him to. But, alas, pride and money.

Had he retired after the FOTC, who knows where we would rate him today. Joe always felt he was right behind Marciano and Louis. So it is an interesting proposition when you think about it. I think mentally Joe wouldn't be there to face Foreman after having defeated Ali, because who else really mattered?

More than an "element of truth", it WAS the truth.

Frazier was never the same post-FOTC.

I lived that era. I know it to be absolutely true.

btw, Durham was more influential in Joe's career than Futch, up until Yank's death in '73.

Yank is the one that advised Joe to retire post-FOTC. He knew Joe had accomplished what he set out to do and that the desire was no longer the same.

[Duch]

1. I have consistently said that prime '73 Foreman would be the favorite to beat ANY version of Frazier, because of the terrible style disadvantage for the swarmer.

Do you understand what "35%" and "viable" mean in this situation?

Let me help you, since you are obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It means Foreman is likely to win, but that prime Frazier has the potential to pull off the upset.

If I had written that you should write that Foreman is a favourite here, then it would have meant that I understand these terms, right?

I've just thought that you wrote earlier that Frazier has a bigger chance but it was referred to a situation from 1971 for Foreman too. My mistake.

2. I don't believe nor have I ever indicated that one is EITHER a Frazier or Ali fan, no in between.

Do you know the difference between the word "some", which I used, and the word "everyone", which you are using?

Saying "some Ali fans" indicates that they're are Ali's fans...

[SteveO]

Of course Frazier had a % chance of beating Foreman. If 'Smokin' Joe' landed his left hook flush on the chin who knows how Foreman would have reacted. But as already said the chances were small because of their boxing styles.
Another example of styles: Ken Norton was an easy win for 'Big George' but Norton's style was a nightmare for Ali and Holmes.

[evrenb]

That is what made Ali the Greatest ; he could overcome more styles than the others. His trouble was with the slick counterpuncher types like Norton and Young.
But remember this the Ali of 1964-1967 would have beaten them more convincingly as he was quicker, younger, fitter and most importantly far more focused.

[HomicideHenry]

That is what made Ali the Greatest ; he could overcome more styles than the others. His trouble was with the slick counterpuncher types like Norton and Young.
But remember this the Ali of 1964-1967 would have beaten them more convincingly as he was quicker, younger, fitter and most importantly far more focused.

I'm not so sure about that. Alot of people would think that, because he was in his prime, but one can also say that he faced the superior quality of opposition following his prime--- not to say anyone was a bum among the losers, but they certainly weren't world beaters. The best of the bunch may very well of been Patterson, the ex champion.

Chuvalo, Folley, Williams, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, didn't exactly provide Ali with any real struggles or were too competitive. Now, imagine Ali in the ring with a Frazier or Norton or Foreman or Young at that stage in his career, and he definitely would of had tougher nights. Not to say he would lose, he was so fast at that stage of the game he could make mistakes and get away with them with ease. However I have to believe that if the same Ali who was barnstorming Europe and Canada in the 60's fought someone like Holmes, Marciano, Tunney, etc. he would of been in some serious trouble even then.

[evrenb]

That is what made Ali the Greatest ; he could overcome more styles than the others. His trouble was with the slick counterpuncher types like Norton and Young.
But remember this the Ali of 1964-1967 would have beaten them more convincingly as he was quicker, younger, fitter and most importantly far more focused.

I'm not so sure about that. Alot of people would think that, because he was in his prime, but one can also say that he faced the superior quality of opposition following his prime--- not to say anyone was a bum among the losers, but they certainly weren't world beaters. The best of the bunch may very well of been Patterson, the ex champion.

Chuvalo, Folley, Williams, Cooper, London, Mildenberger, didn't exactly provide Ali with any real struggles or were too competitive. Now, imagine Ali in the ring with a Frazier or Norton or Foreman or Young at that stage in his career, and he definitely would of had tougher nights. Not to say he would lose, he was so fast at that stage of the game he could make mistakes and get away with them with ease. However I have to believe that if the same Ali who was barnstorming Europe and Canada in the 60's fought someone like Holmes, Marciano, Tunney, etc. he would of been in some serious trouble even then.

I think that is a fair reasoning and gives us something to think about. I do believe though that you can assess something from a fighter regardless of the opposition (in the 1960's) when you consider his future pedigree and performance against the elite. Ali was always a brave fighter, he was always smart. What he didnt have in his early career was championship experience but in my opinion he proved himself in the Chuvalo and Terrell fights. He also had an incredible amateur career. He was much faster of foot, and he wasn't clowning at that point. Ali was all business then and he was really a great fighter...to defeat Liston at barely 22 is incredible to me and is overlooked. Liston was considered invinvible...here is Ali with what, 19 fights as a pro standing up to him, overcoming the substance in the eyes etc and prevailing.
If I asked my wife if I was better at 22 or now she would reply ; you are more experienced now! ;;-) (that's an analogy)

[HomicideHenry]

Oh I aint taking anything away from him, as I have said on countless occasions Ali is the measuring stick by which all other heavyweights must be compared to. However, if I were to throw out one interesting point, is that the Ali of '67 fought far more different than the Ali of say '70-'74. Eddie Futch was a genius, when he instilled in Joe Frazier the game plan to defeat Ali. He knew that Ali wouldnt change his style, not for one night, and knew that Ali was still trying to fight the way he did in '67. Futch had the game plan, and it was to force Ali to throw the uppercut and then Joe could counter with the left. The FOTC was far wider than people even realize. I figure, even if Ali was faster on the night at MSG he would of probably lost regardless.

[evrenb]

I do not agree it was wide decision.

[Giancarlo]

I do not agree it was wide decision.

That opinion will not be greeted with much appreciation in here.

[yancey]

I do not agree it was wide decision.

9-6 was about right that night, to my way of thinking.

On a points system, it would have been a bit wider. The 15th would have been a two point difference and the 11th could have been the same.

[Ambling Alp II]

9-6 is what I have it as as well. That is a competitive fight. All Ali would have done to win was to win two more rounds. Given that Ali in prime was harder to hit, had more stamina, and was quicker, it's pretty obvious that he easily would have been able to have done so.

[Giancarlo]

9-6 is what I have it as as well. That is a competitive fight. All Ali would have done to win was to win two more rounds. Given that Ali in prime was harder to hit, had more stamina, and was quicker, it's pretty obvious that he easily would have been able to have done so.

I bet your reasonable opinion isn't greeted too well in here.

[ThatOne]

This thread would be better served by having Granberry, Il Duce, and shelia contribute.

[evrenb]

This thread would be better served by having Granberry, Il Duce, and shelia contribute.

Thanks for the input...I do not see what input Il Duce would have. It is not regarding Ali but Frazier and Foreman. ??

[Giancarlo]

This thread would be better served by having Granberry, Il Duce, and shelia contribute.

All banned so unlikely to be able to add their racist nonsense.

[Nile4000]

I think the Frazier who fought Foreman wasn't FOTC version. The FOTC version of Frazier drags Foreman late, stopping him in 10, 11 rounds.

[gilgamesh]

Foreman would've beaten Frazier a year earlier than he did.

[Nile4000]

Foreman would've beaten Frazier a year earlier than he did.

Don't know. Foreman was still kind of green, and Frazier still had the umph factor.