Prime Frazier vs Prime Foreman

[abdelfadeeli]

I remember the newspaper articles about how Foreman was nothing.He built his record against bums.
(Reminds me of the way we talk about Deontay Wilder.)
Frazier I do not think took Foreman as seriously as he should have.I do not think the end result would of
changed.Foreman was destined to win that night against a slightly past prime Frazier.

Prime for prime I still pick Foreman but by a 9th or 10th round knock out.In a fantastic fight that we would of all
been talking about today.

If this fight went into the 10th round, you think Foreman would knock Frazier out? If Frazier gets past the early rounds It's all Frazier. A completely shot Frazier got out of the early rounds against Foreman. We don't have to wonder if he could get out of the early rounds against Foreman . He did.

[Broomhall]

I dont get this Frazier not being in his prime for the first fight. He was 29, coming off an unbeaten record including wins over Ali, Quarry and Ellis. He was confident, fit and strong.

Like many heavyweights Fraziers weight varied for fights. He is quoted before the fight "dont worry. I am more prepared for this fight than any other"

He was 214 for Foreman 215.5 for Stander, 217.5 for Daniels. Futch was also pleased with how Fraziers camp went. He may have been over confident, but that doesnt mean he wasnt in his prime or hadnt prepared properly.

How could this have not been a prime Joe Frazier?

Let's skip the prime discussion and talk about preperation. Have you watched many Frazier fights? Do you really think the Frazier that fought in the 3 post FOTC fights looked as well conditioned as the FOTC or earlier Frazier? You even listed his weights 214 - 217.5 in these three post FOTC fights, but you don't list his weights prior to those fights. I'll save you the trouble. 205.5 Ali, 209 Foster, 205 Ellis, 203.5 Quarry.

Fighters and their handlers always say they're ready before a fight. Foreman was a big underdog, and while everybody looked at him as a much better opponent than Daniels and Stander, he was generally regarded as a raw, protected prospect.

How can you skip the discussion around preparation since that is the basis on which you say Frazier lost the fight? A 29 year old heavyweight world champion, may well have decided to come in heavier against the big Foreman. And yes I have watched many of Fraziers fights. I grew up in that era.

If and it is a big if for which there is absolutely no evidence Frazier came in under prepared, to balance that he had way more experience than Foreman.

Frazier was at his peak and Foreman dismantled him. I dont see any need to try and revise history.

[yancey]

I dont get this Frazier not being in his prime for the first fight. He was 29, coming off an unbeaten record including wins over Ali, Quarry and Ellis. He was confident, fit and strong.

Like many heavyweights Fraziers weight varied for fights. He is quoted before the fight "dont worry. I am more prepared for this fight than any other"

He was 214 for Foreman 215.5 for Stander, 217.5 for Daniels. Futch was also pleased with how Fraziers camp went. He may have been over confident, but that doesnt mean he wasnt in his prime or hadnt prepared properly.

How could this have not been a prime Joe Frazier?

Let's skip the prime discussion and talk about preperation. Have you watched many Frazier fights? Do you really think the Frazier that fought in the 3 post FOTC fights looked as well conditioned as the FOTC or earlier Frazier? You even listed his weights 214 - 217.5 in these three post FOTC fights, but you don't list his weights prior to those fights. I'll save you the trouble. 205.5 Ali, 209 Foster, 205 Ellis, 203.5 Quarry.

Fighters and their handlers always say they're ready before a fight. Foreman was a big underdog, and while everybody looked at him as a much better opponent than Daniels and Stander, he was generally regarded as a raw, protected prospect.

How can you skip the discussion around preparation since that is the basis on which you say Frazier lost the fight? A 29 year old heavyweight world champion, may well have decided to come in heavier against the big Foreman. And yes I have watched many of Fraziers fights. I grew up in that era.

If and it is a big if for which there is absolutely no evidence Frazier came in under prepared, to balance that he had way more experience than Foreman.

Frazier was at his peak and Foreman dismantled him. I dont see any need to try and revise history.

I feel like I'm in danger of losing brain cells reading this nonsense.

Even Foreman admits that the Frazier he got in Jamaica was clearly not the same guy that won the FOTC.

[fanman]

Foreman was a monster, maybe the strongest, most powerful heavyweight of all time. frazier was a short, slow starting come straight ahead fighter. Just visually you can see foreman dwarfed joe frazier. So even a razor sharp smoking joe would only have a 'punchers chance' against big george.
Although joe of 73 was not the same as of 71 he was not so far removed from his prime, and as another poster mentioned he had vastly more experience than big george.

[BoxBuzz]

Yep, Yancey has cited on several occasions that though Joe may have got the nod from the Judges at the FOTC, he was clearly on his last lap after that. Never again the same fighter. That's was the price he was willing to pay to get that win on his record. Although Yancey says he should have retired AFTER that fight. Perhaps his better choice would have been to have retired BEFORE he got in the ring with Ali. Cuz it was all down hill from there.

[Broomhall]

Let's skip the prime discussion and talk about preperation. Have you watched many Frazier fights? Do you really think the Frazier that fought in the 3 post FOTC fights looked as well conditioned as the FOTC or earlier Frazier? You even listed his weights 214 - 217.5 in these three post FOTC fights, but you don't list his weights prior to those fights. I'll save you the trouble. 205.5 Ali, 209 Foster, 205 Ellis, 203.5 Quarry.

Fighters and their handlers always say they're ready before a fight. Foreman was a big underdog, and while everybody looked at him as a much better opponent than Daniels and Stander, he was generally regarded as a raw, protected prospect.[/quote]

How can you skip the discussion around preparation since that is the basis on which you say Frazier lost the fight? A 29 year old heavyweight world champion, may well have decided to come in heavier against the big Foreman. And yes I have watched many of Fraziers fights. I grew up in that era.

If and it is a big if for which there is absolutely no evidence Frazier came in under prepared, to balance that he had way more experience than Foreman.

Frazier was at his peak and Foreman dismantled him. I dont see any need to try and revise history.[/quote]


I feel like I'm in danger of losing brain cells reading this nonsense.

Even Foreman admits that the Frazier he got in Jamaica was clearly not the same guy that won the FOTC.[/quote]


You cant lose what you never had

There is no evidence that a 29 year old Frazier was in any decline. Many fighters have tough fights, it doesnt mean they go down hill from that point.

Foreman beat a top in form Joe Frazier. He would have beat him in 69, 70. 71, 72 and then on.

[abdelfadeeli]

Let's skip the prime discussion and talk about preperation. Have you watched many Frazier fights? Do you really think the Frazier that fought in the 3 post FOTC fights looked as well conditioned as the FOTC or earlier Frazier? You even listed his weights 214 - 217.5 in these three post FOTC fights, but you don't list his weights prior to those fights. I'll save you the trouble. 205.5 Ali, 209 Foster, 205 Ellis, 203.5 Quarry.

Fighters and their handlers always say they're ready before a fight. Foreman was a big underdog, and while everybody looked at him as a much better opponent than Daniels and Stander, he was generally regarded as a raw, protected prospect.

How can you skip the discussion around preparation since that is the basis on which you say Frazier lost the fight? A 29 year old heavyweight world champion, may well have decided to come in heavier against the big Foreman. And yes I have watched many of Fraziers fights. I grew up in that era.

If and it is a big if for which there is absolutely no evidence Frazier came in under prepared, to balance that he had way more experience than Foreman.

Frazier was at his peak and Foreman dismantled him. I dont see any need to try and revise history.[/quote]


I feel like I'm in danger of losing brain cells reading this nonsense.

Even Foreman admits that the Frazier he got in Jamaica was clearly not the same guy that won the FOTC.[/quote]


You cant lose what you never had

There is no evidence that a 29 year old Frazier was in any decline. Many fighters have tough fights, it doesnt mean they go down hill from that point.

Foreman beat a top in form Joe Frazier. He would have beat him in 69, 70. 71, 72 and then on.[/quote]
For a couple of reasons, one he had reached the pinnacle of his career in beating Ali and naturally lost some of his drive, secondly his style was one that burns out quickly. Not to mention he almost died in Fotc. He left everything he had in FOTC. Something happened in there he lost half his defence, timing, and accuracy. After the Fotc Frazier had to walk up to a guy to hit him. He could no longer time Fighters at range. He could even time Ali at range! as one of the boxings mags screamed out with a banner headline (to paraphrase slightly) ""joe Frazier left his heart in that ring after the FOTC" If you cannot see the difference between a pre Fotc Frazier, and a post Fotc frazier, I simply don't know where to begin.

[abdelfadeeli]

For those of you that have watched it, you may have noticed that the ref does a very bad job in this as he allows Foreman to repeatedly get away with just shoving Joe away and pushing him to the side in order to set up his clubbing shots. Frazier actually has a fair degree of success in getting to Foreman early on and lands some decent left hooks and jabs. Foreman has trouble controlling range and keeping Frazier off him. With a different ref I think it would be interesting to see how Foreman wold have coped if he hadn't been allowed manhandle Frazier and repeatedly shove him back with full on pushes. The ref should have addressed this early.

This brings me to my other point. It may seem bizarre to criticize Foreman in a fight where he blasted out such a high profile opponent - but I've always been bothered by his tactics in this. Very little use of the jab, no real success at keeping Frazier at bay and rather untidy, wild punches. Frazier did most of his best work in close, so I would have expected Foreman to box and use his jab to set up his power shots. But crucially he seemed unable to do this and was allowed to get away with resorting to pushes and shoves followed by wild swings that left him prime to be caught square from a left hook - Frazier's marquee punch.

As it happened, Foreman's power and roughhousing was too much for Frazier but I do think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a different ref. As Ali showed, Foreman could be prone to punching himself out with his big swings and the drawback of having power is that you often don't get into later rounds. Frazier for me was reasonably successful at getting to Foreman early on made possible by Foreman neglecting the jab. Had it gone on for longer with a ref that wouldn't let Foreman away with his pushing I think it would have been interesting. Such was Foreman's power, Frazier's added fat, Frazier's decline after the FOTC, and him underestimating Foreman, that the result may well have been the same once he landed a big one but I do think the ref and his tactics made it far easier than it should/could have been.
That being said, Prime vs Prime it's a very different story. Win or lose, Frazier will do much better than he did in '73.
Frazier is not as easy to hit as many think. He was actually harder to hit than Tyson. If he can avoid some of ALI's punches, he can certainly avoid Foreman's Harder but SLOWER and LESS ACCURATE punches.
Another thing that should be added, contrary to popular belief, Frazier could change his style.Frazier was known for his come forward style, but he didn't always just walk right into his opponents power range and try to beat them down. He countered, used his feet better and punched off the angles when pressured himself. He did this against Chuvalo, Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena in their rematch. Against Foreman, Joe thought that he could just out-smart and out-bully the bully and instead he got bullied around himself.
Chuvalo pressured Frazier and backed him up a couple of times in the fight. What did Joe do? He backed up, jabbed, countered and used his right hand more, and in better condition, showed the head movement against Chuvalo that he didn't against Foreman. Plus the fact that Chuvalo wasn't allowed to turn the match into a wrestling contest like Mercante allowed Foreman to do against Frazier. Now we all no there's a distinct difference in punching power between Chuvalo and Foreman, but not a whole lot of difference strength wise.
I know I'm in the minority in this one but I pick Frazier to survive the early rounds and break Foreman down with his relentless body attack.
Please post something other than "It's Foreman" and "Styles make fights".

Interesting post. I agree with much of it. Have posted similar thoughts before.

Foreman definitely got away with pushing-shoving moves in the first fight. Frazier had to get tight and stay tight in this one and it was very hard to do with Foreman being allowed to do what he did.

I give '73 Frazier about a 20% chance against '73 Foreman if Mercante had stopped the pushing and shoving. '73 Frazier was definitely on the decline, fat and happy, and way too confident going into this fight, all of which you have pointed out.

I give '69 prime Frazier about a very viable 40%+ chance against '73 Foreman. The style match up is horrible for the swarmer (JF) versus slugger (GF), but prime Joe was harder to hit than the '73 version. There is very good chance that Frazier avoids heavy damage early, gets to the inside of GF's punching radius, and takes George out to deep water and drowns him.

Once again, my thoughts are based upon a clean encounter, with no pushing, shoving, and wrestling allowed.

Be prepared for posters that will say GF is always a 100% bet in a match-up against Joe.

Not so, but I'm not going to waste any time with them.

One thing that should be added to this matchup is a completely shot Frazier got out of the early rounds against foreman in 76. We don't have to wonder if Frazier could escape the early rounds. He did.
Joe was practically done as a heavyweight after Manilla. His vision was severely deteriorated to the point where he dangerously wore contact lenses against Foreman in the second fight in Uniondale. Eddie Futch was saying that Frazier shoudn't have fought Foreman so soon after taking Ali to near death in Manilla. The tactics Eddie Futch employed in the Foreman rematch were right, but Joe didn't have the shape, legs or the vision to sustain any type of serious offense against Foreman. Despite this, he made it into round 5 where his lenses fell. That is what led to his downfall. I'm not necessarily saying Frazier would've won that night had his lenses not fallen off but he certainly would've made it out of round 5.

[Broomhall]

No, the only thing that should be considered is this. Frazier went into the first Foreman fight at the age of 29 in unbeaten, confident and well prepared.

Up until that point he had had the one (winning) battle against Ali, and a tougn fight against Quarry. Niether of these were enough to ruin a young healthy athlete. In many ways the battle against Ali would have given him extra confidence and more experience. Yes he came into the fight heavier, but Foreman was a big man so this could be just as well be part of his preparation.

Every fighter who has ever lost a fight always says "that was not the real me in there" "next time it will be different" etc etc Their fans will do the same and Foreman in his later years was always giving credit to opponents.

Frazier was a great heavyweight, but he was just designed all wrong for big George. My belief is that big George would have beaten him whenever they fought. I also dont see how anyone can say Frazier was not at his peak based on the evidence of one fight that lasted a couple of rounds.

[Syntax Error]

For those of you that have watched it, you may have noticed that the ref does a very bad job in this as he allows Foreman to repeatedly get away with just shoving Joe away and pushing him to the side in order to set up his clubbing shots. Frazier actually has a fair degree of success in getting to Foreman early on and lands some decent left hooks and jabs. Foreman has trouble controlling range and keeping Frazier off him. With a different ref I think it would be interesting to see how Foreman wold have coped if he hadn't been allowed manhandle Frazier and repeatedly shove him back with full on pushes. The ref should have addressed this early.

This brings me to my other point. It may seem bizarre to criticize Foreman in a fight where he blasted out such a high profile opponent - but I've always been bothered by his tactics in this. Very little use of the jab, no real success at keeping Frazier at bay and rather untidy, wild punches. Frazier did most of his best work in close, so I would have expected Foreman to box and use his jab to set up his power shots. But crucially he seemed unable to do this and was allowed to get away with resorting to pushes and shoves followed by wild swings that left him prime to be caught square from a left hook - Frazier's marquee punch.

As it happened, Foreman's power and roughhousing was too much for Frazier but I do think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a different ref. As Ali showed, Foreman could be prone to punching himself out with his big swings and the drawback of having power is that you often don't get into later rounds. Frazier for me was reasonably successful at getting to Foreman early on made possible by Foreman neglecting the jab. Had it gone on for longer with a ref that wouldn't let Foreman away with his pushing I think it would have been interesting. Such was Foreman's power, Frazier's added fat, Frazier's decline after the FOTC, and him underestimating Foreman, that the result may well have been the same once he landed a big one but I do think the ref and his tactics made it far easier than it should/could have been.
That being said, Prime vs Prime it's a very different story. Win or lose, Frazier will do much better than he did in '73.
Frazier is not as easy to hit as many think. He was actually harder to hit than Tyson. If he can avoid some of ALI's punches, he can certainly avoid Foreman's Harder but SLOWER and LESS ACCURATE punches.
Another thing that should be added, contrary to popular belief, Frazier could change his style.Frazier was known for his come forward style, but he didn't always just walk right into his opponents power range and try to beat them down. He countered, used his feet better and punched off the angles when pressured himself. He did this against Chuvalo, Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena in their rematch. Against Foreman, Joe thought that he could just out-smart and out-bully the bully and instead he got bullied around himself.
Chuvalo pressured Frazier and backed him up a couple of times in the fight. What did Joe do? He backed up, jabbed, countered and used his right hand more, and in better condition, showed the head movement against Chuvalo that he didn't against Foreman. Plus the fact that Chuvalo wasn't allowed to turn the match into a wrestling contest like Mercante allowed Foreman to do against Frazier. Now we all no there's a distinct difference in punching power between Chuvalo and Foreman, but not a whole lot of difference strength wise.
I know I'm in the minority in this one but I pick Frazier to survive the early rounds and break Foreman down with his relentless body attack.
Please post something other than "It's Foreman" and "Styles make fights".

You can't put up a post & invite peoples' opinions & then tell them what they should write.

Everyone has an opinion & you might not agree with it, but you have to live with it.

Incidentally, you make some good points & do believe that the fight would have been different had Frazier been 4 years younger & the referee had marshalled the fight properly, but I don't ever envisage Frazier being able to beat Foreman.

Frazier was indeed hard to hit & Foreman did have poor stamina, but his overwhelming physical strength was so immense, that I struggle to see how a short pressure fighter like Joe could have overcome it.

A taller, rangier fighter, or slickster would have been a better bet against 1973 Foreman.

It's all subjective of course, but (wait for it), styles do make fights, whether you like it or not & the style matchup is crucial here.

[Ambling Alp II]

Several people have made many comments; some of which I think is accurate.
First, there is no real excuse for Frazier not being in his prime. He was not old at all. It's not like he has a huge amount of fights either. If you are going to make an excuse for Frazier in this fight, you can literally make an excuse for the loser of every single fight.

As for styles make fights, it is the most overused phrases in boxing. Styles don't "make fights". They can influence them. That is a big difference. If one fighter is vastly superior than the other, he will almost defeat the other fighter even if the other fighter is "all wrong for them".

Can it make the difference if two fighters are fairly close in ability? Absolutely.

Frazier would have a chance to beat Foreman if the thing that he was much better at came into play; stamina. He would have to survive until at least the mid-rounds before Foreman would begin to tire.

Really, his only other chance to land a perfect left hook early on before Foreman starts to dominate.

Foreman would win this fight the vast majority of the time.

[abdelfadeeli]

For those of you that have watched it, you may have noticed that the ref does a very bad job in this as he allows Foreman to repeatedly get away with just shoving Joe away and pushing him to the side in order to set up his clubbing shots. Frazier actually has a fair degree of success in getting to Foreman early on and lands some decent left hooks and jabs. Foreman has trouble controlling range and keeping Frazier off him. With a different ref I think it would be interesting to see how Foreman wold have coped if he hadn't been allowed manhandle Frazier and repeatedly shove him back with full on pushes. The ref should have addressed this early.

This brings me to my other point. It may seem bizarre to criticize Foreman in a fight where he blasted out such a high profile opponent - but I've always been bothered by his tactics in this. Very little use of the jab, no real success at keeping Frazier at bay and rather untidy, wild punches. Frazier did most of his best work in close, so I would have expected Foreman to box and use his jab to set up his power shots. But crucially he seemed unable to do this and was allowed to get away with resorting to pushes and shoves followed by wild swings that left him prime to be caught square from a left hook - Frazier's marquee punch.

As it happened, Foreman's power and roughhousing was too much for Frazier but I do think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a different ref. As Ali showed, Foreman could be prone to punching himself out with his big swings and the drawback of having power is that you often don't get into later rounds. Frazier for me was reasonably successful at getting to Foreman early on made possible by Foreman neglecting the jab. Had it gone on for longer with a ref that wouldn't let Foreman away with his pushing I think it would have been interesting. Such was Foreman's power, Frazier's added fat, Frazier's decline after the FOTC, and him underestimating Foreman, that the result may well have been the same once he landed a big one but I do think the ref and his tactics made it far easier than it should/could have been.
That being said, Prime vs Prime it's a very different story. Win or lose, Frazier will do much better than he did in '73.
Frazier is not as easy to hit as many think. He was actually harder to hit than Tyson. If he can avoid some of ALI's punches, he can certainly avoid Foreman's Harder but SLOWER and LESS ACCURATE punches.
Another thing that should be added, contrary to popular belief, Frazier could change his style.Frazier was known for his come forward style, but he didn't always just walk right into his opponents power range and try to beat them down. He countered, used his feet better and punched off the angles when pressured himself. He did this against Chuvalo, Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena in their rematch. Against Foreman, Joe thought that he could just out-smart and out-bully the bully and instead he got bullied around himself.
Chuvalo pressured Frazier and backed him up a couple of times in the fight. What did Joe do? He backed up, jabbed, countered and used his right hand more, and in better condition, showed the head movement against Chuvalo that he didn't against Foreman. Plus the fact that Chuvalo wasn't allowed to turn the match into a wrestling contest like Mercante allowed Foreman to do against Frazier. Now we all no there's a distinct difference in punching power between Chuvalo and Foreman, but not a whole lot of difference strength wise.
I know I'm in the minority in this one but I pick Frazier to survive the early rounds and break Foreman down with his relentless body attack.
Please post something other than "It's Foreman" and "Styles make fights".

You can't put up a post & invite peoples' opinions & then tell them what they should write.

Everyone has an opinion & you might not agree with it, but you have to live with it.

Incidentally, you make some good points & do believe that the fight would have been different had Frazier been 4 years younger & the referee had marshalled the fight properly, but I don't ever envisage Frazier being able to beat Foreman.

Frazier was indeed hard to hit & Foreman did have poor stamina, but his overwhelming physical strength was so immense, that I struggle to see how a short pressure fighter like Joe could have overcome it.

A taller, rangier fighter, or slickster would have been a better bet against 1973 Foreman.

It's all subjective of course, but (wait for it), styles do make fights, whether you like it or not & the style matchup is crucial here.

I have no problem if people say Foreman beats peak Frazier because although I disagree, at the end of the day it's their opinion and I'm in no position to be be saying otherwise.
What I do have a problem with, is ignorant posters saying Frazier was prime when Foreman beat him in 1973.

[HomicideHenry]

As much as I love Frazier, he fought Foreman two different ways--- the first, as a bobber/weaver in which he was destroyed inside of two rounds. The second, as a stand up fighter, trying to impose his will and strengths on Foreman, and one may argue that even though he lasted into the fifth he suffered far more punishment than he did in the first match.

Frazier, for all his toughness, simply wasn't defensive enough to survive a man like Foreman. He was too wide open. He was also, too slow a starter. I don't think there's too many men in history who were brawlers/sluggers, who could of lasted long with Foreman--- though I will say, of anyone in George's time, it would of been Quarry who could of done it. At least, the version who showed up against Shavers, could of done it.

Watching the Young fight, I think if you could get Foreman into the 7-8th round, you had a chance or a shot at wearing him down and winning either a decision or a TKO. I don't think anyone really could of knocked Foreman out cold. But that's the big question mark--- how many men could you name, could go more than five-six rounds with Foreman and still be capable of mounting some sort of offense against him? Much as I love Marciano, Dempsey, and others I can't see them doing it.

As for Frazier being in his "prime" or not... I think in the first match, he was in his prime. In the second match, Frazier was already degenerating. He was, after all, legally blind in his eyes and was wearing contacts. He was also suffering from arthritis in his back, neck, shoulders, knees and elbows. Still--- even in that bad of condition, some months after he fought the Thrilla in Manila with Ali. Frazier's peak years was, without question, '69-72. Guys with his style just burn out quicker than any other style in boxing--- because they take the most abuse, and they have to train twice as hard to be effective.

[abdelfadeeli]

As much as I love Frazier, he fought Foreman two different ways--- the first, as a bobber/weaver in which he was destroyed inside of two rounds. The second, as a stand up fighter, trying to impose his will and strengths on Foreman, and one may argue that even though he lasted into the fifth he suffered far more punishment than he did in the first match.

Frazier, for all his toughness, simply wasn't defensive enough to survive a man like Foreman. He was too wide open. He was also, too slow a starter. I don't think there's too many men in history who were brawlers/sluggers, who could of lasted long with Foreman--- though I will say, of anyone in George's time, it would of been Quarry who could of done it. At least, the version who showed up against Shavers, could of done it.

Watching the Young fight, I think if you could get Foreman into the 7-8th round, you had a chance or a shot at wearing him down and winning either a decision or a TKO. I don't think anyone really could of knocked Foreman out cold. But that's the big question mark--- how many men could you name, could go more than five-six rounds with Foreman and still be capable of mounting some sort of offense against him? Much as I love Marciano, Dempsey, and others I can't see them doing it.

As for Frazier being in his "prime" or not... I think in the first match, he was in his prime. In the second match, Frazier was already degenerating. He was, after all, legally blind in his eyes and was wearing contacts. He was also suffering from arthritis in his back, neck, shoulders, knees and elbows. Still--- even in that bad of condition, some months after he fought the Thrilla in Manila with Ali. Frazier's peak years was, without question, '69-72. Guys with his style just burn out quicker than any other style in boxing--- because they take the most abuse, and they have to train twice as hard to be effective.

He was not in his prime in the first match as I have said. He definitely wasn't prime in 72. I think his prime years were late 68-71

[Broomhall]

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 1973. An unbeaten fighter gets beat and people start looking for reasons other than the obvious one. The guy that won the fight was better.

Frazier may not have been the same AFTER the fight with Foreman as the nature of the defeat was so humiliating and so complete. He went to the well with Ali, but came away from that fight with a W and increased confidence. Physically and mentally he was in a good place prior the Foreman fight prior.

I guess next it will be a thread next "prime George Foreman V prime Ali" after all Foreman was clearly in decline when he fought Ali.....

[HomicideHenry]

Frazier, in my view, had he gotten out after the FOTC would probably be considered the greatest heavyweight of all time. Had he gotten out at his peak. But because he didn't, and decided to dick around facing guys like Terry Daniels and Ron Stander after the fact (that did NOTHING for his legacy) and then went against Foreman--- I guess, one could argue Frazier wasn't the same man mentally or emotionally after the FOTC. Before the FOTC he was a man on a mission, and he proved to be superior on that night. After the fact, he was on Cloud Nine, and became more celebrity than warrior--- facing set ups (and holy sh!t I'm starting to talk like Rocky 3, lol).

It took Ali, all over again, for him to rebuild what he lost. Ali was the only motivating force there was left. Frazier's decline was just as much mental and emotional as it was physical. So I will say physically, he was still good going into '72, but he wasn't the same man on the inside. He wouldn't get all that back until the rematch with Ali, and in Manila. But by then he wasn't physically the same beast he was in '71.

[Broomhall]

Frazier, in my view, had he gotten out after the FOTC would probably be considered the greatest heavyweight of all time. Had he gotten out at his peak. But because he didn't, and decided to dick around facing guys like Terry Daniels and Ron Stander after the fact (that did NOTHING for his legacy) and then went against Foreman--- I guess, one could argue Frazier wasn't the same man mentally or emotionally after the FOTC. Before the FOTC he was a man on a mission, and he proved to be superior on that night. After the fact, he was on Cloud Nine, and became more celebrity than warrior--- facing set ups (and holy sh!t I'm starting to talk like Rocky 3, lol).

It took Ali, all over again, for him to rebuild what he lost. Ali was the only motivating force there was left. Frazier's decline was just as much mental and emotional as it was physical. So I will say physically, he was still good going into '72, but he wasn't the same man on the inside. He wouldn't get all that back until the rematch with Ali, and in Manila. But by then he wasn't physically the same beast he was in '71.

So other than the fact that Foreman beat him what evidence is there that Frazier was in decline?

Also many champs have faced fighters that didnt deserve shots-Ali had many-Coopmans, Dunn etc, Joe Louis went on his bum of the month, Frazier was just making easy money. He fully expected to beat Foreman and was a 3-1 favourite.

It is just too easy to say he lost to Foreman therefore he must have been in decline.

[Syntax Error]

I remember the newspaper articles about how Foreman was nothing.He built his record against bums.
(Reminds me of the way we talk about Deontay Wilder.)
Frazier I do not think took Foreman as seriously as he should have.I do not think the end result would of
changed.Foreman was destined to win that night against a slightly past prime Frazier.

Prime for prime I still pick Foreman but by a 9th or 10th round knock out.In a fantastic fight that we would of all
been talking about today.

If this fight went into the 10th round, you think Foreman would knock Frazier out? If Frazier gets past the early rounds It's all Frazier. A completely shot Frazier got out of the early rounds against Foreman. We don't have to wonder if he could get out of the early rounds against Foreman . He did.

Foreman wasn't the same beast in 1976 (Foreman left something in the ring in the DRC (Zaire) after his fight with Ali); something just wasn't right with him, although, to be fair, he wasn't shot to buggery like Frazier was.

[HomicideHenry]

So other than the fact that Foreman beat him what evidence is there that Frazier was in decline?

Also many champs have faced fighters that didnt deserve shots-Ali had many-Coopmans, Dunn etc, Joe Louis went on his bum of the month, Frazier was just making easy money. He fully expected to beat Foreman and was a 3-1 favourite.

It is just too easy to say he lost to Foreman therefore he must have been in decline.

Maybe another perspective, of Frazier's decline... would be the stark contrast and difference between the first ELLIS fight and the second one. Of course there will be those who will say Ellis wasn't the same guy, etc. and there is truth to that--- but Frazier obviously, didn't look the same, or have the same flare anymore either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv4T1XuYt18

He fought Ellis in 1975, just before the second Foreman and third Ali fight. It was obvious, that he wasn't the same anymore. Those who want to argue "prime" must look at this contest... and then look at the first fight with Ellis in 1970, and compare the two Frazier's. The first time, Frazier just annihilated Ellis inside of four rounds. This time around, it went into the ninth round. And mind you, Ellis was coming off of three losses and a draw before facing Frazier in their rematch: Lyle, Bugner, Kirkman and Larry Middleton (the draw). The wins Ellis had, from 1973 till the Frazier rematch were against 16-11 Bob Felstein, 8-16 Charlie Harris, 4-5 Tiger Harris, 10-13 Rico Brooks, 5-20 Al Jones.

Really puts sh!t into perspective when you look at those facts and figures.

[abdelfadeeli]

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 1973. An unbeaten fighter gets beat and people start looking for reasons other than the obvious one. The guy that won the fight was better.

Frazier may not have been the same AFTER the fight with Foreman as the nature of the defeat was so humiliating and so complete. He went to the well with Ali, but came away from that fight with a W and increased confidence. Physically and mentally he was in a good place prior the Foreman fight prior.

I guess next it will be a thread next "prime George Foreman V prime Ali" after all Foreman was clearly in decline when he fought Ali.....

You must be trolling me. Even after the reasons I stated you still have the balls to say "There is NO evedence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 73. He was not the same physically and mentally for the Foreman fight. Look at the Frazier who beat ali and the one Foreman beat. I see a very different Frazier. If you cannot see the difference between them you are ignorant. I refuse to believe you believe the crap your writing. Frazier was prime for Foreman but Foreman was past it for Ali? You are either a foreman fanatic or a troll. There are literally no other explanations.

[Broomhall]

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 1973. An unbeaten fighter gets beat and people start looking for reasons other than the obvious one. The guy that won the fight was better.

Frazier may not have been the same AFTER the fight with Foreman as the nature of the defeat was so humiliating and so complete. He went to the well with Ali, but came away from that fight with a W and increased confidence. Physically and mentally he was in a good place prior the Foreman fight prior.

I guess next it will be a thread next "prime George Foreman V prime Ali" after all Foreman was clearly in decline when he fought Ali.....

You must be trolling me. Even after the reasons I stated you still have the balls to say "There is NO evedence whatsoever that Frazier was in decline by 73. He was not the same physically and mentally for the Foreman fight. Look at the Frazier who beat ali and the one Foreman beat. I see a very different Frazier. If you cannot see the difference between them you are ignorant. I refuse to believe you believe the crap your writing. Frazier was prime for Foreman but Foreman was past it for Ali? You are either a foreman fanatic or a troll. There are literally no other explanations.

I am neither a Foreman fanatic or a troll. According to you a fighter aged 29 coming off the best win of his career is in decline. And yet ALL the evidence says that Frazier was good mentally and physically going into the Foreman fight. Because he fought a bad fight or was naive tactically DOES NOT make him past his best. You havent stated ANY reasons why Frazier had apparently (according to you) gone into such a dramatic decline.

If Ali had hit like Frazier he would have got him out there quick as well. Frazier wasnt exactly hard to hit. The truth is Frazier got iced.

The only reason Frazier was "different" was because Foreman nailed him early and didnt let him go.

[Broomhall]

So other than the fact that Foreman beat him what evidence is there that Frazier was in decline?

Also many champs have faced fighters that didnt deserve shots-Ali had many-Coopmans, Dunn etc, Joe Louis went on his bum of the month, Frazier was just making easy money. He fully expected to beat Foreman and was a 3-1 favourite.

It is just too easy to say he lost to Foreman therefore he must have been in decline.

Maybe another perspective, of Frazier's decline... would be the stark contrast and difference between the first ELLIS fight and the second one. Of course there will be those who will say Ellis wasn't the same guy, etc. and there is truth to that--- but Frazier obviously, didn't look the same, or have the same flare anymore either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv4T1XuYt18

He fought Ellis in 1975, just before the second Foreman and third Ali fight. It was obvious, that he wasn't the same anymore. Those who want to argue "prime" must look at this contest... and then look at the first fight with Ellis in 1970, and compare the two Frazier's. The first time, Frazier just annihilated Ellis inside of four rounds. This time around, it went into the ninth round. And mind you, Ellis was coming off of three losses and a draw before facing Frazier in their rematch: Lyle, Bugner, Kirkman and Larry Middleton (the draw). The wins Ellis had, from 1973 till the Frazier rematch were against 16-11 Bob Felstein, 8-16 Charlie Harris, 4-5 Tiger Harris, 10-13 Rico Brooks, 5-20 Al Jones.

Really puts sh!t into perspective when you look at those facts and figures.

Yup, and the second fight with Ellis comes in 1975 which is two years after 1973. This was after his loss to Foreman in 1973. I say it was this fight that destroyed him, and before this fight he was as good as he ever was.

Many undefeated fighters are ruined by a first devastating loss, and Fraziers undoing was the first Foreman fight. We all could come up with many undefeated fighters who are not the same after a major KO loss, but it is much harder to think of a young fighter on winning run who is "in decline"

[BoxBuzz]

Frazier, in my view, had he gotten out after the FOTC would probably be considered the greatest heavyweight of all time. Had he gotten out at his peak. But because he didn't, and decided to dick around facing guys like Terry Daniels and Ron Stander after the fact (that did NOTHING for his legacy) and then went against Foreman--- I guess, one could argue Frazier wasn't the same man mentally or emotionally after the FOTC. Before the FOTC he was a man on a mission, and he proved to be superior on that night. After the fact, he was on Cloud Nine, and became more celebrity than warrior--- facing set ups (and holy sh!t I'm starting to talk like Rocky 3, lol).

It took Ali, all over again, for him to rebuild what he lost. Ali was the only motivating force there was left. Frazier's decline was just as much mental and emotional as it was physical. So I will say physically, he was still good going into '72, but he wasn't the same man on the inside. He wouldn't get all that back until the rematch with Ali, and in Manila. But by then he wasn't physically the same beast he was in '71.

Henry, that's one theory, the correct uh I mean alternative theory is also out there. You know, the one that has Frazier spending everything he had against Ali in the first fight, and that was a wrap for him. Nothing left after that. He was beaten up badly in a winning fight.

[Rexob]

So, who won?

[Broomhall]

Frazier, in my view, had he gotten out after the FOTC would probably be considered the greatest heavyweight of all time. Had he gotten out at his peak. But because he didn't, and decided to dick around facing guys like Terry Daniels and Ron Stander after the fact (that did NOTHING for his legacy) and then went against Foreman--- I guess, one could argue Frazier wasn't the same man mentally or emotionally after the FOTC. Before the FOTC he was a man on a mission, and he proved to be superior on that night. After the fact, he was on Cloud Nine, and became more celebrity than warrior--- facing set ups (and holy sh!t I'm starting to talk like Rocky 3, lol).

It took Ali, all over again, for him to rebuild what he lost. Ali was the only motivating force there was left. Frazier's decline was just as much mental and emotional as it was physical. So I will say physically, he was still good going into '72, but he wasn't the same man on the inside. He wouldn't get all that back until the rematch with Ali, and in Manila. But by then he wasn't physically the same beast he was in '71.

Henry, that's one theory, the correct uh I mean alternative theory is also out there. You know, the one that has Frazier spending everything he had against Ali in the first fight, and that was a wrap for him. Nothing left after that. He was beaten up badly in a winning fight.

Yeah is that a flying pig I seen

Frazier at his peak banged up, KO'd by Foreman. Simple. No theories.