[/quote] But when Tyson faced Holyfield, he was only 30. A solid favorite to win, AND he was champion. So wasn't he prime to? D[/quote]
No he wasn't in his prime, but he isn't the Joe Frazier of 1973.
Tyson had a lot more fights and layoffs by the time he fought Holyfield, than did Frazier when he fought Foreman.
Tyson had a very very different career to Frazier, which did not have anything like the level of guidance or support that Frazier had.
Frazier had the same team in place, was married and was living a clean and sensible life. Tyson was in chaos. And significantly unlike Frazier he had tasted a devastating defeat. He had also had 44 to Fraziers 29 fights.
Frazier was a winning fighter with ONE demanding fight in his career, which he won which would have put his confidence high. He may not have prepared properly for Foreman but that doesnt mean he was on the slide.
Foreman just had all the right tools and he used them well. How good Foreman actually was was to be proved decades later.
Broomhall wrote:Tyson had a very very different career to Frazier, which did not have anything like the level of guidance or support that Frazier had.
Frazier had the same team in place, was married and was living a clean and sensible life. Tyson was in chaos. And significantly unlike Frazier he had tasted a devastating defeat. He had also had 44 to Fraziers 29 fights.
Frazier was a winning fighter with ONE demanding fight in his career, which he won which would have put his confidence high. He may not have prepared properly for Foreman but that doesnt mean he was on the slide.
Foreman just had all the right tools and he used them well. How good Foreman actually was was to be proved decades later.
If you look at his fights after the fight of the century, literally every single one (including the overrated Thrilla) he just didnt have the same fire as in the past. He was no longer smokin. But look at the FOTC and before and every performance was intense and high energy. Literally, you can go down the list and he was just bringing it every single time. After Ali when I watch those fights after March 1971 you just get a feeling that somewhere deep down hes going through the motions. A perfect example was in the Bugner fight. He hurts Bugner in a corner, badly buckles his knees, and then literally pulls his punch allowing Bugner a split second to recover before he finally goes down. The old Frazier would have leveled Bugner then and there and probably finished him. Then when Bugner rises Frazier doesnt even really pounce on him. He lands a half hearted quick flurry after Bugner gets up but then proceeds to just follow him around the ring. You could tell he was arm weary and just didn't have the same intensity as the old Frazier. That style by the way tends to burn guys out pretty young anyway so its not entirely surprising.
Broomhall wrote:Tyson had a very very different career to Frazier, which did not have anything like the level of guidance or support that Frazier had.
Frazier had the same team in place, was married and was living a clean and sensible life. Tyson was in chaos. And significantly unlike Frazier he had tasted a devastating defeat. He had also had 44 to Fraziers 29 fights.
Frazier was a winning fighter with ONE demanding fight in his career, which he won which would have put his confidence high. He may not have prepared properly for Foreman but that doesnt mean he was on the slide.
Foreman just had all the right tools and he used them well. How good Foreman actually was was to be proved decades later.
If you look at his fights after the fight of the century, literally every single one (including the overrated Thrilla) he just didnt have the same fire as in the past. He was no longer smokin. But look at the FOTC and before and every performance was intense and high energy. Literally, you can go down the list and he was just bringing it every single time. After Ali when I watch those fights after March 1971 you just get a feeling that somewhere deep down hes going through the motions. A perfect example was in the Bugner fight. He hurts Bugner in a corner, badly buckles his knees, and then literally pulls his punch allowing Bugner a split second to recover before he finally goes down. The old Frazier would have leveled Bugner then and there and probably finished him. Then when Bugner rises Frazier doesnt even really pounce on him. He lands a half hearted quick flurry after Bugner gets up but then proceeds to just follow him around the ring. You could tell he was arm weary and just didn't have the same intensity as the old Frazier. That style by the way tends to burn guys out pretty young anyway so its not entirely surprising.
I am afraid that is subjective. You watch Frazier and look for the evidence you want to see. He fights Bugner AFTER his fight with Foreman. I would say agree that after Foreman crushed Frazier he was not the same fighter, but not before. Before he was undefeated and coming off the biggest win in his career. Foreman destroyed that.
Broomhall wrote:Tyson had a very very different career to Frazier, which did not have anything like the level of guidance or support that Frazier had.
Frazier had the same team in place, was married and was living a clean and sensible life. Tyson was in chaos. And significantly unlike Frazier he had tasted a devastating defeat. He had also had 44 to Fraziers 29 fights.
Frazier was a winning fighter with ONE demanding fight in his career, which he won which would have put his confidence high. He may not have prepared properly for Foreman but that doesnt mean he was on the slide.
Foreman just had all the right tools and he used them well. How good Foreman actually was was to be proved decades later.
If you look at his fights after the fight of the century, literally every single one (including the overrated Thrilla) he just didnt have the same fire as in the past. He was no longer smokin. But look at the FOTC and before and every performance was intense and high energy. Literally, you can go down the list and he was just bringing it every single time. After Ali when I watch those fights after March 1971 you just get a feeling that somewhere deep down hes going through the motions. A perfect example was in the Bugner fight. He hurts Bugner in a corner, badly buckles his knees, and then literally pulls his punch allowing Bugner a split second to recover before he finally goes down. The old Frazier would have leveled Bugner then and there and probably finished him. Then when Bugner rises Frazier doesnt even really pounce on him. He lands a half hearted quick flurry after Bugner gets up but then proceeds to just follow him around the ring. You could tell he was arm weary and just didn't have the same intensity as the old Frazier. That style by the way tends to burn guys out pretty young anyway so its not entirely surprising.
I am afraid that is subjective. You watch Frazier and look for the evidence you want to see. He fights Bugner AFTER his fight with Foreman. I would say agree that after Foreman crushed Frazier he was not the same fighter, but not before. Before he was undefeated and coming off the biggest win in his career. Foreman destroyed that.
Broomhall wrote:Tyson had a very very different career to Frazier, which did not have anything like the level of guidance or support that Frazier had.
Frazier had the same team in place, was married and was living a clean and sensible life. Tyson was in chaos. And significantly unlike Frazier he had tasted a devastating defeat. He had also had 44 to Fraziers 29 fights.
Frazier was a winning fighter with ONE demanding fight in his career, which he won which would have put his confidence high. He may not have prepared properly for Foreman but that doesnt mean he was on the slide.
Foreman just had all the right tools and he used them well. How good Foreman actually was was to be proved decades later.
If you look at his fights after the fight of the century, literally every single one (including the overrated Thrilla) he just didnt have the same fire as in the past. He was no longer smokin. But look at the FOTC and before and every performance was intense and high energy. Literally, you can go down the list and he was just bringing it every single time. After Ali when I watch those fights after March 1971 you just get a feeling that somewhere deep down hes going through the motions. A perfect example was in the Bugner fight. He hurts Bugner in a corner, badly buckles his knees, and then literally pulls his punch allowing Bugner a split second to recover before he finally goes down. The old Frazier would have leveled Bugner then and there and probably finished him. Then when Bugner rises Frazier doesnt even really pounce on him. He lands a half hearted quick flurry after Bugner gets up but then proceeds to just follow him around the ring. You could tell he was arm weary and just didn't have the same intensity as the old Frazier. That style by the way tends to burn guys out pretty young anyway so its not entirely surprising.
^
1000% correct, every word of it.
Frazier no longer had that "joy of combat" mentality immediately post-FOTC. He was no longer emotionally invested with the squared circle. His musical career and the good life became his focus.
Can you imagine what '69-'70, eye of the tiger Frazier does to '73 Bugner???
Tiiimmmmbbbbbeeeeerrrrrrr!
Last edited by yancey on 06 Dec 2014, 13:03, edited 1 time in total.
Broomhall wrote:No evidence at all the above was true.
It would be a waste of time to discuss this subject with a clueless twit.
I would imagine abdelfadeeli will eventually arrive at the same conclusion.
As I said no evidence that Frazier was either past his best or un motivated. Foreman beats him every time.
The other day I said to Yancey "what would you like to get right on the Boxrec site? so he says "I would like to be just be right just once on the forum and not to be proved an idiot every time I post something....how about you?"
So I say "well I would like to post some information that would lead to world peace, would end all conflict in the world and lead to a never ending supply of energy and that also acts as a trigger for a cure for cancer, and end to world poverty, endless energy and a world free from pollution where every child grows up to be loved and valued"
Yancey says "wow Broomhall you sure a hoping from a lot in one post!" .......so I say "well you started it"......
Broomhall wrote:No evidence at all the above was true.
It would be a waste of time to discuss this subject with a clueless twit.
I would imagine abdelfadeeli will eventually arrive at the same conclusion.
Ignore the imbeciles like BroomHall and you might get nearer to the truth. These lying scum will try to tell you Frazier was prime in 1973. BroomHall probably thinks Bowe was prime in 1996 because he was 29 and coming off the biggest or 2nd biggest win of his life.
Broomhall wrote:No evidence at all the above was true.
It would be a waste of time to discuss this subject with a clueless twit.
I would imagine abdelfadeeli will eventually arrive at the same conclusion.
Ignore the imbeciles like BroomHall and you might get nearer to the truth. These lying scum will try to tell you Frazier was prime in 1973. BroomHall probably thinks Bowe was prime in 1996 because he was 29 and coming off the biggest or 2nd biggest win of his life.
lying scum? imbecile?
Good lord Abdel....actually its funny you say that about Bowe......
C'mon man you know as well as I do that Frazier was as good as ever.
i find it heart warming how real fans can defend their
idols no matter what. hardly ever was a relationship
on ATG level so one sided like this one and i do think
joe himself found he was beaten fair and square.
it is the magic of one fighter owning the perfect
antidote for his opponents action. i don't think it is
a shame for frazier that this happened to him. in no
way was foreman so much "better" as his dominance
indicates, but dominating he was.
regarding foreman's pushing tactics, he did the same
throughout his career. it is an illegal tactic, yet a rather
harmless one and IMO if it is the decisive factor in a
fight, then only if something else is going on.
IMO it actually degrades frazier, the honest, hard working
boxer, if half a dozen arguments are pulled out from
nowhere to actually make him the moral winner of the
duel with foreman. let's just look at the past prime
argument: at their first meeting he was not even thirty
years of age and the undefeated heavy weight champion.
whatever he was, he was not what "past prime" is usually
referring to.
joe himself took the beating better than some of his fans
seem to be able to.
Joe Frazier could never beat George Foreman---Styles make fights---He had one straight ahead gear into Foreman's power----Prime, 80 percent, shot, or whatever ---he loses badly----Common sense here!!! He was undefeated Champ and as good as he could be since the Ali fight and lasted 2----Gimme a Break----There can be no Disputing this matchup!!!
knockouts67 wrote:Joe Frazier could never beat George Foreman---Styles make fights---He had one straight ahead gear into Foreman's power----Prime, 80 percent, shot, or whatever ---he loses badly----Common sense here!!! He was undefeated Champ and as good as he could be since the Ali fight and lasted 2----Gimme a Break----There can be no Disputing this matchup!!!
I mostly agree with the last three posts; however I disagree with the notion that Frazier could never beat Foreman. I don't believe that. Foreman would win the great majority of the time.
However there are certainly plausible scenarios where Frazier could win:
-If he nailed Foreman with a perfect left hook early in the fight (before Foreman had a chance to hurt him) it could be a totally different story.
-Or if Frazier could fight more of a defensive fight and weather the storm in the early rounds; perhaps Foreman gets tired. Frazier lasted until the 5th round in the 2nd fight in 1976; it's not that great a stretch to think if he fought a bit different he could last until the 8th round or so and Foreman might start to tire.
But yes, Foreman would win most of the time. I do think there is more to it than "styles makes fights". You have to have ability and you to have to execute. Foreman had the ability and used it.
knockouts67 wrote:Joe Frazier could never beat George Foreman---Styles make fights---He had one straight ahead gear into Foreman's power----Prime, 80 percent, shot, or whatever ---he loses badly----Common sense here!!! He was undefeated Champ and as good as he could be since the Ali fight and lasted 2----Gimme a Break----There can be no Disputing this matchup!!!
Giancarlo,
You are too intelligent to be so close-minded on this subject.
Please see what your ally, AA II, just posted on this matter.
You can change---we all have faith in you. :)
Last edited by yancey on 17 Dec 2014, 14:27, edited 1 time in total.
Ambling Alp II wrote:I mostly agree with the last three posts; however I disagree with the notion that Frazier could never beat Foreman. I don't believe that. Foreman would win the great majority of the time.
However there are certainly plausible scenarios where Frazier could win:
-If he nailed Foreman with a perfect left hook early in the fight (before Foreman had a chance to hurt him) it could be a totally different story.
-Or if Frazier could fight more of a defensive fight and weather the storm in the early rounds; perhaps Foreman gets tired. Frazier lasted until the 5th round in the 2nd fight in 1976; it's not that great a stretch to think if he fought a bit different he could last until the 8th round or so and Foreman might start to tire.
But yes, Foreman would win most of the time. I do think there is more to it than "styles makes fights". You have to have ability and you to have to execute. Foreman had the ability and used it.
Well, whaddya know?
I found some common ground with AA II.
I've been saying for years that prime Foreman would have to be favored over prime Frazier because of the style issue, but that there could be a POSSIBLE path to victory for Joe.
AA points out that Frazier could land a early great punch or else fight a defensive battle for a time. I do not think it would have taken 8 rounds for '73 Foreman to tire. I think it would have been more like 5 rounds before Joe could have mounted a real offensive attack. '73 Foreman admittedly had stamina issues.
The other scenario I most like is for Joe to get extremely tight with Foreman. I suspect the head on the chest scenario could have been relatively safe ground (inside GF's uppercut and roundhouse punching radius) and would provide JF a chance to get in those short body shots to help tire and discourage GF. That is why Mercante allowing GF to get away with pushing was so relevant in this matchup---it was impossible for JF to get to the inside.
D
