Frazier of '71 vs Foreman of '73

[dr_devious]

I've read several times that Joe Frazier was past his best by the time he fought George Foreman in 1973, and that he didnt take his training as seriously and underestimated Big George. Any views on this? Would the Frazier that beat Ali in '71 have done any better, or even beaten Foreman in '73?

[Syntax Error]

Styles make fights.

I think the result would have been very similar, although I think Frazier would have lasted longer.

George gobbled up little HW's that come forward like Pacman.

[theone]

'73 Foreman would have beaten prime Frazier, Dempsey and Marciano one right after the other on the same night. The whole exhibition would probably last a combined total of 9 rounds.

[The Great John L]

'73 Foreman would have beaten prime Frazier, Dempsey and Marciano one right after the other on the same night. The whole exhibition would probably last a combined total of 9 rounds.

They are all made for George, and while you comment may be a bit extreme, you're probably not too far off. Of the 3, I think Rocky might be the most difficult for George because he could get lower and might be able to survive the first few rounds, and after the first 3 rounds or so it might be interesting. Remember the Toronto 5?

[theone]

They are all made for George, and while you comment may be a bit extreme, you're probably not too far off. Of the 3, I think Rocky might be the most difficult for George because he could get lower and might be able to survive the first few rounds, and after the first 3 rounds or so it might be interesting. Remember the Toronto 5?

The reason I said 9 was because I believe Dempsey wouldnt last more than a round against George, and you could divide the other 8 rounds between Marciano and Frazier.

[The Great John L]

They are all made for George, and while you comment may be a bit extreme, you're probably not too far off. Of the 3, I think Rocky might be the most difficult for George because he could get lower and might be able to survive the first few rounds, and after the first 3 rounds or so it might be interesting. Remember the Toronto 5?

The reason I said 9 was because I believe Dempsey wouldnt last more than a round against George, and you could divide the other 8 rounds between Marciano and Frazier.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

They are all made for George, and while you comment may be a bit extreme, you're probably not too far off. Of the 3, I think Rocky might be the most difficult for George because he could get lower and might be able to survive the first few rounds, and after the first 3 rounds or so it might be interesting. Remember the Toronto 5?

The reason I said 9 was because I believe Dempsey wouldnt last more than a round against George, and you could divide the other 8 rounds between Marciano and Frazier.

why do u think so little of dempsey. his defense was much better than fraziers and marcianos. he would be very hard to hit. he also had the handspeed, firepower, inside fighting skills that would be nightmare for foreman. i think dempsey might beat foreman. dempseys short fast punches would beat foremans slow loops to the punch. foreman was a wide open target he was there to be hit.

[sockdolager]

Foreman KO 4 Fraizer

[kingpawn]

Foreman was not THAT slow, as Brockton seems to be suggesting. Yes, his big shots did tend to get wide, but he did have lots of power behind a very stiff jab (when he threw it) that was actually quite straight.

Any aggressive smaller fighter coming pretty much straight ahead, giving up more than, say, three inches in height and 20+ pounds in weight was like shooting the broad side from inside the barn for Big George. That's just my opinion. Nothing against Dempsey, Marciano or Frazier, but none of them, especially with their physical disadvantages, were very stylistically-suited to beat Foreman.

[thunderfromdownunder]

foreman is a bad match for frazier