1971 Joe Frazier -vs- 1994 George Foreman?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 05 Nov 2007, 08:18

We often hear that due to the styles match-up, Frazier could never have beaten Foreman, but here's a clash between them I haven't seen discussed before.

So if we were to pair up the Frazier who had enjoyed recent victories over Ellis, Foster & Ali with the Foreman who made history in such spectacular fashion, could the style match-up be overcome?

Foreman didn't really fight similarly in the 90's to the 70's. His jab became a more potent & better-utilised weapon during his comeback, & his patience, physical strength & those nuclear payloads he called fists were such that fighters who came at him were in for it (Bert Cooper tried to run but couldn't, for example).

Frazier failed to hurt Foreman with a few clean-landing left hooks in their two encounters, but with that cross-armed defense Foreman took up second time around he gave away the body, & Frazier never lost (or even looked like losing) any fight where his opponent offered up their ribs.

I think in this instance Frazier outworks Foreman all across the ring & either wins a decision or stops his man late (It would be interesting just to witness Frazier stopping any version of Foreman in hindsight) but there may be those who still think even this Foreman had the strength & the punch to put Frazier away.

Thoughts?

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 05 Nov 2007, 08:25

so what your askin is if a prime frazier beats a 44 year old foreman?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 05 Nov 2007, 08:30

Essentially it can be Foreman at any time during his comeback, 87-97. I just stated that timeframe because it was within that which he took the title, his biggest achievement. I guess from around that time onward he was getting slower & weaker. I don't really think Foreman has the energy or the speed to compete with Frazier but I'd be interested to see the logic of those who feel otherwise.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 06 Nov 2007, 04:13

IMO at that later stage foreman was not good enough or id not have enough speed to keep frazier off frazier bobbing and weaving at that stage would of been to quick for foreman i think frazier gives him a beating in his comeback

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 06 Nov 2007, 20:22

The older Foreman has one key thing going for him...experience and that experience has instilled in him the knowledge to deal with a Joe Frazier. Foreman was slower, still powerful however he was alot more patient and composed.

I think Foreman has better stamina, but that doesn't matter VS Frazier as I think Joe goes down to George most of the time.

Let's say Frazier comes on tenacious and agreesive, working hard on Georges body. How does a 205lb Frazier handle an always relaxed 240+lb Foreman ?

This is an interesting question posed, and a bit of a mind tickler. I love Frazier's style and aggression, but even this older Foreman had tools and power to hurt Joe's style.

I really don't know who to pick.

Kym

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 06 Nov 2007, 20:32

Frazier would give an older Foreman a beating. Foreman in his 40s wasn't nearly as quick or explosive as he'd been at his best, and he used his under-rated quickness to catch Frazier early. One of the reasons George didn't have as many KOs in his older age as he'd lost the snap to his punches (though he could still snap the jab). Without that, his punches have thudding power but nothing Frazier can't slip or, even if he catches a couple, shake off.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 07 Nov 2007, 08:17

the frazier who beat ali wouldnt have a chance. that fight ruined frazier.
so it has to be the smokin' joe from 1970, who was awesome and this is the man we must say is prime joe frazier.
this era joe was decked by bonavena. i dont think george would ever have lost to joe. they could have fought 100 times. foreman wins all ends up.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 09 Nov 2007, 03:05

harrygreb wrote:the frazier who beat ali wouldnt have a chance. that fight ruined frazier.

I always disagree with that. Joe still had plenty left in him after that fight.

I think when people say that Frazier would "never" beat Foreman they're talking about 70's George. I'm sure 90's George would give Frazier some problems and might even put him down, but Frazier would win a decision.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 09 Nov 2007, 17:41

really? do you remember, as i do, fraziers condition after his extended stay in hospital after beating ali? his kidneys were in a shocking state. he passed blood for such a long time after the fight and i think his heroic effort winning that one took too much out of him.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 09 Nov 2007, 17:44

Wasn't it shown that Frazier's kidney problems pre-dated the fight?

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 09 Nov 2007, 18:08

well, with respect, joe was champion of the world and building up a murderous rep before ali 1. i have not heard about joe and kidney problems before that bout, though it may well be true. all i can say being close to it all at the time is that joe was in a bad way for longer than is usual after giving everything to win it.
he came into the ring against foreman in kingston JA what i would call "colourless" and he wasnt sweating as he normally did. i had no doubt about who was going to win that one. most observers with a bit of savvy did too.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 13 Nov 2007, 21:21

'Athletes Kidneys' I think they called it. I remember reading in an old
Rings magazine that he had trouble with it leading up to that fight.

In either case he won that fight, and whether he was worse for wear after the fact does not matter. One could also argue that he won the trilogy, after seeing what Ali and Frazier look like today.

Kym

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 13 Nov 2007, 22:57

Foreman beat Frazier twice when they were both young men. Why can't we leave it at that? Both men were great fighters as professionals and Olympic Heavyweight Gold Medallists. Foreman's second win over Frazier was after Ali had beaten both of them. George made a more successful comeback than Joe did.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 14 Nov 2007, 17:04

well, robinson, i think if i had the choice of looking like a photo of ali or smokin joe today i'd still take the Lip.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 14 Nov 2007, 17:41

But what are looks

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 15 Nov 2007, 02:18

Robinson wrote:'Athletes Kidneys' I think they called it. I remember reading in an old
Rings magazine that he had trouble with it leading up to that fight.

In either case he won that fight, and whether he was worse for wear after the fact does not matter. One could also argue that he won the trilogy, after seeing what Ali and Frazier look like today.

Kym

Jackass statement. Ali's condition is not the way it is because of one fight or one opponent, it was an accumulation of fights. If anything, if Ali had retired after the Frazier trilogy he might have been perfectly fine. Are you suggesting that Norton and Shavers and Spinks and Holmes and Berbick didn't play a part?

That said, even if Frazier had been the direct cause of Ali's condition, that has nothing to do with the result of a prize fight. If you win a decision and die, you're still the winner. You can't wish away Ali's wins, fellas.

As to Frazier's kidney's, I'm not a doctor but Ali didn't hit Joe with any body shots. I would assume that any kidney damage he had after the fight was there before the fight. I could be wrong. Ali's kidney's weren't great either, though that is one area where Joe did play a big part in. Either way, Joe had some nice performances after Ali-Frazier I, and I hardly think he was finished after that fight.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 15 Nov 2007, 07:56

i dont know what fight you were watching. ali did a lot of good body work in that fight. he must have done as joe wasnt in hospital for as long as he was for facial damage.
as for the question "but what are looks?". well, i wont insult everyones intelligence by holding forth on the importance of looks in our equal and fair minded society

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 15 Nov 2007, 13:58

harrygreb wrote:i dont know what fight you were watching. ali did a lot of good body work in that fight..."

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 15 Nov 2007, 15:08

Ok, I'll throw down the gauntlet and give my reasons why an Old Foreman might well KO a peak Smokin Joe.

1. Old Foreman still hits alot harder than anyone Frazier faced, unless you want to list Young Foreman who destroyed him twice.

2. On his best night, Frazier still isn't exactly impossible to hit.

3. Frazier's chin is overrated. He got dropped twice by Bonavena and once by Quarry, but was saved by the ropes (1st rd-1st fight) I dare say Old Foreman hits a bit harder than those two.

4.Old Foreman doesn't have great handspeed, but neither did Young Foreman. What he did have though was great timing.

5.Old Foreman obviously wasen't in as good of physical shape as Young Foreman, but one thing better about him was his ring smarts. Old Foreman wouldn't be a heavy bag for Frazier to pound into submission. He'd grab, hold, smother, push and uppercut Frazier in close.

6.No matter how well conditioned Frazier is, he's not going to keep Old Foreman from landing, and when that happens it's not going to feel like Jimmy Ellis or Bob Foster's best shots.

Old Foreman by TKO in round 8

Now over to you Dempseyfire

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 15 Nov 2007, 16:35

Seamus wrote:3. Frazier's chin is overrated. He got dropped twice by Bonavena and once by Quarry, but was saved by the ropes (1st rd-1st fight) I dare say Old Foreman hits a bit harder than those two.

You can say it but you would probably be wrong. Besides a decent showing against Holyfield and a dramatic come from (WAY) behind KO of the chin challenged Moorer, Foreman struggled with every decent HW he faced, and did not show much power in fights against the few breathing breathing opponents (Morrison, Stewart, Shulz, Briggs, etc.) he did face. And it’s pretty fair bet that most of those guys wouldn’t have seen the final bell against Quarry or Ringo.

I'm really having a hard time understanding how anyone who watched "Old George" fight could even take this topic seriously.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 15 Nov 2007, 17:26

Seamus wrote:Ok, I'll throw down the gauntlet and give my reasons why an Old Foreman might well KO a peak Smokin Joe.

1. Old Foreman still hits alot harder than anyone Frazier faced, unless you want to list Young Foreman who destroyed him twice.

2. On his best night, Frazier still isn't exactly impossible to hit.

3. Frazier's chin is overrated. He got dropped twice by Bonavena and once by Quarry, but was saved by the ropes (1st rd-1st fight) I dare say Old Foreman hits a bit harder than those two.

4.Old Foreman doesn't have great handspeed, but neither did Young Foreman. What he did have though was great timing.

5.Old Foreman obviously wasen't in as good of physical shape as Young Foreman, but one thing better about him was his ring smarts. Old Foreman wouldn't be a heavy bag for Frazier to pound into submission. He'd grab, hold, smother, push and uppercut Frazier in close.

6.No matter how well conditioned Frazier is, he's not going to keep Old Foreman from landing, and when that happens it's not going to feel like Jimmy Ellis or Bob Foster's best shots.

Old Foreman by TKO in round 8

Now over to you Dempseyfire

Haha, you knew I'd come in now, didn't you?

First off, don't know where you are claiming "the ropes saved Frazier from a KD" in Quarry 1. It's on Youtube . .show me where please. Frazier never even was visibly hurt once. His chin was pretty damn amazing. Bonavena could hit and it was Frazier's 11th professional fight, for crying out loud . . he not only survived a TKO by not getting down a 3rd time, he came back the stronger fighter and won legitimately on points. Pretty damn impressive.

2ndly, a lot of knockout power comes from speed and timing. Younger Foreman was MUCH faster, of hand and foot, than Older Foreman, which makes simple biological sense as humans lose speed as they age. 70s Foreman's handspeed is actually extremely UNDER-RATED . . he was just as fast of hand as a Wlad Klitshcko, for example; He just would at times throw long looping shots, but his left jab, short hooks and uppercuts were very fast.
One reason why 40s Foreman went the distance with the likes of Crawford Grimsley was that he just didn't have the snap/timing that he had 20 years earlier. Frazier at his best had excellent reflexes and upper body/head movement. I don't see a 45 yr old Foreman landing much at all on Joe, esp. as his punch count plummets after the 3rd-4th round. Young Foreman tired in the later rounds but that was also b/c he threw an insane number of punchers for the first 6-7 rounds. Older Foreman's punch-stats greatly reflected his age. Foreman in both Frazier bouts met Frazier's force with a high volume of punches. He couldn't do that in his 40s.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 15 Nov 2007, 18:28

Dempseyfire

It look's as though Frazier get's hit back with a Quarry right in about the first 20 seconds. His posterior hit's the 2nd rope and he immediately bounces back up.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 15 Nov 2007, 18:50

Can you imagine a future champion who --- at the point of being a mere prospect --- took on a top-rated, heavy-handed contender just a year into his pro career, with less than a dozen fights to his name, & winning, receiving such routine & lasting criticism?

Imagine not, for there is one. Never understood this mild obsession fight fans have with Frazier-Bonavena I. Anyone else would be considered a rookie who did a great job. Not Frazier, evidently. & unlike Larry Holmes, of whom it could be said ducked a rematch with anyone who gave him a hard time (Holmes fans will protest, but the writing is on the wall), Frazier went back for more. Even with Foreman.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 16 Nov 2007, 21:55

Im a Holmes fan and sure I would have loved to have seen him re-match Williams and Witherspoon BUT to my understanding politics at that time were some what turbulent and would have made it hard. To Holmes credit the guys he never faced that were top men, Bruno, Page etc were eliminated before they got to him and he ended up facing there conqurerors.

Weaver and Shavers gave Larry tough fights and he was happy to give them re-matches. Was a Norton rematch possible ?

Kym

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 17 Nov 2007, 11:03

This is a tough one for me.

Although Foreman was slower than Frank Bruno in a molasses bath, he was actually a better fighter in his 40's than he was in his 20's.

He also possessed enourmous strength & that would have been the key against JF.

Saying that, I think Frazier may have been able to outscore Foreman, as George was not quite as aggressive in his 2nd career & probably because of this, he may not have been able to land often enough to hurt Joe.