BoxRec

We are talking about 1975 Frazier here, he was a prouder more stubborn
beast than his younger self. He had less defensive subtleness he was
more power puncher hungry and less stamina-movement in his legs.

The 1991 Foreman was more or less a walking fortress for the most part
sure he lacked mobility, sure he lacked youth and speed, what he did
have however he used well. Those things he would have used to defeat
a man who he had on two previous occasions bested easily before.

It will not be easy, but Foreman had the goods, smarts and style to
stop the brave, entertaining and always entertaining 1975 Frazier.

yancey wrote:I just watched the 10th rd of Moorer and Foreman.

I know it was right on the chin, but can anybody imagine the likes of Ali or Frazier staying down for the 10 count from that punch? Come on, it wasn't a killer punch.

Don't know much about the rest of the fight (don't want to waste time watching) but the 10th round looked like it was fought in slow motion, it was that bad.

Compare that "action" to the greats of the '60s and '70s.

Selective, much? I just watched Joe Frazier struggle to a draw with Jumbo Cummings. Wow, what a stinker that Frazier was.

He & Foreman were both washed-up, relative to their prime abilities. Difference being Foreman was still a contender, still a winner, & ultimately, a champion again. For Frazier (& everyone else), they were something far, far less --- even at a dramatically younger age.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

yancey wrote:I just watched the 10th rd of Moorer and Foreman.

I know it was right on the chin, but can anybody imagine the likes of Ali or Frazier staying down for the 10 count from that punch? Come on, it wasn't a killer punch.

Don't know much about the rest of the fight (don't want to waste time watching) but the 10th round looked like it was fought in slow motion, it was that bad.

Compare that "action" to the greats of the '60s and '70s.

Selective, much? I just watched Joe Frazier struggle to a draw with Jumbo Cummings. Wow, what a stinker that Frazier was.

He & Foreman were both washed-up, relative to their prime abilities. Difference being Foreman was still a contender, still a winner, & ultimately, a champion again. For Frazier (& everyone else), they were something far, far less --- even at a dramatically younger age.

Totally agree about Frazier post-Manila. He was a totally shot fighter after that and definitely should have retired. (Actually, he should have retired right after the FOTC, but that is another story)

I have only watched Foreman-Frazier II one time and I have never seen one moment of Frazier-Cummings. I'd prefer to remember my favorite as he was.

Right, but the point completely overlooked when discussing Foreman's comeback was that he was a shot fighter --- relative to his prime form. By that, I mean he wasn't close to as dangerous as he had once been. Because he competed & even won the crown, people somehow forget he was shot, just as Frazier was shot when he fought Cummings, & Ali was when he tackled Holmes, for instance.

The difference was that even a shot Foreman was still --- astoundingly --- this competitive, frightful, imposing force in the division. He is a victim of his own success in this context. No one will ever say a completely shot Foreman won the title back, but it's the truth, & it makes him the absolute rarest of individuals. Herego, nothing of his second career can be over-rated, or over-stated.

Robinson wrote:No disrespect to Frazier. But I do not see how he has the stamina, speed,
power and energy to out last or decision the 1991 Foreman.. who though
portly looking was a strong and in shape man.

That Foreman though lacking his youthful pop worked his strengths.. them
being power, strength itself and mass. He also adopted the cross arm defence
nicely.

While I do think that the Qawi showing against Foreman lends some hope for
a Frazier 1975 win.. I just can not see Joe being able to trade and survive
against 1991 George.

I see Foreman 1991 using his weight and catching Frazier in the middle rounds.
Sure Frazier gets his licks in, but its not enough and Foreman just puts him
down.

Sorry Smoke.

When i revisited this thread my mind was at first telling me surely George wins this. Surely the 1991 version wasnt really that much slower?, I mean George had always been slow of hand and foot so surely the 1991 version wouldnt be hindered there?

On reflection I think the 70's Foreman had more malice and will to get the kayo early wheras the old man took his time. Im also pretty sure the old mans punches had lost a fair bit of snap and power and in actual fact speed the second time round although the cunning old preacher tried to shorten them off his cross arm defence to disguise that.

Whats my conclusion at this point? It is that well its certain the fight will go longer than in the 1970's........

Next point the 1991 Foreman also had improved stamina and defence to cover his considerable ass when he couldnt take his man out.

With Frazier its key to remember only 1970's Foreman did what he did to him.
No other HW in history imo had it over Joe like Foreman did in the 1970's

Im gonna go out on a limb here and say Frazier wins a 12 round decision with the 1991 Foreman, Frazier fighting him all the way and winning a close but clear decision.

This isnt some lower grade guy like Cooney or a ill prepared outsized Qawi who is gonna crumble again under those short arm slower shots.And this sure as hell isnt Moorer or Adilson Rodriguez. Joe would work it and work it, the lessor aggression,power and malice of the older foreman would work in his favour obviously, this Foreman Joe could handle. Sure Foreman had a good defence in 1991, but those left hooks even if blocked would hurt the arms of the old man, and Joe hit harder waay harder than Stewart , Holyfield and Morrison and was still a very busy fighter of supreme stamina and pride in 1975.

yep Im sure Joe wins and swells up the old mans face but he never hurts him and its close but clear on points

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it was a phenomenal achievement for someone that age to win the heavyweight title. No question about it. However, it seems some people get carried away and think that this version Foreman could have beat some great fighters that he would not have. That would include Frazier, which is what this thread is about.

As yancey touched on, anyone with a good chin would not have been knocked out by that punch that knocked out Moorer. Foreman did not have as much power, and was much slower.

Foreman did not have better stamina when he got older. He just fought at much slower pace because his age forced him to. He threw a lot more punches per round than he did when got older.

Kind of minor point, but he was not as shot as Ali or Frazier was. Ali hardly even throw a punch. (He looked a little better against Berbick). He also had not fought in two years. Frazier had not fought in more than 5 years.

Foreman was smart by getting rid of the ring rust and fighting several weak opponents in his comeback. He was old but not rusty. Having said this, Foreman winning the title again was one of the greatest moments in boxing history.

Ambling Alp wrote:
As yancey touched on, anyone with a good chin would not have been knocked out by that punch that knocked out Moorer.

No one agreed with him. And he himself has now shifted his position on that punch.