BoxRec

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 13:59**

If there was NO Muhammad Ali . . . the 60s and 70s would have been a lot less interesting . . .

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 14:28**

DaveV17 wrote:Foreman didn't like the 5-5 Dwight Qawi's style. Being too fat and getting exhausted beat Qawi, not Foreman's style. Qawi showed that Foreman does not dominate all short fighters. Foreman beat an overweight over confident Frazier the first time, and a grossly overweight, shot Frazier the second time. Neither of those fights proves that Foreman beats all shorter fighters.

Good Point...

Tyson woulda had Foreman

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 17:35**

DaveV17 wrote:Foreman didn't like the 5-5 Dwight Qawi's style. Being too fat and getting exhausted beat Qawi, not Foreman's style. Qawi showed that Foreman does not dominate all short fighters. Foreman beat an overweight over confident Frazier the first time, and a grossly overweight, shot Frazier the second time. Neither of those fights proves that Foreman beats all shorter fighters.

Are you suggesting that the Frazier who defeated Ali on March 8, 1971 could have defeated the Foreman of January 22, 1973?

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 17:41**

with all respect to Joe, I can't invision most anyone being able to come right after the prime Foreman and survive more than five rounds with him. Joe lasted two in their first encounter and five in the second bout. not frazier, not dempsey or marciano, could beat Foreman with the bobbing and weaving style, it just opened up the chance of the uppercut, and I never seen a more devestating right uppercut in my life than the ones Foreman could throw.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 18:06**

Frazier in '71 would not have beaten Foreman. Look how often Ali hit him in the first six rounds... if it had been Foreman it would have been yet another early blow out victory for Big George. Joe was a slow starter, and that's not going to help against someone like prime George who KO'd most of his opponents in 2 rounds.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 18:37**

I find it hard to imagine that a peak say late 60s Frazier would be able to beat Foreman. Big george just had the goods to trouble Frazier.

Maybe the older come back Foreman would struggle against a 1975 Frazier (Foreman-Qawi '87 as a test point) and lost over the duration of the fight.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 21:26**

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 21:28**

All the conditioning in the world might not save you if George Foreman is hitting you at will.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 21:49**

If Frazier and Foreman fought in say 1969 then Id say Frazier has a good chance.

I dont think conditioning was Fraziers problem in the 1973 fight. Frazier was more one handed at this time of his career, but he was not 'shot'.

Lets say 1969 Frazier vs 1973 Foreman. I think Foreman wins still.

Kym

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 21:53**

DaveV17 wrote:Ray wrote, "Are you suggesting that the Frazier who defeated Ali on March 8, 1971 could have defeated the Foreman of January 22, 1973?"

I am in the minority but, yes, I think the Frazier of the first Ellis fight might beat the Foreman who beat him. Most people would not agree and I have no problem with that, but a motivated, conditioned Frazier would be a different fighter than the one Foreman knocked down 6 times. Frazier was overweight and over confident for the first Foreman fight. For the second Foreman fight, Frazier was grossly overweight and over the hill. Foreman might have beaten any version of Frazier, but IMO, Foreman never had to fight a well conditioned, motivated Frazier.

I'll join you in the minority.

Joe of 3/8/71 survives those dangerous first few rounds, kills Foreman's spirit with body shots, and takes him out by round 10.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 21:58**

Robinson wrote:If Frazier and Foreman fought in say 1969 then Id say Frazier has a good chance.

I dont think conditioning was Fraziers problem in the 1973 fight. Frazier was more one handed at this time of his career, but he was not 'shot'.

Lets say 1969 Frazier vs 1973 Foreman. I think Foreman wins still.

Kym

Yeah, I'm not suggesting that '69 Foreman beats '69 Frazier, I'm just addressing the hypothetical of '73 Foreman vs. Joe at his "best."

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 22:00**

I never said that.

I said what I said.
I was saying that in 1969 had both of them met there and then....

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 22:02**

Ok, I just wanted to clarify what I was talking about in my post.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 23:01**

"...Frazier was overweight and over confident for the first Foreman fight..." - Dave

I have seen, on occasion, people say this as though it weren't Joe Frazier in that ring. As though it were someone else. Frazier, a 205lber, was eight pounds over his natural weight, not eight kilos. Foreman was drained below his best weight, but because the victory was so decisive, that appears to be a non-issue.

Frazier was a little overweight when he first fought Foreman, & did take him lightly. It was, however, still Joe Frazier in that ring, & Joe Frazier never beats a prime George Foreman.

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 23:27**

Posted: **15 Apr 2008, 23:38**

Foreman had enormous shoulders, & stood rather broad, even for someone at 6'4". A weight of 225lb served him better, & he was a lot closer to that for his subsequent encounters with Roman & Norton, though he was still a little light against Roman. This isn't to say that Foreman was sickly dehydrated, but he was in better shape against Norton, especially.

Frazier could have been in better shape, & had been in the past --- it was still eight pounds, though, which is why I think terms like, "fat," &, "pudgy" are exaggerations. I doubt eight pounds is the difference in a fight with Foreman between being floored six times en route to a 2nd round TKO, & actually winning.

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 00:02**

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 06:24**

When does being out of shape take effect in the first round like it did for Frazier against Foreman. As soon as Foreman whacked him...Frazier could not get bakc into the fight. Thats how it plays out.

I dont think in n1973 Frazier was his best, but he was no where near being over the hill.

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 14:10**

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 14:19**

Frazier weighed 212 for Mathis and 215 for Ali III. Was Frazier lackadasical in his training or overconfident for those fights?

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 14:29**

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 14:37**

granberry wrote:If there was NO Muhammad Ali

Thomas Hauser would be working in a library filing books.

his Pulitzer prize nomination wasnt for anything to do with Ali, was it?

Hauser has an existence outside of Ali, and before Ali.

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 16:29**

DaveV17 wrote:That weight for Mathis seems out of line. Maybe they weighed in with their clothes on? At that time, Joe was usually 203-05 for big fights. For Ali III, IMO, Frazier was too heavy and a very diminished fighter compared to the prime Frazier.

Frazier’s weights after winning the title in 1968:

1968
212 v. Mathis
203½ v. Ramos
203 v. Bonavena

1969
204½ v. Zyglewicz
203½ v. Quarry

1970
206 v. Ellis
209 v. Foster

1971
205½ v. Ali

1972
215½ v. Daniels
217½ v. Stander

1973
214 v. Foreman
208 v. Bugner (non-title)

1974
209 v. Ali
212 v. Quarry

1975
211 v. Ellis
215 v. Ali

1976
224½ v. Foreman

1981
229 v. Cummings

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 16:56**

Posted: **16 Apr 2008, 17:13**

You could also just as easily say that Frazier weight for the Foreman fight was out of line. Maybe he didn't weigh those extra few pounds.

You also just as easily say that Ellis was overconfident against Frazier as you could say that Frazier was supposedly overconfident against Foreman.

What happened, happened. Foreman beat Frazier. Frazier beat Ellis. No excuses. That's what happened. End of story.