BoxRec

hhaehre wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

hhaehre wrote: Some people value the measured style Foreman adopted post Ali as an improvement, I don't. If Foreman had fought Young the way he fought Frazier in Jamaica it would have been no contest.

Correct. He would have missed so many big shots George would have been exhausted by about the 5th and would have been stopped.

Sure, Ali could not avoid those wild swings but I'm sure Young could, just like he did vs Shavers and Cooney.

He sure did a good job avoiding George's much more controlled and effective aggresion when he smacked George around.

And I think at their respective career stages, Young was a fair site more elusive than Ali.

Shavers and Cooney!? Oh my... That's like using the Sonny Banks KD and the Berbick fight to judge Ali.

I guess I just have to accept that George peaked for a total of 3 fights and was shot at 25, which makes Tyson's short time at the top look like Louis's reign of terror.

The Great John L wrote: He sure did a good job avoiding George's much more controlled and effective aggresion when he smacked George around.

And I think at their respective career stages, Young was a fair site more elusive than Ali.

Shavers and Cooney!? Oh my... That's like using the Sonny Banks KD and the Berbick fight to judge Ali.

I guess I just have to accept that George peaked for a total of 3 fights and was shot at 25, which makes Tyson's short time at the top look like Louis's reign of terror.

I have never said that he was shot at 25, I just think that reining him in post Ali did him no good at all. In his comeback he had to fight that way but in his youth he did not and doing so was a mistake imo. I think it cost him the Young fight.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The Great John L wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:As expected, you can't explain it away. There is no way to do it. It doesn't add up, so you're more than happy to evade my challenge.

I already did, you just chose to ignore logic.

GI is good at that.

He hasn't explained why Foreman took an extra three rounds (scoring two-thirds fewer knockdowns) against a far-inferior Frazier, if he improved from '73 to '76.

TheGreatA wrote:Foreman wasn't the same after losing to Ali in my opinion. Taking 5 rounds to dispose of a near-blind, overweight, close to shot Frazier is certainly not more impressive than blowing a near prime/prime Joe out in 2. If he was at his best then I guess that disproves the notion that a prime Foreman would always destroy a prime Frazier inside two or three rounds.

Quarry to me has a better chance against Big George than he did against Ali or Frazier although it's still a minor chance. He was good against big slow sluggers and what people tend to forget is that he boxed all his life since he was a kid and had a huge advantage in experience over the likes of Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers and even George Foreman.

Good post.

The notion that a prime Foreman would always destroy a prime Frazier inside two or three rounds is dead wrong.

(and yes, I understand that stylistically it is a bad matchup for Frazier)

You agree with me, at the very least then Yancey, that Foreman was dented by the loss to Ali?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You agree with me, at the very least then Yancey, that Foreman was dented by the loss to Ali?

Foreman was definitely not the beast he was post-Zaire that he was in Jamaica and Venezuela.

He lost his confidence and I think there were other mental issues.

Ali really got to him at ringside at that Toronto exhibition. Ali could be really cruel in that way and I detested that side of him.

As did I.

All I was saying to John L. at the point of your interjection was to explain that situation with the two Frazier fights. I think they're conclusive proof Foreman deteriorated.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:As did I.

All I was saying to John L. at the point of your interjection was to explain that situation with the two Frazier fights. I think they're conclusive proof Foreman deteriorated.

Frazier fought an entirely different fight the second time, which provides evidence that a prime Frazier, properly prepared would have stood a chance against any version of Foreman. You are correct that Frazier was vastly inferior in the second fight but his use of more movement actually caused the more experienced and disciplined Foreman some problems.

Please notice how I say evidence and you say proof. I understand that this is not black and white, and yet you don't seem to waiver from a single mindedness. None of this can be proved, but is merely a series of events presented as facts. The silliness comes when people say black and white things like Foreman would always destroy Frazier, when there is some reasonable evidence to the contrary.

BTW, I wasn't really asked my opinion of the difference between the two Frazier fights, but chose to offer it. And I have done so countless times before.

Do you have any opinion as to how the "mentally damaged" Foreman was able to over come hell in the Lyle fight?

I am another who believes that Joe Frazier, motivated, and in great shape, would have a good chance of beating 1973 Foreman. I am also one of the people who believe that Frazier was better in the Ellis fight than he was in the Ali fight. Frazier had been fighting regularly before the Ellis fight, after that he only had less than 2 rounds of fighting in 13 months prior to fighting Ali. After the Ali fight, in almost 2 years, Frazier only fought two non-competitive fights before fighting Foreman. From Ellis in 1970 until Foreman 3 years later, Frazier only had 3 fights and only one of them was competitive and against a top fighter.

Frazier was not the same fighter when he fought Foreman. Of course Foreman would always be dangerous for Frazier and might have even caught the best Frazier as he moved in, but the best Frazier was constant movement and was not easy to hit. I think the best Frazier would have been able to get inside, work the hook, and stop a tired Foreman in 6-7 rounds. Of course, Foreman might have been able to push him back, create punching room, and catch Frazier, but I would lean toward Frazier.

John Galt wrote:...the best Frazier was constant movement and was not easy to hit.

Agreed. He may not have been the most difficult target, but he was hard to hit with a clean solid punch.

The Great John L wrote:

John Galt wrote:...the best Frazier was constant movement and was not easy to hit.

Agreed. He may not have been the most difficult target, but he was hard to hit with a clean solid punch.

More astute observers than me said it didn't matter because even a glazing punch from Foreman is devastating.

Holyfield who fought Foreman and Tyson said Foreman hit harder and Foreman was , like, sixty years old when they fought.

John Galt wrote:I am another who believes that Joe Frazier, motivated, and in great shape, would have a good chance of beating 1973 Foreman. I am also one of the people who believe that Frazier was better in the Ellis fight than he was in the Ali fight. Frazier had been fighting regularly before the Ellis fight, after that he only had less than 2 rounds of fighting in 13 months prior to fighting Ali. After the Ali fight, in almost 2 years, Frazier only fought two non-competitive fights before fighting Foreman. From Ellis in 1970 until Foreman 3 years later, Frazier only had 3 fights and only one of them was competitive and against a top fighter.

Frazier was not the same fighter when he fought Foreman. Of course Foreman would always be dangerous for Frazier and might have even caught the best Frazier as he moved in, but the best Frazier was constant movement and was not easy to hit. I think the best Frazier would have been able to get inside, work the hook, and stop a tired Foreman in 6-7 rounds. Of course, Foreman might have been able to push him back, create punching room, and catch Frazier, but I would lean toward Frazier.

Well said.

Agree on all points.

Stamina coud be a real potential problem for GF in a matchup with prime Joe.

John Galt wrote:I am another who believes that Joe Frazier, motivated, and in great shape, would have a good chance of beating 1973 Foreman. I am also one of the people who believe that Frazier was better in the Ellis fight than he was in the Ali fight. Frazier had been fighting regularly before the Ellis fight, after that he only had less than 2 rounds of fighting in 13 months prior to fighting Ali. After the Ali fight, in almost 2 years, Frazier only fought two non-competitive fights before fighting Foreman. From Ellis in 1970 until Foreman 3 years later, Frazier only had 3 fights and only one of them was competitive and against a top fighter.

Frazier was not the same fighter when he fought Foreman. Of course Foreman would always be dangerous for Frazier and might have even caught the best Frazier as he moved in, but the best Frazier was constant movement and was not easy to hit. I think the best Frazier would have been able to get inside, work the hook, and stop a tired Foreman in 6-7 rounds. Of course, Foreman might have been able to push him back, create punching room, and catch Frazier, but I would lean toward Frazier.

You know the old cliche, "styles make fights". It's true with some exceptions. All the constant movement by Frazier was always forward. That's what a slugger like Foreman wants you to do; come at him. It's fighters with movement, usually backwards, that frustrated him.

I can see a Billy Conn driving Foreman crazy despite the huge size difference, as long as Conn didn't get stupid.

ThatOne wrote:

John Galt wrote:I am another who believes that Joe Frazier, motivated, and in great shape, would have a good chance of beating 1973 Foreman. I am also one of the people who believe that Frazier was better in the Ellis fight than he was in the Ali fight. Frazier had been fighting regularly before the Ellis fight, after that he only had less than 2 rounds of fighting in 13 months prior to fighting Ali. After the Ali fight, in almost 2 years, Frazier only fought two non-competitive fights before fighting Foreman. From Ellis in 1970 until Foreman 3 years later, Frazier only had 3 fights and only one of them was competitive and against a top fighter.

Frazier was not the same fighter when he fought Foreman. Of course Foreman would always be dangerous for Frazier and might have even caught the best Frazier as he moved in, but the best Frazier was constant movement and was not easy to hit. I think the best Frazier would have been able to get inside, work the hook, and stop a tired Foreman in 6-7 rounds. Of course, Foreman might have been able to push him back, create punching room, and catch Frazier, but I would lean toward Frazier.

You know the old cliche, "styles make fights". It's true with some exceptions. All the constant movement by Frazier was always forward. That's what a slugger like Foreman wants you to do; come at him. It's fighters with movement, usually backwards, that frustrated him.

I can see a Billy Conn driving Foreman crazy despite the huge size difference, as long as Conn didn't get stupid.

Yes, Frazier's natural style was to move forward, but he hardly moved forward all the time. Even the lesser Frazier that fought Stander used quite a bit of side to side movement, jabs and combinations against a guy who was tough in the trenches. Of course he also moved forward a lot, but Frazier showed some versatility in many of his fights. He just didn't have to do it very often.

BTW, I would still say that George would be the favorite over Frazier, but if they fought 5 times, I think Joe could have taken one or two of them. Especially if you consider how mentally fragile Foreman was, at least based on the opinions of so many on this forum.

All of Foreman's losses or near losses like Axel Schulz came against fighters, even when he was a old man, who ran from him (Young and Morrison) or outwrestled him (Ali and Holyfield) though the latter two did use a lot of movement.

Nobody ever beat Foreman in eighty one fights by taking the fight to him.

The more I think of it the more I think Cus D'Amato was right to warn Tyson to avoid even a faded George Foreman; it's suicide to take the fight to him.

ThatOne wrote:All of Foreman's losses or near losses like Axel Schulz came against fighters, even when he was a old man, who ran from him (Young and Morrison) or outwrestled him (Ali and Holyfield) though the latter two did use a lot of movement.

Nobody ever beat Foreman in eighty one fights by taking the fight to him.

The more I think of it the more I think Cus D'Amato was right to warn Tyson to avoid even a faded George Foreman; it's suicide to take the fight to him.

Yep, that's why Frazier would have had a chance. Of course, Alex Stewart nearly decapitated Foreman and I don't think the limited and robotic Stewart was capable of running. Foreman did win, but it was close and Foreman probably took the worst beating of his career.

And I'm not sure that I would say that Young ran from George.

The Great John L wrote:

ThatOne wrote:All of Foreman's losses or near losses like Axel Schulz came against fighters, even when he was a old man, who ran from him (Young and Morrison) or outwrestled him (Ali and Holyfield) though the latter two did use a lot of movement.

Nobody ever beat Foreman in eighty one fights by taking the fight to him.

The more I think of it the more I think Cus D'Amato was right to warn Tyson to avoid even a faded George Foreman; it's suicide to take the fight to him.

Yep, that's why Frazier would have had a chance. Of course, Alex Stewart nearly decapitated Foreman and I don't think the limited and robotic Stewart was capable of running. Foreman did win, but it was close and Foreman probably took the worst beating of his career.

And I'm not sure that I would say that Young ran from George.

I consider "running" fighting from a distance.

Young is a puzzling fighter to me. He was a "cutesy" fighter and a great counterpuncher. It's hard to evaluate his career because he had as many ignominious losses as noblw wins even if you say he beat a faded Ali.

ThatOne wrote:I consider "running" fighting from a distance.

Young is a puzzling fighter to me. He was a "cutesy" fighter and a great counterpuncher. It's hard to evaluate his career because he had as many ignominious losses as noblw wins even if you say he beat a faded Ali.

I think that Young's early loses were attributed to his style being hard for many judges to understand, and also partly from his learning process. Of course, Shavers caught him in his 11th fight. Hardly any shame in that.

He faded quickly after the Norton fight (a fight that I, along with many others, think he won), and I believe he had a drug problem later in his career. At his best he was VERY hard to hit, and as you noted an excellent counter puncher. Yes, he fought at a distance, but I don't think many would really call him a runner.

yancey wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:As expected, you can't explain it away. There is no way to do it. It doesn't add up, so you're more than happy to evade my challenge.

I already did, you just chose to ignore logic.

GI is good at that.

Good? She's a freakin' expert at it. And at eating tubs of icecream...

yancey wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You agree with me, at the very least then Yancey, that Foreman was dented by the loss to Ali?

Foreman was definitely not the beast he was post-Zaire that he was in Jamaica and Venezuela.

He lost his confidence and I think there were other mental issues.

Ali really got to him at ringside at that Toronto exhibition. Ali could be really cruel in that way and I detested that side of him.

You detested every side of him. Don't pretend to be Mr Reasonable. You are the #3 Hater in this forum after Crankberry and Fat Bitch Irene.

Collins2000 wrote:

yancey wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You agree with me, at the very least then Yancey, that Foreman was dented by the loss to Ali?

Foreman was definitely not the beast he was post-Zaire that he was in Jamaica and Venezuela.

He lost his confidence and I think there were other mental issues.

Ali really got to him at ringside at that Toronto exhibition. Ali could be really cruel in that way and I detested that side of him.

You detested every side of him. Don't pretend to be Mr Reasonable. You are the #3 Hater in this forum after Crankberry and Fat Bitch Irene.

Curly,

Computer day at the psych ward, huh?

Goofball.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:He hasn't explained why Foreman took an extra three rounds (scoring two-thirds fewer knockdowns) against a far-inferior Frazier, if he improved from '73 to '76.

Frazier also fought a COMPLETLY different fight, using lots of lateral movement and fighting a primarily defensive fight.

And why is a performance automatically better if it ends earlier? Is Tyson's 30 second demolition of Marvis Frazier automatically better than his dismantling of Tyrell Biggs?

Foreman post-Zaire did not lose any ferocity. In fact he was an angrier man, but Clancy had him using the jab more and fighting smarter overall.

The Young fight I think was simply not a good night for Foreman, he was extremely dehydrated in the later rounds which led to his subseqent collapse after the fight in the dressing room and finding Jesus. Still I had Young winning by only a point, with the KD giving him the fight.

Coked up and over weight Dwight Qawi gave the
returning Foreman a tough fight, and proved that
an aggressive and smaller man could take the
fight to Foreman. Yes Qawi lost, but he was also
a specifically hand picked opponent that did better
than what he was suppose to.

Styles make fights is a cliche that armchair experts
rub their poles over, when they do not want to
get into a proper conversation on the game.

Certain fighters are tailor made for another fighter,
but that is generally determined by the fighter and
not the so called mould or style of the fighter.

I see Foreman stopping a running Conn, though
he would no doubt frustrate him.

I would not say Ali and Holy beat Foreman by 'out
wrestling' him. They did it by mixing the ranges
up, working out to in and in to out, and clinching
often. Holyfield won with work rate and combinations,
Ali won by using counters and matching Foreman's
size.

Anyone who can not see an improvement and refinement
in Foreman as he got older is daft, Even the 'old man'
adjusted to his age and changed his game accordingly.