I see no evidence for that Shane. Foreman was ahead every round. Frazier was unlikely NOT to get struck out, & there was no evidence that Foreman was wearing out, or Frazier was coming on. I love them both, but your take seems a biased fan's interpretation. What was Joe doing to win, improve, or get a decision? He would have had to start winning every round & go the distance to win, very unlikely.
How am I biased, bud? Like I said, its a hard fight to score. It was like a bull and a matador. Frazier spent more time running and fighting in spurts and George was too scared to pull the trigger. Hard to pick a real winner here but I lean slightly towards Joe because he landed the more memorable blows before the knockout. Explain to me how George was so far ahead?
I had Frazier ahead myself. He showed a new style of himself, sticking, moving, jabbing, countering. It was unique to see the best swarmer of all time fighting like a boxer. The judges had Frazier ahead but I think it was bias because they remembered how bad he whooped Frazier the first go round and they considered Frazier to be a washed up fighter. Frazier was doing moderately well until George knocked the contact out of his eye. Then he was suddenly vulnerable.
Here's a thought. What if we had a time machine and put 1968-71 Frazier in the ring with 1994 George Foreman? Still a dangerous fight for Frazier or does he knock out old George?
Only dangerous if Frazier stood there and didn't move his head. Foreman did great against Bert Cooper who was trained by Frazier but Cooper wasn't anywhere as good as Frazier. Peak Frazier most likely would stop Foreman but Foreman always has that puncher's chance.
Joe's Pièce de résistance was his performance against Ali in '71, he was determined & focused & this peak version just maybe could have survived the onslaught to beat Foreman on points. By '73 Joe had lost some of that intensity & was clearly on the wane whilst George was close to his peak. He just looked so much bigger & stronger than Joe & manhandled him like a rag doll. Some of Joe's fans & I include myself as one praise his Aliesque tactics in the 2nd fight, saying he did better but I just dont see it, just didn't suit his style of fighting & the outcome was the same. I know he had to change something but I prefer fight 1 because at least we can admire Joe's courage & heart for getting up so many times. I look at it this way, who else could have beat Foreman that night in '73? remember he battered Norton a year later in Caracus.
To me the Foreman and Frazier rematch was a lot like Conn-Louis 1, main difference being that Louis had trouble catching Conn but George was too tentative to really let Joe have it. Joe hit George harder than Ron Lyle did but George took em' solid. I agree with Shane because neither man did much. You could make a case for either man but George didn't dominate until he had Joe hurt.
To continue, I cannot find any eyewitness account that says it was close BEFORE the KO. Plus the 2 here who think Frazier was doing at least or well or better know boxing. Given the general love for Frazier, I call this a bias of wishful thing. Denile is not just a river in Africa.
Some examples of how Foreman was clearly winning before his KO, including the Comcast scoring:
Frazier did well imo, especially when compared to the first fight. He lasted longer and challenged Foreman a bit. It also worked to Joe’s favor that George was hesitant to throw the big bombs and cautious of his stamina. This was a different George than the one in Kingston.
Nope, bud. There's nothing at all biased about my opinion of Frazier-Foreman II. I have the right to an opinion and judged the fight on my own merit. Just because you can rally up links of people that share your opinion doesn't make me wrong.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter because Joe was knocked out and lost the fight anyway. But in my opinion (which I am entitled to have, whether you and the rest of the world disagrees or not) Joe looked good in there while the fight lasted. It was amazing to see one of boxing's greatest swarmers adopt a counter-punching "stick and move" strategy with relative success.
In my opinion Joe was leading, but it was still an awkward fight to score because neither guy was doing much. Joe was providing most of the action but was ineffective, and George was in the midst of his timid stage and scared to let loose.
Nothing I said indicates I begrudge or critique your right to have an opinion.
Of course you did, in a subtle way. You're making your opinion sound as if it's fact, and even rallying up opinions from other people that agree with you.
Let me tell you something about these "experts" bud. It was expert, professional judges that robbed George Foreman against Shannon Briggs. A similar travesty happened in the original Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield fight in '99. Most agree that those fights were scored wrong. We're not experts, but the professionally appointed experts scored those fights. So would you find those judges to back up your opinion?
Everyone has the right to score a fight his or her own way. Some score based on the number of punches landed; others score based on the more effective punches landed. Others score based on ring generalship, and other factors have to be included including fouls, knockdowns, etc.
You say you're being friendly but I see right through what you're doing. You're being the same old subtle bully you've always been around here. And no, I am not talking about hacking, racist and pedophile charges and all that; I am talking solely about your personality. Thats what people have a problem with, or at least I do.
It was a small consolation that he could use an unfamiliar style against a world class HW without an immediate disaster.
I disagree. Imagine if Muhammad Ali tried to fight like Joe Frazier? What if he started ducking and swarming against Sonny Liston in '64 instead of using his usual speedy fight plan? He would surely get KO'd, man. Frazier was stopped by Foreman when he adopted Ali's tactics, but he made it longer than Ali would have if he tried to copy Frazier's style.
Furthermore, could Marciano, Dempsey or Tyson fight like Ali? Could any of them fight backward? Dart in and out? No. That's why Frazier is the best of the swarmers in my opinion because he could find other ways to fight you. He didn't have to always move forward. He actually fought Ron Stander as a counter-puncher too and won by TKO. Instead of rushing right at Stander the way he usually did business, Joe stepped back and picked his shots and let Stander hang himself. You really don't give Frazier enough credit in this regard. Tua, Marciano, Dempsey or Tyson could never fight that way.
I cannot see him winning more than a round before he was Koed.
I disagree. How the hell do you have George winning? He didn't do anything. Joe was the only one worth watching.