Joe Frazier - No Ring Smarts?

[Russell]

Or maybe adaptability would be a better word. Here's the quote that got me thinking.

"But if you watch Dempsey against big strong Willard you'll see how cautious and elusive he is when faced with a bigger stronger man. That's prime Dempsey. And he himself said, "You cant fight a man like Willard, you have to box him !", and that's what Dempsey did, he moved in and out, attack, retreat, circle, until he had Jess in trouble .... he didn't just chug forward like Frazier did against Foreman, that would be suicide, against a Willard or a Liston."

I've seen Joe Frazier likened to a machine on these boards, among others. Wasn't too terribly diverse but did what he did exceptionally well.

Does that go hand in hand with not having much creativity, or adaptability.

[Son of Gaul]

Or maybe adaptability would be a better word. Here's the quote that got me thinking.

"But if you watch Dempsey against big strong Willard you'll see how cautious and elusive he is when faced with a bigger stronger man. That's prime Dempsey. And he himself said, "You cant fight a man like Willard, you have to box him !", and that's what Dempsey did, he moved in and out, attack, retreat, circle, until he had Jess in trouble .... he didn't just chug forward like Frazier did against Foreman, that would be suicide, against a Willard or a Liston."

I've seen Joe Frazier likened to a machine on these boards, among others. Wasn't too terribly diverse but did what he did exceptionally well.

Does that go hand in hand with not having much creativity, or adaptability.

His style didn't lend itself to creativity. Futch programmed him to bob, swarm, swarm and swarm some more. He was a better fighter because of it as he was always in a position to throw that hook of his. It's not like he was a dummy or something, he was just following instructions like most fighters should when they have a Hall of Fame trainer.

[Son of Gaul]

Also remember that he wasn't a physically gifted fighter so his team really maximized his strengths(leg strength, energy, lung capacity), masked his weaknesses(short arms, slow hands/feet) and made him into the best possible fighter he could have ever been.

With that said, I do believe he could have and should have jabbed more as he scored frequently whenever he decided to throw it. Besides that, I don't see any other changes he or his team could have made to make him a better fighter than he already was from 68-71.

[mcvey]

Or maybe adaptability would be a better word. Here's the quote that got me thinking.

"But if you watch Dempsey against big strong Willard you'll see how cautious and elusive he is when faced with a bigger stronger man. That's prime Dempsey. And he himself said, "You cant fight a man like Willard, you have to box him !", and that's what Dempsey did, he moved in and out, attack, retreat, circle, until he had Jess in trouble .... he didn't just chug forward like Frazier did against Foreman, that would be suicide, against a Willard or a Liston."

I've seen Joe Frazier likened to a machine on these boards, among others. Wasn't too terribly diverse but did what he did exceptionally well.

Does that go hand in hand with not having much creativity, or adaptability.

It applies to Frazier.imo.Against Foreman, Frazier reminded me of one of those little clockwork cars ,you run along the ground and let go, it races forward straight into the skirting board , over and over again.Thats what Frazier did against Foreman ,every time he got up ,banged his gloves together ,rushed back in, only to be floored again.He could only fight one way, no reverse gear and no circling, evading punches ,drawing leads to counter,as Dempsey did against Willard , he was a straight ahead swarmer.One dimensional.

[Dempsey1238]

Well Jess Willard was no George Foreman though, I cant see Dempsey cutting Foreman down like he did Willard imo.

[choklab]

frazier had a special left hand. it was magical with a mind of its own. he landed it at all ranges and at his peak did not miss much with a lead power shot hook he could double up and crack world class fighters with all night. imagine leading with your best punch and using it as regular as a jab? its fair to say this weapon did hide flaws since its sucsess overshadowed evrything else. joes whole weaving programe was about landing that hook, his right was basicly leaverage for his left. his defence was the left hook, his weaving was leverage for the left hook as well as defence. it worked but it was a one gameplan fits all solution.

[mcvey]

Well Jess Willard was no George Foreman though, I cant see Dempsey cutting Foreman down like he did Willard imo.

I cant see Frazier beating Foreman once out of 100 times, unless he comes in with a baseball bat, I just used their fight as an example of how Frazier knew only one way to fight.

[Lobotomy]

The rematch with Quarry deserves to be studied carefully when evaluating Frazier's ring smarts. Futch emphasized that Joe's height and reach were a match for Jerry's own (and in fact, Frazier's reach was an inch longer, while he was just an inch shorter). This was the final time Joe took on somebody his own size, and under Futch's tutelage, he made the most of it in a situation he was expected to lose, executing his underrated jab, and pitching right hands much more than usual (eventually tearing open Quarry's face with one of those rights to end matters).

Stander was committed to forcing Frazier backwards, and Joe adapted by giving Big Ron some angles, outmaneuvering him badly while busting his face up. (Yank Durham gave full credit to Frazier for improvising this footwork during the post fight interview, and in fact seemed a little surprised with Joe for being able to do this. Foreman was much taller though, and with much longer arms than Stander, who was a half inch shorter and conceded three inches in reach to Frazier.)

Check out the first round between Frazier and Bob Foster. Joe was not out boxed by Bob as badly as one might expect. Cosell described Foster's opening three minutes as having been executed with "reasonable effectiveness," but Bob wasn't handing Joe any kind of boxing lesson.

During Kinshasa, Frazier commented, "He's (Ali) using the old pro skill on George, and George is falling for it!" That is not the observation of somebody with no ring smarts.

I have wondered how his career might have unfolded differently without Durham. Would Futch alone have had him boxing more in the first match with Quarry for example? Joe was 20 pounds over his best, aging and shot for the Foreman rematch, but he did leave George looking like he'd been in a fight this time, and moved surprisingly well considering the weight he was carrying. If he'd been 26 years old, weighed around 203 pounds, and didn't have the FOTC behind him, he might have been able to drown Foreman in deep water with that strategy.

When Joe lost the title in Kingston, George just knocked him silly, and he wasn't able to clear his head sufficiently to adjust and survive. It's clear he'd lost his edge by then, and you can actually hear it in his post fight interviews after Daniels and Stander.

Manila was a great performance by Joe, and I don't know how he could have possibly done better. Ali's the GOAT for some damned good reasons, including his insane ability to absorb body punishment.

[PetethePrince]

It applies to Frazier.imo.Against Foreman, Frazier reminded me of one of those little clockwork cars ,you run along the ground and let go, it races forward straight into the skirting board , over and over again.Thats what Frazier did against Foreman ,every time he got up ,banged his gloves together ,rushed back in, only to be floored again.He could only fight one way, no reverse gear and no circling, evading punches ,drawing leads to counter,as Dempsey did against Willard , he was a straight ahead swarmer.One dimensional.


That was the Frazier against Foreman. That's a good point, but I think Frazier vs Chuvalo was a bit more mobile using more lateral movements. But Frazier of 72 onwards just had his feet stuck in the mud or something.

[PetethePrince]

The rematch with Quarry deserves to be studied carefully when evaluating Frazier's ring smarts. Futch emphasized that Joe's height and reach were a match for Jerry's own (and in fact, Frazier's reach was an inch longer, while he was just an inch shorter). This was the final time Joe took on somebody his own size, and under Futch's tutelage, he made the most of it in a situation he was expected to lose, executing his underrated jab, and pitching right hands much more than usual (eventually tearing open Quarry's face with one of those rights to end matters).

Stander was committed to forcing Frazier backwards, and Joe adapted by giving Big Ron some angles, outmaneuvering him badly while busting his face up. (Yank Durham gave full credit to Frazier for improvising this footwork during the post fight interview, and in fact seemed a little surprised with Joe for being able to do this. Foreman was much taller though, and with much longer arms than Stander, who was a half inch shorter and conceded three inches in reach to Frazier.)

Check out the first round between Frazier and Bob Foster. Joe was not out boxed by Bob as badly as one might expect. Cosell described Foster's opening three minutes as having been executed with "reasonable effectiveness," but Bob wasn't handing Joe any kind of boxing lesson.

During Kinshasa, Frazier commented, "He's (Ali) using the old pro skill on George, and George is falling for it!" That is not the observation of somebody with no ring smarts.

I have wondered how his career might have unfolded differently without Durham. Would Futch alone have had him boxing more in the first match with Quarry for example? Joe was 20 pounds over his best, aging and shot for the Foreman rematch, but he did leave George looking like he'd been in a fight this time, and moved surprisingly well considering the weight he was carrying. If he'd been 26 years old, weighed around 203 pounds, and didn't have the FOTC behind him, he might have been able to drown Foreman in deep water with that strategy.

When Joe lost the title in Kingston, George just knocked him silly, and he wasn't able to clear his head sufficiently to adjust and survive. It's clear he'd lost his edge by then, and you can actually hear it in his post fight interviews after Daniels and Stander.

Manila was a great performance by Joe, and I don't know how he could have possibly done better. Ali's the GOAT for some damned good reasons, including his insane ability to absorb body punishment.

Great post. I don't think Futch made it an option to try making Frazier more mobile. Maybe Joe improvised under Durham more, but Futch I do believe wanted to incorporate Joe's right hand more. While Joe was a worse fighter, his right hand was much more useful in 74-75 than it was earlier in his career.

At the same time, watch the lateral mobility of Frazier against a truck of a fighter in Chuvalo. Even in his fights with Bonavena he doesn't just steer forward. I do guess the reach and height advantage were difficult to overcome against George. At the same time it seemed Joe just wanted to left hook him out of there... but at this point it seemed like his feet was more stuck in the mud. He came a bit over weight, and probably overlooking Foreman. It probably wouldn't have even mattered, it just made Joe look worse though.

[mcvey]

That was the Frazier against Foreman. That's a good point, but I think Frazier vs Chuvalo was a bit more mobile using more lateral movements. But Frazier of 72 onwards just had his feet stuck in the mud or something.
I submit than most fighters would look relatively skilled against Chuvalo.

[mcvey]

The rematch with Quarry deserves to be studied carefully when evaluating Frazier's ring smarts. Futch emphasized that Joe's height and reach were a match for Jerry's own (and in fact, Frazier's reach was an inch longer, while he was just an inch shorter). This was the final time Joe took on somebody his own size, and under Futch's tutelage, he made the most of it in a situation he was expected to lose, executing his underrated jab, and pitching right hands much more than usual (eventually tearing open Quarry's face with one of those rights to end matters).

Stander was committed to forcing Frazier backwards, and Joe adapted by giving Big Ron some angles, outmaneuvering him badly while busting his face up. (Yank Durham gave full credit to Frazier for improvising this footwork during the post fight interview, and in fact seemed a little surprised with Joe for being able to do this. Foreman was much taller though, and with much longer arms than Stander, who was a half inch shorter and conceded three inches in reach to Frazier.)

Check out the first round between Frazier and Bob Foster. Joe was not out boxed by Bob as badly as one might expect. Cosell described Foster's opening three minutes as having been executed with "reasonable effectiveness," but Bob wasn't handing Joe any kind of boxing lesson.

During Kinshasa, Frazier commented, "He's (Ali) using the old pro skill on George, and George is falling for it!" That is not the observation of somebody with no ring smarts.

I have wondered how his career might have unfolded differently without Durham. Would Futch alone have had him boxing more in the first match with Quarry for example? Joe was 20 pounds over his best, aging and shot for the Foreman rematch, but he did leave George looking like he'd been in a fight this time, and moved surprisingly well considering the weight he was carrying. If he'd been 26 years old, weighed around 203 pounds, and didn't have the FOTC behind him, he might have been able to drown Foreman in deep water with that strategy.

When Joe lost the title in Kingston, George just knocked him silly, and he wasn't able to clear his head sufficiently to adjust and survive. It's clear he'd lost his edge by then, and you can actually hear it in his post fight interviews after Daniels and Stander.

Manila was a great performance by Joe, and I don't know how he could have possibly done better. Ali's the GOAT for some damned good reasons, including his insane ability to absorb body punishment.
Quarry was not a man known for his ring smarts quite the opposite in fact, he was notorious for choosing the wrong game plan in several fights ,two of which were against Frazier.
Stander was not ranked in the top 20 , the very fact that he was fighting for the world title was a disgrace, the fact remains he was competitive.

Fosters record against rated heavyweights is abysmal, 21lbs lighter than Frazier, he was not strong enough to tie him up inside and did not hit hard enough to keep him off, never the less he hit Frazier with jabs, just about when he wanted to in the 1st round and ,also landed a few right crosses.Frazier went back to his corner and asked Durham, "what am I doing wrong Yank"? Durham replied" hold your gloves higher", some ring smarts.

[Ted Spoon]

As good as one might hope to operate for such a fighter.

Frazier was all short limbs and forward motion, chewing you up with hooks on the way in. The gittery movements and glove-swatting was mighty effective and should never be confused with a man simply trying to cumbersomely hustle his way in.

The manner in which Frazier could open you from the inside out was all his own. The defences of tip-top boxers like Foster and Ellis were breached quickly, displaying how underrated he could be as a fast starter. He wasn't that slow and so much more vibrant and all together irresistible before FOTC blew a gasket.

The Frazier of his best years would have given Foreman plenty to think about. He had that bounce Tyson had before he left his mantle.

[mcvey]

As good as one might hope to operate for such a fighter.

Frazier was all short limbs and forward motion, chewing you up with hooks on the way in. The gittery movements and glove-swatting was mighty effective and should never be confused with a man simply trying to cumbersomely hustle his way in.

The manner in which Frazier could open you from the inside out was all his own. The defences of tip-top boxers like Foster and Ellis were breached quickly, displaying how underrated he could be as a fast starter. He wasn't that slow and so much more vibrant and all together irresistible before FOTC blew a gasket.

The Frazier of his best years would have given Foreman plenty to think about. He had that bounce Tyson had before he left his mantle.

Frazier met ONE REAL PUNCHER and got bounced like a ball.

[Ted Spoon]

Frazier met ONE REAL PUNCHER and got bounced like a ball.

That's one way of looking at it, if a little blunt.

Foreman was, by any standard, an especially dangerous puncher, and Frazier ate combinations that would have sparked a legion of contenders cold before he could not go on.

We must consider such things.

Ali, while not the heaviest, was a good puncher and gave Frazier absolutely everything from the very roots of his 6,3, 215lbs frame.

[redrooster]

As good as one might hope to operate for such a fighter.

Frazier was all short limbs and forward motion, chewing you up with hooks on the way in. The gittery movements and glove-swatting was mighty effective and should never be confused with a man simply trying to cumbersomely hustle his way in.

The manner in which Frazier could open you from the inside out was all his own. The defences of tip-top boxers like Foster and Ellis were breached quickly, displaying how underrated he could be as a fast starter. He wasn't that slow and so much more vibrant and all together irresistible before FOTC blew a gasket.

The Frazier of his best years would have given Foreman plenty to think about. He had that bounce Tyson had before he left his mantle.

Ted what happened to all that fancy speech you used to use when you arrived at ESB?

Just wondering

I always classified Joe as strictly an infighter. Joe was devestating against Ron Stander in 72, just two months before.

Not much versatility and yet he won a gold medal

[ricardoparker93]

Frazier met ONE REAL PUNCHER and got bounced like a ball.

Frazier met Foreman possibly the hardest puncher in the history of the heavyweight division.

He fought Ali who KO'd Liston, Foreman, Moore and Bonavena (he was featherfisted after all)

He fought Quarry twice who was a dangerous puncher.

Bonavena twice who could punch and Bob Foster who although a light heavy is p4p one of the hardest hitters of all time. So although Frazier only fought one MONSTER puncher he was never KO'd by the likes of Fireman Jim Flynn (ATG puncher though Flynn was)

Since i've been on this board i've seen you consistently right off Joe Frazier and his achievements, but talk up Dempseys win over Willard... why don't you raise the Firpo fight if you want evidence of how that brawler would have fared against Foreman.

All in all try and be objective, it would seem your in the minority :good

[mcvey]

Frazier met Foreman possibly the hardest puncher in the history of the heavyweight division.

He fought Ali who KO'd Liston, Foreman, Moore and Bonavena (he was featherfisted after all)

He fought Quarry twice who was a dangerous puncher.

Bonavena twice who could punch and Bob Foster who although a light heavy is p4p one of the hardest hitters of all time. So although Frazier only fought one MONSTER puncher he was never KO'd by the likes of Fireman Jim Flynn (ATG puncher though Flynn was)

Since i've been on this board i've seen you consistently right off Joe Frazier and his achievements, but talk up Dempseys win over Willard... why don't you raise the Firpo fight if you want evidence of how that brawler would have fared against Foreman.

All in all try and be objective, it would seem your in the minority :good
Bonavena was a decent clubbing puncher, nothing sensational ,he floored Frazier twice.
Foster NEVER dropped a rated heavyweight.
What has JIm Flynn to do with this discussion?
I dont think I have talked up Dempsey's win particularly, in another thread I have just made, Wlad v Willard I referred to Willard being fat and inactive when he fought Dempsey.
This thread is about Frazier's ring smarts,or lack of them. I contend he was a one dimensional fighter. If you believe Frazier was more multi faceted as a fighter than Dempsey, that is your right, I would not agree with you ,but that doesn't matter, the thread is about Frazier,not Frazier compared to Dempsey.
If I am in the minority I doubt it will worry me unduly. Because I don't happen to agree with you does not mean I am not objective.

[choklab]

The rematch with Quarry was the final time Joe took on somebody his own size, and under Futch's tutelage, he made the most of it in a situation he was expected to lose, executing his underrated jab, and pitching right hands much more than usual (eventually tearing open Quarry's face with one of those rights to end matters).

good point, this was a good win for frazier here but it wasnt the last time he fought someone his own size. his next fight was with ellis. I agree there was more to frazier. To be sucsesful in boxing you need to understand how it works and concentrate on your strengths, working out how to land your best shot against a difrent guy, spotting the openeing and pulling the trigger, timing a bodyshot when the oponent takes a deep breath etc. agresive fighters are aware of this.

Stander was committed to forcing Frazier backwards, and Joe adapted by giving Big Ron some angles, outmaneuvering him badly while busting his face up. (Yank Durham gave full credit to Frazier for improvising this footwork during the post fight interview, and in fact seemed a little surprised with Joe for being able to do this. Foreman was much taller though, and with much longer arms than Stander, who was a half inch shorter and conceded three inches in reach to Frazier.)

exactly. frazier knew how to make room for his left hook, if a guy pushed forward he still knew where his feet needed to be in relation to the other guy so he could pull the trigger. he did this with chuvalo also. mathis was bigger than foreman his reach was comparable only george timed fraziers head movement to catch him. mathis didnt push him off balance. foreman was a step up in talent and joes first test since the wear and tear he endured against ali. frazier was not the same guy.



[/quote]

[Unforgiven]

I think Frazier's "lack of ring smarts" only actually cost him one fight - against Foreman, in Jamaica 1973 - and it's unlikely he would have won that one anyway.

He definitely fought a dumb fight there though.

[Unforgiven]

Well Jess Willard was no George Foreman though, I cant see Dempsey cutting Foreman down like he did Willard imo.

I think Dempsey would have at least tried to do what he did with Willard, ie. move, circle, keep away, keeping up on his toes, until he sees the opening - rather than just bore straight in to Foreman like he's on tracks, trying to walk through punches and out-fight on pure stubborness.

[Boxed Ears]

Or maybe adaptability would be a better word. Here's the quote that got me thinking.

"But if you watch Dempsey against big strong Willard you'll see how cautious and elusive he is when faced with a bigger stronger man. That's prime Dempsey. And he himself said, "You cant fight a man like Willard, you have to box him !", and that's what Dempsey did, he moved in and out, attack, retreat, circle, until he had Jess in trouble .... he didn't just chug forward like Frazier did against Foreman, that would be suicide, against a Willard or a Liston."

I've seen Joe Frazier likened to a machine on these boards, among others. Wasn't too terribly diverse but did what he did exceptionally well.

Does that go hand in hand with not having much creativity, or adaptability.

Highlighted in green is probably what you can boil all of this down to. Love Frazier, but that's the deal. It wasn't that he didn't have ring smarts, it's that he knew how to stick to what he did best and usually didn't want to gamble on anything else, I think .This is the package he comes in. He's a master of one trade and a jack of not too many others. He had an identity and he knew how to stick to it and it would've been enough against nearly anyone. This is true of a lot of all-time greats.

[Bummy Davis]

Frazier HAD THE OLYMPIC PEDIGREE but remember he only had 26 fights when going for Ali 1 and was not in the same condition when he fought Foreman and it was visible on his body. Frazier was not the same ripped fighter for Stander,Daniels or Foreman. Swarmers are the toughest style because you need to have supreme condition at all times. Armstrong had a longer prime because he was extremely conditioned and active. Frazier was also staggered by fighters like Manuel Ramos and Bonavena and was not as much of a defensive fighter as Marciano and because of his reliance on the left hook was less full of surprises. You knew Frazier was coming at you with the hook and he popped the right to the body a lot but he was virtually a one-handed fighter. Frazier was one of the best left-hookers in the heavyweight division but you need 2 hands at the top to beat the best and be dominant with your style. Frazier beat Quarry,Bonavena,Ellis and Ali with mainly the left hook. There was a genius in his gift but half the battle is won from the start with a one handed fighter

[Lobotomy]

good point, this was a good win for frazier here but it wasnt the last time he fought someone his own size. his next fight was with ellis.At 6'1," Jimmy had a 76" reach. It can be argued that they were relatively equal in size, but Ellis had enough of an advantage in height and reach that Joe should utilize his characteristic approach to dealing with him, going low and under. With Jerry, he could clearly attempt to match height and reach though.