What people fail to realise, is that Frazier was a better fighter PRIOR to 1971. He was much faster in the late 60's and had more snap on his shots.
Absurd. Frazier was in his absolute prime when he fought Ali. 1971 was Joe's seventh year as a pro and he had only 26 fights up to that point. At what point before the Ali fight did he start his sudden decline?
Ali was slightly less mobile but that was because he sat down on his shots more and generated more power.
Ali was ALOT less mobile,and his combinations were no where near as fast or fluid as they were in from 66-68. All you need is film of Ali during that time and eyes to realize that.
Ali is a great fighter, but way overrated by most. Those who call him the greatest P4P should watch some boxing, cause it is laughable really.
Whats actually laughable is the fact that with all he accomplished you dont even respect the opinion that Ali was the greatest of all time, even if you dont agree.
What people fail to realise, is that Frazier was a better fighter PRIOR to 1971. He was much faster in the late 60's and had more snap on his shots.
Absurd. Frazier was in his absolute prime when he fought Ali. 1971 was Joe's seventh year as a pro and he had only 26 fights up to that point. At what point before the Ali fight did he start his sudden decline?
Ali was slightly less mobile but that was because he sat down on his shots more and generated more power.
Ali was ALOT less mobile,and his combinations were no where near as fast or fluid as they were in from 66-68. All you need is film of Ali during that time and eyes to realize that.
Ali is a great fighter, but way overrated by most. Those who call him the greatest P4P should watch some boxing, cause it is laughable really.
Whats actually laughable is the fact that with all he accomplished you dont even respect the opinion that Ali was the greatest of all time, even if you dont agree.
Alsdo, the 1970s Ali did of course not generate more power than the 1966-68 Ali. In 1966 Ali peaked in every possible respect - speed, reflexes, power, ring generalship, endurance.
KOartist has never given Ali any credit for the Williams fight. He's more certain than most that Williams was beyond washed up and should have been issued a walker going in. Maybe even a wheelchair. And I'm quite familiar with the details of this but not as sure of such a conclusion.
There is a significant question regarding the First Ali Frazier fight that has an interesting answer....outside of being given credit for the win which was legitmately earned. Who woulld you rather be at the end of that fight? Who really took the greater beating? I'm not arguing one bit with the judges decision. But every once in a while the winner takes the bigger beating. This was a case in point.
So the points were given to Joe and he earns the belt and the title. But who paid the bigger price?
...here comes the "Joe was just in for scheduled checkups" retort. But the facts do not support that particular story. Joe was far worse for the wear than his defeated counterpart. So Joe won the boxing match but perhaps not the fight. And of course he had two more shots and came up short both times.
The second fight to me has always been the true indicator of what happens when a focused and deteremined Ali who is not trying to showboat or go in overconfident, faces a focused and determined Frazier. He simply outpoints him and does not try to fight Joe's fight in any way shape or form. He beats him 10 out of 10 times if he dispenses with all nonsense. But you know Muhammad....it wasn't just boxing for him he felt possessed to put on a show and entertain. Bad idea with Joe Frazier in front of you.
KOartist, I recall we both agreed that Kostya would make quick work of Ricky Hatton. So there are times I do highly regard your opinion. That fight still haunts me.
"The second fight to me has always been the true indicator of what happens when a focused and deteremined Ali who is not trying to showboat or go in overconfident and faces a focused and determined Frazier. He simply outpoints him and does not try to fight Joe's fight in any way shape or form. He beats him 10 out of 10 times if he dispenses with all nonsense."
Not to mention might have had the KO in round 2.
Tony Perez.
"The second fight to me has always been the true indicator of what happens when a focused and deteremined Ali who is not trying to showboat or go in overconfident and faces a focused and determined Frazier. He simply outpoints him and does not try to fight Joe's fight in any way shape or form. He beats him 10 out of 10 times if he dispenses with all nonsense."
Not to mention might have had the KO in round 2.
Tony Perez.
Uh oh we're going to hear from some folk on that one.....BigZab, he won the fight fairly easily on points, let's not resort to bringing up that rather undisputable fact.....your going to get half the neigborhood dogs barking with that one. Just because it is a rather evident truth does not mean that it needs to be brought up in mixed company.
You know I was being too reactive and I went a bit too far calling it a fail safe series. Please forgive. But if you have seen my posts on this series I tend to believe it was Ali's vanity not his skill that lost him the first fight. Frazier would indeed always pose a clear and present danger for Ali. Two out of three is the reality and I would stick with that.
As for the second fight being a draw well that's a suspect statement as well and just about as undefendable to my thinking.
My excuse for my sloppy 10 for 10 statement? I don't know what came over me... carpul tunnel syndrome? Thanks for calling me on it and giving me the chance to retract.
My excuse for my sloppy 10 for 10 statement? I don't know what came over me... carpul tunnel syndrome? Thanks for calling me on it and giving me the chance to retract.
Believing a prime Ali beats Frazier 10 out of 10 actually sounds reasonable to me. Every single one of them would be simiiliar to their second fight, only with the action sped up.
I scored Frazier-Ali II a draw
Talk about indefensible! If this fight would have been called a draw, it would have been one of the worst decisions of the 70's. As it was, the fight was scored by the judges closer than it should have been.
silkov wrote:I wouldn't give this article the pleasure of being used as my toilet paper... totally anti Ali this is, ignores the fact that the Ali who fought Frazier in their first bout was drastically different to the Ali of '67 plus he hadnt yet got used to the loss of his speed and adapted his style to this... Frazier was a all time great himself but he certainly would have had much more trouble with the always moving much faster Ali of the mid-60s to the Ali that he fought... to argue otherwise is just nonsense... Alis main weapon against Frazier in their fights was his speed and the pre-exile Ali was a far faster fighter....
What people fail to realise, is that Frazier was a better fighter PRIOR to 1971. He was much faster in the late 60's and had more snap on his shots.
Frazier beat a prime Clay fair and square. All this talk about Ali being past it is horseshit.
Ali was slightly less mobile but that was because he sat down on his shots more and generated more power.
The older Ali got, the better he fared against Joe.
The Ali of 66-68 simply would not have hurt Joe, and would have been heavily pressured into a points defeat. Joe was very fast himself.
Ali is a great fighter, but way overrated by most. Those who call him the greatest P4P should watch some boxing, cause it is laughable really.
You must be living in another reality zone... if you can't see the difference between the Ali of '67 and '71 then you need to change the specs!...
My excuse for my sloppy 10 for 10 statement? I don't know what came over me... carpul tunnel syndrome? Thanks for calling me on it and giving me the chance to retract.
Believing a prime Ali beats Frazier 10 out of 10 actually sounds reasonable to me. Every single one of them would be simiiliar to their second fight, only with the action sped up.
I scored Frazier-Ali II a draw
Talk about indefensible! If this fight would have been called a draw, it would have been one of the worst decisions of the 70's. As it was, the fight was scored by the judges closer than it should have been.
Well theone, I'ts a statement that creates problems for me since I have claimed to value the realities. Ali would need a personality transplant to go 10 for 10. If he had Joe's personality it might do the trick. But I think bigzab made the point about the "IF" factor. So others may be able to make that claim better than me. 2 out of 3 without changing a thing about either fighter is the reality. But fight 2 is the defining version for my money and it was far from a draw.
silkov wrote:I wouldn't give this article the pleasure of being used as my toilet paper... totally anti Ali this is, ignores the fact that the Ali who fought Frazier in their first bout was drastically different to the Ali of '67 plus he hadnt yet got used to the loss of his speed and adapted his style to this... Frazier was a all time great himself but he certainly would have had much more trouble with the always moving much faster Ali of the mid-60s to the Ali that he fought... to argue otherwise is just nonsense... Alis main weapon against Frazier in their fights was his speed and the pre-exile Ali was a far faster fighter....
What people fail to realise, is that Frazier was a better fighter PRIOR to 1971. He was much faster in the late 60's and had more snap on his shots.
Frazier beat a prime Clay fair and square. All this talk about Ali being past it is horseshit.
Ali was slightly less mobile but that was because he sat down on his shots more and generated more power.
The older Ali got, the better he fared against Joe.
The Ali of 66-68 simply would not have hurt Joe, and would have been heavily pressured into a points defeat. Joe was very fast himself.
Ali is a great fighter, but way overrated by most. Those who call him the greatest P4P should watch some boxing, cause it is laughable really.
You must be living in another reality zone... if you can't see the difference between the Ali of '67 and '71 then you need to change the specs!...
Sure theres a difference, but its not necessarily for the worse.
KO Artist wrote:
What people fail to realise, is that Frazier was a better fighter PRIOR to 1971. He was much faster in the late 60's and had more snap on his shots.
Frazier beat a prime Clay fair and square. All this talk about Ali being past it is horseshit.
Ali was slightly less mobile but that was because he sat down on his shots more and generated more power.
The older Ali got, the better he fared against Joe.
The Ali of 66-68 simply would not have hurt Joe, and would have been heavily pressured into a points defeat. Joe was very fast himself.
Ali is a great fighter, but way overrated by most. Those who call him the greatest P4P should watch some boxing, cause it is laughable really.
The Ali who disposed of Cleveland Williams in the November of 1966 would have hurt Joe, as he would have hurt any other heavyweight in the world. And he would have avoided Joe's pressure much better than any version of the 1970s Ali.
You are kidding, right.
Williams was 8 years past his prime and was half blind and almost a cripple just coming off having half his spleen removed from a shooting.
Please.
If Frazier was better prior to his 1971 match vs. Ali , he certainly was never better prepared, or more dedicated, or in better condition. He never reached that level again. Had he fought Ali in 1969, & I don't think
Yancey Durham would have taken it on any earlier, you must take into consideration an active, younger, dedicated Ali would have been tested really for the first time since the 1st Liston fight. He would have been ready. I believe Ali would have been a great deal better than he was for the 71 fight. If Frazier was better too, I don't believe it would have been to the same degree. Their was a much greater difference between the Ali of 1967 & 1971 than that of Frazier over the same period. Ali by decision or late round tko. That fight may have been even better than the one in 1971.
All this is guesswork, nothing more. Frazier was the better man in the first fight and got beat the other two. To say Ali wouldn't have hurt Frazier in 66/67 is ridiculous because nobody really knows! He might have knocked him out in a round if he hit him right and then again he might have ended up on his ass. It's all just conjecture, nothing more, nothing less.
Third fight, Ali-Frazier: Am I the only one who thinks the scoring is out? Three Filipino officials scored 8-4, 8-4 and 8-3 in Ali's favour up the finish (leaving out the rounds that were even).
Mmm...
Decagon wrote:Ali easily could have been knocked out, or perhaps even killed if he'd fought the 15th round against Frazier. But Frazier was blind in both eyes. You can't send a man in that condition to fight Muhammad Ali.
Well that's always a possiblity when two fighters are going at it. However in the specific case of the 15th round of the thrilla in manilla....as would be the case in general.......the odds would be worse for the blind man.
