Did Ali beat Frazier at his very best?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 22 Sep 2007, 22:03

The great Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali in extraordinary fashion in the first fight. Some may argue that that was not the same Ali of the 1964-67 when he reigned supreme.
Well, how about this? Did Ali beat Frazier at his very best? He was punched and bounced like a basketball in Kingston, Jamaica by the great George Foreman in 1973. He was never the same after that, according to some folks.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 22 Sep 2007, 22:10

Neither Ali or Frazier beat each other at their best.

Frazier was at his best in their first fight, Ali was yet to regain full form after the layoff, but was not too far from his best.

Ali was at his best in their second fight, but Frazier was slightly diminished after his loss to Foreman.

Both were past their best in the Thrilla (but still very good), which is partly what made the fight so brutal and exciting.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 22 Sep 2007, 22:31

Do we really need more Ali threads?

I think Jazz is generally right. The only thing I would add is that Ali at his best would beat Frazier at his best.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 23 Sep 2007, 15:10

In my view, the first fight will always hold more significence than the other two as Frazier beat Ali when both were nearest their peak.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 23 Sep 2007, 19:10

Rocky Balboa wrote:In my view, the first fight will always hold more significence than the other two as Frazier beat Ali when both were nearest their peak.

And for the Ali haters it is their Holy Grail.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Sep 2007, 21:56

Age is a red herring. Ali was coming off his layoff. Ali was no closer to his best in the first fight than Frazier was in the rematches.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 23 Sep 2007, 22:34

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Sep 2007, 22:37

Ali could have trained during that time, but for the most part he didn't. He looked like shit against Bonavena. Frazier fought seven rounds in two fights in the last 13 months prior to the fight, not two, and he never looked better than in his performances against Ellis and Foster. Again, who are you trying to kid?

Again elmer, I cant tell you how much we needed another Ali thread.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 23 Sep 2007, 22:56

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Sep 2007, 23:11

DaveV17 wrote: IFF,Those are just the facts. Ali had more ring activity than Frazier in the last year before The Fight.

Yes, he did, and Frazier had more ring activity in the last three and a half years than Ali did. The Frazier-Foster fight was inbetween Ali's fights with Quarry and Bonavena, so Frazier had been in training just as recently as Ali had been. Frazier was hardly sitting around the year before he fought Ali.

DaveV17 wrote:Ali was about 4" taller than Frazier and about 10 pounds heavier. Ali was about 1 year older than Frazier.

And the point is?

DaveV17 wrote:How do you know that for the "most part" Ali didn't train?

Ali said he didn't. Dundee said he didn't. He had to lose a lot of weight and do a lot of work to get back into shape for Quarry. He trained at times, he helped Jimmy Ellis prepare for his fight with Quarry for the vacant title, but for the most part Ali did no training during the layoff. If you watch AKA Cassius Clay, he mentions during the documentary "I'm all out of shape."

DaveV17 wrote:What does his performance against Bonavena have to do with his training habits in the time he was away from the ring? How did you gauge Ali's performance vs. Quarry?

Ali looked good against Quarry but it was a three round fight. Ali looked terribly rusty against Bonavena, the first fourteen rounds were the worst of his career to that point. People remember the Bonavena fight in a positive light because of the dramatic knockout.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 23 Sep 2007, 23:35

Frazier had beaten more top contenders than Douglas, Bowe or Moorer.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 24 Sep 2007, 03:52

I Feel Fine wrote:Do we really need more Ali threads?

I think Jazz is generally right. The only thing I would add is that Ali at his best would beat Frazier at his best.

I doubt that. Ali was not far from his best. 1960-1967 he fought a lot of old men, who were past it.

It could be argues that Frazier was the first world class fighter, in his prime, that Ali fought.

Ali was just 29, Frazier just 27 when hey fought first. Frazier won UD15.

Thats good enough for me.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 24 Sep 2007, 03:55

Collins2000 wrote:
Rocky Balboa wrote:In my view, the first fight will always hold more significence than the other two as Frazier beat Ali when both were nearest their peak.
And for the Ali haters it is their Holy Grail.

Why do you label anyone, who has an opinion that Ali was anything but the greatest HW of all time, as a "hater"?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 24 Sep 2007, 17:12

It may be good enough for you, but I like to be less one-dimensional in my thinking.

Age, in this case, is a red herring. If Ali was in his prime and fighting with a broken leg; would that be okay? The answer, I would hope, is no. So clearly age is not all there is to consider when it comes to boxing. Ali wasn't that handicapped, but he was handicapped. A three and a half year layoff may be easy to dismiss for the one-dimensional boxing fan, but in reality its not quite as easy to overcome when you are the one put in that position. Ali certainly wasn't terrible in the first Frazier fight, he looked much better than he did in his god awful performance against Bonavena where the rust was much more clearly evident, but 100% for Frazier he was not. And I would say Frazier was closer or at least as close to his best in the rematches as Ali can be said to have been in the first fight. In the end, whatever the spin is-and this thread is all about spin-Frazier could not repeat what he did in the first fight and lost two rematches to Ali.

Look at it logically. If Ali can be granted no excuses for the first fight then it follows that Frazier should have no excuses for the rematches, and so Ali is 2-1. If we are going to accept excuses for Frazier, then it follows that we should be able to accept excuses for Ali, and under that scenario the whole trilogy is open to question; though the score remains Ali 2-1.

But, what you can't do is accept excuses for Frazier and not for Ali, which is what some of you are trying to do. That is B.S.

The criticisms of Ali's 60's opposition are absurd. It was at least as good as Frazier's up to that point, including wins over two (three if you want to count Archie) Hall of Famers.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 25 Sep 2007, 00:19

KO Artist wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
Rocky Balboa wrote:In my view, the first fight will always hold more significence than the other two as Frazier beat Ali when both were nearest their peak.
And for the Ali haters it is their Holy Grail.

Why do you label anyone, who has an opinion that Ali was anything but the greatest HW of all time, as a "hater"?

I don't.

I reserve it clowns who talk about Ali being at his peak at the time of the first Frazier fight. Or clowns who say the 3rd Ali -Frazier fight was 'irrelevent' when reviewing the career of either man. Or clowns who say Liston was paid off or Foreman was drugged or Patterson would have won both fights with Ali if he didn't have a bad back.

You know the sort of people I mean.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 25 Sep 2007, 13:13

Collins2000 wrote:
KO Artist wrote:
Collins2000 wrote: And for the Ali haters it is their Holy Grail.

Why do you label anyone, who has an opinion that Ali was anything but the greatest HW of all time, as a "hater"?
I don't.

I reserve it clowns who talk about Ali being at his peak at the time of the first Frazier fight. Or clowns who say the 3rd Ali -Frazier fight was 'irrelevent' when reviewing the career of either man. Or clowns who say Liston was paid off or Foreman was drugged or Patterson would have won both fights with Ali if he didn't have a bad back.

You know the sort of people I mean.

I do. Basically anyone who does not rate Ali as no1 of all time.

My take on it is this:

Patterson would never have beaten Ali. Floyd matched him with hand speed and power but Ali was just too big and too good.

Ali beat Liston fair and square in their first fight. Liston might not have prepared as well as he should have.

I think Liston threw the second fight with Ali.

The third Ali Frazier fight is relevant. Both men were up for it. Frazier was a little more shopworn than Ali at this stage.

Foreman was not drugged. Ali won fair and square. A remarkable acheivement. At worst Foreman might have been homesick.

I beleive that Ali was still at his peak for FrazierI. At worst 95% of it. What he lost in mobility, he made up for in power, in so far as he was sitting down on his shots more.

Does my view make me an Ali hater in your eyes?

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 25 Sep 2007, 14:43

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 25 Sep 2007, 21:09

KO Artist wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
KO Artist wrote: Why do you label anyone, who has an opinion that Ali was anything but the greatest HW of all time, as a "hater"?
I don't.

I reserve it clowns who talk about Ali being at his peak at the time of the first Frazier fight. Or clowns who say the 3rd Ali -Frazier fight was 'irrelevent' when reviewing the career of either man. Or clowns who say Liston was paid off or Foreman was drugged or Patterson would have won both fights with Ali if he didn't have a bad back.

You know the sort of people I mean.

I do. Basically anyone who does not rate Ali as no1 of all time.

My take on it is this:

Patterson would never have beaten Ali. Floyd matched him with hand speed and power but Ali was just too big and too good.

Ali beat Liston fair and square in their first fight. Liston might not have prepared as well as he should have.

I think Liston threw the second fight with Ali.

The third Ali Frazier fight is relevant. Both men were up for it. Frazier was a little more shopworn than Ali at this stage.

Foreman was not drugged. Ali won fair and square. A remarkable acheivement. At worst Foreman might have been homesick.

I beleive that Ali was still at his peak for FrazierI. At worst 95% of it. What he lost in mobility, he made up for in power, in so far as he was sitting down on his shots more.

Does my view make me an Ali hater in your eyes?

Not at all, mate.

Your views are reasonable. Nothing extreme or ridiculous that I can detect.

I actually agree with most of your comments; I also liked the idea about Foreman being homesick. Humour is a thing that is often missing in this forum. Many of the posters here are so far up themselves it makes me want to puke.

The one I don't agree with ie Ali being at his peak for Frazier 1 is very subjective and I can accept that I may be wrong but there is no way of ever knowing.

Of course, the ultimate test of whether one is an Ali Hater or not is how many rounds you give Ali in the 2nd Norton fight. Dave can only give him one, and even that is grudgingly as he says that round was close and could also have gone to Norton.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 25 Sep 2007, 21:11

They would probably have been more impressed if the clip had been of Ali punching Brian London to a standstill. London must have thought he was fighting three men. For a big man, Ali's handspeed was freakish.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 25 Sep 2007, 22:22

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 26 Sep 2007, 02:23

KO Artist wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:Do we really need more Ali threads?

I think Jazz is generally right. The only thing I would add is that Ali at his best would beat Frazier at his best.
I doubt that. Ali was not far from his best. 1960-1967 he fought a lot of old men, who were past it.

It could be argues that Frazier was the first world class fighter, in his prime, that Ali fought.

Ali was just 29, Frazier just 27 when hey fought first. Frazier won UD15.

Thats good enough for me.

Fighters Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali beat on his way to World title and their age at time of fight--

Tunny Hunsaker - 30
Herb Siler - 25
Tony Esperti - 30
Jim Robertson- age not given, second fight (substitute)
Donnie Fleeman - 28
Lamar Clark -26
Duke Sabedong - 31
Alonzo Johnson - 26
Alex Miteff - 26
Willi Besmanoff - 29
Sonny Banks - 21
Don Warner - 22
George Logan - 25
Billy Daniels - 24
Alejandro Lavorante - 26
Archie Moore - 46
Charlie Powell - 30
Doug Jones - 25
Henry Cooper - 29
Sonny Liston - 32

Aside from Archie Moore (Still widely recognised as Light Heavyweight Champion at the time), how do they rate as "old men" compared to the top Heavyweights around now?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Sep 2007, 06:21

I think the argument about 'peak' has been stretched out of all proportion.

How often do 2 top ATG's meet at their absolute peaks?

When Ali lost to Spinks and Holmes he was washed up. This is undisputable. BUT when a fighter is 1-2 years past their peak it shouldn't be seen as a 'get out of jail free' card for that fighter's supporters.

That's my take on it anyway.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 26 Sep 2007, 06:30

The answer to the initial question seems pretty clear-cut.

No, he didn't.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 26 Sep 2007, 07:14

If there was any justice, Ali would have fought Frazier in 1968/9.

Frazier was certainly in his pomp & I believe that Ali would have been in his prime too.

Saying that, had Ali been allowed to box in 68/9 & fought Frazier in 1971 (like he did), both men would still have been in their respective pomps.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 26 Sep 2007, 15:46

Collins2000 wrote:
KO Artist wrote:
Collins2000 wrote: I don't.

I reserve it clowns who talk about Ali being at his peak at the time of the first Frazier fight. Or clowns who say the 3rd Ali -Frazier fight was 'irrelevent' when reviewing the career of either man. Or clowns who say Liston was paid off or Foreman was drugged or Patterson would have won both fights with Ali if he didn't have a bad back.

You know the sort of people I mean.

I do. Basically anyone who does not rate Ali as no1 of all time.

My take on it is this:

Patterson would never have beaten Ali. Floyd matched him with hand speed and power but Ali was just too big and too good.

Ali beat Liston fair and square in their first fight. Liston might not have prepared as well as he should have.

I think Liston threw the second fight with Ali.

The third Ali Frazier fight is relevant. Both men were up for it. Frazier was a little more shopworn than Ali at this stage.

Foreman was not drugged. Ali won fair and square. A remarkable acheivement. At worst Foreman might have been homesick.

I beleive that Ali was still at his peak for FrazierI. At worst 95% of it. What he lost in mobility, he made up for in power, in so far as he was sitting down on his shots more.

Does my view make me an Ali hater in your eyes?
Not at all, mate.

Your views are reasonable. Nothing extreme or ridiculous that I can detect.

I actually agree with most of your comments; I also liked the idea about Foreman being homesick. Humour is a thing that is often missing in this forum. Many of the posters here are so far up themselves it makes me want to puke.

The one I don't agree with ie Ali being at his peak for Frazier 1 is very subjective and I can accept that I may be wrong but there is no way of ever knowing.

Of course, the ultimate test of whether one is an Ali Hater or not is how many rounds you give Ali in the 2nd Norton fight. Dave can only give him one, and even that is grudgingly as he says that round was close and could also have gone to Norton.

I seem to recall scoring the fight, watched about 15 years after it took place as 7-5 Ali.

The third fight I had a draw, and I have never seen the first fight in full.

Did Ali beat Frazier at his very best?

Did Ali beat Frazier at his very best?

Frazier reputation