BoxRec

Il Duce wrote:I thought Muhammad Ali reached his 'peak' in March 1971.

Unfortunately, he lost when he was at his 'Professional Best'.

It Happens Sometimes.......

Correct you are.

And deep down some of them know it.

And it pisses them off.

...and some of them...not so much.

Each of their stories have greatness imbedded.

For Joe, Muhammad was the mountain he needed to overcome. And he did.

For Ali it was all about what he accomplished, after he had been defeated at what some might say was his peak.

Different stories, but pretty impressive stories both.

yancey wrote:

Il Duce wrote:I thought Muhammad Ali reached his 'peak' in March 1971.

Unfortunately, he lost when he was at his 'Professional Best'.

It Happens Sometimes.......

Correct you are.

And deep down some of them know it.

And it pisses them off.

Obsessed much with Ali?

Amazing how deep all this still runs.

Just shows what great fights these guys put on.

I think if you set these guys to fight once a year from 1966-1981

Ali wins more times than Joe.

Joe wins the contests where both are closest to their peaks.

Giancarlo wrote:

yancey wrote:

Il Duce wrote:I thought Muhammad Ali reached his 'peak' in March 1971.

Unfortunately, he lost when he was at his 'Professional Best'.

It Happens Sometimes.......

Correct you are.

And deep down some of them know it.

And it pisses them off.

Obsessed much with Ali?

Panties in a wad much?

Ezzard wrote:I think if you set these guys to fight once a year from 1966-1981

Ali wins more times than Joe.

Joe wins the contests where both are closest to their peaks.

And that Joe did.

Il Duce wrote:

scallum wrote:If LeBron James takes off 3.5 years right now from bball will he still be the best when he came back ? No Elite #1, athlete can take off that much time and expect to remain the best.

See...... Ted Williams {Baseball}

I wonder how good he was in those first few at bats back in spring training? How would he do in his 3 rd at bat vs The Top Pitcher in top form of his day?

So who wins between Ali who took 3.5 years off vs Ali who didn't take time off?

scallum wrote:So who wins between Ali who took 3.5 years off vs Ali who didn't take time off?

I would say it's not fair to pose a question such as this that likely favors Ali. Some will feel uncomfortable at such a suggestion.

Is this a joke?

The Ali of 1967 had much more stamina then the Ali of late 1970 early. So the 1970 version would not wear down the 1967 version. The 1970 version would be lucky to win 3 rounds.
Have you ever played a sport? You don't just take off 3 and half years and for no particular reason get better. The longer you are of the more time it would take to get rid of the rust.

We can argue all we want about Ali and Frazier but ultimately it come down to this: Frazier only won once and Ali won twice.

Il Duce wrote:Did you see what Karl Mildenberger did to the 1966 Cassius Clay.

10-1 Underdog..........Karl Mildenberger.............

Well, c'mon Duce' fighters often fight up/down to their opponents abilities. And sometimes aren't quite prepared for what they run into. E.G. Tyson and that fella Buster, who KO'd him in Japan. Hard to make a case with this statement. But granberry would say that Ali was lucky because the "fact" was that Mildenburger just had a bad day, and really would have beaten Ali in most instances.

Mildenberger did not do much vs Ali. Ali defeated Mildenberger quite easily. Next.

Alp, I have not seen that fight in so long, and honestly I could not remember it being competitive, but I'll go back and have a look I guess. But this sort of "empirical" evidence is still a bit sketchy to base performance assumptions on in my opinion.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Mildenberger did not do much vs Ali. Ali defeated Mildenberger quite easily. Next.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:22881
"Questioned in 1973, Ali said that Mildenberger, not Frazier, was his most difficult opponent to date."

Senya13 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Mildenberger did not do much vs Ali. Ali defeated Mildenberger quite easily. Next.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:22881
"Questioned in 1973, Ali said that Mildenberger, not Frazier, was his most difficult opponent to date."

My guess is that was meant for Joe's ears....just to eff with his buddy Joe.

Senya13 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Mildenberger did not do much vs Ali. Ali defeated Mildenberger quite easily. Next.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:22881
"Questioned in 1973, Ali said that Mildenberger, not Frazier, was his most difficult opponent to date."

Fighters rarely seem to give answers that jive with reality in those instances. I don't know why, but that is often the case.

In 1973 Ali had lost to Norton and Frazier, getting his jaw broken by Norton. Surely that was a more difficult fight than Mildenberger. Ali's comments aside.

So he made a random pick from opponents he defeated easily (as was the claim here) as his most difficult opponent? Why would he do that?

Senya13 wrote:So he made a random pick from opponents he defeated easily (as was the claim here) as his most difficult opponent? Why would he do that?

See Buzz's take above.

That is what this nonsense is all about. Ali said Mildenberger was his toughest opponent probably hoping that it would get back to Frazier and annoy him.

But why Mildenberger?

Ambling Alp II wrote: We can argue all we want about Ali and Frazier but ultimately it come down to this: Frazier only won once and Ali won twice.

That's true of course. It is also true that Frazier won the big one where both fighter were closest to their primes. Joe won the one that mattered the most.

I've always maintained that if the Ali of the 1960's was half as fast as he was, he wouldn't have made it far in boxing. It took his exile and losing his speed and facing wars with Frazier and Norton, etc. in order for him to grow, mature and adapt as a fighter. Had he not went through all that, I think had he fought Frazier in the 1960's it would have certainly been the toughest fight of his life.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote: We can argue all we want about Ali and Frazier but ultimately it come down to this: Frazier only won once and Ali won twice.

That's true of course. It is also true that Frazier won the big one where both fighter were closest to their primes. Joe won the one that mattered the most.

Chronologically, Ali was closer to his prime in 1971 than the later 2 fights. However, he was a better fighter in 1974 and 1975 than he was in 1971. He had to get rid of 3 and a half years of ring rust. It takes more than 2 fights to do that.

Think of Jordan when he came back. He was out of the NBA for about 1 and 3/4 seasons. He came back towards the end of the 1994-1995 season. He was very rusty. He clearly was not the same player.

However, the next year, he preseason games and the 82 game season to get rid of some the ring rust. While he was not as good as he was in prime, he was a much better player than he had been when he first came back.

Don't agree that the first fight was more important. If Frazier would have won the 2nd or 3rd fight, his and Ali's legacy would have changed significantly.

Those fights were much more fair. Ali was not rusty. Ali was older and had taken more punishment so the past his prime excuse for Frazier doesn't fly.

Il Duce wrote:Does anybody think that Karl 'Milde' Mildenberger would had lasted 12 Rounds with Joe Frazier
in September 1966.

I think not...................

Irrelevant question.
However, I will play a long. Frazier up to that point had only fought one quality opponent; Bonavena. In that fight, he was decked twice and was lucky to get the decision. Had it been on the 10 point must system he would have lost the first round 10-7 and the fight would have been a draw.
Perfectly reasonable to think Mildenberger could have lasted until the 12th round vs Frazier in 1966.
Btw, Ali decked Mildenberger 3 times and was well ahead when the fight was stopped.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote: We can argue all we want about Ali and Frazier but ultimately it come down to this: Frazier only won once and Ali won twice.

That's true of course. It is also true that Frazier won the big one where both fighter were closest to their primes. Joe won the one that mattered the most.

Chronologically, Ali was closer to his prime in 1971 than the later 2 fights. However, he was a better fighter in 1974 and 1975 than he was in 1971. He had to get rid of 3 and a half years of ring rust. It takes more than 2 fights to do that.

Think of Jordan when he came back. He was out of the NBA for about 1 and 3/4 seasons. He came back towards the end of the 1994-1995 season. He was very rusty. He clearly was not the same player.

However, the next year, he preseason games and the 82 game season to get rid of some the ring rust. While he was not as good as he was in prime, he was a much better player than he had been when he first came back.

Don't agree that the first fight was more important. If Frazier would have won the 2nd or 3rd fight, his and Ali's legacy would have changed significantly.

Those fights were much more fair. Ali was not rusty. Ali was older and had taken more punishment so the past his prime excuse for Frazier doesn't fly.

"Don't agree that the first fight was more important." AAII

This statement is absolutely absurd.

Disqualifies anything else you have to say on this subject, to my way of thinking.