Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 May 2007, 01:33

Wow, the computer actually picked a 2nd round technical knockout win for Marciano against the likes of Tommy Hurricane Jackson. While I personally believed the fight would have lasted much longer than this, I think it is a safe bet that Jackson wouldn't have survived, seeing as he never quite stood up to anyone with the kind of power Marciano had (which is impossible, until Liston and later Foreman came onto the scene, but you get the jist of what I mean).

This makes Marciano 51-0 so far on the simulated career after the 49-0.

Up next: Floyd Patterson!

Personal prediction? Kayo in 8th round. Marciano would have had trouble communicating from time to time because of Patterson's exceptional hand speed; but I personally don't see Patterson withstanding Marciano's shots (if Ingo, Liston could knock him out; be dropped by lesser opponents) then Patterson would more than likely hit the deck a few times against the best swarmer since the days of Jack Dempsey, though he is now 33yrs old, the age when most swarmers burn out---conditioning plays a great part in this fight, its what keeping Rocky going strong and as the top man in the business.Plus the fact Patterson is the lone exception of a fighter being better AFTER he won the title, so he was still green and had yet to face that kind of pressure, least in the 1956 time frame.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 20 May 2007, 08:56

Post Prime Marcian vs Pre Prime Patterson....

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63369

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 21 May 2007, 01:06

This I agree on, the match lasted prolly as long as it would have happened had it happened. Marciano winning via TKO in the 8th round, making him hypothetically 52-0 with 46 kayos. Fight seemed rather convincing as well, considering Patterson wasn't quite at his best and he had yet to face the power of Ingemar Johansson and Sonny Liston and he prolly wouldn't know how to cope with that kind of power.

Next fight on the Marciano post 49-0 career dream scheme:

Rocky Marciano vs. Eddie Machen!

Machen was the guy Patterson ducked for several years. Machen unfortunately would be blown away from his #1 contender status when he lost by KO in the 1st to Ingemar Johansson, but would still remain a threat to the top men of the day facing the likes of Sonny Liston and eventually Patterson after he lost the title.

Personal prediction? Possibly Marciano's toughest fight since Walcott. A prime Machen versus a post prime Marciano. It is very much possible that Marciano will not blow Machen away---that is if the Rock doesn't get off first in the fight. But even at this stage in his career, I believe Rocky's great work rate, combined with training beyond normal standards might just carry him over into a decision victory, though a close one. An upset could very well be in the making.

If Marciano gets passed this man, his next fight will be against British champion Henry Cooper. I pick Cooper seeing as after 4 hard fights Marciano went with an 'easy' one against Don Cockell, another English champion. But Cooper is better than Cockell, and the only thing going against 'Enry is his weakness: tendency to cut and cut badly.

Rocky Marciano vs Eddie Machen.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 21 May 2007, 01:29

Ezzard wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
Henry

Ali had the style for longevity and Frazier had a style for a short career. Ali would beat more great fighters from history than Frazier. BUT I agree that Frazier at his best would beat Ali. Joe had everything to cause Ali trouble, the stamina, the bob and weave, the durability, the psychology, the body punching and, most of all, the left hook.

There would always be little between them but the older Joe gets so the odds swing in Ali's favour.

Watching The FOTC in 2007 you could argue that the foight could have been stopped. I think it's the 11th when Ali takes tremendous punishment.
I disagree on all counts, honestly. I don't believe prime Frazier beats prime Ali. I think they had both had gone down hill a bit in their 2nd and 3rd fights but they were still the best fighters of their division, with Foreman, and Frazier put on one of the best performances of his career in the 3rd fight. I also don't think too many refs would stop the first fight in the 11th either, and if they did there would be controversy... I think Ali and Frazier would deserve at least as much respect from a ref as Morales or Barrera would get in a big fight.
There's no doubt that everyone uses the 'prime' argument to defend their favourite fighters. It gets banded about way too much. BUT the first fight was a prime Frazier and an Ali who was still in the bracket of prime. He most certainly was not faded.

I think Frazier won the first more clearly than he is given credit for.

As for stopping the fight I said 'could' not 'would' and Ali was taking a lot more than Ron Lyle was when he got stopped.

Frazier did win the first fight clearly, I had him winning 9 rounds with the knock down... that doesn't change the fact Ali had ring rust. Would anyone give Ali credit if Frazier was coming off a 3 year lay off and Ali beat him? No way... I certainly wouldn't give Ali much credit for a win like that.

Ali-Lyle wasn't all that bad a stoppage IMO, contrary to what people like granberry might say, but I guess that's a valid point.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 21 May 2007, 01:40

Ali couldn't have been too rusty else he wouldn't have beaten #1 contender Jerry Quarry in his first comeback fight (might as well compare that to Hagler-Leonard in ways in its accomplishment) and Oscar Bonavena who gave Frazier hell twice.

Three years or not, Ali was closer to his 'prime' when he fought Frazier than at any other time in his career. I say this because most will say the 60's Ali was at his best---though I personally believe the 1970-1975 was the best Ali.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 May 2007, 09:13

Ali did beat Quarry and Bonavena, but it he was clearly rusty. Since the Quarry fight only went 3 rounds because of the cut, the Bonavena fight is a better benchmark. Ali had clearly lost a lot of speed and elusiveness. His timing was a little off as well. He would have beaten Bonavena a lot easier 3 years earlier.

As for the Frazier fight, Ali clearly wasn't the fighter he had once been, although he was a little better than he was in the Bonavena fight. It wasn't the best fight of his career but it was no by means his worst. Frazier had to fight a great fight to win and to his credit he did.
The Ali of 1970-1975 fought tremendous competition. This was when the heavyweight divison was at its absolute best. Ali emerged as the best heavyweight of this period.

While Ali's competition was better than when he was the champion in the 1960's, (though his competition in the 1960's was pretty good) he himself was better during his first title reign. People don't talk as much about his fights from 1964-1967 because he won so easily. His speed and reflexes were truly pehenomenal.

Ali was roughly 80% of the fighter from 1970-1975 as he was 1964-1967. He was great in the 1970's. He was off the charts great in the 1960's.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 21 May 2007, 09:31

Ambling Alp wrote:Ali did beat Quarry and Bonavena, but it he was clearly rusty. Since the Quarry fight only went 3 rounds because of the cut, the Bonavena fight is a better benchmark. Ali had clearly lost a lot of speed and elusiveness. His timing was a little off as well. He would have beaten Bonavena a lot easier 3 years earlier.

As for the Frazier fight, Ali clearly wasn't the fighter he had once been, although he was a little better than he was in the Bonavena fight. It wasn't the best fight of his career but it was no by means his worst. Frazier had to fight a great fight to win and to his credit he did.
The Ali of 1970-1975 fought tremendous competition. This was when the heavyweight divison was at its absolute best. Ali emerged as the best heavyweight of this period.

While Ali's competition was better than when he was the champion in the 1960's, (though his competition in the 1960's was pretty good) he himself was better during his first title reign. People don't talk as much about his fights from 1964-1967 because he won so easily. His speed and reflexes were truly pehenomenal.

Ali was roughly 80% of the fighter from 1970-1975 as he was 1964-1967. He was great in the 1970's. He was off the charts great in the 1960's.

Actually, I have to disagree with the common consensus that Ali was better during his first career. The first thing to consider is that he had just turned 25 before the Foley fight, and probably had not reached his physical prime prior to his forced inactivity. Second, as you noted, his competition in the 70’s was superior to his 60’s opposition, and I think he was a much smarter fighter in his second career. IMO the reality is that Ali missed out on his physical prime, but I think the Ali who beat Frazier, Quarry, Foreman, etc. in the 70’s more than made up for his slightly diminished physical skills with experience and toughness.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 May 2007, 11:17

I agree that we probably did miss out on the very best of Ali because of his exile. I don't think that his added experience in the 1970's was nearly enough to compensate for his diminshed physical skills.
He wasn't able to use his footspeed nearly as often when he came back. His handspeed while still fast wasn't as fast as it had been. He wasn't nearly as hard to hit in the 1970's as he was in the 1960's. He just didn't have the reflexes anymore.
I believe his toughness was there when he was younger; he just didn't really need to use it to win.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 21 May 2007, 13:44

I guess ambling beat me to it, but I agree 100%, its easy to point to Ali-Quarry and say "well, there was no rust"... that was a 3 round fight... Ali-Bonavena was quite arguably the worst performance of Ali's career to that point, and the reason why people don't always realize that is because of the KO in the last round. Ali wouldn't look that sloppy again for quite some time. And beating Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena is not the same thing as beating Joe Frazier. And we can speculate all we want, the fact is Ali was not a 6 round fighter, and he only really fought 6 great rounds against Frazier, he hit a wall after that and it wasn't any lack of conditioning that slowed him down or any punches he had taken, Frazier barely hit him with anything consequential for the first 5-6 rounds. Aside from short flurries which were few and far between, and even hurting Frazier at one point in the later rounds, he really didn't do much of anything for the last 9 rounds.

60's Ali was physically better, 70's Ali, as ambling said, had a better resume and was tougher. Ali does look good in a lot of his 70's fights, but it is deceptive and if you compare and contrast how he looks in a 60's fight and a 70's fight it is striking... if you watch Ali-Foreman Ali's handspeed looks amazing, but if you watch it right after watching Ali-Williams or Ali-Terrell he does look a lot slower/older, which is only natural. I would think that if you throw guys like Frazier, Bonavena, Quarry, Norton etc. at 60's Ali he would probably have an easier time. I always found it interesting that a physically declined version of Ali was able to basically clean out the best division in Heavyweight history. I suppose, as homicide has argued, that if Louis hadn't had his own period of absence that Louis would have had a lot more title defenses (though against fighters Ali could never get away with fighting), but as the record stands at 25 defenses you could make a strong case that at the pace of defenses that he was going, 4-5 a year, and the fact that from 67-onwards he would have faced fighters he would later beat with less of his physical skills, that Ali without the layoff could have broken the defense record. It's speculation, obviously, but the case can be made as he beat all those guys anyway... apparenlty his next fight after Folley would have been against Bonavena, so if he wins, which is very likely, thats his 10th defense in only 3 years as champion.

Certainly Ali in that interim period of the layoff would have been the best version, he would have had more of the speed and reflexes that he had in the 60's but would have had more of the experience and toughness that he had in the 70's (though whose to say late 60's Ali wasn't tough, he just never really had a chance to prove it).

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 22 May 2007, 03:02

Not to break up the Ali jargon but, the next computerized match up in the hypothetical 'post 49-0' career of Marciano is against Eddie Machen. BoxBuzz, if u will do the honors?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2007, 06:49

I Feel Fine wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:I disagree on all counts, honestly. I don't believe prime Frazier beats prime Ali. I think they had both had gone down hill a bit in their 2nd and 3rd fights but they were still the best fighters of their division, with Foreman, and Frazier put on one of the best performances of his career in the 3rd fight. I also don't think too many refs would stop the first fight in the 11th either, and if they did there would be controversy... I think Ali and Frazier would deserve at least as much respect from a ref as Morales or Barrera would get in a big fight.
There's no doubt that everyone uses the 'prime' argument to defend their favourite fighters. It gets banded about way too much. BUT the first fight was a prime Frazier and an Ali who was still in the bracket of prime. He most certainly was not faded.

I think Frazier won the first more clearly than he is given credit for.

As for stopping the fight I said 'could' not 'would' and Ali was taking a lot more than Ron Lyle was when he got stopped.
Frazier did win the first fight clearly, I had him winning 9 rounds with the knock down... that doesn't change the fact Ali had ring rust. Would anyone give Ali credit if Frazier was coming off a 3 year lay off and Ali beat him? No way... I certainly wouldn't give Ali much credit for a win like that.

Ali-Lyle wasn't all that bad a stoppage IMO, contrary to what people like granberry might say, but I guess that's a valid point.

Fine, don't you think Ali took more punishment and was more in trouble in the 11th (v Frazier) than Lyle against Ali?

Ali had fought twice. He wasn't coming off a 3 year lay off in the way you present it. When Ali beat Liston, Liston had fought 3 rounds in 3 years.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 May 2007, 07:17

Ezzard wrote:Ali had fought twice. He wasn't coming off a 3 year lay off in the way you present it. When Ali beat Liston, Liston had fought 3 rounds in 3 years.

Ezzard, you’re absolutely right, Ali wasn’t coming off a 3 year layoff, and in fact had fought and beat 2 world class HWs leading up to the Frazier fight. While he may not have been as sharp as if he had never had a layoff, who’s to say that the 3 year layoff didn’t actually keep him a bit fresher. And let’s not all get too carried away about the pre-layoff Ali. Yes, he was incredibly quick, but he could and did get hit, and he seldom, if ever “danced all night”. I’ve got him ranked #1 all-time, just a hair in front of Louis, but most of his real accomplishments occurred in the 70’s.

As for Rocky, I’ve currently got him at #8, but a decent argument could be made for him to be ranked as high as #3. Certainly having him in the top 5 seems no more unreasonable than having Foreman in the top 5.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 May 2007, 07:23

HomicideHenry wrote:Not to break up the Ali jargon but, the next computerized match up in the hypothetical 'post 49-0' career of Marciano is against Eddie Machen. BoxBuzz, if u will do the honors?

My guess is that this is the fight that would have ended Rocky's streak...however the computer on this occasion chose not to agree with my thoughts. Might want to keep him away from Liston if you want this train to continue much longer. IMHO.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2007, 08:35

The Great John L wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Ali had fought twice. He wasn't coming off a 3 year lay off in the way you present it. When Ali beat Liston, Liston had fought 3 rounds in 3 years.
Ezzard, you’re absolutely right, Ali wasn’t coming off a 3 year layoff, and in fact had fought and beat 2 world class HWs leading up to the Frazier fight. While he may not have been as sharp as if he had never had a layoff, who’s to say that the 3 year layoff didn’t actually keep him a bit fresher. And let’s not all get too carried away about the pre-layoff Ali. Yes, he was incredibly quick, but he could and did get hit, and he seldom, if ever “danced all night”. I’ve got him ranked #1 all-time, just a hair in front of Louis, but most of his real accomplishments occurred in the 70’s.

As for Rocky, I’ve currently got him at #8, but a decent argument could be made for him to be ranked as high as #3. Certainly having him in the top 5 seems no more unreasonable than having Foreman in the top 5.

I have Ali #1 because he beat 3 guys I rate in the top 10 (or thereabouts). It's close though.

I will take the flak and admit I go with the post-layoff Ali. What sets Ali apart is that it's hard to imagine someone KO'ing him. The pre-layoff Ali was quicker and more offensive but he could be hit and he could be hurt and dropped by some less than stellar opposition.

I think Marciano is best ranked somewhere between #5-#15.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 May 2007, 10:11

The "pre layoff" Ali was only knocked down twice. The Cooper fight has been talked about at nausem. The Banks knockdown was a flash knockdown. Ali wasn't hurt at all in the Banks fight. Both were before he won the title.

During Ali's first title reign he was never knocked down and he was never hurt. No he didn't dance all night and occasionally he was hit. However, he was on his feet moving around a lot more than he was "post layoff". The ratio of his punches landed to the amount of punches that he was hit with was phenomenal during the pre layoff period.

The opponents that Ali fight during his first tile reign were pretty good. They just suffer in comparison the tremendous competition that he had to face in the 1970's.
Actually they are probably as good as any other heavyweights champion's opponents in a three year period. The worst challenger was Brian London who while no legend was better than many fighters who have recieved title shots over the years.
The 3 1/2 year layoff took it's toll on Ali. It was a different situation than Liston only having 3 rounds in three years. Liston still trained hard for the 3 fights that he won by first round knockout. And he at least he was in the ring on three occasions, brief as they were. Ali didn't even know if he was ever going to fight again during his layoff. He wasn't training for fights.
Also losing foot speed and reflexes is going to hurt a fighter with Ali's style much more than it is with a fighter of Liston's style who doesn't rely on this.

Ali adapted to his diminished skills in the 1970's and still came out as the best heavyweight in the best era in the history of the division. However, the point is that he had to adjust.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2007, 10:28

It was a different situation outside of the ring but inside the ring it was no different. Ali made a choice, just the same as Duran made a choice to not always train properly in the 1980s, or how Bowe often made the choice not to use his jab, etc...

Saying that the lay off hurt Ali more than Liston is speculation. Liston may have spent those years drinking, smoking and whatever else. The percieved injustice in how Ali was treated may well have focused his mind. He was not taking any punches for those years (something which will have improved his longevity) so when he met Norton, Foreman and Frazier he was less damaged than he might have been.

I'm not necessarily subscribing to these views, just putting them forwards. I don't think anyone can argue with any conviction as to what would/could have happened.

I do believe though that it was the lay off that made Ali so great.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2007, 10:56

Ambling Alp wrote:

Ali adapted to his diminished skills in the 1970's and still came out as the best heavyweight in the best era in the history of the division. However, the point is that he had to adjust.

Alp, as an aside...

What are the 'diminished skills' you talk about.

I'm not sure this is what you mean. I wouldn't consider speed or reflexes as skills. I'd say that Ali's skills were improved. He had more experience and had to leverage his skills to offset physical decline. This happens in almost all sports.

I just want to get an idea of what you mean.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 May 2007, 13:08

I was using the term skills to describe Ali speed and reflexes. Maybe that isn't the best term to use. The point is that Ali wasn't as good physically when he came back. Any improvement in boxing skills was small, certainly not enough to compensate for the decline in physical skills.

As for the comparison with Liston, I don't think it's speculation at all.
Liston was certainly training for his fights. That's a huge difference than a guy who is no longer a fighter, as was the fight for Ali for 3 and a half years. He had no fight to train for.
Liston at least got to be in the ring for 3 different fights for that period of time as well, albiet for a short time. These are big differences and they showed.
Before Liston fought Ali, there was absolutely no signs in previous fights that Liston was declining. There is no fight that you point to and say, that Liston was starting to decline. There wasn't because he wasn't declining. ali on the other hand, show obvious signs against Bonavena. He did have the foot speed, and didn't use it nearly as much. His hand speed was obviolusly slower. It's all on tape, plain as day.
I don't think he would have taken a lot of punishment had he fought in the years that he was in exile. He was very hard to hit and didn't take much punishment.

It's true that what really makes Ali's story special is that he was able to comeback ansd still be the best. He certainly had more exciting fights in his second career. But if you are talking strictly when was he a better fighter, it's certainly during his first title reign.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 22 May 2007, 20:43

Ezzard wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:
Ezzard wrote: There's no doubt that everyone uses the 'prime' argument to defend their favourite fighters. It gets banded about way too much. BUT the first fight was a prime Frazier and an Ali who was still in the bracket of prime. He most certainly was not faded.

I think Frazier won the first more clearly than he is given credit for.

As for stopping the fight I said 'could' not 'would' and Ali was taking a lot more than Ron Lyle was when he got stopped.
Frazier did win the first fight clearly, I had him winning 9 rounds with the knock down... that doesn't change the fact Ali had ring rust. Would anyone give Ali credit if Frazier was coming off a 3 year lay off and Ali beat him? No way... I certainly wouldn't give Ali much credit for a win like that.

Ali-Lyle wasn't all that bad a stoppage IMO, contrary to what people like granberry might say, but I guess that's a valid point.
Fine, don't you think Ali took more punishment and was more in trouble in the 11th (v Frazier) than Lyle against Ali?

Ali had fought twice. He wasn't coming off a 3 year lay off in the way you present it. When Ali beat Liston, Liston had fought 3 rounds in 3 years.

I was agreeing with your Lyle comparison. I said it was a "valid point."

I really don't care that Ali had two tune ups. It doesn't change the fact that he looked like crap against Bonavena, or that he wasnt 100% against Frazier. Sugar Ray Robinson needed several tune ups and suffered a loss to a guy with around 11 losses on his come back from a 2 year layoff... Leonard needed no tune ups to come back against Hagler... its not a set thing.

As to 60's Ali vs. 70's Ali.. again, I would go with the younger Ali. He wasn't as accomplished, but I do believe he was better. Not worlds better, but better.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 22 May 2007, 21:49

Jeffries never officially lost when close to his prime.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 May 2007, 04:29

Ambling Alp wrote:I was using the term skills to describe Ali speed and reflexes. Maybe that isn't the best term to use. The point is that Ali wasn't as good physically when he came back. Any improvement in boxing skills was small, certainly not enough to compensate for the decline in physical skills.

As for the comparison with Liston, I don't think it's speculation at all.
Liston was certainly training for his fights. That's a huge difference than a guy who is no longer a fighter, as was the fight for Ali for 3 and a half years. He had no fight to train for.
Liston at least got to be in the ring for 3 different fights for that period of time as well, albiet for a short time. These are big differences and they showed.
Before Liston fought Ali, there was absolutely no signs in previous fights that Liston was declining. There is no fight that you point to and say, that Liston was starting to decline. There wasn't because he wasn't declining. ali on the other hand, show obvious signs against Bonavena. He did have the foot speed, and didn't use it nearly as much. His hand speed was obviolusly slower. It's all on tape, plain as day.
I don't think he would have taken a lot of punishment had he fought in the years that he was in exile. He was very hard to hit and didn't take much punishment.

It's true that what really makes Ali's story special is that he was able to comeback ansd still be the best. He certainly had more exciting fights in his second career. But if you are talking strictly when was he a better fighter, it's certainly during his first title reign.

Just to bark on about Liston... It was impossible to say whther he was in decline because he was barely in the ring for 3 years.

Anyway, it's a favourite topic of mine that both Schmeling and Frazier get underrated despite having wins against the top HWs of all-time. Some how the rematches mean more to people (because they fit in with accepted wisdom) despite the fact that Frazier and Schmeling were past their respective peaks when the fights took place.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 23 May 2007, 09:16

It's not impossible to say that Liston wasn't in decline because he only had 3 rounds in three years. The fact that he was able to win so easily shows that he wasn't in decline. Knocking out the 2nd best heavyweight in the world twice in one round is evidence that a fighter isn't in decline.

I don't see how you can possibly say that Ali was at/near his best in the first Ali-Frazier fight and then say that Frazier was past his prime in the rematch.
Frazier was 2 years younger than Ali. He was only 30 years old in the 2nd fight. He had only a grand total of 31 fights. He lost the rematch simply because Ali was better.

Frazier does deserve a lot of credit for winning the first fight with Ali. Very few fighters would have been able to pull this off.
Schmeling as well deserves a lot of credit for beat Joe Louis. There is a lot of arguement as to whether Schmeling was in his prime in the rematch. I have always taken a middle ground that he was slightly past his prime but certainly not washed up.

Friedie · Post by **Friedie** » 23 May 2007, 10:32

Ambling Alp wrote: Schmeling as well deserves a lot of credit for beat Joe Louis. There is a lot of arguement as to whether Schmeling was in his prime in the rematch. I have always taken a middle ground that he was slightly past his prime but certainly not washed up.

Yes. A washed up Fighter wouldn't have beaten Heuser one year later to become European Champion I guess.
The result of the rematch was not only because of Louis strength, but of the circumstances of the fight (psychological Sitation Schmeling had to face) and Schmelings broken back after that incidental punches in his back thrown by Louis. Max couldn't even move afterwards.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 23 May 2007, 11:05

Ambling Alp wrote:It's not impossible to say that Liston wasn't in decline because he only had 3 rounds in three years. The fact that he was able to win so easily shows that he wasn't in decline. Knocking out the 2nd best heavyweight in the world twice in one round is evidence that a fighter isn't in decline.

I don't see how you can possibly say that Ali was at/near his best in the first Ali-Frazier fight and then say that Frazier was past his prime in the rematch.
Frazier was 2 years younger than Ali. He was only 30 years old in the 2nd fight. He had only a grand total of 31 fights. He lost the rematch simply because Ali was better.

Frazier does deserve a lot of credit for winning the first fight with Ali. Very few fighters would have been able to pull this off.
Schmeling as well deserves a lot of credit for beat Joe Louis. There is a lot of arguement as to whether Schmeling was in his prime in the rematch. I have always taken a middle ground that he was slightly past his prime but certainly not washed up.

Those Liston wins proved very little. We knew/know Liston was a great puncher and we knew/know that Paterson could be dropped and KO'd. Paterson had lost those fights before he stepped into the ring. You can put forward the 3 rounds as evidence, and they should carry some weight, but they are neither compelling or conclusive.

By the third Ali-Frazier fight it is fairly obvious that Ali holds all of the cards in a physical sense. In the 2nd fight Frazier is further away from his peak fight (in terms of physical ability) than Ali was from his in the first fight.

Also, Ali does not seem better in in the 2nd Frazier fight than he was in the 1st. Frazier is simply not operating at the same level.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 23 May 2007, 11:12

Ezzard wrote:Also, Ali does not seem better in in the 2nd Frazier fight than he was in the 1st. Frazier is simply not operating at the same level.

I totally agree about Ali not being physically as good in the 2nd fight as he was in the first, and I think it’s pretty obvious. And yes, Frazier also wasn’t the same, but another big difference between the two fights is the style that Ali employed, and the fact that he was allowed to get away with so much clinching.