BoxRec

Il Duce wrote:Prime vs. Prime......

'Smokin Joe' beats Muhammad Ali or Cassius Clay.

Mid-1969/Early-1970 - 'Smokin Joe' would have stopped any version of the Louisville Lip.

Glad to see someone else recognizes that '69 through early '70 was actually the Frazier peak. I've maintained this for years having watched the films closely.

He definitely did not show quite the bobbing-weaving movement in the FOTC that he showed earlier. I think his health issues going into the FOTC + the 1970 ankle injury took something from him.

I followed boxing intensely back in that era and I was fully expecting Frazier to take Ali out somewhere around the 11th-12th that night.

Quarry predicted a Frazier knockout win, too.

Ali truly fought a great fight that night.

hhaehre wrote:Let's not beat around the bush, the big problem with FOTC is that the wrong man won. It is so hard to stomach that Ali looked great in FOTC. Why couldn't he have looked like crap? On the back of FOTC one simply has to wonder whether prime Frazier was just plain better than prime Ali and that is just so very very painful. It hurts so much.

Agree completely.

Ali fought one of greatest fights on 3/8/71 and still lost.

That is what bothers them so much.

Hence, the layoff excuse.

yancey wrote:

hhaehre wrote:Let's not beat around the bush, the big problem with FOTC is that the wrong man won. It is so hard to stomach that Ali looked great in FOTC. Why couldn't he have looked like crap? On the back of FOTC one simply has to wonder whether prime Frazier was just plain better than prime Ali and that is just so very very painful. It hurts so much.

Agree completely.

Ali fought one of greatest fights on 3/8/71 and still lost.

That is what bothers them so much.

Hence, the layoff excuse.

That's right.

The layoff never actually occured.

It's a myth put out by the Ali industry.

Giancarlo wrote:

yancey wrote:

hhaehre wrote:Let's not beat around the bush, the big problem with FOTC is that the wrong man won. It is so hard to stomach that Ali looked great in FOTC. Why couldn't he have looked like crap? On the back of FOTC one simply has to wonder whether prime Frazier was just plain better than prime Ali and that is just so very very painful. It hurts so much.

Agree completely.

Ali fought one of greatest fights on 3/8/71 and still lost.

That is what bothers them so much.

Hence, the layoff excuse.

That's right.

The layoff never actually occured.

It's a myth put out by the Ali industry.

Hey, you only misspelled one word this time.

yancey wrote:

hhaehre wrote:Let's not beat around the bush, the big problem with FOTC is that the wrong man won. It is so hard to stomach that Ali looked great in FOTC. Why couldn't he have looked like crap? On the back of FOTC one simply has to wonder whether prime Frazier was just plain better than prime Ali and that is just so very very painful. It hurts so much.

Agree completely.

Ali fought one of greatest fights on 3/8/71 and still lost.

That is what bothers them so much.

Hence, the layoff excuse.

Yup, that Frazier beats any Ali the same as that Douglas beats any Tyson. It's a shame that 'true' fans are so caught up in wins and losses that they don't realize that fight elevated both of them. Oh well, oddly Ali was feeling himself again right around Frazier II.

It's the same stuff with Leonard/Duran 1. Ray takes a brutal ass whipping like a man and earns the respect of everyone that doesn't like him. His fan boys, not coincidentally some of the same in the Ali lust club, go on about how he didn't fight his fight and Duran hurt his feelings, etc...

I don't love any fighter to those extremes.

Nancy (CD) wrote:Hey, you only misspelled one word this time.

Very true.

Could you proof-read Il Duce's post now?

Hang on, don't bother, he's another one who takes a laminated picture of Joe to bed each night and has a picture of Ali painted on his toilet bowl.

(Do you reckon his white sheet and hood is as good as yours though?)

foxy01 wrote: I don't think that Clay/Ali would have, danced for 15 rounds in the FOTC, because I don't think he would have needed to. Joe was thudding hooks into Ali from the off. Nine rounds of dancing would have Joe completely spent by throwing punches into thin air. If you are asking if Ali / Clay could have danced for 15 rounds, who knows?

He couldn't do it vs. Chuvalo but of course he would have danced like the wind for 3 minutes of every round against the lesser Frazier.

hhaehre wrote:

foxy01 wrote: I don't think that Clay/Ali would have, danced for 15 rounds in the FOTC, because I don't think he would have needed to. Joe was thudding hooks into Ali from the off. Nine rounds of dancing would have Joe completely spent by throwing punches into thin air. If you are asking if Ali / Clay could have danced for 15 rounds, who knows?

He couldn't do it vs. Chuvalo but of course he would have danced like the wind for 3 minutes of every round against the lesser Frazier.

Who knows, some of these Ali bubbleheads may actually believe it.

yancey wrote:

hhaehre wrote:

foxy01 wrote: I don't think that Clay/Ali would have, danced for 15 rounds in the FOTC, because I don't think he would have needed to. Joe was thudding hooks into Ali from the off. Nine rounds of dancing would have Joe completely spent by throwing punches into thin air. If you are asking if Ali / Clay could have danced for 15 rounds, who knows?

He couldn't do it vs. Chuvalo but of course he would have danced like the wind for 3 minutes of every round against the lesser Frazier.

Who knows, some of these Ali bubbleheads may actually believe it.

No doubt they do. They also drag down his great career by insinuating that his greatest competition was second tier because they couldn't outdo the greatly diminished version of Ali that they faced. It's really astonishing. These guys make Pacfans rational.

Since Ali must have been at this best when he fought his best competition, (apparently it's impossible to be at your best when you aren't fighting your best opponents) lets use that theory with other fighters.

Joe Frazier must have been at his best after world War II. He fought Charles, Walcott twice and Marciano during this peiod. He lost to charles and Marcaino badly, and only a gift decision got him the first fight with Walcott. Huh, Louis must not have been that good.

How about Larry Holmes? His best competition was against Holyfield and Tyson. That means Holmes must have been at his best when he was 38 and over. He lost to Tyson and Holyfield. huh, that means that holmes might not have been that good.

Jack Dempsey's best opponent was Tunney. He must have been at his best against Tunney. (in fact he had a 3 year layoff before the first fight, whcih would make him more "sturdy".) But Dempsey lost to Tunney. Dempsey must not have been that good.

Obviously it's imposssible to be at your best when yo aren't fighting the best opponent(s) of your career. This theory really is good. We can learn a lot from it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Since Ali must have been at this best when he fought his best competition, (apparently it's impossible to be at your best when you aren't fighting your best opponents) lets use that theory with other fighters.

Joe Frazier must have been at his best after world War II. He fought Charles, Walcott twice and Marciano during this peiod. He lost to charles and Marcaino badly, and only a gift decision got him the first fight with Walcott. Huh, Louis must not have been that good.

How about Larry Holmes? His best competition was against Holyfield and Tyson. That means Holmes must have been at his best when he was 38 and over. He lost to Tyson and Holyfield. huh, that means that holmes might not have been that good.

Jack Dempsey's best opponent was Tunney. He must have been at his best against Tunney. (in fact he had a 3 year layoff before the first fight, whcih would make him more "sturdy".) But Dempsey lost to Tunney. Dempsey must not have been that good.

Obviously it's imposssible to be at your best when yo aren't fighting the best opponent(s) of your career. This theory really is good. We can learn a lot from it.

2nd para 2nd word mate
have a replace
sorry, not a school teacher.promise

Ambling Alp II wrote:Since Ali must have been at this best when he fought his best competition, (apparently it's impossible to be at your best when you aren't fighting your best opponents) lets use that theory with other fighters.

Joe Frazier must have been at his best after world War II. He fought Charles, Walcott twice and Marciano during this peiod. He lost to charles and Marcaino badly, and only a gift decision got him the first fight with Walcott. Huh, Louis must not have been that good.

How about Larry Holmes? His best competition was against Holyfield and Tyson. That means Holmes must have been at his best when he was 38 and over. He lost to Tyson and Holyfield. huh, that means that holmes might not have been that good.

Jack Dempsey's best opponent was Tunney. He must have been at his best against Tunney. (in fact he had a 3 year layoff before the first fight, whcih would make him more "sturdy".) But Dempsey lost to Tunney. Dempsey must not have been that good.

Obviously it's imposssible to be at your best when yo aren't fighting the best opponent(s) of your career. This theory really is good. We can learn a lot from it.

And I'm not laughing because you have Frazier fighting Charles, Walcott & marciano. Every fighter is different. Perhaps someday you'll get over that little tidbit. None of us have offered absolutes, that's for you and your merry band of imbeciles. All you ever say, no matter what the disguise is......"My hero lost, he had to have been compromised." No need to go any further Alp, you're one sick fornicate.

si7dog7 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Since Ali must have been at this best when he fought his best competition, (apparently it's impossible to be at your best when you aren't fighting your best opponents) lets use that theory with other fighters.

Joe Frazier must have been at his best after world War II. He fought Charles, Walcott twice and Marciano during this peiod. He lost to charles and Marcaino badly, and only a gift decision got him the first fight with Walcott. Huh, Louis must not have been that good.

How about Larry Holmes? His best competition was against Holyfield and Tyson. That means Holmes must have been at his best when he was 38 and over. He lost to Tyson and Holyfield. huh, that means that holmes might not have been that good.

Jack Dempsey's best opponent was Tunney. He must have been at his best against Tunney. (in fact he had a 3 year layoff before the first fight, whcih would make him more "sturdy".) But Dempsey lost to Tunney. Dempsey must not have been that good.

Obviously it's imposssible to be at your best when yo aren't fighting the best opponent(s) of your career. This theory really is good. We can learn a lot from it.

2nd para 2nd word mate
have a replace
sorry, not a school teacher.promise

That mistake is the least of the problems with that retarded post. He really should be banned from posting on Ali & Leonard. Any other fighters and he's quite rationale and knowledgeable. One mention of these two and an intelligent conversation is impossible.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: And I'm not laughing because you have Frazier fighting Charles, Walcott & marciano. Every fighter is different. Perhaps someday you'll get over that little tidbit. None of us have offered absolutes, that's for you and your merry band of imbeciles. All you ever say, no matter what the disguise is......"My hero lost, he had to have been compromised." No need to go any further Alp, you're one sick eff.

Not sure if you have Nancy as a member of the merry band of imbeciles (you and I are both in it or we wouldn't be in here churning out shite would we?).

Anyway, have a think about getting the drunken bitch a membership card.

After all, you can't get any more biased than his continual claim that Joe (greatest heavyweight of all time apparently) only lost to Foreman because

(1) Foreman cheated
(2) Joe was well past his prime

I'm just glad the internet has given nutters like Nancy a virtual soapbox to allow them some form of interaction with the rest of humanity. Giving him membership to Imbeciles United would be something else you could do for this unfortunate 'man'.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

yancey wrote:

misterpunch wrote:lets get real here - ali built his technique on tons of movement - dancing - and in his pre-layoff days he danced around his opponents using his reflexes and movement to avoid getting hit. after the lay-off, as we all know, he couldnt dance and move for any great length of time any more and had to spend more time on the ropes sucking up punches. older and slower but still very ring smart.

Yes, that's it!

It's that layoff, it caused everything!

I mean, without that layoff, the Greatest would have floated around the ring all 15 rounds against Frazier in 1971 without even being touched!

I mean, Frazier certainly did not cut off the ring, apply more pressure, and force the Greatest to steal time against the ropes anymore than Ernie Terrell, Zora Folley, and the absolute prime Cleveland Williams ever did!!!

Can't you all see?

It was the layoff!!!

Highlights of Ali - Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6q_TfvWqvc

Highlights of Ali - Frazier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQhFhdmW6Vs

Ali in the Williams fight is clearly in better shape, has better movement, foot speed, hand speed.

Compare Ali's first round vs Bonavena.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMrJEloGGao

.... against Ali vs Liston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OezriPEepZs

His reflexes, hand speed and foot speed are clearly better in the Liston fight.

Now, anyone who disagrees...... show me a video after the ban where Ali's foot speed is as fast as this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzWynvBLJ4I

That's it, there isn't one.

I'm still waiting for a video showing Ali's equal or better, foot speed, hand speed and movement.

Giancarlo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: And I'm not laughing because you have Frazier fighting Charles, Walcott & marciano. Every fighter is different. Perhaps someday you'll get over that little tidbit. None of us have offered absolutes, that's for you and your merry band of imbeciles. All you ever say, no matter what the disguise is......"My hero lost, he had to have been compromised." No need to go any further Alp, you're one sick eff.

Not sure if you have Nancy as a member of the merry band of imbeciles (you and I are both in it or we wouldn't be in here churning out shite would we?).

Anyway, have a think about getting the drunken bitch a membership card.

After all, you can't get any more biased than his continual claim that Joe (greatest heavyweight of all time apparently) only lost to Foreman because

(1) Foreman cheated
(2) Joe was well past his prime

I'm just glad the internet has given nutters like Nancy a virtual soapbox to allow them some form of interaction with the rest of humanity. Giving him membership to Imbeciles United would be something else you could do for this unfortunate 'man'.

I have Frazier in the middle of the Top 10. Does that sound like I have him the greatest all-time heavyweight?

I've always qualified my remarks about Frazier-Foreman by saying that I would never bet on peak Frazier at even money. Does that sound like a man that truly believes peak Frazier always beats '73 Foreman. I have only maintained that it is not always a quick knockout win for Foreman and that peak Frazier has a plausible path to victory under certain conditions.

Anyway, you do like to twist other people's viewpoint, don't you? Just like you go in and adjust words on my posts now and then.

What a "man".

Go back to flipping burgers, dude.

Il Duce wrote: Lamar Clark, was better than Cassius Clay.

He was forced to take a 'dive' in Lousville.

Let's see if any of the self-proclaimed fair and un-biased posters have any thoughts on this gibberish.

Il Duce wrote:

foxy01 wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Cassius Clay was very light on his feet at 210 lbs.

How he made a 'quick' Floyd Patterson look,,,,,,,,,slowwwwwww.

Shush.


Don't you know there never was a Cassius Clay, the fastest Heavyweight ever. It's all a conspiracy.

There was of course a Muhammad Ali, who started his career in 1970 against Jerry Quarry. You know the guy, who shook up the world by showing how sturdy he was, absorbing all sorts of punishment along the way.

Lamar Clark, was better than Cassius Clay.

He was forced to take a 'dive' in Lousville.

What could have been..........

Kent Green didn't think Cassius was that fast.....'Bang' 'Zoom'......You have been 'Knocked The F*** Out Cassius'.

You are an interesting paradox Il Duce, you educate me with nuggets of info and then occasionally throw in some utter tosh. Surely you don't believe this?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

yancey wrote:
Yes, that's it!

It's that layoff, it caused everything!

I mean, without that layoff, the Greatest would have floated around the ring all 15 rounds against Frazier in 1971 without even being touched!

I mean, Frazier certainly did not cut off the ring, apply more pressure, and force the Greatest to steal time against the ropes anymore than Ernie Terrell, Zora Folley, and the absolute prime Cleveland Williams ever did!!!

Can't you all see?

It was the layoff!!!

Highlights of Ali - Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6q_TfvWqvc

Highlights of Ali - Frazier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQhFhdmW6Vs

Ali in the Williams fight is clearly in better shape, has better movement, foot speed, hand speed.

Compare Ali's first round vs Bonavena.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMrJEloGGao

.... against Ali vs Liston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OezriPEepZs

His reflexes, hand speed and foot speed are clearly better in the Liston fight.

Now, anyone who disagrees...... show me a video after the ban where Ali's foot speed is as fast as this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzWynvBLJ4I

That's it, there isn't one.

I'm still waiting for a video showing Ali's equal or better, foot speed, hand speed and movement.

YANCEY?