I have no idea why you guys would think Ali wasn't as good physically in the 2nd fight as the first. Because he had been active he was sharper and had more stamina than he had been in the first fight. In the first fight he was already starting to tire in the mid rounds.
Frazier got off to a slow start in the 2nd fight (as he did in many of his fights), but seemed fine physically.
Why would Ali have "all the cards in a physical sense" in their 3rd fight? He was older than Frazier and Frazier hadn't taken that much punishment in his career. Frazier fought one of the best fights of his career in their 3rd fight. It would have been good enough to win against almost any other fighter.
As for Liston, you might not think that it's not compelling evidence that Liston wasn't declining because he won his last 3 fights so easily, but you have no evidence whatsover that he was declining. You really should have some evidence that a guy is declining before saying that he is.
If a guy wins a fight by first round knockout, then in his next fight wins the championship by first round knockout, then in his first title defense wins by knockout against the 2nd best heavyweight in the world, he isn't declining.
Yes, Patterson had a suspect chin, but he had only been knocked out once before. Liston's performance in both fights was pretty impressive.
Lets say that Liston would have had a lot of trouble in beating Patterson. You know what the arguement would have been then - He was struggling with Patterson, he must have been declining.
Ambling Alp wrote:I have no idea why you guys would think Ali wasn't as good physically in the 2nd fight as the first. Because he had been active he was sharper and had more stamina than he had been in the first fight. In the first fight he was already starting to tire in the mid rounds.
To my eyes, Ali did not look sharper in the 2nd Frazier fight, and did less moving and more holding, which is why he did not appear to tire as quickly. He was better prepared strategically, which is the main reason why he won the 2nd fight. A 24 year old Ali did not have the experience and and I don’t think he would have been able to cope with the pressure of Frazier.
I'm being ignored on the Bonavena point, so I'll take as a concession.
I give Schmeling a lot of credit for beating Louis. But Louis had been a pro for two years when he fought Schmeling the first time. Not saying that he wasn't a great fighter even at that point, he had already beaten two ex-champions, and he was already 27-0. But if we're going to use Schmeling's age and say he was old at that point, Louis was also pretty young in the first fight, he wasn't at his "peak" either. I would attribute Louis' success in the rematch more to a different approach and likely a different maturity by Louis than I would to Schmeling's age. If you put the Schmeling from the first fight against the Louis of the second fight, Louis may not win in one round, but I think he would probably win. And yes, I do think rematches matter more.
Frazier was better in the first fight, but he was hardly shot in the second fight or third fight. Saying that Ali was closer to his physical peak in the first fight is a red herring, that's not what's being debated. Ali for 6 rounds against Frazier was arguably the best he would ever be in the 70's, and in those rounds he looked better than he did in the 2nd fight. You're forgetting the last 9 rounds where he hit a wall and looked like shit. He wasn't ready for that kind of fight. Ali at 24, or more appropriately Ali at 27-28 (which is when he likely would have met Frazier without the layoff) wouldn't be spent in 6 rounds if there is no layoff.
There's no way around. You could debate it till the end of time, its not going to take away a 3 1/2 year layoff. Frazier wouldn't look as good either with that extended absence.
As for the clinching... what did Ali get away with that Lennox Lewis or Wladimir Klitschko or John Ruiz didn't get away with. Is the ref going to take a point? Two points? Ali still would have won on a split decision.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 23 May 2007, 14:33, edited 1 time in total.
The 24 year old Ali already had a lot of experience. After a lengthy amateur career, he had been a professional for 6 years and had been the champion for 2 years.
He would have had little problem staying away from Frazier. He would have bounced combinations off Frazier all night. Frazier had enough trouble with the slower Ali when he was on his toes, which wasn't nearly as often as the younger Ali. He had enough troubles with Ali's hand speed which wasn't nearly as fast as it had been when he was 24.
Ali would win an easy decision, maybe even stop him.
I Feel Fine wrote:I'm being ignored on the Bonavena point, so I'll take as a concession.
Ignored in what way? Did you pose a question about the Bonvena fight?
I Feel Fine wrote:As for the clinching... what did Ali get away with that Lennox Lewis or Wladimir Klitschko or John Ruiz didn't get away with. Is the ref going to take a point? Two points? Ali still would have won on a split decision.
Did I say that Ali got away with something? In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I mentioned the clinching in the second fight as something that he did more of because he learned from both the Bonavena and Frazier fights. I’m not attacking Ali at all, as I consider him the #1 HW of all time, and much of that is based on his experience and ability to adapt that he developed during his second career.
I was talking to Ezzard. About the idea that Ali must have been ok for Frazier because he had two tune ups. Ali looked like shit against Bonavena.
As for the clinching, I was referring to this "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." I agree that Ali was better prepared strategically, but I don't feel Ali got away with anything other fighters haven't gotten away with. The clinching in the second fight comes up from time to time, but Ali would have won the fight by decision even if he had lost points.
I'm not so much disagreeing with that quote, just making a point.
I Feel Fine wrote:I was talking to Ezzard. About the idea that Ali must have been ok for Frazier because he had two tune ups. Ali looked like shit against Bonavena.
As for the clinching, I was referring to this "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." I agree that Ali was better prepared strategically, but I don't feel Ali got away with anything other fighters haven't gotten away with. The clinching in the second fight comes up from time to time, but Ali would have won the fight by decision even if he had lost points.
I'm not so much disagreeing with that quote, just making a point.
Thanks for the clarification.
Ali had a terrific struggle with Bonavena, but I think that fight helped him a great deal in his preparations for Frazier. While Frazier was a much better fighter than Ringo, Ringo was a very aggressive fighter who could bring it all night, and presented a challenge to Ali that I don’t think he had ever really had to deal with before. I agree that Ali didn’t look very good against Ringo, and part of that was due to some remaining rust, but part of it was also due to Bonavena’s rather unique style of fighting.
I Feel Fine wrote:I was talking to Ezzard. About the idea that Ali must have been ok for Frazier because he had two tune ups. Ali looked like shit against Bonavena.
As for the clinching, I was referring to this "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." I agree that Ali was better prepared strategically, but I don't feel Ali got away with anything other fighters haven't gotten away with. The clinching in the second fight comes up from time to time, but Ali would have won the fight by decision even if he had lost points.
I'm not so much disagreeing with that quote, just making a point.
Thanks for the clarification.
Ali had a terrific struggle with Bonavena, but I think that fight helped him a great deal in his preparations for Frazier. While Frazier was a much better fighter than Ringo, Ringo was a very aggressive fighter who could bring it all night, and presented a challenge to Ali that I don’t think he had ever really had to deal with before. I agree that Ali didn’t look very good against Ringo, and part of that was due to some remaining rust, but part of it was also due to Bonavena’s rather unique style of fighting.
I'm sure it did help him prepare for Frazier, but it also showed how rusty he still was. Ali wouldn't look that sloppy again until his declining years. I don't think Ali in 67 would have had that much difficulty against Bonavena... he would have had difficulty, but not near that much.
Well that's just the style. Patterson made himself available to hit, Whitehurst, if I recall, didn't. Big part of why Ali beat him, bad style for Liston, Ali wasn't there to hit.
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.
Thanks BoxBuzz. I too think if any guy so far on the list to have beaten Marciano, it would have been Machen. But then again, anything is possible, seeing as Ingo knocked Machen cold in the 1st of their fight, yet could go the limit with Liston. Kinda ironic don't you think?
Neways, next on the computer fight simulation of the post 49-0 Marciano is up against English champion Henry Cooper who was ranked in the top 10 at this point and time. Rocky will be 34 years of age, going up against a Cooper that has yet to face Cassius Clay, Patterson and Folley. Will Cooper be able to hang in with Marciano? Probably not, but after the Baker's, Jackson's, Patterson's and Machen's, Rocky is in need due of rest and needs a more easier opponent.
Personal prediction? TKO in 6th-8th, Marciano victory. Cooper will be cut open and look like he has a vagina on his head. lol.
Ambling Alp wrote:I have no idea why you guys would think Ali wasn't as good physically in the 2nd fight as the first. Because he had been active he was sharper and had more stamina than he had been in the first fight. In the first fight he was already starting to tire in the mid rounds.
Frazier got off to a slow start in the 2nd fight (as he did in many of his fights), but seemed fine physically.
Why would Ali have "all the cards in a physical sense" in their 3rd fight? He was older than Frazier and Frazier hadn't taken that much punishment in his career. Frazier fought one of the best fights of his career in their 3rd fight. It would have been good enough to win against almost any other fighter.
As for Liston, you might not think that it's not compelling evidence that Liston wasn't declining because he won his last 3 fights so easily, but you have no evidence whatsover that he was declining. You really should have some evidence that a guy is declining before saying that he is.
If a guy wins a fight by first round knockout, then in his next fight wins the championship by first round knockout, then in his first title defense wins by knockout against the 2nd best heavyweight in the world, he isn't declining.
Yes, Patterson had a suspect chin, but he had only been knocked out once before. Liston's performance in both fights was pretty impressive.
Lets say that Liston would have had a lot of trouble in beating Patterson. You know what the arguement would have been then - He was struggling with Patterson, he must have been declining.
It looks like lines are drawn on this...
I don't agree on the Ali being better in the 2nd fight and I'll leave it at that. There's no point us debating it if we're seeing different things.
Frazier applied far less pressure in the 2nd and 3rd fights. He did not really set about wearing Ali down. Frazier's workrate is cut considerably and he did none of the things he needed to do to win. Ali gets much more freedom and space to operate. The pace of the fight was not on a par with the first fight. I have read on these boards many times that Frazier was in a very bad way after the first fight. It took so much to beat Ali. It was the kind of effort that only a peak swarmer could muster. Frazier was no longer capable of setting a pace that would grind Ali down.
By the 3rd fight I've read that Frazier had lost some of his vision in one eye. He really could no longer swarm as he had once and was obviously a much smaller man than Ali who did not carry that extra weight half as well.
Liston lost to Ali that's the evidence. He looked poor in losing. He had only fought 3 rounds in 3 years. That's the evidence. It's the same evidence that supports your point about Ali. Ali had 18 rounds in 3 1/2 years. Okay, so Ali didn't look great in his warm up fights but Liston wasn't really in a fight for 3 years.
My point really is that if you want to temper Frazier's victory over Ali then surely you must temper Ali's victories over Liston.
I don't believe Ali would stop that Frazier. They would always have close fights. Ali was always open to a left hook and Frazier maybe had the best ever. Frazier could put enough punches together to keep Ali busy defensively.
I Feel Fine wrote:
As for the clinching... what did Ali get away with that Lennox Lewis or Wladimir Klitschko or John Ruiz didn't get away with. Is the ref going to take a point? Two points? Ali still would have won on a split decision.
I believe a foul is only a foul if you get penalised for it. You do what you have to do to win.
The problem arises when there are inconsistencies.
Ambling Alp wrote:I have no idea why you guys would think Ali wasn't as good physically in the 2nd fight as the first. Because he had been active he was sharper and had more stamina than he had been in the first fight. In the first fight he was already starting to tire in the mid rounds.
Frazier got off to a slow start in the 2nd fight (as he did in many of his fights), but seemed fine physically.
Why would Ali have "all the cards in a physical sense" in their 3rd fight? He was older than Frazier and Frazier hadn't taken that much punishment in his career. Frazier fought one of the best fights of his career in their 3rd fight. It would have been good enough to win against almost any other fighter.
As for Liston, you might not think that it's not compelling evidence that Liston wasn't declining because he won his last 3 fights so easily, but you have no evidence whatsover that he was declining. You really should have some evidence that a guy is declining before saying that he is.
If a guy wins a fight by first round knockout, then in his next fight wins the championship by first round knockout, then in his first title defense wins by knockout against the 2nd best heavyweight in the world, he isn't declining.
Yes, Patterson had a suspect chin, but he had only been knocked out once before. Liston's performance in both fights was pretty impressive.
Lets say that Liston would have had a lot of trouble in beating Patterson. You know what the arguement would have been then - He was struggling with Patterson, he must have been declining.
It looks like lines are drawn on this...
I don't agree on the Ali being better in the 2nd fight and I'll leave it at that. There's no point us debating it if we're seeing different things.
Frazier applied far less pressure in the 2nd and 3rd fights. He did not really set about wearing Ali down. Frazier's workrate is cut considerably and he did none of the things he needed to do to win. Ali gets much more freedom and space to operate. The pace of the fight was not on a par with the first fight. I have read on these boards many times that Frazier was in a very bad way after the first fight. It took so much to beat Ali. It was the kind of effort that only a peak swarmer could muster. Frazier was no longer capable of setting a pace that would grind Ali down.
By the 3rd fight I've read that Frazier had lost some of his vision in one eye. He really could no longer swarm as he had once and was obviously a much smaller man than Ali who did not carry that extra weight half as well.
Liston lost to Ali that's the evidence. He looked poor in losing. He had only fought 3 rounds in 3 years. That's the evidence. It's the same evidence that supports your point about Ali. Ali had 18 rounds in 3 1/2 years. Okay, so Ali didn't look great in his warm up fights but Liston wasn't really in a fight for 3 years.
My point really is that if you want to temper Frazier's victory over Ali then surely you must temper Ali's victories over Liston.
I don't believe Ali would stop that Frazier. They would always have close fights. Ali was always open to a left hook and Frazier maybe had the best ever. Frazier could put enough punches together to keep Ali busy defensively.
Some of these points we have been round and round and it isn't worth going on any more about. some points I do agree with you about.
One thing I strongly disagree on is that Frazier's wasn't the swarmer in the 3rd fight as he had been. Frazier threw a ton of punches in that fight. If anything, he applied more pressure in the 3rd fight than he did in the first fight.
I didn't mean to give the impression that Frazier didn't deserve the win in the first fight. He fought a great fight and deserved the win. I do agree that the Bonavena fight help Ali get rid of some of the ringrust after his layoff. If he would have fought Frazier right then instead of Bonavena he would have lost more decisivley than he did when they did fight the first time. Still, it was obvious that he wasn't all the way back. His timing wasn't quite as good as it had been, his handspeed wasn't as fast, he had to fight flatfooted more, and he seem to be tiring by the middle rounds. You never saw ali tire in his pre-layoff fights. I just don't think that it was anywhere near the best that we have seen out of Ali. Having said that, it's doubtful that more than a handful of other fighters would have beaten Ali that night.
As for what would happened if Frazier had fought the younger Ali. Was Ali really open to the left hook? Well Frazier was able to drop him with it one time in 41 rounds against a far less elusive Ali. The odds are against him being that effective with it against the Ali of the mid-1960's. Frazier would have been getting hit alot more often against this Ali.
I don't think of Liston's performance against Ali as "poor". He certainly would have destroyed the guys that he had previously destroyed. He just couldn't catch him. Did you ever see Liston's fight against Machen? Machen was fast, but not nearly as fast as Ali. Liston had trouble all night hitting Machen clean, though he managed to do enough to win. It's not surprising at all that he would have so much trouble catching Ali.
Ali also had a lot more offense than Machen that Liston had to deal with.
There is no way that I am ever going to buy the Liston was declining arguement. It's important to remember that Liston was training for fights for those 3 years. Ali wasn't during his layoff because it was doubtful if he would fight again, and certainly there was no way to know when.
This really isn't the same thing at all. Ali had a layoff, Liston didn't.
Before the first Ali-Frazier fight, there was plenty of talk about Ali not looking good against Bonavena and that he seemed to be flat footed a lot more and wasn't as fast.
No one was saying anything at all about Liston declining before fought Ali.
Lets say that it's true that a fighter declines when he is only fighting three one round fights in three years. Wouldn't he be almost as rusty when he only fought two one round fights in two years? That was the case when Liston fought Patterson the 2nd time. Liston should have looked rusty and have a lot of trouble with Patterson, the 2nd best heavyweight in the world. But he didn't; he won easily.
Ambling Alp wrote:I have no idea why you guys would think Ali wasn't as good physically in the 2nd fight as the first. Because he had been active he was sharper and had more stamina than he had been in the first fight. In the first fight he was already starting to tire in the mid rounds.
Frazier got off to a slow start in the 2nd fight (as he did in many of his fights), but seemed fine physically.
Why would Ali have "all the cards in a physical sense" in their 3rd fight? He was older than Frazier and Frazier hadn't taken that much punishment in his career. Frazier fought one of the best fights of his career in their 3rd fight. It would have been good enough to win against almost any other fighter.
As for Liston, you might not think that it's not compelling evidence that Liston wasn't declining because he won his last 3 fights so easily, but you have no evidence whatsover that he was declining. You really should have some evidence that a guy is declining before saying that he is.
If a guy wins a fight by first round knockout, then in his next fight wins the championship by first round knockout, then in his first title defense wins by knockout against the 2nd best heavyweight in the world, he isn't declining.
Yes, Patterson had a suspect chin, but he had only been knocked out once before. Liston's performance in both fights was pretty impressive.
Lets say that Liston would have had a lot of trouble in beating Patterson. You know what the arguement would have been then - He was struggling with Patterson, he must have been declining.
It looks like lines are drawn on this...
I don't agree on the Ali being better in the 2nd fight and I'll leave it at that. There's no point us debating it if we're seeing different things.
Frazier applied far less pressure in the 2nd and 3rd fights. He did not really set about wearing Ali down. Frazier's workrate is cut considerably and he did none of the things he needed to do to win. Ali gets much more freedom and space to operate. The pace of the fight was not on a par with the first fight. I have read on these boards many times that Frazier was in a very bad way after the first fight. It took so much to beat Ali. It was the kind of effort that only a peak swarmer could muster. Frazier was no longer capable of setting a pace that would grind Ali down.
By the 3rd fight I've read that Frazier had lost some of his vision in one eye. He really could no longer swarm as he had once and was obviously a much smaller man than Ali who did not carry that extra weight half as well.
Liston lost to Ali that's the evidence. He looked poor in losing. He had only fought 3 rounds in 3 years. That's the evidence. It's the same evidence that supports your point about Ali. Ali had 18 rounds in 3 1/2 years. Okay, so Ali didn't look great in his warm up fights but Liston wasn't really in a fight for 3 years.
My point really is that if you want to temper Frazier's victory over Ali then surely you must temper Ali's victories over Liston.
I don't believe Ali would stop that Frazier. They would always have close fights. Ali was always open to a left hook and Frazier maybe had the best ever. Frazier could put enough punches together to keep Ali busy defensively.
Some of these points we have been round and round and it isn't worth going on any more about. some points I do agree with you about.
One thing I strongly disagree on is that Frazier's wasn't the swarmer in the 3rd fight as he had been. Frazier threw a ton of punches in that fight. If anything, he applied more pressure in the 3rd fight than he did in the first fight.
I didn't mean to give the impression that Frazier didn't deserve the win in the first fight. He fought a great fight and deserved the win. I do agree that the Bonavena fight help Ali get rid of some of the ringrust after his layoff. If he would have fought Frazier right then instead of Bonavena he would have lost more decisivley than he did when they did fight the first time. Still, it was obvious that he wasn't all the way back. His timing wasn't quite as good as it had been, his handspeed wasn't as fast, he had to fight flatfooted more, and he seem to be tiring by the middle rounds. You never saw ali tire in his pre-layoff fights. I just don't think that it was anywhere near the best that we have seen out of Ali. Having said that, it's doubtful that more than a handful of other fighters would have beaten Ali that night.
As for what would happened if Frazier had fought the younger Ali. Was Ali really open to the left hook? Well Frazier was able to drop him with it one time in 41 rounds against a far less elusive Ali. The odds are against him being that effective with it against the Ali of the mid-1960's. Frazier would have been getting hit alot more often against this Ali.
I don't think of Liston's performance against Ali as "poor". He certainly would have destroyed the guys that he had previously destroyed. He just couldn't catch him. Did you ever see Liston's fight against Machen? Machen was fast, but not nearly as fast as Ali. Liston had trouble all night hitting Machen clean, though he managed to do enough to win. It's not surprising at all that he would have so much trouble catching Ali.
Ali also had a lot more offense than Machen that Liston had to deal with.
There is no way that I am ever going to buy the Liston was declining arguement. It's important to remember that Liston was training for fights for those 3 years. Ali wasn't during his layoff because it was doubtful if he would fight again, and certainly there was no way to know when.
This really isn't the same thing at all. Ali had a layoff, Liston didn't.
Before the first Ali-Frazier fight, there was plenty of talk about Ali not looking good against Bonavena and that he seemed to be flat footed a lot more and wasn't as fast.
No one was saying anything at all about Liston declining before fought Ali.
Lets say that it's true that a fighter declines when he is only fighting three one round fights in three years. Wouldn't he be almost as rusty when he only fought two one round fights in two years? That was the case when Liston fought Patterson the 2nd time. Liston should have looked rusty and have a lot of trouble with Patterson, the 2nd best heavyweight in the world. But he didn't; he won easily.
Just a few things to come back on, Alp. I do accept your reasoning as sound on many issues even when I disagree with your conclusions so here are a few things...
In the 3rd fight Frazier was being beaten easily. He only got back into the fight because Ali let him. Ali went out to finish him as he believed that Frazier was completey washed up. He couldn't keep battering him all night as he realised he had to pace himself, so Ali took a few rounds off, protected his head, lay back and gave Frazier his body. Frazier took more and had more left than Ali anticipated - or Frazier was so wound up by Ali that he pulled out a performance he had no right to.
I believe Ali was vulnerable to the left hook. Cooper dropped him with one. Frazier dropped him at least once and had him in all kind of trouble. Norton pretty much led with an odd llooking left hook that he seemed to use a a jab.
Finally back to Liston. Taking time out can make a man fresher. Paolo Rossi the infamous Italian footballer was banned from football for 12-18 monhts for match fixing in the early 1980s. Italy picked him for the World Cup because they had nobody else. He hadn't kicked a ball competitively but went on to win the golden boot as the tournament's top scorer and was instrumental in Italy's triumph. He was fresher and less worn than the other players who had been training. He also, like Ali, had a big advantage: he had something to prove. And let's not forget, whatever our politics or philosophy on life may be, it was Ali's choice to take the layoff.
Ambling Alp wrote:I do agree that the Bonavena fight help Ali get rid of some of the ringrust after his layoff.
The Bonavena fight did help Ali get rid of some ring rust, but the biggest benefit was that Ali gained a great deal of experience and knowledge from this fight, as Bonavena presented challenges to Ali that he had not seen before in a professional ring. Ringo was perfect prep for Frazier.
I don't understand this idea of Bonavena presenting challenges that Ali had never faced before. Like what?
Ezzard- I'm not sure what to make of your description of the Ali-Frazier fight. I consider it the greatest heavyweight fight of all time. Frazier fought a great fight and would have been successful against almost anyone else who ever fought.
As to Ali being vulnerable to the left hook -
The Cooper fight was before he fought Liston. He got careless and got caught. To cooper's credit it was a pretty good shot. However, Ali was up right away and stopped Cooper in the next round. It was a good learning experience for him.
The left hook that Frazier hit him with was perfect. Again Ali got up immediately and was in no trouble of being stopped whatsoever. In fact he outfought Frazier the rest of the round.
This is twice in his entire 61 fight career. (Three if you want to add the flash knockown early in Ali's career. I can't remember what kind of punch Banks landed)
None when he was at his prime.
I really wouldn't call Norton's punch a "left hook". It really wan't a punch that hurt Ali though it was at times effective. Again this was in the 1970's.
To call him vulnerable to the lefthook is really stretching it.
Ambling Alp wrote:I don't understand this idea of Bonavena presenting challenges that Ali had never faced before. Like what?
Bonavena’s style was entirely different than any other fighter Ali fought prior to their fight. Chuvalo was probably the closest, but even his style wasn’t as aggressive or more importantly, as unorthodox. If you don’t see that, then there is really nothing else I can add to the discussion.
Frazier’s style was very difficult for Ali as well, and would have been difficult at any time during Ali’s career. In fact, I think the Frazier that fought Ali the first time, probably would have been too much for the 24 year old that had all the “magical” physical attributes. IMO, the maturity and additional determination that Ali acquired during his exile from the sport, in addition to the myriad of tough fights he fought in the 70’s made him a much more complete fighter.
Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard- I'm not sure what to make of your description of the Ali-Frazier fight. I consider it the greatest heavyweight fight of all time. Frazier fought a great fight and would have been successful against almost anyone else who ever fought.
Except of course for the REALLY hard punchers. Frazier is one of my all time favorites, but he wasn’t very good at adapting his fighting style.
Ambling Alp wrote:As to Ali being vulnerable to the left hook -
The Cooper fight was before he fought Liston. He got careless and got caught. To cooper's credit it was a pretty good shot. However, Ali was up right away and stopped Cooper in the next round. It was a good learning experience for him.
The left hook that Frazier hit him with was perfect. Again Ali got up immediately and was in no trouble of being stopped whatsoever. In fact he outfought Frazier the rest of the round.
This is twice in his entire 61 fight career. (Three if you want to add the flash knockown early in Ali's career. I can't remember what kind of punch Banks landed)
None when he was at his prime.
I really wouldn't call Norton's punch a "left hook". It really wan't a punch that hurt Ali though it was at times effective. Again this was in the 1970's.
To call him vulnerable to the lefthook is really stretching it.
Gotta agree with that. Saying Ali was vulnerable to the left hook is similar to those who keep repeating the “Louis always had trouble with movers” myth.
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.
Thanks BoxBuzz. I too think if any guy so far on the list to have beaten Marciano, it would have been Machen. But then again, anything is possible, seeing as Ingo knocked Machen cold in the 1st of their fight, yet could go the limit with Liston. Kinda ironic don't you think?
Neways, next on the computer fight simulation of the post 49-0 Marciano is up against English champion Henry Cooper who was ranked in the top 10 at this point and time. Rocky will be 34 years of age, going up against a Cooper that has yet to face Cassius Clay, Patterson and Folley. Will Cooper be able to hang in with Marciano? Probably not, but after the Baker's, Jackson's, Patterson's and Machen's, Rocky is in need due of rest and needs a more easier opponent.
Personal prediction? TKO in 6th-8th, Marciano victory. Cooper will be cut open and look like he has a vagina on his head. lol.
I've read (I don't know if this is true or not) that because the fight was in Sweden, Machen wasn't used to the weather and was basically cold for the fight. And this allowed Johannson to catch him. Who knows, I have heard that the cold can effect fighters, Lennox Lewis claims that's the reason why he started slow against Bruno.
Several points, this might be a long post... I actually think its worth apologizing to Hank, this is supposed to be a Marciano thread, but this is an interesting conversation...
Ali in the first fight vs. Ali in the second fight: Ali may have been closer to his prime in the first fight, but he was more active going into the second fight. In the first six rounds of the first fight against Frazier he was arguably better than he would ever be again in the 1970's. Problem is he had not been active, and he wasn't able to fight hard for 15 rounds. He fell apart and did little by comparison for the last 9 rounds, and Frazier took over. In the second fight, Ali was older but he was more active going into the fight and he didn't tire as fast. Now, Frazier did mount a rally after the first 7-8 rounds, which happened in all their fights. The difference is that Ali didn't fall apart, and in the 12th specifically he was still throwing a lot of punches, something he was not able to do in the first fight. In the later rounds of the first fight, when Ali would throw flurries and try to rally, those flurries were few and far between, and usually consisted of only a few punches. In the second Frazier fight, however, Ali's stamina was much better, and Frazier did not dominate the championship rounds. The second fight was only a 12 rounder, but Ali had a lot more in the 12th round of that second fight than he did in the 12th round of the first. If the second fight had been a 15 rounder, Ali would only have needed to have won 1 round of the last 3 rounds just to win a SD, which I'm certain he could have done. In the first fight, on the other hand, Ali was probably already behind on the judges scorecards after the 12th round.
And that's another thing. To me this is the major point. Ali is one of the best ever in championship rounds. Few fighters were as good from rounds 10-15 as Ali was. And yet Ali had nothing in the championship rounds of the first fight, and that was certainly a result of the layoff and the inactivity. That never occurred in any of Ali's other fights prior to his decline. The championship rounds of Ali-Frazier I were arguably the worst rounds Ali would have in the trilogy, and that is not indicative of Ali, Ali was ordinarily great in championship rounds. In the second fight, Ali was older, but he had an active schedule prior to that second fight, and that must have played a big part in him still having a lot left in the championship rounds. I agree with John L that Ali's strategic changes also helped him, and that was part of the reason why he did not tire as easily... but it couldn't have been the only reason, in the second fight and in the third fight. Ali threw a lot and was hit a lot in the third fight, and he didn't clinch as often as he did in the second fight, but he still had a lot left in the championship rounds, he did not have that in the first fight.
Next topic, Frazier in the first fight vs. Frazier in the second and third fights: Frazier in the last two fights wasn't as good, but he was still the #3 guy in the best division in Heavyweight history, behind Ali and Foreman. Frazier in Manila would beat the versions of Quarry, Bonavena and Ellis that Joe fought in his prime, and in fact Joe destroyed older versions of Quarry and Ellis in rematches going into the third Ali fight. Ali thought that Frazier wouldn't be the same in the third fight, he figured Frazier was shot and apparently thought he would stop Frazier in 10 rounds. But he learned in the fight that this wasn't the case. Frazier wasn't the Frazier of the first fight, but he was still an all time great in Manila. Frazier in the second fight wasn't at his best either, but he was still good enough to make it close.
The other thing is he was fighting a different version of Ali. As I mentioned earlier, Ali in the first fight pooped out after the 6th. Obviously Frazier couldn't take Ali lightly for the last 9, and didn't, but in the first fight he didn't receive the same resistance that he would from Ali in the championship rounds of the second and especially the third fight. This is important because it made Frazier look more dominant in the first fight, where he did not have that same dominance in the second and third fights. To me, this isn't only because Frazier declined, but also because Ali was able to fight a full fight, and not half a fight. Frazier was at his best in the first fight, but his level of dominance was exaggerated by Ali's condition. They were on a more level playing field in the second and third fights and this may have contributed to the perception that Joe wasn't the same... because he wasn't kicking Ali's ass as easily. What I'm saying is, if Joe didn't look as phenomenal in the rematches, maybe it wasn't only because of his "decline", even if that was part of it, maybe it was also because he was simply fighting a better version of Ali and didn't look as good as a result. Just a thought.
In the second and third fight Frazier was also still capable of hitting Ali clean more than any of Ali's other opponents were able to. In the third fight Frazier was hitting Ali with body punches that could have broken down almost any fighter you want to name, but Ali was able to take it and was even using his legs in the last rounds. Frazier was still capable of throwing a lot of punches, and he did.
So my point is, though Frazier was unquestionably at his best in the first fight, lets not make it sound like he had nothing in the second and third fights. I would say, conservatively speaking, that he was still at least 85% as good as he was in the first Ali fight.
And I agree with Ezzard that Ali in his prime does not stop the Frazier of the first fight, I would still think Ali would probably win a close decision.
Sonny Liston: yeah, I'd have to agree with ambling that there's a difference between a guy training for the two biggest fights of his career and another guy not fighting at all for three years, going on college lecture tours and crappy Broadway shows. Liston wasn't in the best shape of his career going into the first Ali fight, but Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen wouldn't have beaten the version of Liston that lost to Ali, as ambling said.
Ali's clinching in the 2nd fight: Ezzard said there were inconsistencies. I'm not sure what you mean by that, inconsistencies in what? Are you saying the ref was favoring Ali over Frazier? That was the same ref that sued Ali because Ali said the ref was favoring Frazier in breaking them up in that round where Ali hurt Frazier! I'm not suggesting that this necessarily means that he was favoring Frazier, but Frazier also got a break in that fight.
An exile benefiting your career: I've heard this argument from time to time, that the layoff may have benefited Ali. Well, whether it extended his career or not-in the long run-we'll never know. But short term it did not help him against Bonavena and Frazier.
Bonavena being the best prep for Frazier: I agree, I don't doubt this at all. Even Ali, after the Bonavena fight, said that he felt the tough fight with Ringo would help him in his upcoming fight with Frazier. But help does not equal cure. One thing I feel that is not mentioned enough is that Ali rushed his fight with Frazier. Ali had only been back in boxing for five months, afterall, when he stepped into the ring with Joe. Ali had to rush the fight because there was the possibility that Ali would lose in the Supreme Court and would go to prison that summer. So, he fought Frazier sooner than he should have. If that Supreme Court trial had not been upcoming, maybe Ali waits a year to fight Frazier, who knows? It certainly would have benefited him. There was certainly no rust in 1972, Ali was Fighter of the Year that year.
60's Ali vs. Frazier: Two things John L; we don't know how tough Ali was in the 60's. He never really had to show his toughness. He was RJJ, making everyone look bad and winning on natural ability. The difference between Ali and Jones, it seems, is that when the talent started to decline Ali had qualities that Jones didn't have, one of the best chins and one of the biggest hearts in boxing history. So, while its a possibility that Ali didn't gain his toughness until the 70's came, we really don't know. For all we know, Ali in 67 could have been just as tough. He wouldn't have fought Frazier until 68-69 I would think, and in that time he would have likely fought Bonavena (as I said earlier, Bonavena may have been Ali's next fight after Folley) hence Ali would have gained some of that experience in taking on a rough and tough aggressive fighter. Just a thought. Looking at how Ali was able to so easily out box Frazier early on in the first fight, I think prime Ali could beat Joe. The middle-late rounds would have still been tough, but Ali would have had the youth and stamina and the activity to deal with Joe in the championship rounds.
Ali vulnerable to the left hook: I think he was vulnerable to Frazier's left hook, Frazier had him timed. Was Ali vulnerable to left hooks in general? I'm not sure about that. I would probably agree with ambling on that point. And the three left hooks that Ali went down on would have knocked down any fighter... all three were picture perfect left hooks. Banks' left hook was so fast you can barely see it on film. Frazier's left hook that dropped Ali is arguably the best left hook ever thrown (though I would probably go with Robinson's KO punch of Gene Fullmer). And in all three knock downs Ali was up in 4 seconds, which is remarkable. Marciano was the same way, never down for more than 4 seconds.
I Feel Fine wrote: 60's Ali vs. Frazier: Two things John L; we don't know how tough Ali was in the 60's. He never really had to show his toughness. He was RJJ, making everyone look bad and winning on natural ability. The difference between Ali and Jones, it seems, is that when the talent started to decline Ali had qualities that Jones didn't have, one of the best chins and one of the biggest hearts in boxing history. So, while its a possibility that Ali didn't gain his toughness until the 70's came, we really don't know. For all we know, Ali in 67 could have been just as tough. He wouldn't have fought Frazier until 68-69 I would think, and in that time he would have likely fought Bonavena (as I said earlier, Bonavena may have been Ali's next fight after Folley) hence Ali would have gained some of that experience in taking on a rough and tough aggressive fighter. Just a thought. Looking at how Ali was able to so easily out box Frazier early on in the first fight, I think prime Ali could beat Joe. The middle-late rounds would have still been tough, but Ali would have had the youth and stamina and the activity to deal with Joe in the championship rounds.
Obviously, none of us know any of this for sure because it’s merely opinion, but Ali during his “peak” in the 60’s was 24 years old, and very few fighters without a lot more pro fights than Ali had, have really developed their constitution at that age. They think they have, but that toughness is developed with experience and challenges, and I don’t think that the 24 year old Ali would have been able to weather the Frazier (prime) storm for 15 rounds. And yes if he had continued his career, he may have developed that before he ran into Frazier, but I was talking about the 24 yo Ali not the Ali that could have been.
Also consider that if Ali had continued his career and fought Frazier in 68-69 it would not have been the mega fight that it actually turned out to be and Ali may not have been adequately prepared. Anyway, I guess we disagree. Nice discussion though.
I Feel Fine wrote: 60's Ali vs. Frazier: Two things John L; we don't know how tough Ali was in the 60's. He never really had to show his toughness. He was RJJ, making everyone look bad and winning on natural ability. The difference between Ali and Jones, it seems, is that when the talent started to decline Ali had qualities that Jones didn't have, one of the best chins and one of the biggest hearts in boxing history. So, while its a possibility that Ali didn't gain his toughness until the 70's came, we really don't know. For all we know, Ali in 67 could have been just as tough. He wouldn't have fought Frazier until 68-69 I would think, and in that time he would have likely fought Bonavena (as I said earlier, Bonavena may have been Ali's next fight after Folley) hence Ali would have gained some of that experience in taking on a rough and tough aggressive fighter. Just a thought. Looking at how Ali was able to so easily out box Frazier early on in the first fight, I think prime Ali could beat Joe. The middle-late rounds would have still been tough, but Ali would have had the youth and stamina and the activity to deal with Joe in the championship rounds.
Obviously, none of us know any of this for sure because it’s merely opinion, but Ali during his “peak” in the 60’s was 24 years old, and very few fighters without a lot more pro fights than Ali had, have really developed their constitution at that age. They think they have, but that toughness is developed with experience and challenges, and I don’t think that the 24 year old Ali would have been able to weather the Frazier (prime) storm for 15 rounds. And yes if he had continued his career, he may have developed that before he ran into Frazier, but I was talking about the 24 yo Ali not the Ali that could have been.
Also consider that if Ali had continued his career and fought Frazier in 68-69 it would not have been the mega fight that it actually turned out to be and Ali may not have been adequately prepared. Anyway, I guess we disagree. Nice discussion though.
Ah, I see, sorry. I was thinking more along the lines of what would have happened if the two had met without the layoff, probably in 68-69. I guess you were talking about Ali in 66 vs. the Frazier in 71. I think Ali could win that fight, but it would be tough. I don't think an Ali-Frazier fight could be easy under any circumstances, for either fighter, but I do think Ali from 65 on could beat beat Frazier at his best, or even 2/3.
And of course I agree that without the layoff, in 68-69 Ali-Frazier isn't as big a fight... or at least wouldn't have the same buildup. I'm sure it still would have been a big fight, though. Frazier was the best young fighter that emerged in the late 60's, and he was a Gold Medal winner, so I'm sure it would have been a big event, though not the event that the real life fight in 71 was. I think Ali would take a fight like that seriously, he didn't really slack off much as champion in the 60's. Then again Ali had sort of a condescending attitude towards Frazier's style, he really thought he was just too good a boxer for Frazier... especially going into the first fight in 71. Maybe with Frazier coming up and not being as accomplished, and Ali on the top of the boxing world with by then presumably somewhere around 12-15 straight defenses, maybe Ali in 68-69 does take Frazier somewhat lightly? Whose to say. Its real interesting thinking of these hypothetical's, kind of like "what if" Marciano fights on past 49-0, as homicide hank is talking about.
Actually, now that I think of it, Frazier would be 24 himself in 68. So he would also be sorta young going into that hypothetical fight with 68 Ali.
My view on the 60's Ali, least from Cooper to Chuvalo is that, its funny how Ali was caught and dropped by Cooper's left hook and everybody says that the excuse is because Ali was still just a young man who knew no better; but in his next fight (against Liston) they say it was a masterful performance and certainly one of Ali's best.
I don't see how the time in between both fights could have made Ali a better fighter---if he was 'just 24' when he fought Chuvalo and people discredit Chuvalo for going the limit with Ali, yet say Liston was a masterpiece...I see nothing but loose ends and holes in the theory that the 1960's Ali was 'better' than the Ali of the 1970's.
Dunno if anyone made sense of what I just said, but hopefully some can see the sense or at least some logic in what I just said.
Neways, BoxBuzz, next on the hypotheticals is Marciano vs Henry Cooper. If Marciano gets passed 'Enry, it will be a fight with none other than fellow power puncher Ingemar Johansson who was virtually at his peak at this point and time (trilogy with Patterson, kayo over Machen).
It can be debated Ingo was lucky to land the kayo on Machen due to the weather, but I also quote Machen as saying: "If you let him (Ingo) get off first, you're going to get knocked out." Patterson took Machen's advice in the rematch with Ingo (when he was champion) and came off first and won the fight by brutal kayo.
70's Ali also went the distance with Chuvalo. Chuvalo said Ali had declined.
As to Ali's performance vs. Cooper as opposed to Ali's performance against Liston, I think its simple... Ali thought one was a pushover, while he was likely mortally afraid of the other. Liston made Ali train and fight harder. Same thing with Foreman, Foreman brought the best out of Ali because Ali knew he couldn't fornicate around or he'd get himself mauled. Ali didn't have that concern with Cooper. Taking an opponent seriously is a big thing, that's why Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman stopped Lennox Lewis and not David Tua and Mike Tyson. Ali knew not to make that mistake with Cooper again in the second fight and he didn't get caught by anything.
As for Johannson-Machen, yeah, as I said earlier its just something I've read, who knows... I haven't seen Johannson-Machen so I don't know what exactly happened in the fight. And I agree about Patterson, he clearly wanted to get to Ingo before Ingo got to him in the rematch.
Thanks for the discussion. Fine has taken it on and put up some interesting arguments. You'll have to excuse me though because I simply don't have the time to give him the lengthy reply he deserves.
When I talked about inconsistencies I was not referring to any particular fight or fighters. I don't hold dirty tactics against a fighter I hold them against the ref who lets him get away with it.
