BoxRec

I like how gran has toned down his rhetoric on the young fight. He's a bit more realistic in his latest rephrasing. Jimmy's performance was about equal to his opponents that night. Getting that left in nicely. But I have suffered thought descriptions from him where Jimmy just trounced, pounced and decimated his opponent that night. And of course it just aint so, it was a close fight that if Young was the champ, he would have still been the champ at the end of the night....same goes for Ali....and since Ali walked in as the champ, nothing happened that night that deserved a change of ownership. IMHO.

I disagree. I think Young deserved the decision. But the version of Ali that he fought would have done poorly against a lot of fighters. He was out of shape and worn out by the Frazier fights. Prime for prime Young wouldn't even be one of Ali's toughest opponents, unlike Frazier who I think would give Ali a tough fight at any stage. Frazier was a lot better than Young, Young was just, you know, younger.

Jimmy Young gave Ali an ass whipping.

Ali knew it.

He couldn't even look Young in the eye when they sat side by side at the press conference after the fight.

BoxBuzz wrote:I like how gran has toned down his rhetoric on the young fight. He's a bit more realistic in his latest rephrasing. Jimmy's performance was about equal to his opponents that night. Getting that left in nicely. But I have suffered thought descriptions from him where Jimmy just trounced, pounced and decimated his opponent that night. And of course it just aint so, it was a close fight that if Young was the champ, he would have still been the champ at the end of the night....same goes for Ali....and since Ali walked in as the champ, nothing happened that night that deserved a change of ownership. IMHO.

Young couldn't make money, Ali could. Reverse the scenario, & Young loses his title to Ali that night. Don't be so naive, Buzz. Honestly. We all know if Ali received a gift in the latter stages of his career, the reason would always be the same, no matter the opponent --- Ali meant more money as champ than his competitors would have. That's why Young lost. That's why Norton lost. That's why another fight went the way it did (IMHO) which I won't mention by name, so as to avoid provoking a response.

Gerry Cooney gave Young an ass whooping. Cooney is The Greatest.
As for the idea that Ali couldn't lose a decision, there was that Spinks fellow. And Berbick. A lot of Heavyweight champions got gifts late in their careers': Joe Louis did, Joe Walcott did, Joe Frazier did, Larry Holmes did, Michael Spinks did, Evander Holyfield did. Stop singling out Ali. In Miami Beach Clay was even on the scorecards against Liston in a fight that Clay was clearly winning. When you are the champion and the aggressor the judges will often be kind.

In 1982 Cooney was the greatest.

I Feel Fine wrote:Gerry Cooney gave Young an ass whooping. Cooney is The Greatest.
As for the idea that Ali couldn't lose a decision, there was that Spinks fellow. And Berbick. A lot of Heavyweight champions got gifts late in their careers': Joe Louis did, Joe Walcott did, Joe Frazier did, Larry Holmes did, Michael Spinks did, Evander Holyfield did. Stop singling out Ali. In Miami Beach Clay was even on the scorecards against Liston in a fight that Clay was clearly winning. When you are the champion and the aggressor the judges will often be kind.

You misread me. I said, if Ali ever got a gift, it was because he could make money the likes of Young & Norton never could. That is the only point I was making, which, incidentally, isn't even a criticism of Ali --- it's a criticism of Boxing's corruption.

I never said anything more than that. Ali couldn't lose a decision? Never said it. Ali was the only champ to receive a gift during his tenure? Never said it.

As for singling out Ali, he's the point of conversation on-topic. This isn't a Louis, Holyfield, or Holmes thread. If this were, for instance, a Holmes thread, & I pointed out he received a gimme against Williams (something you yourself have done before, & not unjustly, IFF) would you say I was, "singling out Holmes?"

I was sort of speaking generally to several people, not only to you, but fair enough. That said, the focus of the thread should be on Frazier.

In which case, the originator & his take should be roundly shot down. Frazier was great. To dispute that is to dispute the colour of the sky.

I Feel Fine wrote:I disagree. I think Young deserved the decision. But the version of Ali that he fought would have done poorly against a lot of fighters. He was out of shape and worn out by the Frazier fights. Prime for prime Young wouldn't even be one of Ali's toughest opponents, unlike Frazier who I think would give Ali a tough fight at any stage. Frazier was a lot better than Young, Young was just, you know, younger.

Agree with the lot of this.

Robinson wrote:I do not think Frazier
was intending to blast Ali's kidneys, but he no doubt did..as well as hit Ali
on the thighs, hips etc, When you are shorter and are blasting at that
body sometimes a fighter hits high and low.

- Frazier very publically stated in graphic detail how he was going to take it to Ali, including a "I'm gonna start by ripping out his kidneys." All on public record.

That said, there is nothing wrong with Ali holding a storming inside Frazier's head down to control against getting a deliberate or incidental headbutt. It's called protecting youself at all times, except that Ali wasn't protecting himself by allowing Frazier to wail away at will. A ref isn't supposed to call illegal blows caused when a fighter's head is being pulled down.

Moreover, kidney shots aren't illegal, it's illegal kidney shots that aren't allowed. A fighter's sides are fair game and kidneys get pummeled by those side shots. If a few stray to the backside it becomes a subject call when the plane from the side to the back is broached. Much ado about nutin. Ali couldn't fight his fight and had to rely on a shaky defense to survive and Frazier fought his which was smothering Ali so Frazier could wail away at will.

All of this was textbook stuff preordained by the Chuvalo fight years before, but those with blinkered vision could never see that far back to project to future results and have been in denial ever since.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Robinson wrote:I do not think Frazier
was intending to blast Ali's kidneys, but he no doubt did..as well as hit Ali
on the thighs, hips etc, When you are shorter and are blasting at that
body sometimes a fighter hits high and low.

- Frazier very publically stated in graphic detail how he was going to take it to Ali, including a "I'm gonna start by ripping out his kidneys." All on public record.

That said, there is nothing wrong with Ali holding a storming inside Frazier's head down to control against getting a deliberate or incidental headbutt. It's called protecting youself at all times, except that Ali wasn't protecting himself by allowing Frazier to wail away at will. A ref isn't supposed to call illegal blows caused when a fighter's head is being pulled down.

Moreover, kidney shots aren't illegal, it's illegal kidney shots that aren't allowed. A fighter's sides are fair game and kidneys get pummeled by those side shots. If a few stray to the backside it becomes a subject call when the plane from the side to the back is broached. Much ado about nutin. Ali couldn't fight his fight and had to rely on a shaky defense to survive and Frazier fought his which was smothering Ali so Frazier could wail away at will.

All of this was textbook stuff preordained by the Chuvalo fight years before, but those with blinkered vision could never see that far back to project to future results and have been in denial ever since.

Actually. the quote was "I'm going to pull out that liver", said at the weigh-in and in the days leading up to the fight.

Joe Frazier was, for his style, a very clean fighter. Mercante, a referee for numerous Frazier fights, said the same thing. With a shorter, body-punching, bobbing and weaving fighter swarming in on a taller fighter, some low blows are going to be inevitable though unintentional.

FLINT ISLAND wrote:Where does he rank in the all time great list of heavyweights compared to the likes of............

Mike Tyson
Rocky Marcino
Muhammed Ali
George Foreman
Lennox Lewis
Vitali Kilitshko
Evander Holyfield
Joe Louis
Sony Liston

etc
etc

He is in my top 10 of HWs of all-time & he ranks ahead of Tyson, Vitali & just above Holyfield out of those you have listed.

Joe was a little bit limited, but he more than made up for that with his stamina, heart & relentlessness.

He didn't have the outright skills of some of the others on your list, but unless you could put him on his backside early & keep him there (almost what Foreman did), whoever he fought would have been in a world of trouble & it is my contention that only the elite of HW history would have been able to cope with him.

yancey wrote:

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Robinson wrote:I do not think Frazier
was intending to blast Ali's kidneys, but he no doubt did..as well as hit Ali
on the thighs, hips etc, When you are shorter and are blasting at that
body sometimes a fighter hits high and low.

- Frazier very publically stated in graphic detail how he was going to take it to Ali, including a "I'm gonna start by ripping out his kidneys." All on public record.

That said, there is nothing wrong with Ali holding a storming inside Frazier's head down to control against getting a deliberate or incidental headbutt. It's called protecting youself at all times, except that Ali wasn't protecting himself by allowing Frazier to wail away at will. A ref isn't supposed to call illegal blows caused when a fighter's head is being pulled down.

Moreover, kidney shots aren't illegal, it's illegal kidney shots that aren't allowed. A fighter's sides are fair game and kidneys get pummeled by those side shots. If a few stray to the backside it becomes a subject call when the plane from the side to the back is broached. Much ado about nutin. Ali couldn't fight his fight and had to rely on a shaky defense to survive and Frazier fought his which was smothering Ali so Frazier could wail away at will.

All of this was textbook stuff preordained by the Chuvalo fight years before, but those with blinkered vision could never see that far back to project to future results and have been in denial ever since.

Actually. the quote was "I'm going to pull out that liver", said at the weigh-in and in the days leading up to the fight. .

- According to the much lambasted Hauser in his Lite and Times bio, the quote is, "What I'm gonna do is try to pull them kidneys out. I'm gonna be at where he lives in the body."

Not to put too fine a point on it.

The nature of body punching a taller man who is leaning on the
ropes will see you landing shots in that region.

I am 6'2 and 210lbs one of my fighters who is 5'6 and 160lbs
I let work me on the ropes often, as he is a good body puncher
but because of his slight height I am often left with bruises on
the hip, thigh and around the lower back area...beacuase
in the heat of it all when some one is throwing full blows you
don't always find the mark.

As for grabbing some one on the back of their head and pulling
on it or holding while punching...it is hard to claim accidental
foul on that.

IFF,

A foul is afoul and I do agree. It is up to the ref to pull the
fighter in on these fouls.

I Feel Fine wrote:I disagree. I think Young deserved the decision. But the version of Ali that he fought would have done poorly against a lot of fighters. He was out of shape and worn out by the Frazier fights. Prime for prime Young wouldn't even be one of Ali's toughest opponents, unlike Frazier who I think would give Ali a tough fight at any stage. Frazier was a lot better than Young, Young was just, you know, younger.

Young certainly deserved the decision.

Not quite by the margin of 15 round to zip that crankberry and his two lap dogs like to claim.

But he was the clear winner.

Re: Young vs Ali

Well I've admitted my bias for any champion, and heard the litany of complaints from the "angels of neutrality". I accept the critique and respect the reasonabilty of such a position. But this was certainly no "thrashing" by any realistic assessment. It was a close fight where many here believe the wrong guy won. .....Jus' keepin' it real.

People should post there round for round scores in the allocated threads.

Collins and I will hit it up next week no doubt.

Maybe we could score Frazier vs Ali 1 ?

I don't think I've ever met a boxing fan who didn't have Frazier winning the first fight. I've seen the fight innumerable times and had Joe winning every time. Ditto Ali-Frazier II for Ali. It would be more fun to do something more controversial. Griffith and Patterson and De La Hoya had a lot of close, controversial fights, for instance; some of their fights might be fun to do.

IFF
I agree, and the great Sweet Pea as well.

I have heard some claim that Ali won the first and Frazier the second. But I
agree that they are both clear wins for each man.

Yeah, the judges in some of his fights hit Whitaker a lot harder than most of his opponents ever did.

In my opinion, you are kidding yourself if you think EITHER that Frazier just got "lucky" against Ali in 1971 OR that Frazier didn't take a ton, and I mean a TON, of punishment in that fight himself. Two super tough hombres who really wanted to win -- why does anyone feel the need to criticize either one of them?

Personally, I subscribe to the view that Ali was significantly better in 1967 than he ever was again and, further, that had the government not prevented him from the defending his title, his reign would have continued uninterupted through the late 60s and early 70s. But I also respect that this is a point with respect to which reasonable minds could differ.

Mr E wrote:In my opinion, you are kidding yourself if you think EITHER that Frazier just got "lucky" against Ali in 1971 OR that Frazier didn't take a ton, and I mean a TON, of punishment in that fight himself. Two super tough hombres who really wanted to win -- why does anyone feel the need to criticize either one of them?

Personally, I subscribe to the view that Ali was significantly better in 1967 than he ever was again and, further, that had the government not prevented him from the defending his title, his reign would have continued uninterupted through the late 60s and early 70s. But I also respect that this is a point with respect to which reasonable minds could differ.

Careful Mr E, sensible and reasoned posting on here could get you into trouble.

Mr E wrote: Personally, I subscribe to the view that Ali was significantly better in 1967 than he ever was again and, further, that had the government not prevented him from the defending his title, his reign would have continued uninterupted through the late 60s and early 70s. But I also respect that this is a point with respect to which reasonable minds could differ.

That's fair but personally I subscribe to the view that Ali was very close to his prime in '71. I know that a lot of people will disagree but to them I say look at the fight. Did he not look great ? Hands as fast as ever, sharp and accurate with his punches and to me it looked like he sat down more on his punches and punched harder than before. But he didn't dance people will say. Did he dance against Chuvalo ? In fact did he ever dance for 15 rounds in his entire career ? The dancing Ali is a myth, he would never, at any stage of his career, been able to dance for 15 against Frazier. In '71 he fought a great fight but why is it so hard to acknowledge that Frazier was even better ? Had this fight taken place in '68 I believe Frazier would have won in much the same fashion.