BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I go with Ali as the #1 HW. A great fighter but Young, Norton and Frazier would have always given him problems no matter when they fought. Shavers and Leon would have been minced back in Ali's pomp though.

I tend agree with this, especially Frazier. In fact, I think a prime Frazier might have been too much for the ’67 Ali, who probably had slightly better physical skills than the ’71 Ali but may not have had the same toughness as the post exile Ali.

It's not an issue of toughness. Ali took a TREMENDOUS body beating vs Chuvalo and hung in there . . .I rewatched that fight over thanksgiving and was amazed at the number of flush body shots Ali took for 15 rounds.
But, that same fight had me thinking Frazier would beat any Ali. Chuvalo made Ali much more flat-footed and stationary through much of the fight with his pressure and body work. Frazier was a league above and would've done the same thing like he did in 71. Ali in 67 had perhaps slightly better punch output and leg endurance but not enough to drastically change the outcome of the fight.

But Chuvalo lost almost every round. Ali could have neutralized a lot of the infighting by clinching which he later defined to an art. He fought a stupid fight in the FOTC.

And if Frazier had the style to beat Ali why was he so reluctant to give him a rematch? The public wanted a rematch. He fought a bunch of tomato cans and then Foreman for $800,000.00 when he could have got millions to fight Ali. He wanted no part of Ali

Rubbish. He was making Ali sweat, suffer.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Rubbish. He was making Ali sweat, suffer.

Here's the scorecards
for the two fights

~ referee: Jackie Silvers 73-65 | judge: Tony Canzano 74-63 | judge: Jackie Johnstone 74-62 ~


referee: Dave Brown 59-51 | judge: Tommy Paonessa 60-46 | judge: Tommy Keyes 58-51


As for Frazier did he did or did he not fight two tomato cans after the FOTC and then made the mistake of fighting a 4-1 underdog when there were millions to be made in a rematch with Ali.

Think about it. He was willing to walk away from millions to avoid a rematch with Ali and if Ali was to lose one fight in the interim the millions would go out the window.

Which two fights are you referencing, & whose numbers appear first?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Which two fights are you referencing, & whose numbers appear first?

I am referring to Ali's fights with Chuvalo. Not taking anything away from him. He was game. And worked over Ali's kidneys but he was losing just about every round.

I hope you don't think I suggested Ali had a easy time with Frazier. But my argument is different. Ali wanted a rematch with Frazier. Frazier didn't want a rematch with Ali. If he "owned" Ali by virtue of his style he should have had no problems with a rematch. I'll bet George Foreman would have fought Joe Frazier every week if there was money in it.


As for Frazier he was reluctant to have a rematch with Ali. He even said after the FOTC he wouldn't fight Ali, again, for all the money in the world .That was supposed to be taken that he wouldn't give Ali a rematch after all the verbal abuse but if he had the style to beat any Ali why didn't he fight Ali again, knock him out, and close his mouth for good. That would have been the end of Ali.

If he beats Foreman he never fights Ali again. Think about that. Schmeling gave Louis a rematch. Liston gave Patterson a rematch. Holyfield gave Tyson a rematch. Duran gave Leonard a rematch, etctera.

And why is Frazier so past it at 30 for the rematch in 74 when Ali was at his prime in the FOTC at 29 despite being away from boxing for three and one half years?

Frazier had fought eleven rounds in the three years from the FOTC to the rematch.

Do you know any athletes who get better after taking three and one years off at the peak of their career?

Short pressure fighters always burn out early due to their style of fighting, not to mention Frazier's diabetes and failing eyesight.

So Frazier after beating and knocking Ali down in their first fight was 'afraid' of a rematch? That's pretty crazy. Ali had been deriding Frazier for years and Joe basically wanted Ali to suffer as Goodnight said and not do him the favor of a million dollar payday so soon, while Frazier could make good money fighting the likes of Daniels.

dempseyfire wrote:Short pressure fighters always burn out early due to their style of fighting, not to mention Frazier's diabetes and failing eyesight.

So Frazier after beating and knocking Ali down in their first fight was 'afraid' of a rematch? That's pretty crazy. Ali had been deriding Frazier for years and Joe basically wanted Ali to suffer as Goodnight said and not do him the favor of a million dollar payday so soon, while Frazier could make good money fighting the likes of Daniels.

So Ali was in his absolute prime at twenty nine years old when they fought the first time despite having two fights in the last four years and those two fights coming within six weeks of one another but Joe Frazier was past it at 30 years old when they fought the second time.

As we know they had three fights- Frazier won the first one but lost the next two, losing the third one by a RTD or a TKO. But Frazier fans want history to end on March 8, 1971.

Maybe Joe should have never gave Ali a rematch but he certainly had little choice after being embarrassed by Foreman and he had no choice at all after Ali embarrased Foreman to win the championship.

They fought three times. Ali won two out of three. Facts are facts.

I have a question.

Doe Frazier get a pass for his loss to George Foreman becuse he was "past it" at 29?

I'm still trying to distill the other argument that the first Frazier fight was the only fight that mattered and despite being 30-1 at the time Ali could never redeem himself .

Maybe BHop should have retired after his first fight which he lost.

ThatOne wrote:If he beats Foreman he never fights Ali again. Think about that. Schmeling gave Louis a rematch. Liston gave Patterson a rematch. Holyfield gave Tyson a rematch. Duran gave Leonard a rematch, etctera.

Yes, and Ali gave Young, Lyle and Shavers rematches, right? Oh, wait a minute....

The Great John L wrote:

ThatOne wrote:If he beats Foreman he never fights Ali again. Think about that. Schmeling gave Louis a rematch. Liston gave Patterson a rematch. Holyfield gave Tyson a rematch. Duran gave Leonard a rematch, etctera.

Yes, and Ali gave Young, Lyle and Shavers rematches, right? Oh, wait a minute....

Would you agree that a twenty seven year old Frazier was closer to his prime than a thirty three, a thirty four and thirty five yesr old Ali?

ThatOne wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

ThatOne wrote:If he beats Foreman he never fights Ali again. Think about that. Schmeling gave Louis a rematch. Liston gave Patterson a rematch. Holyfield gave Tyson a rematch. Duran gave Leonard a rematch, etctera.

Yes, and Ali gave Young, Lyle and Shavers rematches, right? Oh, wait a minute....

Would you agree that a twenty seven year old Frazier was closer to his prime than a thirty four and thirty five yesr old Ali?

Irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant?


Ali was shot. Everybody knew it. Teddy Brenner was so concerned about Ali's health that he said that he would never sanction another Ali fight at the Garden. Frazier was at his peak. He was 27 not 35..

If you think there is no difference between an athlete at the apex of his career and an athlete at the nadir of his career there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

ThatOne wrote:How is it irrelevant?


Ali was shot. Everybody knew it. Teddy Brenner was so concerned about Ali's health that he said that he would never sanction another Ali fight at the Garden. Frazier was at his peak.

If you think there is no difference between an athlete at the apex of his career and an athlete at the nadir of his career there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Ali kept fighting after winning controversial fights against Young, Lyle and Shavers. If he was able to fight others he certainly should have been willing to give deserved rematches, so his age is irrelevant for this discussion. We're not talking about who beats who issue, in which case his age would be relevant.

The Great John L wrote:

ThatOne wrote:How is it irrelevant?


Ali was shot. Everybody knew it. Teddy Brenner was so concerned about Ali's health that he said that he would never sanction another Ali fight at the Garden. Frazier was at his peak.

If you think there is no difference between an athlete at the apex of his career and an athlete at the nadir of his career there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

Ali kept fighting after winning controversial fights against Young, Lyle and Shavers. If he was able to fight others he certainly should have been willing to give deserved rematches, so his age is irrelevant for this discussion. We're not talking about who beats who issue, in which case his age would be relevant.

He didn't win any controversial fights after Shavers. He was 1-3 after that fight with the three of the most ignominmious losses of his career after that.

Back to Frazier he was 27. If you don't think there's a difference between a past it fighter carefully choosing his opponents and he wasn't all that careful fighting the likes of Shavers and a fighter in his prime avoiding the most popular boxer of his era there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of tjhat notion.

ThatOne wrote:He didn't win any controversial fights after Shavers. He was 1-3 after that fight with the three f the most ignominmious losses of his career after that.

What difference does it make if he didn't win any controversial fights after Shavers? He did keep fighting.

Ali won controversial fights over Young, Lyle and Shavers and never gave any of them rematches, despite continuing his career. Frazier was being blindly criticized in this thread for not giving a rematch to Ali, even though that decision wasn't very controversial. Obviously, to any objective observer, Ali's failure to grant rematches to Young, Lyle and Shavers seems much more questionable than Frazier's making Ali stew for a while.

The Great John L wrote:

ThatOne wrote:He didn't win any controversial fights after Shavers. He was 1-3 after that fight with the three f the most ignominmious losses of his career after that.

What difference does it make if he didn't win any controversial fights after Shavers? He did keep fighting.

Ali won controversial fights over Young, Lyle and Shavers and never gave any of them rematches, despite continuing his career. Frazier was being blindly criticized in this thread for not giving a rematch to Ali, even though that decision wasn't very controversial. Obviously, to any objective observer, Ali's failure to grant rematches to Young, Lyle and Shavers seems much more questionable than Frazier's making Ali stew for a while.

Ali had two fights after Shavers , splitting the series with Leon Spinks, and then retired. He did come back two and three years later to fight Holmes and Berbick.

And who did Ali fight after Lyle but Joe Frazier with Bugner in between.

Ali fought Bugner and Frazier after Lyle. After Young he fought Norton with Richard Dunn in between.


He TKOed Lyle. The Ali detractors always bring up the gifts he got as a shot fighter. Most unbiased observers put that somwehere after Manila. Prime Ali never ducked anybody.

Whoa, this thing kinda took off while I wasn't looking.

ThatOne, I do want to respond to your post to me, & I will when time permits. Looking forward to it

Big difference between an old fighter picking his fights and a boxer in his prime picking his fights.

I want to be clear.

The proposition was made in this thread that "Frazier owned Ali" because of the various styles. If that was the case and I was Frazier I would have given him a rematch , knocked him out, and be done with him.

I don't think it was that simple.

A) If you removed the name of the protagonists nobody would say an athlete who was removed from his sport from the ages of 25- 28 could come back at 29 as if he never missed a day.

b) If you removed the name of the protagonists nobody would say that a boxer who lost two out of three fights is the better boxer than the boxer who beat him.;especially when the losing fighter couldn't come out for the fifteenth round.

As an aside. Frazier could never be the better boxer because of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI8EQTa1cbM

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZIxV9KWgY

That One...

"I am referring to Ali's fights with Chuvalo. Not taking anything away from him. He was game. And worked over Ali's kidneys but he was losing just about every round..."

Agreed. No arguments from me.

"...I hope you don't think I suggested Ali had a easy time with Frazier. But my argument is different. Ali wanted a rematch with Frazier. Frazier didn't want a rematch with Ali. If he "owned" Ali by virtue of his style he should have had no problems with a rematch. I'll bet George Foreman would have fought Joe Frazier every week if there was money in it..."

No, I don't think you suggested that. I'd love to say no one here'd be that stupid, but I've seen otherwise, you understand ;)

My belief, looking at it, has always been that Frazier was quite intent on soaking up the glory from his win --- not that he suffered so much at Ali's hands (in the ring --- though he did), he ducked a return. He was deeply offended (rightly so, I've always maintained) by Ali's outer-ring antics, & my belief is enjoyed watching him squirm as the challenger who couldn't get an immediate return.

"...As for Frazier he was reluctant to have a rematch with Ali. He even said after the FOTC he wouldn't fight Ali, again, for all the money in the world .That was supposed to be taken that he wouldn't give Ali a rematch after all the verbal abuse but if he had the style to beat any Ali why didn't he fight Ali again, knock him out, and close his mouth for good. That would have been the end of Ali..."

Frazier did have the style advantage, but he was not only the lesser fighter, his opponent, in this case, was doubtless a truly exceptional boxer. He could always have beaten him, but it would've always been hell. Anyone thinks twice about that. I mean, you could maintain an identical weight your entire life, in theory --- does it mean you do, or could without hesitating? A fight with Ali was a hellacious experience --- Frazier had to weigh up the money, his position, how much hunger he had at any time for a rematch, etc. It's a lot to consider when your opponent is someone as great as Ali was.

"...If he beats Foreman he never fights Ali again. Think about that. Schmeling gave Louis a rematch. Liston gave Patterson a rematch. Holyfield gave Tyson a rematch. Duran gave Leonard a rematch, etctera..."

That's opinion, & not one I share. I think Frazier would've eventually conceded to the lure of the money an Ali rematch held. Besides, he'd cleaned out much of the division at that point (Young, Lyle & co. were still really developing forces, & Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena & others were in his rear-view mirror, & not coming back). At any rate, the rematch (& another, to boot) did happen, so you can't take anything away from Frazier in reality.

"...And why is Frazier so past it at 30 for the rematch in 74 when Ali was at his prime in the FOTC at 29 despite being away from boxing for three and one half years?

Frazier had fought eleven rounds in the three years from the FOTC to the rematch.

Do you know any athletes who get better after taking three and one years off at the peak of their career?"

Your beef is with someone else on that, mate. My take has always been this --- Ali turned pro younger (& considerably earlier, in real-time), was a little older, & had the lay-off, but Frazier had a style --- as Dempsey alluded to --- which was conducive to destroying him quicker than Ali's, & also didn't have the versatility Ali would eventually prove to possess. On immediate paper, Ali should be the more aged of the two, but, all things considered, I think they were, or were very close to, equally shot by the time of the third fight.

I don't think anyone is outright contending Ali improved from his lay-off, but I do think it gets a little over-blown how much Ali had, "slipped" when he first fought Frazier.

TheOne, you are going in two different directions here:

1) I NEVER said Ali in the FOTC was in his absolute prime. I simply said I think Frazier could have beaten a prime Ali.

2) If you are going to give Frazier flack for not giving Ali a rematch in the timeframe between their first fight and the first Foreman fight in Jamaica, you have to give Ali the same flack for dodging a George Foreman rematch through 1977. End of story.

I don't think anyone is saying Frazier is a better fighter than Ali. Some, like me, are arguing he would win a prime for prime match up and that Ali was as close to his prime as this match up could get in the real world.

If Frazier and Ali had been born on the same day and fougth each other every eyar on their birthdays from 25-35 Ali would have the more wins but Frazier would do better in the prime years.

If both champs fought the top 20 greatest HWs os all-time Ali would win more than Frazier.

A few points.

I think Ali was not at his strategic best for the FOTC nor at his physical best. For instance in Zaire he was past his physical best but realizing his strategic best. He lost the FOTC by two rounds on two cards. A bit more of the famous Ali wrestling and he could have won those rounds. He was stronger than Joe. Hell, he pushed George Foreman and the uber muscular Ken Norton around I am familirar with the argument that swarmer>boxer but Ali was a big, strong, exceptional boxer with an uncanny knowledge of leverage. He wasn't Billy Conn or even Joe Walcott. The olderAli would tie you up in a minute and was strong enough to do it. It might be boderline illegal but all boxers have their tricks from Foreman's pushing off to Chuvalo's punches to the back.I am not taking anything away from Joe but Ali had more tools to work with.

Yeah, I think Ali was in no hurry to fight Foreman again. He had lost the tactical advantage. If the Germans could repeat the Battle Of Normandy I am sure they would have added more men. But still it's a bit different. A thirty three year old Ali avoiding a twenty five year old bull like Foreman is a little different than a prime, twenty eight year old Frazier avoiding a thirty year old Ali.

As for him ducking Young, Lyle, and Shavers. he was clearly past it for Young and Shavers though I think he earned the decision against Shavers. I am not going to argue about Young. If that fight was Ali's "gold watch" so be it.

I don't think the Lyle decision was any more controversial than any other TKO. Ali hit him forty one times with no response.

The problem I have with all this is how the whole time line of a fighter's career is now totally skewed and analysis worthless...

It's one thing to say Ali in his prime beats Leon Spinks. Or that in the Young fight Ali wasn't as good as he used to be. But now we're making distinctions between prime and absolute prime!!! Where will it end?

At some point you have to say that a version of a fighter between 24-30 is representative of the boxer. Some burn out quicker, some become better with experience, some have less wear and tear and last longer, some don't always train as they should and appear inconsistent and a million other intangibles...

TO - You don't have to convince me that Ali could beat anyone on a given night. I believe that Frazier would, and did, win the prime-for-prime match up. I appreciate that you feel on another night Ali would have won.

Ezzard wrote:The problem I have with all this is how the whole time line of a fighter's career is now totally skewed and analysis worthless...

It's one thing to say Ali in his prime beats Leon Spinks. Or that in the Young fight Ali wasn't as good as he used to be. But now we're making distinctions between prime and absolute prime!!! Where will it end?

At some point you have to say that a version of a fighter between 24-30 is representative of the boxer. Some burn out quicker, some become better with experience, some have less wear and tear and last longer, some don't always train as they should and appear inconsistent and a million other intangibles...

TO - You don't have to convince me that Ali could beat anyone on a given night. I believe that Frazier would, and did, win the prime-for-prime match up. I appreciate that you feel on another night Ali would have won.

I concede your point about segmenting an athlete's career into pre-prime, prime, and post prime can be taken to absurd levels but someone needs to do it when you have posters on this board arguing that his performances against Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, and even Larry Holmes were emblematic of his career.

Ali was 49-2 after Manila. He ended his career 56-5. He was a desultory 10-3 in his last thirteen fights and a heartbreaking 1-3 in his last four fights. I don't think it's overly subjective to suggest that the post Manila Ali was past it.

Why isn't enough to say an athlete who best his opponents two out of three times at roughly equivalent times in their career is probably the better athlete?

ThatOne wrote:As for him ducking Young, Lyle, and Shavers. he was clearly past it for Young and Shavers though I think he earned the decision against Shavers. I am not going to argue about Young. If that fight was Ali's "gold watch" so be it.

Sorry, but you really don't get it. I wasn't really saying that Ali ducked any of these guys, just providing examples that could be more legitimately considered ducking rematches than the silly premise that Frazier was afraid to grant Ali a rematch.

My guess is that you weren't alive during this era or you would better understand how silly it is to suggest that Frazier was somehow afraid to rematch Ali.