BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:The majority of ring historians analysts, and former boxers think that. However, we are on the BOTP Forum where anti-Ali comments are pretty common.

Interesting that Chuvalo was brought up. Chuvalo was a pressure fighter. Chuvalo fought Ali in 1966. Ali won almost every round. This was probably the most competitive fight Ali had during his prime.

It's pretty obvious that he lost a lot during the layoff. Some of the ring rust did come off and he did look better in most of his fights from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight. However, he was never as good as he was during the mid-1960s. Watch any of his fights from the his first title reign. He looked much better than in any fight in the 1970s. It is pretty obvious.

No trainer is going to suggest that his fighter take off 3 and half years. Obviously he was never going to be the same again. What % he was at during the Frazier fight is arguable. It certainly was not close to 100%. I don't see how he could have been much more than 80%. Sure Ali still fought a helleuva fight. 80% of Ali is still pretty good.

Frazier never had to fight a fighter that could move like a prime Ali. The bottom line is that prime Ali is going to hit Frazier a lot more than vice versa. No way is Frazier going to win a decision. Frazier could not knock Ali out. If Frazier isn't going to win by decision or knockout, what is the arguement? Disqualification?

The Anti-Ali people can't have it both ways. You can't legitimately argue that Frazer was suddenly way past it when Ali beat him 1974, and then try and say that Ali was close to his best in 1971 after that long layoff.

Ali was 90%+ for the FOTC. Anybody that thinks Ali was 80% that night is either delusional or else biased towards Ali.

Frazier was most certainly past it in 1974. He had a short prime.

Take those statements to the bank.

Ambling Alp wrote:He was more durable in 1971? That makes no sense. You don't get more durable as you age and have a long layoff.

Why?

I've never encountered a knowledgeable fan who is more biased than Alp.

I have.

I feel for you.

Really? Coming from the guy who thinks Pernell Whitaker regularly threw 1000 punches a fight.
Did it ever occur to you that you are biased against Ali?
I atleast back up with what I say. I don't have to resort to as a rebuttal.

BarryWashington wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:The majority of ring historians analysts, and former boxers think that. However, we are on the BOTP Forum where anti-Ali comments are pretty common.

Interesting that Chuvalo was brought up. Chuvalo was a pressure fighter. Chuvalo fought Ali in 1966. Ali won almost every round. This was probably the most competitive fight Ali had during his prime.

It's pretty obvious that he lost a lot during the layoff. Some of the ring rust did come off and he did look better in most of his fights from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight. However, he was never as good as he was during the mid-1960s. Watch any of his fights from the his first title reign. He looked much better than in any fight in the 1970s. It is pretty obvious.

No trainer is going to suggest that his fighter take off 3 and half years. Obviously he was never going to be the same again. What % he was at during the Frazier fight is arguable. It certainly was not close to 100%. I don't see how he could have been much more than 80%. Sure Ali still fought a helleuva fight. 80% of Ali is still pretty good.

Frazier never had to fight a fighter that could move like a prime Ali. The bottom line is that prime Ali is going to hit Frazier a lot more than vice versa. No way is Frazier going to win a decision. Frazier could not knock Ali out. If Frazier isn't going to win by decision or knockout, what is the arguement? Disqualification?

The Anti-Ali people can't have it both ways. You can't legitimately argue that Frazer was suddenly way past it when Ali beat him 1974, and then try and say that Ali was close to his best in 1971 after that long layoff.

im afraid i cannot agree w/that. when i watch FOTC and the fights Ali had afterwards it clear to me that Muhammad was more peak around '71-'72. Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman because determination and a great strategy. other than that fight he didn't look impressive in a lot of fights between '73-'75. it is Joe Frazier who started to regress very gradually around 1973.

As I said before you can't have it both ways. If Ali is that close to him prime at the age of 29 when he fought Frazier the first time, then Frazier has to be very close to his prime at the age 0f 30 in 1974 when he lost to Ali. Frazier was not coming off of a layoff either.

Ali's peak was 1966-1967. He looked better in almost every fight from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight.

Ambling Alp wrote:He was more durable in 1971? That makes no sense. You don't get more durable as you age and have a long layoff.

I think that most would agree that Ali was more mentally tough after his layoff, and mental toughness had a great deal to do with his durability.

Ambling Alp wrote:He looked better in almost every fight from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight.

Do you really think that Ali looked better in his fights against Bugner (I), Norton (I), Patterson (II), Chuvalo (II), Wepner, Lyle, etc., than he did in the FOTC? Alp, that seems like a stretch.

BarryWashington wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:He looked better in almost every fight from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight.

Do you really think that Ali looked better in his fights against Bugner (I), Norton (I), Patterson (II), Chuvalo (II), Wepner, Lyle, etc., than he did in the FOTC? Alp, that seems like a stretch.

and it's because it's not true. as i said before : Ali looked much better during '71-'72 (though i may just say he looked better during '71 than he did in '72-'75) then he did during '73-75 - those are facts. Alp is trying too hard to deny that Frazier started to regress gradually from '73 and onwards.

Barry, I essentially agree with the points you are making, but Frazier actually started regressing post-FOTC, not 1973.

He had medical issues going into the FOTC, the fight itself took a lot out of him, and he lost his eye of the tiger edge after that fight. His goals had been reached and from that point he spent a great deal of time on the road with his music.

He had a great amount of trouble finishing a woefully overmatched Terry Daniels in January, 1972, and was staggered by Ron Stander early in their match later that year.

For some of us that were avid fans in that era, it was apparent by that time that he no longer the same buzz saw, relentless machine of '67-'70.

It was not a great surprise to me at all that Foreman took him out. Disappointing, but not surprising.

yancey wrote: Barry, I essentially agree with the points you are making, but Frazier actually started regressing post-FOTC, not 1973.

He had medical issues going into the FOTC, the fight itself took a lot out of him, and he lost his eye of the tiger edge after that fight. His goals had been reached and from that point he spent a great deal of time on the road with his music.

He had a great amount of trouble finishing a woefully overmatched Terry Daniels in January, 1972, and was staggered by Ron Stander early in their match later that year.

For some of us that were avid fans in that era, it was apparent by that time that he no longer the same buzz saw, relentless machine of '67-'70.

It was not a great surprise to me at all that Foreman took him out. Disappointing, but not surprising.

I agree on this. ...... I have always said this. That Frazier of 1967-71 was as destructable as any fighting machine I have ever seen on tape in the heavyweight division. When he fought Ali on the rematch, Frazier was good, but past his prime. When Frazier fought Foreman, I don't think that was the same Frazier of the first fight with Ali. That FOTC took a toll on him, I believe. That was his last great performance. He never looked as good like that again. Tomato cans like Ron Stander and Terry Daniels would not have pass the second round with prime Smokin' Joe.

Its also true that Frazier lost a leg, had a prosthetic in its place, & was involved in a car accident which erased his memory - including all knowledge of how to box.

Lucky George

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its also true that Frazier lost a leg, had a prosthetic in its place, & was involved in a car accident which erased his memory - including all knowledge of how to box.

Lucky George

Accept it, bud.

I know that era pretty damn well and I tell the truth and don't distort things.

George didn't catch prime Joe. Foreman knows that. He has repeatedly said the Frazier he beat was not the Frazier of the FOTC and before. And with a fighter like Frazier, with lesser physical skills than Ali and Foreman, losing that eye of the tiger edge was everything. He was basically just looking ahead for one more big money fight with Ali and he and his camp badly underestimated just how dangerous Foreman could be.

I am NOT saying '67-'70 Frazier beats '73 Foreman.

I would never bet that fight, as I have repeatedly said on here.

In all honesty, I dont think Im the one here having trouble with acceptance. The result of 73 is a bitter pill to swallow for any Frazier fan.

Youre one of the better members BOTP has, Yance, & you dont need anyone to tell you that, so I'll simply say you are above telling half the story, as you have proceeded to do with the remainder of your post. I dont need to point out the foibles, anyone here I respect knows to sort the wheat from that chaff.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:In all honesty, I dont think Im the one here having trouble with acceptance. The result of 73 is a bitter pill to swallow for any Frazier fan.

Youre one of the better members BOTP has, Yance, & you dont need anyone to tell you that, so I'll simply say you are above telling half the story, as you have proceeded to do with the remainder of your post. I dont need to point out the foibles, anyone here I respect knows to sort the wheat from that chaff.

GI, I try to be a simple, straightforward guy. Will you please point out to me what you consider to be my half truths in my previous post? Anyone else, please do so.

As far as Jamaica 73 goes, sure I was disappointed, but certainly not devastated. Like I have posted in the past, I really think it was time for a new champion.

When I saw the actual tape of the fight, I was disappointed that Mercante let George position Frazier like he did, but otherwise I am fine with the result.

You may not believe this, but that fight further increased my admiration of Frazier in that he kept getting up from some tremendous shots and he went out on his shield in an honorable fashion like a true champ.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:In all honesty, I dont think Im the one here having trouble with acceptance. The result of 73 is a bitter pill to swallow for any Frazier fan.

Youre one of the better members BOTP has, Yance, & you dont need anyone to tell you that, so I'll simply say you are above telling half the story, as you have proceeded to do with the remainder of your post. I dont need to point out the foibles, anyone here I respect knows to sort the wheat from that chaff.

btw, thanks for the compliment, but I'm nowhere near some of the guys here with their encylopedic knowledge. I only consider myself pretty knowledgeable for the top three weight classes for that era of '66-'75.

BarryWashington wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:He looked better in almost every fight from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight.

Do you really think that Ali looked better in his fights against Bugner (I), Norton (I), Patterson (II), Chuvalo (II), Wepner, Lyle, etc., than he did in the FOTC? Alp, that seems like a stretch.

and it's because it's not true. as i said before : Ali looked much better during '71-'72 (though i may just say he looked better during '71 than he did in '72-'75) then he did during '73-75 - those are facts. Alp is trying too hard to deny that Frazier started to regress gradually from '73 and onwards.

He looked pretty good in 1972 becasue he was getting rid of the ring rust. He had 3 more fights after Frazier in 1971 and had 6 fights in 1972.
I thought he looked better against Bugner, Patterson, chuvalo than he did against Frazier. He looked horrible in the first Norton fights and for most of the Lyle fight, so I would certainly agree that he looked better against Frazier. He didn't take Wepner too seriously and was just playing around most of the time.

I have said multiple times that if I was trying to make a case against Ali, I would point out the first Norton fight and the Lyle fight (at least until the end.)

Ali looked better in the 2nd Norton fight, 2nd Quarry fight, Foster as well.

He was already tired by the mid rounds against Frazier in their first fight. there were several rounds where he hardly did anything offensively.
I don't see how there is any doubt in comparing the first Frazier fight and his fights before his title was stripped. Look at his fights vs Chuvalo, Cooper, London, Mildenberger,Williams, Folley, and Terrell. If you want to, even go back to his first Liston and Patterson fights.

His handspeed was much faster back then. His reflexes were much sharper. He was very difficult to hit because he could pull back at the last instant. He never seemed to get tired at all.
Any basketball fan could tell that Michael Jordan was the never the same after he quit the first time. He missed one entire season and then came back at the end of the end of the next season. He looked very rusty. Then he played the next year. He lloked better than the previous year, but was certainly never as good as he once was. Ali was was out of the ring for about twice as long as Jordan was from the basketball court. Yet, anti-Ali people act like he was as good as ever. They like to pretend that the Ali of 1966-1967 was not any better is is just silly.

As for Frazier, why do we have to assume that he regressed (conviently right before he had to fight Foreman and a sharper Ali) If you are going to say he regressed, then you have to admit that ali was not close his best in 1971.

With Frazier all you hear is excuses. He just wasn't right for the first Foreman fight. He should have got the decision for the 2nd Ali fight. His trainer should not have stopped their 3rd fgiht. (Even Frazier himself said he couldn't see.) The 2nd loss to Foreman was becasue of he wore contacts! Even back to his amatuer days, he lost to Buster Mathis because Mathis' trunks were too high. It never ends.

But with Ali we are supposed to be believe that he was as good as ever against Frazier after a 3 and half year layoff. Too me, you have to either count all of the Ali-Ffrazier fights or none of them. You can't just pick and choose. I had always simply scored it Ali 2 and Frazier 1. However, if people are going to have the excuses for Frazier for the 2nd and 3rd fights, then they have to admit that Ali was not close to his best for the first fight. If you unwilling to do that, you are a hypocrite.

No I am "creating lies". I just happen to have different opinions about Ali and Frazier than you. I am sure that I agree with you about other things.

I didn't mean to say that you personally were saying that Ali was close to his prime in the first Ali-Frazier fight. I am responding to other people as well. Other people have stated that Ali was pretty close to his best and he certainly was not.

Ambling Alp wrote: As I said before you can't have it both ways. If Ali is that close to him prime at the age of 29 when he fought Frazier the first time, then Frazier has to be very close to his prime at the age 0f 30 in 1974 when he lost to Ali. Frazier was not coming off of a layoff either.

What kind of logic is that? All fighter age the same way do they? I guess Benitez was damn close to his prime at 30 then.

Ambling Alp wrote: Ali's peak was 1966-1967. He looked better in almost every fight from 1972-1975 than he did in the first Frazier fight.

I strongly disagree, how anyone can think Ali looked better against Lubbers, Bugner, Wepner etc than vs. Frazier in '71 is beyond me. Sure Ali looked tired as FOTC progressed but maybe that had more to do with him fighting Frazier (as opposed to say Wepner) than being rusty? He was plenty sharp early on in FOTC but I guess the rust set in around mid-fight. As for the layoff, I could swear that he fought two top contenders before he faced Frazier but I could be wrong.

Ambling Alp wrote:Really? Coming from the guy who thinks Pernell Whitaker regularly threw 1000 punches a fight.
Did it ever occur to you that you are biased against Ali?
I atleast back up with what I say. I don't have to resort to as a rebuttal.

Not at all, Ali was my favorite fighter growing up. I like him. As for backing up what you say, that's silly. You just regurgitate the same rubbish anytime Ali comes up. You think he was diminished in 71, I don't. Neither of us will ever change our minds.

Whitaker threw a ton of punches, that is factual.

BarryWashington wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

BarryWashington wrote: and it's because it's not true. as i said before : Ali looked much better during '71-'72 (though i may just say he looked better during '71 than he did in '72-'75) then he did during '73-75 - those are facts. Alp is trying too hard to deny that Frazier started to regress gradually from '73 and onwards.

He looked pretty good in 1972 becasue he was getting rid of the ring rust. He had 3 more fights after Frazier in 1971 and had 6 fights in 1972.
I thought he looked better against Bugner, Patterson, chuvalo than he did against Frazier. He looked horrible in the first Norton fights and for most of the Lyle fight, so I would certainly agree that he looked better against Frazier. He didn't take Wepner too seriously and was just playing around most of the time.

I have said multiple times that if I was trying to make a case against Ali, I would point out the first Norton fight and the Lyle fight (at least until the end.)

Ali looked better in the 2nd Norton fight, 2nd Quarry fight, Foster as well.

He was already tired by the mid rounds against Frazier in their first fight. there were several rounds where he hardly did anything offensively.
I don't see how there is any doubt in comparing the first Frazier fight and his fights before his title was stripped. Look at his fights vs Chuvalo, Cooper, London, Mildenberger,Williams, Folley, and Terrell. If you want to, even go back to his first Liston and Patterson fights.

His handspeed was much faster back then. His reflexes were much sharper. He was very difficult to hit because he could pull back at the last instant. He never seemed to get tired at all.
Any basketball fan could tell that Michael Jordan was the never the same after he quit the first time. He missed one entire season and then came back at the end of the end of the next season. He looked very rusty. Then he played the next year. He lloked better than the previous year, but was certainly never as good as he once was. Ali was was out of the ring for about twice as long as Jordan was from the basketball court. Yet, anti-Ali people act like he was as good as ever. They like to pretend that the Ali of 1966-1967 was not any better is is just silly.

As for Frazier, why do we have to assume that he regressed (conviently right before he had to fight Foreman and a sharper Ali) If you are going to say he regressed, then you have to admit that ali was not close his best in 1971.

With Frazier all you hear is excuses. He just wasn't right for the first Foreman fight. He should have got the decision for the 2nd Ali fight. His trainer should not have stopped their 3rd fgiht. (Even Frazier himself said he couldn't see.) The 2nd loss to Foreman was becasue of he wore contacts! Even back to his amatuer days, he lost to Buster Mathis because Mathis' trunks were too high. It never ends.

But with Ali we are supposed to be believe that he was as good as ever against Frazier after a 3 and half year layoff. Too me, you have to either count all of the Ali-Ffrazier fights or none of them. You can't just pick and choose. I had always simply scored it Ali 2 and Frazier 1. However, if people are going to have the excuses for Frazier for the 2nd and 3rd fights, then they have to admit that Ali was not close to his best for the first fight. If you unwilling to do that, you are a hypocrite.

never once said Ali was close to his best after the lay-off, but, he was better in FOTC than during '73-'75. frazier peaked out maybe even earlier than '73 as i stated earlier. stop creating lies so you can hold onto your love of a certain fighter more.

When someone's manlove runs so deep that he resorts to using ages to measures primes you're better off throwing in the towel. Don't talk to Alp about Ali or Leonard, he is probably the worst poster on the forum when those two come up.

A few points

We are all biased here, present company included.

Why is not fair to say that Frazier won the first match, Ali won the second match,and Ali won the rubber match instead of putting asterisks next to Ali's wins?

George Foreman just had Frazier's number. As Cus D'Amato told Mike Tyson "no pressure fighter is going to beat George Foreman."

Ali-Norton ll reminds me of Leonard Hagler. Ali like Leonard banked a lot of the early rounds, got gassed, and then made a flurry at the end. IMHO, a young Ali like a younger Leonard wouldn't have got gassed as early, and would have won more rounds.

ThatOne wrote:A few points

We are all biased here, present company included.

Why is not fair to say that Frazier won the first match, Ali won the second match,and Ali won the rubber match instead of putting asterisks next to Ali's wins?

George Foreman just had Frazier's number. As Cus D'Amato told Mike Tyson "no pressure fighter is going to beat George Foreman."

Ali-Norton ll reminds me of Leonard Hagler. Ali like Leonard banked a lot of the early rounds, got gassed, and then made a flurry at the end. IMHO, a young Ali like a younger Leonard wouldn't have got gassed as early, and would have won more rounds.

Who is putting asterisks next to Ali's wins? I must have missed it. I'm reading how much better Ali was in 74 than he was in 71. Which is a complete joke. Ali proved to be the historically greater fighter hands down, his wins certainly count. Frazier proved to be the better man when they were both the closest to their peak. And I don't see any logical argument against that. I think the FOTC was one of Ali's more exemplary performances.

I thought Ali/Norton 2 was a draw.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:A few points

We are all biased here, present company included.

Why is not fair to say that Frazier won the first match, Ali won the second match,and Ali won the rubber match instead of putting asterisks next to Ali's wins?

George Foreman just had Frazier's number. As Cus D'Amato told Mike Tyson "no pressure fighter is going to beat George Foreman."

Ali-Norton ll reminds me of Leonard Hagler. Ali like Leonard banked a lot of the early rounds, got gassed, and then made a flurry at the end. IMHO, a young Ali like a younger Leonard wouldn't have got gassed as early, and would have won more rounds.

Who is putting asterisks next to Ali's wins? I must have missed it. I'm reading how much better Ali was in 74 than he was in 71. Which is a complete joke. Ali proved to be the historically greater fighter hands down, his wins certainly count. Frazier proved to be the better man when they were both the closest to their peak. And I don't see any logical argument against that. I think the FOTC was one of Ali's more exemplary performances.

I thought Ali/Norton 2 was a draw.

Ali fought a smarter fight in their rematch. While not aesthetically pleasing his holding Frazier whenever he got inside saved him a lot of punishment.


We will just have to respectfully disagree on the FOTC and the Ali-Norton trilogy.

He should have had points taken away for that, but the fight was still quite close.

Frazier/Ali 1 was like Duran/Leonard 1. There was no possible alternative fight plan. Nothing was going to keep Duran or Frazier from getting in tight, nothing on earth. That kind of aggression isn't something you can bring day after day, they were both absolute peak athletes on those nights and there isn't a damn thing Ali or Leonard could do but take their ass whippings like men and come back for revenge later. They both did just that and neither had a thing to be ashamed in the fights when they got the shit beat out of them. But that's exactly what happened to both of them.