BoxRec

yancey wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Some undoubtedly would. But he would have had to have won the second one, or there would never have been a third fight. Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third.

Maybe, maybe not. There are many examples of a 3rd fight even though the same guy won the first two.

Let's put it another way, if Frazier would have lost the first the first fight, but won the 2nd, some people would then say that the 2nd fight was the most important.

As for the way that the three fights actually occurred, I guess you could argue that since the 2nd fight wasn't a title fight, it wasn't as important. However, it was a crucial fight for both fighters and more important than most title fights.
The 3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight.

To say that winning the first fight was more important than winning the 2nd and 3rd fights combined is just stupid.

Anyone who thinks the "3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight" is either...

A. Extremely Uninformed
B. Extremely Biased

or, in some cases, maybe both.

I am saying they are equal. That would be unbiased. You are saying that the one where your guy won is more important. That is biased.
Which fight was more important, Turpin-Robinson I or II? Bowe-Holyfield I or II? Which of the Ross-McLarnin fights was the most important?

"I am saying they are equal. That would be unbiased. You are saying that the one where your guy won is more important. That is biased.
Which fight was more important, Turpin-Robinson I or II? Bowe-Holyfield I or II? Which of the Ross-McLarnin fights was the most important?" AA


The FOTC was a seminal, transcendent moment, no matter who won.

It dwarfs the Manila fight, no matter who won that one.

I easily prefer Joe winning the FOTC and losing the two lesser fights rather than vice-versa.

Not one bit of doubt about that.

The stars lined up for that special moment in '71. Both men very close to their actual peak, both men with perfect records, both men knowing it was THE moment, the whole world stopped and watching, etc.

The FOTC had it all.

Too bad the Myth Machine got denied their outcome.

I guess Joe forgot to read their script.

The first fight between two unbeaten fighters was the premier single event in terms of boxing history.

But in terms of the greatest HW fighter of all time's legacy....well that's a different matter.

Often times once beaten, a fighter is never QUITE the same. E.G. Joe Frazier after the pummeling that G.F. gave him. For some....the loss is just what the ego needs, to jump start the compulsion to prove what one can really do. E.G. the performances Ali turns in in the years following.

If Joe hadn't handed him that great fight including that epic knockdown, and if in that moment, Ali had not showed what he was made of...beginning with getting up, and getting on with his career, I would say Ali was just another damn good fighter. But that bit of drama, and challenge defined him.

Joe may have been for a bit of time the greatest fighting machine to engage in boxing, but by being beat by that fighter, and coming back with refocused purpose, Ali proved that he had perhaps the most indomitable spirit of any fighter in history.

(OK...I didn't say this....I just cut and paste a PM I got from Il Duce.)

BoxBuzz wrote:The first fight between two unbeaten fighters was the premier single event in terms of boxing history.

But in terms of the greatest HW fighter of all time's legacy....well that's a different matter.

Often times once beaten, a fighter is never QUITE the same. E.G. Joe Frazier after the pummeling that G.F. gave him. For some....the loss is just what the ego needs, to jump start the compulsion to prove what one can really do. E.G. the performances Ali turns in in the years following.

If Joe hadn't handed him that great fight including that epic knockdown, and if in that moment, Ali had not showed what he was made of...beginning with getting up, and getting on with his career, I would say Ali was just another damn good fighter. But that bit of drama, and challenge defined him.

Joe may have been for a bit of time the greatest fighting machine to engage in boxing, but by being beat by that fighter, and coming back with refocused purpose, Ali proved that he had perhaps the most indomitable spirit of any fighter in history.

(OK...I didn't say this....I just cut and paste a PM I got from Il Duce.)

Good post, Buzz.

Frazier was a one hell of a fighting machine, but I think he was emotionally done after he climbed his mountain in '71. He needed that joy of combat mentality to stay at the top and I definitely think boxing became more of a business and less of a passion for Joe post-FOTC.

As you say, that Jamaican experience would have been tough for anybody to come back from anyway.

btw, had Ali retired immediately after the FOTC, he would easily be viewed as an all-timer, imo. I've always thought he fought one of his greatest fights that night in '71.

yancey wrote:I easily prefer Joe winning the FOTC and losing the two lesser fights rather than vice-versa.

Not one bit of doubt about that.

The stars lined up for that special moment in '71. Both men very close to their actual peak, both men with perfect records, both men knowing it was THE moment, the whole world stopped and watching, etc.

The FOTC had it all.

Too bad the Myth Machine got denied their outcome.

I guess Joe forgot to read their script.

It hasn't stood the test of time as well as the 3rd fight; their 3rd fight was a better fight.

Yes they had perfect records going into the fight, big friggin deal. It doesn't mean it was a better fight or more important fight.

And kind of competitor would have rather have won the series instead of just winning one. Your guy lost the series, man up and deal with it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

yancey wrote:I easily prefer Joe winning the FOTC and losing the two lesser fights rather than vice-versa.

Not one bit of doubt about that.

The stars lined up for that special moment in '71. Both men very close to their actual peak, both men with perfect records, both men knowing it was THE moment, the whole world stopped and watching, etc.

The FOTC had it all.

Too bad the Myth Machine got denied their outcome.

I guess Joe forgot to read their script.

It hasn't stood the test of time as well as the 3rd fight; their 3rd fight was a better fight.

Yes they had perfect records going into the fight, big friggin deal. It doesn't mean it was a better fight or more important fight.

And kind of competitor would have rather have won the series instead of just winning one. Your guy lost the series, man up and deal with it.

"It hasn't stood the test of time as well as the 3rd fight; their 3rd fight was a better fight." AA

^

This coming from someone who says he is not biased.

Go away, wanker. You're pitiful.

With respect to Alp's point "better" is subjective.

And I can see how some may classify it as such.

The first fight, was the bigger event in my mind.


But the third bout, brought some diminished skill, but greater honed focus and resolve. And it was as close as a "to the death" fight as you could imagine. Yancey, I think you believe that Ali could not have made it through the next round, and what Futch did was counter productive to the outcome. With that in mind, this could easily be thought of us as "the better fight".

Futch did not want his man permanently injured, and you seem to believe that Frazier going out would have pushed Ali's statement of "It was the closest thing to dying" to possibly a manifest reality.

What could be a "better fight"?

The only thing that could compromise this, is if you really believe Futch was somehow corrupt in his action.

I don't think so....I think he was being helpful and compassionate. But I don't know what the next round might have brought.

Maybe it's good that we will never know.

Outside of the boxrec bubble, everyone I know thought the 3rd fight was the best. If you think the first one was the best, fair enough; that can be a legitimate difference of opinion.

However, to claim that winning the first fight trumps winning both the 2nd and third combined is total BS.

BoxBuzz wrote:With respect to Alp's point "better" is subjective.

And I can see how some may classify it as such.

The first fight, was the bigger event in my mind.


But the third bout, brought some diminished skill, but greater honed focus and resolve. And it was as close as a "to the death" fight as you could imagine. Yancey, I think you believe that Ali could not have made it through the next round, and what Futch did was counter productive to the outcome. With that in mind, this could easily be thought of us as "the better fight".

Futch did not want his man permanently injured, and you seem to believe that Frazier going out would have pushed Ali's statement of "It was the closest thing to dying" to possibly a manifest reality.

What could be a "better fight"?

The only thing that could compromise this, is if you really believe Futch was somehow corrupt in his action.

I don't think so....I think he was being helpful and compassionate. But I don't know what the next round might have brought.

Maybe it's good that we will never know.

Does the Frazier of Manila compare to the Frazier of the FOTC?

Not a chance.

Does the Ali of Manila compare to the Ali of the FOTC?

Not a chance.

And as for this "greater honed focus and resolve" business, sorry, but that is baloney. What, Joe and Muhammad were just screwing around on the night of 3/8/71?

Ali only fought Frazier for the third time because Dundee thought Joe was shot. Jimmy Ellis was the guinea pig earlier in '75, didn't you guys know that?

Manila was a memorable fight, but the FOTC clearly dwarfs it.

But I can't fault Ali fan boys like AA for trying to build up the third fight to approach the level of the FOTC.

His guy failed in the most important fight in his career and he knows it.

That settles it alp, guess you'll have to sign on to what Yancey says.

Or risk his extreme displeasure.

And come to think of it, I guess many will have need to place Ali outside their top 10 of HW champions.

Otherwise they will end up with a "differing viewpoint" from Il duce....and we all know what sort of consequences that would lead to in a 1940's Italy. And we don't want that sort of thing happening here.

IMO in the first bout the social impact as well as the career significance of the fight was immense. Both fighters were closer to their peaks & were challenging for the undefeated HW crown.

The third was less skillful and when both were significantly shopworn but was a more brutal and enthralling spectacle.

If Joe won the 3rd bout it would've meant the world to him. He would have retired with much more satisfaction & closure & his ranking may well have risen considerably as some think he only caught a rusty Ali in the 1st fight.
As for Ali I don't think it would have made much difference to his legacy. He seems to transcend the sport & his legacy was already cemented, they would probably just say he struggled with Joe's style, a bit like they do when referring to Ali v Norton.

Il Duce wrote:

Rory McCloskey wrote:Could you guys imagine if smokin joe beat ali in their 3rd fight? where do you guys think joe would rank on the all time list if he did...were would ali place? would he still remain in your top spot (if he was) ... would this realistic fight have more of an impact on the top10 of all time, then any of realistic fight ever??

If 'Smokin Joe' had defeated Muhammad Ali in Manila ?

'Smokin Joe' would probably be cemented in at #6.

Muhammad falls back to #12.

Overall Impact > Moderate

Last time you showed us your top11 there wasn't Muhammad Ali so how could he fall back from the place where he wasn't?

BoxBuzz wrote:That settles it alp, guess you'll have to sign on to what Yancey says.

Or risk his extreme displeasure.

And come to think of it, I guess many will have need to place Ali outside their top 10 of HW champions.

Otherwise they will end up with a "differing viewpoint" from Il duce....and we all know what sort of consequences that would lead to in a 1940's Italy. And we don't want that sort of thing happening here.

I guess I will have risk his displeasure. :) that comes with his round the clock posts about Joe Frazier.
I love how when his guy wins one of of three fights, the fight that his guy wins is more important than the other two combined. Not only that, he says I am the one that is biased.
If you are an Ali fan, you are a "Ali fan boy", but apparently it's ok to be a Frazier fan.

Also love all the crybaby excuses for Frazier's losses. He couldn't come back after the the Foreman fight, (even though Norton came back after fighting Foreman, as did many other fighters who suffered bad ko's.)
Frazier just wasn't motivated after the first fight with Ali (oh I'm sorry, the "FOTC"), boo hoo, life just wasn't fair for Smokin' Joe.

He can BS all he wants, but 2 is always greater than 1.

Its funny how Frazier sympathisers cite Joe losing interest in fighting after FOTC was over yet blindly refuse to accept Ali was from his best after his enforced layoff. . .
Anyways I said this before : comparing the two fights is like comparing John Travolta's dancing. Do you prefer the slimline, choreographed, sharp version of Saturday night Fever? Or like me prefer the slightly washed up version whos impromptu jig in Pulp Fiction is just a bit better, a bit more organic and tangible....?

evrenb wrote:Its funny how Frazier sympathisers cite Joe losing interest in fighting after FOTC was over yet blindly refuse to accept Ali was from his best after his enforced layoff. . .
Anyways I said this before : comparing the two fights is like comparing John Travolta's dancing. Do you prefer the slimline, choreographed, sharp version of Saturday night Fever? Or like me prefer the slightly washed up version whos impromptu jig in Pulp Fiction is just a bit better, a bit more organic and tangible....?

Why don't you and Alp go off together and have your own little dance?

Call it the D-Con shuffle.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:That settles it alp, guess you'll have to sign on to what Yancey says.

Or risk his extreme displeasure.

And come to think of it, I guess many will have need to place Ali outside their top 10 of HW champions.

Otherwise they will end up with a "differing viewpoint" from Il duce....and we all know what sort of consequences that would lead to in a 1940's Italy. And we don't want that sort of thing happening here.

I guess I will have risk his displeasure. :) that comes with his round the clock posts about Joe Frazier.
I love how when his guy wins one of of three fights, the fight that his guy wins is more important than the other two combined. Not only that, he says I am the one that is biased.
If you are an Ali fan, you are a "Ali fan boy", but apparently it's ok to be a Frazier fan.

Also love all the crybaby excuses for Frazier's losses. He couldn't come back after the the Foreman fight, (even though Norton came back after fighting Foreman, as did many other fighters who suffered bad ko's.)
Frazier just wasn't motivated after the first fight with Ali (oh I'm sorry, the "FOTC"), boo hoo, life just wasn't fair for Smokin' Joe.

He can BS all he wants, but 2 is always greater than 1.

A little golf analogy....

Ali's two wins were the "Waste Management Classic" and the "Hartford Open brought to you by Eskimo Pie."

Joe's one win was the Masters, U.S. and British Opens combined.

I know which one I would want.

Il Duce wrote:'Smokin Joe'

I think most will agree, that after March 1971

Joe treated Boxing like a business, and not with the 'inner passion' that he once had.

As Ken Norton once said,

'Joe Frazier poured so much heart into his earlier bouts. He was 'all-out', all of the time. He took no time
off in the Ring. That took it's toll, not just physically, but mentally.'

'In 1972, Joe just went thru the motions and was more focused on his Musical Revue and Business ventures.
He wanted to become a minor celebrity, and lost focus. Now he was only two-third's of the fighter he once was.'

'At 66%, Joe was not unbeatable.'

^

This is 1000% accurate.

Foreman never met the real Frazier and Ali only saw a pretty close version once.

If Ali didn't come out for the 15th round (like Ray Robinson against Maxim) in Manila and Frazier won the title via TKO ... Ali would've demanded a fourth fight.

But Frazier would've insisted Ali and Foreman engage in an eliminator in 1976 to determine who was the rightful top contender. Meanwhile, Frazier would've been inundated with commercial offers (like his Miller Lite spots which I love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHkqN52xqD4).

While Ali and Foreman settled matters, Joe would've been in the position of offering a title shot to a guy he promoted (Duane Bobick), a guy who trained in his gym (Jimmy Young), or his former sparring partner Ken Norton. It would've been interesting to see if Frazier had a psychological advantage over those three guys. Regardless, there's a good chance he would've survived 1976 with the title.

Frazier vs. the Ali-Foreman 2 winner probably wouldn't have happened until 1977. By that point, Joe and Ali wouldn't have had much left. Foreman would've been in his prime.

So, if Frazier had won the third fight, there's a good chance either he and Ali would've fought four times or George Foreman would've regained the belt and, therefore, not retired in 1977.

Norton probably wouldn't have won a belt. Maybe we'd have seen Foreman-Holmes, and maybe Larry never wins a belt either.

All their lives would've changed.

Everything would be different.

yancey wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:That settles it alp, guess you'll have to sign on to what Yancey says.

Or risk his extreme displeasure.

And come to think of it, I guess many will have need to place Ali outside their top 10 of HW champions.

Otherwise they will end up with a "differing viewpoint" from Il duce....and we all know what sort of consequences that would lead to in a 1940's Italy. And we don't want that sort of thing happening here.

I guess I will have risk his displeasure. :) that comes with his round the clock posts about Joe Frazier.
I love how when his guy wins one of of three fights, the fight that his guy wins is more important than the other two combined. Not only that, he says I am the one that is biased.
If you are an Ali fan, you are a "Ali fan boy", but apparently it's ok to be a Frazier fan.

Also love all the crybaby excuses for Frazier's losses. He couldn't come back after the the Foreman fight, (even though Norton came back after fighting Foreman, as did many other fighters who suffered bad ko's.)
Frazier just wasn't motivated after the first fight with Ali (oh I'm sorry, the "FOTC"), boo hoo, life just wasn't fair for Smokin' Joe.

He can BS all he wants, but 2 is always greater than 1.

A little golf analogy....

Ali's two wins were the "Waste Management Classic" and the "Hartford Open brought to you by Eskimo Pie."

Joe's one win was the Masters, U.S. and British Opens combined.

I know which one I would want.

Your analogy is a triple bogey. Beyond stupid. On par with the rest of your comments.

The FOTC and Thrilla and Manilla are pretty close according to me. My favourite one is the FOTC but still I can understand why sb would pick the Thrilla.

Ali won 2 out of 3 fights with Frazier. Frazier wasn't in his prime? Well, Ali neither.
Frazier could win 2 out of 3 or even all of them but he didn't. Frazier didn't won the trilogy.
These are the facts.

Decreasing the Thrilla and Manilla is stupid IMO. It wasn't as bad as some people want to describe here.

The question is: What if Joe had won the 3rd one? and let's think about it.

BTW: I'm Frazier's fan.

I'm going to mark Alp and Yancey down as "not in agreement".

yancey wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:That settles it alp, guess you'll have to sign on to what Yancey says.

Or risk his extreme displeasure.

And come to think of it, I guess many will have need to place Ali outside their top 10 of HW champions.

Otherwise they will end up with a "differing viewpoint" from Il duce....and we all know what sort of consequences that would lead to in a 1940's Italy. And we don't want that sort of thing happening here.

I guess I will have risk his displeasure. :) that comes with his round the clock posts about Joe Frazier.
I love how when his guy wins one of of three fights, the fight that his guy wins is more important than the other two combined. Not only that, he says I am the one that is biased.
If you are an Ali fan, you are a "Ali fan boy", but apparently it's ok to be a Frazier fan.

Also love all the crybaby excuses for Frazier's losses. He couldn't come back after the the Foreman fight, (even though Norton came back after fighting Foreman, as did many other fighters who suffered bad ko's.)
Frazier just wasn't motivated after the first fight with Ali (oh I'm sorry, the "FOTC"), boo hoo, life just wasn't fair for Smokin' Joe.

He can BS all he wants, but 2 is always greater than 1.

A little golf analogy....

Ali's two wins were the "Waste Management Classic" and the "Hartford Open brought to you by Eskimo Pie."

Joe's one win was the Masters, U.S. and British Opens combined.

I know which one I would want.

Having a less than admirable opinion regarding the topic of waste management will get you a shoe thrown in your general direction. Just ask Hillary Clinton.