BoxRec

A few random points

1) Ali-Frazer One was a great fight. When discussing why it isn't shown on ESPN Occam's Razor comes into play; one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Pehaps Disney/ABC/ESPN does not own the rights to it...I was eight years old when the fight occurred and living in semi-rural Central Florida...My folks weren't going to take me fifty miles at night to see it at a closed circuit theatre. I had to wait for the fight to be shown at a theatre close to my home, months after, and even then they didn't show the entire fight...Even as a boy the absurdity of going to a theatre to watch something that was all of thirty minutes wasn't lost on me...

2) That fight was as much about politics as it was about fighting...It was a war between the establishment and its opponents even if Frazier was "drafted" to fight for the establishment.And because Ali was Ali nothing he could have said would have changed it. That night the establishment won and it was viewed as such. The transition of Ali from a polarizing figure to a uber popular main stream figure who could light the Olympic Torch in the 1996 Olympics and be awarded the Medal Of Freedom by a Republican president in 2005 shows just how far we have come. I wasn't a firebrand leftist as a kid but my heros were the martyred Kennedy brothers, Dr. King, and Muhammad Ali...They still are to this day...

3) Muhammad Ali said some mean, hateful, and ignorant things about Joe Frazier...It's too late to take them back but he has made a fulsome apology...At this point there is no more he can do...He is a sixty six year old man with a progressive disease that will eventually kill him...

4) Joe Frazier deserves all the credit in the world for winning that fight as Ali does for winning the second fight and the rubber match ...Every time they fought, Ali was the older fighter with more wear and tear...Somebody mentioned they were "old farts" in Manilla...Joe Frazier was the "ripe old age" of thirty one...

5) If you read about The Thrilla In Manilla you will learn that Ali thought Frazier was a "shot" fighter and didn't take him all that seriously... To "misunderestimate" your opponent like that is a big mistake.

6) Joe Frazier seems to be a good and simple man...Ali seems to be a good and complex one...I respect and think I would like to have a beer with both though Muslims can't imbibe...

7) If they came together for a public rapprochement like Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra it would be awesome... I did see them sitting next to one another at a basketball game...


PEACE

For sheer impact both Louis - Schmelling fights. Both fights were more than sporting events. The social and political implications were enormous.

For those who believe in miracles the Tyson - Douglass fight. I can't think of any other sporting event that was a bigger surprise, other than the US Olympic hockey squad that defeated the Russians in 1980.

I can't think of any other fight that more people looked forward to seeing than the first Ali - Frazier fight. And that fight was a monster with the action and drama.

I also include two fights here that belong not for the amount of action but because of the racial implications. The first, of course, is the Johnson - Jeffries fight. Jeffries had to be coaxed out of retirement because white America could not bear to have a black man as HW champ and Jeffries became the Great White Hope. In the Cooney - Holmes fight the racial issue - the Great White Hope - was unashamedly played out by the fight promoters. I think it was Don King. I'm not sure. Anyway the fight was hyped up to the max and it became one of the most anticipated of fights.

Harvey Levy wrote:For sheer impact both Louis - Schmelling fights. Both fights were more than sporting events. The social and political implications were enormous.

For those who believe in miracles the Tyson - Douglass fight. I can't think of any other sporting event that was a bigger surprise, other than the US Olympic hockey squad that defeated the Russians in 1980.

I can't think of any other fight that more people looked forward to seeing than the first Ali - Frazier fight. And that fight was a monster with the action and drama.

I also include two fights here that belong not for the amount of action but because of the racial implications. The first, of course, is the Johnson - Jeffries fight. Jeffries had to be coaxed out of retirement because white America could not bear to have a black man as HW champ and Jeffries became the Great White Hope. In the Cooney - Holmes fight the racial issue - the Great White Hope - was unashamedly played out by the fight promoters. I think it was Don King. I'm not sure. Anyway the fight was hyped up to the max and it became one of the most anticipated of fights.

Did you know that Schmeling's manager was Jewish and that Schmeling saved two Jews during Krystallnacht?


http://www.auschwitz.dk/schmeling.htm


Holmes was merciless to Cooney...He called him "Looney Cooney" and "said his elevator doesn't stop at every floor." They are good friends now...

I Feel Fine wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

Ali was coming off a long layoff, so the first fight is tainted.

Really? Tell that to the millions upon millions of excited fans who piled into the arena, into closed circuit theatres, and around every television they could find to watch this fight. Anyone trying to diminish the importance of that fight in the slightest is either intentionally revising history, or just isn't familiar with the situation in the first place.

I think my knowledge of the fight and the things surrounding the fight is quite adequate. And it was a great fight. And my comment still stands; it was tainted.

I noted that the fight doesn't get shown on TV, ESPN or otherwise. How do you explain the fact that the most highly anticipated fight in history (and a great fight to boot) simply never gets shown on TV?

And if ESPN is so preoccupied with ratings, why do they persist in showing Ali-Wepner, one of the dullest heavyweight title fights of all time?

They show Ali-Wepner because anything with Ali in it will probably be better for ratings than, say, Giardello-Graham. But, again, I do not know that ESPN has access to the first fight. Do you have any evidence that they have access to the fight, in which case it would be odd that they wouldn't show it, or are you just pulling this all out of your ass as you seem to be? Seems to me that you're just being a conspiracy theorist, like elmer. The idea that they're not going to show the fight to "protect" Ali is paranoid bullshit.

Since when is the third fight in a trilogy automatically considered the most important or memorable? Which fight between Gatti and Ward gets the most attention? Or Barrera-Morales? Or going back in time, Gans and Nelson? Among plenty of other examples, I'm sure...

That's not what I said. You stated that the first fight was the most important. I provided a reason why the third fight might be. Winning the third fight and the trilogy is pretty significant. Is that the reason why ESPN Classic shows the fight often? No, they show it because its one of the most famous fights in history, and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of boxing history knows that. You apparently do not have that knowledge.

The fight warrants all the stock it can get. It was a heavyweight unification fight between two undefeated future Hall of Famers that captured the attention of an entire country, and mirrored very troubling social conditions in that country.

Its an important fight historically, its exciting as hell; I never said that it wasn't; again, there is nothing that you are going to tell me about this fight that I do not already know. What I did say was that, in terms of boxing importance, Ali was coming off a long layoff and was at a disadvantage in that close split decision loss. If Frazier came off a long layoff and lost to Ali at his best you would be bitching about how Ali's win was bullshit.

The reason the fight is often diminished by today's media is that Ali was the idol of the anti-establishment, anti-Vietnam movement, and a victory for Ali would have symbolized for them a win over the "establishment" (which Frazier supposedly represented). It was the same as how a win for Joe Louis over Schmeling was supposed to represent a win for American freedom over Nazi Germany. Unlike Louis-Schmeling, the guy that most people in the US today would've rather won, didn't, so the result of the fight isn't celebrated nearly as much as Louis-Schmeling's is (even though it should be). No one in today's post-Vietnam, post-Civil Rights era wants to celebrate a "win" for the villified establishment of the '60s, any more than anyone would want to celebrate a win for Nazi Germany should Schmeling have won the rematch with Louis. But you can bet if Ali had won that fight, its importance would still be celebrated to no end today, and there wouldn't be any debate about it being "tainted" or otherwise.

That's a bunch of bull. Ali-Frazier I is one of the most celebrated fights in boxing history; maybe the most. The notion that someone is hiding this fight is paranoid nonsense. And, again, your amateur attempts at giving me a history lesson about this fight are sorely unneeded.

[/quote]

But, again, I do not know that ESPN has access to the first fight. Do you have any evidence that they have access to the fight, in which case it would be odd that they wouldn't show it, or are you just pulling this all out of your ass as you seem to be?

Why is it when I clearly said twice the fight doesn't get shown on TV, you keep restricting what I said to just ESPN, as if that's the only channel on TV that shows fights?

You stated that the first fight was the most important. I provided a reason why the third fight might be. Winning the third fight and the trilogy is pretty significant. Is that the reason why ESPN Classic shows the fight often? No, they show it because its one of the most famous fights in history, and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of boxing history knows that. You apparently do not have that knowledge.

No one said the third fight wasn't famous, so why are you pretending someone did?

And if you agree that the third fight in a trilogy can often not the most famous or significant, why bring that up?

That's a bunch of bull. Ali-Frazier I is one of the most celebrated fights in boxing history; maybe the most.

Not anymore, it isn't. The fact that no one is showing it on TV (ESPN or otherwise), right there means it's not getting the attention it deserves.

And the fight not being shown aside, networks like ESPN still spend a disproportionate amount of time hyping and discussing other Ali fights (and other aspects of his life and career in general) compared to this, even though this fight was as big or bigger than any other fight he's had in his career.

The notion that someone is hiding this fight is paranoid nonsense.

OK then, let me know the next time it airs on TV.

If Frazier came off a long layoff and lost to Ali at his best you would be bitching about how Ali's win was bullshit.

No, I wouldn't.

Its an important fight historically, its exciting as hell; I never said that it wasn't; again, there is nothing that you are going to tell me about this fight that I do not already know. What I did say was that, in terms of boxing importance, Ali was coming off a long layoff and was at a disadvantage in that close split decision loss.

Are you sure??

Because for starters, I can tell you that IT WASN'T A SPLIT DECISION. Or even all that close.

You'd think someone so familiar with a fight would at least know how the darn thing ended.

So yes, apprently you are in need of a good history lesson. (Sorry that mine are apparently so "amateurish" for an expert like you, though... ).

Terry D wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Harvey Levy wrote:For sheer impact both Louis - Schmelling fights. Both fights were more than sporting events. The social and political implications were enormous.

For those who believe in miracles the Tyson - Douglass fight. I can't think of any other sporting event that was a bigger surprise, other than the US Olympic hockey squad that defeated the Russians in 1980.

I can't think of any other fight that more people looked forward to seeing than the first Ali - Frazier fight. And that fight was a monster with the action and drama.

I also include two fights here that belong not for the amount of action but because of the racial implications. The first, of course, is the Johnson - Jeffries fight. Jeffries had to be coaxed out of retirement because white America could not bear to have a black man as HW champ and Jeffries became the Great White Hope. In the Cooney - Holmes fight the racial issue - the Great White Hope - was unashamedly played out by the fight promoters. I think it was Don King. I'm not sure. Anyway the fight was hyped up to the max and it became one of the most anticipated of fights.

Did you know that Schmeling's manager was Jewish and that Schmeling saved two Jews during Krystallnacht?


http://www.auschwitz.dk/schmeling.htm


Holmes was merciless to Cooney...He called him "Looney Cooney" and "said his elevator doesn't stop at every floor." They are good friends now...

Max lived quite a bohemian life in Berlin prior to the war, as many did. Hangfing out with Jewish artists and actors. It is said that when he met Hitler he angered him by refusing ot ditch his manager.

Max had something about him.

Around the time of his death there was much written about Schmeling...His relationship to Hitler and the NAZI party is complex...Given his experience with other cultures I could not see how he much liked him....Some have tried to make him into a willing accomplice....Others have tried to make him into Oskar Schindler...IMHO he tried to do the right thing in a turbulent time and even Oskar Schindler might not have been as noble as Steven Spielberg's Oskar Schindler...

Re: Ali Frazier One- Perhaps the fight is not available for transimission via public or cable television...I have never seen it...I had to go to a movie theatre, after the fact, to see it, and then it was only certain rounds, not the entire fight...

If I have some time I will e-mail ESPN...

Maybe you have just missed it. Ali-Frazier I has been on ESPN and ESPN classic several times.

As for the notion that some people have that the 2nd and 3rd fights weren't as significant, that is just way off base. I think all three fights are of equal importance.
If Frazier would have won either the 2nd or 3rd fight, Ali wouldn't be considered the best heavyweight of all time by nearly as many people.
If Ali would have lost the 2nd fight with Frazier, that would have been a huge setback. He wouldn't have got a title shot against Foreman, and may never have got one.
The 3rd Ali-Frazier fight never would have happened if Frazier would have won both the first and second fights.

If Frazier won the 3rd fight, he would been the heavyweight champion agian. He would have won the series against Ali, been considered better than Ali by most people. He would be ranked much higher than he is. In fact, if Frazier would have won the 3rd fight, and then retired before fighting Foreman again, he probably would be considered the best heavyweight of all time by some people.

Did you know that Schmeling's manager was Jewish and that Schmeling saved two Jews during Krystallnacht?

Yeah, Joe Jacobs :P I knew he was Jewish but I had to look his name up. He was the guy who coined the phrase 'We wuz robbed!!' after the second Schmelling - Sharkey fight in which Sharkey was given the decision. If you have seen the film Jacobs is seen in the ring with his hands on his head and wailing as if in the Wailing Wall.

Around the time of his death there was much written about Schmeling...His relationship to Hitler and the NAZI party is complex...Given his experience with other cultures I could not see how he much liked him....Some have tried to make him into a willing accomplice....Others have tried to make him into Oskar Schindler...IMHO he tried to do the right thing in a turbulent time and even Oskar Schindler might not have been as noble as Steven Spielberg's Oskar Schindler...

After his first victory over Louis he was the darling of the Nazis but after his demolition in Louis II he became an outcast in Nazi Germany. From national hero to national goat must have taken it's emotional toll on Schmelling but he apparently was a German first and willingly enlisted and became a paratrooper in the Luftwaffe. I don't think he was an accomplice to the Nazi ideology just like marcel Cerdan was not an accomplice to the Vichy French just because he fought in occupied France.

Ambling Alp wrote:Maybe you have just missed it. Ali-Frazier I has been on ESPN and ESPN classic several times.

I'm sorry, but I find it almost impossible to believe that Ali-Frazier I has been on Classic multiple times (or even at all) in the last several years and I managed to not even be aware of it every single time. I've watched their listings almost religiously to see what fights are shown weekly. Except for the new batch of fights they showed last week, I've seen everything they've shown multiple times each.

But hey, if you are aware of that fight coming on again, feel free to drop me a PM.

As for the notion that some people have that the 2nd and 3rd fights weren't as significant, that is just way off base. I think all three fights are of equal importance.
If Frazier would have won either the 2nd or 3rd fight, Ali wouldn't be considered the best heavyweight of all time by nearly as many people.
If Ali would have lost the 2nd fight with Frazier, that would have been a huge setback. He wouldn't have got a title shot against Foreman, and may never have got one.
The 3rd Ali-Frazier fight never would have happened if Frazier would have won both the first and second fights.

If Frazier won the 3rd fight, he would been the heavyweight champion agian. He would have won the series against Ali, been considered better than Ali by most people. He would be ranked much higher than he is. In fact, if Frazier would have won the 3rd fight, and then retired before fighting Foreman again, he probably would be considered the best heavyweight of all time by some people.

The second fight was important for Ali's legacy I agree, mainly because it led to his fight with Foreman, which turned out to be arguably the biggest career-defining win for him. However, if Frazier had won the fight, it would've sent him back into a rematch with Foreman, where he would've been promptly annhilated again. So the fight really was only of major importance for one fighter's legacy, rather than both as the first fight was.

However, I don't agree with you about the importance of the third fight. Once he scored his colossal upset over Foreman, Ali's legacy as one of the very best (and perhaps the best) heavyweights of all time was pretty much secured. What he accomplished after that (such as winning the heavyweight title a third time), were nice additions to his legacy, but were mostly window dressing. In other words, if someone wasn't convinced that Ali was one of the best ever after seeing him topple Foreman, wins over Frazier and Spinks weren't going to do it. And if all his losses and questionable decisions that followed the Foreman fight (Spinks, Holmes, Berbick, Young, Shavers, Norton) haven't really done anything to hurt his all time standing, I don't see how a loss to Frazier in that time would either.

As far as Frazier goes, I don't agree that Frazier would've been considered better than Ali if he went 2-1 against him, anymore than Spinks is considered his equal because he went 1-1 against him, or Norton is considered better by those people who believe he really went 2-1 (as I do) or even 3-0 against Ali. Likewise, I don't believe Ali is better necessarily because he beat Frazier 2 out of 3. What really separates Ali and Frazier (and Ali and Norton as well) is the fact that Ali beat Foreman, who Frazier couldn't even win a round against in two tries, and plus the fact that Ali was generally more successful and accomplished outside of his rivalry with Frazier. If Frazier had won the third fight with Ali, he would have the distinction of having beaten Ali 2 out of 3 (a nice distinction, to be sure), but because of his twin failures against Foreman (in which he was inexcusably impotent, both times), he could never seriously be rated higher than Ali, and would never have a serious claim to being the best heavyweight of all time.

HomicideHenry wrote:The first Frazier-Ali fight I would rank as being the greatest modern day heavyweight title fight, but not the "Thrilla in Manila" mainly because neither man were near their primes, and neither man was ever really "great" again following it, though that doesn't take away from it being a war, I just believe the first one was more competitive and meant more because it was the question of "Who is the true heavyweight champion of the world?" and both men were at their peak/near their peak and undefeated.

Marciano-walcott was what I would consider the greatest knockout of all time, but is truly deserving of a mention as one of the greatest heavyweight fights, clearly a top ten.

Dempsey-Firpo had alot of two fisted action, but take into account that outside of his size and power WHO THE HELL WAS LUIS ANGEL FIRPO??? He was the creation of Tex Rickard, nothing more and nothing less, who had just enough to give fellow behemoth Jess Willard a hell of a time. That and Dempsey hadn't fought in a hell of a long time, being more concerned with early motion pictures and Hollywood. It was competitive because #1 Dempsey was out of shape and didn't take Firpo seriously because #2 as I stated earlier, nobody knew who the hell he was to begin with.

Now Foreman-Lyle is what I would rank higher than Dempsey-Firpo because #1 they were in their prime and #2 everybody knew who they were, their credentials and #3 both were MONSTER hitters; five rounds of pure hell that has yet to be matched

You know that last left that Marciano tossed at Joe after Joe was kaput, always reminded me of King Kong and how he sort of tested the T-Rex's jaw after he had put the kabosh on the big Lizard. It just was not needed and yet it seemed somehow justified.

My2Sense wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:Maybe you have just missed it. Ali-Frazier I has been on ESPN and ESPN classic several times.

I'm sorry, but I find it almost impossible to believe that Ali-Frazier I has been on Classic multiple times (or even at all) in the last several years and I managed to not even be aware of it every single time. I've watched their listings almost religiously to see what fights are shown weekly. Except for the new batch of fights they showed last week, I've seen everything they've shown multiple times each.

But hey, if you are aware of that fight coming on again, feel free to drop me a PM.

As for the notion that some people have that the 2nd and 3rd fights weren't as significant, that is just way off base. I think all three fights are of equal importance.
If Frazier would have won either the 2nd or 3rd fight, Ali wouldn't be considered the best heavyweight of all time by nearly as many people.
If Ali would have lost the 2nd fight with Frazier, that would have been a huge setback. He wouldn't have got a title shot against Foreman, and may never have got one.
The 3rd Ali-Frazier fight never would have happened if Frazier would have won both the first and second fights.

If Frazier won the 3rd fight, he would been the heavyweight champion agian. He would have won the series against Ali, been considered better than Ali by most people. He would be ranked much higher than he is. In fact, if Frazier would have won the 3rd fight, and then retired before fighting Foreman again, he probably would be considered the best heavyweight of all time by some people.

The second fight was important for Ali's legacy I agree, mainly because it led to his fight with Foreman, which turned out to be arguably the biggest career-defining win for him. However, if Frazier had won the fight, it would've sent him back into a rematch with Foreman, where he would've been promptly annhilated again. So the fight really was only of major importance for one fighter's legacy, rather than both as the first fight was.

However, I don't agree with you about the importance of the third fight. Once he scored his colossal upset over Foreman, Ali's legacy as one of the very best (and perhaps the best) heavyweights of all time was pretty much secured. What he accomplished after that (such as winning the heavyweight title a third time), were nice additions to his legacy, but were mostly window dressing. In other words, if someone wasn't convinced that Ali was one of the best ever after seeing him topple Foreman, wins over Frazier and Spinks weren't going to do it. And if all his losses and questionable decisions that followed the Foreman fight (Spinks, Holmes, Berbick, Young, Shavers, Norton) haven't really done anything to hurt his all time standing, I don't see how a loss to Frazier in that time would either.

As far as Frazier goes, I don't agree that Frazier would've been considered better than Ali if he went 2-1 against him, anymore than Spinks is considered his equal because he went 1-1 against him, or Norton is considered better by those people who believe he really went 2-1 (as I do) or even 3-0 against Ali. Likewise, I don't believe Ali is better necessarily because he beat Frazier 2 out of 3. What really separates Ali and Frazier (and Ali and Norton as well) is the fact that Ali beat Foreman, who Frazier couldn't even win a round against in two tries, and plus the fact that Ali was generally more successful and accomplished outside of his rivalry with Frazier. If Frazier had won the third fight with Ali, he would have the distinction of having beaten Ali 2 out of 3 (a nice distinction, to be sure), but because of his twin failures against Foreman (in which he was inexcusably impotent, both times), he could never seriously be rated higher than Ali, and would never have a serious claim to being the best heavyweight of all time.

I agree and disagree...When Ali beat Foreman he was a 3-1 underdog and considered past his prime. Foreman did in four rounds to Frazier and Norton what Ali couldn't accomplish in fifty one rounds; knock them out. In the minds of those that were so inclined that made him the GOAT...However a loss to Joe Frazier would have tarnished that legacy as it would have proven he had Ali's number...As it is it is the other way around...To simplify things, the rubber match was for all the marbles as all rubber matches are...

If Frazier beats Ali two out of three he's not the GOAT but neither is Ali...

As for the close or gift decisions that followed that's , for better or worse, part and parcel of boxing...I do think they tarnished his legacy a bit though... And I think his legacy was tarnished a bit when he fought as a shot fighter against Holmes and Berbick...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:However a loss to Joe Frazier would have tarnished that legacy as it would have proven he had Ali's number...As it is it is the other way around...To simplify things, the rubber match was for all the marbles as all rubber matches are...

I agree that it would've made a case that Frazier had Ali's number, but that's exactly the reason I don't think it would've tarnished Ali's legacy. When people say Fighter A has fighter Fighter B's number, by definition, that leaves the way open for Fighter B to still be considered the better fighter. As it is, many people (including myself) will make the case that Norton had Ali's number, and yet many of them (including myself) will say that he was a lesser fighter than Frazier, and perhaps not even a truly great fighter at all. The fact that both Frazier and Ali were shells of what they had been when they started their series, and that they were always very competitive with each other regardless of the outcome, also makes matters not so cut and dry.

To me, it's the same situation as the Leonard-Hearns rematch, which followed Leonard's career-defining win over Hagler. Just as being outfought by Hearns in that fight didn't diminish the standing Leonard had earned by beating Hagler, so losing the Thrilla wouldn't have diminished the legacy Ali gained from the Foreman win IMO.

Just like the Leonard-Hearns rematch, the Thrilla may have been significant in regard to just that series of fights, but in regard to their overall careers (and the boxing scene as a whole), not so much. It would've been a nice addition to Frazier's legacy to be able to beat Ali (and win a title) a second time, but the loss he desperately needed to avenge was Foreman, and he failed that. Without a win over Foreman, his legacy will always be severely tarnished, with or without a second win over Ali.

For Ali's legacy, the fight meant even less IMO. For him, pride and braggaing rights were on the line, but not much more than that.

My2Sense wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:However a loss to Joe Frazier would have tarnished that legacy as it would have proven he had Ali's number...As it is it is the other way around...To simplify things, the rubber match was for all the marbles as all rubber matches are...

I agree that it would've made a case that Frazier had Ali's number, but that's exactly the reason I don't think it would've tarnished Ali's legacy. When people say Fighter A has fighter Fighter B's number, by definition, that leaves the way open for Fighter B to still be considered the better fighter. As it is, many people (including myself) will make the case that Norton had Ali's number, and yet many of them (including myself) will say that he was a lesser fighter than Frazier, and perhaps not even a truly great fighter at all. The fact that both Frazier and Ali were shells of what they had been when they started their series, and that they were always very competitive with each other regardless of the outcome, also makes matters not so cut and dry.

To me, it's the same situation as the Leonard-Hearns rematch, which followed Leonard's career-defining win over Hagler. Just as being outfought by Hearns in that fight didn't diminish the standing Leonard had earned by beating Hagler, so losing the Thrilla wouldn't have diminished the legacy Ali gained from the Foreman win IMO.

Just like the Leonard-Hearns rematch, the Thrilla may have been significant in regard to just that series of fights, but in regard to their overall careers (and the boxing scene as a whole), not so much. It would've been a nice addition to Frazier's legacy to be able to beat Ali (and win a title) a second time, but the loss he desperately needed to avenge was Foreman, and he failed that. Without a win over Foreman, his legacy will always be severely tarnished, with or without a second win over Ali.

For Ali's legacy, the fight meant even less IMO. For him, pride and braggaing rights were on the line, but not much more than that.

When Ali began his trilogy with both Frazier and Norton he was arguably past his prime...To me the question is how past his prime was he....Interestingly, they both had that herky, jerky head movement that frustrated Ali...Even a dime store imitation like Leon Spinks frustrated Ali with it, albeit an Ali that was even further past his prime then when he faced the other two gentlemen...Ali was a rhythm fighter like most "scientific" boxers...I think the herky jerky movement messed up his rhythm...

I watched all three Norton-Ali fights in real time as I did the lion's share of Ali's fights post 1970....I truly believe all three fights with Norton were competitive and could have gone either way...Norton never visibly hurt Ali in any of those three fights despite the broken jaw and ear drum that we learned about, only after the fact...And Ali never visibly hurt Norton either...

The gift decision argument sticks in my craw a bit...Rather than re-argue every fight which becomes tedious because folks are lodged in their opinion , the champion or the established boxer is going to get the benefit of the doubt...

Maybe as you say , a 1-2 record for Ali against Frazier would not have hurt his legacy is correct ...As an aside there are people on this board who want to make the argument that the only Ali-Frazier fight that counted was the first one though they are transparent in their biases...
The way I see it is Ali is the GOAT because he faced and beat the greatest heavyweights of his era, some of whom would have been great in any era and that is what separates him from Louis, Marciano, Johnson, et cetera and has no unavenged defeats against them in his prime or near prime...

To me Ray Leonard's career ended and was defined by his upset split decision over Marvin...He was never the same after that night, the subsequent fights against Hearns Duran, LaLonde, Norris, and the debacle against Macho Cammacho notwithstanding...