HBO special "Thrilla in Manila"

[I Feel Fine]

None of it? Really? So suggesting that arguably the greatest fight in boxing history, Ali-Frazier I, was not a competitive fight is not distortion? Suggesting that Frazier should have won the second fight; something that no one besides Frazier, his team, and a handfull of crackpots really believes? Few people at the time thought it a controversial decision. Or suggesting that Ali's holding is the only thing that won him the 2nd fight? Particularly noting what I said about Frazier's fouls and the referee mistakenly helping Frazier in the 2nd round by pulling Ali off him because he thought the bell had rang? Something they failed to note? Why didn't they name other instances of a Heavyweight champion losing points for holding? They didn't, because they couldn't have, it has probably happened two or three times at most. The only examples I can think of is paper champ Boncrusher Smith losing only one point against Tyson and Akinwande being DQ'd against Lewis; and anyone who compares those fights to Ali-Frazier II doesn't know boxing from bowling. Or pulling out all of Ali's dirty laundry in regards to his name calling of Frazier, but ignoring their appearance on the Mike Douglas Show, ignoring Frazier getting arrested for beating up a girl a few years ago. We can only talk bad about Ali's private life but not Frazier's? That is a clear whitewashing of Frazier. Suggesting Frazier was even with Ali going into the 15th round of Manila? The number of people who thought that is probably even less than the number of people who had him winning the second fight. Or what about their nitpicking Futch's decision to stop the fight? I think it is almost universally believed that Futch did the right thing. I have only seen one person suggest that it was a wrong decision, a total lunatic troll who no one took seriously. No one took it seriously then, but do take it seriously now, just because some HBO documentary said so? That is the kind of thinking that gets people killed in the ring. Sorry, but this stuff is not merely a "different perspective" it is distortion. Some of these are outright lies. Just because they are directed against Ali and for Frazier, and that this is considered a novelty, does not make it any less of a distortion. Try being objective.

[dempseyfire]

How is it 'distortion' if some said they thought Frazier maybe should been given the chance to continue? (I don't recall anyone saying flat-out that Frazier definitely should have gone out for the 15 round) Frazier had taken a frightful beating in the 13 and 14th rounds but when you add in the fact that Ali's tank was pretty much empty and he himself may have retired in the corner, it simply raises up some interesting questions. And there is nothing wrong with that. The doc didn't paint Futch as some sort of cruel badger for stopping the fight, quite the contrary, it clearly displayed the bad shape Joe was in at the time.

[I Feel Fine]

How is it 'distortion' if some said they thought Frazier maybe should been given the chance to continue? (I don't recall anyone saying flat-out that Frazier definitely should have gone out for the 15 round) Frazier had taken a frightful beating in the 13 and 14th rounds but when you add in the fact that Ali's tank was pretty much empty and he himself may have retired in the corner, it simply raises up some interesting questions. And there is nothing wrong with that. The doc didn't paint Futch as some sort of cruel badger for stopping the fight, quite the contrary, it clearly displayed the bad shape Joe was in at the time.

I love how you pull out one thing, and ignore everything else. This is the sort of thing I am talking about; it is easy to cherry pick in an effort to try to make someone look better/worse; but it is not legitimate reporting.

Sorry, Eddie Futch did a pretty good thing in the eyes of the vast majority of people, he didn't want to see Frazier get killed and no one has been stupid enough to question that decision up until now; with the exception of granberry. Another whitewash in the documentary is that it fails to note that Frazier by that stage was throwing arm punches with no power, while one of the few things that the documentary did do accurately was show that Ali still had more than enough left on his punches to wobble Frazier several times a round. I think that as much as Frazier's being unable to see went into Futch's decision. Nitpicking Futch is ungallant and revisionist. Particularly considering that Futch is no longer here to defend himself.

[I Feel Fine]

Again, like the documentary, you guys are cherrypicking my post and not addressing everything that I addressed. The way they depicted the first fight, for one.
But, that said, when a documentary interviews one set of people with congruous opinions they are presenting a biased picture. There was no rebuttal of what was said about the second fight, and they left things out. They only talked about the controversy and did not provide the viewers with the truth; which is that few people disputed the decision at the time, outside of Frazier's team, which should go without saying I think; thats what a fighters team does, if you're familiar with the sport. They only mention Futch's protest to make Frazier look better, while when they show Dundee complaining about the decision in the first fight they only do it to make Ali and his team look like sore losers; which they were. But so was Frazier and his team after the second fight. They said nothing of Frazier's fouls, or of the 2nd round.
They asked two or three people, if I recall, about what their scores were for the third fight; one had it for Ali, and I believe one or two had it even. By doing that they suggest that people were divided; which they weren't. The least they could have done was mention that most had Ali ahead at that point, including the judges. But they didn't; for a reason.
The point about Frazier's private life is relevant because the documentary makes it seem as though Frazier was just a nice guy who was victimized. Frazier is not an angel, Frazier has done worse things than call an opponent ugly, and if calling someone ugly requires not one, but two documentaries, then maybe they can mention that poor Joe living in a crappy apartment is not the Rocky character of Rocky V and VI.
The documentary implied many things, exaggerated many things, when it was not outright lying. And, sorry, when you interview a couple of guys who say that 1+1=10, and you don't challenge that opinion or give an opposing view, you are presenting distorted information. The only guy on Ali's side was Pacheco, probably used because he had quite a bad attitude towards the interviewer. Angelo Dundee probably would have said complimentary things about Frazier, which would not have been quite as sexy.
But, hey, if you see the documentary as unbiased, fine. But if that is the case, why do I always hear complaining about Ali documentaries? What is the difference, exactly, other than quantity? That documentary was less biased than When We Were Kings? Where?

[I Feel Fine]

Consider what I said before about that Ali documentary "Through the Eyes of the World." I consider their presentation of Manila biased. Not because the narrator says "Ali dominated" but because they interview Pacheco who pretty much implies that, and they do not give a contrary perspective. If you interview someone who is saying something untrue, and you don't challenge it or give the other side, then you are presenting a distorted picture.

You addressed everything I said? Whatever man. I guess you never saw the first fight, assuming you saw any of them. Any asshole can chop up a fight and try to give an audience a false impression, like this documentary does of the first fight, and does this with parts of the third fight, implying that Frazier simply beat up Ali after rounds 4-5, as though Ali didn't fight back until Frazier's eyes magically closed. Frazier certainly won those rounds and dominated many of them, but the fact remains, it was not Chavez-Camacho from 4-11. Before Toney fought Sam Peter, Showtime did a pre-fight show where they interviewed Toney, and while discussing the Roy Jones fight, Toney said that he landed the better punches and implied that he should have won the decision. As he said this, Showtime showed clips of Toney landing two right hands on Jones; probably the only real punches Toney landed in the whole fight. I guess that wasn't bias either, simply because Showtime didn't say "Toney was robbed." Please, are these the first documentaries you've ever seen? Are you unaware that film makers can imply things without having to come out and say them?

[I Feel Fine]

Laughable? I was thinking the same.

The film did indeed say that much of Ali's ideas and rhetoric were the result of his membership in the Nation of Islam, and implied that Frazier was victimized by this. But, again, it was a suggestion, based on a real tension in Britain that actual Brits have reported on for years. I didn't say it as a fact.

My emphasis, instead, was on the fights, the reporting of which they did distort. Nothing you have said here has even approached disproving my assertion. You can't even bring yourself to admit that they distorted the first fight. Probably because you haven't seen the first fight.

[I Feel Fine]

yes they did distort, it wasn't an easy win for frazier, but im not talking about that. that has nothing to do with your claim that they suggested frazier should have won the second. which they didnt, they also didnt suggest that the only reason ali won was because of holding. they are things you said that were not true.
as for islamic tension in this country, yes there is some, and it has increased over the last few years. but to suggest they made this documentary to ridicule the faith seems a very outlandish claim to me, with absolutely no basis in reality.
we aren't going to agree, the film is there for everyone else to see, and so are your comments.
also to claim they should mention fraziers arrest 20-30 years after the basis of the film seems pointless to me. why would they put that in?

Regardless of the second fight, one of my first objections to the documentary was its treatment of the first fight.
What part of "suggestion" do you not understand? It was a passing comment I made, which may or may not be true. Is it unreasonable to think that the more someone might dislike Islam, the more they might dislike Ali? I sometimes wonder if Ali in recent years hasn't gotten more criticism from American fans for that reason. Its a natural assumption; its still an assumption, I am not saying it as a fact.
I think I made my point rather clear about Frazier's arrest. I think it is relevant because he is not the sympathetic character the film made him out to be; he is not some poor Rocky VI character down on his luck. He is a bitter guy who is no better and no worse than Ali. A lot of people today actually feel bad for Frazier because of Ali's taunts; this is a guy who made around 11 million dollars to fight Ali, which was a huge amount of money for an athlete of that time. Would they feel so bad for him if they knew he hit a woman? Would people like Ali better if they knew that he was the second or third person to visit Ken Norton when he had his near fatal, career ending car accident? I don't know. I do know it has nothing to do with boxing.
And, sorry, that documentary damn well did imply that had Ali not been allowed to hold so much that Frazier would have won. Which is nonsense for more than one reason.
But you're right that it has all been said, and people can see the film for themselves.

[I Feel Fine]

Well, look, you're allowed to your opinion. It struck me that they were implying that the second fight was a robbery, and they did not present any opposing views about the second fight, which they easily could have done. All they had to do was have someone say "most people thought Ali won the rematch, and the referee helped Frazier in the second round, though it was an accident." Which is the truth.

[I Feel Fine]

Incidentally, Ali was later sued by Perez for (I think) close to 50 million dollars, because Ali said to the press that Perez had helped Frazier and Wepner in their fights against him and that Perez was a crooked ref. Yet the documentary, and certainly the people it quotes, imply that Perez was Ali's buddy. Maybe Perez should have sued Frazier too...

Point is, though there often is some bias in boxing, this is not an example. Fighters did not lose points back then for this sort of thing, even today they rarely do. Some are quick to point out that Ali never lost a point, but none of his opponents ever lost points either, with the sole exception of Bonavena who lost 1. This despite all the low blows, kidney punches and head butts that he took in his career against Frazier alone, much less Chuvalo and others. Fighters to this day rarely lose points for holding, while fighters are penalized for low blows whether they are intentional or not and even when they're on the border. Frazier's fouls were worse than Ali's minor infractions, they just were not as obvious. Its easier to spot a clinch than a head butt. Marvin Hagler was the same way, Roberto Duran was the same way; they would rough up opponents with fouls, but they were good at hiding it and they never lost points. But anyone can tell you about Wladimir Klitschko's holding, because you can't miss it. That's boxing. Some fighters like Rocky Marciano were blatant foulers, anyone could point out his fouls, but he was the Heavyweight champion and no referee was going to have sympathy on some poor SOB who couldn't handle it. That's life. Marciano's opponents could only have wished that all Rocky had done to them was hold them. Look at Don Cockell. And people are selective in the fighters they downgrade for fouling. Some people, who will remain nameless, downgrade Ali for holding, while ranking Harry Greb the best fighter in boxing history. Surely there is nothing wrong with giving Greb that ranking, but he was one of the roughest, dirtiest fighers ever. Ali was not even an amateur in the fouling department compared to someone like Greb. So why the special treatment for Greb? Because they like Greb better. That is all well and good, but it is hypocritical. Jack Dempsey was no angel in the ring either. I personally try not complain too much about fighters who foul, so long as it does not go too far; it is part of the game. I don't think less of Frazier or Duran or Greb or others for their rough tactics. But I hardly am going to go nuts over clinching, either, which is much less serious; again, so long as it does not go too far. Ruiz and Bonecrusher Smith are a different story.

[Jeff1313]

I watched Easter night, for the first time, the Thrilla in Manila HBO special. I was not surprised by the continued bitterness expressed by Joe Frazier. He has a right to be bitter; he was Ali's foil even before the March 1971 fight in the Garden, he was not recognized as the true champion in many quarters, and, he lost ignominiously to George Foreman TWICE. Further, he did lose the middle fight with Ali and was terribly beaten-up in the Thrilla in Manila. I am a student of boxing from the Golden Age of the '50s through the early '80s before the alphabet soup sanctioning bodies started to appear. At this moment in time I do not even know the identify of the true heavyweight champion. However; I do know quite a bit about the Ali/Frazier trilogy. Let's get some facts straight. The 1971 fight in The Garden, won by Joe, was the fight which was scored even through 14 rounds. NOT the fight in Manila. If Ali would have come out in the 15th round in 1971 and rocked Joe rather than getting knocked down he would have won that fight. The middle fight was a hum-drum affair which Ali easily won 9 rounds to 6; Joe never came close to getting to him.
I urge all nay-sayers to find a copy of Sports Illustrated from the first week of October, 1975 The article about the fight tells the story. It was described as a fight in three acts (and indeed if you have watched it as often as I have watched it you would agree). The first act was Ali dominating Frazier in rounds 1 through 5. Not just the first couple; but 5 straight rounds. Most people have those first 5 rounds scored either 4 to 1 for Ali or 4 for Ali with one round even. Rounds 6 through 10 were a different story. Frazier took it to Ali during those rounds and gave it all he had. I was listening to the radio and the wire service reports read round by round. I will never forget the wire service reporter stating at the end of round 8 that "it looks like the title may change hands tonight". But, Frazier burned himself out. He could not put down Ali even with shots which would have felled a horse. If you watch the end of the 10th round carefully you will see the tide again shifting. Ali dominated rounds 11 through 14. Indeed, Rounds 13 and 14 were so brutal that even 34 years later they remain disturbing and difficult to watch.
The nonsense about Ali wanting to quit on his stool and asking that the gloves be cut off is mostly fiction. If you watch the corner and read about what took place and what was said in the days following the fight you would know (something HBO must not have researched) that Ali made a reference to cutting off his gloves so as not to KILL Joe in the 15th round. It was clear that Frazier was ready to have his brain fissure into two hemispheres; he was out on his feet and blind. Ali (like most human beings) dreaded the thought of killing another human being. He was a conscientious objector regarding the the Vietnam War and his religion prohibited killing other people. So; the reference to the gloves relates to his fear that he might kill Joe in the 15th round. Eddie Futch knew this; he knew that Frazier could be killed if he went back out there. He courageously stopped the fight and, truth be told, Joe did not really object all that much at the time.
The HBO movie was clearly from Joe's perspective and was very sympathetic to Joe. Joe Frazer, in my book, remains an all time Top 10 heavyweight boxer. He joins the ranks of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Liston, Holmes, Tyson and a few others from the distant past. But, that era of the 1970s had heavyweight boxers who could have been champion in almost any other era. Ken Norton. Ron Lyle. Cleveland Williams. Ernie Shavers. Oscar Bonavena.
All in all; the HBO movie was interesting but biased. I enjoyed it. I do take umbrage with Larry Homes' remark that Ali was overrated.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

However; I do know quite a bit about the Ali/Frazier trilogy. Let's get some facts straight. The 1971 fight in The Garden, won by Joe, was the fight which was scored even through 14 rounds. ......
.......The nonsense about Ali wanting to quit on his stool and asking that the gloves be cut off is mostly fiction. If you watch the corner and read about what took place and what was said in the days following the fight you would know (something HBO must not have researched) that Ali made a reference to cutting off his gloves so as not to KILL Joe in the 15th round. It was clear that Frazier was ready to have his brain fissure into two hemispheres; he was out on his feet and blind. Ali (like most human beings) dreaded the thought of killing another human being. He was a conscientious objector regarding the the Vietnam War and his religion prohibited killing other people. So; the reference to the gloves relates to his fear that he might kill Joe in the 15th round. Eddie Futch knew this; he knew that Frazier could be killed if he went back out there. He courageously stopped the fight and, truth be told, Joe did not really object all that much at the time.

- Been a while since I've seen so much nonsense condensed into one post.

Here's the rounds scoring of Ali/Joe l, hardly close to even going into the last round: ~ referee: Arthur Mercante | judge: Artie Aidala 6-9 | judge: Bill Recht 4-11 | judge: Arthur Mercante 6-8 ~

As to Ali wanting to quit on his stool, well, got some history here with Liston 1, so I guess he was telling Angie to cut off the gloves to keep from killing Liston? Blame Angie for these stories and the Cooper story of tearing the gloves to buy time. There's your source of nonsense right there, so are we to discount everything Angie says?

I don't know what to believe with Angie, but Ali collapses at the end of the fight just like his other near death experience in Zaire. He was quite fortunate to persevere with official and corner assistance in many fights, not the dominance and ease his fans claim. Best take the win and shush about the porkies.

As to Ali's religion, well, they capped Malcolm X which Ali supported as he had been told by Elijah that Malcolm had been kicked out of the cult. NOI was a dangerous, fire breathing murderous cult who tried to kill Malcolm's family by firebombing his house previous.

As to Joe being tired on his feet, he was so tired that he was bouncing around like the energizer bunny champing at the bit to get at Ali before the fight is stopped. He was nearly blind, but he started the fight half blind to begin with. He knows he could've gone another 3 mins, but it's doubtful that Ali could go another 3, thus the bitterness with Futch and resentment that Ali ends up with most of the accolades.

[BoxBuzz]

So....one exaggeration followed by another exaggeration.......don't let me inhibit the telling of tall tales gentlemen...just keep it up....all very entertaining. Though the fight itself is entertainment enough for most.

However, sometimes it just is what it is. In this case, two greatly skilled and motivated fighters met, and on that night in Manilla one was better than the other when it counted most....near or at the end of the fight. The stop was humane, and Ali was tested...and he happened to pass that test. But no better man to give that test...and he gave it all no doubt. I don't think anyone of us would want to have been either of them by fights end. One man took the victory, but the word "winner" is hard to apply when so much was extracted from both.

[I Feel Fine]

Ali was not trying to quit against Liston, he wanted to get Liston DQ'd for putting stuff in his eyes. "I'm going to prove there's dirty work afoot."
Ali was surrounded by people crowding him trying to hug and kiss him. He sort of went down to the canvas in Zaire after he KO'd Foreman because the ring was mobbed with people trying to grab and hug Ali. He was dead tired, but there's no reason to assume that if round 15 continues that Ali would have simply collapsed. Whose to say?
The notion that Frazier had any energy left is ridiculous. He had been throwing arm punches for three rounds. Ali was totally out hustling him.
Anyone who claims that Ali received help from officials in these Frazier fights just doesn't know what he's talking about.

[observer1]

Ali was not trying to quit against Liston, he wanted to get Liston DQ'd for putting stuff in his eyes. "I'm going to prove there's dirty work afoot."
Ali was surrounded by people crowding him trying to hug and kiss him. He sort of went down to the canvas in Zaire after he KO'd Foreman because the ring was mobbed with people trying to grab and hug Ali. He was dead tired, but there's no reason to assume that if round 15 continues that Ali would have simply collapsed. Whose to say?
The notion that Frazier had any energy left is ridiculous. He had been throwing arm punches for three rounds. Ali was totally out hustling him.
Anyone who claims that Ali received help from officials in these Frazier fights just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Agreed

[Collins2000]

Ali was not trying to quit against Liston, he wanted to get Liston DQ'd for putting stuff in his eyes. "I'm going to prove there's dirty work afoot."
Ali was surrounded by people crowding him trying to hug and kiss him. He sort of went down to the canvas in Zaire after he KO'd Foreman because the ring was mobbed with people trying to grab and hug Ali. He was dead tired, but there's no reason to assume that if round 15 continues that Ali would have simply collapsed. Whose to say?
The notion that Frazier had any energy left is ridiculous. He had been throwing arm punches for three rounds. Ali was totally out hustling him.
Anyone who claims that Ali received help from officials in these Frazier fights just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Agreed

+1

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

So....one exaggeration followed by another exaggeration.......don't let me inhibit the telling of tall tales gentlemen.

- You can blame the 100+ Ali bio cottage industry. I'm just repeating stuff that Dundee and Pecheco supposedly claim. Do you also object to my use of a boxrec scoring record?

I do know from going through half of those bios, plenty of stories retold with alterations. Same deal with box rec which keeps "updating" record weights, results, scoring, and news account.

[BoxBuzz]

Judging by round 14, It seems Ali would have found one more adrenaline burst for the final 3 minutes facing a rather defenseless Joe Frazier. I think that's a better assumption than the assumption that he could not have possibly finished the fight. It's more absurd to assume that his pride would have suddenly and for the first time let him down and he just quits on his stool at round 14.
And unless he just fell down out of the chute, his corner would have pushed him out there and unless Joe finished him off his legs and his pride would have likely carried him another 3 minutes.

The "story" of him planning on calling it a day at that critical juncture is just more innuendos that legendary fights are made of. The "it all could have been very different but for Futch" just adds luster/drama to the moment.

[Jeff1313]

This article says quite a bit about the trilogy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... id=2174061

I agree with the last post; no way does Ali quit on his stool. Nor would have Joe if Eddie Futch had not stopped the fight. But as the author of the article points out; Ali was comfortably ahead and Frazier could only win with a knock-out (not going to happen).

I did not realize that after all these decades there is still so much resentment of Ali.

And I do make two observations on my March 1971 score. It was roughly even after 11 not after 14.
But; when I score the fight, I score Frazier with a win but much closer than the "official" cards.

And, speaking of which. Has anyone watched the Hagler/Leonard fight and scored it "honestly"?? I loved Sugar Ray Leonard; he was one of my all time favorites. But he did not outpoint Hagler in that fight. I have watched it a dozen times over the years and I always score it the same; Hagler 9 to 6.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

This article says quite a bit about the trilogy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... id=2174061

I agree with the last post; no way does Ali quit on his stool. Nor would have Joe if Eddie Futch had not stopped the fight. But as the author of the article points out; Ali was comfortably ahead and Frazier could only win with a knock-out (not going to happen).

- I find most articles about the Thrilla to be part of the cottage industry stuff. Joe is portrayed with "red eyed hatred, legs gone in the 13th, taking a onesided beating" type of stuff your link ascribes to.

Ali made Joe boiling mad before a fight. Joe just wanted to whup him. Joe pressed Ali hard those last rounds, bobbing and weaving. He was really outworking Ali who was limited to backpeddling, holding and ropadope inspersed with brief flurries of mostly arm punches which usually missed or caught the top of Joe's head, technically scoring, but not outworking Joe's body punching.

The only time Joe's in serious trouble is late in the 14th when Ali times in some hurtful intent, but Joe's still winging punches, still pressing. Moreover, the scoring is irrelevant in the moment as no corner should have known the scores.

Nobody can possibly know the final result had the fight gone one more round. The conclusion of the 14th favors Ali heavily, but Ali could never even deck Joe and barely interrupted his forward movement over the whole of their trilogy.

So I find it disingenuous when the claim is Futch wanted to preserve Joe from humiliation of being KOed. All I've ever heard from Futch is he wanted to save Joe from further punishment which could mean a lot of things.

Given the state of both fighters at the end of the 14th, probably it's good it was stopped. It's just a shame that Joe has to suffer in the rankings due to Futch being the more conscientious, magnanimous trainer than Dundee. But who knows what Dundee was considering?

One story is Joe had an ear in Ali's corner who heard Ali was gonna quit, but got caught up in the crowding mayhem surrounding the ring apron anticipating the last round and never made it to Joe's corner with the news before Futch pulled the plug.

As to Marv/Ray scoring fiasco, this fight should be the gold standard for discussions on how to improve scoring since there were two close splits and then the complete stinker having Ray pitch a near shutout.

Ray made it a tough fight to score and Marv wasn't on top of his game. It's that one judge, Jose Juan Guerra, that makes decsion so outrageous. That and Ray's actions after the fight permanently earn a lifetime of animus towards him by many of his now former fans.

[I Feel Fine]

Unmitigated nonsense. But I suppose anyone who suggests that Mercado was robbed in the Hopkins rematch probably would be the kind of simple liar who would deny that Frazier was dominated at the end of that third fight. Sorry brought, maybe this works on people who have not seen these fights, but I get the sense that most people on this forum have. Frazier was the one throwing arm punches in those championship rounds, Frazier was wobbled several times, even this bullshit documentary could not deny that Frazier was getting dominated at the end of this fight.

[Collins2000]

Unmitigated nonsense. But I suppose anyone who suggests that Mercado was robbed in the Hopkins rematch probably would be the kind of simple liar who would deny that Frazier was dominated at the end of that third fight. Sorry brought, maybe this works on people who have not seen these fights, but I get the sense that most people on this forum have. Frazier was the one throwing arm punches in those championship rounds, Frazier was wobbled several times, even this bullshit documentary could not deny that Frazier was getting dominated at the end of this fight.

People like BRR, DaveV and granberry can't see beyond their hatred. Sad little men.

I wonder if other sporting forums (ie non boxing) have clowns like this whose sole role is to entertain the real fans?

[dempseyfire]

Unmitigated nonsense. But I suppose anyone who suggests that Mercado was robbed in the Hopkins rematch probably would be the kind of simple liar who would deny that Frazier was dominated at the end of that third fight. Sorry brought, maybe this works on people who have not seen these fights, but I get the sense that most people on this forum have. Frazier was the one throwing arm punches in those championship rounds, Frazier was wobbled several times, even this bullshit documentary could not deny that Frazier was getting dominated at the end of this fight.

Here we'll agree IFF

BBR is just an instigator who flat-out LIES about a fight as if no-one else can view the film themselves. Frazier was getting pounded on those last two rounds. I do think it simply raises up an interesting question if the fight had gone on considering how exhausted ALi was, but hell if I'd been Futch I woud've stopped the fight too . . Frazier's punches had nothing on them and he was taking flush head shot after head shot.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

This article says quite a bit about the trilogy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... id=2174061

- Another flaw in the article is this pic claimed to be of Frazier:


It was Ali's camp that was allowed to mingle with the Marcos, not Frazier's camp, just like Ali was given a King's welcome in Zaire by another ruthless tinhorn dictator, Mobutu.

I'm guessing the chap dancing with Imelda is Howard Bingham, but I ain't guessing that it ain't Joe, I know it ain't Joe.

Anyways, I provide point by point relevant facts and am followed around unceasingly by silly boys who provide nothing but there opinions to refute me. Maybe on the street corner their opinion is worth 25 cents a pop, but fortunately there are many others on this forum that do provide very significant dialogue.

[I Feel Fine]

The situation in Manila was so corrupt and so in Ali's favor that, as even the documentary acknowledged, Frazier actually got the referee he preferred. Shocking, scandalous. The Ali conspiracy was larger than we could possibly imagine.

[Flump]

This article says quite a bit about the trilogy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... id=2174061

- Another flaw in the article is this pic claimed to be of Frazier:


It was Ali's camp that was allowed to mingle with the Marcos, not Frazier's camp, just like Ali was given a King's welcome in Zaire by another ruthless tinhorn dictator, Mobutu.

I'm guessing the chap dancing with Imelda is Howard Bingham, but I ain't guessing that it ain't Joe, I know it ain't Joe.

Anyways, I provide point by point relevant facts and am followed around unceasingly by silly boys who provide nothing but there opinions to refute me. Maybe on the street corner their opinion is worth 25 cents a pop, but fortunately there are many others on this forum that do provide very significant dialogue.

It's Don King mate, it says so in the caption.