BoxRec

scallum wrote:Rumble in the Jungle was the biggest fight of the career of Ali

scallum wrote:Rumble in the Jungle was the biggest fight of the career of Ali

hhaehre wrote:

scallum wrote:Rumble in the Jungle was the biggest fight of the career of Ali

It became big after the fact. Before the fight Ali was given no chance, it became big because he won against the odds. As for Manila, it was believed to be an easy fight for Ali as Frazier was considered shot. It too became bigger after the epic battle where Frazier pushed Ali to the limit but unlike FOTC the 'right' man won.

Saying Zaire or Manila was bigger than FOTC is like saying Tyson-Douglas was bigger than Tyson-Spinks.

Ambling Alp II wrote:So we are now skipping Liston and Patterson? Figures.
Yes, lets keep pretending that none of the other opponents ever beat anyone any good.

Holmes got decked a couple of times, got 2 decisions that could have gone the other way, had fights where he didn't look good, and fought his share of of mediocre opponents and missed fighting several more worthy opponents.

And of course he beat some good fighters, and usually looked pretty good.

Giancarlo wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:...I think Ali DID in fact beat Frazier all 3 times they fought (including the fight of the century, I had it 9 rounds to 6 for Ali)...

Oh man, wait until Nancy sees that.

She will go mental again.

Jesus bless.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Must be some reference to Marvin Hart, Jimmy Ellis, or Greg Page.

There is also apparently a machines that gives you excuses for all of your pro losses.

Apparently you can get one that has classics like;

1. I just wasn't right.
2.He held too much (Doesn't matter that he hit me a lot more than I hit him, I was saved in the 2nd round by an imaginary bell, or that Jack Johnson, Lennox Lewis, John Ruiz held more than my opponent did.)
3. "I would have won except my horrible trainer stopped the fight". Doesn't matter that I could not see the other guys punches, that I did not complain about the stoppage at the time, or that had that I had horrible trainer in my corner for my next fight.
4. I am such a dumba$$ that I wore contacts in a fight so that is why I lost.

Another feature is the summation of your career: In all of my losses, I was not at my best. In all of my wins, my opponents were at their best.

Special Tidbit-Beating an opponent once out of three is better than winning two out of three.

As a special bonus the machine will even give you an excuse for a key amateur loss. How about" I lost because my opponent's trunks were too high".

SenorPipino wrote:

yancey wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:Had the FOTC 8-6-1 for Frazier.
Have to chuckle when some opine that Ali having a whole 18 rounds in the previous 4 years was an advantage over Frazier. Yeah sure, that's a lot of activity for a guy who didn't rely on punching power but rather speed and reflexes.
Ali needed at least 2 more fights against durable opponents before taking on the rugged Frazier. He didn't because he was uncertain how the Supreme Court would rule in June 1971 and whether or not he would be imprisoned. He sought the largest purse available to provide for his family in case he languished behind bars for the next 5 years.
Not a myth. The truth.
And somebody thought the Thrilla in Manila was a slow motion affair? Sheesh.

Let me guess, in your world Ali lost to Holmes because of another "layoff", right?

Those "layoffs" are absolutely devastating to one of such exquisite timing and reflexes, I guess.

I mean, Ali didn't spend one second of time in any gym sparring with not one other boxer between 1967 and 1970,
right?

Next up, I guess it will that sparring in no way remotely resembles actual ring combat and is counter-productive to maintaining one's basic timing and reflexes, right?

You don't fool me. Ali was ready on 3/8/71 and just got licked.

And the 1975 fight was in no way fought at the same level as the FOTC.



p.s. Sheesh.

Ali lost to Holmes because he was finished. Being 38, having early stages of Parkinsons, and going up against an ATG, were the reasons he lost.
No, sparring is hardly the same as actual ring combat. I though everyone knew that. You used the correct word though--"resembles." It's might look like actual fight work, but it's not the real thing.
Don't know how much actual sparring Ali had in the 3 1/2 years he laid off (do you?) but in no way did any minimal gym work prepare him fully for an historic comeback.
And why do you deride Ali's layoff and 18 rounds of activity in 1970, yet bemoan Frazier not having had an actual fight for (WOW) 6 months? Actually only 4 months. Was Frazier tainted by a layoff?
Ali was prepared as much as possible in a minimal amount of time. He was in good condition but not good enough. Few fighters could accomplish what he did with so little preparation. Lucky for Frazier he wasn't at his peak level that night.
You're one of the few who actually has something derogatory to say about Manila. Both guys were older but they put on an all-time great classic performance. Only one of the most memorable fights in heavyweight history, and you think it was fought at a "lower level." You should have told that to Ali and Joe.
Sheesh, Sheesh and triple Sheesh.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Would not be that surprised if someone thinks that; I once heard that Ali was in his prime when he lost to Spinks, so not much surprises me anymore.

Over the years, on this forum people have stated I have heard that Ali should not have got decisions vs Doug Jones, Ken Norton twice, Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers,Alfredo Evangelista, Leon Spinks, and Joe Frazier.
Also, he would have lost to Cooper if he had not got way too much time to recover, both of the Liston fights were fixed, Foreman was not really counted out, Lyle should not have been stopped,Frazier's trainer should have allowed his blind fighter to continue because he would have knocked out Ali in the last round.

However, say that Ali was not as his best following a three and half year layoff, and that is just crazy talk. Not mention, that apparently going 1-2 is better than 2-1 as well, because you can just say the fight your guy won is more important.

Yet somehow, some way, it is the pro "Ali myth machine" that must be stopped.

I agree that plenty of what has been said about Ali is pure bs. and that the pendulum has gone too far the other way on this forum. He did clearly beat Jones, he would have beaten any version of Liston, He did not get more than a few seconds extra rest vs. Cooper, the Lyle TKO was fine, he edged Shavers and while Foreman did receive a fast count, Ali would have won regardless just as he would have won a fair decision in Manila if Frazier had been allowed to come out for the last round. I have never heard anyone say that Evangelista beat him or that he should have lost Spinks II

However, he should not have gotten the decision vs. Young nor should he have been given the nod in Norton III and he got away with illegal tactics in the second Frazier fight. Illegal tactics that arguably won him the fight. Finally, he lost the biggest fight of his career. He lost it but annoyingly to some, he performed great in his loss and that really makes it hard to drum up an excuse for it. Hard, but as we have seen on this board, far from impossible.

SenorPipino wrote:

yancey wrote:Bonavena would always present tough moments and a struggle. We're not talking Brian London here.

I really think some of you believe that '66 Ali floats and dances and stings all 15 without ever the need to steal time.

That would be a myth, lads.

How can it be a myth? Nobody, pure and simple, has suggested it up except you. It's simply your opinion. Apparently you've been overdosing from your own invention---a short-circuiting "Ali myth machine."
The Bonavena fight in '70 was an ordeal because of the layoff, not only because Oscar was so awkward. Watch the fight, don't just fantasize it as you want it to be.
Ali struggled with his timing, stamina, and balance.
He would have had the same difficulties against any worthy foe. It was his first 15 round fight in nearly 4 years.

SenorPipino wrote:

Il Duce[b] wrote:Most would agree,[/b]That a November 1969 bout between Joe Frazier vs. Muhammad Ali would have
have ended up with 'Smokin Joe' as the winner, most likely by a TKO late.

Not sure if Muhammad would have retired, as he probably would have come back
in mid-1970 and score wins over Floyd Patterson {August 1970} and Jerry Quarry
{October 1970} and Oscar Bonavena {December 1970}.

This would set up the March 1971 rematch with World Champion - Joe Frazier.

March 1971, 'Smokin Joe' wins again, this time by a solid and Unanimous 15-Round Decision.
{See FOTC}.

Muhammad will ask for an immediate rematch and third bout with 'Smokin Joe', but it
is not to be.

Most would agree? Most would agree??
Was a Gallup Poll conducted that came to that result?
More likely, most would probably agree that if Ali met Frazier in 1969, which is considered by many to be Ali's unseen prime, Ali would win comfortably, most likely by decision.
If a largely inactive Ali with only 18 rounds behind him in 4 years, can give Frazier all he could handle in 1971, then the active 1969 version would dance and jab even a prime Joe silly.
There's got to be a reason why just about all ATG heavyweight polls list Ali well ahead of Frazier. It's because prime 2 prime, most would agree that Ali comes out the winner.

Il Duce wrote:I thought Muhammad Ali reached his 'peak' in March 1971.

Unfortunately, he lost when he was at his 'Professional Best'.

It Happens Sometimes.......

Talent stays with Talent..............

Ted Williams could have hit .300 at Age 45.

And Muhammad Ali didn't go to sleep for 3 1/2 years. He was working out all the time, boxing exhibitions.


Age 29 for Heavyweight is 'Prime'

Il Duce