BoxRec

Stamina wasn't the same in the later rounds. I would favor '68 Ali to win against Frazier, or '71 Ali for that matter if he isn't coming off a long layoff.

It's difficult to quantify it (at least, that's always been my take), but I think Ali looked better than the general consensus is on him (I think people consider him weaker than he really was, in part, because he lost to Frazier). I do believe the Ali of '71 was reasonably close to his peak, &, as I said, probably better than most consider.

Having said that, he wasn't the same. The difference is visible.

That, "50% version" one-liner earlier in this thread takes the cake on the subject

If I were forced to choose between the Frazier of '71 & the Ali of, say, '66-67, I would tentatively back a tight Ali decision.

I Feel Fine wrote:Stamina wasn't the same in the later rounds. I would favor '68 Ali to win against Frazier, or '71 Ali for that matter if he isn't coming off a long layoff.

You touched on what I was saying about the difficulty for me in quantifying how much Ali had lost. You say his endurance had suffered (which sounds reasonable, given the circumstances), but how to be sure? No one ever pushed, pressured & hurt him, pre-exile, to anywhere even close the extent Frazier did that night.

I actually base it more on what he did in later fights. Ali was usually a lot better in the championship rounds, he certainly was in Manila where he was able to get a second wind when Frazier was throwing arm punches.
That said, the extra speed he had in the 60s would have helped. If Ali is able to avoid getting pushed into the corners even just a little bit less than he was in the 70s fights, it does help him a lot.

I see. What was your take on his endurance in the fight with Bonavena, then?

He looked terrible against Bonavena, period. The knockout puts a silver lining on a terrible performance. If you need any evidence that he was rusty coming off his layoff, that fight is a pretty obvious case. He looked sort of like Ray Robinson against Tiger Jones.

He certainly rose to the occasion against Frazier, though. That's the class of him (as a fighter, anyway).

I had him sweeping the first five rounds.

He did rise to the occasion, and fighters have won big fights in worse condition than Ali was in. If it had been Sam Peter and not Joe Frazier who was champion on that night then Ali wins the belt as easily as Vitali did coming off a long layoff. It was a legit win for Frazier, I would just say that we shouldn't forget who won the trilogy, which is more important than any one fight, and we shouldn't forget that Ali was not at his absolute peak in any of the three fights.

True. Common knowledge, though, who the better fighter was.

That's fair but personally I subscribe to the view that Ali was very close to his prime in '71. I know that a lot of people will disagree but to them I say look at the fight. Did he not look great ? Hands as fast as ever, sharp and accurate with his punches and to me it looked like he sat down more on his punches and punched harder than before. But he didn't dance people will say. Did he dance against Chuvalo ? In fact did he ever dance for 15 rounds in his entire career ? The dancing Ali is a myth, he would never, at any stage of his career, been able to dance for 15 against Frazier. In '71 he fought a great fight but why is it so hard to acknowledge that Frazier was even better ? Had this fight taken place in '68 I believe Frazier would have won in much the same fashion.

Well... I just don't see it that way. To the contrary, I don't think he looked anything close to his 1967 form in the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights. He certainly wasn't as quick or mobile. Some say he came back "stronger," which I think is wholly unrealistic. Humans simply do not gain strength from ages 26 to 29 unless they engage in serious strength training -- usually weights. Ali never lifted a weight in his life. As for "training" during that period, it was non-existent. He more or less sat around eating for the entire 3 1/2 years. He came back older and thicker, to be sure, but not stronger -- how could he have? I think the Ali of 1967 would have pitched a near shut-out against the Ali of 1971. And, given that the over-the-hill version of Ali in the 1970s beat Frazier 2 out of 3, I think the prime Ali of 1967 would have beaten him 10 outta 10.

As for the first Chuvalo fight, which has become something of a chimera for Ali haters -- my view is that it has nothing to do with anything. Chuvalo had maybe the best chin of all time-- a characteristic that allowed him to walk into Ali standing up in a way Frazier could never have done. But Chuvalo was not a great puncher and never had the cardio to really press hard for 5 rounds, let alone 12 or 15, in a row without pausing to catch his breath. He landed a few punches -- at a price of about 5 to 1, incidentally --but never troubled Ali and, let's face it, he lost nearly every round. Indeed, had Ali and Chuvalo had fought 1,000 times, I imagine the tally would have been pretty close to Ali 1,000, Chuvalo 0.

Again, just my humble opinion, gentlemen.

I'm between you two (Hhaere or whatever his name is, & Mr. E) on the scale as to where Ali was, but closer to Hahera (Bloody hell!).

I'm also inbetween, but I lean towards Mr. E.
Ali looked way better against Chuvalo in '66 than he did against Chuvalo in '72. Chuvalo himself said that he wasn't the same fighter.

I Feel Fine wrote: I would just say that we shouldn't forget who won the trilogy, which is more important than any one fight, and we shouldn't forget that Ali was not at his absolute peak in any of the three fights.

- Apparently Ali never had a peak according to the elite Ali supporters. Of course that ignores that even more so Frazier and, yes, Tyson, never had a true peak of potential not to be confused with career peak, a lesser figure.

Ali won the trilogy, eh? Glad you finally got around to reading your email.

There were 3 "Fights of the Century" in the 2nd millennium, Jeffries/Johnson, Louis/Schmeling 2, and Frazier/Ali 1. Unfortunately, Ali didn't win his.

We know Joe, Jimmy. and Kenny all KNOW they beat the jinn out of Ali. It's good for Ali that he won 5 of those 7 fights in the record books, but the video will outlive him and shows he never outclassed them, even in the single "KO" victory.

Just sayin'........

Frazier never beat Jumbo Cummings. For shame.

Frazier fans have a lot of "e-mails" to read, this debate about who was better ended during the Ford administration. You can't re-fight Joe's battles for him.

One thing I do give credit to Ali for I probably haven't mentioned in the past is taking three fights, following his loss to Frazier, before the year was out. That, I like. It was a hellacious beating Ali absorbed (& absorbed like a champion, to be fair) against Frazier, but he was back on the horse (beginning with top-ranked Jimmy Ellis, no less) for the first of a hat-trick of battles over the next nine months.

Today's Heavyweights would retire if they ever ran into a foe capable of pummeling them the way Frazier did Ali, let alone consider fighting multiple bouts over the next several months. Fair play to Frazier for sitting out, though --- the battle meant more to him on a personal level than it did Ali, &, given their styles (& even allowing for Frazier's far superior hitting power), he copped a beating & a half in return for his success. The kidney problems probably also played a part. It's no discredit to the champ for resting on his haunches for a bit --- just impressive on Ali's part he didn't really slow down after the fact.

Mr E wrote: Well... I just don't see it that way. To the contrary, I don't think he looked anything close to his 1967 form in the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights. He certainly wasn't as quick or mobile. Some say he came back "stronger," which I think is wholly unrealistic. Humans simply do not gain strength from ages 26 to 29 unless they engage in serious strength training -- usually weights. Ali never lifted a weight in his life. As for "training" during that period, it was non-existent. He more or less sat around eating for the entire 3 1/2 years. He came back older and thicker, to be sure, but not stronger -- how could he have?

I said he sat down more on his punches thus punching harder, not that he came back stronger. As for him sitting around eating for 3 1/2 years, it's really not relevant unless he came back fat and out of shape which he clearly did not.

Mr E wrote: I think the Ali of 1967 would have pitched a near shut-out against the Ali of 1971. And, given that the over-the-hill version of Ali in the 1970s beat Frazier 2 out of 3, I think the prime Ali of 1967 would have beaten him 10 outta 10.

See this is were I fail to take you seriously. Certainly the Ali of 1967 could have beaten Frazier but to suggest that '67 Ali wins 10 out of 10 is imo ludicrous. Do you not agree that Frazier (and Norton for that matter) had the style to trouble Ali ? What would the superhuman Ali of 1967 have done differently from the decrepit wreck of '71 to shut out Frazier ?

Mr E wrote: As for the first Chuvalo fight, which has become something of a chimera for Ali haters -- my view is that it has nothing to do with anything. Chuvalo had maybe the best chin of all time-- a characteristic that allowed him to walk into Ali standing up in a way Frazier could never have done.

It seems like any attempt to convey a balanced view of Ali as a fighter is met with shouts of "Ali hater"
Are you suggesting that Frazier never walked Ali down ? Chuvalo, like Frazier, was a pressure fighter and he was at times able to back Ali up and trap him on the ropes. He could do this only because of his chin you suggest while as Frazier I assume would have been knocked out by the pre-layoff Ali if he had ever tried to force the fight like he did in 1971 ?

Mr E wrote: But Chuvalo was not a great puncher and never had the cardio to really press hard for 5 rounds, let alone 12 or 15, in a row without pausing to catch his breath. He landed a few punches -- at a price of about 5 to 1, incidentally --but never troubled Ali and, let's face it, he lost nearly every round. Indeed, had Ali and Chuvalo had fought 1,000 times, I imagine the tally would have been pretty close to Ali 1,000, Chuvalo 0.

I never said that Chuvalo fought Ali close or that he ever could have. My point was that Ali at times was not able to get away from him, even the infallible pre-layoff version of Ali.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'm between you two (Hhaere or whatever his name is, & Mr. E) on the scale as to where Ali was, but closer to Hahera (Bloody hell!).

happy to hear that Ierne

I'd pick Frazier in a match up of peak versions of the two fighters. In fact I think they were both pretty much at their peaks when they fought in the first one.

I won't defend a lot of what Mr. E said but, again, the Chuvalo comparison is off the mark. To see the second Ali-Chuvalo fight you would think that Ali would lose every round to Frazier. All one need do is read what Chuvalo said comparing 60s Ali to 70s Ali. It is all well and good to say that Ali had many tools left when he came back, he certainly did, but it is revisionist history to say that he was the same or better, especially when an opponent who he fought in both decades can testify to the contrary.
To say that Ali's lack of training and his being over weight during his inactive years does not matter is ludicrous. You cannot be serious with that comment. To my understanding he helped Jimmy Ellis train for Quarry, which was likely the most work he did during that exile, but otherwise he was not in the gym much and by 1970 he was not in any kind of boxing condition, believing that he would never fight again. To say that this had no effect on his immediate comeback is not credible analysis.
I don't see how people can pick Frazier peak for peak, but that is fair enough, it is subjective and we will never know. What I really don't understand is the constant repetition of how Ali was at his "peak" in the first fight. Even if he was, which I sort of doubt, it isn't really what keeps people from accepting that win as definitive. Leonard was certainly in his prime years for Kevin Howard... so what? Ali was 29, which I think most would agree is a prime year, but that is not really the issue. The issue is that he was not ready for that kind of fight after being back for only five months. He looked terrible with Bonavena and had to rush the Frazier fight because he had a Supreme Court date that Summer. You're telling me that Frazier would be ready to fight a prime, active Ali in five months after being off for 43 months? I doubt it.
In the end, these discussions are academic. Ali does not need excuses, he won the trilogy. They were around the same age (Ali a year older), they fought many of the same opponents (though Ali had others who Joe never met like Liston or Patterson or Norton or Lyle), if Frazier couldn't cut it in the long haul that does not help his case. That said, Joe was still a great fighter in the rematches, still very much one of the three best Heavyweights in the world, Foreman included. He crushed Quarry in the rematch like it was nothing, and Quarry was coming off arguably his best wins.

I Feel Fine wrote:I won't defend a lot of what Mr. E said but, again, the Chuvalo comparison is off the mark. To see the second Ali-Chuvalo fight you would think that Ali would lose every round to Frazier. All one need do is read what Chuvalo said comparing 60s Ali to 70s Ali. It is all well and good to say that Ali had many tools left when he came back, he certainly did, but it is revisionist history to say that he was the same or better, especially when an opponent who he fought in both decades can testify to the contrary.
To say that Ali's lack of training and his being over weight during his inactive years does not matter is ludicrous. You cannot be serious with that comment. To my understanding he helped Jimmy Ellis train for Quarry, which was likely the most work he did during that exile, but otherwise he was not in the gym much and by 1970 he was not in any kind of boxing condition, believing that he would never fight again. To say that this had no effect on his immediate comeback is not credible analysis.

I am not analyzing his bad diet or lack training during his layoff, why would I ? My point is that he was in shape for Frazier so why would I look for reasons he might not have been in shape ?

I Feel Fine wrote: I don't see how people can pick Frazier peak for peak, but that is fair enough, it is subjective and we will never know. What I really don't understand is the constant repetition of how Ali was at his "peak" in the first fight. Even if he was, which I sort of doubt, it isn't really what keeps people from accepting that win as definitive. Leonard was certainly in his prime years for Kevin Howard... so what?

A slight difference here, Leonard looked like shit against Howard while Ali fought a great fight vs. Frazier in 1971.

I Feel Fine wrote: Ali was 29, which I think most would agree is a prime year, but that is not really the issue. The issue is that he was not ready for that kind of fight after being back for only five months. He looked terrible with Bonavena and had to rush the Frazier fight because he had a Supreme Court date that Summer. You're telling me that Frazier would be ready to fight a prime, active Ali in five months after being off for 43 months? I doubt it.

Again it matters not how he looked against Bonavena (who incidentally made everyone he fought look bad), what he ate while he was suspended wether he was rushed into Frazier or any other intangible fact pertaining to the suspended Ali. What matters first and foremost has to be how he actually looked in the fight and he looked great in my humble opinion. I see nothing in his career up to 1967 that leads me to conclude he would have had an easy time with Frazier in 1968 or at any other time for that matter.

Of course the bog standard line from the fanatics when it comes to the elusive Ali prime is that he never had one. I guess he would have developed a punch, a body attack and probably grown a third arm had he not been suspended and then he would really have beaten up on poor Frazier.

He did look great... until he hit the championship rounds and was not able to get a real second wind. An active Ali will not have that problem.
Ali fanatic? Really? Because I am citing an actual boxer who fought him in both decades and who said by first hand experience that he wasn't the same? Get serious. I never said that Ali would have an easy time in '68, don't confuse me with Mr. E, I said in an earlier post that I believe that Frazier would always give Ali a tough fight.
The suggestions that we should ignore his inactivity and his being out of real fighting shape during his layoff are not quite worth commenting on any further, nor is your comment about Bonavena. If you want to say that a normal Ali would still have difficulty with Bonavena, fine, but to say that an active Ali would look that bad against Bonavena as he did in their real bout in 1970 where his timing was a mess and where he was sloppier than ever, reminiscent of any rusted boxer, shows that you either did not see the fight or are trying to convince those who did not.
Ali needed to develop a punch... really? When did Ali become Chris Byrd? It is amazing that after everything Ali accomplished that we are still in 1962 hearing about how this Clay kid doesn't hit hard enough, doesn't go to the body enough, holds his hands too low. The purists will never understand; hence granberry. Ali wasn't Foreman or even Patterson in the punching power department, but Frazier got stunned once or twice, to say the least.

It's a fair point about the second wind...

But I'm not sure. Up until Frazier Ali had not really needed a 2nd wind in any of his fights. Then Ali post Foreman showed again and again how he could dig deep and be the boss of those championship rounds BUT by this point he was much less active in fights. He was pacing himself differently.

Frazier made him work harder than he'd ever had to work before. Ali had the greater career and I'd pick him to beat more of the greats than Joe, but I'd pick Frazier to beat Ali in one of our mythical match ups (and the 71 fight virtually was a mythical match up).

I Feel Fine wrote:He did look great... until he hit the championship rounds and was not able to get a real second wind. An active Ali will not have that problem.

A valid point but I feel the fading had more to do with the tremendous pace of the fight, the high volume of punches Ali threw and the punishment he soaked up.

I Feel Fine wrote: Ali fanatic? Really? Because I am citing an actual boxer who fought him in both decades and who said by first hand experience that he wasn't the same? Get serious. I never said that Ali would have an easy time in '68, don't confuse me with Mr. E, I said in an earlier post that I believe that Frazier would always give Ali a tough fight.

The fanatic comment was not directed at you, I apologize if it came out that way

I Feel Fine wrote: The suggestions that we should ignore his inactivity and his being out of real fighting shape during his layoff are not quite worth commenting on any further, nor is your comment about Bonavena. If you want to say that a normal Ali would still have difficulty with Bonavena, fine, but to say that an active Ali would look that bad against Bonavena as he did in their real bout in 1970 where his timing was a mess and where he was sloppier than ever, reminiscent of any rusted boxer, shows that you either did not see the fight or are trying to convince those who did not.

Where did I state that Ali looked good against Bonavena ? Sure he looked sloppy, sure he was rusty and his timing was way off but he was sharp as ever against Frazier so why bring up the Bonavena fight ? Had he looked rusty against Frazier sure, but he didn't so the Bonavena fight obviously served it's purpose and can not explain his loss to Frazier.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:True. Common knowledge, though, who the better fighter was.

Agreed.

Common knowledge abounds as to who was the better fighter on that one special night when both men were near peak.

Well a more active Ali with a busier schedule not coming off the long layoff showed in Manila that he could fight at a high pace and get a second win and beat Frazier. I think he showed in many of his fights that he was great in the championship rounds. There is something to the idea that he was better able to pace himself in later fights, but making adjustments and winning is what all great boxers do, which is why Ali won the trilogy and Frazier didn't and which is why one fight is never more important than a series. My point about Bonavena is that he showed rust, he was better against Frazier but the rust was still there in the late going. It is one thing to say that the pace and Frazier's punches slowed him down, that goes without saying, but you would expect Ali to be able to get more of a second wind than he had in that fight, and in a close fight the difference of two or three rounds is important.
Between the rematch in the Garden and the rubber match in Manila, Ali has nothing to prove to Joe Frazier. Aside from their head to head fights, Frazier never regained the belt like Ali did, never beat Foreman, didn't fight the Liston's or the Patterson's or the Lyle's, didn't fight Shavers at 35 as an easy target, Joe had less defenses, Joe turned pro when Ali was champion and left for his real retirement (aside from the Cummings misadventure) when Ali was champion... Joe's career falls short of Ali's in every conceivable way, never mind that he lost head to head 2/3. Frazier's hardcore fans do not like it, but he comes out second best however you want to look at it.