BoxRec

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 09:40**

The Great John L wrote:
ThatOne wrote:As for him ducking Young, Lyle, and Shavers. he was clearly past it for Young and Shavers though I think he earned the decision against Shavers. I am not going to argue about Young. If that fight was Ali's "gold watch" so be it.
Sorry, but you really don't get it. I wasn't really saying that Ali ducked any of these guys, just providing examples that could be more legitimately considered ducking rematches than the silly premise that Frazier was afraid to grant Ali a rematch.

My guess is that you weren't alive during this era or you would better understand how silly it is to suggest that Frazier was somehow afraid to rematch Ali.

I was certainly alive at the time. I still have my dog eared copy of "Loser And Still Champion".

Another poster insinuated that Frazier had Ali's number. To paraphrase Ali. "How wrong that is."

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 09:53**

ThatOne wrote:The point was made that Frazier had Ali's number. To paraphrase Ali. "How wrong that is."

Well, it is pretty silly to say that Frazier had Ali's number, especially given the results of the 3 fight series. However, I don't think Frazier feared anyone.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 10:00**

The Great John L wrote:
ThatOne wrote:The point was made that Frazier had Ali's number. To paraphrase Ali. "How wrong that is."
Well, it is pretty silly to say that Frazier had Ali's number, especially given the results of the 3 fight series. However, I don't think Frazier feared anyone.

Fear is a strong word and I don't think Frazier feared anybody. I do think he had a lot of respect for Ali as a fighter and realized there was little upside in a rematch just as Ali saw little upside in a rematch with Big George. In the latter case Ali had lost the tactical advantage. I don't think Ali is super-human. At that point in his career he needed something special to beat George hence the rope a dope. If he would have fought George the way he fought Norton and Frazier in the fights that preceded it he would have probably lost.

IMHO, what makes Ali special was his intangibles.

In my opinion Muhammad Ali learned his lessons from the FOTC and would have won if there was an immediate rematch just as Ray Leonard learned his lessons in Montreal against Roberto Duran and came back to win the rematch. You can say that's speculation but they did fight two more times and although Joe inflicted a lot of damage, especially in the rubber match, Ali eventually prevailed.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 10:05**

ThatOne wrote: I concede your point about segmenting an athlete's career into pre-prime, prime, and post prime can be taken to absurd levels but someone needs to do it when you have posters on this board arguing that his performances against Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, and even Larry Holmes were emblematic of his career.

Don't bother, mate. There's no need to respond to anyone who thinks the Spinks and Holmes fights mean anything. Young? I think Young is a difficult opponent for any HW ever so struggling with him at any point in your career shouldn't be seen as a blemish.

ThatOne wrote: Ali was 49-2 after Manila. He ended his career 56-5. He was a desultory 10-3 in his last thirteen fights and a heartbreaking 1-3 in his last four fights. I don't think it's overly subjective to suggest that the post Manila Ali was past it.

We're in agreement. He was past it. I think partly due to his legend and partly due to his durability (and earning potential) he hung on there for longer than was good for him.

ThatOne wrote: Why isn't enough to say an athlete who best his opponents two out of three times at roughly equivalent times in their career is probably the better athlete?

Again we're in agreement. I think everyone accepts that. It's the prime H2H match up we don't agree on....

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 10:07**

Ezzard wrote:
ThatOne wrote: I concede your point about segmenting an athlete's career into pre-prime, prime, and post prime can be taken to absurd levels but someone needs to do it when you have posters on this board arguing that his performances against Jimmy Young, Leon Spinks, and even Larry Holmes were emblematic of his career.
Don't bother, mate. There's no need to respond to anyone who thinks the Spinks and Holmes fights mean anything. Young? I think Young is a difficult opponent for any HW ever so struggling with him at any point in your career shouldn't be seen as a blemish.

ThatOne wrote: Ali was 49-2 after Manila. He ended his career 56-5. He was a desultory 10-3 in his last thirteen fights and a heartbreaking 1-3 in his last four fights. I don't think it's overly subjective to suggest that the post Manila Ali was past it.
We're in agreement. He was past it. I think partly due to his legend and partly due to his durability (and earning potential) he hung on there for longer than was good for him.

ThatOne wrote: Why isn't enough to say an athlete who best his opponents two out of three times at roughly equivalent times in their career is probably the better athlete?
Again we're in agreement. I think everyone accepts that. It's the prime H2H match up we don't agree on....

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 10:16**

We juat have a difference of opinions.

Joe Frazier was a great pressure fighter. IMHO, the greatest of all time; even better than Rocky. He was a bit bigger, a bit stronger, and quite a bit faster. They both also were willing to take four punches to get in their one. I'd pick Frazier against almost any boxer who put on a pair of gloves.

That being said. Frazier won the FOTC 9-6. I am of the opinion that if there would have been an immediate rematch Ali would have learned his lesson and came back to win a decision. We will never know because Frazier refused to give Ali a rematch for whatever reason. That forces us to look at the entire trilogy.

As an aside how different would history be , yes history and boxing histoty be if Frazier doesn't avoid Ali and in avoiding Ali become a trophy for George Foreman.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 10:46**

ThatOne wrote: Joe Frazier was a great pressure fighter. IMHO, the greatest of all time; even better than Rocky. He was a bit bigger, a bit stronger, and quite a bit faster. They both also were willing to take four punches to get in their one.

I hate when people say this. Frazier’s style wasn’t that he was “willing to take four punches” to get in his one. If you think this, you really didn’t pay attention during his fights. While he took more punches than he gave in a few of his fights, in general, his constant head movement when he was at his best caused most punches thrown his way to either miss, or to land as glancing shots. He was actually quite a good defensive fighter given his style. The whole take 4 to land one is just one of those cliché’s TV announcers like to use but has little to do with reality.

There may be times in fights when a fighter is desperate enough to take many more shots than they can land, but that can be said of just about any fighter in particular situations.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 10:54**

The Great John L wrote:
ThatOne wrote: Joe Frazier was a great pressure fighter. IMHO, the greatest of all time; even better than Rocky. He was a bit bigger, a bit stronger, and quite a bit faster. They both also were willing to take four punches to get in their one.
I hate when people say this. Frazier’s style wasn’t that he was “willing to take four punches” to get in his one. If you think this, you really didn’t pay attention during his fights. While he took more punches than he gave in a few of his fights, in general, his constant head movement when he was at his best caused most punches thrown his way to either miss, or to land as glancing shots. He was actually quite a good defensive fighter given his style. The whole take 4 to land one is just one of those cliché’s TV announcers like to use but has little to do with reality.

There may be times in fights when a fighter is desperate enough to take many more shots than they can land, but that can be said of just about any fighter in particular situations.

Your point is well taken however even partially deflected head shots by a slugger like George Foreman will get you killed.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 11:17**

ThatOne wrote:Your point is well taken however even partially deflected head shots by a slugger like George Foreman will get you killed.

Not the point, and not relevant. The shots George dropped Joe with were not glancing.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 11:27**

The Great John L wrote:
ThatOne wrote:Your point is well taken however even partially deflected head shots by a slugger like George Foreman will get you killed.
Not the point, and not relevant. The shots George dropped Joe with were not glancing.

Maybe because after getting hit by the first glancing one his patented head movement became non-existent, ergo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI8EQTa1cbM

It sure seems the first punch at the 2;15 wasn't a clean shot.

And if all the blows George landed were clean what does that say about the utility of Joe's style against a big puncher who is willing to eat his punches on his way to getting in his?

It seems your argument diminishes Frazier.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 12:30**

ThatOne wrote:And if all the blows George landed were clean what does that say about the utility of Joe's style against a big puncher who is willing to eat his punches on his way to getting in his?

I didn't say that "all the blows George landed were clean". It's rather difficult discussing a topic with you since you always seem to want to interpret my words into your own.

Let's just make this easier for you.

Joe Frazier was afraid of Ali after the FOTC and did everything he could to avoid a rematch, unlike Ali who always gave rematches, except for when his skills had diminished significantly.

And Joe Frazier loved to get hit by his opponents, usually letting them hit him so that he could land one big shot.

Better?

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 13:22**

If you think that is what I said there is nothing I can say to disabuse you of the notion that it isn't. I can only speak to the modern era but I don't think there was ever as anticipated a rematch in all of sports as an Ali-Frazier rematch up until Frazier's loss to George Foreman. That loss took a lot of luster off the rematch but of course not the rubber match as Ali was the champion then. Of course what started this whole litlle tete a tete was the suggestion that Frazier's style was an inherently bad matchup for Ali;something essentially he could not overcome or at least not overcome until Frazier's skills had eroded. My retort to that was if that was the case Frazier would be foolish not to give Ali an "immediate" rematch. The fact that he didn't leads credence to my suggestion that his style wasn't.

As for Joe Frazier's relentless style I merely remarked that he was willing to absorb mutiple punches to get in his. I don't think I ever implied or suggested Joe razier liked to be hit. I don't think any boxer likes to be hit though it did seem the mythical Rocky Balboa really didn't mind.

Posted: **04 Dec 2009, 13:34**

dempseyfire wrote:
Mr E wrote:
ThatOne wrote:Beat

a prime

Jersey Joe Walcott

Ezzard Charles

Archie Moore

Rocky Marciano
I think the Ali of Manilla was the last great version of Ali. So, still "great" but, IMO, inferior to the Ali of 1967.

Nevertheless, I'd make Ali the favorite in all these fights, except in the one against the Rock. I'd make that fight even money.
Was he still really great or just in a great fight?

For example, I just Norton beating the Manilla Ali pretty much as comprehensively as he did Ali the next year (despite the judges). Young would've also given him another very close fight. The way the styles clashed and the fact that Ali and Joe would both past it made it a great fight. But that Ali vs the unorthodox counterpunching style of a peak Walcott. I think the 75 Ali would be embarassed frankly.

Ah, who the Hell knows how these things would've played out? IMO, Ali, even the Ali of 1975, would've been too big and too tough for Walcott. I strongly suspect that Walcott would have found that, at 6' even with whatever his reach was, it was awfully damn hard to 'counterpunch' that long left lead Ali would've been bouncing off his head the whole fight long. I cannot imagine Walcott embarassing Ali.

I think Manila took a lot out Ali, meaning that the Ali of the 3rd Frazier fight was a LOT better than the Ali whom we saw after the 3rd Frazier fight.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 00:14**

Mr E wrote:
Mr E wrote:
ThatOne wrote:Beat

a prime

Jersey Joe Walcott

Ezzard Charles

Archie Moore

Rocky Marciano
I think the Ali of Manilla was the last great version of Ali. So, still "great" but, IMO, inferior to the Ali of 1967.

Nevertheless, I'd make Ali the favorite in all these fights, except in the one against the Rock. I'd make that fight even money.
Was he still really great or just in a great fight?

For example, I just Norton beating the Manilla Ali pretty much as comprehensively as he did Ali the next year (despite the judges). Young would've also given him another very close fight. The way the styles clashed and the fact that Ali and Joe would both past it made it a great fight. But that Ali vs the unorthodox counterpunching style of a peak Walcott. I think the 75 Ali would be embarassed frankly.

Ah, who the Hell knows how these things would've played out? IMO, Ali, even the Ali of 1975, would've been too big and too tough for Walcott. I strongly suspect that Walcott would have found that, at 6' even with whatever his reach was, it was awfully damn hard to 'counterpunch' that long left lead Ali would've been bouncing off his head the whole fight long. I cannot imagine Walcott embarassing Ali.

I think Manila took a lot out Ali, meaning that the Ali of the 3rd Frazier fight was a LOT better than the Ali whom we saw after the 3rd Frazier fight.[/quote]

So did Ali vs Lyle, Bugner II, and Wepner look much better than he did in Norton III, Shavers and Dunn?

I agree Ali was a more depleted fighter after Manilla but not to the extent that the change was drastic.

To me the last Ali that was great in an all-time sense was in Zaire.

Too big and tough for Walcott? That's absurd. When was Joe 'out-toughned'? And he had a perfect style for getting inside on bigger fighters with his foot and head slips/movement.

Reviewing more film of Walcott last night I practically have little doubt he would've beaten the mid-late 70s Ali soundly. Awful stylematchup for a slower Ali who relied on gamesmanship, flurries and conditioning to beat his better opponents post-Zaire.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 07:02**

The largest man Jersey Joe beat was Hein Ten Hoff and he weighed twenty five pounds less than Ali. We don't have a Jimmy Young situation here. The Ali of Quezon City was not the Ali of Landover Maryland.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 07:37**

"I agree Ali was a more depleted fighter after Manilla but not to the extent that the change was drastic"

I respectfully disagree. I agree with Mark Kram when he wrote that both Ali and Frazier came to Manila as an is and left as a was.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 11:15**

He would of beat them all - Ali was supreme that night. His well was bottomless.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 14:12**

overhand_right wrote:He would of beat them all - Ali was supreme that night. His well was bottomless.

The revisionists will tell you he was ready to quit that night. He was ready to die that night to defend his title.

I do think Ali created his own problems with Frazier. If he didn't taunt him so much Frazier might have treated the fights as fighting a better version of Jimmy Ellis. I think Ali's "mind games" might have actually made things harder on himself.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 14:23**

ThatOne wrote:The largest man Jersey Joe beat was Hein Ten Hoff and he weighed twenty five pounds less than Ali. We don't have a Jimmy Young situation here. The Ali of Quezon City was not the Ali of Landover Maryland.

Hoff weighed 219 when he fought Joe compared to Ali's less than optimal 224 vs Frazier . . . that's a 5 lb difference not 25 lbs . .

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 14:37**

dempseyfire wrote:
ThatOne wrote:The largest man Jersey Joe beat was Hein Ten Hoff and he weighed twenty five pounds less than Ali. We don't have a Jimmy Young situation here. The Ali of Quezon City was not the Ali of Landover Maryland.
Hoff weighed 219 when he fought Joe compared to Ali's less than optimal 224 vs Frazier . . . that's a 5 lb difference not 25 lbs . .

My bad. Then we would have to get past the fact he's no Muhammad Ali. In fact I would wager the done but proud Ali of Spinks ll or the The Drama In The Bahamas could have beat Hein Ten Hoff.

The Ali of Mainla still had magnificent hand speed and reflexes. As Eddie Futch said "Ali fought a smart fight. He conserved his energy, turning it off when he had to. He can afford to do it because of his style. It was mainly a question of anatomy, that is all that separated these two men. Ali is now too big, and when you add those long arms, well ... Joe has to use constant pressure, and that takes its toll on a man's body and soul."

Ezzard , The Mongoose, and Jersey Joe could be as cute and slick as they wanted to be that Ali still had a lot of gas in the tank. He could have traded with them all night like he did with Smokin Joe.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 15:49**

Off topic I know, but I always been intruiged to know what would have happened if Ali & Frazer had fought their first fight in late 1972 instead?

Ali had a mini revival in 1972 (he was fighter of the year); he'd shaken off the ring rust & his legs came back briefly before deserting him again by 1973. He was only 30; he had filled out a little, but he wasn't too heavy & of course he would have been more confident (I'm saying that as if he wasn't in 1971!!

)

He didn't have any 'legs' in 1971 & that in part is what lead to his defeat against Frazier.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 17:25**

ThatOne wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:
ThatOne wrote:The largest man Jersey Joe beat was Hein Ten Hoff and he weighed twenty five pounds less than Ali. We don't have a Jimmy Young situation here. The Ali of Quezon City was not the Ali of Landover Maryland.
Hoff weighed 219 when he fought Joe compared to Ali's less than optimal 224 vs Frazier . . . that's a 5 lb difference not 25 lbs . .

My bad. Then we would have to get past the fact he's no Muhammad Ali. In fact I would wager the done but proud Ali of Spinks ll or the The Drama In The Bahamas could have beat Hein Ten Hoff.

The Ali of Mainla still had magnificent hand speed and reflexes. As Eddie Futch said "Ali fought a smart fight. He conserved his energy, turning it off when he had to. He can afford to do it because of his style. It was mainly a question of anatomy, that is all that separated these two men. Ali is now too big, and when you add those long arms, well ... Joe has to use constant pressure, and that takes its toll on a man's body and soul."

Ezzard , The Mongoose, and Jersey Joe could be as cute and slick as they wanted to be that Ali still had a lot of gas in the tank. He could have traded with them all night like he did with Smokin Joe.

OK, now it's clear you have irrational praise for Ali which makes you incapable of objective opinion.

Hoff was a huge guy, 84' reach and was one of the most accomplished German HW amateurs in history, winning 185 of 194 amateur bouts. He was not a great but was a good fighter and a huge puncher and I have little doubt the Ali of Spinks II or Berbick would've been beaten by him.

In boxing, guys coming straight at you like Frazier aren't hard to find, and while very tough are the good opponents for guys whose legs and reflexes have gone south but who still have the durability to go to war. Walcott and Charles would've forced Ali to find them, and he would've been too slow of foot and reflexes to react sufficiently. Hell, a peak Walcott was better than anyone Ali beat in his prime sans Liston and would've given him a tough fight at any stage of his career.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 17:42**

Joe Walcott would have never beat George Foreman and Joe Frazier. That's why boxing historians don't have Walcott amywhere those two in all time rankings.

Berbick was a better fighter than Hein Ten Hoff. He went the distance with Larry Homes and beat some decent fighters. If a done Ali could have a competitive fight with him he would have a competitive fight with Hein Ten Hoff.

To show how objective I am I will say Frazier beats Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Marciano that night in Manilla.

Posted: **05 Dec 2009, 20:36**

ThatOne wrote:Joe Walcott would have never beat George Foreman and Joe Frazier. That's why boxing historians don't have Walcott amywhere those two in all time rankings.

Berbick was a better fighter than Hein Ten Hoff. He went the distance with Larry Homes and beat some decent fighters. If a done Ali could have a competitive fight with him he would have a competitive fight with Hein Ten Hoff.

To show how objective I am I will say Frazier beats Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Marciano that night in Manilla.

How is that objective? You are saying Frazier beats them so Ali's win looks better!

I rank Ali very highly and at his peak was one of the top 3 heavyweights to ever fight. But you are severely over-rating his 1975 incarnation as well as under-rating Walcott and Charles.

Posted: **06 Dec 2009, 09:19**

dempseyfire wrote:
ThatOne wrote:Joe Walcott would have never beat George Foreman and Joe Frazier. That's why boxing historians don't have Walcott amywhere those two in all time rankings.

Berbick was a better fighter than Hein Ten Hoff. He went the distance with Larry Homes and beat some decent fighters. If a done Ali could have a competitive fight with him he would have a competitive fight with Hein Ten Hoff.

To show how objective I am I will say Frazier beats Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Marciano that night in Manilla.
How is that objective? You are saying Frazier beats them so Ali's win looks better!

I rank Ali very highly and at his peak was one of the top 3 heavyweights to ever fight. But you are severely over-rating his 1975 incarnation as well as under-rating Walcott and Charles.

I think Smokin Joe was a great fighter who would have shined in any era. His work rate was unsurpassed. There were no rest periods with him. I like him against heavyweight in modern history except George Foreman and possibly Joe Louis. Joe Louis said he didn't like to be pressed and nobody would have pressed him like Joe Frazier.

I think prime Joe beats other top ten fighters like Liston, Holmes, and Marciano. I do think a primer, focused Lenox Lewis and Evander Holyfield would do well against him. I have to think if they could beat him.

BoxRec

Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla

Re: Would The Muhammad Ali That Fought Joe Frazier In Manilla