BoxRec

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote: Sarcasm dutifully noted.

Not that it is worth noting.

Hey, moron, I was agreeing with you. I'm a BIG Joe Frazier fan. He's my favorite heavyweight. I don't think he's the ATGest heavyweight, but he's my favorite. The difference between you and me (other than about 100 points in my favor in the IQ scale) is that (a) I also think Marciano was a special fighter, and (b) I don't think the way to build up Frazier is to tear down Marciano. Geez . . .

I read too much into your original post.

I was giving you a little too much credit on the slickness scale.

p.s. Frazier #5 ATG, Ali #1 (surprised, ThatOne?), Marciano, somewhere in the second 10. The films don't lie and the dirtiness bothers me.

How can you read "too much" into " Yep, Joe won the fight that counted the most!"?

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Sarcasm dutifully noted.

Not that it is worth noting.

Hey, moron, I was agreeing with you. I'm a BIG Joe Frazier fan. He's my favorite heavyweight. I don't think he's the ATGest heavyweight, but he's my favorite. The difference between you and me (other than about 100 points in my favor in the IQ scale) is that (a) I also think Marciano was a special fighter, and (b) I don't think the way to build up Frazier is to tear down Marciano. Geez . . .

I read too much into your original post.

I was giving you a little too much credit on the slickness scale.

p.s. Frazier #5 ATG, Ali #1 (surprised, ThatOne?), Marciano, somewhere in the second 10. The films don't lie and the dirtiness bothers me.

How can you read "too much" into " Yep, Joe won the fight that counted the most!"? [/quote]

Are you finally through with changing your post? For such a brilliant guy, you keep changing it.

I admit I misinterpreted your original statement.

I have had enough bad experiences with you that it threw me off a bit when you appeared to agree with my position and I thought you might have been being sarcastic.

It seems to me you would come to accept that my viewpoint of Rocky is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to uplift Frazier.

They each stand on their own merits. I sincerely feel that Rocky is overrated. When I studied the records of many of his opponents one day on BR, I was astounded.

You've accused me, more than once, of hating Rocky. I don't and it bothers me just a bit that you keep repeating that.

But whatever.

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote: Sarcasm dutifully noted.

Not that it is worth noting.

Hey, moron, I was agreeing with you. I'm a BIG Joe Frazier fan. He's my favorite heavyweight. I don't think he's the ATGest heavyweight, but he's my favorite. The difference between you and me (other than about 100 points in my favor in the IQ scale) is that (a) I also think Marciano was a special fighter, and (b) I don't think the way to build up Frazier is to tear down Marciano. Geez . . .

I read too much into your original post.

I was giving you a little too much credit on the slickness scale.

p.s. Frazier #5 ATG, Ali #1 (surprised, ThatOne?), Marciano, somewhere in the second 10. The films don't lie and the dirtiness bothers me.

How can you read "too much" into " Yep, Joe won the fight that counted the most!"? [/quote]

Are you finally through with changing your post? For such a brilliant guy, you keep changing it.

I admit I misinterpreted your original statement.

I have had enough bad experiences with you that it threw me off a bit when you appeared to agree with my position and I thought you might have been being sarcastic.

It seems to me you would come to accept that my viewpoint of Rocky is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to uplift Frazier.

They each stand on their own merits. I sincerely feel that Rocky is overrated. When I studied the records of many of his opponents one day on BR, I was astounded.

You've accused me, more than once, of hating Rocky. I don't and it bothers me just a bit that you keep repeating that.

But whatever.[/quote]

Yeah, I toned it down a bit because you seem to have a problem with the concept of sarcasm . . .

raylawpc wrote:

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Sarcasm dutifully noted.

Not that it is worth noting.

Hey, moron, I was agreeing with you. I'm a BIG Joe Frazier fan. He's my favorite heavyweight. I don't think he's the ATGest heavyweight, but he's my favorite. The difference between you and me (other than about 100 points in my favor in the IQ scale) is that (a) I also think Marciano was a special fighter, and (b) I don't think the way to build up Frazier is to tear down Marciano. Geez . . .

I read too much into your original post.

I was giving you a little too much credit on the slickness scale.

p.s. Frazier #5 ATG, Ali #1 (surprised, ThatOne?), Marciano, somewhere in the second 10. The films don't lie and the dirtiness bothers me.

How can you read "too much" into " Yep, Joe won the fight that counted the most!"? [/quote]

Are you finally through with changing your post? For such a brilliant guy, you keep changing it.

I admit I misinterpreted your original statement.

I have had enough bad experiences with you that it threw me off a bit when you appeared to agree with my position and I thought you might have been being sarcastic.

It seems to me you would come to accept that my viewpoint of Rocky is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to uplift Frazier.

They each stand on their own merits. I sincerely feel that Rocky is overrated. When I studied the records of many of his opponents one day on BR, I was astounded.

You've accused me, more than once, of hating Rocky. I don't and it bothers me just a bit that you keep repeating that.

But whatever.[/quote]

Yeah, I toned it down a bit because you seem to have a problem with the concept of sarcasm . . .[/quote]

As you do with the concept of graciousness.

But like I said, whatever.

You can have the last word.

Some things aren't worth it.

Ok break it up .....nothing to see here folks. Everyone. Just Move along.......

Thank you Officer Buzz . . .

FYI....That would be officer O'Buzzy.

A few points:

Why can't we look at fighters without rose colored glasses?

I don't see why one has to denigrate Marciano to uplift Frazier. I think it's fair to say that Marcianio's signature victories (Louis, Moore, Walcott,and Charles) came when those gentlemen were past their prime with some being more past their prime than others. It wasn't Rocky's fault. He beat everybody that was put in front of him. I have my doubts whether he would have fared as well had those gentleman been in their prime but we will never know. And I have my doubts how well he would have done against elite heavyweights that followed him like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier,and Lewis, to name a few but we will never now.

As to the Ali-Frazier trilogy I think it's fair to say that they went into the rubber match tied at one victory a piece and Ali won the rubber match. I just have a problem when you suggest the first fight was the only fight that counts or that one fight counts more than the other.I don't think it's unfair to say we never saw a prime Ali because his prime was taken away from him. He was certainly getting better with every fight. The post exile Ali made up with guile and plain old fashioned toughness what the exile had taken away from him which was unparalelled speed and reflexes.

Joe Frazier deserves credit for beating the best Ali that ever fought but that wasn't the best Ali because the best Ali didn't fight from the time he was twenty five until he was twenty nine.

As to the original topic Moore was much too clever for the one dimensional Baer.

Personally I never meant to Denigrate. I did however use The Rock as a benchmark for comparison.

BoxBuzz wrote:Personally I never meant to Denigrate. I did however use The Rock as a benchmark for comparison.

Arguably, there is more mythology wrapped around Rocky than there is around Ali. I would argue that great men and not mere mortals are often the foundation for myths.

ThatOne wrote:A few points:

Why can't we look at fighters without rose colored glasses?

I don't see why one has to denigrate Marciano to uplift Frazier. I think it's fair to say that Marcianio's signature victories (Louis, Moore, Walcott,and Charles) came when those gentlemen were past their prime with some being more past their prime than others. It wasn't Rocky's fault. He beat everybody that was put in front of him. I have my doubts whether he would have fared as well had those gentleman been in their prime but we will never know. And I have my doubts how well he would have done against elite heavyweights that followed him like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier,and Lewis, to name a few but we will never now.

As to the Ali-Frazier trilogy I think it's fair to say that they went into the rubber match tied at one victory a piece and Ali won the rubber match. I just have a problem when you suggest the first fight was the only fight that counts or that one fight counts more than the other.I don't think it's unfair to say we never saw a prime Ali because his prime was taken away from him. He was certainly getting better with every fight. The post exile Ali made up with guile and plain old fashioned toughness what the exile had taken away from him which was unparalelled speed and reflexes.

Joe Frazier deserves credit for beating the best Ali that ever fought but that wasn't the best Ali because the best Ali didn't fight from the time he was twenty five until he was twenty nine.

As to the original topic Moore was much too clever for the one dimensional Baer.

This is an excellent post (except for the part about Moore. If the Baer who whipped Schmeling showed up, I think Moore would have found himself in big, big trouble.)

However, neither Yancey nor I said that the first fight between Ali and Frazier was the only one that counted. I said it was the one that counted most, and Yancey said it was the most important of the trilogy. I can't speak for Yancey, but I meant that at that time, to the public, and in terms of historic impact, it was the one that counted most. I stand by that assessment. But I do think it counted more than the others because it was the one that mattered most to the greatest number of people world-wide.

When you think of the heavyweight title fights that mesmerized the nation and the world - not just boxing fans or sports fans - I think the only three that fit into that category were Jeffries-Johnson, Louis-Schmeling II, and Ali-Frazier I. I was alive and remember the electricity generated by Ali-Frazier I. Everybody was talking about it. The pressure on both men was absolutely tremendous. And it was Frazier who came out on top.

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:A few points:

Why can't we look at fighters without rose colored glasses?

I don't see why one has to denigrate Marciano to uplift Frazier. I think it's fair to say that Marcianio's signature victories (Louis, Moore, Walcott,and Charles) came when those gentlemen were past their prime with some being more past their prime than others. It wasn't Rocky's fault. He beat everybody that was put in front of him. I have my doubts whether he would have fared as well had those gentleman been in their prime but we will never know. And I have my doubts how well he would have done against elite heavyweights that followed him like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier,and Lewis, to name a few but we will never now.

As to the Ali-Frazier trilogy I think it's fair to say that they went into the rubber match tied at one victory a piece and Ali won the rubber match. I just have a problem when you suggest the first fight was the only fight that counts or that one fight counts more than the other.I don't think it's unfair to say we never saw a prime Ali because his prime was taken away from him. He was certainly getting better with every fight. The post exile Ali made up with guile and plain old fashioned toughness what the exile had taken away from him which was unparalelled speed and reflexes.

Joe Frazier deserves credit for beating the best Ali that ever fought but that wasn't the best Ali because the best Ali didn't fight from the time he was twenty five until he was twenty nine.

As to the original topic Moore was much too clever for the one dimensional Baer.

This is an excellent post (except for the part about Moore. If the Baer who whipped Schmeling showed up, I think Moore would have found himself in big, big trouble.)

However, neither Yancey nor I said that the first fight between Ali and Frazier was the only one that counted. I said it was the one that counted most, and Yancey said it was the most important of the trilogy. I can't speak for Yancey, but I meant that at that time, to the public, and in terms of historic impact, it was the one that counted most. I stand by that assessment. But I do think it counted more than the others because it was the one that mattered most to the greatest number of people world-wide.

When you think of the heavyweight title fights that mesmerized the nation and the world - not just boxing fans or sports fans - I think the only three that fit into that category were Jeffries-Johnson, Louis-Schmeling II, and Ali-Frazier I. I was alive and remember the electricity generated by Ali-Frazier I. Everybody was talking about it. The pressure on both men was absolutely tremendous. And it was Frazier who came out on top.

That's a fair point. See if you agree with this one:

In the history of boxing and in sports history the first fight is the most important. However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important. Their legacies would be very different if Ali was defeated in Manila.

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:A few points:

Why can't we look at fighters without rose colored glasses?

I don't see why one has to denigrate Marciano to uplift Frazier. I think it's fair to say that Marcianio's signature victories (Louis, Moore, Walcott,and Charles) came when those gentlemen were past their prime with some being more past their prime than others. It wasn't Rocky's fault. He beat everybody that was put in front of him. I have my doubts whether he would have fared as well had those gentleman been in their prime but we will never know. And I have my doubts how well he would have done against elite heavyweights that followed him like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier,and Lewis, to name a few but we will never now.

As to the Ali-Frazier trilogy I think it's fair to say that they went into the rubber match tied at one victory a piece and Ali won the rubber match. I just have a problem when you suggest the first fight was the only fight that counts or that one fight counts more than the other.I don't think it's unfair to say we never saw a prime Ali because his prime was taken away from him. He was certainly getting better with every fight. The post exile Ali made up with guile and plain old fashioned toughness what the exile had taken away from him which was unparalelled speed and reflexes.

Joe Frazier deserves credit for beating the best Ali that ever fought but that wasn't the best Ali because the best Ali didn't fight from the time he was twenty five until he was twenty nine.

As to the original topic Moore was much too clever for the one dimensional Baer.

This is an excellent post (except for the part about Moore. If the Baer who whipped Schmeling showed up, I think Moore would have found himself in big, big trouble.)

However, neither Yancey nor I said that the first fight between Ali and Frazier was the only one that counted. I said it was the one that counted most, and Yancey said it was the most important of the trilogy. I can't speak for Yancey, but I meant that at that time, to the public, and in terms of historic impact, it was the one that counted most. I stand by that assessment. But I do think it counted more than the others because it was the one that mattered most to the greatest number of people world-wide.

When you think of the heavyweight title fights that mesmerized the nation and the world - not just boxing fans or sports fans - I think the only three that fit into that category were Jeffries-Johnson, Louis-Schmeling II, and Ali-Frazier I. I was alive and remember the electricity generated by Ali-Frazier I. Everybody was talking about it. The pressure on both men was absolutely tremendous. And it was Frazier who came out on top.

That's a fair point. See if you agree with this one:

In the history of boxing and in sports history the first fight is the most important. However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important. Their legacies would be very different if Ali was defeated in Manila.

I don't know . . . I'd have to think about that. I certainly agree with the last sentence, however.

Okay, I've thought about it: It was the most important for Ali, not Frazier. If Frazier had not won the first fight, there wouldn't have been a "Thrilla in Manila." Of course, it would have been great if Frazier had won the Thrilla (and I was pulling for him!!), but the FOTC established him as a great fighter.

"However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important." ThatOne

Nope, Frazier prevailed in the Big One.

Nice effort, though.

You should be one of those political handlers that come on at the end of the debate and explain to the public why your guy won.

yancey wrote:"However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important." ThatOne

Nope, Frazier prevailed in the Big One.

Nice effort, though.

You should be one of those political handlers that come on at the end of the debate and explain to the public why your guy won.

That's like saying that Tomoyuki Yamashita and the Imperial Japanese Army were the ultimate victors over MacArthur and the United States military because they forced him to retreat from the Philippines and escape to Australia, only to see him liberate it in spetacular fashion a scant four years later. History has a preface, prologue, and epilogue.

Yes, the final battle defined MaCarthur's and Yamashita's legacies as Ali and Frazier's final battle defined their legacies. Frazier was lucky. Yamashita was hanged.

ThatOne wrote:

yancey wrote:"However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important." ThatOne

Nope, Frazier prevailed in the Big One.

Nice effort, though.

You should be one of those political handlers that come on at the end of the debate and explain to the public why your guy won.

That's like saying that Tomoyuki Yamashita and the Imperial Japanese Army were the ultimate victors over MacArthur and the United States military because they forced him to retreat from the Philippines and escape to Australia, only to see him liberate it in spetacular fashion a scant four years later. History has a preface, prologue, and epilogue.

Yes, the final battle defined MaCarthur's and Yamashita's legacies as Ali and Frazier's final battle defined their legacies. Frazier was lucky. Yamashita was hanged.

Umm, no, boxing rivalries are not akin to an entrenched war. A fight when guys are in their primes or close to it matters more than when they are past their best. Going by your logic, if Quarry had KO'd Ron Cramner years earlier, it wouldn't have matter b/c Quarry lost the 'final battle' . .

dempseyfire wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

yancey wrote:"However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important." ThatOne

Nope, Frazier prevailed in the Big One.

Nice effort, though.

You should be one of those political handlers that come on at the end of the debate and explain to the public why your guy won.

That's like saying that Tomoyuki Yamashita and the Imperial Japanese Army were the ultimate victors over MacArthur and the United States military because they forced him to retreat from the Philippines and escape to Australia, only to see him liberate it in spetacular fashion a scant four years later. History has a preface, prologue, and epilogue.

Yes, the final battle defined MaCarthur's and Yamashita's legacies as Ali and Frazier's final battle defined their legacies. Frazier was lucky. Yamashita was hanged.

Umm, no, boxing rivalries are not akin to an entrenched war. A fight when guys are in their primes or close to it matters more than when they are past their best. Going by your logic, if Quarry had KO'd Ron Cramner years earlier, it wouldn't have matter b/c Quarry lost the 'final battle' . .

Excellent post, dempsey

dempseyfire wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

yancey wrote:"However when it comes to the legacies of Ali and Frazier the rubber match is the most important." ThatOne

Nope, Frazier prevailed in the Big One.

Nice effort, though.

You should be one of those political handlers that come on at the end of the debate and explain to the public why your guy won.

That's like saying that Tomoyuki Yamashita and the Imperial Japanese Army were the ultimate victors over MacArthur and the United States military because they forced him to retreat from the Philippines and escape to Australia, only to see him liberate it in spetacular fashion a scant four years later. History has a preface, prologue, and epilogue.

Yes, the final battle defined MaCarthur's and Yamashita's legacies as Ali and Frazier's final battle defined their legacies. Frazier was lucky. Yamashita was hanged.

Umm, no, boxing rivalries are not akin to an entrenched war. A fight when guys are in their primes or close to it matters more than when they are past their best. Going by your logic, if Quarry had KO'd Ron Cramner years earlier, it wouldn't have matter b/c Quarry lost the 'final battle' . .

yancey wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
That's like saying that Tomoyuki Yamashita and the Imperial Japanese Army were the ultimate victors over MacArthur and the United States military because they forced him to retreat from the Philippines and escape to Australia, only to see him liberate it in spetacular fashion a scant four years later. History has a preface, prologue, and epilogue.

Yes, the final battle defined MaCarthur's and Yamashita's legacies as Ali and Frazier's final battle defined their legacies. Frazier was lucky. Yamashita was hanged.

Umm, no, boxing rivalries are not akin to an entrenched war. A fight when guys are in their primes or close to it matters more than when they are past their best. Going by your logic, if Quarry had KO'd Ron Cramner years earlier, it wouldn't have matter b/c Quarry lost the 'final battle' . .

You know it's just so incredibly hard to admit that Ali lost the biggest and best fight of his career. That's why the Manila fight is talked up, why it is constantly showed on TV, why the rumble in the jungle is revised into being the biggest fight of Ali's career, why the lost Ali prime is mentioned in every other post about "the greatest".

hhaehre wrote:

yancey wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:
Umm, no, boxing rivalries are not akin to an entrenched war. A fight when guys are in their primes or close to it matters more than when they are past their best. Going by your logic, if Quarry had KO'd Ron Cramner years earlier, it wouldn't have matter b/c Quarry lost the 'final battle' . .

You know it's just so incredibly hard to admit that Ali lost the biggest and best fight of his career. That's why the Manila fight is talked up, why it is constantly showed on TV, why the rumble in the jungle is revised into being the biggest fight of Ali's career, why the lost Ali prime is mentioned in every other post about "the greatest".

Well said. 100% on the money.

If Ali had won the FOTC, ESPN would probably have an entire new channel devoted to just that fight.

No way, it would have been done and over, and Frazier would simply have been another former champion (or generic Ali challenger) and boxing would have lost some luster. It was Ali's perserverance in asking the question to the public via a willing media. "are you going to believe ME our your lying eyes"?, that turned it into another decade of intrigue. He was sort of the "Barnum and Bailey" of boxing.

I happen to think on his best night he has a better than even chance of beating Frazier on his best night. (IMHO These guys were very evenly matched) However if that would have happened, Frazier would have taken the loss in the old fashioned "honorable" way....and we all would have gone on with our lives. Ali just had that "never say die" spirit about him back then, and he "caught a wave" and he just happened to have the right personality to keep the hype going, he found the perfect foils in Foreman and an ageing Frazier in addition to a haplessly mesmerized media, and was able to succesfully milk it for all it was worth.

Frazier beating Ali was the best thing that every happened to Ali whether Ali and his fans know it or not.

BoxBuzz wrote:No way, it would have been done and over, and Frazier would simply have been another former champion (or generic Ali challenger) and boxing would have lost some luster. It was Ali's perserverance in asking the question to the public via a willing media. "are you going to believe ME our your lying eyes"?, that turned it into another decade of intrigue. He was sort of the "Barnum and Bailey" of boxing.

I happen to think on his best night he has a better than even chance of beating Frazier on his best night. (IMHO These guys were very evenly matched) However if that would have happened, Frazier would have taken the loss in the old fashioned "honorable" way....and we all would have gone on with our lives. Ali just had that "never say die" spirit about him back then, and he "caught a wave" and he just happened to have the right personality to keep the hype going, he found the perfect foils in Foreman and an ageing Frazier in addition to a haplessly mesmerized media, and was able to succesfully milk it for all it was worth.

Frazier beating Ali was the best thing that every happened to Ali whether Ali and his fans know it or not.

The ESPN bit was hyperbole, of course.

What you call Ali's "never say die" spirit I would maybe call something else.

What offended me about the FOTC outcome was that Ali admitted right after the fight that Frazier had won fair and square, then within a month or two after the fight he and his camp started beating the drums that he had been jobbed. Pretty soon the lapdog media took up his cause and within six months or so the majority of the jackass public was believing that "The Man" had cheated Ali and that Frazier was undeserving.

IMO, this was extremely unsporting behavior towards a man who had campaigned for Ali to be reinstated, had lent Ali money, and had always treated him well.

I gotcha....But you know, Ali recognized good P.R.....and was a very gifted athlete who found a home in boxing. Frazier was a "fighter".

The way I remember it by the way, was that Ali gave Joe his respect for a few hours. And within days if not hours he was made aware of Joe's trip to the hospital. And perhaps he decided athat point the he was indeed the real "winner". (Sort of like Joe has looked at Ali today and decided that JOE was the real "winner". So maybe Ali REALLY felt he won but only after the fact. Some say Frazier was headed to the hospital even if he had an easy night...maybe that's even the truth....just some medical housekeeping. But Ali was way too "Barnum and Bailey" to allow that to go unexploited. And it gave him a bit of credibility with "the believers".

Some hate these facts, I sort of think of it as "surfing". He ran with the happenstance of the moment and fully exploited it to his benefit. And it got him what he wanted, which was to eventually be back in the picture and back on top. So Ali ends up demonstrating that he is both a "fighter" and a P.R. guy....lol.

All I can say is if you really like Ali, you better be VERY thankful Joe could give him an even (or in that case BETTER than even) fight. Without Joe, Ali never reaches the heights. IMHO. They BOTH deserve the recognition of being the best the sport has ever had to offer.

BoxBuzz wrote:I gotcha....But you know, Ali recognized good P.R.....and was a very gifted athlete who found a home in boxing. Frazier was a "fighter".

The way I remember it by the way, was that Ali gave Joe his respect for a few hours. And within days if not hours he was made aware of Joe's trip to the hospital. And perhaps he decided athat point the he was indeed the real "winner". (Sort of like Joe has looked at Ali today and decided that JOE was the real "winner". So maybe Ali REALLY felt he won but only after the fact. Some say Frazier was headed to the hospital even if he had an easy night...maybe that's even the truth....just some medical housekeeping. But Ali was way too "Barnum and Bailey" to allow that to go unexploited. And it gave him a bit of credibility with "the believers".

Some hate these facts, I sort of think of it as "surfing". He ran with the happenstance of the moment and fully exploited it to his benefit. And it got him what he wanted, which was to eventually be back in the picture and back on top. So Ali ends up demonstrating that he is both a "fighter" and a P.R. guy....lol.

All I can say is if you really like Ali, you better be VERY thankful Joe could give him an even (or in that case BETTER than even) fight. Without Joe, Ali never reaches the heights. IMHO. They BOTH deserve the recognition of being the best the sport has ever had to offer.

Your recollection might well be right.

I just remember the papers the very next morning after the fight had Ali admitting in the dressing room that Joe had won. I thought it was about a month later that Ali changed his mind, but maybe that was when I began hearing about it and it had actually begun earlier. I was a college kid at the time and the newspaper was my main source of news.

A little story from that time. A week or so after the FOTC, a local theatre ran an ad saying that they were running a film of the fight. A friend and me went down promptly, paid our few bucks, and sat down expecting to see all 15 rounds. Anyway, they showed the first round, maybe a round or two in the middle, and then the 15th round. Man, I was pissed and complained to management, which got nowhere. My friend didn't care, he said seeing Ali knocked down was what he came to see.

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:No way, it would have been done and over, and Frazier would simply have been another former champion (or generic Ali challenger) and boxing would have lost some luster. It was Ali's perserverance in asking the question to the public via a willing media. "are you going to believe ME our your lying eyes"?, that turned it into another decade of intrigue. He was sort of the "Barnum and Bailey" of boxing.

I happen to think on his best night he has a better than even chance of beating Frazier on his best night. (IMHO These guys were very evenly matched) However if that would have happened, Frazier would have taken the loss in the old fashioned "honorable" way....and we all would have gone on with our lives. Ali just had that "never say die" spirit about him back then, and he "caught a wave" and he just happened to have the right personality to keep the hype going, he found the perfect foils in Foreman and an ageing Frazier in addition to a haplessly mesmerized media, and was able to succesfully milk it for all it was worth.

Frazier beating Ali was the best thing that every happened to Ali whether Ali and his fans know it or not.

The ESPN bit was hyperbole, of course.

What you call Ali's "never say die" spirit I would maybe call something else.

What offended me about the FOTC outcome was that Ali admitted right after the fight that Frazier had won fair and square, then within a month or two after the fight he and his camp started beating the drums that he had been jobbed. Pretty soon the lapdog media took up his cause and within six months or so the majority of the jackass public was believing that "The Man" had cheated Ali and that Frazier was undeserving.

IMO, this was extremely unsporting behavior towards a man who had campaigned for Ali to be reinstated, had lent Ali money, and had always treated him well.