BoxRec

In relation to 'education', I am not trying to educate anybody, as I am not that arrogant.

We all have different opinions & in respect of this thread, some of us are never going to agree.

I simply refuse to believe some of the conspiracy theories written on this thread & all I have done throughout is to try & apply balance & logic.

Whether I have done so is open to interpretation, but I come to this thread with no bias, as I have huge respect for Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali & George Foreman.

All three are great great fighters, who have given me many hours of pleasure as a fight fan.

Logic and balance is not something anti-Ali people have any concept of. If he won by decision, it was a bad one. If he won by stoppage, it should have been stopped. If he won by KO, then the opponent wasn't really counted out.

I agree that they were all great fighters; Ali was the best, then probably Foreman and then Frazier.

I will honest and say I am anti-Frazier. I don't like him. I am pot going to be phony and say something like "I'm not anti-Frazier, but... which is what people do with Ali on the Forum all of the time.

I don't like Frazier because he was an excuse maker. He had a lame excuse for all of his losses.
Ali II was because Ali held too much and somehow he should have got the decision anyway.
He just wasn't right for the first Foreman fight.
His trainer should not have stopped the fight in the 3rd Ali fight.
The 2nd Foreman fight would have been different if he had not wore contacts.
He lost to Buster Mathis in the Olympic Trials because Mathis' trunks were too high.

These were his his excuses, not just his fans.
In his autobiography, he had virtually nothing good to say about nay of his opponents. This not only includes Ali, but Foreman, Mathis, Ellis, and Bonavena.

When he was interview after Ali lit the flame during the 1996 Olympics, he said that he would have pushed Ali in the fire if he had the chance.
During the 1980 Olympic trials, his son Marvis was brutally knocked out by James Broad. It looked very serious. When Frazier was interviewed while this was occurring, he didn't seem to be concerned at all.

So no, I don't think he was a class act. Ali and Foreman were not saints, but there are a lot of good things to say about them and nothing nearly as bad.

As for his boxing career, of course he was great, but it is BS that somehow he was past when he lost to Ali even though he was younger and had less wear and tear than Ali. We are talking about a 31-year old heavyweight with only 34 fights going into the 3rd Ali fight. He wasn't exactly ready for the Senior Citizen's home.

Seems to me, on this forum at least, that its impossible to discuss Ali in any capacity. Either he's branded something of an untouchable, almost perfect human being and fighter--- or he's branded a complete lucky sonofabitch who was vastly overated. Neither side is true. However, I will say, to me it doesnt make sense to fight Norton three times, Frazier three times, Bugner twice, etc. and Foreman only got one shot. Then again, so did Jimmy Young, so both men in a way were screwed.

HomicideHenry wrote:Seems to me, on this forum at least, that its impossible to discuss Ali in any capacity. Either he's branded something of an untouchable, almost perfect human being and fighter--- or he's branded a complete lucky sonofabitch who was vastly overated. Neither side is true. However, I will say, to me it doesnt make sense to fight Norton three times, Frazier three times, Bugner twice, etc. and Foreman only got one shot. Then again, so did Jimmy Young, so both men in a way were screwed.

I think you exaggerate on people here calling Ali a "completely lucky sonofabitch who was vastly overrated."

No doubt there are many here that don't care for him (not hate!) but I don't think anyone here really thinks he was "vastly overrated."

Myself, I have Ali no worse than #2 ATGH.

HomicideHenry wrote:Seems to me, on this forum at least, that its impossible to discuss Ali in any capacity. Either he's branded something of an untouchable, almost perfect human being and fighter--- or he's branded a complete lucky sonofabitch who was vastly overated. Neither side is true. However, I will say, to me it doesnt make sense to fight Norton three times, Frazier three times, Bugner twice, etc. and Foreman only got one shot. Then again, so did Jimmy Young, so both men in a way were screwed.

Makes a lot of sense that Ali and Foreman only fought once. Foreman retired at the age of of 28. He was idle for 15 months of his prime. So yes, it makes sense that he only fought Foreman once.

Seriously, you are singling Ali out for fighting some people only once?

Foreman never fought Shavers, Quarry or Bugner at all.
Frazier never fought Patterson, Shavers, Lyle, or Norton at all.

This is just the kind of thing that people that don't like Ali constantly do. They rip Ali for something that they don't rip other fighters for.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Seems to me, on this forum at least, that its impossible to discuss Ali in any capacity. Either he's branded something of an untouchable, almost perfect human being and fighter--- or he's branded a complete lucky sonofabitch who was vastly overated. Neither side is true. However, I will say, to me it doesnt make sense to fight Norton three times, Frazier three times, Bugner twice, etc. and Foreman only got one shot. Then again, so did Jimmy Young, so both men in a way were screwed.

Makes a lot of sense that Ali and Foreman only fought once. Foreman retired at the age of of 28. He was idle for 15 months of his prime. So yes, it makes sense that he only fought Foreman once.

Seriously, you are singling Ali out for fighting some people only once?

Foreman never fought Shavers, Quarry or Bugner at all.
Frazier never fought Patterson, Shavers, Lyle, or Norton at all.

This is just the kind of thing that people that don't like Ali constantly do. They rip Ali for something that they don't rip other fighters for.

Divert the argument by changing the topic to what other fighters did and did not do.

A familiar AA tactic. His version of an Ali shuffle, I guess.

Ali and his camp wanted no part of Foreman again.

Milk the title, don't expose it to real risk, and get the $$$.

That was the business model and I don't blame them one bit.

Young, strong, and vengeful George would have been very dangerous in a rematch.

It's called a comparison, not a diversion. I am saying that Ali should be treated the same way as Foreman, Frazier and everyone else.

No real risk? Milking the title? That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Ali defended the title against Lyle, Frazier, Norton, Young and Shavers after the Foreman fight.

Makes no sense for the "Ali camp" to be afraid of someone he knocked out in 8 rounds.

Young, strong, vengeful, Foreman didn't fight anyone for 15 months after the fight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:It's called a comparison, not a diversion. I am saying that Ali should be treated the same way as Foreman, Frazier and everyone else.

No real risk? Milking the title? That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. Ali defended the title against Lyle, Frazier, Norton, Young and Shavers after the Foreman fight.

Makes no sense for the "Ali camp" to be afraid of someone he knocked out in 8 rounds.

Young, strong, vengeful, Foreman didn't fight anyone for 15 months after the fight.

Ambling Alp, I believe you might have missed the memorandum that went round.

Apparently, it's Muhammad Ali's fault that vengeful Foreman sat at home sulking for 15 months after Zaire, because Ali didn't send him a postcard.

Ali regularly defending his title against the top ranked guys, some of whom put up far better performances against him than the lumbering autobot that is Foreman did in Zaire, in the strongest era of HW boxing doesn't count & he should have fought idle Foreman at least 4, maybe 5 times in 1975.

"Ali defended the title against Lyle, Frazier, Norton, Young and Shavers after the Foreman fight." AA



Hey, WHY did you omit those legendary challengers Evangelista, Coopman, Dunn, and a Japanese guy that laid on the floor the whole time? Plus a novice with SEVEN pro fights.

Oops, that last one didn't work out too well.

I guess that is not milking the title, right?

p.s. I'll save you the trouble.

Daniels and Stander, Stander and Daniels, Daniels and Stander.

Did I get that right?

You missed Dave Zyglewicz

evrenb wrote:You missed Dave Zyglewicz

Let me try to help you out, Bubba.

Frazier was not the real champ in '69, therefore Zyglewicz does not count as bonafide title defense.

Have a nice day.

I'll have a very nice day thanks. Im not gonna insult one of my heroes in Frazier to put a point across. It is only aimed at you. But you can continue with your 'veiled' hate campaign against Ali...you must miss your mate Duce...

Ali never ducked Foreman at all. He would have snatched that paycheck eventually.

He did however fight higher rated fighters in the meantime, and then George did the unthinkable....he retired.

Just cause this gets said a lot, does not make it so.


Just like Foreman NEVER ducked Tyson...there's another baloney sandwich that is served up from time to time at this restaurant.

BoxBuzz wrote:Ali never ducked Foreman at all. He would have snatched that paycheck eventually.

He did however fight higher rated fighters in the meantime, and then George did the unthinkable....he retired.

Just cause this gets said a lot, does not make it so.


Just like Foreman NEVER ducked Tyson...there's another baloney sandwich that is served up from time to time at this restaurant.

It doesn't top the Leonard ducked Pryor one!! :P

You think it's bad that an active HW champion can be accused of ducking a man he has just beaten, who is sat at home sulking instead of fighting, then comes back, looks less than stellar, then retires suddenly; Leonard routinely gets accused of ducking someone from the weight class below him.

How it is possible to duck someone that isn't even in your weight class?

I sometimes think you need a tin foil hat to negotiate some of the conspiracy theories on this forum.

yancey wrote:"Ali defended the title against Lyle, Frazier, Norton, Young and Shavers after the Foreman fight." AA



Hey, WHY did you omit those legendary challengers Evangelista, Coopman, Dunn, and a Japanese guy that laid on the floor the whole time? Plus a novice with SEVEN pro fights.

Oops, that last one didn't work out too well.

I guess that is not milking the title, right?

p.s. I'll save you the trouble.

Daniels and Stander, Stander and Daniels, Daniels and Stander.

Did I get that right?

You said "Milk the title, don't expose it to real risk, and get the $$$."
The "don't expose it to a real risk" is what I am saying is incredibly stupid to say. So I pointed out several serious title challenges that Ali made during this time.

OK, so Ali had his share of gimmees when defending the title the second time around:
Coopman, Dunn, Wepner, Evangelista.
Inoki was an outing, not a title defense.

Frazier had his share of easy marks:
Ziggy, Daniels, Stander, Ramos, and Foster (due to his LH status)

Doesn't seem you can denigrate Ali for his efforts, if Frazier's cast of challengers also included an assemblage of no-hopers.

But few heavyweight champions engage in a superbout each time out.
Remember King Roman? Rademacher? McNeeley?

Frazier took on some quality heavies in Bonavena, Ellis, and Quarry. For that he should be lauded.
Ali wasn't strictly facing a cast of chumps in Lyle, Norton, Frazier, Young and Shavers.

If you don't agree that they, like most reigning champs, both encountered their share of legit contenders and easy paydays, then your bias is showing.