BoxRec

HH....I like some of the stuff you type up....and that's some good fantasy there.

I especially like your assessment of Frazier not being formidable, as well as your description of a "piss poor showing against Ellis" I just don't know where I could find more imaginative writing. Young could not keep his face in the ring...so something was going on that he didn't like. And he owns that outcome because of his behavior. Nobody else was shoving his face out of the ring. And I don't know what more you would need to stop a fight than what Lyle was demonstrating. Did you think he was about to make his big play had the ref not butted in?

And as for Shavers it's not so much that it was a great fight, or that Ali was at his best, it was the fact that Ali was hit square with a few of Shaver's very best shots, and he didn't go down, that's the rather remarkable aspect. Add to that he controlled the fight. Ali's ability to jump right back up after Frazier hit him with one his best shots is another bit of a clue as to Ali's unique abilities.

Not sure where you began to develop a bias against Ali, but it's clear by how you assess these things, that you have lost all objectivity. I have to think you think of granberry as a very credible contributor since you've locked many of his talking points down very well. And you've added a few....like the idea that Frazier was some sort of invalid.

By the time Ali fought Larry it was over. Means very little. Happens to everyone. Larry SHOULD have put a better lid on I guess, since you are convinced he could have. But that fight Larry had with Norton should demonstrate that Ali was tough even when it was over.

HH I always like what you write even when I don't agree with it.

Amen Buzz. He has come up with even more imaginative comments though; remember Sonny Liston and George Foreman not being heavyweights?

Henry genuinely believes himself to be some wise old sage of boxing. That he gets laughed out of every thread he participates in never seems to make him reconsider his opinions. The main problem with Henry is that rather than evaluating the facts and then making a judgement, he makes a judgement and then has to twist and wrench the facts so that they fit his idea. The end result speaks for itself.

Yes this sort of fight nothing gives to Boxing Fans, And the legacy of both these players did not allow any moral reason to fight with one another for money. But at the end, everyone of us is running for money in fact...

I dont agree the lyle stoppage was "premature" ! Ali landed something like 20 unanswered punches and the exhausted Lyle could have been beaten to death.

But I do concur the Norton and Young wins were controversial but i think they would have been just as controversial if Ali lost them

Frazier,yes he was worn down and no longer the same fighter but he was imho still a formidable fighter against anyone.Foreman aside.

mugabi wrote:I dont agree the lyle stoppage was "premature" ! Ali landed something like 20 unanswered punches and the exhausted Lyle could have been beaten to death.

But I do concur the Norton and Young wins were controversial but i think they would have been just as controversial if Ali lost them

Frazier,yes he was worn down and no longer the same fighter but he was imho still a formidable fighter against anyone.Foreman aside.

I heartily agree with what is in bold here.

Just curious.....you think it was a worn down Frazier that faced Ellis, and somehow that fight was a "piss poor" showing by Frazier? I'm just looking for context between your statement and HH's. I think after the FOTC it does apply.

Looking at Fraziers performance at the FOTC it seemed his very best...regardless of whatever may have beep playing out. Sometimes we rise to occasions despite our challenges. I can't think of a better performance...with the possible exception of the Quarry fight.....but no way would Joe be able to to do Ali what he did to Jerry.

I cant claim to know what went on in joe fraziers head after the Foreman massacre, but an indomitable winner...the hardest toughest of men.... like Frazier ....even he...must have been affected psychologically if only subtley by the inhumane brutalisation he suffered.

But that subtle margin .....meant a hell of a lot in the case of a Frazier or Tyson ......and that style of fighting which demanded an absolute beleif and commitment to attack and slipping shots on the front foot

The pattern of Fraziers fights after Foreman 1 confirms my suspicions.

He carried on fighting only the very best as if he was still the world champ defending his title.Bugner,Ali,Quarry,Ellis,Ali,Foreman....every 6 or so months as if outwardly nothing had changed

He still had that same relentless style on the surface ,physically he hadnt lost anything in terms of stamina,speed,chin or power.....but my hunch is .....the arrsehole in his punches had left him....that certain je ne sais quai....that rhythmic swagger ..that absolute commitment to all out pressure and the mental disintegration of opponents...wasnt quite the same.....its a very subtle thing and I obviously trace it back to the 1st Foreman fight....of course Ali was buoyed by Foremans demolition and was far now committed and confident of pushing Joe back as being the key .....so in other ways some might say Joe got figured out better by Ali.....but the net result was he still beat these bugners,quarrys and Ellis and pushed Ali close to death.

He was still a formidable fighter.Not quite what he was but very far from shot.

The lack of absolute beleif post Kingston (despite outward and in ring appearences ) showed itself most clearly in the secondForeman fight.....to see one of the most fearsome punchers who ever ruled the heavyweights suddenly resort to dancing on the back foot from the get go, rather than trying to do what he did best ....better....in the rematch was most revealing.....especially since it came just after Lyle had shown Foreman could be outpunched and pushed back.Yet still Joe decided to exhibit that ridiculous stick and move style