BoxRec

Nile4000 wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Ali's loss to Frazier certainly hurts his ranking a bit but Ali faced most of the best fighters of his era unlike Dempsey and Holmes. Additionally, Ali's longevity and the sheer number of highly rated fighters he beat puts him high in the rankings.

I don't see why granberry would think that the loss is such a huge blow to Ali's legacy. Ali's loss to Frazier was less devastating than Joe Louis's loss to Max Schmelling.

I think Holmes fought most of the best fighters`of his era.

Sure he had a few gimmes but all long reigning champs do.

People often bring up Greg Page's`name and suggest he was some sort of phenom and that Larry ducked him.

But Greg was inconsistent, losing to guys he ought to have beaten if he was such a great fighter. Guys Larry had beaten or would beat. If the supposed #1 contender gets beaten by an underdog it does hurt his claim for a title shot, surely.

Sure, I'd love to have seen Holmes vs Page rather than Holmes vs Frank but at heavy, outside of one or two champs, we can easily find names of contenders whose`names would look better on the champ's resume than some that he did fight.

At the time of his challenge to Holmes, Greg was like 22-1, the #1 contender across the board.Surely, Larry should've given him his shot.Granted, Greg didn't always show up to fight, but he would've, at that time, given Larry all he could've handled.

Exactly which point in time are you referring to?

Mid-to-Late '83. Before then, Greg was a bit too green, and after then, a bit too fat and a huge mess.

I Feel Fine wrote:

Robinson wrote:He never Knocked Frazier out.

He TKO'd him.

Its not improper to refer to a TKO as a knockout. It is done all the time, as anyone familiar with boxing parlance would know. Ali knocked Frazier out.

"Ali knocked Frazier out."

Bullshit.

In fact, none other then Gil Clancy thinks Futch made one of the worst calls in boxing history by not letting Frazier out for round 15. Clancy felt that Ali had clearly burned the last of his tank in the 14th, and one good shot from Frazier in the 15th would have taken Ali out.

yancey wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

Robinson wrote:He never Knocked Frazier out.

He TKO'd him.

Its not improper to refer to a TKO as a knockout. It is done all the time, as anyone familiar with boxing parlance would know. Ali knocked Frazier out.

"Ali knocked Frazier out."

Bullshit.

In fact, none other then Gil Clancy thinks Futch made one of the worst calls in boxing history by not letting Frazier out for round 15. Clancy felt that Ali had clearly burned the last of his tank in the 14th, and one good shot from Frazier in the 15th would have taken Ali out.

Joe was behind on points and was fighting blind...He did need a knock out...Ali hadn't been knocked out in his fifty fights prior...

What was more likely?

Frazier being permanently blinded ...It happens...My uncle was blinded in the ring...Well , he had three unsuccessful operations for a detached retina...

or

Ali being knocked out.

Eddie Futch did the right and humane thing...

Ali has repeatedly said that he didn't want to come out for the 15th round of that fight. Dundee would've made him, though.

yancey wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

Robinson wrote:He never Knocked Frazier out.

He TKO'd him.

Its not improper to refer to a TKO as a knockout. It is done all the time, as anyone familiar with boxing parlance would know. Ali knocked Frazier out.

"Ali knocked Frazier out."

Bullshit.

In fact, none other then Gil Clancy thinks Futch made one of the worst calls in boxing history by not letting Frazier out for round 15. Clancy felt that Ali had clearly burned the last of his tank in the 14th, and one good shot from Frazier in the 15th would have taken Ali out.

i'm sure you've already seen it, but i don't know how you can question futch's decision after watching this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJODy0Pehw

Terry D wrote: a KO is a knock out

agreed

Terry D wrote:Ali did not KO Frazier, a KO is a knock out for me and a guy needs to be on his back hearing the ten count, or the ref dispensing with the count.

Joe lost by a TKO. One step removed from the ref jumping in for a referee stops contest loss, which itself is not the same as a KO.

It is still an impressive win, although not a KO one.

You guys gotta be kidding. TKO's are constantly called "KO's". I didn't invent boxing lingo. I'm sure if I went through some of your posts I could catch some you calling fights that ended by TKO "knockouts." Luckily, I can think of better things to do.

Foreman-Frazier was a TKO, by the way, I don't see anyone pedantically calling out people who say that Foreman knocked out Frazier.

Ali and Frazier had three fights...Frazier won the first, Ali won the second and the third with the third victory coming when Joe Frazier's manager stopped the fight after fourteen rounds...

It is time for them to bury the hatchet. I like Joe Frazier's stoic humility but part of me wonders if Joe Frazier would be so bitter if he won the rubber match...

Terry D wrote:Ali did not KO Frazier, a KO is a knock out for me and a guy needs to be on his back hearing the ten count, or the ref dispensing with the count.

Joe lost by a TKO. One step removed from the ref jumping in for a referee stops contest loss, which itself is not the same as a KO.

It is still an impressive win, although not a KO one.

• Muhammad Ali's record as announced before the third Frazier bout: 48-2-0 (34 KOs)
• Muhammad Ali's record as announced before the Jean-Pierre Coopman fight: 49-2-0 (35 KOs)

Also, if we're not counting TKOs, Joe Frazier has a record of 32-4-1 (10 KOs). So, do you really believe that Joe Frazier only knocked out 10 people, in 37 fights? I think Chris Byrd has a more impressive KO record than that!

Big Bad John wrote:

Terry D wrote:Ali did not KO Frazier, a KO is a knock out for me and a guy needs to be on his back hearing the ten count, or the ref dispensing with the count.

Joe lost by a TKO. One step removed from the ref jumping in for a referee stops contest loss, which itself is not the same as a KO.

It is still an impressive win, although not a KO one.

• Muhammad Ali's record as announced before the third Frazier bout: 48-2-0 (34 KOs)
• Muhammad Ali's record as announced before the Jean-Pierre Coopman fight: 49-2-0 (35 KOs)

Also, if we're not counting TKOs, Joe Frazier has a record of 32-4-1 (10 KOs). So, do you really believe that Joe Frazier only knocked out 10 people, in 37 fights? I think Chris Byrd has a more impressive KO record than that!

so they're KO's because they're listed as KO's? sound logic.

animal mother wrote:so they're KO's because they're listed as KO's? sound logic.

Yes, certainly more sound than saying "agreed" without any reasons behind why you agree.

TKO's are often referred to as knock outs, and that is one more example. Your KO rating doesn't go down when you score a TKO, either, in case you weren't aware.

If you guys want me to dig out quotes from prominent boxing writers/actual fighters/anyone of more note than yourselves, who have used the word "knockout" in reference to a TKO, I will. I don't see robinson, who loves Holmes and dislikes Ali, chasing after people who say that Holmes-Ali was a knockout victory for Larry, which it is commonly called when it comes up in boxing conversation. I'm certain that terry wouldn't object to someone saying that Hagler-Hearns was a knockout, even though Tommy wasn't counted out. I have to say that this little conversation may be more annoying to me than any I've ever had on this forum, because this is just unimaginative nitpicking. No one would think to question something so trivial if it were involving any other fighters, but as soon as its Ali and Joe Frazier, Frazier suddenly become a sacred cow among boxing fans, we have to be very careful with our wording. Well, sorry, I'm using the terminology boxing people have used for decades; Ali knocked Frazier out.

"It depends on what the meaning of is is"

-Bill Clinton

A technical knockout is a knockout but I concede there is a difference between the two...If there were more knock outs instead of technical knock outs there would be more quivers in the arsenal of the boxing abolitionists...This is boxing not cock fighting...

Did fans really want this to go on?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEuGaRp ... re=related

I just noticed something at the 4:20 mark the ref warned Foreman for the pushing that Frazier fans complain about and justifiably so...George got so pissed after that point that he would have literally killed George Frazier if the fight continued much longer...Look at the punch he threw at the 4:35 mark....

There would have been a Benny Paret situation if that fight continued...Thankfully for two fundamentally decent men like George Foreman and Joe Frazier it didn't...

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:"It depends on what the meaning of is is"

-Bill Clinton

A technical knockout is a knockout but I concede there is a difference between the two...If there were more knock outs instead of technical knock outs there would be more quivers in the arsenal of the boxing abolitionists...This is boxing not cock fighting...

Did fans really want this to go on?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEuGaRp ... re=related

I just noticed something at the 4:20 mark the ref warned Foreman for the pushing that Frazier fans complain about and justifiably so...George got so pissed after that point that he would have literally killed George Frazier if the fight continued much longer...Look at the punch he threw at the 4:35 mark....

There would have been a Benny Paret situation if that fight continued...Thankfully for two fundamentally decent men like George Foreman and Joe Frazier it didn't...

Gee, do you think that warning at 4:20 might have been a bit too late?

As far as "fundamentally decent" goes, I'm not sure that term is applicable (back in those days) to someone who has stated his private goal was to kill someone in the ring.

I guess we can always ask the overmatched Joe Roman (clubbed while on the canvas) for his opinion.


UPDATE: I just watched the first round of Foreman-Frazier I, and George was loading up to hit Frazier again while Joe was clearly down after one of the knockdowns, thankfully, slowpoke Mercante intervened.

What fundamental decency!

yancey wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:"It depends on what the meaning of is is"

-Bill Clinton

A technical knockout is a knockout but I concede there is a difference between the two...If there were more knock outs instead of technical knock outs there would be more quivers in the arsenal of the boxing abolitionists...This is boxing not cock fighting...

Did fans really want this to go on?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEuGaRp ... re=related

I just noticed something at the 4:20 mark the ref warned Foreman for the pushing that Frazier fans complain about and justifiably so...George got so pissed after that point that he would have literally killed George Frazier if the fight continued much longer...Look at the punch he threw at the 4:35 mark....

There would have been a Benny Paret situation if that fight continued...Thankfully for two fundamentally decent men like George Foreman and Joe Frazier it didn't...

Gee, do you think that warning at 4:20 might have been a bit too late?

As far as "fundamentally decent" goes, I'm not sure that term is applicable (back in those days) to someone who has stated his private goal was to kill someone in the ring.

I guess we can always ask the overmatched Joe Roman (clubbed while on the canvas) for his opinion.


UPDATE: I just watched the first round of Foreman-Frazier I, and George was loading up to hit Frazier again while Joe was clearly down after one of the knockdowns, thankfully, slowpoke Mercante intervened.

What fundamental decency!

The young George was a monster in the ring...The punch I am alluding to at 4:35 is when he hits Frazier on the side of his head as he is going down...

If the ref didn't stop that fight Frazier would have been killed or permanently disabled...That can not be denied...

My only point is that Big George and Smokin Joe are basically good guys and didn't deserve that fate...

My dad was an amateur boxer...My uncle was a pro boxer...I realize boxing isn't figure skating but if a boxer can choose between winning without seriously injuring his opponent or winning while seriously injuring his opponent most would choose the former...There are few exceptions like Mike Tyson and the boxing gods or whomever gave him what he deserves...

Terry D wrote:To many people someone who is a pedant is annoyingly applying a little more depth to the question. Look at Tyson-Ferguson and tell me that the TKO/KO distinction does not count. A DQ was turned to a RSF/TKO in order to keep Tyson's record of KO's going.

The terms KO/TKO/RSF mean nothing without you applying a little bit of thought. At that point the problem arises for your general boxing fan.

Knocked out, count out. Do the thinking. TKO. Technical knock out. Technically a KO but not really one as the guy is not counted out. Referee stops fight. I am sure you can work that one out.

According to the method of going off Michael Buffer's pre-fight introduction Joe Calzaghe is a huge hitter. You guys must get really excited by deceptive records.

I think the custom of calling TKO's as KO's is an American one, in adds to the excitement of a fighters record for those with simple ways of thinking about things.

No, its not for those who think about things in a "simple" way, on the contrary, it takes a simple mind to think that your contribution to this conversation has added anything of use to it. Those who refer to TKO's as "knockouts" in every day boxing conversation are simply using common boxing colloquialisms, and are not boring enough to think that they need to go in depth in explaining the result of a fight that everyone is aware of and knows the result to. You haven't added depth to our conversation, you've wasted out time with your novice take on boxing lingo.

This means, by your newly invented criteria that you and robinson have taken upon yourselves to create, it is now wrong for boxing fans in every day conversation to say that Holyfield "knocked out" Tyson, that Foreman "knocked out" Frazier, that Tyson "knocked out" Holmes, that Leonard "knocked out" Hearns, that Ali "knocked out" Bonavena, that Monzon "knocked out" Benvenutti, that Louis "knocked out" Carnera... this is not adding depth, this is frivolous and unimportant. I'm sorry that you're out of the loop on this matter and are apparently unfamiliar with such common boxing parlance, but it is not my job to have to choose my words carefully lest I confuse the people on this forum that don't know better. As I said, I'm simply using the language that writers/fans/actual boxers have used for decades; should they, long ago, have been more stringent in making a greater effort to distinguish between TKO's and KO's, maybe, maybe not. Is it important enough that we need to now change this way of describing these fights? Not particularly, you can concern yourself with pedestrian concerns like this one, but I think there are more crucial aspects of the sport that are more in need of reform.

Hey dont draw me into this.

I said he did not Knock Frazier out
he stopped him.

Now while a TKO is a stoppage and
on a fighters record is recorded as
such and is placed in the (KO) bracket.

To say in conversation that Ali Knocked
out Frazier is not that accurate.

I am not here arguing terminology or
classifications.

I just stated that he did not KO him in
the traditional sense.

Robinson wrote:Hey dont draw me into this.

I said he did not Knock Frazier out
he stopped him.

Now while a TKO is a stoppage and
on a fighters record is recorded as
such and is placed in the (KO) bracket.

To say in conversation that Ali Knocked
out Frazier is not that accurate.

I am not here arguing terminology or
classifications.

I just stated that he did not KO him in
the traditional sense.

You started the conversation. You may not like it, because you're unaware of it, but this is how boxing fans talk, and I don't see you attempting to correct other people who say "knockout" for a fight that ends in TKO. Just because its Ali, however, we can't even allow certain kinds of language to be used in decribing his fights.

The Ali threads are better with cameos by Galt and granberry...

Do you ever feel fine?

toih08, I knew I couldn't trick you. You are like Colonel Klink (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... 1&ct=title) , no escapes around you. How did you determine that I am Granberry?

You seem to be just as astute in your boxing knowledge as you are in your detective abilities. Keep reading those Hauser, Mailer, Sugar books and ignore the guys who really know boxing like Granberry and you will always be a typical message board poster.

Robinson wrote:Do you ever feel fine?

I feel great. I'm sorry if your pain and anger still remains that Ali won the trilogy.

Kidding of course. I don't dislike you as a poster robinson. However, I find it difficult to look past the fact that I'm being singled out for using language that people in boxing have used for decades. As I said earlier, when does anyone ever get corrected for calling Foreman's first win over Frazier a knockout? People commonly call it a "knockout", though it was a TKO, Frazier was never counted out and ended the fight standing. It shouldn't matter, however, as we all know what happened. Not sure why we need to correct those who say that Ali knocked out Frazier. You're not telling me anything that I don't know when you point out to me that Frazier's corner stopped the fight.

Well if it means anything...
I think Foreman TKO'd Frazier....:)

Robinson wrote:Well if it means anything...
I think Foreman TKO'd Frazier....:)

Yes, but do you feel the misguided need to try to correct posters who say it was a KO? As I said, it is very common for boxers, fans, writers, etc. to refer to a TKO as a knockout.

John Galt wrote:toih08, I knew I couldn't trick you. You are like Colonel Klink (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q ... 1&ct=title) , no escapes around you. How did you determine that I am Granberry?

You seem to be just as astute in your boxing knowledge as you are in your detective abilities. Keep reading those Hauser, Mailer, Sugar books and ignore the guys who really know boxing like Granberry and you will always be a typical message board poster.

As I told your doppelganger " if I can see further than other men it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Oh- Is granberry the genius who opined that Ali spent the entire time he fought The Rabbit running away from him?

"Yet Ali, who had just "knocked out" Sonny Liston with a single "punch" in the first round IN HIS PREVIOUS FIGHT, ran for his life against sore-backed Patterson ..."

-granberry

This clip should disabuse anybody of that silly notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGKQ7d5zOcY