BoxRec

I think its interesting that at the time of the Gorilla in manilla incident Joe frazier was smiling and laughing in the photograph. Sure Ali's behaviour was contradictory and vile and im sure if Joe had made a big deal out of it at that very time, Ali would have publically apologised.......but it seems to me Joes bitterness started and expanded once he was retired and Alis finances started to rise again around the mid 90's in particular the 1996 olympics and around this time Foreman had made money and his grill was about to take off. Im sure Frazier looks at George and Ali and feels resentment.

Its a shame Joes personal bitterness has clouded his legacy.

Now I could be wrong but he just seemed very bitter and mean when he spoke on the ali-frazer thrilla in manilla documentary and he seems to be constantly spuriously chasing paydays like suing the indian casino.

Last thing I want to say I consider Joe Frazier a true legend and one of the 10 best HW's of all time. A great fighter and it is sad he doesnt get his just due as a fighter or man. Im simply saying he should be content he beat the best version of Ali he faced. I may be wrong in my opinions and views but I do think he kicks Ali when he is down. Perhaps it was Joes misfortune he was cast by the white boxing media as their champion at the time Ali was coming back.

Than again the slurs of "uncle tom" were pretty despicable on Alis part.

So perhaps Joe is justified in how he feels? and is wrongly portrayed as bitter. I mean the man was called a gorilla in front of the world by a so called champion of black rights, just cos his skin was darker. Very sad I think that a great man like Joe hasnt received the financial rewards he deserves.
What would this guy have done to todays HW's.

While Ali's career is celebrated, Frazier's is overlooked
January 16, 2007 by Bernard Fernandez
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columni ... 22376.html

BIRTHDAYS SHOULD be happy occasions, a time to spend quality time with family and friends, to blow out candles on a cake, maybe even to receive some presents.

But not all birthdays are created equal, as the continuing disparity in the level of public recognition accorded former heavyweight champions Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier this month demonstrates.

Ali turns 65 tomorrow, and the date will be observed with a smorgasbord of tributes. ESPN Classic, in fact, got an early jump on the party, beginning 52 hours of programming on Sunday. Tomorrow, though, it's all Ali all the time, with a 24-hour marathon on the cable channel whose mission seemingly is preservation of the Ali legacy.

Replays of seven Ali bouts - 1964, Sonny Liston I; 1965, Liston II and Floyd Patterson I; 1966, George Chuvalo; 1974, George Foreman; 1975, Chuck Wepner and Frazier III - will be televised in their entirety, to be followed by "Ali Rap," a recent ESPN special; "Ali's Dozen," a compilation of Ali's best and most important rounds; and "Ali's 65," an ode that dwells on Ali's effect on society.

"No one represents what ESPN Classic is all about more than Muhammad Ali," said John Papa, Classic's vice president of programming.

You might have noticed that one Ali bout that won't be televised is his March 8, 1971, showdown with Frazier in Madison Square Garden, the opening act in their three-part passion play that arguably was the most anticipated boxing match of all-time. In that pairing of undefeated superstars, Smokin' Joe floored Ali with a leaping left hook in the 15th round, the exclamation point to his unanimous-decision victory.

An oversight? Or is Ali's legend-sustaining machinery served only by tapes that reveal him in the most favorable light?

Papa said Ali-Frazier I can't be shown on ESPN Classic because ESPN does not own the rights to that fight. Fair enough.

Still, there sometimes appears to be a revisionist history, one in which Ali's stature continues to expand even as Frazier's contracts. And it shouldn't be that way. These two warriors engaged in boxing's most riveting rivalry, which should have ensured ring immortality for both in near-equal measures.
Instead, on Jan. 12, Frazier turned 63 to little or no fanfare.

"It's always that way," Pete Lyde, Frazier's son-in-law, said of the widening gap in the way Ali and Frazier are perceived.

Lyde said he hoped to put together a "private event" for Smokin' Joe's family and friends, "maybe a couple of hundred people" at the Pennsylvania Convention Center, but it didn't come off.

"I'd like to do something really nice for him, maybe black-tie, at some point," Lyde said. "If anyone deserves it, it's him."

But while a meaningful celebration of Frazier's place among boxing's greatest champions remains on the drawing board, Ali has been more recognized and saluted than any king or potentate.

The multimillion-dollar Muhammad Ali Center, in Ali's hometown of Louisville, Ky., was the site of a 1-year anniversary gala on Nov. 19, 2006, with 7,000 in attendance.

Ali has been lionized in a 1996 documentary, "When We Were Kings," which details his '74 upset of Foreman, and in a 2001 feature film, "Ali," which starred Philadelphia native Will Smith in the title role. Another documentary, "Louisville's Own Ali," has been shot.

It's not Muhammad Ali's fault he's a beloved world figure and cultural icon.


"He is not only the most remarkable sports personality I have ever met - he is the most remarkable man I have ever met."

-Harry Carpenter

Im only saying tho it just seems a little sad that either

a) Frazier couldnt accept Ali only said the things he said to sell fights
or alternatively
b) ali couldnt lay off the insults which were about as personal as u can get calling Joe an "uncle tom" when he and not ali picked the cotton fields on the plantations and the "gorilla" jibe.

Either way...

I guess from Frazier's POV he beat Ali and yet Ali and Dundee spun some story that Ali should have got the decision. Instead of being laughed out of the press rooms the media started to give the opinion some currency.

Then, after beating the great Ali, Frazier is unable to bask in the glory he deserved because Ali had turned his own people agianst him. Black superstars of the day turned their backs on Frazier because they actually believed the Uncle Tom nonsense.

From Ali's perspective he obviously found it hard to deal with his first defeat. It wasn't all about selling the fights. I'm sure he did feel a lot of bitterness after having lost. But I don't really think he understood just how bad the slurs were and just how deep they cut.

What's hard is that, as their fights show, there was little between these top fighters...and yet one man is far welathier and treated with far more respect than the other. Frazier was the victim of a number of insults and then ends up on the losing end of history and finances...got to be hard for him.

It's a shame that Frazier can't let it go

I agree with all of your well stated comments Ezzard.

But I also feel Frazier had shot his load by the time Foreman crushed him. he lost twice to Ali although the fights were close. he never could beat a foreman. He didnt fight a Shavers or Lyle, let alone a Norton or Holmes altho two of them were from the same fight camp so he couldnt anyway.

The two foreman defeats were crushing.

People forget that after around 1984 up to around 1992 Alis finances and profile had greatly diminished as well before his mid 90's renaissance and his becoming an icon to the internet generation.

Mugabi... You sight one of the major issues not only boxing fans but the public in general have with the harmfull and hatefull remarks ali made to many other boxers but especially in regard to Joe Frazier.

"I think its interesting that at the time of the Gorilla in manilla incident"

Joe Frazier was a humble and generous man and actually helped ali to regain his boxing career
after he lost his title for refusing enlistment. I also place blame directly on the reject lawyer
Howard Cosell for playing into and fanning the flames of the ali abuse on national television.

The ultimate humiliation is that a statue of Sylvester "Yo Adrian" Stalone sits in Joe Fraziers
home city of Philadelphia. Hmmmm...anyone see an issue with that.

I can see why Joe Frazier would have some feelings about what transpired however,
I think he is a much bigger man than ali will ever be because insults and arrogance do not win in the overall scheme of things and there is a much bigger picture..

Also, the devestating left hook that Joe Frazier hit ali with that put him out and on the canvas will go down in history as the best left hook ever thrown.
He did in fact silence ali after all of his irresponsible rhetoric and behavior.

Joe Fraziers record and achievments speak for themselves.

Granberry your post was most confusing. You said nothing in support of Joe Fraziers accomplishments but rather managed to use Joe to highlight ali.

I think there in lies part of the problem.
Joe Frazier was a great Heavyweight Champion and there will never be another Time...Excitement...Fight like Frazier Ali I.

ThatOne wrote:It's not Muhammad Ali's fault he's a beloved world figure and cultural icon.


"He is not only the most remarkable sports personality I have ever met - he is the most remarkable man I have ever met."

-Harry Carpenter

Ali, imo, is the most remarkable sports personality in history. He put sports on the map, made sports important, made sports recognized around the globe, etc.

However, there is a certain degree of bias towards him. For example, when people give their vote on who the best boxer in history was/is, those saying Ali are wrong. Ali was a great fighter, but was certainly not the best P4P ever!

Does anyone have any updates on the great man? It may not be nice to say it, but with his illness & how it will only deteriorate for him, I'm kind of half expecting to get THAT call or hear some tragic news some day soon!

Rocky Balboa wrote:
Ali, imo, is the most remarkable sports personality in history. He put sports on the map, made sports important, made sports recognized around the globe, etc.

You are kidding, right? He put sports on the map?? He didn't even put boxing on the map. Boxing was more popular generally circa the 1890s through the 1940s than it ever was in the 1960s or 70s when Ali was around.

raylawpc wrote:

Rocky Balboa wrote:
Ali, imo, is the most remarkable sports personality in history. He put sports on the map, made sports important, made sports recognized around the globe, etc.

You are kidding, right? He put sports on the map?? He didn't even put boxing on the map. Boxing was more popular generally circa the 1890s through the 1940s than it ever was in the 1960s or 70s when Ali was around.

I sure hope he is kidding.

OK I like Ali he's one of a kind no doubt and should get plenty of props.

But I get a kick out of some of the passion his fans have.

There are some folks who would take it a step farther. Not that he just put boxing on the sports map, or that he put Sports on the general map.....some will tell you with a straight face that it was Ali who came up with the idea and invented the MAP in the first place.

Here's the deal....without perfect historical timing and without Frazier, Ali is a footnote. Ali recognized the unique opportunity and exploited boxing's popularity and the unique rivalry he had with Joe, and parlayed things to new heights. I'll go so far as to say if Ali would have beaten Joe the first time out, Ali would not be the Icon he is today. All of the following ingredients were required for Ali to reach such Iconic status.

It was a unique time and it took quite a few things to turn the trick.

*Boxing's general popularity
*Ali's attention getting antics with Liston
*The Social economic times of the 60's going into the 70's
*The rise of the TV camera's magic over the population
*Howard Cosell recognizng and "catching the wave" as Ali's co- promoter.
*Ali's natural charisma
*Joe Frazier's natural demonstrated abilities
*Joe Fraziers winning the FOTC (allowing Ali the critical mountain he would be required to achieve his climb)
*Joe Fraziers loss to Foreman and Foreman's apparent invinciblity.
*Ali's win over Foreman. (Half way up that mountain now)
*Ali's win over Joe in their third brutal fight. (Peak of the mountain).
*Ali's ability to talk and make some believe that it was just him and not all these other factors that were the "key ingredient".


Don't get me wrong, I genuinely like the man but he had some great cards dealt to him from pure "happenstance" and he played them masterfully. He's was both an excellent boxer and a promotor on the level with P.T. Barnum.

So he's no less than great IMHO. But like I say, he sure had some great cards handed to him.

Ever see the movie "Being There"? A wee bit like that but unlike that main character he recognized and willfully helped the plot along in huge ways.

If Joe would have weathered his career the way Ali did, and won that third fight.....Things would be quite different IMHO.

There was much happenstance, and JOE was the key. Like I said without Joe, Ali was just another champion in the books.

You completely omitted Ali's refusal to be drafted and having his title taken away as well as his ability to practice his trade. The fact that he was vindicated in the legal courts , the court of public opinion, and in the ring is what made him a cultural icon. Without that he would have been just another fighter; albeit a quite talented one.

ThatOne wrote:You completely omitted Ali's refusal to be drafted and having his title taken away as well as his ability to practice his trade. The fact that he was vindicated in the legal courts , the court of public opinion, and in the ring is what made him a cultural icon. Without that he would have been just another fighter; albeit a quite talented one.

Not at all! that comes under the "Social and economic times of the 60's 70's.

BoxBuzz wrote:

ThatOne wrote:You completely omitted Ali's refusal to be drafted and having his title taken away as well as his ability to practice his trade. The fact that he was vindicated in the legal courts , the court of public opinion, and in the ring is what made him a cultural icon. Without that he would have been just another fighter; albeit a quite talented one.

Not at all! that comes under the "Social and economic times of the 60's 70's.

Without his refusal to be inducted he's just another athlete. He was the first African American to openly defy the powers that be and gone on to prosper.

noone argued that. the stand he took in that courtroom was greatly significant in making him an icon in the public eye.

ThatOne wrote:You completely omitted Ali's refusal to be drafted and having his title taken away as well as his ability to practice his trade. The fact that he was vindicated in the legal courts , the court of public opinion, and in the ring is what made him a cultural icon. Without that he would have been just another fighter; albeit a quite talented one.

I wouldn't say he was "vindicated" by the courts. His conviction was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court due to a procedural error by the Appeals Board. The federal district court convicted Ali on the merits, and his conviction was upheld on the merits by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A reversal on a procedural error is far from "vindication."

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:You completely omitted Ali's refusal to be drafted and having his title taken away as well as his ability to practice his trade. The fact that he was vindicated in the legal courts , the court of public opinion, and in the ring is what made him a cultural icon. Without that he would have been just another fighter; albeit a quite talented one.

I wouldn't say he was "vindicated" by the courts. His conviction was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court due to a procedural error by the Appeals Board. The federal district court convicted Ali on the merits, and his conviction was upheld on the merits by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A reversal on a procedural error is far from "vindication."

Respectfully, it is such picayune points that attorneys make that raises the ire of many members of the public.

Then when it was reversed and remanded why wasn't he tried again?

Because the U S government didn't want to martyr him anymore than it did.

Here's the vindication:

http://nbcsportsmedia1.msnbc.com/j/msnb ... med.h2.jpg



P.S. Another poster in this thread pooh poohed The Medal Of Freedom. It's the highest civilian award granted by the government in the United State, ergo:

Presidential Medal of Freedom is a decoration bestowed by the President of the United States and is, along with the equivalent Congressional Gold Medal bestowed by an act of U.S. Congress, the highest civilian award in the U.S. It recognizes those individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." The award is not limited to U.S. citizens and, while it is a civilian award, it can also be awarded to military personnel and worn on the uniform..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidenti ... of_Freedom


Again, it's not Ali's fault he's a cultural icon. Joe Frazier's fans would be better served by trying to preserve or enhance his legacy than tearing down Ali's.

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:You completely omitted Ali's refusal to be drafted and having his title taken away as well as his ability to practice his trade. The fact that he was vindicated in the legal courts , the court of public opinion, and in the ring is what made him a cultural icon. Without that he would have been just another fighter; albeit a quite talented one.

I wouldn't say he was "vindicated" by the courts. His conviction was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court due to a procedural error by the Appeals Board. The federal district court convicted Ali on the merits, and his conviction was upheld on the merits by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A reversal on a procedural error is far from "vindication."

Then when it was reversed and remanded why wasn't he tried again?

Because the U S government didn't want to martyr him anymore than it did.

Here's the vindication:

http://nbcsportsmedia1.msnbc.com/j/msnb ... med.h2.jpg



P.S. Another poster in this thread pooh poohed The Medal Of Freedom. It's the highest civilian award granted by the government in the United State, ergo:




The Presidential Medal of Freedom is a decoration bestowed by the President of the United States and is, along with the equivalent Congressional Gold Medal bestowed by an act of U.S. Congress, the highest civilian award in the U.S. It recognizes those individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." The award is not limited to U.S. citizens and, while it is a civilian award, it can also be awarded to military personnel and worn on the uniform..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidenti ... of_Freedom

I don't make decisions for the U.S. Department of Justice, and I didn't back in 1971, especially since I was still in high school.

And I didn't pooh-pooh the medal of freedom.

But the fact of the matter is (1) Ali went 1-2 in the courts (but won in the court that counted most), and (2) both courts that considered the case on the merits ruled against Ali, as did a jury of his peers. The only two people on the planet who ever ruled that Ali was a conscientious objector were the hearing examiner in Houston, and Justice Douglas in his concurring Supreme Court opinion.

I'm sorry, but claiming that Ali was vindicated by the courts when his conviction was reversed on a procedural error is like claiming that a convicted murderer is vindicated when his or her conviction is reversed on appeal due to a bad search by the cops. Ali "beat the rap" because the appeals board in Houston screwed up. You said he was "vindicated" by the courts; that's not "vindication."

If you choose to say he was vindicated by President Bush's award of the Medal of Freedom, that's one thing. But the court's didn't vindicate him.

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote: I wouldn't say he was "vindicated" by the courts. His conviction was reversed by the U. S. Supreme Court due to a procedural error by the Appeals Board. The federal district court convicted Ali on the merits, and his conviction was upheld on the merits by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A reversal on a procedural error is far from "vindication."

Then when it was reversed and remanded why wasn't he tried again?

Because the U S government didn't want to martyr him anymore than it did.

Here's the vindication:

http://nbcsportsmedia1.msnbc.com/j/msnb ... med.h2.jpg



P.S. Another poster in this thread pooh poohed The Medal Of Freedom. It's the highest civilian award granted by the government in the United State, ergo:




The Presidential Medal of Freedom is a decoration bestowed by the President of the United States and is, along with the equivalent Congressional Gold Medal bestowed by an act of U.S. Congress, the highest civilian award in the U.S. It recognizes those individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." The award is not limited to U.S. citizens and, while it is a civilian award, it can also be awarded to military personnel and worn on the uniform..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidenti ... of_Freedom

I don't make decisions for the U.S. Department of Justice, and I didn't back in 1971, especially since I was still in high school.

And I didn't pooh-pooh the medal of freedom.

But the fact of the matter is (1) Ali went 1-2 in the courts (but won in the court that counted most), and (2) both courts that considered the case on the merits ruled against Ali, as did a jury of his peers. The only two people on the planet who ever ruled that Ali was a conscientious objector were the hearing examiner in Houston, and Justice Douglas in his concurring Supreme Court opinion.

I'm sorry, but claiming that Ali was vindicated by the courts when his conviction was reversed on a procedural error is like claiming that a convicted murderer is vindicated when his or her conviction is reversed on appeal due to a bad search by the cops. Ali "beat the rap" because the appeals board in Houston screwed up. That's not vindication.

We will never know because the Supreme Court reversed the decision. (My bad). I wonder why they didn't "reverse and remand " it. Probably because the Supreme Court was attuned to the tenor of the times and didn't want to further martyr him.

Just a suggestion. If Joe Frazier's legacy is contingent on tearing down Muhammad Ali's legacy one has to ask themself what his legacy is and was to begin with. I submit I would focus on Smokin Joe's strengths and not Muhammad Ali's weaknesses; be they real or perceived.


Oh, and I wasn't suggesting raylawpc pooh poohed the Medal Of Freedom.

Well, in fact, we do know quite clearly why the Surpemes reversed because they said so in the an written opinion: They reversed because of an error by the appeals board. The only Justice who would have considered the case on the merits was Douglas and NOBODY - not even MARSHALL OR BRENNAN - was willing to join him in his concurring opinion. That speaks volumes right there.

The case was reversed because without legal findings reached in a procedurally correct manner by the Houston appeals board, the Justice Department had no legal mechanism by which to reopen the case. The Surpeme Court couldn't reverse and remand it as a matter of federal administrative legal procedure. The US Attorney could not go forward without a legally valid finding against Ali.

raylawpc wrote:Well, in fact, we do know quite clearly why the Surpemes reversed because they said so in the an written opinion: They reversed because of an error by the appeals board. The only Justice who would have considered the case on the merits was Douglas and NOBODY - not even MARSHALL OR BRENNAN - was willing to join him in his concurring opinion. That speaks volumes right there.

The case was reversed because without legal findings reached in a procedurally correct manner by the Houston appeals board, the Justice Department had no legal mechanism by which to reopen the case. The Surpeme Court couldn't reverse and remand it as a matter of federal administrative legal procedure.

Marshall abstained.

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Well, in fact, we do know quite clearly why the Surpemes reversed because they said so in the an written opinion: They reversed because of an error by the appeals board. The only Justice who would have considered the case on the merits was Douglas and NOBODY - not even MARSHALL OR BRENNAN - was willing to join him in his concurring opinion. That speaks volumes right there.

The case was reversed because without legal findings reached in a procedurally correct manner by the Houston appeals board, the Justice Department had no legal mechanism by which to reopen the case. The Surpeme Court couldn't reverse and remand it as a matter of federal administrative legal procedure.

Marshall abstained.

You are correct. But Brennan didn't, and neither did six others who could have joined Douglas had they thought Ali should win on the merits.

Again, I have no problem with saying he was vindicated by the Medal of Freedom, or by being the torchlighter at the Olympics, etc. etc. But the courts did not vindicate him.

It is ironic that the Justice Department overruled the Hearing Officer ; the one who did the primary investigation,

And the he last thing the U.S. governement wanted to do was make Muhammad Ali a political prisoner; the American version of Nelson Mandela who was languishing in a South African prison at the same time.

It would be less ironic to you if you had spent a semester in Professor Collum's administrative law class!!

Here is a good summary of the opinion from the oyez website: Facts of the Case:

"Board No. 47, Louisville, Kentucky, denied the application of Cassius Clay, also known as Muhammad Ali, for classification as a conscientious objector. Clay then took an administrative appeal to the Kentucky Appeal Board, which tentatively classified him I-A, or eligible for unrestricted military service, and referred his file to the Justice Department for an advisory recommendation. The Justice Department concluded, contrary to a hearing officer's recommendation, that Clay's claim should be denied. The Department wrote that Clay did not meet any of the three basic tests for conscientious objector status; that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form, that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief, and that this objection is sincere. Subsequently, the Appeal Board denied Clay's claim, but without stating its reasons. When Clay refused to report for induction, he was tried and convicted of willful refusal to submit to induction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question:
Was Cassius Clay's induction notice invalid because it was grounded upon an erroneous denial of his claim to be classified as a conscientious objector?

Conclusion:
Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that since the Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption to Clay, and that it was impossible to determine on which of the three grounds offered in the Justice Department's letter that board relied, Clay's conviction must be reversed. The Court reasoned that Clay satisfied the first two tests of conscientious objection. Regarding the third test, the Court concluded that whether or not Clay met the test of conscientious objection to war in any form, it was not clear that the Appeal Board relied on some legitimate ground in denying the claim, and therefore the conviction could not stand. In separate opinions, Justices William O. Douglas and John M. Harlan concurred. Justice Thurgood Marshall did not participate."

Here's a link to the actual opinion, which I think I've posted every time this issue has come up:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=698

P.S. Justice Harlan concurred, not because he agreed with Douglas, but because he found yet another procedural error in the case.