BoxRec

Joe Frazier versus George Foreman, their first fight in Kingston, Jamaica. -------- Clearly, George beat Joe by a 2nd round knockout.
But, Frazier was past his prime for this fight. Joe was also past his prime for his March, 1971, fight against Muhammad Ali.


1. Frazier, from age 21 to 25, do you think that Joe was unstoppable in the boxing ring?



2. When Frazier was 21 to 25, do you think that Joe Frazier could have beaten any other boxer from any era?

If so, why? If not, why not?





Please explain.

Frazier "past his prime" for Ali in March 1971? Crazy statement. An awesome fighter in his absolute prime that night, one of the all-time astounding feats of concentrated violence.

Have to agree with Jim, if ever a fighter was at his peak it was Frazier that night, coming off a couple of devastating ko wins, he then beats an unbeaten all time great in arguably the biggest fight in history.

Here is what we are supposed to believe for Frazier fans:
1. Ali was in his prime when Frazier beat him. (Despite being off 3 and half years and clearly not looking looking like he once did against Bonavena)
2. Yet somehow, Frazier is suddenly past it when he loses to Foreman just two year later.

That makes no sense.

Years have nothing to do with it. A fighter be past his prime one fight later. Anyone with eyeballs that work can see after Frazier beat Ali he wasn't the same. That was his ultimate goal, the only fight he really hungered for. Once he accomplished his task mentally and physically he just wasn't turned on any more. He was far more interested in his singing career than boxing and devoted much more time to it.

As for Ali he may have been past his prime and may not have been. Im sure the layoff did him no favors but at the same time did his not looking great against Bonavena have nothing to do with the fact that Oscar was a more formidable opponent particularly stylistically than anyone he fought prior to his exile with the possible exception of Sonny Liston who had boxed a grand total of 15 minutes in the five years previous to defending against Ali (you can throw out their second fight since it was over before it started)??

Frazier was definitely in his prime in the 1st Ali fight. Yet that was a reserve taking fight, so Frazier arguably could have been past prime after it.

In his prime Frazier would have beaten almost anyone. Of course, awkward and hard-hitting fast-starters were troublesome for him. Just like Foreman. Frazier was a slow-starter, who was chasing his opponents and wearing them down. That wasn't just dumb aggression and pressure. Frazier was special, so he was able to maul down boxers and outfight punchers. That's why he had won Ali. In his prime he would have won any version of Ali, I believe.

However, if his opponents were too specific in offence and could be good early, they could trouble Frazier. That's why Bonavena had some success, that's why Foreman did what he did. Tyson also would have some real chances early, but if he didn't use them, he would have lost.

Holyfield would have been a tough challenge, cause he was not just skillful, but machine-like and determined. He could fight, if he was dragged in the fight, he was able to return punishment. And I'll favour Lewis over him, Lennox was too big and too smart.

Hard to believe that two run of mill heavy weight champs Rahman and macall. Both stretched Lewis and joe wouldn’t have got to him. As great as joe Frazier was he was never as good as during the first Ali fight. Big George was way stronger than Lewis. He was big and strong enough to keep Joe off

Johnny Walker wrote: ↑03 Sep 2018, 12:06 Hard to believe that two run of mill heavy weight champs Rahman and macall. Both stretched Lewis and joe wouldn’t have got to him. As great as joe Frazier was he was never as good as during the first Ali fight. Big George was way stronger than Lewis. He was big and strong enough to keep Joe off

Lewis was looking through McCall and Rahman and he paid for that. But what he did to them in the rematches? Lewis sometimes lacked dedication. That actually was the only real problem of near-perfect Lennox.

He was certainly NOT passed his prime when facing Ali in the FOTC but rather at his absolute peak. He was certainly NOT passed his prime when facing George Foreman, but rather his style was a tailor made picnic for Foreman. Proof of this is when a truly "passed his prime" Frazier fought Foreman years later and lasted longer (five rounds) simply by changing his style.

As for the question of "Could anyone have beaten Frazier at his best?", is asinine because as stated above he was "prime" against Foreman in Jamaica. I can invision quite a few men who could have done the job.

1. Frazier, from age 21 to 25, do you think that Joe was unstoppable in the boxing ring?

No, there's never been an "Unstoppable" boxer and there never will be

2. When Frazier was 21 to 25, do you think that Joe Frazier could have beaten any other boxer from any era?

If so, why? If not, why not?

I think he could've held his own with just about any Boxer from any era. I don't think he would've beaten 'em all.

Kinda a silly question to be honest. When he was 22 he was getting knocked down twice by Oscar Bonavena, and barely scraping by on a Split Decision win. There have been LOTS of guys who would've been more of a handful than Bonavena.

klompton wrote: ↑31 Aug 2018, 12:25 Years have nothing to do with it. A fighter be past his prime one fight later. Anyone with eyeballs that work can see after Frazier beat Ali he wasn't the same. That was his ultimate goal, the only fight he really hungered for. Once he accomplished his task mentally and physically he just wasn't turned on any more. He was far more interested in his singing career than boxing and devoted much more time to it.

As for Ali he may have been past his prime and may not have been. Im sure the layoff did him no favors but at the same time did his not looking great against Bonavena have nothing to do with the fact that Oscar was a more formidable opponent particularly stylistically than anyone he fought prior to his exile with the possible exception of Sonny Liston who had boxed a grand total of 15 minutes in the five years previous to defending against Ali (you can throw out their second fight since it was over before it started)??

The singing career and the not being motivated excuses are "my dog ate my homework excuses. Totally lame.

Anyone who saw Ali against Bonavena (or his fights after Frazier) can tell he was no where the fighter he had once been. The layoff did a lot more than not doing him any favors. He doesn't look t like the same fighter at all.
The Bonavena fight had nothing to do with Bonavena's style. He had an easy style for Ali in his prime to beat.

Riiiight. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bonavena was a better, more difficult opponent than anyone he defended against prior to his exile.

Riiight. I'm going to out on a limb and say that Floyd Patterson was better than Bonavena. But that's just me.

(Guess it's crazy to count the first Liston fight as well when evaluating Ali). And of course we can just assume that Bonavena was light years better than Terrell and Chuvalo.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Sep 2018, 11:14 Riiight. I'm going to out on a limb and say that Floyd Patterson was better than Bonavena. But that's just me.

(Guess it's crazy to count the first Liston fight as well when evaluating Ali). And of course we can just assume that Bonavena was light years better than Terrell and Chuvalo.

Patterson would have been better if he didnt have a slipped disc.

Considering Bonavena beat Chuvalo (dropping him twice without getting credit) yes, I think he was better than Chuvalo who was nothing more than a face first slugger with cement feet. And yes, I think Bonavena was better than Terrell but more to the point I think stylistically he was a more difficult fight for any version of Ali than a jab and grab artist who gave up his height and was neither particularly fast or hard hitting. Bonavenas awkward style, rhythm, strength, durability, and heart were always going to cause Ali problems no matter when they fought.

Why would I count the first Liston fight in Ali’s DEFENSES? Go back and read my post. DEFENSES. But frankly, no, I dont consider a 35 year old fighter whose only fought six one sided rounds in the previous four years (and it showed in the ring) to be as threatening or difficult an opponent as a prime Bonavena. The difference between you (and most casual fans) and I is that I dont just look at a name on a resume and go “oooh Sonny Liston, he was a badass, he must be better than that Bona-who...” I look at what those guys actually did and if you think Sonny Liston slowly following Ali around the ring ineffectually with no gameplan other than to blind him with linement was a better fighter than pretty much any version of Bonavena then this discussion isnt worth continuing. Ali couldnt walk on water. As I said, he may very well have lost a step after his exile but dont sit there and pretend that he was looking the way he was because he was so degraded and not because in fighting Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier (who were a murderers row compared to guys like London, Folley, Cooper, and Williams, who made Ali look better than he was) back to back. Do you think its a coincidence that people have tabbed the Cleveland Williams fight as Alis prime performance? You dont think Ali looked so good and so fast because he was fighting a guy who in his prime was a protected one dimensional plodder who stood straight up and was now padt his prime? The guy might as well have been a cigar store indian. Of course he made Ali look good. Put the Bonavena Ali fought in 1970 and in there and its a different story.

Wow, it's almost you are one of those rare irrational Ali-haters. Always an excuse for his opponents.
Patterson's seemed fine in the early rounds and Ali was toying with him.
The Chuvalo-Bonavena fight was very close; some even thought Chuvalo should have got the decision. Ali beat Chuvalo convincingly. He would have beat Bonavena much more convincingly if he was anywhere near his his best.

Chuvalo was a good fighter, not great. Same with Bonavena. He brought nothing that would have bothered a prime Ali. As it was, he couldn't even go the distance.
Terrell was a better fighter Bonavena. Even if you really think Bonavena was better, it can't be by much.

I brought up the the fact that you carefully mentioned title defenses because that way you don't have to count the Liston fight. (Of course you aren't going going to count the second.)
Liston was a lot better than Bonavena. Ali easily beat Liston.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 16:43 Wow, it's almost you are one of those rare irrational Ali-haters. Always an excuse for his opponents.
Patterson's seemed fine in the early rounds and Ali was toying with him.
The Chuvalo-Bonavena fight was very close; some even thought Chuvalo should have got the decision. Ali beat Chuvalo convincingly. He would have beat Bonavena much more convincingly if he was anywhere near his his best.

Chuvalo was a good fighter, not great. Same with Bonavena. He brought nothing that would have bothered a prime Ali. As it was, he couldn't even go the distance.
Terrell was a better fighter Bonavena. Even if you really think Bonavena was better, it can't be by much.

I brought up the the fact that you carefully mentioned title defenses because that way you don't have to count the Liston fight. (Of course you aren't going going to count the second.)
Liston was a lot better than Bonavena. Ali easily beat Liston.

Wow, it's almost you are one of those rabid irrational Ali-fans.. Always an excuse for his failings.

Fortunately, for me, being pro-Ali you don't have to be nearly as creative as being anti-Ali.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 17:42 Fortunately, for me, being pro-Ali you don't have to be nearly as creative as being anti-Ali.

But what about being interested in boxing for its own sake--and not being "pro" or "anti" anything?

I guess that never occurred to you.

'73 Foreman beats whatever Frazier shows up, prime, grade-A, whatever; he was ready made for Foreman and always loses to him.

APerno wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 19:59 '73 Foreman beats whatever Frazier shows up, prime, grade-A, whatever; he was ready made for Foreman and always loses to him.

Yep Foreman beats Frazier 10 out of 10 times.

Sidney Carton wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 17:58

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 17:42 Fortunately, for me, being pro-Ali you don't have to be nearly as creative as being anti-Ali.

But what about being interested in boxing for its own sake--and not being "pro" or "anti" anything?

I guess that never occurred to you.

Really? All I see you do rip guys you don't like over and over.
I am interested in boxing for it's own sake. I love the history of it. Some guys I like, Some I don't, most I don't care too much either way.
There are plenty of guys that I don't like that I rate higher than guys that I do.
If you can come up with one example where I made an excuse for Ali that I wouldn't for anyone else in a similar situation, let me know.
It strains credibility for Ali to be so lucky, where the other guys almost always had an injury, the decision was bad, the other guy was not motivated, the ref counted too fast, the ref stopped the fight too fast etc. Fight after fight throughout his entire career.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Sep 2018, 16:43 Wow, it's almost you are one of those rare irrational Ali-haters. Always an excuse for his opponents.
Patterson's seemed fine in the early rounds and Ali was toying with him.
The Chuvalo-Bonavena fight was very close; some even thought Chuvalo should have got the decision. Ali beat Chuvalo convincingly. He would have beat Bonavena much more convincingly if he was anywhere near his his best.

Chuvalo was a good fighter, not great. Same with Bonavena. He brought nothing that would have bothered a prime Ali. As it was, he couldn't even go the distance.
Terrell was a better fighter Bonavena. Even if you really think Bonavena was better, it can't be by much.

I brought up the the fact that you carefully mentioned title defenses because that way you don't have to count the Liston fight. (Of course you aren't going going to count the second.)
Liston was a lot better than Bonavena. Ali easily beat Liston.

Im not an Ali hater so thats a non starter. Your admission to being “pro Ali” says it all. I simply analyze his career within the context in which he existed. You cant seperate fact from fiction.

Ali admitted that Chuvalo gave him his toughest fight pre exile. Bonavena was better than Chuvalo and proved it in the ring. Of course he is hoing to give Ali more problems. He also had a style that was difficult for Ali to time and that combined with his toughness and heart made for a rough night for any version of Ali period. Minimize that all you want so you can believe Ali was merely suffering from his layoff and not merely human but the facts dont lie.

And again, no, I don't think a nearly 35 year old fighter with less than six one sided rounds under his belt in the previous five years is s tougher proposition than Bonavena. I know that’s sacrilege to someone who wants to believe that Ali accomplished a miracle when he beat Liston but the fact is that Ali went into that fight as a younger, faster, bigger, and more active fighter by far than Liston. Is it Monday morning quarterbacking to say he had a very very good shot winning? Yes, but it doesnt change the fact that the odds were colored by public perception and not the reality of Listons career trajectory. Not unlike after the Ali fights where people try to build Liston up by wondering what he would have done against guys like Quarry and Frazier yet are ignorant of or ignore competely that Liston was fighting third raters by design and actively turning down offers to fight second raters like Chuvalo and Quarry among others. He was done and knew it. When Henry Clark and Leotis Martin are the best fighters you care to step in the ring with and go 1-1 between them then lets not pretend the guy was some boogey man. Thats a myth perpetuated by people like you who need to believe Ali accomplished a miracle.


And no, head to head I dont consider Terrell a more difficult fight for Ali than Bonavena. How many boxers gave Ali problems as opposed to aggressive sluggers (particular durable ones)? Care to tally it? I didnt think so. If you did youd see that fighters of the Terrell type were typically easy meat for Ali. Whereas fighters of the Bonavena type typically presented problems for him. But you cant admit that because it would shine a harsh light on the fact that Bonavena, a young, prime, strong, durable, awkward, and highly motivated slugger would have been a tough fight for any version of Ali.

I am pro-Al;i. Never have shied away form that. Am not a a phony. I don't say anything about him that I would n't about any other fighter in a similar situation. As I always say, go find examples of it.
You aren't anti-Ali? Come on.
You come with every lame excuse in the book. Patterson's bad back. Liston had not fought enough rounds. (Which is because he was destroying people. If he hadn't then you would have said he struggled with people.)

You are looking at Liston fights against Leotis Martin? That fight was 5 years after the Ali fight. Of course he was over the hill by that point.
1964 Sonny Liston would have beaten the crap out of 1970 Bonavena.
Chuvalo probably did give Ali his toughest fight in his prime. Ali still won easily.

Bonavena's was that good, he would not have lost to 37 year old Floyd Patterson. Later that year, Patterson was stopped in 7 rounds by guess who? Ali.
Bonavena barely beat Zora Folley by a decision in Argentina. Ali easily stopped Folley a year earlier.
You certainly could argue that Folley in 1967 was better than Bonavena in 1966.

Did punchers or boxers give Ali more trouble? Well in his prime he fought both and beat them all easily.

Past his prime, I would say he had more trouble with boxers. Frazier was a puncher, but Norton (at least against Ali) was a boxer. Quarry tried to rough it up against Ali and got beat badly. He stopped Foreman and Lyle, I think most people would call them punchers.
Lyle beat guess who? Bonavena.

You put Oscar Bonavena on this pedestal, but somehow you call Chuvalo and Quarry 2nd raters? Wow.

My two cents

I "hated" Muhammad Ali (the fighter) and rooted against him in every fight he was ever in (I hated his style); I think Ali is the most courageous and principled celebrity I have ever encountered.

It is now known (although Ali always denied it) that Ali was approached by the Defense Department and told he would never see combat, that they intended to use him in the same manner as they did Joe Louis. Yet we had to constantly listen to idiots call him a coward, though even at the time, it was obvious to everyone that he would never see combat.

We never had more than 524,000 men in Vietnam and with a 4-1 logistics ratio we never had more than 125,000 men in actual combat roles -- and that was at its very height (July 1969).

Ali was faced with the daunting decision to become a walking-talking recruiting poster for the Vietnam War; many African American youths would have raced to join up had Ali donned a uniform.

He gave up so much; he could have done his two years, fought exhibitions; stayed in shape; not lost all his money; continued to sell bug spray and shoe polish; and had his title put on hold until he returned.

There have been very few men who willingly gave up so much for a principle.

APerno wrote: ↑10 Sep 2018, 17:07
There have been very few men who willingly gave up so much for a principle.

GARBAGE.

Puppet Ali did whatever his Nation of Islam masters told him to do.