BoxRec

Could you guys imagine if smokin joe beat ali in their 3rd fight? where do you guys think joe would rank on the all time list if he did...were would ali place? would he still remain in your top spot (if he was) ... would this realistic fight have more of an impact on the top10 of all time, then any of realistic fight ever??

Rory McCloskey wrote:Could you guys imagine if smokin joe beat ali in their 3rd fight? where do you guys think joe would rank on the all time list if he did...were would ali place? would he still remain in your top spot (if he was) ... would this realistic fight have more of an impact on the top10 of all time, then any of realistic fight ever??

It was a lose-lose situation for Joe if he beat Ali in the third fight. I think he'd be about in the same place in the all-time ratings and most folks would say Ali was overrated. After the third fight, Joe was finished physically and if he continued fighting instead of retiring, he would have ran into George Foreman like he did in '76 and got flattened again. George would have become a two-time heavyweight champion right away while Frazier would just be viewed as the guy who had Ali's number.

so if smokin joe lost 3 out of 4 of the biggest fights in his career, why do we rank him so high? is it just because he almost won a trilogy against ali that we rank frazier prodominatly in the top 10?.. looking back on it who did he beat?

I don't rank Frazier that highly personally but he did beat a prime Ellis and a prime Quarry, both blokes who'd be champions today.

collins i agree that quarry would have been champ in many other era's...

and decagon you think frazier was out of his prime during ali-frazier 2?

Decagon wrote:Definitely. Frazier had a painfully short prime that ended when he started fighting at 215 instead of 205. I'm a huge fan of the Joe Frazier of the 1960s. Just up to 1971, he beat the following fighters:

Oscar Bonavena
Eddie Machen
Doug Jones
George Chuvalo (twice)
Buster Mathis
Jerry Quarry
Jimmy Ellis
Bob Foster
Muhammad Ali

Even if some of those fighters were past their prime, that's major. I don't think Foreman would have had as easy a time with the Frazier of 1969. The 1972-1976 version of Frazier was still good, but not great.

EXCELLENT point decagon, i totally agree. except frazier only beat chuvalo once, u meant bonavena twice.


rory,

foreman beat a past his prime frazier. frazier was never the same after ali I, he was slower, 10lbs overweight, and didnt have his same reflexes.


i think a peak 69-71 frazier would have been an interesting fight with a lighter faster frazier in there. i think foreman had his # and would have beat any version of frazier, but it would be interesting

Yancey?

Ezzard wrote:Yancey?

........would be an even happier man that he is today.....

Rory McCloskey wrote:Could you guys imagine if smokin joe beat ali in their 3rd fight? where do you guys think joe would rank on the all time list if he did...were would ali place? would he still remain in your top spot (if he was) ... would this realistic fight have more of an impact on the top10 of all time, then any of realistic fight ever??

Had Frazier officially won the trilogy with Ali, then his all-time ranking would of course been right near the top.

Sometime back a contributor here surmised that one way to determine the true winner of a hotly disputed trilogy was to compare the respective conditions of the two fighters 20 years removed from their last encounter.

I think that contributor (an Ali fan boy, btw) made quite a bit of sense with his 20 year theory.

There can be little doubt that Ali's later health issues stemmed largely in part from some of the terrific punishment he absorbed in the squared circle, in particular from his encounters with Frazier.

So who really did win the trilogy?

I think Joe did.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Yancey?

........would be an even happier man that he is today.....

I am indeed a happy guy.

And I don't mind one bit that Ali fan boys got some sloppy seconds in the trilogy.

We all know who won the Big One.

I think a bigger issue would have been if Joe had stepped on it in round 15 of the first fight and stopped Ali. I think that would have made a bigger impact on the ratings.

Ezzard wrote:I think a bigger issue would have been if Joe had stepped on it in round 15 of the first fight and stopped Ali. I think that would have made a bigger impact on the ratings.

Joe definitely should have "stepped on it".

Ali was ready to go less than a minute after the knockdown and Joe inexplicably let him off the hook.

I think it would have opened up a lot more questions. Certainly more pluses for Joe.

But it was what it was. Still a great performance over one of the greatest if not greatest of HWs.

yancey wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I think a bigger issue would have been if Joe had stepped on it in round 15 of the first fight and stopped Ali. I think that would have made a bigger impact on the ratings.

Joe definitely should have "stepped on it".

Ali was ready to go less than a minute after the knockdown .

This is the answer.....and he recuperated in world class style. The second biggest story of that fight, is what Ali accomplished in the wake of the KD. Like you say....he was back on his feet and "ready to go".


I know we mean different things here. But that was the beginning of Alis 25+ rounds of redemption regarding Joe Frazier.
And he wasn't on the verge of a KO.........well.....anymore than Joe was, in the second fight.

There has only been one KD and one KO scored in their series. and we all know who owns which.

BoxBuzz wrote:

yancey wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I think a bigger issue would have been if Joe had stepped on it in round 15 of the first fight and stopped Ali. I think that would have made a bigger impact on the ratings.

Joe definitely should have "stepped on it".

Ali was ready to go less than a minute after the knockdown .

This is the answer.....and he recuperated in world class style. The second biggest story of that fight, is what Ali accomplished in the wake of the KD. Like you say....he was back on his feet and "ready to go".


I know we mean different things here. But that was the beginning of Alis 25+ rounds of redemption regarding Joe Frazier.
And he wasn't on the verge of a KO.........well.....anymore than Joe was, in the second fight.

There has only been one KD and one KO scored in their series. and we all know who owns which.

12 of those "25+ rounds of redemption" showcased some of the most low rent tactics I've ever seen.

Ali was shameless with all that holding and pulling down of Frazier's head. Not much to be proud of in that "win."

As far as the third fight goes, I'll side with the great Gil Clancy. Futch should have sent Joe out.

I'm very surprised to learn that you did not approve of Ali's winning ways.

I don't even hear you responding about just how great of a reboot Ali had after being knocked down by Joe.

Didn't Joe knock him down good enough? Or was that more of a trip on Ali's part?

If someone told me that, as a Frazier fan, I could choose....



A. Joe wins the FOTC, but loses the 12 rounder and the Manila fight, thus losing the trilogy.

or

B. Joe loses the FOTC, but wins the 12 rounder and the Manila fight, thus winning the trilogy.



I take option A, without hesitation.


That is how great the importance of the FOTC was to me.

There should be no need to go into the reasons why the FOTC was of so much greater significance.

We've been through that time and again.

We agree..always have always will.

And if Frazier would have lost the first fight, but won the 3rd, some people would say the 3rd fight was the "most important".

Some undoubtedly would. But he would have had to have won the second one, or there would never have been a third fight. Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third.

BoxBuzz wrote:Some undoubtedly would. But he would have had to have won the second one, or there would never have been a third fight. Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third.

"Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third." BB



Which is why it was going to be hard for Joe to get a close decision in the 2nd Ali fight.

(not saying Joe won, just saying he was in an uphill struggle in that 2nd go round)

I'm glad to see that your not saying Smokin' Joe won. But you have expressed you were troubled by Ali's tactics. As I was by the breather given to Joe. If you are a cynic...(which I am not typically( you might feel that to extend this encounter was a "goal" of the refs. I don't think so honestly.....it's just about judgment and the ol "shyt happens" aspect of life.

By the way....since Joe was a bit more dynamic in his power than Ali, AND a damn good finisher would you have been disturbed if the exact same breather was given to Ali under the exact same conditions?

Or would you honestly assume that since Ali was so rugged, he would have weathered that moment with or without a mistake on behalf of the referee?

BoxBuzz wrote:Some undoubtedly would. But he would have had to have won the second one, or there would never have been a third fight. Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third.

Maybe, maybe not. There are many examples of a 3rd fight even though the same guy won the first two.

Let's put it another way, if Frazier would have lost the first the first fight, but won the 2nd, some people would then say that the 2nd fight was the most important.

As for the way that the three fights actually occurred, I guess you could argue that since the 2nd fight wasn't a title fight, it wasn't as important. However, it was a crucial fight for both fighters and more important than most title fights.
The 3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight.

To say that winning the first fight was more important than winning the 2nd and 3rd fights combined is just stupid.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Some undoubtedly would. But he would have had to have won the second one, or there would never have been a third fight. Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third.

Maybe, maybe not. There are many examples of a 3rd fight even though the same guy won the first two.

Let's put it another way, if Frazier would have lost the first the first fight, but won the 2nd, some people would then say that the 2nd fight was the most important.

As for the way that the three fights actually occurred, I guess you could argue that since the 2nd fight wasn't a title fight, it wasn't as important. However, it was a crucial fight for both fighters and more important than most title fights.
The 3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight.

To say that winning the first fight was more important than winning the 2nd and 3rd fights combined is just stupid.

Anyone who thinks the "3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight" is either...

A. Extremely Uninformed
B. Extremely Biased

or, in some cases, maybe both.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm glad to see that your not saying Smokin' Joe won. But you have expressed you were troubled by Ali's tactics. As I was by the breather given to Joe. If you are a cynic...(which I am not typically( you might feel that to extend this encounter was a "goal" of the refs. I don't think so honestly.....it's just about judgment and the ol "shyt happens" aspect of life.

By the way....since Joe was a bit more dynamic in his power than Ali, AND a damn good finisher would you have been disturbed if the exact same breather was given to Ali under the exact same conditions?

Or would you honestly assume that since Ali was so rugged, he would have weathered that moment with or without a mistake on behalf of the referee?

Given the same degree of hurt (which wasn't all that much, in truth) Ali easily survives. As Joe would have.