HBO special "Thrilla in Manila"

[allworld80]

Did anyone else see this tonight? Wow, Frazier is still venemous about Ali isn't he? He went so far as to indicate the Ali's current battle with parkinsans is the result of God smiting him for what he did. Also, I wasn't aware that Joe loaned Ali money during his ban. All in all, a good show.

[I Feel Fine]

That was the most biased documentary I have ever seen, certainly in regards to sports. The documentary HBO released about the first fight was a little biased in Frazier's favor, but only subtly, nothing extreme per se. This one must have been a collaboration between Frazier's mother and granberry.

[Goodnight, Irene]

That was the most biased documentary I have ever seen, certainly in regards to sports. The documentary HBO released about the first fight was a little biased in Frazier's favor, but only subtly, nothing extreme per se. This one must have been a collaboration between Frazier's mother and granberry.

Well, fair's fair. I think everyone can agree there've been more than a few (hundred) appallingly one-sided Ali stories, beginning with When We Were Kings (less history, & more his-story, among countless others).

Welcome back, incidentally. Your contributions have been missed, & I think you'd give even more, should you stick around, without Granberry to distract you (& most of us) so regularly.

[I Feel Fine]

Come on though, When We Were Kings didn't make Foreman out to be the antichrist. I mean, I'll admit, I did not know that Ali was attending Klan rallies. I thought that was a bit disturbing, to say the least. But, the idea that Frazier is a martyr or that the biggest achievement Ali ever had in his career, that he did on his own, without help, was to comb his hair during training camps is a bit extreme. You do not need to respect Ali as a person to respect his career, something that some boxing fans somehow miss in a sport that has had a fair share of bad guys (Carlos Monzon's misdeed was a bit worse than calling Frazier ugly.)

Ali said some things about Frazier that were wrong; but this is boxing. I mean, Roberto Duran spit on Leonard's sister and gave his wife the finger. Leonard says that he gets along with Duran today. I am not saying that I expect Frazier to be Ali's friend, but there is a point where you can be too sensitive, and where that sensitivity can be a negative. And the things he said about Ali's disease or about how he wanted to kill Ali were just as vicious as anything Ali ever said (not to mention that if Frazier had fought on for as long as Ali did, against the same quality opposition, that Frazier would not look so good today either.)

And the documentary ate it all up. I mean, just look at the footage they showed of the first fight as an example. Watching it you would think that Ali lost every round, which his worst critic would not claim. I think that encapsulates how the rest of the documentary was made. Not to mention their failure to mention Ali's ring rust, to show any footage of the second fight, to mention what the ref did in the 2nd round of that fight, to mention Frazier's lowblows and headbutts throughout the trilogy which are penalties that actually draw point deductions, as opposed to holding which at most draws a warning or two. Ask Lennox Lewis how many points he lost for that sort of thing, why does Ali always get pinned on that? How about Ruiz and Wlad? Ali clearly won the second fight, and it was not only because he held. He had much more stamina in the rematch because he had been much more active in his schedule prior to that fight than he had been prior to the first match. Same in Manila.

Like I said, only Frazier's mother and granberry, working as a writing team, could have produced that documentary. I feel that this is getting a bit old, and that Frazier is at this point merely looking for attention, which he has not had in a long time. And the least the film makers could have done was mention that Ali has since left the Nation of Islam (only months after Manila) and is no longer an advocate of any of the rather racist beliefs he once held. And I thought the media conspiracy was supposed to be biased for Ali...

And how about Holmes calling Ali overrated? How about Holmes try beating someone half as good as Frazier before talking that way about Ali? Holmes suggested that Ali did not hit hard and that Ali had poor defense... which is the pot calling the kettle black, I would say, but that might sound too racial for our PC world. God help me if I called him a gorilla, as opposed to a rabbit or a bear or an acorn.

Thanks, by the way. What happened to granberry, anyway? Banned?

[I Feel Fine]

By the way, the documentary forgot to mention St. Innocent Frazier getting arrested a few years ago for slapping a woman around in Philadelphia. No sanctimonious scenes about that incident. I guess Ali made him do it.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Thanks, by the way. What happened to granberry, anyway? Banned?

- My silly little boy wonder Colly says he is me, so Colly follows me around these threads like a silly imprinted baby goose, honking his noisy nonsense with great vigour.

Of course the new doc is biased. How else are they to make their money on the soon to be gone legends of yore? Another of the umpteenth cookie cutter white washed heroic Ali bios and docs won't pay the bulldog in these days of global corporate fraud and terrorism.

Besides, Ali just signed off on rights to his image for something like a half billion bucks while Joe is a little short in the small change department. Let Joe promote his version of the fight which has long ago entered the Valhalla greatest fights HOF.

[I Feel Fine]

I agree with your premise, but these comparisons to other Ali documentaries are simply not legitimate. When We Were Kings does not have an ax to grind about George Foreman, nor does it try to make it look as though Ali won every round of their fight. If anything, watching When We Were Kings, you get the impression that Foreman had won every round prior to the knockout, which he did not do. I agree that Frazier should be able to get his side of the story in, but that is not the same as having the film makers try to prove all of his demented, bitter claims. Some of Joe's opinions are legitimate, but many are exaggerated, and some are simply not true by any standard.
I wonder about the people who made the movie. The film makers were British, and I constantly hear about tension in Britain about the growth of Islam in that country. Perhaps that might be one of the reasons why the film makers were biased against Ali.
Even this stuff about Frazier not having any money; so? Whose fault is that? One of the reason why I do not understand this false sympathy for Frazier is that he made around 11 million dollars fighting Ali, in an era where your average athlete was only making a few hundred thousand a year. Cue the worlds smallest violin.

[I Feel Fine]

Again, there is quite a difference between perspective and distortion. You can tell someone's side of the story without embracing it hook, line and sinker. The film makers clearly had an ax to grind, and it had more to do with Frazier's exaggerated feelings. I am sorry that you don't like to hear something negative about Britain, but it is just a suggestion, I do hear about this a lot.

[I Feel Fine]

Why do I need to grow up? I simply gave an opinion, and you said it was stupid. Maybe you need to grow up?
I haven't said anything biased, I simply believe that the film makers had more than Frazier in mind when they made the film.

[I Feel Fine]

I'm not "saying", I'm speculating. Do you understand the difference? It is the same difference between Frazier in a moment of hyperbole suggesting that he won every round of the first fight against Ali, and the film makers trying to state it as fact that he had by showing clip after clip of Frazier left hooks as though Ali never landed a single punch in the fight. That is the difference between opinion and distortion.

I would suggest you grow up, rather than calling something stated only as speculation "stupid." What could be more childish than that?

[I Feel Fine]

I suggested it, I did not say it as a fact. I wish the film makers had done the same.

[dempseyfire]

Just saw it. Of course it's told from Frazier's perspective . . I found it refreshing after the multitude of Ali specials/tributes which paint him as some sort of modern-day Saint, which is clearly how IFF likes to view Ali. I'm an Ali fan but the guy had tons of faults and yes in that 2nd fight he held WAY too much. And Wlad and Ruiz DO get crap all the time for how much they held(hold) in certain fights. Ali shouldn't get a pass.

Was it overall biased? Well yes, as any documentary told mainly from one side will. But jeez louis how many Ali docs featuring the likes of the shill Pacheco talking about how Ali walked on water and how Ali only lost the first fight to 'ring rust' have been made? Too many to count. There is nothing wrong with presenting the other side of the story.

[I Feel Fine]

It is, again, a big stretch to suggest that documentaries like When We Were Kings were anything like as biased as last nights documentary. I think I have explained why. As I said, there is a difference between perspective and distortion. And it is also misleading to suggest that this is the first time that a documentary has been shown from Frazier's perspective, the documentary on the first fight was from Frazier's perspective. That documentary did not blatantly distort things, however, surely not the way last nights did.

If dempseyfire actually read a word I wrote he would see that I do not consider Ali a saint, I say so explicitly and repeatedly; but then again I hardly consider dempseyfire's nonsense worth reading either. The guy who thinks Billy Conn was a big Heavyweight puncher or that David Haye has a chance against Wladimir Klitschko. We'll see.

Ali clearly won the second fight, not merely because of holding, and if anyone should have been deducted points in the trilogy it should have been Frazier for the low blows and the way he used his head; fouls that do tend to draw point deductions for those of us who actually watch boxing regularly. Fighters almost never lose points for holding, and it is mere bias on your part to want to see Ali penalized for something that no other Heavyweight champion has lost points for. The only significant thing the referee did in that fight was mistakenly pull Ali off of Frazier when he had Frazier hurt in the second; if a referee had pulled Frazier off a hurt Ali the documentary would have pulled out more conspiracy theories than Oliver Stone. Instead they never mentioned the incident because it was the other way.

And, yes, Ali would not have lost the first fight without the layoff, that is my opinion, and it is not difficult to demonstrate. If Frazier came off a three year layoff with only a couple of tune ups to fight Ali five months back into the sport, and lost, you would say the same.

SG... maybe I have been paying too much attention to Pat Condell (who, granted, is a comedian) and Christopher Hitchens who suggest that the tension over Islam in Britain is becoming a problem. I merely made a suggestion, if you think its stupid thats your right, but you seem rather childish to me. The documentary did imply more than once that what Ali was saying was a result of his religious beliefs, as though Ali had no mind of his own. It also conveniently ignored some occasions in the late 60s were Frazier openly ridiculed Ali without much reason; I think it was the Mike Douglas show, for one, where Frazier was brought in as a surprise guest without Ali's foreknowledge, and Frazier started ridiculing Ali, calling him "Clay", looking to provoke Ali into a response. Well, he sure got one. That was way before the "Uncle Tom" comment.

As I said, I would not mind a documentary from Frazier's perspective, and he did have one by HBO on the first fight which I thought was perfectly fair; but if you thought last night's documentary was refreshing, then you are a sucker with a chip on your shoulder about Ali. It was filled with lies and distortions. But you guys continue feeling sorry for the 11 million dollar guy who beats up women when he's not blaming other people for his problems.

[Robinson]

I look forward to seeing this. I was annoyed that I missed it at the
film festival. Biased or not. It would be nice to see a fight with
Ali in it from the other side.

That is why I liked the Chuvalo-Ali doco, it was good to hear and
learn about another fighter.

[I Feel Fine]

I look forward to seeing this. I was annoyed that I missed it at the
film festival. Biased or not. It would be nice to see a fight with
Ali in it from the other side.

That is why I liked the Chuvalo-Ali doco, it was good to hear and
learn about another fighter.

I haven't seen that one. What is it called? I like Chuvalo, that would be interesting to see.

[Robinson]

The Last Round.

It is worth a look mate. I like Chuvalo. It is in essence
a mini bio on him, has a bit of him around the time the
doco was made (2005 I think).

Not much on Ali as such, which is refreshing in the sense
that one has seen PLENTY of Ali bio's.

[Robinson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9piZOJGAlY

[I Feel Fine]

Interesting, thanks. I will try to find it, Chuvalo is a really interesting figure. Someone might end up making a real movie about him one day, ala Raging Bull.

[I Feel Fine]

o/t but does anyone know what ali's reach was?

80" is the one most often used. Boxrec uses that one. On occasion I see a different one, but 80" seems the safest.

[I Feel Fine]

That is the measurement of the distance from one hand to the other with the fighters arms stretched out.

[allworld80]

And the documentary ate it all up. I mean, just look at the footage they showed of the first fight as an example. Watching it you would think that Ali lost every round, which his worst critic would not claim.

Having watched that part again today, I have to say I don't think it was quite that bad. They clearly stated that Ali won the first three rounds, and although they did indicate that they felt Frazier dominated rounds 4-11, they also made the point that both fighters were "near death" in the last few rounds before the stoppage. They also made lenghty use of the footage in rounds 13 and 14 of Frazier getting repeatedly hammered. The narration was clearly biased though, but some of that could just be the fact that this was being told from Joe's perspective.

One question. Is it an accepted fact that Ali was pleading for Dundee to cut his gloves off after the 14th? Another tidbit I'm not familiar with.

[allworld80]

Scratch most of that. I just saw that you were talking about the first fight.

[I Feel Fine]

No, in the part of the post that you quoted I was talking about the film they showed of the first fight; I meant that they suggested that Frazier won almost every round of the first fight, which he didn't. I had Frazier winning that fight clearly, but no serious person could suggest that he shut Ali out.

But on that note, they did also make it sound like Frazier was even in the third fight before it was stopped, which seems to be a very small minority opinion, most people to my understanding had Ali ahead by the 14th round. Part of why Eddie Futch stopped it was because he had Frazier losing and knew that there was no chance for a decision (another thing I hated about the documentary, questioning Futch's decision, that really is lunatic territory that I really have only seen people like granberry reach).

The thing I hated most about the documentary was the way they totally erased the ebb and flow of the three fights. Part of what makes any trilogy great, but especially that one, is the way things constantly change; one minute Ali is winning, the next its Frazier, then Ali again, then Frazier again and so on. Watching that documentary, you almost get the sense that Frazier simply landslided Ali, and that only when he was getting "help" was Ali winning, which is absoultely ridiculous, or when Frazier was unable to see at the end of Manila.

I have heard it before that Ali wanted to quit. But who knows what would have really happened, Dundee seems to have no doubts that Ali would have came out. I suppose the speculation is alright, but who can really say what would have happened. As I said, I certainly don't think its fair to question Futch's reasoning.

[I Feel Fine]

Scratch most of that. I just saw that you were talking about the first fight.

Oh, its cool. I'll keep the post I just wrote though because there is some stuff in there I feel is important... I hope it does not seem like I am going over board in complaining. I don't have a problem with showing it from Frazier's perspective. I feel that HBO's prior documentary on Ali-Frazier I did that, and I feel they could have done even more with it; but I think last nights documentary crosses the line. I would not approve of that being done to any fighter, whether it be Ali or anyone else.

[I Feel Fine]

Well, not to sound like a dick, but I think I have written rather lengthily on why I thought it was distorted. I don't think there is much more I could say.

If someone made a documentary suggesting that Ali was robbed in the first fight, suggesting that Ali dominated the rematches without losing a single round, and that Frazier was an arrogant prick who deserved everything that Ali had to say about him, I would not approve of that either.

Now that I think of it, I remember watching an Ali documentary where Pacheco suggests (or is depicted as suggesting through the select clips they showed of him) that Ali dominated in Manila; which I thought incredibly ludicrous. I think that documentary, which I believe it was called "Through the Eyes of the World", is a much better example than "When We Were Kings." If someone wants to compare that documentary to last nights HBO documentary, that is fair game. But two wrongs don't make a right, I don't see that we need more distortion, and I'm sorry, but if you can't see the distortion in last night's documentary then I question how much you know about the trilogy.

The name of the first documentary? "One Nation; Divisible" which is about the first fight. It talks a lot about both fighters, but it is a bit more from Frazier's perspective, probably more so than any documentary I had seen prior to last night's.