This thread takes into account the subject of Muhammad Ali not giving George Foreman a rematch a year or so after Zaire. I'm not saying that George was n't entitled to one but I've noticed that a lot who push his case fail to state a similar one for Muhammad a year down the line from Fight of the Century. Surely,on the strength of Ali putting up a better fight against Joe Frazier than Foreman did against Ali and also taking into account that Muhammad got back in the saddle virtually straight away,and George NOT doing so, he was even more entitled to a shot at the title than Foreman post Zaire ?
Putting it another way, between FOTC in March '71 until the end of 1972, Ali fought 9 times. So he kept himself very busy indeed. Frazier fought a grand total of 2 fights in the same timeframe! And we all know how busy Foreman kept himself following Zaïre.
I see that a few have polled without posting replies. i can certainly understand those who think both losing combatants merited a rematch equally but not those who see George being MORE entitled - For reasons that I've already posted.
I voted, but didn't bother posting because your agreement with atr's observation summed up my position perfectly.
Its a unanimous decision for Ali and he probably would have beaten Frazier fairly easily.Joe's short prime had already started to wane.
Ali deserved it more for the reasons stated. How was Frazier's peak short? He declined more after FOTC than Ali did. Like you would ***ume with smaller HWs, his style took its toll & he absorbed much abuse, so he lost more. When you depend upon speed/reflexes & work rate, things that wane far earlier than power-& size is a constant-like Rocky, Dempsey, Tyson...You will lost that peak ability & timing before a Lewis or Klitchko...Also he drank too much, though I do not know if he was an alcoholic, & did not stay always in peak condition after FOTC. Ali could get away with this more easily. Though Frazier's peak is generally considered '67-'71. In most all cases a HW, & most boxers, do not stay at their peak for more than 3-4 years. Sometimes less. I define peak as having all skills at near the top level, looking their best in fights, & of course the fights where they did the best. Though if you meet an even greater fighter then you may still be peak... Then there is the creme de la creme of peak, some would call THIS peak & the several year span prime. Whatever word you use, an example would be Ali peak '64-'67, best of the best that last year. Frazier maybe '69-'70, despite his greatness in FOTC. Either way, I do not see how given these factors Frazier's ~ 4 year peak was not at least an average length peak, if not a little longer. He just declined more precipitously afterwards, but like the vast majority of smaller & swarmer HWs. You would be hard pressed to find a HW who had even a 5 year peak, arguably he hit 5 years max, then fell off dramatically vs. Klitchko.
