i think ali deserved the decision in the FOTC.

A grizzly bear could tear Ali's arms off and eat his intestines, and whatever judges were on hand would likely give it to Ali by split decision. The FOTC was one of the few fights in which Ali didn't get favoritism and lost fair and square...and by a fairly wide margin.

 

I agree. But I wasn't saying he did. Just criticized the judge's general point of view when it came to scoring fights.

 

Take a look at rounds 3 and 4. The match can be found on youtube, no need for posting links. Try to score them as objectively as possible. There's no way Frazier won either of those two rounds. Even the commentator says something along the lines of " I wonder how many more of these can Frazier take?" and "This is a great round for the ex-champ". Yet all 3 judges gave both rounds to Frazier.

 

What do you mean they didnt? It was a unanimous decision. They all agreed Frazier won. Period. That fight result wasnt controversial at all. You are the one who wants to take a just decision and somehow twist it from a unanimous decision, to a split decision, to a robbery. Sorry but thats not just stretching, thats you looking very hard for a way to give Ali rounds.

So basically you want to say that Ali landed 4 times as many blows as Fraziers? And that Fraziers face should effect scoring criteria? While completely ignoring Ali's jaw which was twice its normal size. Furthermore, even if Ali landed more this isnt compubox. Thats not how fights are scored. Nevermind that Ali often did nothing more than tap Frazier. There were numerous times where Frazier had Ali on the ropes working him over and Ali was continuously landing these little taps with the back of his open glove. But guess what? Those taps dont count for anything for three reasons: 1. Ten ineffective taps is not going to count more in the eyes of any judge than one of Fraziers left hooks. Period. Thats not favoritism, thats how you score a pro fight. 2. A blow struck with the open glove is a non scoring blow. 3. A blow struck with the back of the hand is a non scoring blow. I gave you the criteria and you reject it and come back with what Frazier's face looked like LOL. Is that not a guy looking for a way to justify giving Ali the fight? Thats the problem is you subscribing to Ali's excuse in the immediate aftermath for why he should have won. Very few people listened to him and rightly so.

The fact that you put Fraziers harder blows in "" just shows your bias. Does anyone dispute Frazier landed the harder blows? Yet you use "" as if to discredit that idea. Most people would argue that Ali was more durable than Frazier and yet it was the smaller Frazier who continually rocked Ali, staggered him, buckled him, and finally dropped him. Sorry pal but leave the "" at home when discussing the power behind Fraziers blows relative to Ali's in the FOTC. That isnt even debateable.

 

This is what Im talking about. YOU watch those rounds again, this time without audio (who gives a **** what commentators say). Look how many punches Ali misses, everytime he lands Frazier lands with him and lands hard, Ali is the one backing up. Basically by all four scoring criteria Frazier wins. Twice in the third alone Frazier stunned Ali in the same corner. Same thing in the fourth round. Look who initiates all the clinches Ali. Part of the problem is that those few who support Ali cant seem to come to grips with the difference between thrown blows and landed blows and those two rounds frame that discussion perfectly because Ali threw a lot of punches but very few landed. Frazier was much more economical but when he did land he landed hard and his blows made the bigger impression on his opponent, rocking him, knocking him back, forcing him clinch. When Ali landed Frazier just waded through them and kept coming. Thats where ring generalship comes in. Frazier was on Ali like white on rice and no matter what Ali did he couldnt keep him off him. He was clearly being forced to fight Fraziers fight at Fraziers pace and the attempted clinches illustrated that. I see nothing wrong with scoring those rounds for Frazier at all.

 

klompton2 - You either didn't understand what I was trying to say or you're just ignoring it on purpose. The scorecard inconsistency + unanimous decision make the whole affair suspicios.

A unanimous decision goes with consistent score cards. Split decisions go with inconsistent ones, which is logical.

Fraziers puffy face is just as relevant as the KD to rounds 1-14. Getting tapped with an open glove won't result in your head looking like you've been wearing a killer bee hive on your head for the past hour.

 

Who says judges cant differ on rounds?

Since when is a fighters face scoring criteria?

 

In round 4 Ali landed a succession of jabs and right crosses for over 2.5 minutes with Frazier hardly even trying to land anything. You can see Fraziers head jolting to the side each time Ali lands (no tapping).

During the next 20 secs Fraziers lands a total of 3 or 4 good hooks, Ali comes back with a right and then a left. Anyone who gives this round to Frazier is either crazy, biased or under some sort of influence.

 

Oh good lord, now you are just making stuff up. Ali missed a ton of punches in that round with Frazier always coming forward. This round was closer than the third (which was easy to score for Frazier) but to characterize it as you have is ridiculous. What about the point where Frazier brought the crowd to its feet by blasting Ali into a corner and following up with a great combo? I guess I imagined that LOL. You are just obviously one of those guys blinded by hero worship who wont even believe what he sees. No point posting here, you might as well go back to scoring fights based on swelling and cuts...

 

And you seem to count every step which Frazier makes towards Ali as a clean hit. Also, each time Fraziers hook gets blocked you seem to view it as a hit.

Oh and, you should also turn off your audio pal, like I did, the cheering crowd means nothing. Ali wins rounds 3 and 4, hands down.

 

I'm a huge Ali fan but he definitely lost FOTC, it's not debatable.

 

Here's what your missing....Boxing doesn't care if people don't like you.

Boxing cares if you sell tickets and capture eye*****, and villains do that just as well. Love sells. Hate sells. The worst is "I don't care", and nobody had that stance with Ali. And boxing loved him for it.

Whether people loved him or hated him, Ali attracted more interest and money than perhaps any fighter since Dempsey. He wasn't going to ever lose close decisions even when there was plenty of mainstream hate for him.

 

With all do respect, you being an Ali or even a Frazier fan means squat. If it's not debatable, then how come we're debating?

 

Not only is Ali unbeatable in any fight ever, he now is a winner in a fight that he actually lost. He really beat Ken Norton in their first fight, too.

 

I guess it's hard to debate people who believe that Ali lost all 3 Frazier fights, all 3 Norton fights, the Young fight, the Shavers fight, the Jones fight, set up both Liston fights, cheated against Cooper I, cheated against Foreman, ducked Foreman afterwards, thumbed Terrell etc...