Tyson Fury vs Muhammad Ali

Circular reasoning may be unavoidable at some level, but yes, it's something to watch out for. (To illustrate in the other direction: If somebody wanted to be unfair to the 70s, they could point out that the decade was ruled by a deteriorating ex-champion with Parkinsons and a half-blind heavyweight. And then circular reasoning would knock down Foreman, Norton, Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, etc.)

 

Well it's not exactly true that Ali had Parkinson's when he ruled the division. We don't know exactly when he got it, but it seems to have started near the end of his reign, after he'd done most of his work.

Frazier was also never half blind. He lost most of his vision in one eye when cataracts developed in his scar tissue (stemming back to a freak injury ten years prior) in 1974 AFTER having last defended his title three years prior and would go on to have two more fights in the 70. I’d hardly say he ruled the division at this point.

 

So, we’re plucking some fights from second career Ali to suggest they were the best Ali, including second career Ali’s second fight after a 3.5 year exile as an ideal example of best Ali for one to hang their hat on?

We also have the view of Ali as the Goliath who mainly prevailed over Davids. BUT, when Ali meets the ridiculously and demonstrably strong Foreman bigger than Ali and in fact much stronger in terms of brute strength - the Goliath in a match very few gave Ali a chance, even though Ali sees him off in 8 rounds, that is somehow a further argument “against” Ali?

Ali can’t take a trick, can he?

Forget circular reasoning - I see no actual reasoning being properly applied in the treatments above - but I do see notable inconsistencies.

 

BOOM!!!!!!

 

Going off the eye test and thinking with the heart I would say Tyson but the truth of the matter we never saw Tyson face someone so big and so skillful.

I know a lot of historic fans claim boxing is the only sport in the world where we don't see performance improvements with each era but there's no way to prove that is true, I mean why would boxing be any different to any other sport?

 

At this point they're just flat out making stuff up out of thin air. If Ali beat God himself in a fight, they'd say the cross weakened him!

 

Isn't that how competitive fights work? Also I assume the "he" in question is Joe Frazier. He did more than his Ali bouts to bolster his greatness.

 

Well, I did say that I was being unfair, but it's not totally out of left field, either.

Ali: The speech study I mentioned in the other thread seems to show a steeper decline in the late 70s, but they're still noticing a declining trend in Ali's speech beginning in 1968: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2017/berisha17_interspeech.html. They apparently used the same methods to come to this conclusion that they used to track Reagan's speech problems over time.

Ali remained champion well into the period when you're seeing some effects from Parkinson's, seeing off a variety of heavyweight challengers.

Frazier: Frazier's vision might have gotten worse after the cataracts, but Frazier himself claims that he had vision problems starting a lot earlier: "My left eye went when I was young. I was working the speed bag and some steel went in the eye and scratched it to pieces. I was kinda blind in that eye." https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/nov/11/sportinterviews-boxing. Similarly, Wikipedia, citing Frazier's 1996 autobiography and a documentary on the Thrilla, says the following: "Frazier turned professional in 1965 by defeating Woody Goss by a technical knockout in the first round. He won three more fights that year, all by knockout and none going past the third round. Later that year, he was in a training accident that left him legally blind in his left eye.[20] During pre-fight physicals, after reading the eye chart with his right eye, when prompted to cover his other eye, Frazier switched hands but covered his left eye for a second time, and state athletic commission physicians seemed not to notice or act.[21]" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Frazier#Professional_career)

That eye injury happened before Frazier became champion. I guess you could also throw in the fact that Frazier's left arm couldn't fully extend across a normal range of motion; would've been interesting to see what Frazier could have done with a normal arm and eye.

 

Well I'm gonna take that speech study with a grain of salt, considering they don't bring up any videos to support their claim.

Even if we take them at face value, their's no evidence whatsoever from that time period, Ali was sick, No shaking, no stuttering no issues with his motor skills reported by his team a this point.

He could very well be talking slower for a variety of reasons such as age, declining interest, fatigue. It means nothing unless accompanied by other symptoms which it evidently was not. So your claim that "the decade was ruled by a deteriorating ex-champion with Parkinsons" is untrue.

The only time we really start to see some of the effects of Parkinson's are after his bout with Shavers where he'd go on to lose the belt in his very next fight so your claim that "Ali remained champion well into the period when you're seeing some effects from Parkinson's" is also untrue.

By Frazier's own admission it left him "kinda blind in that eye" which implied he still had partial vision which is confirmed by a doctor. Even in '74 when his vision significantly worsened, he still wasn't fully blind in that eye. In order to be half blind, you have to be completely blind in one eye, (or half blind in both eyes) which clearly was not the case.

 

They list all the videos they relied upon, with the dates that the videos were recorded, on the second page of the article, under "Methods."

Dictionary.com:

Half-blind adjective
having a limited capacity to see

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/half-blind

Having a serious enough vision problem in one eye that you can't pass a physical exam certainly strikes me as having a "limited capacity to see." That said, I don't really see (no pun intended) the point of getting into an argument about semantics.

My point was that Frazier's vision in one eye was severely enough impaired that he had to cheat the vision test to pass. You quoted him yourself: He said he was "kinda blind" in that eye.

Let's say we reduced Ali's eyesight in one eye to the point where he had to cheat to pass a physical exam and be allowed to fight. Do you think that would impair Ali's performance? I do.

 

OK I didn't see that. But they still fail to establish other symptoms of Parkinson's. Can you show me on film pre-1975 where he exhibits other symptoms of Parkinson's and it affects his performance in the ring?

Well it's literally in the word. But fair enough.

I get your point but it's ridiculous. You're attempting to downplay Ali's success, and by extension the rest of the 70s partly because of Frazier's partial blindness. Did it stop him from beating everyone he faced not named Ali or Foreman?

You also implied another reason the era was weak was one of the men who ruled a portion of that era lost to a guy with Parkinson's (which again their's absolutely no proof he had it at that time), so he along with the era by extension, couldn't have been that good. If that's the case, why was a diminished Foreman able to come back and pick up the lineal belt in another era 20 years later?

 

I'd say Ali vs. Fury is a hard one. While Ali is a bit faster, Fury is stronger and moves trickier, plus is way bigger and I think he can beat him.

 

The description of Joe Frazier is starting to sound like that of the antagonist from THE FUGITIVE….and then some.

To improve the profile and increase the chances of locating him, note that he also sings (not too well but 10/10 for effort) with a backing group called the KNOCKOUTS.

There. It shouldn’t be too hard to track him down now.

 

Charter boat? What charter boat?!?!?!?!?!