Tyson Fury vs Muhammad Ali

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'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.

 

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?!?!?!?!?!

 

LOL, you had me there JT. I had to check, RACQ ad, is that right? I’d not seen it before. Hahaha.

In my defence, all I can say is:-

This content is protected

 

But that isn't entierly how it works though. One example is Quarry. He had a great resume outside of Shavers, in fact Shavers isn't even his best win. That is just how boxing resumes work. Beat decent names your a good name, beat good names, your a great name, so on and so on. you beat the levels you're the better level.

 

You got it!!! Be about the only thing i ever get past you i reckon!!!

 

Don’t you worry JT, more than a few things get past…I just cover it well .

Now if you had said “Not happy, Jan!”, I would’ve got that - but it wouldn’t have fit the context as yours did. LOL.

Remember Rocky and Lucky Gattellari?

Given Joe was half blind and basically had one arm, I’m surprised they didn’t call him “Lucky” Joe Frazier instead of “Smoking”.

Yes, an unashamed rip off of the old, 3 legged, blind in one eye lost dog joke.