Joe Frazier H2H???

Have to say I really like his chances against Holmes and Vitali. They would score in bunches on him but I don't think they have the snap to hold him off, he'd dig to their bodies and put tremendous pressure on them. Don't think either were as strong as closers as Ali, Holmes looked ready to go by the end of the hard Norton fight.

Wlad and Lewis would likely beat him, they would bomb from long range with very accurate power shots and clinch him to death when he closed the gap.

 

I think that a slightly diminished Patterson in the 60's along with Earnie Terrell could qualify as being equally good or better B level performances, and frankly I don't think he looked that great against Bonavena... The commentators that reviewed the fight on a tape I saw many years ago, certianly didn't think so... In addition, while he would still chalk up his best wins later, I don't think that says much... He certainly did not beat these fighters using the same sets of skills and athletic ability that he had years before, but relied on lingering tactics to wear most of them down...While these tactics were definitely effective, they were also the same sort of methods that a guy like Frazier could use to his advantage, for example, leaning on the ropes, holding behind the head, etc.. It wasn't like Frazier, Foreman, and Norton were up against a perpetually ellusive target with speed and workrate that was virtually unheard of at heavy weight... Also, if we're going to weigh prime based on late career wins, then why don't we just say that Foreman was prime when he beat Moorer?

Common, you're on here long enough every day to know that a poster named round15 has made this claim countless numbers of times, and I've even argued it with him for pages on end.. One time, I even tried to compromise with him by saying, " okay, I agree that he was slipping some by the Foreman fight. " But, that wasn't good enough for him.... He said, " Frazier wasn't just slipping, he was shot. " I could probably find a quote, but I don't feel like going back through hundreds of threads in calendar 2009 just to avoid being called a liar, when the person has made the claim often enough, to where Jesus Christ almighty is sick of hearing it..

EDIT - If you don't believe me on the Frazier comment, then PM DUDE GUYMAN and perhaps even McVey... I think they have had similar arguments with round15, and may be able to verify my story, even though I don't want to speak for either of them..

 

Even prime Ali had a tendency to get caught on the ropes. Chuvalo (among others) was able to trap him there in the early rounds until he couldn't sustain the pace. Prime Ali never had to show the kind of stamina Frazier demanded in FOTC, so why assume that he had this amazing stamina (that nobody ever saw) and that he lost it in the lay-off?

Ali/Chuvalo II took place in 1972, not in 1970. By then, Ali had noticeably declined through the wear-and-tear of fighting up to every month, and did not look up for bouts in the way he was when defending his title. He looked as sharp as he ever did whooping Quarry pre-FOTC, for example.

By then, both men were well past their best. In FOTC, Frazier was prime and Ali was prime or very near-prime. That was the most meaningful bout, and if you're going to ignore the outcome then the burden of proof is on you.

If they fought four times in the next year and Frazier won them all, the burden wouldn't suddenly shift back.

Yeah, what a ****ing chump he was. You're clearly a hater.

 

I am a big advocate of the 1960's Muhammad Ali. I think he is one of the top 2 best heavyweights of all time. Outside of Joe Louis, I wouldn't classify anyone as a favorite over him. I think outside of Joe Louis, the best bet to beat him is Joe Frazier..and I think Frazier could possibly beat the 1960s Ali.

 

Well at least you're not claiming that he was peak in 1971, so even though I disagree with you, I can accept that position.

 

Mr. Maghoo,

I am a HUGE muhammad ali fan. I don't really like Joe Frazier(sorry frazier fans. My dad loves Joe, rates him in his top 4 all time!)...I love Ali. I may not defend him all the time, but that is because he hardly gets criticized. I went nuts in that holmes-Ali thread though when people were picking holmes to beat Ali. I thought that was preposterous.

If I were to have to choose 1967 Muhammad Ali vs 1971 Joe Frazier with a gun to my head, I would probably pick Ali.

 

In what fight pre-'70 did Ali show the ability to fight at a higher pace than he did vs. Frazier?

Actually, I have an original copy of the footage of the first Quarry fight where the commentators are talking about how he looks exactly the same and how the lay-off had clearly had no effect. That was probably an overstatement, but it's worth bearing in mind - the idea of the decline may have all arisen post hoc.

That's tends to happen when you have an ATG pressure fighter coming towards you at full speed. Ali always had a vulnerability to somebody who could cut off the ring and bull inside his arms. He was getting caught on the ropes by much lesser fighters than Frazier long before 1970.

Watch the Chuvalo fight, and the Mildenberger fight. Ali always got caught out and forced to fight rough when he was attacked like that.

It's easy to use footwork and the ring when some plodder is standing in the middle of the ring waiting on you. Against somebody who gets under your arms and cuts the ring off, such things go out the window.

It may be reasonable to assume that. But you need more than that to claim what you're claiming.

The "Ali was shot after 1970" idea is a total myth mainly propounded by cheerleaders like Hauser, or general Ali cocksuckers in the media who can't bear the thought that their idol might have actually lost legitimately. I'm not denying that there was a slight decline. But to reverse the outcome of a fight in which he clearly lost implies there was more than just slight decline.

 

I agree that he does manage to get over iconocised around here.. But, he does receive a lot of **** for not giving Foreman a rematch, regardless of the fact that he beat the **** out of him once, and then Foreman decides to go take a 15 month leave of abscence while Ali is defending his belt left and right.... He also gets a lot of grief for getting decked by Cooper, even though he was only 21 years old, had 18 fights, and was years away from reaching his peak.... Lastly, when he was 35-36 years old, he was very active and fighting Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Jimmy Young, etc... But gets ****all credit for it....His detractors prefer to say that he was holding the title hostage while being gifted decisions..

 

Foreman owuld kick his ass

 

I agree that he had obviously required some news skills, and even a slightly different style all together.. While this new approach proved effective, I don't think that it was designed to make him an improved fighter, but rather to compensate for some lost ability.. As for Bonavena, it was unique that he was able to stop an opponent that no one else ever did, but did he not manage the same unique feat against George Foreman? I'm certainly not going to say that it was an indication of him being prime...

Obviously, I don't think that Moorer was anything on the level of Joe Frazier, but it was viewed as an impossible win against an undefeated lineal champion in his prime, and among one of George's 3 or 4 best victories in a career spanning over 80 fights.. The reason I bring it up, is because we have to be careful when basing a fighter's prime on acquiring one or even a few huge wins late in his career.

He has also tried to distance Frazier's prime as far away from 1973 as possible to prove his point... At one point, he even claimed that Frazier's TRUE prime dates back to 1966 when he had maybe a dozen fights, and only goes up to 1969, pre-FOTC.... That was probably the last and final post, when I logged off....

 

you make some good points, and with that, I may have to go watch the Bonavena fight again... Thanks for your insites.. I just want to clearify, that I am not one of these people who go to the far end of the spectrum and say " Ali was shot against Frazier. " That isn't my point... I just think that there is a distinct difference between prime and peak... Primes, typically last for 4 or 5 years, while peaks may only last over the course of 3 or 4 fights.. I think Ali was prime against Frazier, but peak between 1965-1967. Why do I think this? Because he looks more graceful in his older fights... He appeared to be faster, more fluid, and dare I say, " busier" ( though I don't know what his actual punch stats were in those fights. )