Joe Frazier H2H???

I agree with this post. Ali was not peak vs. Frazier, but he was prime. Of course, my main points were a) that a significant decline in Ali between '67 and FOTC is needed to pick '67 Ali over Frazier and b) that a decline so significant did not occur.

 

If we're talking about Ali, then I believe that he was prime from probably 1964 to 1971.. His peak was arguably from 65-67, but that's just me speculating.. Obviously you'll get differing opinions from anyone you talk to.

 

I agree with most of what you say, especially the parts about Frazier beating a good version of Ali, and Foreman beating a good version of Frazier. I think in all fairness though, throwing Holmes' loss to Tyson into the mix, is stretching things.. Let's face it, neither Ali nor Frazier were 38 years of age and coming fresh out of a two year retirement without a single tunup before suffering those losses... Holmes was genuinely a diminished fighter.

 

I'm going with 1968 to 1973 as prime, but will take 1969-1971 as peak.. The first Ali and Ellis fights were probably the focal point Joe.. While he was slipping some against Foreman in 1973 ( and certainly not peak ), I don think that he might have still qualified for prime.. He was 29 years old, the undefeated reigning champion, was only 8 or 9 lbs over his best weight and only less than two years removed from his peak performance... He also still had two more grueling battles with Ali and a decent win over a steaking Quarry ahead of him.. So while I won't say that joe was peak, I think he barely still qualified for prime..

 

Only by your double standards. I love your knocking of Rocky mythology, and size disadvantages but have Frazier blowing over the likes of Wlad/Vitali. Either he is so much better than Rocky while being bigger, or this doesn't seem to apply to one of your favorites. Explain to me where I am wrong in this thinking.

 

Massive heart. But his legs were getting rubbery.

 

I can verify this with certainty.:good

 

:good

Been spot on from what I've seen thus far in the thread.

 

His performance against Bonavena was awful. Nobody saw him get hit and look that bad. He was flat-footed and not sharp. Who cares if he knocked Bonavena out? He had to do it by basically bending all the rules. TO justify that part as making it a good point based on a unique stoppage (You like unique things I see) is a manipulation of the truth. Ali showed ring rust and much decline. Of course he was well ahead of the best, but people were just getting closer to hitting him as Lyle points out. We knew he was well ahead of the best when he came back to dispatch a top ranked contender in Quarry in the fashion he did. However, Chuvalo highlights the differences well.



If you can find an instance of someone actually saying this, I'd be plenty impressed![/quote]

 

D'Amato said from the very beginning of his comeback that he wasn't the same. Someone posted a clip a while back where D.Amato watched Ali in sparring before the first Quarry fight and pointed out that he needed two steps to get away when before he only needed one. Dundee agreed with him.

I don't really understand how this is an issue. What top athlete doesn't lose his edge after 3,5 years inactivity? Anyone here thinks guys like Bolt, Nadal or C. Ronaldo would be the same after such a lay-off? Seriously?

Add to that that two guys that Ali before and after his lay-off (Chuvalo and Patterson) said he never was the same, as did Dundee and Ali himself. What more do you need? Pretty silly discussion really.

But, Frazier still beat one hell of a fighter in FOTC.

 

Don't think he was different really. He just pulled out things he hadn't needed to show before.

He was 215 lbs in FOTC, so he wasn't bigger, and those six months would have to been concentrating on regaining as much as possible. There can't have been much, if any, time for further devlopment. That came later.