Ali provides a detailed analysis of his destruction of Cleveland Williams & others

=

i'm not sure that I see how Joe would benefit from fighting an even fast and more effective Ali, but whatever works for ya I guess.

The only obvious example that I can of is the first Henry Cooper fight back in '63. I think we can both agree that Ali had improved drastically by '67 and after having fought in 10 world title fights. Sonny Liston who had one of the longest reaches and greatest Jabs of all time, wasn't able to do much against him. Floyd Patterson, who was a pretty good swarmer himself was almost useless against Ali. Terrell and Williams both had pretty good wingspans but couldn't touch him.

Fair enough, and the late 60's Ali that we ACTUALLY SAW, is noticably better in my eyes than the one who met Joe in FOTC.

Yes, via decision over 15 grueling rounds and with both men having their fair share of moments. That being said, I don't know why its so unreasonable to think that even a slightly better version of one fighter couldn't have made enough of a difference to turn the tables the other way. Common sense really.

On THAT night, yes.

I think you mean " Ellis " and not " Young ", but that's okay. Frazier was losing in the early rounds against both Ellis and Quarry before catching up to the me a bit later. I think that a faster Ali could have capitalized on a slow starting Frazier. Also, consider this, had these two met say around 1968, Frazier would not have had the experience of having met Ellis, Quarry or Mathis prior...

That could very well be the case, but I'd take it with a grain of salt. I will also ad that if we're making concessions for Frazier we should remind ourselves that his opponent had only fought 2 times over the previous 4 years.

True, but again, I don't think that Joe ever met the very best version of Muhammad, so the point is somewhat moot.

Well, he beat the man to near blindness in their last meeting to the extent that his beloved trainer felt it was time to quit. This was a 33 year old Ali who was probably 8-10 years past his prime. Now Frazier was past it too, no doubt, but let's not deny that a 60's Ali was better at finishing fighters. No point in even debating the contrary.

I think there are a few who come very close, but that's not relevant. A 70's Ali fought Frazier through 3 battles-beating him twice, and giving him the match of his life in the only meeting that he lost. A 60's Ali does better in my eyes.

I think the 60's Ali was better at getting out of the pocket. If you watch some of his earlier bouts, everytime a guy looked like he was about to have him cornered, he'd shift his footwork and be on the loose again. 70's Ali did not do this as much. If a man charged him in a corner, he'd lock up with the guy, spin him around, then break. So claiming that Joe would just " be all over him ", is not something that I envision. I also disagree that Frazier woudn't have to be as careful. First of all, it hardly looks to me in their three fights that Frazier was exercising much caution to begin with. Secondly, a 60's Ali had real snap to his punches. I think was more dangerous personally.

He might have had him in trouble, but no way was Joe Frazier ever going to " finish " Muhammad Ali in a single round.

 

Good Lord,

I can see people making a reasonable argument for why Frazier had slipped a tad against George Foreman, even though he was 29 years of age and had never been beaten. Now, at age 27 and in the greatest match of his career, he was " past it ? "

I don't want to sound like ass, but this never seems to end. Judging by this trend, I'm guessing that soon someone will try to justify his being floored against Bonavena with a " washed up " claim...

 

Ali lost at least as much speed after the exile and I think speed was as much of Ali's game if not more. And yes, I think Ali used his feet to keep away from Frazier to good effect in the rematch. Holding was part of the game as well, but his movement was the main factor IMO.

And it would have been for a pre-exile Ali, too. When he "slugged" with a prime Frazier in FOTC he punched himself out. He would need movement to solve that Frazier.

But still a win.

If he said as much I wouldn't second-guess him. But I just have a hard time seing anyone make a greater physical effort than he did in that fight. He just looked superhuman. The thought that he even theoretically could give more is ... scary.

 

In the first few rounds? Frazier was a known slow starter who was losing the early rounds against Quarry and Ellis. How is facing an even faster starting Ali going to help him in this regard? And let me know if I'm being semantically incorrect this time.

Not really. Styles are enhanced by fighters' physical capabilities. Sort of like addin salt to good food. I'm one of these people who believe that a lttle common sense can go along way, but apparently so can an individual's partialness to a given thing.

Not sure which Ali you're claiming to have watched her. But, Ali in the 60's was not there to be hit, whereas 70's Ali was more physical in that regard.

Nice try at taking advantage of something I said. Just because Ali needed a knockout to win in 1971, doesn't mean that he would have needed one in 1967, or that he couldn't have gotten one at that.. Incidentally, I think Ali was more than slightly better in the 60's. The difference looks collosal on film.
Just a thought.

Because fighters say that kind of **** all the time. " I could have looked better if....." Not saying that it wasn't true, but just that we shouldn't take it for gospel. Especially, coming from a man who out right hated the man in question.

I think Frazier was about as close to his best as one can expect whereas Ali wasn't. That's where I was going.

Yes and no. I think their are some key diffences between Frazier and Marciano and that Frazier was actually better in some aspects. On the flipside, a good result against a fighter with many similarities does make for a reasonable analysis in other comparisons.

So what are you saying that we should ignore the concept of prime as even being a factor, or the fact that Ali beat him two out of three despite being out of prime???? Not sure where you're going with any of this.


Really?

No, this is not a moot a point. I think its evident both on film as well through statistics that Ali was a better finisher in the 60's as well as being considerably faster and harder to hit. Do you think that Frazier would find these things as being " moot "?

I don't see where the double standard lies.

His stamina and workrate over 15 rounds was still off the charts though, and clearly better than it was following his 4 year exile. I don't see Frazier tagging him as often nor slipping as many shots. And the shots, he'd be getting tagged by would be harder, more accurate and more often. For a guy who was often slow to start, and who's durability was a tad shaky at times, this would be a problem.

I could be misunderstanding you, but it almost seems like you're trying to build Ali up as a better fighter stylistically for Joe Frazier in the 70's. I don't know if I buy it.

Ah, there we go.... I was right afterall..

If that makes it more palatable for you, then hey, go with it.

Just a tad.

 

No you said something about him losing his 2% best, and described that as being " a serious dent. " Sorry, if you felt that I misquoted you by using the expression " past it ", but I think the general point you were making is that he was not his best.......Which of course, I disagree with.

 

Yes, it was better. Or at least he utilised it more. He has claimed himself that he didn't really know how much he could get out of his legs before FOTC, having just had two fights in four years, and I tend to believe this. Anyhow, he moves more in the rematch and therefore can pot-shot Frazier more from the outside. It's there to see (just brew some strong coffee to keep yourself awake:smooch)

As for the holding, I think that Ali got away with it equally in both fights. And Frazier got away with putting his head in Ali's face equally in both. I get a bit tired of the notion that the holding that was permitted in their rematch was so exceptional for the time. If you want to see more just watch Young-Foreman. And guess who got a point deducted in that fight? Foreman, for being rough when trying to get Young off of him.

Nah, I think he would slow down in some rounds - doing some holding and absorbing some punishment on the ropes, before starting to move and punch with more purpose again. Kind of like he did in the rematch.

He used a similar tactic against Chuvalo also. Yes, Frazier was a much better and applied faster pressure, but Ali wasn't really in peak shape for that fight (he wouldn't weigh as much again until FOTC) and he didn't fully exert himself (even if it clearly was no garden stroll either), so he had more to give.

I do. And it might just be that he used more than his body really was prepared to give and therefore never was quite the same again.

 

I feel kind of embarrassed for the name "Bokaj" so let me just state that is my real name backwards. Since "Jakob" (old and venerable as it is) often is taken as a username "Bokaj" is just an easy way to get around that. Is not some misguided attempt to be funny or clever, just an easy name to remember for me.

 

A 1960's Ali was faster, busier, more effective, and better equipped to beat a 70's Joe Frazier. All this makeshift analysis really isn't necessary, but a way of rewrapping the facts in an effort to bolster a Frazier victory over a prime Ali.

Not working....