Ali v Frazier 2 underated!!

Now you're going in the other direction! First you named an Ali-hater to bolster your argument, now you named a Frazier-lover! Imagine Robert Lipsyte go on about Ali, or Nat Fleischer about Jack Johnson!

What do you mean?:huh

 

So you're just going to go on pulling the ad hominem card again and again?

Or you about Ali.

See above.

Let's take a different route, here. Why do you think Ali undeniably deserved the devision in the second Frazier fight? Which seven rounds did you think he clearly and indisputably won, and why? As I say, throughout the majority of the fight, Frazier was the man trying to make the action, and Frazier was the one who threw nearly all the serious power punches after the first couple rounds; most of Ali's offense was shoeshining. I don't see any good reason Frazier didn't have a legitimate case for possibly deserving that decision.

 

I've never seen it.

Haven't found it anywhere.

 

It's on youtube. You should watch it.

 

I believe this middle bout most closely resembles what Ali-Frazier would have looked like in 1969, but with less clinching from Ali.

Carlos Padilla did prevent Ali from using his fouling clinches in Manila, repeatedly brushing Muhammad's glove off the back of Joe's head, forcing Ali to prove he could prevail over Frazier without this sleazy tactic.

Does anybody truly think Muhammad was on the brink of stopping Joe without the intercession of Perez in that second round, especially considering how long Frazier had previously managed to hang on past the first knockdown against Foreman? As Ali-Frazier II was scored on the rounds system, a knockdown would not have offered any additional benefit to Muhammad from the judges.

 

I believe so as well. Ali in 1969 (if he never had been exiled) would probably have had a little bit faster feet and somewhat better stamina than he had in their second fight, and therefore wouldn't clinch quite as much. But Ali was undoubtely in better shape in this meeting than in their other two.

Frazier is a fighter I really like. Thank good he and Ali was active at the same time. Boxing would surely be lesser without that rivalry.

 

That fight wasn't fair. Two against one (Ali and Perez).

 

People trying to claim that Ali had more gift decisions? This is bull****.atsch

 

Considering how Tony Perez rescued Frazier from Ali's attack while round two was still under way, I've always considered this accusation a very dubious claim. (Unless Tony was interceding to stop that bout, a real possibility if his name was Joey Curtis, and the combatants were named Dokes and Weaver, he should have kept out of it. As an experienced referee, Perez certainly had that clock in his head telling him when three minutes has actually transpired. Today, an amateur referee, or even some professional referees, would have administered a standing eight count to Joe at that point though. Back then, of course, a standing count was only administered if the ropes prevented a distressed boxer from falling down.)

No, Muhammad would not have dropped Joe if Perez had not interfered, or forced Tony to call an end to the contest, but the fact is that Perez performed poorly by both competitors in that match.

 

I have not seen Ali vs Frazier II in a long time. I have a few questions that I am direction at all posters:

1. The score cards of the judges were: Referee Tony Perez 6-5. Judge: Tony Castellano 7-4. Judge: Jack Gordon 8-4. What was your score card? Could it be scored a draw? Why did Perez and Castellano only score 11 rounds in a 12 round fight?



2. What was the fans reaction to the decision / score cards?



3. It seems like Ali rocked Frazier in round two. How much time did the ref interfere? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds?



4. How big was the ring, and were the ropes loose?



5. What were the punch stats in this fight?



6. If Ali held so often, did he do enough to win? Or did Frazier do most of the work?

 

It's a good fight but not on the level of I and III, nevermind one of the greatest ever. Too much holding and clinching for my liking especially from Ali.

 

Perez and Padilla were negligent in their indulgence of Ali's excessive holding and clinching. Perez made a mistake that allowed Fraizer more time to recover. I don't see it as critical. However, he repeatedly allowed Ali to hold throughout the fight. That was critical.

Padilla's slapping away Ali's glove did not force Ali to prove anything except for how he would wait a couple of seconds or minutes and do it again with impunity. Repeatedly slapping away the gloves is the equivalent of that parent you see in the supermarket saying "no, no, no" to a rebellious child again and again and again. At some point consequences are in order! Human nature needs this to learn.

Both of them should have warned Ali and then started deducting points for excessive holding. Every time I see those fights, I appreciate Arthur Mercante that much more. He was the only ref of the three who wasn't having it. And Ali was forced to fight. And Ali lost. I think that not enough has been made of the critical difference of the ref in this trilogy.

 

Please note that I used the words "could have" and "probably would have" and not "would have". There is a difference.

I think most experts concede that when he wanted to, Ali could bang pretty decently. Fighting on his toes and while on the move or leaning against the ropes prevented him from generating any real power. And Ali had excellent finishing abilities if he got serious after hurting his opponent.

But instead of mere conjecture, I shall give two concrete examples. Ali hurt both Oscar Bonavena and Ron Lyle when he planted himself properly and let go. And once he had them hurt, he really went after them and finished them off. Now, I don't think that I will get a serious arguement when I say that both Bonavena and Lyle had a better chin than Joe Frazier. So what is so preposterous when I suggest that Muhammad Ali could have stopped Frazier after having hurt him? Mind you, this is not the same as saying that I definitely think that he would have.

Of course, a very real element in determining things would have been the little time left in the round.

 

7-4-1 for Ali would be an accurate judgment.

 

I have it 8-4 for Ali. IMO Frazier won rd's 5 (but that was close, could maybe be even), 7, 8 and 10.

12 was pretty close as well, but I gave it to Ali. Even though he coasted for large parts of the round he landed the better shots IMO. Which rounds to you have for Ali/Frazier?