Has time been unkind to Smokin' Joe?

We obviously won't agree on this so this is the last I will say on the subject: Ali knew his own body so if he says that the second Quarry fight was the point when he felt good again I believe him. The first Quarry fight only went less than 3 rounds, but Ali said he was badly tired when it ended. Considering this and that he was much more stationary in his next two fights (Bonavena and Frazier) it's clear to me that he didn't trust his stamina and legs enough to move much. Also, while Dundee, Pacheko and Ali himself of course are partial, they are also the ones who knew most about Ali's condition, so what they say in the matter must carry at least some weight.

I'm utterly convinced that Ali wouldn't be standing right in front of Frazier if they met in 1967. By 1974 he had regained enough to move more, but he still wasn't quite where he was pre-exile, of course.

He was by no means in bad shape in FOTC, though. If he was, he hadn't survived the fight.

 

Good post.

 

Good post.

 

Ali moved less because he didnt trust his legs,he regained his stamina and footwork with regular fights,he was back in the ring ,4 months after the FOTC,fighting the no3 contender,and 4 months after that fighting again ,then a month later,imo he fought his way back into top shape,when I say he wasnt prime for FOTC ,I dont mean he was way past his best ,just that he wasn't 100% ready for Joe,in March 71.

 

Ali was GREAT in Ali-Frazier I and so was Frazier. Remember how big
and important this fight was. Both fighters rose up for this one.
If Ali fought like he did against Joe, he would have put Bonavena
away early. Same with Joe. This fight meant so much to them
that they both really went for it. I also think Ali thought he would have an easier time then he did against Joe. Joe was possessed on this night.

 

You are on target, except for the part about Ali expecting to have an easier time against Joe.

Ali rose to the occasion that night.

I think Ali and Dundee knew he was in for the fight of his life against Frazier.

Frazier was actually the betting favorite for the FOTC.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying Ali is wrong. I'm saying the Quarry fight didn't demonstrate that added stamina, therefore it's almost irrelevant. It's just a statement of how Ali felt.

There are statements from Frazier and his camp saying he had problems around the time of the FOTC, problems with his health and fitness. But why should we get into that ? Frazier and Ali looked superhumanly fit to the observing eye. The rest is all talk and trivia.

If we based all our assessments of fights on such statements we'd have endless contradictory statements and it would get very confusing. That's my take anyway.

He was a lot better pre-exile in my opinion.
Whether that equates to beating a prime Frazier is debatable, and not really important. It's styles and strategy that counts, both guys were smart and had many tools to fight with (something Frazier doesn't get enough credit for). Yes, I'd fancy his chances but Frazier's chances would be very high too.

Yeah, I think he proved his greatness that night.

 

Without a doubt Ali knew he would be in the fight of his life against Joe,
but maybe not quite to the level of what prevailed. Astonishing
punishment dished out by both fighters.

 

To add more: Both fighters were well prepared. In that ring that night they both knew this was it. The big one. There is something to say about that extreme desire to go full out for something of this magnitude. This is why it's hard to compare different fights and
fighters and times and outcomes.

 

Well, he sure as hell wasn't ready to BEAT Frazier, that's for sure.

But the excuses only go so far. Ali had just beat two of the leading contenders and was confident he'd beat Frazier, he was unbeaten 29-0, and quick to remind people he was the TRUE champion, "the greatest of all times".

Some of the fights after Frazier, when Ali was allegedly "fighting himself back into shape" - eg. Buster Mathis (Nov.'71) and Mac Foster (Apr. '72), which were the 2nd and 4th fights after Frazier - Ali looked DECIDEDLY OUT-OF-SHAPE. He looks pig fat and fights sluggish.

 

I strongly endorse the contents of this post.

 

Are you kidding??? The fact that Frazier is linked with Ali, in the way he is, specifically causes history to be unkind to him. Ali is the most glamorous, media-glorified fighter of all time. Sports networks won't say a bad word about him. ESPN has now named Ali not only #1 heavywieght of all time, but even #1 pound-for-pound of all time!!! As such, all of Ali's failings and flaws are heavily censored and or excused away whenever they come up. Have you seen the Ali Ringside program on ESPN Classic? They show all of Ali's classic victories from the '60s, I believe they show both of the Quarry and Bonavena fights, and then they get to the Frazier fight, the announcers more or less say, "Yep, Ali had lost leg speed. Joe did win that one" in a somber tone of voice without showing a minute of footage, and then they jump a country mile ahead to get to Ali-Foreman and Ali-Frazier III (which are, of course, their all-time favorite fights)! Ali-Frazier III is shown literally over a half-dozen times per year on ESPN Classic and is constantly used as filler programming on ESPN, while Ali-Frazier I is all but banned from viewing. On virtually any popular media/public consumption program about Ali/this era, what happens is that the brodcasters hurriedly skirt past the first fight while minimizing its importance, talk as though Ali breezed through the second fight and won by a furlong (in reality, he won a somewhat debatable decision while getting away with a disgusting amount of deliberate fouling), and then blare the third fight everywhere, surrounded by numerous juicy soundbites praising Ali.

Since he beat each of the finalists of the WBA tournament twice, along with a semifinalist twice, making him 6-0 (4 KOs) against three of the top four finishers (the only one he didn't fight was Patterson, who you would be writing off as an over-the-hill ex-champ anyway had Frazier fought him),his not having been "in the tournament" is about as transparently weak a stab at his resume as it gets.

These are fights which did not happen because the guy was retiring about the same time Joe was coming to the top (Martin), the guy was Frazier's stablemate with the same management which had no intention of pairing them (Norton), the guy presumably would have fought Frazier had he not been blown out by Quarry in one round, leading to Quarry subsequently getting the headliner instead (Shavers), or Frazier was more or less alternating with fights between far superior foes by the stage of his career in which the guy was on top (Lyle and Young). Every champion in history has failed to face some of the top contenders of his era- and most of them have far bigger "gaps" in cleaning out their eras than Frazier does.

This is a superficial number-spinning argument, sort of like a Klitschko detractor saying that Vitali Klitsckho is 0-2 against Lewis and Byrd with two TKO losses, and any top 50 heavyweight of all time would be expected to do better than that against them, so Vitali must not be in the top 50. What enhances Frazier's resume is not a cumulative paper record against Ali and Foreman (I don't think any Frazier supporter has ever used such an argument, either), but rather the fact that he defeated Ali when Ali was still unbeaten, not far removed from his prime, and in fact in the match where both men were closest to their absolute peaks, that he held Ali to a close, debatable decision in a rematch in which a very poor refereeing job allowed Ali to get away with egregious amounts of fouling, and that he gave Ali one of the most brutal wars of all time in their rubber match in Manila, one which Ali himself described as the closest thing he'd ever felt to dying. Frazier's performances in the Ali trilogy (particularly the first fight) are an enormous boost to his resume. Moreover, Frazier was extremely dominant and consistent in cleaning out a very strong field of top contenders (Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Machen, Chuvalo, Bugner, Mathis- a cumulative 10-0 with seven knockouts!), often in more dominant fashion than Ali himself did it. The only serious flaw in Frazier's record is the obliterations at the hands of Foreman, which are a considerable dampener, but are still only defeats to an established elite all-time great who was one of the biggest punchers of all time.

 

No matter the reason, names like Patterson, Liston, Mac Foster, Martin, Norton, Shavers, Young and Lyle are missing from his record and that takes away some from it. As does the fact that he got blown away by Foreman. There is no getting past that.

Since Joe got smoked by the only great puncher he met (Foreman), there is always gonna be some doubts to what would have happened had he faced the other big punchers of the era (Liston, Mac Foster, Lyle, Shavers). The fact that his records can't answer this record weakens it. What Futch said about Ali's management ironically enough seems to be very true when it comes to Frazier's.

The trilogy of fights against Ali only did his legacy good, as they should. And he did also have impressive showings against Quarry, Ellis, Chuvalo and others. But, as previously stated, his record is far from water-tight.

 

I'm not really sure about that.

Martin was retired by Liston (eye problems) while Frazier was taking on all comers. Bonavena in his 12th fight!

Mac Foster and Shavers both lost to Quarry, who Frazier thoroughly beat twice. While this does not prove Frazier to be superior to them, you can hardly blame him for fighting someone better than them.

Foster lost every time he stepped up; i don't see why he should be such a threat to Frazier. Dito with Shavers, who had a glass chin, weak stamina, and slow hands... basically he was mediocre in any department outside of power.

Norton, Lyle and Young only became established contenders when Frazier badly on the slide, i.e. past '74.

Norton reportedly did very poor in sparring sessions with Frazier. I don't want to give too much credit to sometimes unreliable sparring stories, but the fact that Norton performed horrible against pressure fighters/punchers does make it legible to believe.


A fight with Patterson would've been interesting to see, but i don't see how he was be a threat to Frazier. It would be Quarry vs Frazier all over, only Patterson visiting the canvas more often. Patterson was 34-37 years old when a fight between them was possible, and it should be noted that Quarry and Bonavena both beat him during that period, both of whom Frazier of course bested.

 

Lyel and Norton were established contenders well before 74.Lyle was no 4 in 72 no5 in 73,Norton was no9 in72 no3 in 73,with Shavers at no 6.
Foster was no 5 for 3 straight years 69,70,71.In 69 ,when Frazierw as no 1 Martin was no4 ,Foster no5 ,liston no6.Liston was no8 in 70.Jose Luis Garcia, another big puncher with a ko win over Norton ,was in the top 10 for 3 straight years too no10 in 70,no8 in 71,no10 in72,thats a lot of big punching contenders Joe missed out on imo.Its very possible ,indeed likely imo ,that Frazier would have beaten them ,or at leat the majority of them,and certainly he would have been a heavy favourite to stop Patterson,the fact that most of these contenders turned out to be less than they promised isnt the issue that is hindsight,at the time they were perceived as very dangerous hard hitting contenders ,and Farzier didnt meet any of them.
The stories I read in the Ring and Boxing I at the time said that Fraziers sparring sessions with Norton were wars,sparring talk is fairly meaningless anyway,sparring isnt fighting ,you try out different things and great Champs like Marciano ,and Tyson have been sat on their arse in sparring.for the record I think Frazier would beat Foster,Norton,Garcia,convincingly,Lyle and Shavers could be tricky and also the aging Liston,Joe didnt have much time to get around to Martin so I give him a pass on that one,seem that Im allways nitpicking with Frazier,he was a great fighter,but the more Iread,I think he had a great manager too.