I Need Convincin'!

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by salsanchezfan, Oct 22, 2010.


  1. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,751
    11,304
    Aug 22, 2004
    For those of you that believe it to be true, please argue your case........I am of the belief that Ali-Frazier III was by far the better fight in comparison to their first encounter.

    Why would you disagree with me?
     
  2. dpw417

    dpw417 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,461
    347
    Jul 13, 2007
    I don't really feel that it was 'by far' the better fight than the first one was...(I enjoyed both) I was just a little kid when both happened...I agree with you that I liked the third fight best however. The third fight was just an unbelievably savage fight...I don't really recall a fight of that magnitude being fought at that intensity...They wern't what they were in the first go...but it was amazing.
     
  3. DaveK

    DaveK Vicious & Malicious Full Member

    3,668
    35
    Mar 2, 2009
    I've always maintained that the first fight is better for several reasons:

    The first fight was at (in my opinion) or much closer to both fighters' primes, and a better display of the best both fighters had to offer.

    The first fight was without controversy- close, but clear in it's conclusion.

    The third fight to me is two shopworn fighters in a grudge match to see who had more left...

    It didn't have nearly the historical significance as the first.
     
  4. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,751
    11,304
    Aug 22, 2004
    Okay, cool, some good points.....

    As to historical significance, absolutely.......the first fight shits all over the third, but I'm just referring to the fight itself. I mean, I'm not watching these now to see the historical significance, I just want to see a good fight, y'know?

    What controversy are you referring to?
     
  5. DaveK

    DaveK Vicious & Malicious Full Member

    3,668
    35
    Mar 2, 2009
    There has been talk of "Ali wasn't going to go out for the 15th round, anyway" (B.S.) and Futch stopping it when all Frazier had to do was remain on his feet for three more minutes and have more to be proud of, instead of having the "T.K.O." on his record, and even worse, being stopped by the last guy in the history of the world that Joe would want to be stopped by...
    I would argue that no more damage would have been done to his eye or brain/health than had already been done over the previous 14 rounds... So why rob him of that pride? Of that moment? He would have rather died.

    As for the actual action of the fights, I just see both guys being much sharper and a better representation of themselves than in Manilla.

    I would always prefer prime performances with high action, high drama, high stakes, and high ability over older, slower versions of the same fighters minus the high ability.
     
  6. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,751
    11,304
    Aug 22, 2004

    Hmmm.........I guess I would disagree with how much more punishment Frazier was gonna take. The 13th and 14th rounds got progressively ugly for him. He was fighting one-eyed by then and Ali actually had him against the ropes at one stage, with Frazier's head snapping back. Enough was enough; it was a just stoppage.

    The rest of it is simply a matter of taste I guess. To me, a good fight's a good fight. It doesn't matter that they might have been 75% of what they had been. They still put on a sensational event.
     
  7. El Bujia

    El Bujia Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,744
    78
    Apr 4, 2010
    Agreed. Not to mention Frazier's performance in that fight was among the best in Heavyweight history.
     
  8. DaveK

    DaveK Vicious & Malicious Full Member

    3,668
    35
    Mar 2, 2009
    True. Gatti-Ward isn't the ultra-high skill level of some other famous fights, but that doesn't take away from it's entertainment value.

    I agree also that Frazier was about to go belly up and that it wasn't a bad stoppage, but my point is, Futch took Frazier's fate away from him- I would think Frazier would rather be knocked out or rescued by the ref and know that he went out on his shield and did it his way rather than have someone tell him he's done.
    He was about done, but Frazier is a deeply proud man.
     
  9. klompton

    klompton Boxing Addict banned

    5,667
    39
    Jul 6, 2005

    I agree totally and will throw in that the first fight had more consistent, sustained action by far than the third. Its my vote for greatest HW title fight in history.
     
  10. DaveK

    DaveK Vicious & Malicious Full Member

    3,668
    35
    Mar 2, 2009
    No doubt about it being the greatest HW title fight in history.

    That was definitely the best Frazier and arguably the best Ali (I said arguably...) ever.
    Put either version in the ring with any other prime heavyweight in history and they'll represent themselves very well in most cases.
     
  11. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    I don't think there is an argument. Wasn't the best Ali by any stretch of the imagination.

    Still, I do mostly agree with you. FOTC is two all time great heavyweights duking it out: One at the peak of his powers, the other, the best heavyweight of all time making his second run.

    I agree with Sal though. Thrilla is more entertaining. FOTC was a boxing match. Thrilla is one of the few fights I've seen where it looked like two men attempting murder.
     
  12. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    83
    May 30, 2009
    From Frazier... Ali was on the ropes and a bit more inactive. In the third fight they were both a little past it and "There to be hit." I think the punch-stats were higher in the 3rd fight I remember rightly. Maybe they didn't count punch-stats for the 1st fight but did by the time the 3rd fight came around.

    Both are awesome fights. I used to think the 3rd was better but the 1st is a better fight historically. The 3rd has its excitement, though, and better action. The 1st seems to have a bit more skill and truly greatness from Frazier.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,709
    Mar 21, 2007
    The third fight makes me feel pretty sad. Both fighters carry hurts now, and this was the fight in which each was the most hurt. The first, they were young men, they could take it.

    And take it.
     
  14. johnmaff36

    johnmaff36 Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,793
    576
    Nov 5, 2009
    The 3rd was the most gruelling, sickening HW fight that ive ever seen, a war of attrition. However, skillwise, the 1st was a better contest with both having a lot to offer. Manila was both fighters swansong
     
  15. My dinner with Conteh

    My dinner with Conteh Tending Bepi Ros' grave again Full Member

    12,059
    3,559
    Dec 18, 2004


    I certainly wouldn't. The 3rd is clearly the better fight for me too, it's the 'event' that makes the first fight, the build-up, the fighters' records, nearer their peaks, etc. In terms of what went on in the ring, Manila's much better. If both fights were 3rd on the bill between someone like Brian Schumacher and Johnny Nelson, the customers would appreciate the contest if it replicated the FOTC, but if the crowd would be going wild if it was similar to Manila. It's a great, great fight, whereas the first encounter, while very good, is elevated in status due to the men competing. Manila has those same men, but they could have been anyone and it would have been Fight of the Year.