It should have taken Ali 3 years (71-74) to fight for Hw title.

Then the other half of the top ten would still be better than two guys outside it.

And rematches against Bonavena and Quarry instead of Daniels in early 1972, before they lost to Patterson and Ali respectively, would be viable rematches seeing how Bonavena had given Joes his toughest fights besides Ali and that the first fight with Quarry also was competitive before the cut. A repeat of the 1969 FOTY against one of the top ranked contenders would of course be much better than Daniels.

After that Ali would have been the natural choice in late 1972.

If we weren't talking about a "blue collar underdog" here these points wouldn't even need arguing. Again - which other champion has ever gone so long without defending against a top 10 contender without any external reasons (like WWII in Louis's case) and not received flak for it?

 

Good post as always. I admired Joe a lot but he certainly gets swerves more than most other great fighters.

 

After FOTC Frazier wanted no part of Ali period.

 

While he held the championship, yes.
Later on, Frazier wanted Ali again.

 

Frazier went 2 years without fighting a ranked contender. its a fact let's just admit it . Shavers was a nobody when Stander beat him.

 

Stander and Daniels were bad.
But then so were Zyglewicz and Ramos.

Wepner, Coopman, Evangelista were bad too.

Golden Era.

 

It was the loss to Kenny Norton.

 

Everyone looks back on history wanting instant gratification. It's not that simple.

Ali lost to Frazier in early 1971. Joe beat Ali decisively but the effort of that fight took a heavy toll. Joe had lost some eyesight in one eye years before and he was in the hospital in bad shape for weeks after the fight. I am sure there was no fear in Frazier but at the same time he had to recuperate from that bout. Joe took a few soft touches (as many hwt champions have done in the past) and then fought and lost his title to Foreman in 1973. Ali lost to Norton, beat Norton and Frazier to make way for his title shot vs Foreman in 1974.

No politics involved. Foreman got in the way of Frazier, Norton got in the way of Ali and that was the major reason for the delay.

 

It is sort of bad that of Frazier's 10 world title fights 4 of them came against Ron Stander, Terry Daniels, Manuel Ramos and Dave Zyglewicz. But I also agree that while he certainly could have fought better challengers than those four, all champions take a few soft touches and in truth the division had brief periods where it was stale in even only for a few months at a time. Let's face it.. He had already beaten Ali and Ken Norton wasn't going to fight him being managed by the same crew. Earnie Shavers and Ron Lyle were not ready and were still unknown. He had already beaten Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, etc... And taking on Foreman who had knocked out 21 strait opponents and was a gold medalist was no easy proposition. Not sure that I can label joe as a ducker.

 

At heavyweight is not that uncommon. Dempsey as you know. Jim Braddock won the title and fought no one. Willard won the title and best Moran the next year; after that he waited three years till Dempsey. The modern comparison would be Spinks, after the Holmes fights he beat a terribly past it ****ey and Stefan.

I'm not ever listing guys from the 19th century or at lower weights. It's not uncommon but should be frowned upon.

 

Frazier could made millions fighting Ali in 72-73 but he hated Ali so much
for the things Ali said to him..He took it personal so he thwarted Ali's
chance to fight for title as the best way to pay Ali back..He even took
the Foreman fight against his managers advice for lot less then a million just to frustrate Ali cause he truly felt hatred toward him..Not cause fear but he knew Ali wanted that title back more then anything so he denied him opportunity
his way of payback he felt deeply wronged

 

Do the fights against Manuel Ramos and Dave Zyglewicz count as world title fights? - some believe they do some on here seem to think Frazier only became the champion after he fought Ellis

 

Not one person can tell me why George Foreman should gave been #1 contender in January 1973.

Foremans rating should have dropped for not meeting a single contender in 1972.

As bad as Daniels and Stander were as challengers they had better credentials than Foremans 1972 opponents.

 

He was credited as winning the NYSAC world title when he beat Mathis, so yeah that belt was on the line against Zyglewicz and Ramos. Of course there was all kinds of debate as to who was the real champion in the late sixties. There are still some even today who don't think he became champ until he beat Ali, though I am not among them. Ali was gone and there was telling weather or not he was ever going to return. In the meantime he beat the best guys out there. The show must go on...

 

But if Frazier beat the best men out their to become champion did Foreman beat the best guys out their in 1972 to remain #1 contender?