ali had everything and his heart and chin get overlooked but he went over the top calling joe an uncle tom. joe was a better singer too. his knockout's band were good enough to be played in wigan casino which was the world premiere soul music venue
Only Princess would minimize the ref's influence in the outcome of this bout but that is predictable since he is an amateur. The actions of the referee in this fight had a direct result on the pace and outcome. Ali was allowed to clinch non-stop, all fight and did so. If he was forced to break and fight it is another battle entirely ... Superfight 1 and Thrilla prove this point.
I think the complaints about the holding are excessive. On paper holding is a foul, but unofficially it has been deemed a more or less valid tactic. Tunney held a lot against Dempsey, so did Machen against Liston, and Young and Leonard against Foreman and Hagler respectively. And many more that there is no gripe about. Hagler's commentary in Leonard-Hearns II is illuminating in this regard. Hagler who hardly was a spoiler himself, recognized Hearns' holding towards the end of the fight as an improvement on his part. That he had matured compared to the first fight where he wasn't able to hold on and survive.
In my book,it's up to the oppossing fighter to deal with being clinched. Ken Norton pointed out that he would punch Muhammad under the armpit when he did it with him. Indeed,some of the old timers look upon clinching as a skill in itself.
A clear win for Ali and not as action-packed as the other two. Not as bad as people say it was but it was an okay fight were Ali danced more than the first one and fought smart. The first one Frazier pinned him against the ropes quite often but in the second fight Ali didn't make the same mistake. Easily the least exciting of the trilogy.
People forget about this fight because it was such a rip off. Ali held Joe behind the back of the head the entire fight and the referee said nothing about it. Joe gave Ali so much trouble specifically because of his power punches to Ali's body. That's how he slowed Ali down in the first fight. With Ali holding Joe, Joe couldn't get on the inside. Joe's corner men were livid that the ref let Ali do this the entire fight. This is why they made sure a good referee was brought in for the "Thrilla In Manilla." Ali tried again to hold Joe behind the head but the referee immediately was on it. Joe had a field day on Ali's body and as a result Ali was urinating blood after the fight.
There's a difference between clinching to nullify your opponent's punch attack from whatever arm or side and firing back with a counter punch, as opposed to the excessive holding and pushing down behind the neck that Ali did to Frazier. The only thing Ali didn't do is throw the uppercuts from underneath while pushing down, like George Foreman does and Lennox Lewis did against Michael Grant. Carlos Monzon was one of the best at using the clinch fairly and effectively, throwing back counter punches with the opposite arm until the referee separates the fighters. In FOTC II, Ali would pull Frazier in and push down on his head. Any of you on this forum who sees this as a legal tactic doesn't know what clinching and countering is. Ali tried to do the same thing in Manilla, but Padilla wouldn't let him do it, slapping away his gloves from the back of Frazier's neck and shoulders, while warning him. Notice how Ali was booed repeatedly in the second fight? I believe Ali won this fight and looked sharper than the first with Frazier, but not decisively and not without a bit controversy, on both sides for that matter. He probably has Frazier down on the canvas in the second round, if Perez allowed him to follow-up with the right hand shot. I don't think he was stopping Frazier though, of which some on this forum say would have happened. Ali was not KOing Frazier in the second round of the FOTC II. Ali was also tiring near the last rounds of this fight. His clinching became more prounounced and he landed punches basically to win the rounds and score points which is what a smart boxer does. I didn't agree with his offense because it's not like it was effective and Frazier did say that his punches were bogus flurries with no steam on them. Who knows what happens if Ali is warned for his holding and is forced to fight it out more than he did in this rematch with Frazier. Sure, Red Smith and Dave Anderson of the New York Times weren't the biggest fans of Ali and it can be easily interpreted that both of their scores having Frazier winning the fight were slightly biased in favour of Joe. Still, a draw wouldn't have been all that wrong, but Ali did win this fight, with some help from Perez.
Yes, there was holding and spoiling. No dispute there. But no really worse than the fights I mentioned. AND - let's not pretend Joe was a clean fighter. He put his head in opponents' faces (did this repeatedly against Ali in the rematch), hit low, etc. Quarry, after their first fight, claimed Frazier was quite a dirty fighter, but had to acknowledge that he really wasn't cleaner himself. I think this sums up Ali-Frazier as well. The difference is what Ali did was more visible. Anyhow, the second fight was the most boring one by some distance, but probably also the most accomplished perfomance from Ali of the three.
I think Ali-Frazier II most closely resembles what a 15 title match between the two of them would have looked like if Joe had challenged Muhammad in 1968 or 1969, albeit with less holding and more running from Ali. It would have been a hectic fight for Muhammad, and a frustrating one for Joe, certainly less boring than what they produced in 1974, but not 1971 FOTC or Manila material either. In my opinion, this was the fastest Ali of their trilogy. No, I do not believe Perez saved Joe from a knockout or even a knockdown in that second round, but he did prevent what probably would have been scored as a 10-8 round if on the ten point must scoring system. Muhammad also had a moment in the FOTC where he forced Smoke to take a step back, and Frazier weathered that without any assistance from Mercante. Ali was also knocking Joe backwards in the final round at Manila, but couldn't put him down even though he was virtually blind by that point. It was a lousy botch by a lousy referee (who has no business being inducted into any boxing HOF), but considering the principles doing battle, I seriously doubt it was a fight changing moment.
Agree with you. I still think Frazier of the late 60's would have been fast enough on his feet moving forward to catch Ali. Beating him would have been a different story because the exiled years robbed Ali of his prime and it's not like the sport saw Ali at his peak best. He was pretty damn good in 1967 and almost as good in the FOTC, but his body grew and he filled out. People on this forum beat the Williams fight to death, but that's not accurate IMO. Williams was a shell of himself after being shot in the abdomen not too long before this fight.
Lets not forget that Eddie Futch, in an effort to make Joe less hitable, trained Joe to be less squared off for this bout which caused Joe to be noticeably slower moving forward, and a slight bit off getting his body shots in. Joe did land one nice right hand during the bout which was another reason for trying this change, but it just wasn't a style that was going to let Joe do any smokin in the ring.
What's funny is I noted it. It helped shape the mood of the fight, but I can't give rounds against Ali for it when Joe does little to nothing. Clear Ali decision. Just ignore my stalker.