The Thriller In Manilla - The 15th Round

not true he asked a corner man (i think pachenco) to cut the gloves.
he was far more tired than frazier. frazier just didnt have a defence by this point in the fight. if futch let his man go on ali would of finshed it himself...and it wouldnt be frazier who was stopped.

 

...after the 10th. It's been changed since for drama purposes (probably around the late 80s/early 90s). Call it mutual respect for both camps.

 

The 15th in Manila is one of thsoe great, unanswerable questions, but I think there might have been a chance of it being anti-climactic. Frazier was, as has been pointed out, a sitting duck, and furthermore he was literally blind due to the cataract in one eye and the other being swollen nearly shut. So any offense Frazier can mount would literally be a miracle.

Ali on the other hand was in control but dead tired and largely a spent force. He'd just gone pretty much all out in the 13th and 14th to finish Frazier, but as close as he came at times or as bad as he hurt Frazier Frazier just wouldn't fall.

So to me it seems like one possibility for the 15th is that it's a slow round with both guys resting and ineffective. Maybe Ali throws a few punches to be sure to win the round, but most of the rest is spent in holding and resting.

On the other hand, with the issue of whether Padilla was going to stop the fight, maybe the first time Ali tries to throw a flurry Padilla rushes in and says no more.

Sometimes, punches thrown are after the fact: throwing at a guy already out on his feet who is just waiting to fall over. In Manila the 15th might have been similar. People might have looked back and said "Hey, it was the 13th and 14th that were the real climax of the fight".

 

Interesting. Where have you come across that information?

In Hauser's book they say after the 14:th, don't remember what Ali's autobiography says about it. I know that he mentions the end of the 10:th as some kind of watershed.

 

The post-fight report in Boxing Illustrated and The New York Times.

 

Ok. That bears more weight, without a doubt. Do you have a link to any of these two?

 

No. You'll have to take my word for it. I only speak truth nuggets. :good

 

New York Times around the time of the fight or an article years later?

 

Should I trust a notorious Ali-sycophant like you? NEVER! :tong

 

If it was years later it would have been in the same boat as the "14th" quote. I'd say within weeks of the fight. I don't subscribe any more so I can't give you a date. I probably have it in Boxing News too. I might be bothered uploading them (if enough people want to argue the case with me).

 

Fair enough.

 

Two years later, is still years later.

 

What are you talking about? :huh


It's almost like you felt you had to say something but weren't quite sure what.

 

Read again.

Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
If it was years later it would have been in the same boat as the "14th" quote.


Two years later, is still years later.


So for it to come under the same boat as the "14th" quote, how many years later would it need to be. 2, 5, 10, 20?

 

It doesn't matter, any of the above. My point was clearly that it's in the same boat if it's written in retrospect. Which my version wasn't. Hence it's not "in the same boat as the 14th".