Why no questions about Frazier not giving Ali a rematch ?

Bokaj,
Man,,,,,,,,,,you're all over the place 8)

Ali was in his prime in 1967, but we didn't really get to see him in their with the
'creme de le creme'.
Kind of like watching the first (2) Super Bowls with the Green Bay Packers against
weak opponents.
We all lost out in seeing a 'special athlete'.

 

Honestly, I don't really understand what you're saying. But put it this way: Ali's inactivity and, later on, his age are indication that he was past his prime and his perfomances vindicates these indications.

As for Frazier, he slowed a bit after FOTC but his stamina seemed to keep up pretty well.

I don't dispute that Frazier was past at least his peak after FOTC. I'm just saying that Ali was just as past his for their last two fights (and of course further past it in FOTC) and probably more past it for Manilla. I think Joe looked closer to his peak self than Ali did in that fight. Both had declined, of course.

 

We've been through this, haven't we. A guy who proves himself against Liston, Patterson and a couple of other solid contenders is proven.

Either you list who proved himself against better opposition or you shut up.

 

I'll graciously accept it as such.:good

 

No, I think Ali was very good in 1971, he fought a hell of a fight, a great fight. And I think he was very good in 1974. I don't think he was better in one or the other. To me, there's no obvious difference. There's really nothing in it.

Frazier, I think, was at his peak in 1971, for that one fight, he was never better. I think he was in decline afterwards. I don't think getting brutalized by Foreman helped matters either.

And, yes, Frazier needed to be at his absolute peak that night to beat a post-exile Ali in the manner he did. In that respect, you could certainly argue with some justification that Ali '67 version was better than Frazier.
But building the 2nd and 3rd Frazier fights up, and downplaying Ali's relative prowess in the 1st one, is frankly unnecessary. No one should doubt Ali's greatness, or Frazier's for that matter.
One thing we should recognize though is the sheer brilliance of Frazier's performance in the FOTC. I think that Frazier beats any post-exile version of Ali, but I concede that pre-exile Ali is another matter.

 

Give me some numbers that show he actually made big money with his no-talent 'singing' self, or ANY significant money AT ALL!
I heard years ago that he booked a show in Paris and only 28 tickets sold in the first two weeks so they just cancelled (one of many cancellations in that short-lived joke of a run)
I love Joe and he gave us a HOF effort in March, 71 but Ali basically ruined him that night. What was he post-Ali 1? 5-4? The wins?
Daniels (journeyman)
Stander (journeyman)
Bugner (the powderpuff pus actually stunned him in the fight)
Ellis (very much over the hill)
Quarry (see Ellis)

Haven't read all the posts but I think after the Ali/Sonny quinella, the age-old tradition of automatic rematches was thrown into the trash...

This reminds me of one of my favorite boxing trivia questions (tho all boxing fans know the answer)
"Between May of 1959 and March of 1966 (almost seven years!) who was the ONLY fighter involved in a Heavyweight title fight not named Floyd or Ingo or Sonny or Muhammad?"

 

You may be right, it's very hard to tell for sure. But in that case I'd say that Ali fought a smarter (but more boring) fight the second time. Not that he fought a stupid fight in the first, but he just didn't know fully just what Frazier was capabable of.

I agree, I just think it gets exagerrated at times. Christ, some posters have said he was shot in the first Foreman fight.

We seem to be pretty much on the same page here. I think Ali fighting like he did in the rematch possibly could nick an extremely close (and controversial) decision against FOTC Frazier, but I wouldn't put any money on it. Anyhow, it wouldn't be as great a fight.

 

True. He was peaking at that time.

 

That is a beautiful one. The one against Ellis was also vintage Frazier. I think those three fights were him at his peak.

 

Definitely smarter. He didn't try to hold much as in the first fight. The second fight he was allowed to hold a lot, much to the annoyance of Eddie Futch.
I think Frazier was easier to tie-up too.
Ali held, and that allowed him to box on the move when they were broken up.

It's hard to tell where he was at against Foreman.
George didn't really give him a chance to show.

That's reasonable. :good

 

Bokaj,

Ali did defend his title more in a short span than anyone esle, but does quantity
over-shadow quality.
You can answer that better than me.

C'mon, even back in 1967 Howard Cosell, Ali's staunchest supporter asked him when he would fighting someone tough, instead of pretenders and old men.
'You know Howard, Zora Folley is pretty good for a 35-year old man. And he's a gentleman too.'

 

This must be what hell is like.

 

Was there anyone tough around though ?