1967 Ali vs. 1971 Frazier

[Obama]

All your presenting is circumstantial evidence. Real hard evidence is more credible. Why don't you actually OBSERVE the fighters, instead of quoting numbers?

why don't you compare the two tapes I mention side to side?
It's easy to notice many differences, which will become more pronounced the longer the two fights go.

Also look at the above poster: boxingboy

What are you talking about? I just told you I'm not arguing if he was still prime or not. What else is do I need to "look at" to make the comments that I did?

[Vadrigar.]

What are you talking about? I just told you I'm not arguing if he was still prime or not. What else is do I need to "look at" to make the comments that I did?

That's the whole point of the argument. He WASN'T in his prime. Cant you understand?

You have to observe the fighters in action instead of balbbering on about tune up fights. Why don't you talk about the zora folley and terrel fights which was BEFORE the lay-off?

You can see the clear difference between 1971 and 1967.

[Obama]

That's the whole point of the argument. He WASN'T in his prime. Cant you understand?

You have to observe the fighters in action instead of balbbering on about tune up fights. Why don't you talk about the zora folley and terrel fights which was BEFORE the lay-off?

No, point of the conversation is who wins, 1971 Frazier or 1967 Ali. I do figure 1967 Ali was better, just not good enough. Frazier dominated him in their official meeting. So instead he narrowly beats him in this fantasy meeting, either way, he still wins.

And I'm not going to discuss Ali against a washed up Zora Folley, that's just obscene. Why don't I talk about him against Archie Moore while we're at it.

[Vadrigar.]

No, point of the conversation is who wins, 1971 Frazier or 1967 Ali. I do figure 1967 Ali was better, just not good enough. Frazier dominated him in their official meeting. So instead he narrowly beats him in this fantasy meeting, either way, he still wins.



And I'm not going to discuss Ali against a washed up Zora Folley, that's just obscene. Why don't I talk about him against Archie Moore while we're at it.

Your post doesn't make any sense. I am doing exactly what the topic of the thread asks. I have given my reasons in previous posts. How else are we going to judge who wins if we don't look at the difference between pre exile and post exile ALi?

look at the quote from TS:

"Do you think that the Ali that beat Williams, and Foley would be able to beat the Joe Frazier that beat Ali?"

I'll give even more reasons now:

No zora folley wasn't totally washed up, neither earnie Terrell. Even if they were washed up, that has nothing to do with his stamina because the Ernie Terrell fight was 15 rounds.

lol when did I even mention Archie Moore? Ali was a contender back then. You are silly for bringing that up.

Frazier did not dominate him in the official meeting. The fight was close, but Ali became short of the vital stamina that he needed in the championship rounds against a pressure fighter like Frazier. HE would have been still peppering frazier with the jab just like the opening three rounds if he was in 1967 condition.

I can guarantee you that he had that stamina in 1967. Just watch is pre exile fights. The reason he had that stamina is because his legs much better pre exile.

[Obama]

If your eyes the first Frazier fight was close. In mine, as in judge Bill Recht's eyes, it was a dominant victory for Joe. Bill had it just a little wider than me but it was far from a close fight.

So a prime Ali does better, maybe robs Joe by SD. But he doesn't beat him on my card.

And Folley was washed up, get a clue.

[Vadrigar.]

If your eyes the first Frazier fight was close. In mine, as in judge Bill Recht's eyes, it was a dominant victory for Joe. Bill had it just a little wider than me but it was far from a close fight.

So a prime Ali does better, maybe robs Joe by SD. But he doesn't beat him on my card.

And Folley was washed up, get a clue.

He wasn't washed up, he still had something left in the tank. However he was past his prime. There is a distinction. You get a clue.

There is no way it was a dominant victory for Joe. Just watch the early rounds and you will see the frequency of jabs that were landing on joes face. His eyes were already getting welted.

Once again as I already told you joe frazier had better stamina in that fight, which is a contributing factor to why he won. Ali couldn't keep up the same jab frequency in the championship rounds.

[boxing boy]

I think a 71' Joe Frazier against a Prime 1967 Muhammad Ali would be a close hard fought fight.I believe Muhammad Ali would win a close but UD.

The scoring of the 1st fight:

Referee-8-6-1 Frazier
Judge-9-6 Frazier
Judge-11-4 Frazier

What fight was the judge who scored the fight 11-4 watching?

Frazier won and knocked down Muhammad Ali in the 15th round.So going into the last round the referee and one judge had the fight scored 7-6-1 Frazier,and 8-6 Frazier.I would say that it was a close fight.But that Frazier clearly won the fight.

I see a 1967 Muhammad Ali beating a 71' Joe Frazier something like 8-6-1.

[hayZ]

Frazier would always give Ali a tough fight but every knowledgable boxing historian will tell you that a Prime Ali was a machine and that he would win. He was quicker, fitter and just moved more. I see it being abit like Ali v Chuvalo 1

[nightowl]

Ali already beat Frazier in '71. It would be a one-sided contest if it was the '67 version of Ali

[boxing boy]

Ali already beat Frazier in '71. It would be a one-sided contest if it was the '67 version of Ali

Ali beat Frazier in 1971?

Could you please score the fight for us,round by round.

What fight were you watching? Yes,it was close by rounds after 14 rounds,but Frazier knocks him down in the 15th round and CLEARLY won the fight.

If the fight was scored by the point system Frazier wins even more clearly.He gets a 2 point 11th and 15th rounds.

Please score the fight for us you blind fool.