Would Frazier have beaten Ali the 2nd time if Foreman never happened?

[prinzemanspopa]

Lol, you're a clown, really. Why is it only "cherry picking" when Frazier takes this route but not any other fighter in history?

because this is frazier we're discussing,gabby.Don't have a problem with him fighting bugner,but I do have a problem with long streches of inactivity and leaving other fighters to do all the fighting.

Funny how you have never stepped in a ring but think you're an authority on who and when someone else should fight. Do I need to start naming other fighters who have taken similar amounts of time off and come back against weaker opposition not only after a loss, but a win? It really isn't that difficult if you chose to look at everybody equally. we know that isn't you M.O. though.

Gabby,a few rounds clowning around in a ring doesn't make you an expert.You don't need to have "stepped in a ring" to compare frazier's level of activity to other top heavyweights in that era.

I could go on and on about all the elite fighters who fought on a regular basis against tougher opposition,had tougher fights and took more punishment than fraizer did

Your pathetically hateful agenda is clear!

He didn't need a used up Ellis to prepare for a guy he had already fought twenty seven rounds with.

Only objective people who know what they're talking about.

Objective people who think frazier deserves to be ranked up there with thee very best? You think it's objective to rate him that highly even though he wasn't even the second best ighter in his division of his era?

Yeah,right.

No, its the same topic, you just don't want to go there because your flimsy house of cards argument crumbles when you have to admit other fighters have taken the same avenue.

It's not relevant to this topic.I've accused foreman of avoiding others in the past,so I don't know you're talking about.

[JAB5239]

because this is frazier we're discussing,gabby.Don't have a problem with him fighting bugner,but I do have a problem with long streches of inactivity and leaving other fighters to do all the fighting.

So why are we only talking about Frazier? You want to leave out the fact that his style was never conducive to a long career but put him down for it. Why not pick one of so many others in history who have done the same thing? You want a Lyle fight but simply dismiss that he fought better fighters, that shows you have a biased agenda. Win or lose, what other fighter in history fought more fights against top 10 all time op?
You will avoid this question like the plague.

Gabby,a few rounds clowning around in a ring doesn't make you an expert.You don't need to have "stepped in a ring" to compare frazier's level of activity to other top heavyweights in that era.

Im no expert, but I've actually been in the ring with world class pro's. EVERY poster here with ant shred of credibility knows Im objective far more times than not. You can't claim that without lying.

I could go on and on about all the elite fighters who fought on a regular basis against tougher opposition,had tougher fights and took more punishment than fraizer did

I can go on and on about elite fighters who took the same path as Frazier with a much less excruciating style. If you care to debate it say the word, otherwise you're doing exactly what it looks like you're doing...singling out a fighter you simply don't like. Man up and lets debate. I'll prove you have an agenda and are clueless.

He didn't need a used up Ellis to prepare for a guy he had already fought twenty seven rounds with.

So why7 did he need a Lyle who had lost to Quarry?

Objective people who think frazier deserves to be ranked up there with thee very best? You think it's objective to rate him that highly even though he wasn't even the second best ighter in his division of his era?

Yeah,right.

Lol, who was the second best of his era? You've stated numerous times Foreman was a nobody and Fraziers resume trumps any other. I await you answer to get another good laugh.

It's not relevant to this topic.I've accused foreman of avoiding others in the past,so I don't know you're talking about.

In other words you're comfortable ducking ANY argument that shows just how bias you are. :

[JERRYWAYNE]

Frazier's style made for short career

An underanalyzed aspect of Frazier's career relates to its unsustainability over the long haul. Smoking Joe fought as if a perpetual motion machine, always coming forward, bobbing continuously and throwing punches non-stop. Joe was like a larger version of Henry Armstrong, except he favored his left while Hammering Hank favored his right. (Frazier was naturally left handed but adapted a right-hand stance).

Unfortunately for Frazier, he wasn't fighting as welter or middle, but as a solid heavyweight who was often competing against bigger men. He also took punishment, although not as much as one might expect from his aggressive style. Given his style, size (not little), and often bigger opponent (Mathis, Ali, Foreman, Bugner, etc.) such factors took a toll on Frazier's career.

After the first Ali fight, Frazier never was the same. He was heavier and slower. Look at his two fights before Ali and his first two fights after Ali.
He dominated two championship quality fighters in Jimmy Ellis and Bob Foster prior to his showdown with Ali. After Ali, he allowed two very, very mediocre heavyweights in Terry Daniels and Ron Stander to hang around much longer than their abilities should have allowed. And then.....Foreman.

My point is that Frazier was in decline after the Ali fight and before the Foreman fight. His career wars took their toll, and the grueling Ali encounter, with its exhausting prefight buildup and its full distanced, hard faught action, created an aftermath that marked the beginning of his erosion as an all time great.

If there had been no Foreman, the second Ali fight probably would have had the same outcome. Frazier would not have been the same fighter he was in Ali 1, regardless. Also, Ali's second fight tactics, of clutching, holding, and grabbing behind the neck of Frazier, unchecked by Ref Perez, would have benefited Ali, even if Foreman v. Frazier never happened.

For some reason, Ali partisans are forever saying that Ali in Frazier 1 was the fighter with diminished skills because of his forced retirement (and the reason for a Frazier win). This is an odd idea, given that Ali was only 28 at the time and had fought more rounds of real boxing in his previous two fights than Frazier did. Ali fans, great and small, always seem to have the fairy dust of Liston-Clay in their eyes when they view their man, post exile, and especially Frazier 1. They seem to forget fights like Ali-Mildenberger, Ali-Chuvalo or Ali-Folley.

A different question: what if the Frazier of Frazier-Ellis 1 fought the Ali of Ali-Frazier 1. Hmmmm?

[Sugarj]

A great first post Jerry,

I'm in full agreement with what you've said too. The only issue I could say, (not that it matters much) was that Ali was 29 when he fought Frazier first time. Born Jan 1942, the fight was March 1971.

Also that Ali's footwork in his comeback seemed to take a couple of years to become anything like it was in the sixties. The flat footed Ali who fought Frazier first time wasn't nearly as mobile or as well sustained as the Ali who beat Frazier in 1974. Ali realised in the 1970 Quarry fight (Where he did dance the three rounds) that he couldn't sustain his dancing as he had done three years previous.

This clearly brought about his rather more flat footed performances against Bonavena and Frazier. It wasn't until 1973 with the Norton return and in 1974's Frazier return that he had got someting like the old footwork back.

Oh, and in answer to your question about the Frazier from Ellis 1 VS the Ali from March 1971.........I'd favour Frazier to win that fight too.

I look forward to more of your posts.

[prinzemanspopa]

Ironic that the Jimmy Ellis fight is used as an example to highlight frazier's peak considering that featured frazier against another heavyweight who was coming off of a long layoff.

What is it with 'Ole Smokey' and picking up these career defining,yet tainted performances over rusty opposition?



History doesn't support the notion that fighters are able to return from a long very layoff with their prime intact.


I've not heard many try to claim that Jack Johnson was in his his prime at the time of his loss to Jess Willard.I've neard heard anyone claim that Joe Louis was still at the top of his game after his forced layoff.



So why should we pretend that Ali was somehow at the peak of his physical prime just to credit 'Smokey' with his career defining win?



Unfortunately for frazier and his apologists,footage,in it's entirety,exists of Ali's long-winded struggle with Oscar bonavena.Huffing and puffing after just five rounds of action against a slow,inactive opponent is not the mark of a fighter who is at the top of his game.




I'm not sure how the frazier apologists can determine that frazier was passed it against foreman because he suddenly plucked up enough courage to step into the ring with a puncher for the first time in his career.


Punchers were always a nightmare matchup for frazier....That's why he spent his entire career avoiding virtually everyone of them.

[JAB5239]

Ironic that the Jimmy Ellis fight is used as an example to highlight frazier's peak considering that featured frazier against another heavyweight who was coming off of a long layoff.

What is it with 'Ole Smokey' and picking up these career defining,yet tainted performances over rusty opposition?



History doesn't support the notion that fighters are able to return from a long very layoff with their prime intact.


I've not heard many try to claim that Jack Johnson was in his his prime at the time of his loss to Jess Willard.I've neard heard anyone claim that Joe Louis was still at the top of his game after his forced layoff.



So why should we pretend that Ali was somehow at the peak of his physical prime just to credit 'Smokey' with his career defining win?



Unfortunately for frazier and his apologists,footage,in it's entirety,exists of Ali's long-winded struggle with Oscar bonavena.Huffing and puffing after just five rounds of action against a slow,inactive opponent is not the mark of a fighter who is at the top of his game.




I'm not sure how the frazier apologists can determine that frazier was passed it against foreman because he suddenly plucked up enough courage to step into the ring with a puncher for the first time in his career.


Punchers were always a nightmare matchup for frazier....That's why he spent his entire career avoiding virtually everyone of them.

Your ignorance and bias are sickening. Even with the layoff....even if you DON'T consider Ali prime....he was still at that point one of the greatest heavyweights ever and the best fighter in the division besides Frazier.

[boxing boy]

Frazier wanted no part of a rematch,and he listened to his trainer to wait until Ali got older and slower.

The "whole world" was shouting for a rematch after the Fight of the Century.Muhammad Ali was shouting for a rematch for years!

Frazier could also have made millions of dollars by giving Ali a rematch.Joe Frazier was flat out offered $800,000 dollars to fight George Foreman or 5 Million dollars to fight Muhammad Ali.The rest is history.

Muhammad Ali needed a couple more tune-ups before the first fight with Frazier after just coming off a 3 1/2 year lay-off.After the Quarry tune-up Muhammad Ali said he was SHOCKED at how tired he was after only 3 rounds,and if the fight would have went 10-15 rounds he might have lost.The second tune-up fight with Bonevena,Ali looked terrible.He looked slow both of hand and foot.His reflexes were alot slower getting away from punches,and his timing and punching accuracy were way off.And his stamina was very poor.But the Supreme court said they were ready to nake a decision on Ali's appeal "any day" concerning his conviction of not joining the military.So he had to take the Frazier fight right away.

So if there was no George Foreman,Frazier would have continued to avoid giving Ali a rematch until he got older and slower.But Frazier was FORCED to fight Muhammad Ali,and the winner to get a shot at George Foreman's title.Ali had time to get his legs back,and danced for 12 rounds and beating Joe Frazier 8-4,7-4-1,and 6-5-1.Muhammad Ali would have beat Joe Frazier in a rematch in 1971,72,0r 73 if Frazier would have given him a rematch.Ali just needed a couple more tune-up fights after his 3 1/2 year lay-off.

If there was no George Foreman who knows how long Frazier would have waited to give Ali a rematch.We know he wouldn't give Ali a rematch for the rest of 1971,and 1972.So who knows how long Joe Frazier would have made Ali wait for a rematch.

[Sugarj]

It would have come in 1974 regardless. Nothing would stop the Norton fights (and Ali's jaw injury) tying up much of 1973.

If Frazier continued to stall until 1975, he would have been stripped some time before for avoiding the number one contender. He would have been forced to fight Ali or Norton at the least......then Ali.