Ali provides a detailed analysis of his destruction of Cleveland Williams & others

[McGrain]

And it's absolutley fascinating.


"I let him hit me. For the fun of it."
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



"Man...I can't keep up with my own punches here."
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



"The Double Clutch Shuffle!"
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



"I will quit the day I am beat."
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[HomicideHenry]

He was right about that @ 'I will quit the day I am beat!'

He quit on his stool against Larry Holmes

[mr. magoo]

It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly fast, agile, and coordinated Muhammad Ali was in his prime. His stamina to maintain such a high work rate and non-stop movement was equally mind boggling. I also believe that he possessed power during his prime that often goes unnoticed. He was great in his signature battles during the 1970's with Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Quarry, etc. But, He was noticeably better in 1967. He was way ahead of his time and his opponents were grossly outmatched. In fact, I believe that it could be legitimately said, that it took the four year layoff to create parity in the division. Cleveland Williams had no business in the ring with Muhammad Ali.

[Longhhorn71]

If you noticed at the very first for the Wide World of Sports lead-in, the reference to the "agony of defeat" does not show the skier who became "The Agony of Defeat".

[Longhhorn71]

Cleveland Williams had no business in the ring with Muhammad Ali.[/quote]

Especially after you had been shot in gut by a cop.

Williams had been inactive the entire year of 1965 while recovering from gunshot wounds he suffered at the hands of a police officer arising out of traffic stop. Williams was shot with a .357 Magnum in the abdomen, barely survived, and suffered permanent kidney damage, a loss of over ten feet of his small intestine, and nerve damage from the bullet which affected his left leg above the knee, causing it to atrophy as a result. In this greatly diminished physical condition Williams fought for the heavyweight championship against Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) on November 14 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), 1966 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) and was stopped in the third round.

[HomicideHenry]

A bit misleading aint it?

Williams also fought four men before taking on Ali in 1966. Among the four was the regarded Tod Herring who was 26-5-0. Williams knocked him out in three rounds. After Ali Williams continued fighting on until 1972 going 13-8-0, defeating guys like Terry Daniels and Ted Guillick, and lost a competitive fight to George Chuvalo in 1971.

He wasnt the same, yes, as he was, but the man was capable and durable. Saying he had no business in the ring with Ali is a little stretched.

[mr. magoo]

Longhhorn71;4058788]
Especially after you had been shot in gut by a cop.

Williams had been inactive the entire year of 1965 while recovering from gunshot wounds he suffered at the hands of a police officer arising out of traffic stop. Williams was shot with a .357 Magnum in the abdomen, barely survived, and suffered permanent kidney damage, a loss of over ten feet of his small intestine, and nerve damage from the bullet which affected his left leg above the knee, causing it to atrophy as a result. In this greatly diminished physical condition Williams fought for the heavyweight championship against Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) on November 14 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), 1966 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) and was stopped in the third round.
[/QUOTE]
I concur. William's near death experience rendered him partly disabled and robbed him of finishing his career on a better note. He was still horribly outmatched against Ali though, and frankly I don't know if even a prime Williams would have faired much better. Ali was just picking his shots out at will. If a pissed off Muhammad like the one who punished Ernie Terrell had shown up, Cleveland wouldn't have made it out of that second round....

Howard was right.. They should have stopped it..

[mr. magoo]

He wasnt the same, yes, as he was, but the man was capable and durable. Saying he had no business in the ring with Ali is a little stretched.


What he did both before and after his actual meeting with Ali was irrelevant in my eyes, and frankly it wasn't that great in the first place. Sometimes a mismatch is a mismatch....Period. Williams couldn't even defend himself in there, against a man who more or less taking his time and choosing his shots. William's strait up stance, low guard and tendency to pursue, played right into Ali's hands.

[HomicideHenry]

Was it a mismatch, or was it that Ali had finally peaked, that that was the best he was ever going to get?

[mr. magoo]

Was it a mismatch, or was it that Ali had finally peaked, that that was the best he was ever going to get?

Would you say that the two were well matched?

[Dempsey1238]

I pretty sure Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Mike Tyson, or any other atg heavyweight would look just as impressive vs THAT Williams that fought Ali imo.

[Longhhorn71]

Would you say that the two were well matched?

Boxing is a strange sport....seldom do really equally matched fighters meet at heavyweight.

Williams had lost and drawn with Machen, Terrell, and beat Terrell... over the past 5 years.

Cleveland lost those 2 big fights against Liston in 1959 and 1960 when Williams was in his prime.

During the early 60's, Williams fought & beat the standard decent "opponents"

Sonny Banks was an "opponent" ...I used to see him in Dallas fight.

Todd Herring had lost 3 of his last 5 fights before he fought Williams.

I rate the "Ali" Williams at 70% of what he was when he fought Liston.

[HomicideHenry]

Would you say that the two were well matched?

I agree with Longhorn's statement of Williams being 70% of the man who once fought Liston. Williams was still feared and was still an impressive physical specimen, well built and still packed a punch. He was certainly more on the level than what Brian London was.

If there was any puncher out there at HW more a viable contender at that time for Ali's crown than Williams we never saw him.

[Longhhorn71]

Was shot by a police officer during a traffic stop. Lost a kidney and went from 218lbs. to 145lbs.

Photo of Cleve in 1966.....he has seen better days.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[TheGreatA]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
5:20

Williams was shot, literally.

[ChrisPontius]

Holy shit..... 145lbs?!

The thing also is, a boxer with Ali's style was the worst thing that could happen after getting shot. Against an opponent who came at him he could've at least fired back. Ali just annihilated him.

Plus, let's not forget, Ali's ability to stop his opponent before he went into exile was as good as Tyson's.

[mcvey]

And it's absolutley fascinating.


"I let him hit me. For the fun of it."
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



"Man...I can't keep up with my own punches here."
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



"The Double Clutch Shuffle!"
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



"I will quit the day I am beat."
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Very interesting Mac,This confirms what I have allways thought ,that Ali let Chuvalo hit him in the body to prove a point,,several posters have suggested in Ali Marciano matchups that because Chuvalo landed frequently Rocky would break Ali in half,knowing that Chuvalo was not a big league puncher he allowed the Canadian to connect , I dont think he would be around for Rocky's heavier salvos.
I know Willams was past his cell by date ,but I concur with Jose Torres ,that night in the Astrodome, Ali would have beaten EVERY MAN ,who has held the Heavy weight title.
Thanks for the video.

[McGrain]

The thing also is, a boxer with Ali's style was the worst thing that could happen after getting shot.

:lol:

[mcvey]

He was right about that @ 'I will quit the day I am beat!'

He quit on his stool against Larry Holmes

Yeah ,yellow coward:patsch

[groove]

i would have loved to have seen a peak frazier v ali who fought williams. he was constantly moving and floating around the ring and his combos were thunder & lightning (he must have thrown about 14 punches in a row in the 3rd round). pity the same can't be said about the ali he fought in FOTC. Great footage BTW :)

watch 3:35, 5:57 (shuffle) & 6:20 mins

wc7yhZkk0c8

[My dinner with Conteh]

Williams receiveing a shot at any version of any title that year was as laughable as Richard Dunn's a decade later.

[groove]

good point but if ali only fought a few times in a year like many heavyweight champs did then fighters like london, williams would never have fought for the title. cuz ali was fighting a lot in 1966, more fighters, and yes less ones, got their chance.

interesting that joe louis said ali shouldn't be fighting a southpaw v mildenburger. did louis fight any southpaws?

[mcvey]

good point but if ali only fought a few times in a year like many heavyweight champs did then fighters like london, williams would never have fought for the title. cuz ali was fighting a lot in 1966, more fighters, and yes less ones, got their chance.

interesting that joe louis said ali shouldn't be fighting a southpaw v mildenburger. did louis fight any southpaws?

No never."Chappie said nobody looked good against a south paw".

[My dinner with Conteh]

good point but if ali only fought a few times in a year like many heavyweight champs did then fighters like london, williams would never have fought for the title. cuz ali was fighting a lot in 1966, more fighters, and yes less ones, got their chance.


I'd never begrudge a man like Williams making some dough with a title-shot he 'perhaps' earned a few years ealier (when the likes of Tony Tucker would receive 'four') and the performance by Ali shows his amazing skills. However, to me, it's the equivalent of talking about how good Joe Frazier was...and then uploading the Ron Stander fight.

[mcvey]

Williams receiveing a shot at any version of any title that year was as laughable as Richard Dunn's a decade later.

No one claims that Williams was not past it ,but being that Ali had defended his title 5 times that year in the challengers back yard in every case I think he was entitled to an easy one,Williams was uinbeaten since losing to Ernie Terrell by split dec 3 years earlier, and had just beaten Roger Rischer ,who would go on to beat Cooper later.Williams still had enough left in the tank to beat Terry Daniels when Williams was in his last year as a fighter ,Daniels was accepted as a suitable opponent for Frazier in Daniels previous fight. Its worth remembering also that In Ali's next fight he took on the number one contender and WBA Champ ErnieTerrell to close out the year[1966 ]with 6 succesful defences, not a bad effort,imo.

[My dinner with Conteh]

No one claims that Williams was not past it ,but being that Ali had defended his title 5 times that year in the challengers back yard in every case I think he was entitled to an easy one,Williams was uinbeaten since losing to Ernie Terrell by split dec 3 years earlier, and had just beaten Roger Rischer


He'd been shot since he'd beaten Richer and almost died, so I don't know why you'd use that as an example. Also, you mentioned Terry Daniels, who clearly wasn't a suitable opponent for Frazier either. My comment was nothing to do with Ali avoiding anybody, it was to do with Williams being an undeserving challenger and so far removed from his prime that his hometwon supporters even booed his points win against Sonny Moore a few months before his fight with Ali. Yet this is always used as an example of how Ali could've beaten anyone on this night.

[Bokaj]

He'd been shot since he'd beaten Richer and almost died, so I don't know why you'd use that as an example. Also, you mentioned Terry Daniels, who clearly wasn't a suitable opponent for Frazier either. My comment was nothing to do with Ali avoiding anybody, it was to do with Williams being an undeserving challenger and so far removed from his prime that his hometwon supporters even booed his points win against Sonny Moore a few months before his fight with Ali. Yet this is always used as an example of how Ali could've beaten anyone on this night.

But the fact that he followed it up with two impressive perfomances probably has something to do with it. Had he looked like shit against Terrell and Folley the perfomance against Williams would probably not be that talked about.

[DocDevil]

Williams receiveing a shot at any version of any title that year was as laughable as Richard Dunn's a decade later.

Ali fighting Williams and Zora Folley past there primes is a way of greatness in itself.It's like saying, so sorry you didn't get a crack at Patterson and D'Amato in your primes, and I know it's a little late,but I will give you a shot.

[Bummy Davis]

I pretty sure Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Mike Tyson, or any other atg heavyweight would look just as impressive vs THAT Williams that fought Ali imo.


They would all have looked great vs that version of Williams....and I dont think that version of Williams would last more than a rd or so vs the Klitschko's

[mr. magoo]

Holy shit..... 145lbs?!

The thing also is, a boxer with Ali's style was the worst thing that could happen after getting shot. Against an opponent who came at him he could've at least fired back. Ali just annihilated him.

Plus, let's not forget, Ali's ability to stop his opponent before he went into exile was as good as Tyson's.


Pre-exile Ali does not lose to Frazier or Norton.

[klompton]

Ali looked do much better pre exile because he was facing competition that was literally MILES better post exile.

[Bokaj]

Ali looked do much better pre exile because he was facing competition that was literally MILES better post exile.

They were better, but not miles better. Liston, Patterson, Terrell, Folley, Chuvalo and Cooper were not by any means shabby opponents. Liston and Patterson, for example, are probably both better wins than any that Dempsey or even Holmes have on their record.

[groove]

fighters like Quarry, Patterson, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Frazier, Ellis were still fighting near the top when Ali came back after exile. But i agree that he fought better fighters than most of his 60s opponents cuz ali in the 70s fought the peak versions of Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Lyle, Shavers etc when his own peak was 1965-67.

[mcvey]

Ali looked do much better pre exile because he was facing competition that was literally MILES better post exile.

I venture that it was a combination of this and also that his own peak had passed.I beleive we never saw his prime ,it would have been those years he was in exile,imo.

[Mendoza]

This was Ali at his best, and Williams near his worst. Still I prefer to focus on Ali's skills impressive skills. The speed, power, accuracy, and timing were brilliant even if he was in there with a bi-pedal punching bag.

[McGrain]

Pre-exile Ali does not lose to Frazier.


Does!

I think he does, anyway.

[McGrain]

This was Ali at his best, and Williams near his worst. Still I prefer to focus on Ali's skills impressive skills. The speed, power, accuracy, and timing were brilliant even if he was in there with a bi-pedal punching bag.

What impresses me the most is his quick-change of plan. He comes in to box against a dangerous opponent, feels him out for a minute, realises what he is in with and knocks him out almost immediatly.

[Bokaj]

What impresses me the most is his quick-change of plan. He comes in to box against a dangerous opponent, feels him out for a minute, realises what he is in with and knocks him out almost immediatly.

There are claims though that Ali had planned all along to make it a quick affair, since he knew Williams was past it and didn't want to prolong the thing. Of course, he would hardly set a plan like that in the motion until he'd actually been in the ring with the guy long enough to be convinced that the plan was the right one. Especially not against someone who had a punch, which Williams after all still did.

[Bummy Davis]

I think the Frazier that beat Ali in 71 would be hell for a pre-exile Ali...Ali was on his toes more Pre-exile but not as strong....Frazier was filled with more energy than Liston and while fighters like Liston and Foreman
were the perfect foil for Ali....Fighters like Frazier and Norton and some of the smaller quicker more energetic guys like Doug Jones spelled trouble for him...

[mr. magoo]

Does!

I think he does, anyway.

To each his own opinion, but frankly Ali looks a hell of a lot faster and seems to sport a greater work rate in his younger years. Of course, the only way for me to prove this is to look at actual punch stats in a number of his fights from both periods as well as to compare side by side footage from both the 60's and 70's.. I don't have time for that kind of project right now, but everytime I look at his earlier showings, it just seems that way to me. He looks a lot smoother, cleaner, swifter, etc. Some have also credited the 70's Ali as being " stronger ", but the 60's version was actually more effective at getting men out of there. In 1971, Ali was coming off of two very fresh wins over two quality contenders, so I can't use the excuse that he was bouncing right out of retirement. I do feel however that 4 years of being out of the ring along with 4 years of age, slowed him down a little, yet he still gave peak Frazier the battle of his life, and would even beat him in their next two meetings.

Had Ali never gone into exile, I think it likely that his experience and momentum would have continued to compile, and by 1968-69 we might have seen an even better version of him than what actually amounted. With both Ali and Frazier eating up the opposition, they probably would have met maybe 2 years earlier than they really did, hence a less experienced Frazier. I can't imagine Ali losing under all of the above circumstances.

[Bokaj]

I think the Frazier that beat Ali in 71 would be hell for a pre-exile Ali...Ali was on his toes more Pre-exile but not as strong....Frazier was filled with more energy than Liston and while fighters like Liston and Foreman
were the perfect foil for Ali....Fighters like Frazier and Norton and some of the smaller quicker more energetic guys like Doug Jones spelled trouble for him...

You like to say this, but with what basis? Why was a 215 lbs Ali stronger in FOTC than 212 lbs Ali was four years earlier? Exactly what during that long inactivity had made him stronger even though he was basically the same size?

Already in 1966 Ali took punches to the body by Chuvalo all night long without showing any real effects. He said himself that the punches didn't affect him and that he actually let Chuvalo hit him to show as much (which also is confirmed by the film). Chuvalo claims Ali pissed blood afterwards, but there doesn't seem to be more backing that one up than there is for "the long break" in the Cooper fight.

[Bokaj]

To each his own opinion, but frankly Ali looks a hell of a lot faster and seems to sport a greater work rate in his younger years. Of course, the only way for me to prove this is to look at actual punch stats in a number of his fights from both periods as well as to compare side by side footage from both the 60's and 70's.. I don't have time for that kind of project right now, but everytime I look at his earlier showings, it just seems that way to me. He looks a lot smoother, cleaner, swifter, etc. Some have also credited the 70's Ali as being " stronger ", but the 60's version was actually more effective at getting men out of there. In 1971, Ali was coming off of two very fresh wins over two quality contenders, so I can't use the excuse that he was bouncing right out of retirement. I do feel however that 4 years of being out of the ring along with 4 years of age, slowed him down a little, yet he still gave peak Frazier the battle of his life, and would even beat in their next two meetings.

Had Ali never gone into exile, I think it likely that his experience and momentum would have continued to comile, and by 1968-69 we might have seen an even better version of him than what actually amounted. With both Ali and Frazier eating up the opposition, they probably would have met maybe 2 years earlier than they really did, hence a less experienced Frazier. I can't imagine Ali losing under all of the above circumstances.

This is my analysis as well. Frazier's greatest chance if they met in 1969 would be if Ali would have been very overconfident. If he lacked in preparation he would be in for a looong night, no doubt.

It should also be noted that Chuvalo said that Ali was both slower and had less workrate in 1972 compared to 1966, this despite the second fight being a 12-rounder.

[mr. magoo]

You like to say this, but with what basis? Why was a 215 lbs Ali stronger in FOTC than 212 lbs Ali was four years earlier? Exactly what during that long inactivity had made him stronger even though he was basically the same size?

Already in 1966 Ali took punches to the body by Chuvalo all night long without showing any real effects. He said himself that the punches didn't affect him and that he actually let Chuvalo hit him to show as much (which also is confirmed by the film). Chuvalo claims Ali pissed blood afterwards, but there doesn't seem to be more backing that one up than there is for "the long break" in the Cooper fight.


Good points. I don't know if strength had anything to do with it or maybe it was quality of opposition, but 60's Ali was definately more effective at dispatching opponents. In 10 world title fights during the 1960's, Ali stopped or KO'd 8 of his 10 opponents. The only two men who took him 15 rounds, were a prime Chuvalo who had one of the greatest chins of all time, and 6'6" WBA champ Ernie Terrell, who according to some, Ali purposely kept standing to punish. Muhammad's ability to finish quailty opponents during the 70's did not appear to be quite as concise.

[McGrain]

To each his own opinion, but frankly Ali looks a hell of a lot faster and seems to sport a greater work rate in his younger years. Of course, the only way for me to prove this is to look at actual punch stats in a number of his fights from both periods as well as to compare side by side footage from both the 60's and 70's.. I don't have time for that kind of project right now, but everytime I look at his earlier showings, it just seems that way to me.

That's fair, but I don't think that the speed of Frazier's pressure is anything like nullified by Ali's speed and I think that his higher output works well for Joe, frankly.

He looks a lot smoother, cleaner, swifter, etc. Some have also credited the 70's Ali as being " stronger ", but the 60's version was actually more effective at getting men out of there. In 1971, Ali was coming off of two very fresh wins over two quality contenders, so I can't use the excuse that he was bouncing right out of retirement. I do feel however that 4 years of being out of the ring along with 4 years of age, slowed him down a little, yet he still gave peak Frazier the battle of his life, and would even beat him in their next two meetings.

Had Ali never gone into exile, I think it likely that his experience and momentum would have continued to compile, and by 1968-69 we might have seen an even better version of him than what actually amounted. With both Ali and Frazier eating up the opposition, they probably would have met maybe 2 years earlier than they really did, hence a less experienced Frazier. I can't imagine Ali losing under all of the above circumstances.

All quite nice, but pre-exile Ali was more vulnerable to hard punches, not less, probably because he was easier to catch going away. There does come a point where his expereince and his speed woutl be at a tandem peak, but i'm not using an imagined version - i'm using the version we have on film.

You've said that Ali gave Frazier the battle of his life. Indeed he did. Frazier won it pretty cleanly though, and Ali wasn't going to win unless he knocked Joe out. That was not a perfect Frazier in the ring that night though. I'll take the version that did Young or Foster, anytime. Frazier was very clear that "if it had been anyone but [Ali] I would have cancelled the fight. I shouldn't have been fighting." His temperature was through the roof, his joints were inflamed for the first but not last time.

And he gave Ali the battle of his life. All he could handle and a good bit more.

Ali, at no point in his career, had the power to keep Frazier off.

No HW in the history of the division has brought the speed of pressure that Joe brings. He'd be swarming all over this version of Ali, just like he did the FOTC version, the difference being, I don't think he has to be carefel. Joe had the opportunity to finish Ali in I but skipped it because he was wary of Muhammad's rythym's - I don't think the Terrell fighter had become that cerebral yet. Frazier would be able to trust his gut more, I think.

[Bokaj]

That's fair, but I don't think that the speed of Frazier's pressure is anything like nullified by Ali's speed and I think that his higher output works well for Joe, frankly.

It was pretty much in the rematch. Sure, Frazier had slowed down a bit, but so had Ali (compared to the 66-67 version).

You've said that Ali gave Frazier the battle of his life. Indeed he did. Frazier won it pretty cleanly though, and Ali wasn't going to win unless he knocked Joe out. That was not a perfect Frazier in the ring that night though. I'll take the version that did Young or Foster, anytime. Frazier was very clear that "if it had been anyone but [Ali] I would have cancelled the fight. I shouldn't have been fighting." His temperature was through the roof, his joints were inflamed for the first but not last time.

Frazier won it cleanly, but had Ali won just two more rounds on the judges cards he'd be the winner. It would have been controversial, but he would have regained his title.

I've never heard that about Frazier's temperature before. But I think he'd said that it was the best perfomance of his life, and I'd agree, even if he looked terrific against Foster and Ellis as well.

[mr. magoo]

=
McGrain;4068396]That's fair, but I don't think that the speed of Frazier's pressure is anything like nullified by Ali's speed and I think that his higher output works well for Joe, frankly.



i'm not sure that I see how Joe would benefit from fighting an even fast and more effective Ali, but whatever works for ya I guess.

All quite nice, but pre-exile Ali was more vulnerable to hard punches, not less, probably because he was easier to catch going away.

The only obvious example that I can of is the first Henry Cooper fight back in '63. I think we can both agree that Ali had improved drastically by '67 and after having fought in 10 world title fights. Sonny Liston who had one of the longest reaches and greatest Jabs of all time, wasn't able to do much against him. Floyd Patterson, who was a pretty good swarmer himself was almost useless against Ali. Terrell and Williams both had pretty good wingspans but couldn't touch him.


There does come a point where his expereince and his speed woutl be at a tandem peak, but i'm not using an imagined version - i'm using the version we have on film.

Fair enough, and the late 60's Ali that we ACTUALLY SAW, is noticably better in my eyes than the one who met Joe in FOTC.

You've said that Ali gave Frazier the battle of his life. Indeed he did. Frazier won it pretty cleanly though,

Yes, via decision over 15 grueling rounds and with both men having their fair share of moments. That being said, I don't know why its so unreasonable to think that even a slightly better version of one fighter couldn't have made enough of a difference to turn the tables the other way. Common sense really.


and Ali wasn't going to win unless he knocked Joe out.

On THAT night, yes.

That was not a perfect Frazier in the ring that night though. I'll take the version that did Young or Foster, anytime

I think you mean " Ellis " and not " Young ", but that's okay. Frazier was losing in the early rounds against both Ellis and Quarry before catching up to the me a bit later. I think that a faster Ali could have capitalized on a slow starting Frazier. Also, consider this, had these two met say around 1968, Frazier would not have had the experience of having met Ellis, Quarry or Mathis prior...

. Frazier was very clear that "if it had been anyone but [Ali] I would have cancelled the fight. I shouldn't have been fighting." His temperature was through the roof, his joints were inflamed for the first but not last time

That could very well be the case, but I'd take it with a grain of salt. I will also ad that if we're making concessions for Frazier we should remind ourselves that his opponent had only fought 2 times over the previous 4 years.


And he gave Ali the battle of his life. All he could handle and a good bit more.


True, but again, I don't think that Joe ever met the very best version of Muhammad, so the point is somewhat moot.

Ali, at no point in his career, had the power to keep Frazier off.

Well, he beat the man to near blindness in their last meeting to the extent that his beloved trainer felt it was time to quit. This was a 33 year old Ali who was probably 8-10 years past his prime. Now Frazier was past it too, no doubt, but let's not deny that a 60's Ali was better at finishing fighters. No point in even debating the contrary.

No HW in the history of the division has brought the speed of pressure that Joe brings

I think there are a few who come very close, but that's not relevant. A 70's Ali fought Frazier through 3 battles-beating him twice, and giving him the match of his life in the only meeting that he lost. A 60's Ali does better in my eyes.

. He'd be swarming all over this version of Ali, just like he did the FOTC version, the difference being, I don't think he has to be carefel.

I think the 60's Ali was better at getting out of the pocket. If you watch some of his earlier bouts, everytime a guy looked like he was about to have him cornered, he'd shift his footwork and be on the loose again. 70's Ali did not do this as much. If a man charged him in a corner, he'd lock up with the guy, spin him around, then break. So claiming that Joe would just " be all over him ", is not something that I envision. I also disagree that Frazier woudn't have to be as careful. First of all, it hardly looks to me in their three fights that Frazier was exercising much caution to begin with. Secondly, a 60's Ali had real snap to his punches. I think was more dangerous personally.

Joe had the opportunity to finish Ali in I but skipped it because he was wary of Muhammad's rythym's -


He might have had him in trouble, but no way was Joe Frazier ever going to " finish " Muhammad Ali in a single round.

[McGrain]

It was pretty much in the rematch. Sure, Frazier had slowed down a bit, but so had Ali (compared to the 66-67 version).

"A bit" doesn't really cover it IMO. Frazier had lost his top 2%. For the type of fighter he was, that's a serious dent.

In fairness, Ali, who was the main benefactor, was the guy who took it from him, but still...

And you really think speed was the defining factor? I would say defencive infighting was the deciding factor in that fight, by distance. That would have been the case regardless of speed.



Frazier won it cleanly, but had Ali won just two more rounds on the judges cards he'd be the winner. It would have been controversial, but he would have regained his title.

Aye, "controversial" would have been the right word for it!

I've never heard that about Frazier's temperature before. But I think he'd said that it was the best perfomance of his life, and I'd agree, even if he looked terrific against Foster and Ellis as well.

The temperature was caused by a c virus or a cold, but it wasn't Joe's biggest problem going in. That was his high blood pressure: "Four, five weeks from the fight i felt run-down, fatigued...I was suffering from high blood pressure...[this was a] long standing problem but it was elevating...it wasn't an ideal setup to be fighting the biggest fight of my life with my body under seige like that..."

If he said it was the best performance of his life, I would tend to agree with him. I could certainly see why he would say it. He was in with the best ever, his arch-enemy, a man he hated and he won. He's not going to pick KO2 Foster as his best performance...but unless Joe is lying about the above he aboslutley couldn't have been at his theoretical best that night.

[McGrain]

i'm not sure that I see how Joe would benefit from fighting an even fast and more effective Ali, but whatever works for ya I guess.

Please let's not get into semantics. I didn't say that. "Frazier would benfit from fighting a faster more affective Ali", come on.

I said that Frazier would have benfited from Ali's higher workrate. What I should add is "in the first few rounds, assuming that happened" which isn't actually a given.

Seriously, no semantics, I hate it.



Yes, via decision over 15 grueling rounds and with both men having their fair share of moments. That being said, I don't know why its so unreasonable to think that even a slightly better version of one fighter couldn't have made enough of a difference to turn the tables the other way. Common sense really.

Common sense requires a bit of stretch though.

First, styles.

Second, styles.

And third, the styles of the fighters involved. Better doesn't always mean "better". Ali broke Frazier for the long term with hard punches when the incessent pressure forced him to stand, ground his punches and fight. The main difference between the two versions of Ali would be that the younger one would take longer to stand his ground and fight with Joe. Depending on who was judging the fight, this would be to the benifit of one or the other in terms of the fight, but certainly Joe in the long term!



On THAT night, yes.

Well i'm glad we agree. You've said a slight difference in either fighter could turn the tables and that this is "common sense". Here you are agreeing with me that Ali's only chance to beat Frazier at FOTC was by knockout, which was pretty much impossible for Ali to achieve. So you're actually talking about an absolutley massive turnaround based upon your slight difference - from no hope at all to victory.

Just a thought.



That could very well be the case, but I'd take it with a grain of salt.


Why?

True, but again, I don't think that Joe ever met the very best version of Muhammad, so the point is somewhat moot.

It's a moot point that a below par Frazier gave a past prime Ali the fight of his life?

If Ali had fought Marciano and blown him out in six rounds, because of the similarities in their styles you would be calling upon that result as proof that Frazier couldn't possibly win a fantasy match with Ali, but the dominance of one over the other in an actual meeting is "moot" because Ali wasn't primed?

Really?



Well, he beat the man to near blindness in their last meeting to the extent that his beloved trainer felt it was time to quit. This was a 33 year old Ali who was probably 8-10 years past his prime. Now Frazier was past it too, no doubt, but let's not deny that a 60's Ali was better at finishing fighters. No point in even debating the contrary.

...moot point, I think.



A 70's Ali fought Frazier through 3 battles-beating him twice, and giving him the match of his life in the only meeting that he lost. A 60's Ali does better in my eyes.

I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the raging double standard here.

Anyway, 60's Ali was a box-puncher mover. He liked to remain out of range until it was time to deliver and then move again. He was very hard to tag to the head.

He was also, himself, aware that his moving strategy over 15 hard rounds was not viable against a serious opponent. Against Sonny Liston, the genisis of the rope-a-dope was born. In short, Ali doesn't expect to be on the move for 15. He knows he has to come down at some point. That's pretty much a given.

Now we have prime Frazier. Expert body puncher. Brings fast pressure. Basically a specialist, then, in taking a box-mover down off his toes. Does everything correctly to achieve this. Achieved exactly that against a past-prime Ali in the meetin where the two men were closest to there best in terms of meeting each other.

Ali was a better out-fighter when he was younger, and a more special fighter overall. He was a better in-fighter when he was older. He got really, really good at it. You can see it in the FOTC.

I don't consider that Ali the younger is better of being matched with Frazier. I think that the Ali that matched him was the best equipped to deal with him. During his exile years, it's possible that somebody even more special would have evolved to take him, but that's speculation.

[mr. magoo]

McGrain;4068587]"A bit" doesn't really cover it IMO. Frazier had lost his top 2%. For the type of fighter he was, that's a serious dent.


Good Lord,

I can see people making a reasonable argument for why Frazier had slipped a tad against George Foreman, even though he was 29 years of age and had never been beaten. Now, at age 27 and in the greatest match of his career, he was " past it ? "

I don't want to sound like ass, but this never seems to end. Judging by this trend, I'm guessing that soon someone will try to justify his being floored against Bonavena with a " washed up " claim...

[McGrain]

Good Lord,

I can see people making a reasonable argument for why Frazier had slipped a tad against George Foreman, even though he was 29 years of age and had never been beaten. Now, at age 27 and in the greatest match of his career, he was " past it ? "

I don't think I wrote that he was "past it" Magoo. I don't think that actually happened. If it did, point it out to me and I will correct it.

And why do you think that it was the biggest fight of his life?

[Bokaj]

"A bit" doesn't really cover it IMO. Frazier had lost his top 2%. For the type of fighter he was, that's a serious dent.

In fairness, Ali, who was the main benefactor, was the guy who took it from him, but still...

And you really think speed was the defining factor? I would say defencive infighting was the deciding factor in that fight, by distance. That would have been the case regardless of speed.

Ali lost at least as much speed after the exile and I think speed was as much of Ali's game if not more. And yes, I think Ali used his feet to keep away from Frazier to good effect in the rematch. Holding was part of the game as well, but his movement was the main factor IMO.

And it would have been for a pre-exile Ali, too. When he "slugged" with a prime Frazier in FOTC he punched himself out. He would need movement to solve that Frazier.

Aye, "controversial" would have been the right word for it!.

But still a win.


The temperature was caused by a c virus or a cold, but it wasn't Joe's biggest problem going in. That was his high blood pressure: "Four, five weeks from the fight i felt run-down, fatigued...I was suffering from high blood pressure...[this was a] long standing problem but it was elevating...it wasn't an ideal setup to be fighting the biggest fight of my life with my body under seige like that..."

If he said it was the best performance of his life, I would tend to agree with him. I could certainly see why he would say it. He was in with the best ever, his arch-enemy, a man he hated and he won. He's not going to pick KO2 Foster as his best performance...but unless Joe is lying about the above he aboslutley couldn't have been at his theoretical best that night.


If he said as much I wouldn't second-guess him. But I just have a hard time seing anyone make a greater physical effort than he did in that fight. He just looked superhuman. The thought that he even theoretically could give more is ... scary.

[mr. magoo]

=McGrain;4068678]Please let's not get into semantics. I didn't say that. "Frazier would benfit from fighting a faster more affective Ali", come on.

I said that Frazier would have benfited from Ali's higher workrate. What I should add is "in the first few rounds, assuming that happened" which isn't actually a given.

Seriously, no semantics, I hate it.


In the first few rounds? Frazier was a known slow starter who was losing the early rounds against Quarry and Ellis. How is facing an even faster starting Ali going to help him in this regard? And let me know if I'm being semantically incorrect this time.





Common sense requires a bit of stretch though.

First, styles.

Second, styles.


Not really. Styles are enhanced by fighters' physical capabilities. Sort of like addin salt to good food. I'm one of these people who believe that a lttle common sense can go along way, but apparently so can an individual's partialness to a given thing.


And third, the styles of the fighters involved. Better doesn't always mean "better". Ali broke Frazier for the long term with hard punches when the incessent pressure forced him to stand, ground his punches and fight. The main difference between the two versions of Ali would be that the younger one would take longer to stand his ground and fight with Joe. Depending on who was judging the fight, this would be to the benifit of one or the other in terms of the fight, but certainly Joe in the long term!



Not sure which Ali you're claiming to have watched her. But, Ali in the 60's was not there to be hit, whereas 70's Ali was more physical in that regard.




Well i'm glad we agree. You've said a slight difference in either fighter could turn the tables and that this is "common sense". Here you are agreeing with me that Ali's only chance to beat Frazier at FOTC was by knockout, which was pretty much impossible for Ali to achieve. So you're actually talking about an absolutley massive turnaround based upon your slight difference - from no hope at all to victory.


Nice try at taking advantage of something I said. Just because Ali needed a knockout to win in 1971, doesn't mean that he would have needed one in 1967, or that he couldn't have gotten one at that.. Incidentally, I think Ali was more than slightly better in the 60's. The difference looks collosal on film.
Just a thought.







Why?


Because fighters say that kind of shit all the time. " I could have looked better if....." Not saying that it wasn't true, but just that we shouldn't take it for gospel. Especially, coming from a man who out right hated the man in question.



It's a moot point that a below par Frazier gave a past prime Ali the fight of his life?


I think Frazier was about as close to his best as one can expect whereas Ali wasn't. That's where I was going.



If Ali had fought Marciano and blown him out in six rounds, because of the similarities in their styles you would be calling upon that result as proof that Frazier couldn't possibly win a fantasy match with Ali,

Yes and no. I think their are some key diffences between Frazier and Marciano and that Frazier was actually better in some aspects. On the flipside, a good result against a fighter with many similarities does make for a reasonable analysis in other comparisons.



but the dominance of one over the other in an actual meeting is "moot" because Ali wasn't primed?


So what are you saying that we should ignore the concept of prime as even being a factor, or the fact that Ali beat him two out of three despite being out of prime???? Not sure where you're going with any of this.


Really?






...moot point, I think.


No, this is not a moot a point. I think its evident both on film as well through statistics that Ali was a better finisher in the 60's as well as being considerably faster and harder to hit. Do you think that Frazier would find these things as being " moot "?




I'm sure I don't have to point out to you the raging double standard here.

I don't see where the double standard lies.


Anyway, 60's Ali was a box-puncher mover. He liked to remain out of range until it was time to deliver and then move again. He was very hard to tag to the head.



True.
He was also, himself, aware that his moving strategy over 15 hard rounds was not viable against a serious opponent. Against Sonny Liston, the genisis of the rope-a-dope was born. In short, Ali doesn't expect to be on the move for 15. He knows he has to come down at some point. That's pretty much a given.


His stamina and workrate over 15 rounds was still off the charts though, and clearly better than it was following his 4 year exile. I don't see Frazier tagging him as often nor slipping as many shots. And the shots, he'd be getting tagged by would be harder, more accurate and more often. For a guy who was often slow to start, and who's durability was a tad shaky at times, this would be a problem.


Now we have prime Frazier. Expert body puncher. Brings fast pressure. Basically a specialist, then, in taking a box-mover down off his toes. Does everything correctly to achieve this. Achieved exactly that against a past-prime Ali in the meetin where the two men were closest to there best in terms of meeting each other.

Ali was a better out-fighter when he was younger, and a more special fighter overall. He was a better in-fighter when he was older. He got really, really good at it. You can see it in the FOTC.


I could be misunderstanding you, but it almost seems like you're trying to build Ali up as a better fighter stylistically for Joe Frazier in the 70's. I don't know if I buy it.
I don't consider that Ali the younger is better of being matched with Frazier.

Ah, there we go.... I was right afterall..

I think that the Ali that matched him was the best equipped to deal with him.

If that makes it more palatable for you, then hey, go with it.


During his exile years, it's possible that somebody even more special would have evolved to take him, but that's speculation.


Just a tad.

[McGrain]

And yes, I think Ali used his feet to keep away from Frazier to good effect in the rematch. Holding was part of the game as well, but his movement was the main factor IMO.

Wow! I've really never heard this before. I really want to avoid watching this one again if i can :lol: so could you answer this for me -

Was Ali's movement better in I than in II?

Did Ali get away with more holding in I or in II?

And it would have been for a pre-exile Ali, too. When he "slugged" with a prime Frazier in FOTC he punched himself out. He would need movement to solve that Frazier.

As I said to Magoo in a previous post, Ali was preparing for the inevitable "coming down" as early as Liston I. Liston was not a pressure fighter. Ali is slugging with Frazier, any version, over 15, I promise.



If he said as much I wouldn't second-guess him. But I just have a hard time seing anyone make a greater physical effort than he did in that fight. He just looked superhuman. The thought that he even theoretically could give more is ... scary.

Scarey, but true...or maybe not. Maybe the difference would have been that he wouldn't have been so ill afterwards. Maybe it really was mind over matter.

But in a general sense, i'm sure you'll agree that fatigue during a training camp is not ideal.

[mr. magoo]

I don't think I wrote that he was "past it" Magoo. I don't think that actually happened. If it did, point it out to me and I will correct it.

And why do you think that it was the biggest fight of his life?


No you said something about him losing his 2% best, and described that as being " a serious dent. " Sorry, if you felt that I misquoted you by using the expression " past it ", but I think the general point you were making is that he was not his best.......Which of course, I disagree with.

[McGrain]

In the first few rounds? Frazier was a known slow starter who was losing the early rounds against Quarry and Ellis. How is facing an even faster starting Ali going to help him in this regard? And let me know if I'm being semantically incorrect this time.

You weren't being "semantically incorrect" in the first place. Just engaging in semantics.

I expect Ali to take a lead in the fight.




Not really. Styles are enhanced by fighters' physical capabilities. Sort of like addin salt to good food. I'm one of these people who believe that a lttle common sense can go along way, but apparently so can an individual's partialness to a given thing.

I think, given that styles is seen as one of the most crucial ingredients in any fight this is an absolutely outrageous thing to infer about me, but OK, you have made yourself very clear.




Not sure which Ali you're claiming to have watched her. But, Ali in the 60's was not there to be hit, whereas 70's Ali was more physical in that regard.

"Claimed to have watched"?





Nice try at taking advantage of something I said. Just because Ali needed a knockout to win in 1971, doesn't mean that he would have needed one in 1967, or that he couldn't have gotten one at that.. Incidentally, I think Ali was more than slightly better in the 60's. The difference looks collosal on film.
Just a thought.

There's a difference on film.

A major difference is with his standard of opponent though.

Just a thought.








Because fighters say that kind of shit all the time. " I could have looked better if....." Not saying that it wasn't true, but just that we shouldn't take it for gospel. Especially, coming from a man who out right hated the man in question.


It's a well known fact that Frazier was in hospital with erratic blood-pressure for weeks after the fight, Ali abused the fact mercilessly in the run up to the second fight. Frazier's condition was so serious he was under observation for a stroke. I don't see any reason, at all, to doubt that he was suffering before the fight, especially given the documented difficulties he has in that area througout the rest of his career!

Additionally, fighters tend to exaggerate their difficulties when they lose, it's very rare when they win.



I think Frazier was about as close to his best as one can expect whereas Ali wasn't. That's where I was going.

Given that Frazier fought Foster without high blood pressure in the run up (assuming you believe him) and without a cold in the run up to the fight (assuming you believe him) I would say that he was closer to being his best on that occasion than he was for the fight, rendering the above innacruate ;)





Yes and no. I think their are some key diffences between Frazier and Marciano and that Frazier was actually better in some aspects. On the flipside, a good result against a fighter with many similarities does make for a reasonable analysis in other comparisons.

The bottom line is - when you're talking about two fighters having a fight a fight they've already had is going to be relevant and very little from that encounter is going to be "moot".




So what are you saying that we should ignore the concept of prime as even being a factor, or the fact that Ali beat him two out of three despite being out of prime???? Not sure where you're going with any of this.

...i'm saying that your dismissal of the original point as "moot" was silly.







His stamina and workrate over 15 rounds was still off the charts though, and clearly better than it was following his 4 year exile. I don't see Frazier tagging him as often nor slipping as many shots. And the shots, he'd be getting tagged by would be harder, more accurate and more often. For a guy who was often slow to start, and who's durability was a tad shaky at times, this would be a problem.

To be clear: you think that Ali hit "harder" up on his toes and going backwards/sideways than he did when he sat down on his punches?



I could be misunderstanding you, but it almost seems like you're trying to build Ali up as a better fighter stylistically for Joe Frazier in the 70's. I don't know if I buy it.

By the time Ali fought Frazier he was unquestionably more ready to fight him in the pocket than he would have been as a younger man. I'm saying that the battle in the pocket was inevitable, and that Ali himself saw it as inevitable.


Ah, there we go.... I was right afterall..

And i can't help but notice that your only passing comment was that you are "not sure you would buy it".

There's plenty of technical analysis out there for you to dispute if you want to.

[McGrain]

No you said something about him losing his 2% best, and described that as being " a serious dent. " Sorry, if you felt that I misquoted you by using the expression " past it ", but I think the general point you were making is that he was not his best.......Which of course, I disagree with.


I've gone back and re-read the section, you're mistake is that you think Bokaj and i were talking about the first fight when we were talking about the second.

[Bokaj]

Wow! I've really never heard this before. I really want to avoid watching this one again if i can :lol: so could you answer this for me -

Was Ali's movement better in I than in II?

Did Ali get away with more holding in I or in II?


Yes, it was better. Or at least he utilised it more. He has claimed himself that he didn't really know how much he could get out of his legs before FOTC, having just had two fights in four years, and I tend to believe this. Anyhow, he moves more in the rematch and therefore can pot-shot Frazier more from the outside. It's there to see (just brew some strong coffee to keep yourself awake:smooch)

As for the holding, I think that Ali got away with it equally in both fights. And Frazier got away with putting his head in Ali's face equally in both. I get a bit tired of the notion that the holding that was permitted in their rematch was so exceptional for the time. If you want to see more just watch Young-Foreman. And guess who got a point deducted in that fight? Foreman, for being rough when trying to get Young off of him.


As I said to Magoo in a previous post, Ali was preparing for the inevitable "coming down" as early as Liston I. Liston was not a pressure fighter. Ali is slugging with Frazier, any version, over 15, I promise.

Nah, I think he would slow down in some rounds - doing some holding and absorbing some punishment on the ropes, before starting to move and punch with more purpose again. Kind of like he did in the rematch.

He used a similar tactic against Chuvalo also. Yes, Frazier was a much better and applied faster pressure, but Ali wasn't really in peak shape for that fight (he wouldn't weigh as much again until FOTC) and he didn't fully exert himself (even if it clearly was no garden stroll either), so he had more to give.


Scarey, but true...or maybe not. Maybe the difference would have been that he wouldn't have been so ill afterwards. Maybe it really was mind over matter.

But in a general sense, i'm sure you'll agree that fatigue during a training camp is not ideal.

I do. And it might just be that he used more than his body really was prepared to give and therefore never was quite the same again.

[Bokaj]

I've gone back and re-read the section, you're mistake is that you think Bokaj and i were talking about the first fight when we were talking about the second.

I feel kind of embarrassed for the name "Bokaj" so let me just state that is my real name backwards. Since "Jakob" (old and venerable as it is) often is taken as a username "Bokaj" is just an easy way to get around that. Is not some misguided attempt to be funny or clever, just an easy name to remember for me.

[McGrain]

Yes, it was better. Or at least he utilised it more. He has claimed himself that he didn't really know how much he could get out of his legs before FOTC, having just had two fights in four years, and I tend to believe this. Anyhow, he moves more in the rematch and therefore can pot-shot Frazier more from the outside. It's there to see (just brew some strong coffee to keep yourself awake:smooch)

So the gap between us adds up to this - how much was Ali's movement improved in II? How much was Frazier impaired in II?

Sounds like a reasonable ask to sit with that fight again, but I don't know :lol:

As for the holding, I think that Ali got away with it equally in both fights.

Nah, man. Futch counted the clinches instigated in II. One-hundred and thirty-three. More than ten a round.

[mr. magoo]

A 1960's Ali was faster, busier, more effective, and better equipped to beat a 70's Joe Frazier. All this makeshift analysis really isn't necessary, but a way of rewrapping the facts in an effort to bolster a Frazier victory over a prime Ali.

Not working....

[McGrain]

A 1960's Ali was faster, busier, more effective, and better equipped to beat a 70's Joe Frazier. All this makeshift analysis really isn't necessary, but a way of rewrapping the facts in an effort to bolster a Frazier victory over a prime Ali.

Not working....


You seem much more sure you "won't buy it", now!

I dispute that he would be busier against Frazier. It think claiming he would throw more punches against Joe than he did in Manilla, for example, is insanity. If Ali is fighting in the pocket he is throwing more than he is if he is dancing, i absolutley promise you.

I dispute that he hit harder, which you have also claimed, but not addressed my rebutle.

What does "more effective mean" independent of these claims?

[mr. magoo]

You seem much more sure you "won't buy it", now!

I dispute that he would be busier against Frazier. It think claiming he would throw more punches against Joe than he did in Manilla, for example, is insanity. If Ali is fighting in the pocket he is throwing more than he is if he is dancing, i absolutley promise you.

I dispute that he hit harder, which you have also claimed, but not addressed my rebutle.

What does "more effective mean" independent of these claims?

You don't think he hit harder in the 60's, despite having a clear record of decking, dispatching and hurting a better percentage of fighters and having it available on film.

You don't think that he would be busier despite the fact that its also clear as day that he was a busier fighter in his prime.

You think that he would always have faired better fighting Frazier in the pocket, which is where Joe "likes" to keep his men.

If you believe the above notions to be true, then there's not much that I am going to do to convince you of anything. Having nearly 25,000 posts on this website as opposed to my near 7,000, despite joiningg later, is testimony that you have more time to fancy such arguments than I do. I prefer to take the common sense approach and be done with it, but I guess some of us need our creative outlets as well......:good

[McGrain]

You don't think he hits harder, despite having a clear record of dispatching more fighters in more impressive fashion film during the 60's.

Speed.

Your position is that Ali hit harder before his enforced retirement? Just yes or no.

You don't think that he would be busier despite the fact that its also clear as day that he was a busier fighter in his prime.

That is not clear to me at all. Ali spent entire rounds in the pocket against Frazier exchanging punches. But i'm talking about a specific fight here. You seem to think that Ali would be flying all over the ring, getting hit much less than he did in the FOTC whilst landing much more.

Boxing just flat out does not work that way.

You think that he would always have faired better fighting Frazier in the pocket, which is where Joe "likes" to keep his men.

I don't understand this.

[mr. magoo]

=McGrain;4069330]

Your position is that Ali hit harder before his enforced retirement? Just yes or no.


I think that his ABILITY, to dispatch fighters was better. Weather it had to do with power or not, and I don't think this can be disputed, or at least not by an honest person.



You seem to think that Ali would be flying all over the ring, getting hit much less than he did in the FOTC whilst landing much more. Boxing just flat out does not work that way.


Why does this not work? You seem to think that for a fighter to land more and be more effective that he ALWAYS has to stand toe to toe with another man... On the contrary, I would say that boxing does not work THAT way.




I don't understand this.


Frazier did better against men who he kept close or in the pocket if you will. I don't see a 60's Ali as giving him his way.... That's all.

[Bokaj]

So the gap between us adds up to this - how much was Ali's movement improved in II? How much was Frazier impaired in II?

My point is that I don't think Frazier had lost more speed compared to his peak than Ali had. Overall I would guess that Ali had lost a bit more of his physical attributes than Frazier had. Hard to say for certain, though.

Nah, man. Futch counted the clinches instigated in II. One-hundred and thirty-three. More than ten a round.

He was not completely without bias, though, was he? While Ali did his fair share of holding, some clinches are just Frazier coming in and putting his face on Ali's chest. The ref defended himself by claiming that Frazier seemed content to rest in many clinches. I don't think Futch was interested in making such a distinction.

And is there any real reason to believe that there were fewer clinches a round in FOTC? Futch would for obvious reason be less inclined to take the time to count them.

Anyhow I don't deny that holding was a part of Ali's tactic (it was in most of his fights, actually), but he did his fair share of moving as well. This fight gets diminished to Ali just holding and pity-patting his way to a (possibly unjust) decision. I don't agree with this description, even though it was clearly the least exciting and enjoyable fight of the three, but I also think it was the one where Ali put in his most accomplished perfomance.

[McGrain]

I think that his ABILITY, to dispatch fighters was better. Weather it had to do with power or not, and I don't think this can be disputed, or at least not by an honest person.

What the fuck is wrong with you today?

I've asked you repeatedly about YOUR CLAIMS that Ali hit harder, you move the goalposts and then question MY honesty? I ain't got time for that.

I wouldn't even have questioned your honesty had you made multiple claims -as you have - about Ali hitting harder, and then changing it his "ABILITY to dispatch fighters", which is different, flat out different, but you see fit to question mine?

You've had a bug up your ass ever since you started posting on me with this. If you don't want to talk about something just don't confront me about it.



You seem to think that for a fighter to land more and be more effective that he ALWAYS has to stand toe to toe with another man...

I don't think that AT ALL and you can't point to evidence of my thinking it. I've asked you specifically about his power because I disagree that he "hit harder" (your words) before the exile than after. This above is made up nonsense, unprovable and unfounded.






Frazier did better against men who he kept close or in the pocket if you will. I don't see a 60's Ali as giving him his way.... That's all.

Ali trained to come down of his toes in a 15 round fight.

He knew that his high energy strategy wouldn't work over an entire fight.

He would absolutley end up in the pocket at some point.

[mr. magoo]

I'm leaving this one alone....

[McGrain]

My point is that I don't think Frazier had lost more speed compared to his peak than Ali had. Overall I would guess that Ali had lost a bit more of his physical attributes than Frazier had. Hard to say for certain, though.

Speed...hmmm. I'm not sure. I think he had lost a dose of intensity - his best attribute, as Ali's speed was his.

Frazier had also lost sight though. His sight had deteriorated considerably.



He was not completely without bias, though, was he?

Well he only counted them - shit, you're not going to ask me to count them are you?!

Anyway, they were in print, which doesn't make them undisputable, but Futch was a pretty straight shooter and Futch would have known that people were setting out to dispute him. I'm pretty satisfied Frazier clinched more in II.

While Ali did his fair share of holding, some clinches are just Frazier coming in and putting his face on Ali's chest. The ref defended himself by claiming that Frazier seemed content to rest in many clinches. I don't think Futch was interested in making such a distinction.

This is a fair point, but I do think Ali's strategy was to hold? Also, Futch words his claims carefully. But maybe not.

And is there any real reason to believe that there were fewer clinches a round in FOTC? Futch would for obvious reason be less inclined to take the time to count them.

Futch did count them - the number was lower, but not by much (if i remember rightly). Of course, there were three more rounds.

[groove]

Ali's style was based on speed and footwork. Pre-ali exile was better on both accounts so as spock would say it's only logical that he was the better ali (as can be clearly seen on FILM). since winning the title in 1964 to 1967 his record was very impressive - 8 ko's in 10 championship fights with no knockdowns to his name. Frazier, norton etc would be tough as always for Ali cuz they were great fighters but they would have a harder time against a young better conditioned and quicker ali who was at the TOP of his game. Frazier would have a harder time keeping him pinned against the ropes - against liston he got away from the ropes asap and he used this tactic not surprisingly in his 2nd fight with frazier (ali was in better conditioning & shape for that one with 3 years of fights under his belt).

[Bokaj]

Futch did count them - the number was lower, but not by much (if i remember rightly). Of course, there were three more rounds.

:lol::lol::lol: The man did his homework! No doubt.

Anyhow, let's wrap this up with agreeing to disagree. I think you've made some valid points, but still feel pretty comfortable in my own position. Too bad we never got to see these guys prime for prime, with no excuses being possible. But, of course, that happens about ... never.

[McGrain]

:lol::lol::lol: The man did his homework! No doubt.

Can't find the reference anywhere though...may have made it up in my head!

[Bokaj]

Can't find the reference anywhere though...may have made it up in my head!

No need coming clean, I had swallowed it hook, line etc ;)

[McGrain]

:lol::yep

[PH|LLA]

nice video, legend

[kolcade4]

williams was 65-5-1 when these two met. ali was 26-0 . ali was younger had way less fights, so ali was supposed to do what he did to williams. williams was too late in his career to even have been considered a noteable win for ali. this is a different fight when williams was in his prime. williams reaction times were more dialed in and actually imo would have easily challenged and possibly beaten ali. the fight that was fought williams could not even see the punches coming half the time. unfortunatly these fights happen aka ali vs holmes, tyson vs holmes etc. im a big believer in someone inventing a boxing time machine to see fighters matched up in their top true form.

[groove]

some people just don't get it! this was all about ali - how fast he was his feet, how beautiful he moved around the ring, broken rhythem, shuffle, his lightning punches, devastating combos, non-stop movement, use of attacking angles, knocking someone down as he was moving backwards etc. Many feel this was Ali at the top his his game regardless of the opponent. His skills were at a level in heavyweight boxing that had never been seen before or since in the ring - well that's my opinion and many others feel the same. That's why this fight is highly rated by Ali fans and boxing experts in history. Cleveland Williams was unlucky to be facing that Ali as any other fighter would be facing him on that NITE and yes that includes frazier or norton or whoever louis, dempsey, marciano and yes certainly he would have a harder time against better opposition.

[Wilox]

Just a quick one to say thanks to whoever posted the links. From purely a technical boxing standpoint it's some of the best footage I've ever seen of Ali. I absolutely loved listening to him commentating on his own fights!

Thanks again

[Bummy Davis]

You like to say this, but with what basis? Why was a 215 lbs Ali stronger in FOTC than 212 lbs Ali was four years earlier? Exactly what during that long inactivity had made him stronger even though he was basically the same size?

Already in 1966 Ali took punches to the body by Chuvalo all night long without showing any real effects. He said himself that the punches didn't affect him and that he actually let Chuvalo hit him to show as much (which also is confirmed by the film). Chuvalo claims Ali pissed blood afterwards, but there doesn't seem to be more backing that one up than there is for "the long break" in the Cooper fight.

Chuvalo was strong but he was no Frazier in the power nor pace department and Frazier made you really work. Who else did Ali beat that was even near Frazier or the fighters he fought in his comeback....Williams was shot...So was Foley....Cooper was Henry Cooper who was KO'd by Patterson cold in 4...Jones gave him hell and Terrel was really a nothing, were any of them near the fighter Frazier was

[HitBattousai]

You could use that same logic to say that since Frazier struggled against Quarry he shouldn't have had any business fighting Ali, since Ali easily defeated Quarry. Styles make fights. And the only reason Chuvalo even touched Ali was because Ali let him.

As to your other assertions, the Jones fight was not prime Ali. That Ali imo, is the Ali from the second Liston fight onward, he is more cut and filled out looking, and had developed his dancing style. And Ali beating Liston and Patterson, the two major champions of the era like they were nothing is fairly impressive, then beating the rest of the competition soundly is equally so. I don't think any of those fighters were as good as Frazier. But by that same token, as others have said, past-prime Ali utilized movement in the first five rounds of his rematch with Frazier before he got tired, and Joe couldn't do anything with him. Prime Ali could do that faster and in a more elusive fashion, plus he brought more workrate to the table. I don't think Joe would have been able to handle it.

It's proven time and time that speed kills in boxing. 64-67 Ali had much more than his older incarnation. There's no reason to expect Joe would fare well against that edition of Ali given how he fared for the five round stretch of 74 Ali showing him movement.

[groove]

you shouldn't speak the truth on here :) good post!

[Bokaj]

Chuvalo was strong but he was no Frazier in the power nor pace department and Frazier made you really work. Who else did Ali beat that was even near Frazier or the fighters he fought in his comeback....Williams was shot...So was Foley....Cooper was Henry Cooper who was KO'd by Patterson cold in 4...Jones gave him hell and Terrel was really a nothing, were any of them near the fighter Frazier was

Where have I ever said that any of these guys were nearly as good as Frazier? Seems you want to confuse the issue here, since you really have no basis for claiming that 215 lbs Ali in FOTC was somewhow stronger than 212 lbs Ali of four years earlier, when he had spent the vast majority of those four years collecting rust and fat.

[Bummy Davis]

You could use that same logic to say that since Frazier struggled against Quarry he shouldn't have had any business fighting Ali, since Ali easily defeated Quarry. Styles make fights. And the only reason Chuvalo even touched Ali was because Ali let him.

As to your other assertions, the Jones fight was not prime Ali. That Ali imo, is the Ali from the second Liston fight onward, he is more cut and filled out looking, and had developed his dancing style. And Ali beating Liston and Patterson, the two major champions of the era like they were nothing is fairly impressive, then beating the rest of the competition soundly is equally so. I don't think any of those fighters were as good as Frazier. But by that same token, as others have said, past-prime Ali utilized movement in the first five rounds of his rematch with Frazier before he got tired, and Joe couldn't do anything with him. Prime Ali could do that faster and in a more elusive fashion, plus he brought more workrate to the table. I don't think Joe would have been able to handle it.

It's proven time and time that speed kills in boxing. 64-67 Ali had much more than his older incarnation. There's no reason to expect Joe would fare well against that edition of Ali given how he fared for the five round stretch of 74 Ali showing him movement.


Since you are talking of the comeback version of Ali vs the younger vs Quarry and the younger version of Frazier vs Quarry....Ali cut Quarry and the fight was stopped quick ( I think it could have gone on) We can not compare Chuvalo to Frazier (Frazier stopped Chuvalo in 3 and Chuvalo went the distance with Ali 2 times...The thing is the energetic swarmers like Frazier was the style that troubled Ali in all 3 fights ( and Frazier slipped after ALI 1)...Frazier was the toughest opponent Ali ever faced ( it could be argued Liston) but Ali never had trouble with the big slow punchers ( neither did Quarry) it was the persistant hard punching guys with Stamina that troubled Ali...Frazier fights the Bill not Norton so much as a puncher but Norton was in condition and not a guy that was big and slow like Liston and Foreman...yes styles make fights and Ali had trouble with Fraziers style

[Bokaj]

Since you are talking of the comeback version of Ali vs the younger vs Quarry and the younger version of Frazier vs Quarry....Ali cut Quarry and the fight was stopped quick ( I think it could have gone on) We can not compare Chuvalo to Frazier (Frazier stopped Chuvalo in 3 and Chuvalo went the distance with Ali 2 times...The thing is the energetic swarmers like Frazier was the style that troubled Ali in all 3 fights ( and Frazier slipped after ALI 1)...Frazier was the toughest opponent Ali ever faced ( it could be argued Liston) but Ali never had trouble with the big slow punchers ( neither did Quarry) it was the persistant hard punching guys with Stamina that troubled Ali...Frazier fights the Bill not Norton so much as a puncher but Norton was in condition and not a guy that was big and slow like Liston and Foreman...yes styles make fights and Ali had trouble with Fraziers style

Yeah, Frazier was better than almost all Ali's other opponents, and he was also a difficult stylistic match-up for Ali. And water is wet.

[Bokaj]

...Williams was shot...So was Foley

I also note that you make it a bit easy for yourself. Folley shot? Nonsense. Yes, at 34 he was a bit past his very physical best. But he was a top ranked contender, definitely the most worthy that was left, hadn't lost for four years (decision against Terrell) and had beaten Chuvalo, Mildenberger and Bonavena during that period. If that's your deinition of "shot" then you gonna find that most contenders really was walking corpses. About as smart as calling Quarry shot in the rematch with Frazier. A valid comparison would probably be with the Norton who fought Holmes. He was also 34, but still going strong.

As for Williams, well he was of course literally shot. But he was still ranked around 5 by both the Ring and Boxing Illustrated, so he should have had something left to offer. Shot for me is Ali against Holmes or Tyson during one of his last fightss. Williams who never had been more than a contender still was one, so even his best years was far behind him it's not like he had nothing left

[My dinner with Conteh]

As for Williams, well he was of course literally shot. But he was still ranked around 5 by both the Ring and Boxing Illustrated, so he should have had something left to offer.


This ranking was based purely on what he'd done before he was shot. He did nothing on his comeback to earn that kind of ranking. In fact, he didn't even deserve a top 30 ranking based on who he beat in 1966. It just proves that the boxing mags had favourites too. It's nice that he was able to make some money after what happened to him but if we're honest, he had no business fighting for a world title.

[Bokaj]

This ranking was based purely on what he'd done before he was shot. He did nothing on his comeback to earn that kind of ranking. In fact, he didn't even deserve a top 30 ranking based on who he beat in 1966. It just proves that the boxing mags had favourites too. It's nice that he was able to make some money after what happened to him but if we're honest, he had no business fighting for a world title.

Fair enough.

[mcvey]

Chuvalo was strong but he was no Frazier in the power nor pace department and Frazier made you really work. Who else did Ali beat that was even near Frazier or the fighters he fought in his comeback....Williams was shot...So was Foley....Cooper was Henry Cooper who was KO'd by Patterson cold in 4...Jones gave him hell and Terrel was really a nothing, were any of them near the fighter Frazier was
I cant agree that Terrell was "really a nothing".
Going into the fight with Ali ,Terrell had not lost a fight for 5 years, he was the WBA Champ and had made defences of it against Jones and Chuvalo.
In 7 of his last 9 fights Terrell had beaten .
Bob Foster
Doug Jones
George Chuvalo
Zora Folley
Eddie Machen
Gerhard Zech
He was the number 1 contender if ever a fighter deserved a shot at Ali he did.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Terrell was the biggest fight out there at the time. I mean 'big' in an important sense, rather than money-spinner. It was the fight the boxing public wanted most.

[mcvey]

Terrell was the biggest fight out there at the time. I mean 'big' in an important sense, rather than money-spinner. It was the fight the boxing public wanted most.

The Ring carried articles hyping it up ,with stills from footage of Terrell and Ali sparring , shots of Ernie landing his jab on a pulling back Ali,unfortunately the fight itself was a dud. Then again Terrell was not an entertaining boxer to watch, he was badly outclassed in the fight ,but did show commendable courage.Ali in contrast showed a marked lack of sportsmanship and a degree of cruelty imo.

[Bummy Davis]

I also note that you make it a bit easy for yourself. Folley shot? Nonsense. Yes, at 34 he was a bit past his very physical best. But he was a top ranked contender, definitely the most worthy that was left, hadn't lost for four years (decision against Terrell) and had beaten Chuvalo, Mildenberger and Bonavena during that period. If that's your deinition of "shot" then you gonna find that most contenders really was walking corpses. About as smart as calling Quarry shot in the rematch with Frazier. A valid comparison would probably be with the Norton who fought Holmes. He was also 34, but still going strong.

As for Williams, well he was of course literally shot. But he was still ranked around 5 by both the Ring and Boxing Illustrated, so he should have had something left to offer. Shot for me is Ali against Holmes or Tyson during one of his last fightss. Williams who never had been more than a contender still was one, so even his best years was far behind him it's not like he had nothing left

Shot may have been a strong word but Foley had a lot of troubles outside the ring during that time and was stopped by Doug Jones in 7 rds 4 yrs earlier... Liston 6 yrs earlier and beaten by terrell 4 yrs earlier in his next loss that year Foley lost to Brian London (say no more) still Ali was a great fighter but I dont think the win was great although Ali looked very good...

[groove]

well doug jones was not a bad fighter at the time he fought a young clay. he beat folley and bob foster just prior to that fight and had only lost on points in previous bouts.

[McGrain]

Jones was a cracking fighter.

[Bokaj]

Shot may have been a strong word but Foley had a lot of troubles outside the ring during that time and was stopped by Doug Jones in 7 rds 4 yrs earlier... Liston 6 yrs earlier and beaten by terrell 4 yrs earlier in his next loss that year Foley lost to Brian London (say no more) still Ali was a great fighter but I dont think the win was great although Ali looked very good...

Folley beat some contenders and lost to some others. That was why he was a contender and not a champ. Nothing strange about that. He was 34, but still in good shape and had the opportunity of his lifetime. A guy like that is no push-over.

That he had a bad loss afterwards is not really surprising. He knew his time was past and that he would never get a shot at the title again. Things can go down hill pretty fast in those circumstances when you're in your mid 30's.

[Bummy Davis]

Folley beat some contenders and lost to some others. That was why he was a contender and not a champ. Nothing strange about that. He was 34, but still in good shape and had the opportunity of his lifetime. A guy like that is no push-over.

That he had a bad loss afterwards is not really surprising. He knew his time was past and that he would never get a shot at the title again. Things can go down hill pretty fast in those circumstances when you're in your mid 30's.


Well I think that Foley would have been beaten pretty soundly by Louis,Marciano,Lewis and the Klitschko's today...I would not reallyy expect him to put up too much of a battle

[Bokaj]

Well I think that Foley would have been beaten pretty soundly by Louis,Marciano,Lewis and the Klitschko's today...I would not reallyy expect him to put up too much of a battle

True. And, once again, water is wet.

Who has at any time claimed that Folley was any more than a pretty good contender?

[Bummy Davis]

Terrell was the biggest fight out there at the time. I mean 'big' in an important sense, rather than money-spinner. It was the fight the boxing public wanted most.



He was worthy but did anyone think he was impressive enough in any of those fights to beat Ali or maintain a title.....the division was not really strong at that time IMO...I mean in retrospect in what era do you think Terrell could have won a championship

[Bummy Davis]

True. And, once again, water is wet.

Who has at any time claimed that Folley was any more than a pretty good contender?


I was responding to someone elses post

[My dinner with Conteh]

He was worthy but did anyone think he was impressive enough in any of those fights to beat Ali or maintain a title.....the division was not really strong at that time IMO...I mean in retrospect in what era do you think Terrell could have won a championship

I agree that the division wasn't strong but if Terrell is a poor challenger it's only in hindsight (not forgetting he was a paper champ). At the time he was deemed the man most likely (if anyone, that is). In response to your question I think Terrell would have only been champ in an era of multiple titles. Like he was when Ali was stipped.

[Bokaj]

I was responding to someone elses post

Ok. You had quoted me, so I assumed you were referring to me.

As for Ali's 60's opponents, it seemed the mid 60's were in a sort mid-period bewteen a pretty good division of contenders in the early 60's (Machen and prime versions of Williams and Folley) and that which came towards the end of the decade (Frazier, Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena). But he had some decent opposition in Cooper, Terrell, Chuvalo and Folley, along with the more standout opponents in Patterson and especially Liston. A solid cast all in all, and he dominated most of them.

It's not very different from Tyson's reign. He also cleaned out what was left of a good division in dominating fashion and had wins over Holmes and Spinks as icing on the cake.

[Bill Butcher]

He was right about that @ 'I will quit the day I am beat!'

He quit on his stool against Larry Holmes

He had 1 more fight after that, a points loss to Berbick in december 1981.

He didnt quit vs Holmes, Angelo Dundee stopped the fight.

[Addie]

Watching the footage of peak Muhammad Ali taking Cleveland Williams apart so systematically is beautiful and devastating at the same time.

Without a over drawn explanation, Muhammad Ali of the 60's was a far superior prizefighter than the one who notched up his signature wins in the 70s.

One only has to compare the film footage to know that.

[Addie]

Ok. You had quoted me, so I assumed you were referring to me.

As for Ali's 60's opponents, it seemed the mid 60's were in a sort mid-period bewteen a pretty good division of contenders in the early 60's (Machen and prime versions of Williams and Folley) and that which came towards the end of the decade (Frazier, Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena). But he had some decent opposition in Cooper, Terrell, Chuvalo and Folley, along with the more standout opponents in Patterson and especially Liston. A solid cast all in all, and he dominated most of them.

It's not very different from Tyson's reign. He also cleaned out what was left of a good division in dominating fashion and had wins over Holmes and Spinks as icing on the cake.

And what ultimately separated Tyson and Ali was Muhammad's ability to clean out the division even after his exile.

[Dempsey1238]

Just rewatch the Williams fight and I see have a hard time seeing how people consider this fight as Ali's greatness fight. He had a cripple in there.

Sure Ali look good, and was impressive, but imo he was more impressive vs Terrell or London.

I mean Marciano look impressive in blasted out Matthews, Louis look impressive in blasted out Roper, Tyson look impressive in beating Fraizer.

But no one is going to used these wins to make a claim that they were the best ever on that fight.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Just rewatch the Williams fight and I see have a hard time seeing how people consider this fight as Ali's greatness fight. He had a cripple in there.

Sure Ali look good, and was impressive, but imo he was more impressive vs Terrell or London.

I mean Marciano look impressive in blasted out Matthews, Louis look impressive in blasted out Roper, Tyson look impressive in beating Fraizer.

But no one is going to used these wins to make a claim that they were the best ever on that fight.


Exactly. Williams is a mere punch bag. It's embarrassing that people continue to put this up as Ali's best performance. Like I said earlier, if a Frazier fan talked about how good Joe was and uploaded the Stander fight he'd be laughed out the place. "The Bum of The Month Tour 66" Boxing Illustrated called it. They were right. :yep

[My dinner with Conteh]

Watching the footage of peak Muhammad Ali taking Cleveland Williams apart so systematically is beautiful and devastating at the same time.

Without a over drawn explanation, Muhammad Ali of the 60's was a far superior prizefighter than the one who notched up his signature wins in the 70s.

One only has to compare the film footage to know that.


Or one can look at who he's fighting in that clip to realise how misleading it is. Williams didn't even beat a Top 30 rated fighter to receive a shot- he's nothing in there, and can bafely throw a decent punch. It shows what kind of shape he was in that he didn't even fight again for 18 months. The title chance was basically a personal favour to an unlcucky bloke who'd fallen on hard times.

[Addie]

Or one can look at who he's fighting in that clip to realise how misleading it is. Williams didn't even beat a Top 30 rated fighter to receive a shot- he's nothing in there, and can bafely throw a decent punch. It shows what kind of shape he was in that he didn't even fight again for 18 months. The title chance was basically a personal favour to an unlcucky bloke who'd fallen on hard times.

Don't look at Williams, look at Muhammad. He never delivered fast combination's like that and glided around the ring so effectively after his exile.

That version was the greatest Heavyweight that ever lived, in my opinion.

[sweetsci]

I agree that this was a beautiful performance by Ali. Hindsight does indeed tell us that Williams was no match for the champion.

But going into the fight, rightly or wrongly, Williams was given a decent chance. The Ring ranked him 3rd going in (Terrell and Foley were 1 & 2, respectively) and Sports Illustrated reported that no one in Ali's camp, except Ali himself, wanted the fight because they considered Williams to be too powerful and dangerous. Sports Illustrated also said that while Ali was favored as much as 5 to 1 by oddsmakers, Williams stood a better chance at defeating Ali than any of Ali's previous challengers.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I agree that this was a beautiful performance by Ali. Hindsight does indeed tell us that Williams was no match for the champion.

But going into the fight, rightly or wrongly, Williams was given a decent chance. The Ring ranked him 3rd going in (Terrell and Foley were 1 & 2, respectively).

Well, wrongly of course. His rating was purely based on his performances before he was shot (Thad Spencer was 3rd anyway). He was given no chance by anyone to win this fight. Both the Ring and BI called it part of his "bum of the month tour". Williams had not even beaten a fighter rated in the top 50 by BI in 1966 (I said '30' earlier but I checked and Herring had moved out of the top 50 before the fight). Turnbow had barely recovered from a 1 minute pasting by Frazier and still managed to floor Williams, whose hometown crowd even booed his decision over Sonny Moore (another not rated Top 50 even). The only chance he was given was by Ali's camp, but fighters will always over-evaluate the chances of someone so obviously mismatched.


Boxing Illustrated laughed at the contest so much, they hyped a fight with "Fahed Tambour" the heavyweight champion of the Middle East, who'd won the crown from a 52-year-old man. By the way, this was 'before' the fight. :yep

[sweetsci]

Well, wrongly of course. His rating was purely based on his performances before he was shot (Thad Spencer was 3rd anyway). He was given no chance by anyone to win this fight. Both the Ring and BI called it part of his "bum of the month tour". Williams had not even beaten a fighter rated in the top 50 by BI in 1966 (I said '30' earlier but I checked and Herring had moved out of the top 50 before the fight). Turnbow had barely recovered from a 1 minute pasting by Frazier and still managed to floor Williams, whose hometown crowd even booed his decision over Sonny Moore (another not rated Top 50 even). The only chance he was given was by Ali's camp, but fighters will always over-evaluate the chances of someone so obviously mismatched.


Boxing Illustrated laughed at the contest so much, they hyped a fight with "Fahed Tambour" the heavyweight champion of the Middle East, who'd won the crown from a 52-year-old man. By the way, this was 'before' the fight. :yep

Interesting. I guess strange things happen sometimes when hyping a fight, like an undeservedly high ranking by an otherwise respected boxing magazine and glowing portraits by general interest sports publications. It wouldn't be the first time, nor the last.