Tony Perez on Ali-Frazier II

[Bokaj]

I've always seen the second fight against Frazier as one of Ali's top perfomances when it comes to fitness and ability (I have it in my top 3 of his post-exile fights). He was moving really well, fought a smart fight and looked sharp throughout, so I was surprised to see so many on this forum discard it with "he was holding all the time" or "Frazier was past it".

Here's what the fights ref Tony Perez has to say about Ali's holding:

"Fraziers' people complained that it [Ali's holding behind the head] kept Joe from working on the inside. And it's true; Ali was very strong. He'd pull guys down by the back of the neck and no one was strong enough to pull back. If you let a guy do that all night it wears you down. But I couldn't do anything because it was like Joe was happy laying on Ali's chest, waiting for me to break them apart. That's the way it was the whole fight. Joe would come in, punching, bobbing, weaving. He'd score one or two shots, and then just lay there in the clinch like he was resting. All he had to do was bend at the knees. Get down low so Ali can't hold anymore. He's shorter than Ali, so Ali can't hold him beyond a certain point. And once Joe's free, he'd be in position to come up punching. His own corner kept telling him to do that, but it seemed like he was content to be in a clinch."

That's more or less how I see it too. With the exception of a couple of times when Ali pulls Joe into a clinch, the clinching seems quite mutual to me, even though Ali initiates them. And I don't think the times he actually pulls Joe in merits more than a warning.

Your thoughts?

[round15]

Complete utter garbage! Perez was off the whole night, and not just for the holding. He botched the second round of this fight which is well documented.

First of all, I disagree with most people who say that Ali would have knocked Frazier out in the second round had Perez not mistakingly heard the bell. There's no doubt that Ali had Frazier hurt in round 2, but as far as knocking him out, I strongly disagree. Maybe Ali might have been able to put Joe on the canvas if he was allowed to continue his flurry of punches.

Ali's holding behind Frazier's neck was big time illegal and cowardly IMO. I watched this fight numerous times and Ali should have been penalized for his tactics. Any other referee would have taken a point away and not let Ali continue to hold behind the head. Ali tried to push down on Frazier's head in the FOTC and Manilla, but Mercante and Padilla didn't allow him to do that by slapping his gloves away from Frazier's neck between the clinches.

As for the fight itself, Ali didn't land anything of significance to deserve the victory, except for the right hand shot in round two. Frazier didn't do enough to deserve the victory either, but his aggression should have been counted for in the scoring. It was a close decision that probably should have been a draw. I dare say this decision was gift wrapped for Ali because too many people had a vested financial interest in his career and losing two to Frazier would have severely tarnished his legacy.

[Bokaj]

I think you're a bit conspiracy minded there.

[round15]

I have my theories about this fight just like everyone else. What took the judges so long to get the scorecards to the ring after the fight? If that doesn't shed a bit of light to the conspiracy theory surrounding this fight, then I don't know what else does. The ringside commentary by Don Dunphy explains all of that at the end of the fight.

Perez was having an off day, no question about that. Ali needed to win this fight against Frazier and there's nothing that Frazier could have done that night that would have given him the decision. Ali didn't clearly outbox Frazier, likewise Frazier didn't do enough to warrant getting the decision himself. That's why the fair decision would have been a draw as far as I'm concerned.

Watch the FOTC and Manilla. Ali tries to push Joe's head down in both of those fights. Mercante and Padilla wouldn't let him do it. In fact, Ali was warned by both refs for holding and you can plainly see Padilla slapping Ali's gloves away from Frazier's neck. The only difference with the FOTC II is the fact that Perez let Ali get away with the holding.

[Bokaj]

Frankly I think this conspiracy nonsense is ridiculous. If Perez was in some conspiracy then he really messed up in round 2. The decision was Ali's, simple as that. He landed far more punches in most rounds and therefore won the fight. No mysteries.

I think the difference between their second fight and the others when it comes to the clinching mainly was that Frazier was more passive in the second, because he too took a rest. Since Ali moved a lot more he had move as well and therefore needed a breather now and then, just like Ali.

The simple truth is that Ali was in better shape in that fight than in FOTC and in Manilla. Strange that this is so hard to accept. And I've seen far more clinching in other fights without there being such a meal made out of it. Methinks Frazier's defeat just is a bit hard to accept for some people.

[round15]

Eddie Futch counted 133 clinches in that fight, most were markedly obvious.
Why then did Mercante and Padilla warn Ali in both of the their contests about holding? In the first rounds of Manilla, Ali clearly tries to pull Joe's head in, but Padilla kept slapping his hand away from his neck. To say that Ali's holding is perfectly legal without warning makes for conspiracy. Refs always handle jab and grab fighters by slapping their gloves away from the opponent.

[Sonny's jab]

Tony Perez is full of shit.

His suggestion that Frazier should have bent at the knees and gotten so low that Ali could no longer hold him is laughable.

It's utter crap.

Tony Perez should have done his job. Or at least admitted his mistake in letting that situation occur.

I remember Richard Steele warning and docking Frank Bruno for using the neck hold on Mike Tyson. He took points immediately early in the fight.

Ali's tactics were illegal. He was reaching out to grab Frazier at times, pulling him in, holding the back of his neck. It's blatant, it's ridiculous, and it puts the shorter fighter at an impossible disadvantage.

There's no excuse for persistently holding the back of an opponent's head. There's no excuse for a referee not to deal with it.

[Hitman]

As far as i'm concerned...Perez is one of the worst refs ever! If you guys watch the Ali/Wepner fight, you'll know what i'm talking about.

[mcvey]

Thats what I like a clear unbiased report :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Russell]

Ali was allowed to get away with bullshit sideshow antics 95% of the time. He was larger than life. He received the benefit of the doubt whenever he was being wailed on.

Foreman. Shavers. Frazier. Whoever has him on the ropes murdering him at the time.

He gets Lyle in trouble and of course Ron isn't given the same benefit.

Screaming "conspiracy!" is cliche as it comes. Ali was involved in more god damned crap decisions than I care to remember.

After Young, which he clearly lost, he was calm and collected as could be as the verdict was being announced. HE wasn't stupid and implying the man was never the winner because of biased and or crooked, money minded judging is insulting to ME.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Boring fight. How it's part of the Superbouts series is baffling. Then again, the Wepner fight's part of the series too. :lol:

[mcvey]

Ali was allowed to get away with bullshit sideshow antics 95% of the time. He was larger than life. He received the benefit of the doubt whenever he was being wailed on.

Foreman. Shavers. Frazier. Whoever has him on the ropes murdering him at the time.

He gets Lyle in trouble and of course Ron isn't given the same benefit.

Screaming "conspiracy!" is cliche as it comes. Ali was involved in more god damned crap decisions than I care to remember.

After Young, which he clearly lost, he was calm and collected as could be as the verdict was being announced. HE wasn't stupid and implying the man was never the winner because of biased and or crooked, money minded judging is insulting to ME.
Consider yourself insulted.

[Russell]

You're in the absolute minority if you didn't notice what thread you wandered into.

[Bokaj]

Well, you can regard yourself insulted by me as well. Sure, Ali probably got a lucky break one or two times, but you can say the same about Louis too (Walcott), and Holmes had some disputed wins as well. The scorecards after 9 rounds of Tyson-Douglas; now that is a true disgrace.

I get the feeling that as soon as there is anything controversial or close in an Ali fight there is so much made out of it. He really lost against D. Jones, the fights against Liston was fixed, he really lost the rematches against Norton and Frazier, Foreman was drugged or scared stiff by the hostile crowd, he really lost against Shavers etc.

If the same hysteria would be applied to every fighters record they all would look a lot different. Remember, in the days of Dempsey, Louis and even Tyson the HW-division was far more in the control of one or a couple of characters than it was in Ali's day.

I think it's all bullshit, personally.

[Sonny's jab]

I dont know if the judges were thinking "We have to favour Ali, it's good for the sport, he brings money to all of us" as Ken Norton suggests, although anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that such pragmatic attitudes ARE a common theme.

But I certainly think the mid-late 70s television commentary on Muhammad Ali fights is often laughably in its effort to celebrate Ali's god-like status. I heard Cosell or whoever admiring Ali's "beautiful physique" in a fight where Ali was CLEARLY out-of-shape, and just talking about Ali being a "legend" while he was getting pummelled while doing nothing in a pantomime rope-a-dope.

[My dinner with Conteh]

But I certainly think the mid-late 70s television commentary on Muhammad Ali fights is often laughably in its effort to celebrate Ali's god-like status. I heard Cosell or whoever admiring Ali's "beautiful physique" in a fight where Ali was CLEARLY out-of-shape, and just talking about Ali being a "legend" while he was getting pummelled while doing nothing in a pantomime rope-a-dope.


In the Norton rematch, the commentator (Tompkins I think) says something like "look at the physique on kenny norton", pacheco without agreeing says something like "Hey Ali's no slouch in that department"...a few minutes later comes the classic "LOOK AT ALI'S SMOTHERING, HE'S ONE OF THE BEST SMOTHERERS AROUND". :lol:

[Sonny's jab]

In the Norton rematch, the commentator (Tompkins I think) says something like "look at the physique on kenny norton", pacheco without agreeing says something like "Hey Ali's no slouch in that department"...a few minutes later comes the classic "LOOK AT ALI'S SMOTHERING, HE'S ONE OF THE BEST SMOTHERERS AROUND". :lol:

Sounds like Ferdie longed to be smothered by Ali himself. :lol:

[mcvey]

Sounds like Ferdie longed to be smothered by Ali himself. :lol:
Perhaps he had a smother fixation!

[mcvey]

You're in the absolute minority if you didn't notice what thread you wandered into.
Being in the minority has never bothered me,sometimes when you look around at your adversaries ,it reinforces your belief that you are right.The decision for Ali was unanimous,so were all the officials bought?Saying "thanI care to remeber implies you were around at the time,if you are still in your teens,you werent,I dont mean that because you are young your opinion isnt valid ,but its entirely possible it might be coloured by a lot of revisionist hindsight.I dont
remeber screams of robberey from the press after the Young fight,infact quite a few castigated him for being so negative when faced with a clearly out of shape disinterested Champion,Young had his chance and he didnt step up to the plate.

[Sonny's jab]

Perhaps he had a smother fixation!

:lol:

[ajay11]

The problem when discussing Ali is that you have your Ali worshipers and your Ali haters....everyone has a leaning one way or another and it's usually quite subjective.

Ali did get favourable decisions but one could suggest that the judges rewarded him for his defensive abilities (has any heavyweight ever slipped punches as well as he?) as well as his acuracy. Also judges will quite often reward head shots more than body shots, even if the work to the body is effective.

As for going overboard and suggesting that there was a huge conspiracy involving Ali's victories....how do you keep all those people quiet for so long? According to some we're talking about many heavyweight title/elimination fights which would require many individuals conspiring together continuously over many years (Liston through to Frazier/Norton)

And not one person comes out with their hands up after all this time?!?! Please.

As for his holding and pushing down on Frazier's head...Frazier wasn't shy about using his forearms when possible and wouldn't hesitiate to stick his head in Ali's face. Fact is that if his opponents didn't come in to clinch then Ali would be focusing on the their punches, not their necks.

[fg2227]

I think that some people forget that Norton 3, Young and shavers fights were all unamious, that's nine judges all agreeing on who won the fight.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think that some people forget that Norton 3, Young and shavers fights were all unamious, that's nine judges all agreeing on who won the fight.


Wasn't De La Hoya-Sturm unanimous too?

[Russell]

I think that some people forget that Norton 3, Young and shavers fights were all unamious, that's nine judges all agreeing on who won the fight.

Nine people making bad decisions.

Unpreceadented!

Three judges usually make bad decisions in ALL bad fights.

Your point?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yes, just shows how many judges were right up Ali's arse at that time. Even Art Lurie had him beating Spinks. It wouldn't surprise me if a new poster soon came up with a thread: "Ali-Spinks: Did leon Really Win?" Then take their first fight using Lurie's card as a template and have it 143-142 to Ali. :blood

[Russell]

Honestly, thinking it's impossible to get three people to see something the same way at any one time is retarded.

[Sonny's jab]

I dont think there was any "conspiracy", it's just people being pragmatic about their careers.

It happens all the time in boxing, it is THE NORM.

Certain "house fighters" will be protected somewhat by officials, to varying degrees. We take that for granted.

A young prospect who's being built up by a promoter will be treated differently to "the opponent" usually, to some extent.
Obviously, when it becomes an outrage we protest, but we tolerate at its normal level.

It's the same with superstar fighters. Judges and referees usually give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. It's about money.

Example, Bowe versus Mathis Jr. - Bowe should have been DQ'd but the referee asked the commissioner first, and decided Mr.Riddock Bowe was not to be DQ'd. It was ruled a No-Contest. But when Louis Monaco KOs Buster Douglas with a late punch he is DQ'd and gets another "L" on his record.
This happens all the time.

"House fighters" are allowed to fight on when badly hurt, but the opponent is stopped as soon as he starts shipping some punishment. Happens all the time.

And we've all seen far more outrageous officiating.

Officials with integrity dont allow themselves to do anything so biased as to actually BLATANTLY AID the favoured fighter, but most are still guilty of some "uneven" officiating.

Referees and judges dont want to get a reputation for DQing big name prospects when they could have docked another point, or for scoring close fights against the box-office fighter. Sanctioning bodies and promoters dont want that, and they're the people who employ the officials.

Boxing is a great sport but imagine how great it would be if the fighters were always treated equally.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Great post. Talking of Bowe, the Tubbs contest was a definite 'L' for me, but the bandwagon had to keep on a-rolling, they wouldn't want an 'L' on his record for his world title challenge, because Brad from Keokuk, Iowa would lose interest in a second.

[Sonny's jab]

Great post. Talking of Bowe, the Tubbs contest was a definite 'L' for me, but the bandwagon had to keep on a-rolling, they wouldn't want an 'L' on his record for his world title challenge, because Brad from Keokuk, Iowa would lose interest in a second.

Yep.
Another thing - both fights were in Atlantic City, New Jersey. I've heard that the boxing commisioner there, Larry Hazzard, was a friend of Rock Newman's.

[Tony]

I think there's enough blame to go around for the clinching in the fight.

Ali held way more than in the FOTC. In 1971, he grabbed momentarily when Frazier was getting off more on the inside. But he generally pushed Frazier away right after grabbing in the first half of the fight -- he didn't hold on and wait for Mercante to break them. In the second half of the fight, when he tried to grab and hold on longer, Frazier pulled his arms free or shoved Ali off and banged him.

In 1974, when Ali grabbed, he held on until Perez came to break them. And Frazier didn't work as hard to pull his arms free and punch as he had in 1971. Perez is correct, Frazier did let clinches continue.

But that's not an excuse for Perez. Ali was clearly holding often enough and long enough to have been warned and then penalized if he didn't stop. Perez should have done more to assert himself and the rules against clinching.

As long as he didn't, Ali was going to take as much advantage as he could.

[Bokaj]

That sounds like a pretty reasonable analysis/assesment to me, Tony. Cheers!

[Russell]

Should Frazier of wasted a massive amount of energy trying to wrestle away from every clinch when it's the refeeres responsibility?

[Bokaj]

No, he shouldn't really. But he did far more so in FOTC and Manilla, and Perez seemed to have interpreted his relative passivity in the clinches in their second fight as him being content to lay there and take a rest.

[Russell]

He was in his absolute peak condition during the FOTC, he was going to be able to do it more effectively there. To wrestle AND box with Ali.

Neither man, especially Frazier, was the same afterwards.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Neither man, especially Frazier, was the same afterwards.


But Ali was able to climb to the top of the mountain again despite this.

[ChrisPontius]

Ali did get favourable decisions but one could suggest that the judges rewarded him for his defensive abilities (has any heavyweight ever slipped punches as well as he?) as well as his acuracy.

Tons of heavyweights slipped punches better than Ali did against Norton III, Young and Shavers. He was nothing special at that point; a good contender with close or even clear losses going his way.

[Addie]

I've always seen the second fight against Frazier as one of Ali's top perfomances when it comes to fitness and ability (I have it in my top 3 of his post-exile fights). He was moving really well, fought a smart fight and looked sharp throughout, so I was surprised to see so many on this forum discard it with "he was holding all the time" or "Frazier was past it".

Here's what the fights ref Tony Perez has to say about Ali's holding:

"Fraziers' people complained that it [Ali's holding behind the head] kept Joe from working on the inside. And it's true; Ali was very strong. He'd pull guys down by the back of the neck and no one was strong enough to pull back. If you let a guy do that all night it wears you down. But I couldn't do anything because it was like Joe was happy laying on Ali's chest, waiting for me to break them apart. That's the way it was the whole fight. Joe would come in, punching, bobbing, weaving. He'd score one or two shots, and then just lay there in the clinch like he was resting. All he had to do was bend at the knees. Get down low so Ali can't hold anymore. He's shorter than Ali, so Ali can't hold him beyond a certain point. And once Joe's free, he'd be in position to come up punching. His own corner kept telling him to do that, but it seemed like he was content to be in a clinch."

That's more or less how I see it too. With the exception of a couple of times when Ali pulls Joe into a clinch, the clinching seems quite mutual to me, even though Ali initiates them. And I don't think the times he actually pulls Joe in merits more than a warning.

Your thoughts?

Tony Perez was in the ring, he's a professional referee. He knows a hell of a lot more than me or anybody else here so what he says is bible as far as I'm concerned.

[Addie]

Tons of heavyweights slipped punches better than Ali did against Norton III, Young and Shavers. He was nothing special at that point; a good contender with close or even clear losses going his way.

Ali was a good contender at that point. I hope you're joking.

Even after his prime, which was before exile ladies and gentleman, Ali was still the man at Heavyweight. Those questionable decisions, they were all close fights with the possible exception of Norton III.

Prime Holmes had more trouble with Shavers than Past it Ali did.

[yancey]

Complete utter garbage! Perez was off the whole night, and not just for the holding. He botched the second round of this fight which is well documented.

First of all, I disagree with most people who say that Ali would have knocked Frazier out in the second round had Perez not mistakingly heard the bell. There's no doubt that Ali had Frazier hurt in round 2, but as far as knocking him out, I strongly disagree. Maybe Ali might have been able to put Joe on the canvas if he was allowed to continue his flurry of punches.

Ali's holding behind Frazier's neck was big time illegal and cowardly IMO. I watched this fight numerous times and Ali should have been penalized for his tactics. Any other referee would have taken a point away and not let Ali continue to hold behind the head. Ali tried to push down on Frazier's head in the FOTC and Manilla, but Mercante and Padilla didn't allow him to do that by slapping his gloves away from Frazier's neck between the clinches.

As for the fight itself, Ali didn't land anything of significance to deserve the victory, except for the right hand shot in round two. Frazier didn't do enough to deserve the victory either, but his aggression should have been counted for in the scoring. It was a close decision that probably should have been a draw. I dare say this decision was gift wrapped for Ali because too many people had a vested financial interest in his career and losing two to Frazier would have severely tarnished his legacy.

Your last sentence sums it up pretty well.

Frazier was going to be fortunate to get a close decision in his second fight with Ali, too much was at stake. I recall thinking that before the fight that night.

As to that bit of business about the delay in getting the judge's scoring and Dunphy's reaction, if anybody cares to elaborate, I would appreciate it.

I know there was some surprise that night among some of the sportswriters at ringside that night. I think Red Smith had Frazier winning.

p.s. the decision in Ali-Norton III pretty much took the cake. :yep