32 Never Before Seen Photos of Ali VS Frazier

[hweightblogger]

This is without a doubt one of the most ****** posts I've ever seen. What facts did you post. You posted mindless observations that you have.

Unfortunately for deluded good-old-time-fetishists PICTURES are facts.

You see, AliFants have an advantage: Nobody watches these ancient fights anymore. Thus when they claim that The greatest Clay was good people tend to believe them. But actually it's not possible to watch Clay fights and be impressed. That guy IS BAD (with a good paper record though), he had some good rare moments (duh!) which then are used for YouTube highlight videos, but that's about it.

The greatest Clay and Porky, the featherfisted dwarf, are way below current era's champs (speed, power, athleticity), but since AliFants CLAIM that they are above the current level, it's always fun to expose AliFants with pictures and stats.

Look at their records and what they've done. That speaks for itself.

You are correct: Their records speak for themselves.

I mean, just watch them.

I watched them. Frazier himself isn't bad, he would be some kind of B-level cruiser nowadays. Oh wait. He wouldn't. He wouldn't be allowed to box. The Clay wouldn't even suffice as sparring partner with such a lack of reflexes and such a featherfistedness.

Showing disrespect to that era, those fighters and that fight renders you an utter moron, and if you never posted on this site again that wouldn't be soon enough. You're a dolt and should be banned.

Thanks to you, too, for producing a new quote that I can use to underline how ignorant AliFants are.

[Steak]

No, Foreman didn't box in his prime. He boxed pre-prime and post-prime: He stopped at 28 and continued at 38.

Larry Holmes' prime was in the 1980ies.


Don't invent stuff.


If you keep reading my posts, then surely you will.

you completed avoided the main point.

70s Holmes and Foreman were much better than their out of shape, 40+ year old 90s versions. that is a fact.

Foreman was most definitely prime in the 70s. 40-0 with 38 KOs, and he looked better in the first Frazier fight and Norton fight than he did after them.

and I would even argue that Holmes WAS prime in the 70s. he was 30 years old in 1979 and undefeated, and had some of his best performances during that time. If he wasnt prime, he was very close to it.

[kadyo's]

Thanks for the photos. Green K on your way, TS.

[Money Shot]

After watching that Thrilla in Manila film Frazier goes up in my estimation. He still loves the sport and is a credit to it.

[hweightblogger]

70s Holmes and Foreman were much better than their out of shape, 40+ year old 90s versions. that is a fact.

That's not a fact, but I agree.

Foreman was most definitely prime in the 70s. 40-0 with 38 KOs, and he looked better in the first Frazier fight and Norton fight than he did after them.

Foreman didn't box between 28 years of age and 38. That bracket is usually considered "heavyweight prime". Thus I have only little doubt that "Foreman I" was pre-prime. However that is offtopic as is anything about Larry Holmes.

[Steak]

That's not a fact, but I agree.


Foreman didn't box between 28 years of age and 38. That bracket is usually considered "heavyweight prime". Thus I have only little doubt that "Foreman I" was pre-prime. However that is offtopic as is anything about Larry Holmes.

it wasnt Foreman's prime. every fighter has different primes.

you said the 70s was a weak era. here are two 70s fighters that did well in the 90s despite being obviously worse than their 70s versions. therefor the 70s couldnt have been worse than the 90s.

extremely relevant

[Forza]

You're a troll if you think Frazier was feather fisted. Also, ali was not a boxer puncher but he still had K.O power. Troll.

[hweightblogger]

it wasnt Foreman's prime. every fighter has different primes.

you said the 70s was a weak era. here are two 70s fighters that did well in the 90s despite being obviously worse than their 70s versions. therefor the 70s couldnt have been worse than the 90s.

extremely relevant

Yes, I understand your logic.
But Holmes did not perform well in the 1990s. Yes, he won against a lot of bums like Anthony Willis (19-11) or Pepeli (20-39). But he LOST against Holyfield, McCall, Nielsen, let alone (in the 1980s) against Tyson and Spinks.

Foreman II performed better than Holmes, but had difficulties against EXPERIENCED heavyweights:
Most experienced non-bummy opponents (at bout, 200x2 experience):
Lou Savarese: SD12
Tommy Morrison: Loss
Rodrigues: KO2 (outweighed him by 44 lbs)
Alex Stewart: MD12
Briggs: Loss

Just think about the Axel Schultz fight. There is no chance Schultz would have survived 1970s Foreman.

In other words: Holmes' and Foreman's performances at 40+ years of age are not spectacular. Thus I wouldn't draw any conclusions how great the 1970s were.

Here some more stats (offtopic, but I couldn't resist).
Foreman's KOperformance 1960s: 3.0 rounds between KOs
Foreman's KOperformance 1970s: 3.4 rounds between KOs
Foreman's KOperformance 1980s: 3.5 rounds between KOs (nearly all bums)
Foreman's KOperformance 1990s: 13.8 rounds between KOs

Holmes' KOperformance 1970s: 7.8 rounds between KOs
Holmes' KOperformance 1980s: 16.6 rounds between KOs
Holmes' KOperformance 1990s: 19.8 rounds between KOs

[Forza]

Why are you judging somebodies legacy by what their K.O ratio is, dip****?

[Steak]

Yes, I understand your logic.
But Holmes did not perform well in the 1990s. Yes, he won against a lot of bums like Anthony Willis (19-11) or Pepeli (20-39). But he LOST against Holyfield, McCall, Nielsen, let alone (in the 1980s) against Tyson and Spinks.

Foreman II performed better than Holmes, but had difficulties against EXPERIENCED heavyweights:
Most experienced non-bummy opponents (at bout, 200x2 experience):
Lou Savarese: SD12
Tommy Morrison: Loss
Rodrigues: KO2 (outweighed him by 44 lbs)
Alex Stewart: MD12
Briggs: Loss

Just think about the Axel Schultz fight. There is no chance Schultz would have survived 1970s Foreman.

In other words: Holmes' and Foreman's performances at 40+ years of age are not spectacular. Thus I wouldn't draw any conclusions how great the 1970s were.

Holmes beat Mercer more one sidedly than Holyfield and near prime Lewis.
Holmes gave Holyfield much more trouble than most expected.

Foreman became the number one in the division and beat Shannon Briggs(future titleholder in the 2000s), Bert Cooper, Adilson Rodriguez, and Pierre Coetzer.

and they were at the point in their careers where most fighters are expected to lose to bums.