THE words of Eddie Futch stand as a fitting epitaph to a great heavyweight.
The words of Eddie Futch stand as a fitting epitaph to a great heavyweight. They were uttered as Joe Frazier sat, bloodied and blinded, on a stool in Quezon City, Manila, on October 1, 1975. Futch, a trainer of extraordinary gifts and deep compassion, had watched 14 rounds of merciless, brutal boxing.
He decided that Frazier must not fight the final round. The boxer protested but Futch prevailed. The Thrilla in Manila, the most memorable fight in modern history, was over.
Muhammad Ali and Frazier had hit each other so often and so hard that The Greatest later whispered: “Frazier was a fighter who made me feel he was taking me to the door of death.”
It was the third and final fight between the two great warriors. Neither was ever the same again. Frazier maintained that Ali’s Parkinson-like illness stemmed from the awful punishment inflicted on him that night. Frazier grew old in under an hour at the hands of Ali. He became an ex-boxer that night although he climbed into the ring on two further occasions.
He remained a champion to all who saw him bob and weave, hit and be hit, and win 32 of his 37 fights. He was also a partner in one of the greatest sports stories of all time. The Frazier-Ali legend is not, however, all glory, all triumph, all unreserved cheering. There is a darkness at the heart of the rivalry that perversely gives it substance.
This chilling background can tell us much about Ali. It also shouted long and hard about the very essence of Frazier. It was a match-up that defined a sport, an era and even the experience of being black in America when the civil rights revolution was tearing at the soul of a nation.
Ali, who could be casually and criminally cruel, dubbed Frazier an Uncle Tom and portrayed him as an ugly, inarticulate and uneducated member of the underclass. It was far from The Greatest’s finest hour and there is evidence he came to regret the relentless baiting.
Frazier never forgave. This intransigence tells us much about the man and his background. This was a warrior who would not bend. “I was never little or played little,” said Frazier of a childhood spent in poverty as the last of 11 children to a sharecropper in South Carolina. He moved north, first to Brooklyn and then to Philadelphia, but he never found frivolity.
There was a hardness to Frazier that was not softened by the increasingly industrial amounts of alcohol he consumed, the women he partied with or the money he earned. This inbred resilience was part of his armour in the ring.
Outside the ropes, Frazier could be generous and loving and, indeed, was wonderfully supportive to Ali when The Greatest was banned from boxing.
But he was never soft and he never forgot a slight. He took his bitterness with Ali to the grave.
This hatred infected his fights with Ali with a poisonous spice that the bouts hardly needed to lift them above the mundane. Frazier and Ali were made for each other in boxing terms. Their differing styles were almost guaranteed to produce thrilling fights.
Frazier, with his left hook cleaving into Ali, was programmed to come forward, head lowered, with a relentlessness that could not be diminished by his rival’s more measured blows. Frazier was easily undone by George Foreman and Ali found Ken Norton an awkward opponent. But both found in each other the perfect, if most demanding opponent.
They formed an axis that dominated the world of sport and beyond. The followers of liberal politics drifted towards an Ali who would not fight in the Vietnam War. Frazier found support in those who were uncomfortable with Ali’s more demeaning rhetoric and who recognised that Smokin’ Joe had simple but affecting traits.
Frazier was loyal, brave and uncomplicated. He made no excuses about his background and did not apologise for the bludgeoning directness of his approach in the ring.
It was possible, of course, to admire, even revere both men. They were great fighters, strong and unforgettable characters. Their very presence made boxing the main event not just in sport but in life.
If Ali testified to a burgeoning black awareness of injustice and a resolution to do something about it, Frazier quietly epitomised the hard man who knows he has been given a tough shift but believes he can reduce it to rubble by a strength of will or the power of his fists.
It was impossible not to be moved by Frazier in the ring. His long shorts, his bowed stance and his swinging arms gave him the aspect of the eternal underdog with a ferocious bite.
Even in inglorious defeat to Foreman, he provoked a pity he would have scorned. But it was against Ali that he will always be measured. He may have come up short in losing two of the three contests but he stood tall and strong in very other respect.
There are persistent stories that Frazier fought his entire career while legally blind in his left eye. He managed to deceive rudimentary control board examinations and fight on. Against Ali in Manila, however, his right eye was closed by a spectacular swelling.
Smokin’ Joe was sightless but continued to shuffle forward, throwing punches. The decades have passed but the memory of his bravery lives on. Faced with one of the greatest boxers ever who was fighting for his very life, Frazier put his head down and continued to believe he could prevail.
It is the sort of action that will be derided by many as pathetically stupid or wilfully self-destructive. But surely it was more profound. The dreadful trials of Manila had stripped Frazier down to his essence. He was a study in bravery, a living, barely breathing lesson in the profound depths of the human spirit.
Futch was right. I will never forget what Frazier did. And not just in Manila.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article