Talk:Thrilla in Manila

Disappointment

I find it a bit disappointing that for a fight that many consider to be the best boxing match of the past century, very little is written about it.

There is a good account of the entire history and build-up of this fight over at www.boxingscene.com.

Link is here: http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=2105

With the continuation here: http://www.boxingscene.com/index.php?m=show&id=2086

Perhaps we could find a way to contact the writer and have his work used as a good source for a future revision for the "Thrilla in Manila" entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk • contribs)

I changed a lot

A changed about the whole article, including the actual fight in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar (talk • contribs)

Citations Needed

"Ali, however, did not train as hard as he usually did for fights because he thought Frazier was washed up" "He claimed that this was the closest to dying he has ever been" Both of these can be found in Ali's autobiography, or in numerous documentaries made about Ali.-2/5/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.203 (talk • contribs)

Personal feelings distorting facts

Is it me or is this article Frazier-biased a bit much?

You might as well call him a hero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.32.71.149 (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Calling this Fraizer-biased is an understatement.

ULTRA Frazier-biased!!! In reality, Ali beat the living snot out of Frazier! His face was totally unrecognizable after that fight!

And Frazier beat the snot out of Ali right back. Or why do you think Ali kept saying about the fight "This must be what dying feels like, this is the closest to death I've ever been"? And folks, I'm both a big boxing fan and an Ali fan, and the article is based entirely on solid facts. Also, why does everyone keep saying it's Frazier biased? Essentially what the article says is that Ali barely trained and didn't take the fight seriously while Frazier trained and fought like a madman and Ali still beat him. How exactly is that pro-Frazier? Wandering Man

While everything in this article may be accurate, it may include an excess of facts that portray Fraizer in an admirable light while witholding as much information that may do the same for Ali.

If the Frazier bias stems from the cited ESPN article, then that should be said in the text. Much of it seems like personal opinion. The misuse of commas in many of the pro-Frazier sections seems to hint that it was all written by one person (who needs to learn how to punctuate). 67.85.195.225 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that, overall, experts view the fighters as about even in points. A number think the fight should have been a draw. Frazier looked terrible but Ali's injuries were internal and he never really recovered from the fight. His fight physician advised Ali that he ought to never fight again, advice which Ali ignored. Source: Documentary, Thrilla in Manila. the.Duke.of.URL

Not only is the Pre-fight section not even close to NPOV (if only the facts explicitly applicable to this fight were included, this problem would be solved), it's almost entirely uncited. If anyone wishes to keep it the way it is, the LEAST they should do is include strong cites.

date

When did the fight take place? The article says "October 1, 10:45 a.m.". I assume this means Manila time (UTC+8). Why does the poster say "September 30"? Does it refer to an American timezone? (19:45 = 7:45 p.m. Eastern Time, 16:45=4.45 p.m Pacific) --The very model of a minor general 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)