Why didn't Foreman get a rematch against Ali?

[Hydraulix]

Does anyone know? The man lost his title and was never given another shot after losing it. Did Ali duck him? I believe that Foreman would have probably won the rematch. (I seriously doubt that Foreman would have fallen for the rope-a-dope trick twice. Ali would have had to actually trade with Foreman in ring center and would most likely have gotten hurt or knocked out.)

Does anyone know why Big George never got another title shot until his second career?

[Bokaj]

Does anyone know? The man lost his title and was never given another shot after losing it. Did Ali duck him? I believe that Foreman would have probably won the rematch. (I seriously doubt that Foreman would have fallen for the rope-a-dope trick twice. Ali would have had to actually trade with Foreman in ring center and would most likely have gotten hurt or knocked out.)

Does anyone know why Big George never got another title shot until his second career?

I can easily envision Ali's people seeing it as fight where the risk would exceed the reward. But if he hadn't lost to Young he might perhaps have gotten a shot. Even though I wouldn't call it a blatant duck, Ali and his people didn't seem to keen to take on Foreman a second time. And I can see why.

[dmille]

Where is this revisionist bullsh!t coming from?

George didn't have a fight for over a year after the loss to Ali. His only activity was embarassing himself with those five exhibitions on the same day.

Jimmy Young didn't have to trade with Foreman in ring center. So why would Ali have to? Ali hit much harder than Young, plus he got inside George's head. He would have taken him out again.

[Bokaj]

Where is this revisionist bullsh!t coming from?

George didn't have a fight for over a year after the loss to Ali. His only activity was embarassing himself with those five exhibitions on the same day.

Jimmy Young didn't have to trade with Foreman in ring center. So why would Ali have to? Ali hit much harder than Young, plus he got inside George's head. He would have taken him out again.

Foreman became the mandatory in '76. I personally don't see much of a problem with Ali not taking him on directly after Norton, but that seems to be what was requested of him (formally).

[My2Sense]

Foreman became the mandatory in '76. I personally don't see much of a problem with Ali not taking him on directly after Norton, but that seems to be what was requested of him (formally).

Yep.

Foreman took a year off after losing to Ali, which cost him an immediate rematch.

However, beating Frazier and Lyle put him back among the top contenders.

Ali put off the fight for about a year, basically continually saying "One more fight and I'll fight him."

The fight was supposed to finally happen once Foreman got by Young, but of course he blew that fight.


Hard to tell how a rematch in '77 would've gone. On one hand, Ali had clearly slipped since the first fight and was very vulnerable at this time. If Foreman could still be guaranteed to attack with the intensity he did in the first fight, I don't know if Ali still could've handled him. But at the same time, Foreman himself did not look fully the same since Ali beat him. Against Lyle and Young, he looked unsure of himself, as if he didn't know whether he should be a boxer or a slugger. But then, that's why the rematch was so anticipated at this time. But it all became moot once Foreman lost to Young and then retired for 20 or whatever years.

[AnthonyJ74]

Does anyone know? The man lost his title and was never given another shot after losing it. Did Ali duck him? I believe that Foreman would have probably won the rematch. (I seriously doubt that Foreman would have fallen for the rope-a-dope trick twice. Ali would have had to actually trade with Foreman in ring center and would most likely have gotten hurt or knocked out.)

Does anyone know why Big George never got another title shot until his second career?

If they had fought sometime in 1975, I think Ali would still have beaten him. Ali was too fast, too sharp, and too skilled. If they had fought later on, sometime in 1977 or so, Foreman would have had a much better chance, as Ali was slowing down quite a bit by then.

[Hydraulix]

Jimmy Young didn't have to trade with Foreman in ring center. So why would Ali have to?

True, but George was trying to pace himself after his loss to Ali. He tried to extend his stamina. The pre-Rumble in the Jungle version of Foreman would have killed Jimmy Young in the first or second round. But after his loss to Ali, Foreman was a lot more patient and didn't waste a lot of energy by throwing big shots, and this resulting in the slicker, more mobile Jimmy Young outboxing him.

Ali could have won the rematch that never happened, but I doubt it. The first round of the Rumble in the Jungle clenches it for me. I don't think Ali could last 15 rounds with Foreman by trading with him like that.

[MRBILL]

Foreman and company jerked off after the '74 loss to Ali............ SIMPLE!! Had George Foreman come back to the USA and fought again with a win in early '75, a rematch would've loomed.... But no, George Foreman took a vacation and made a buncha' bogus excuses' before fighting some bullshit exhibition in Toronto in 1975.... After that, George Foreman remained quiet until Jan. of '76.... George Foreman would've been the # 1 contender by mid '77, had he beaten Jimmy Young in Puerto Rico...... Foreman screwed up; not Ali..... Peace.....

MR.BILL

[The Kurgan]

True, but George was trying to pace himself after his loss to Ali. He tried to extend his stamina. The pre-Rumble in the Jungle version of Foreman would have killed Jimmy Young in the first or second round. But after his loss to Ali, Foreman was a lot more patient and didn't waste a lot of energy by throwing big shots, and this resulting in the slicker, more mobile Jimmy Young outboxing him.


True, although it's harder to see this more mature version of Foreman losing to the 1977 Ali. His punching technique, stamina and willingness to follow orders had all increased dramatically.

[kenmore]

The answer to this question is simple.

First, Foreman took over a year off after losing to Ali in 1974. By the time Foreman returned to the ring in 1976, Ken Norton was already established as Ali's mandatory challenger, and Foreman had to wait for Ali-Norton to finish first.

Second, it took the promoters most of 1976 to finally stage Ali-Norton (the fight didn't happen until late in 1976). This delay kept Foreman in the number two position, behind Norton, for the entire year.

Third, after Ali beat Norton and Foreman was finally established as the leading contender, there was a waiting period (the winter of 1976-77) when the boxing world was expecting Ali to retire. Thus, Foreman's title shot was postponed pending Ali's decision.

Finally -- and most telling of all -- Foreman took a fight in March, 1977 against Jimmy Young, which he lost. After this, Foreman lost interest in boxing and retired for ten years.

[kenmore]

True, although it's harder to see this more mature version of Foreman losing to the 1977 Ali. His punching technique, stamina and willingness to follow orders had all increased dramatically.

You are correct. I would add to this the fact that the 1977 Ali was a badly faded version of the Ali who beat Foreman in 1974, and of the Ali who beat Frazier in 1975. By 1977 Ali was ready to fall.

[META5]

Ali was too busy buying into his own hype and defending the most prestiguous crown in the sport against joke fighters, soft touches and historical nonetities ... after all, he had earnt a few 'soft defences' right?

[Bokaj]

Ali was too busy buying into his own hype and defending the most prestiguous crown in the sport against joke fighters, soft touches and historical nonetities ... after all, he had earnt a few 'soft defences' right?

This is actually BS. Let's look at Ali's second reign: He gave rubber matches to his by far two most difficult opponents, and took on solid contenders like Lyle, Bugner, Shavers and Young. The only one who can make a reasonable claim to have been denied a title shot is Foreman, whom Ali already had beaten and who retired about a year after making his comeback.

In short Ali took on what there was to take on (with the possible exception of Foreman), and that's what really matters. That he defended against a couple of nobodies doesn't change the fact that he took on the ones that mattered.

Both of Ali's reigns compares favourable to the ones of Johnson, Dempsey, Patterson, Frazier, Holmes, Bowe and probably also Marciano and Charles. That ain't too shabby.

[My dinner with Conteh]

He was ducked. He even gatecrashed a press-conference to ask for a fight- Ali agreed "after two more fights" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Anyway, Ali announced the fight was on in Nov 1976- then retired. Foreman lined up a few fights, Ali announced he wasn't retired after all and signed to fight Evangelista. Foreman, who'd been ranked #1 throughout almost all of Ali's 2nd reign, then lost to Young, found God, ate a lot, come back, etc.

[My dinner with Conteh]

This is actually BS. Let's look at Ali's second reign: He gave rubber matches to his by far two most difficult opponents, and took on solid contenders like Lyle, Bugner, Shavers and Young. The only one who can make a reasonable claim to have been denied a title shot is Foreman, whom Ali already had beaten and who retired about a year after making his comeback.

In short Ali took on what there was to take on (with the possible exception of Foreman), and that's what really matters. That he defended against a couple of nobodies doesn't change the fact that he took on the ones that mattered.

Both of Ali's reigns compares favourable to the ones of Johnson, Dempsey, Patterson, Frazier, Holmes, Bowe and probably also Marciano and Charles. That ain't too shabby.


True. But by 77 it was a joke too far- Evangelista, Spinks, Bobick was lined-up, even Mike Shutte. He'd had enough favours the previous year with the decisions in the Young and Norton fights.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Where is this revisionist bullsh!t coming from?


Try reading some contemporary literature on the subject, then you'll realise it's you that have fallen victim to "revisionist bullshit". :good

[Bummy Davis]

He lost to Jimmy Young and that ended it

[robert ungurean]

Ali wouldnt risk it.

[ChrisPontius]

True. But by 77 it was a joke too far- Evangelista, Spinks, Bobick was lined-up, even Mike Shutte. He'd had enough favours the previous year with the decisions in the Young and Norton fights.

Mike who?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Exactly. Mike Schutte- former South African heavyweight champ whose best win at the time of the Ali negotiations came against Rodney Bobick. The fight fell through and Schutte would spend the next few months losing to Coetzee and being sparked in 2 by Knoetze.

[JohnThomas1]

Exactly. Mike Schutte- former South African heavyweight champ whose best win at the time of the Ali negotiations came against Rodney Bobick. The fight fell thorugh and Schutte would spend the next few months losing to Coetzee and being sparked in 2 by Knoetze.

You JUST beat me to it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You JUST beat me to it.


:yep


Sorry mate. You know this subject is one of my 'hobby horses'. :hey

[JohnThomas1]

:yep


Sorry mate. You know this subject is one of my 'hobby horses'. :hey

Well yes, you are the definitive authority on this one. I trust ya every word.

[Bokaj]

True. But by 77 it was a joke too far- Evangelista, Spinks, Bobick was lined-up, even Mike Shutte. He'd had enough favours the previous year with the decisions in the Young and Norton fights.

If Foreman had beaten Young and Ali continued to avoid him (which he might well have done) it would be a definite mark on his record. Ali got a bit lucky there...

[JohnThomas1]

If Foreman had beaten Young and Ali continued to avoid him (which he might well have done) it would be a definite mark on his record. Ali got a bit lucky there...


I think you miss the point.

[My dinner with Conteh]

If Foreman had beaten Young and Ali continued to avoid him (which he might well have done) it would be a definite mark on his record. Ali got a bit lucky there...


The thing is Ali himself said he didn't really want to fight all the top contenders at that time and there's no doubt he was willing to fudge around the top contenders before he retired. This is fair enough I suppose, but when people claim Foreman didn't deserve a shot simply because he didn't fight in 1975 and things like that is ridiculous. Tyson didn't fight for four years, beat a couple of puddings then received his title chance about six months after he came back. No one thought it was that undeserved then. Patterson blown away by Liston is next in line for a crack after Sonny's rematch. Yeah, Floyd's shot was justifed maybe because he beat a couple of contenders. Foreman had beaten 2 of the top 4 in 1976 and owned a massacre over the #2 contender (and #1 in some eyes)- Norton. The match should have been signed in October 1976.

[mr. magoo]

Was Foreman more qualified from 1076-1977 than most contenders? My answer is yes. Was the Ali-Foreman fight a match that absolutely needed to happen? I'm not so sure. Let's not forget that their actually meeting was hardly a controversial affair. Foreman was flat out KO'd, and with plenty of time to spare in the match. It wasn't like Ali was rescued by partial officiating or judges that watched the fight with a blindfold. There were very good reasons for seeing triliogies in the Frazier and Norton sagas, but I'm not sold on the idea that Ali's confrontation with Foreman was destined for one. Following the Rumble in the jungle, Foreman took some 16 months off. During this the same duration, Ali had continued to defend the title 4 times including defenses over Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner and Joe Frazier. Upon returning to the ring, Foreman looked very rusty against Lyle, albeit a good performance against a quality foe regardless.

[Duodenum]

I suspect it was Foreman who was reluctant to take Ali on a second time, even as a title challenger. George should have gotten right back on the horse immediately, but squandered 1975 while Muhammad compiled one of the greatest calendar years of any heavyweight champion ever.

Shavers couldn't beat Ali in 1977, so I don't see how the lighter hitting (what a kick to use that phraseology when discussing George!) Foreman could have created a different outcome than the faster Shavers, especially with Muhammad dictating the terms of the rematch. Ali might well have insisted on a 24' X 24' Olympic sized ring complete with fast surface.

Muhammad fought George's fight in Kinshasa and knocked him out cleanly. To this day, Foreman must have nightmares about hitting Ali flush with the hardest right hand of his career, only to have Muhammad scoff, "Is that the best you've got?" Replaying round five at night must still cause George to wake up in a cold sweat. (How'd you like it if somebody laughed at your best shots?)

Trevor Berbick rarely reached Ali's head in the Bahamas, and I had Muhammad decisioning him 97-93 on my scorecard, even as fat and misfiring as he was. (Ali was MUCH better against Berbick than Greg Page and John Tate had previously been.) Trevor did not fight Ali much differently than Foreman would have been doing in a rematch. Berbick, for the most part, ineffectually flailed away at Muhammad's body in mid ring, an attack well smothered by Ali's arms. (Ali/Berbick deserves much more careful scrutiny through expanded viewership than it has received over the years. No, Muhammad should not have been boxing by then, and had been misfiring ever since Shavers, but he was still a tough and resourceful customer, certainly moreso than the youthful Foreman was.)

Straight punching trumps looping shots, and speed trumps power. Maybe George would have had a better shot after Muhammad came out of the Shavers bout, but Foreman still didn't have the reach or speed to nail Ali on the button repeatedly as Earnie was able to do. (While we all know about how the three year exile and Manila took a toll on Muhammad's competitive abilities, I believe it was Shavers who finally robbed him of the hand-eye coordination he needed to remain a championship caliber heavyweight. I also believe that he sustained far more boxing related drain bramage from Earnie than from any of his other wars.)

Bottom line: George failed to EARN a rematch, first through inactivity, then by failing to convince that he could produce a different outcome in a rematch.


After previewing this post, I was going to trash it, being as doped up on cold medicine as I am at the moment. Then again, I've deleted the last twenty posts I prepared, so what the hell. It's not as if I'm submitting this to some sports magazine or other venue for profit. Might as well click "Submit" before I renege.

[prime]

If Foreman had beaten Young and Ali continued to avoid him (which he might well have done) it would be a definite mark on his record. Ali got a bit lucky there...

Foreman was his own worst enemy. It is considered normal for a champion to take a breather after an epic victory. Thus, Ali himself had to play the waiting game after FOTC, simply because Frazier had earned a holiday. No one, not even Ali, clamored for an immediate rematch. And properly so.

Yet, notice the difference between Ali and Foreman after their losses. First, Ali brushed himself off and got busy, defeating all the top contenders and so pressuring for a rematch. Foreman retired, came back to stage a disturbingly erratic exhibition against 5 men, suddenly got serious again, meets with stiff opposition that pierces him with three knockdowns and a loss, then retires again.

Sure, Foreman ranted darkly for immediate satisfaction, but he simply didn't pay his dues.

These mistakes were the genesis of the flabbergasting transformation of the man. He learned arrogance would get him little whereas patience is a virtue. Against Moorer, he rightfully got his payback.

[Bokaj]

I think you miss the point.

How so?

[prime]

I suspect it was Foreman who was reluctant to take Ali on a second time, even as a title challenger. George should have gotten right back on the horse immediately, but squandered 1975 while Muhammad compiled one of the greatest calendar years of any heavyweight champion ever.

Shavers couldn't beat Ali in 1977, so I don't see how the lighter hitting (what a kick to use that phraseology when discussing George!) Foreman could have created a different outcome than the faster Shavers, especially with Muhammad dictating the terms of the rematch. Ali might well have insisted on a 24' X 24' Olympic sized ring complete with fast surface.

Muhammad fought George's fight in Kinshasa and knocked him out cleanly. To this day, Foreman must have nightmares about hitting Ali flush with the hardest right hand of his career, only to have Muhammad scoff, "Is that the best you've got?" Replaying round five at night must still cause George to wake up in a cold sweat. (How'd you like it if somebody laughed at your best shots?)

Trevor Berbick rarely reached Ali's head in the Bahamas, and I had Muhammad decisioning him 97-93 on my scorecard, even as fat and misfiring as he was. (Ali was MUCH better against Berbick than Greg Page and John Tate had previously been.) Trevor did not fight Ali much differently than Foreman would have been doing in a rematch. Berbick, for the most part, ineffectually flailed away at Muhammad's body in mid ring, an attack well smothered by Ali's arms. (Ali/Berbick deserves much more careful scrutiny through expanded viewership than it has received over the years. No, Muhammad should not have been boxing by then, and had been misfiring ever since Shavers, but he was still a tough and resourceful customer, certainly moreso than the youthful Foreman was.)

Straight punching trumps looping shots, and speed trumps power. Maybe George would have had a better shot after Muhammad came out of the Shavers bout, but Foreman still didn't have the reach or speed to nail Ali on the button repeatedly as Earnie was able to do. (While we all know about how the three year exile and Manila took a toll on Muhammad's competitive abilities, I believe it was Shavers who finally robbed him of the hand-eye coordination he needed to remain a championship caliber heavyweight. I also believe that he sustained far more boxing related drain bramage from Earnie than from any of his other wars.)

Bottom line: George failed to EARN a rematch, first through inactivity, then by failing to convince that he could produce a different outcome in a rematch.


After previewing this post, I was going to trash it, being as doped up on cold medicine as I am at the moment. Then again, I've deleted the last twenty posts I prepared, so what the hell. It's not as if I'm submitting this to some sports magazine or other venue for profit. Might as well click "Submit" before I renege.

I agree with your bottom line, and you add interesting discussion points to boot.

As any bully, Foreman was indeed shocked and awed after taking his beating. His post-the-fact erraticism proved no less. He would certainly lose an immediate rematch because he was shattered inside. Your Shavers example has merit because it proves Foreman would have to go through a 15-round war to defeat Ali in '77, and, as stated, he lacked the skills and mental preparation.

I personally don't "credit" Shavers for Ali's deterioration any more than I would look to Manila. Shavers had a hellish right, but really not much else.
Actually, I would say Leon Spinks hammered Ali more overall in their first fight, on account of the Rope-a-Dope.

Sadly, my gut disagrees with your scoring of the "Drama", but I do concur it is an amazing last hurrah by the Greatest --who by then clearly showed early Parkinson's symptoms.

I like "drain bramage" and, with your permission, am adding it along with "fading into Bolivian" and "Poles on Prozac", to my fistic phrases.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I suspect it was Foreman who was reluctant to take Ali on a second time, even as a title challenger.


Well, you couldn't be more wrong. He spent from late 75 to early 1977 trying to get a rematch.


George should have gotten right back on the horse immediately, but squandered 1975 while Muhammad compiled one of the greatest calendar years of any heavyweight champion ever.


He then spent 1976, beating top contenders and earning Fighter of The Year plaudits from Ring.


Trevor Berbick rarely reached Ali's head in the Bahamas, and I had Muhammad decisioning him 97-93 on my scorecard, even as fat and misfiring as he was. (Ali was MUCH better against Berbick than Greg Page and John Tate had previously been.)


Well, that's just a joke. :lol:


Bottom line: George failed to EARN a rematch, first through inactivity, then by failing to convince that he could produce a different outcome in a rematch.


Top line is, he more than earned one by beating two of the top four and was the official #1 contender. Ron Lyle and Evangelista were granted shots by losing.


After previewing this post, I was going to trash it, being as doped up on cold medicine as I am at the moment.


You should always rely on your first instinct. ;)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Sure, Foreman ranted darkly for immediate satisfaction, but he simply didn't pay his dues.


So, what dues should he have paid in 1976, he beat Frazier and Lyle? How many of Ali's contenders during his second reign did something like this?

[My dinner with Conteh]

How so?


The point being the fight should have been signed before March 1977 when he fought Young.

[prime]

So, what dues should he have paid in 1976, he beat Frazier and Lyle? How many of Ali's contenders during his second reign did something like this?

His '76 contributions simply paid off part of the huge debt he incurred under the following itemizations:
a) showing himself utterly inept with an old challenger idling shamelessly on the ropes.
b) losing steam after 5.
c) falling for the count inside 8.
d) retiring after his first defeat.
e) staging the Canadian charade that only accentuated his perceived flaws against an Ali in the form of lack of stamina and boxing skills.
f) coming to life and death against a guy Ali coasted with and stopped inside 11.

Then he loses to Young.

It just doesn't add up for Foreman.

[Bokaj]

The point being the fight should have been signed before March 1977 when he fought Young.

Yeah, that's reasonable. But did he have the Shavers fight signed by then? If he didn't there's always the possibility that Foreman would have gotten the shot if he'd beaten Young.

[My dinner with Conteh]

So he doesn't come up to the standards shown by Dunn and Coopman then? Yeah, of course. "It doesn't make sense"- he was mandatory contender, fighter of the year, beat two of the top four. He ws earning high praise after the 2nd Frazier fight, I don't care if you weren't imprssed, others were:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yeah, that's reasonable. But did he have the Shavers fight signed by then? If he didn't there's always the possibility that Foreman would have gotten the shot if he'd beaten Young.

:huh

Well, Young didn't get it so that's highly unlikely.

[My dinner with Conteh]

b) losing steam after 5.
c) falling for the count inside 8.
d) retiring after his first defeat.


Oh yeah, his showing in Zaire was the real reason for no rematch becuase it was never going to make as much money as a Richard Dunn fight.


staging the Canadian charade that only accentuated his perceived flaws against an Ali in the form of lack of stamina and boxing skills..


An exhibition? Yeah, that rules out a shot at the title, it always has done. :lol:


coming to life and death against a guy Ali coasted with and stopped inside 11.).

Swapped coasted for "generally looked shite". He owned a blowout of Norton, who had life and death with Ali. Who said he should have shot after the Lyle fight anyway? (Ron got one after being outclassed by Young of course).

[My dinner with Conteh]

Just in case the "he didn't want a rematch" crap surfaces again.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This was the interview before the Lyle fight. Check the date. He wanted another a go alright, he was desperate.

[Sam Dixon]

The point being the fight should have been signed before March 1977 when he fought Young.

"MEXICO CITY (UPI) - The winner of the Sept 28 heavyweight title bout between champion Muhammad Ali and Ken Norton must fight No. 1 contender George Foreman no later than 90 days later, the World Boxing Council says." - report printed in various sources on Aug 20th, 1976

Should have happened then at the latest, or at the earliest when Foreman, as the ex-champion, called for an immediate rematch after the meeting in Zaire...at least according to Ali's way of thinking in regards to his "it's the ex-champion's right to a rematch" and "you have to beat the champion twice" talk on CBS' Sports Saturday in early March of 1978 (calling for an immediate Spinks rematch when it looked like Spinks-Norton might take place).

[My dinner with Conteh]

"MEXICO CITY (UPI) - The winner of the Sept 28 heavyweight title bout between champion Muhammad Ali and Ken Norton must fight No. 1 contender George Foreman no later than 90 days later, the World Boxing Council says." - report printed in various sources on Aug 20th, 1976

Should have happened then at the latest, or at the earliest when Foreman, as the ex-champion, called for an immediate rematch after the meeting in Zaire...at least according to Ali's way of thinking in regards to his "it's the ex-champion's right to a rematch" and "you have to beat the champion twice" talk on CBS' Sports Saturday in early March of 1978 (calling for an immediate Spinks rematch when it looked like Spinks-Norton might take place).


True. Good post, he even agreed to fight Foreman himself:

Boxing News headline 20th November 1976 (cover) "Ali agrees to Foreman rematch"

Boxing News headline 27th November 1976 (back page) "Ali retires". :good

[prime]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

So Foreman proved he could beat Frazier! This was hardly in question.

I realize this is no-rematch-for-poor-Foreman thing has been a longtime pet peeve of yours, but would you consider that, as far as title shots go, things usually move to the beat of the champion, and every truly hungry challenger has to dance along as best he can and bide his time? Coopman? Evangelista? Et al? Just part of the show: now a risk, now a soft touch. But a challenger must be ready.

Foreman did things his own surly, erratic way and paid the price.

Ali waited 3 full years to get another title shot after FOTC. Why couldn't the younger Foreman?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ali had the WBC wrapped around his cock, they soon advocated their 'policy' when Spinks became champ. :-(

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ali waited 3 full years to get another title shot after FOTC. Why couldn't the younger Foreman?


Well, the fact that there was a new champion may have had something to do with it. If the champ loses (Frazier), the wait will almost always be longer. He'd lost to Norton in between so he wanted that rematch also. If Frazier was still champ they'd have rematched some time in 1973 no doubts. The WBA were already beginning to give Joe the squeeze about the men he was fighting (Daniels, Stander).

[Sam Dixon]

Foreman calling for a rematch came even earlier than the Sports Illustrated issue posted up top, and here's some quotes from only about a week after the Rumble;

"I went for such a long time not wanting anything, that I had forgotten what it feels like to want something badly. Now I want something and it's that man (Ali). It's gotten so I can't even play a simple game of Ping-Pong without fighting that man again."

"I'm not interested in money. I just want him in the ring again. The promoters can give him more money. I made enough from the last fight. All I want is that man in the ring again."

- both quotes from Foreman in an AP article with a heading stating 'Foreman says he's obsessed about a rematch', and printed in various sources on Nov 8th, 1974 (this take from the St. Petersburg Times on that date)

[My dinner with Conteh]

I realize this is no-rematch-for-poor-Foreman thing has been a longtime pet peeve of yours


But it never used to be, until I read all the literature. Then I thought "fuck, he really was shafted there was Foreman". That's all. Ali was the main reason i started collecting magazines by the way, not Foreman.

[prime]

Oh yeah, his showing in Zaire was the real reason for no rematch becuase it was never going to make as much money as a Richard Dunn fight.

An exhibition? Yeah, that rules out a shot at the title, it always has done. :lol:

Swapped coasted for "generally looked shite". He owned a blowout of Norton, who had life and death with Ali. Who said he should have shot after the Lyle fight anyway? (Ron got one after being outclassed by Young of course).

When a guy is clearly beaten, this normally tends to quiet calls for his getting a rematch, regardless of how many Dunns there are out there for his conqueror.

Foreman comes out of retirement to make a fool of himself in Canada, displaying immature lack of self-control before a ranting, ringside Ali, and nothing but diminished skills against his 5 punching bags. How does this bring him closer to credibility?

Even as Foreman was struggling mightily against a less-than-greatly-regarded Lyle, Cosell voiced what the world asked itself: Whatever happened to that invincible George Foreman? A diminished George had to work his way back up, began the process pretty well for a while there, but ultimately failed again in San Juan. Is this Ali's fault?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman calling for a rematch came even earlier than the Sports Illustrated issue posted up top, and here's some quotes from only about a week after the Rumble;

"I went for such a long time not wanting anything, that I had forgotten what it feels like to want something badly. Now I want something and it's that man (Ali). It's gotten so I can't even play a simple game of Ping-Pong without fighting that man again."

"I'm not interested in money. I just want him in the ring again. The promoters can give him more money. I made enough from the last fight. All I want is that man in the ring again."

- both quotes from Foreman in an AP article with a heading stating 'Foreman says he's obsessed about a rematch', and printed in various sources on Nov 8th, 1974 (this take from the St. Petersburg Times on that date)


Good stuff Sam. So at the very least this should squash any "he didn't want rematch" comments but it probably won't. I'm always intrigued why the Foreman 'gatecrash' story isn't more well known. Well, anything not to upset Ali of course.

[Sam Dixon]

True. But by 77 it was a joke too far- Evangelista, Spinks, Bobick was lined-up, even Mike Shutte.

I'd have to check to make sure, but I could have sworn that I've read in the past that Lorenzo Zanon was also in serious consideration for a shot at Ali during that timeframe.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman comes out of retirement to make a fool of himself in Canada, displaying immature lack of self-control before a ranting, ringside Ali, and nothing but diminished skills against his 5 punching bags. How does this bring him closer to credibility?


1976 was when he redeemed himself. Don't you ever take anything in?


Even as Foreman was struggling mightily against a less-than-greatly-regarded Lyle, Cosell voiced what the world asked itself: Whatever happened to that invincible George Foreman? A diminished George had to work his way back up, began the process pretty well for a while there, but ultimately failed again in San Juan. Is this Ali's fault?

Yes, he fought one mandatory in 11 defences as champion. Foreman came through Lyle in exciting, although limited style, he then looked impressive throughout 1976, hence the calls for a rematch- the rules stipulated if anything. It was also the biggest fight out there after, arguably, Frazier.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I'd have to check to make sure, but I could have sworn that I've read in the past that Lorenzo Zanon was also in serious consideration for a shot at Ali during that timeframe.


Every man and his dog was, except Foreman. Zanon may have been as well, Righetti was first mentioned before Evangelista, but even the WBA wouldn't allow that. The Evangelista, after a loss to Zanon, was myseriously nudged into the top 10 and granted a fight.

[prime]

Foreman calling for a rematch came even earlier than the Sports Illustrated issue posted up top, and here's some quotes from only about a week after the Rumble;

"I went for such a long time not wanting anything, that I had forgotten what it feels like to want something badly. Now I want something and it's that man (Ali). It's gotten so I can't even play a simple game of Ping-Pong without fighting that man again."

"I'm not interested in money. I just want him in the ring again. The promoters can give him more money. I made enough from the last fight. All I want is that man in the ring again."

- both quotes from Foreman in an AP article with a heading stating 'Foreman says he's obsessed about a rematch', and printed in various sources on Nov 8th, 1974 (this take from the St. Petersburg Times on that date)

It is not very reasonable to expect an aging champion, who regained a title wrested unfairly from him outside the ring, to defeat Samson (Ken Norton) and immediately sign to fight Hercules (George Foreman), is it.

So, Foreman howled for instant satisfaction after his shocking defeat? I'd be amazed if he hadn't. Anyone in his shoes would. He had just lost embarrassingly to a huge, broken-down underdog.

In my book, he needed to calm down, take a page from Ali's Battles, get in line, and, come his chance, come through like a champion. He did anything but. Again, what do you think fueled his amazing comeback if not the realization that he really stunk it up bad the first time around? He was the antithesis of his old self in patience, perseverance, passion, playing to the crowd.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It is not very reasonable to expect an aging champion, who regained a title wrested unfairly from him outside the ring, to defeat Samson (Ken Norton) and immediately sign to fight Hercules (George Foreman), is it.


Well, if he hadn't fought two of the most undeserving contenders in history then he have fought Norton a good while earlier. This is the heavyweight title, not some early-retirement package. "Ohh Ali deserves it easy now". He doesn't, no one does. Every champ deserves a decent payday after winning the title, yes, but if you avoid a mandatory it has to catch up sometime. Even in 1977 he fudged fighting Young and Norton, then said they should fight and he'll fight the winner. He crapped himself when Norton was given the nod (something he clearly didn't want).


In my book, he needed to calm down, take a page from Ali's Battles


I've read your book, it stinks.

[META5]

This is actually BS. Let's look at Ali's second reign: He gave rubber matches to his by far two most difficult opponents, and took on solid contenders like Lyle, Bugner, Shavers and Young. The only one who can make a reasonable claim to have been denied a title shot is Foreman, whom Ali already had beaten and who retired about a year after making his comeback.

In short Ali took on what there was to take on (with the possible exception of Foreman), and that's what really matters. That he defended against a couple of nobodies doesn't change the fact that he took on the ones that mattered.

Both of Ali's reigns compares favourable to the ones of Johnson, Dempsey, Patterson, Frazier, Holmes, Bowe and probably also Marciano and Charles. That ain't too shabby.

Many would inform you that I'm one of the biggest Ali fans that posts in Classic ... but I call a spade a spade. I'm not interested in whom Ali's title reign compares favourably to, or who he beat, cos that's self-evident ... I'm talking about Ali blatantly using his status to defend against guys that had no business fighting for the title ...

Please convince me that a Wepner, Coopman, Dunn, Evangelista, even a Leon Spinks had any business fighting for the title.

If Ali really wanted to fight Foreman again, he would've ... but he didn't and, IMO, used his celebrity to get one or two more 'cheap' defences ... in saying this, I'm not diminishing his record or him as a fighter ... just recognising that if a Lennox Lewis had fought a Coopman or Evangelista for the UNDISPUTED HW CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE WORLD, many of us in the Classic Forum would use that as a cheap shot to diminish his title reign.

Whether Ali deserved a few 'soft defences' is for each fan to decide ... Ali's putting a rematch on the backburner and seeking 'less risky' alternatives is as obvious to me as Evan Fields' real moniker.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Whether Ali deserved a few 'soft defences' is for each fan to decide ... Ali's putting a rematch on the backburner and seeking 'less risky' alternatives is as obvious to me as Evan Fields' real moniker.

:yep


Ali said himself when he signed to fight Spinks "I gave up being a fighter three years ago, since then i've been a businessman". Obviously one who mostly thrived on low-risk investments. :hey

[prime]

I've read your book, it stinks.

Speaks for itself.

[META5]

:yep


Ali said himself when he signed to fight Spinks "I gave up being a fighter three years ago, since then i've been a businessman". Obviously one who mostly thrived on low-risk investments. :hey

I'd prefer for fighters to just retire if the desire to prove yourself against the very best, time and time again had tempered.

No man is bigger than the sport ... not Ali, not Leonard, not RJJ, not Tyson.

[prime]

Poor George Foreman! Victimized by Ali's cowardice and the evil politics of the day!
Not so.

The point is, you can only control your own actions.

Of course Foreman would have to play the waiting game should he lose to Ali in Zaire. As Bokaj originally said, Young's upset in San Juan essentially put Foreman away as regards Ali, but none of this had to do with Ali. Young won, Foreman lost, Foreman retired. Where is Ali in all this? My whole point has been, had Foreman had his head screwed on right, he eventually would have gotten his chance, against Ali or any other man. That's life. Things aren't always served to you on a silver platter. He had the youth and, presumably, the tools to wait and capitalize. Instead he disappeared.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Aaah poor Ali getting called for ducking. boo fucking hoo. . Ali fought one mandatory out of 11. That's the size of it. Foreman as former champ, biggest name out there and mandatory contender deserved his shot. He had to keep on fighting to earn paydays, because he wasn't getting one from Ali. So, in a nutshell:

Biggest fight out there + former champ + Mandatory contender =

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[My dinner with Conteh]

Even before he fought Lyle, the word was that the fight was on:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bokaj]

Many would inform you that I'm one of the biggest Ali fans that posts in Classic ... but I call a spade a spade. I'm not interested in whom Ali's title reign compares favourably to, or who he beat, cos that's self-evident ... I'm talking about Ali blatantly using his status to defend against guys that had no business fighting for the title ...

Please convince me that a Wepner, Coopman, Dunn, Evangelista, even a Leon Spinks had any business fighting for the title.

So if he had chosen to take on no one instead of them, that would someohow made his title reign better?

The important thing is that he took one every decent out there, except Foreman. And that's really not that shabby. That he filled it out with a a couple of no-hopers doesn't make it worse. They also bring some risk to the table, as Spinks clearly showed.

If it's a poor reign taking on Lyle, Bugner, Frazier, Young, Norton and Shavers I would like to know which reigns you think are good.


... just recognising that if a Lennox Lewis had fought a Coopman or Evangelista for the UNDISPUTED HW CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE WORLD, many of us in the Classic Forum would use that as a cheap shot to diminish his title reign.

So Botha and Rahman was big time contenders then? And Wladimir K wasn't? Maybe Lewis should get more flak for his poor defences.

Whether Ali deserved a few 'soft defences' is for each fan to decide ... Ali's putting a rematch on the backburner and seeking 'less risky' alternatives is as obvious to me as Evan Fields' real moniker.

Fact remains, that for his 3,5 year reign the only one who can claim to have gotten a somewhat raw deal is Foreman - for 8-9 months. Again, which champions in HW history compares favourably?

[Bokaj]

:huh

Well, Young didn't get it so that's highly unlikely.

But Young wasn't the mandatory going in to that fight. Foreman was, and if he'd won anything but a title shot would be a pretty obvious duck.

As it was, he'd only really been passed over when Ali took on Evangelista instead. That's really not that blatant. Of course, the org that had Foreman as a mandatory should, according to their own rules, have stripped Ali already in late 1976, but that it didn't happen isn't really anything new or unique in boxing.

[leverage]

My felling is that ali new that although he was still the best in the division that he was getting older and his skills were declining. Add to that the fadt that he was rocked several times and that he took terrific punches to the body that he didn't want or need the headache of fighting foreman again. That fight was actually harder on ali than most people realize.

He also probably considered the possibility that the results might be different a second time around.

[prime]

Aaah poor Ali getting called for ducking. boo fucking hoo. . Ali fought one mandatory out of 11. That's the size of it. Foreman as former champ, biggest name out there and mandatory contender deserved his shot. He had to keep on fighting to earn paydays, because he wasn't getting one from Ali. So, in a nutshell:

Biggest fight out there + former champ + Mandatory contender =


I'm not worried that your opinion impoverishes Ali one trillionth of an iota.

What young undefeated champion loses his crown and retires? Foreman.
This comes with a steep price, pal, and glaring out of magazine covers ain't gonna cut it.

What you call "ducking" in '77, I call "smart business". Why? Because if you are risking your health as a professional boxer, once you reach the top, you are entitled to milk it for all its worth. Any ex-champ will tell you this. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest Ali was yellow. I am certain he would have eventually faced George Foreman again, as he did Frazier and old nemesis Norton.

But Foreman (not the priest, not the bishop, not the butcher, not the cook), but George Foreman alone, lost to Young and re-retired. End of story.

[Bokaj]

My felling is that ali new that although he was still the best in the division that he was getting older and his skills were declining. Add to that the fadt that he was rocked several times and that he took terrific punches to the body that he didn't want or need the headache of fighting foreman again. That fight was actually harder on ali than most people realize.

He also probably considered the possibility that the results might be different a second time around.

Yeah, I've got the clear feeling that Ali would rather not fight Foreman a second time. But also think that Foreman's loss to Young meant that Ali never needed to badly embarass himself in his possible efforts to avoid Foreman.

[My2Sense]

In a nutshell, both guys have to share the blame.

Foreman fudged around for a year after losing to Ali, then Ali fudged around for a year while Foreman was in line for a shot. Then Foreman lost to Young and that was that.

[JohnThomas1]

(Ali was MUCH better against Berbick than Greg Page and John Tate had previously been.)


Page fought Berbick two fights after Ali did, not previous.

[META5]

So if he had chosen to take on no one instead of them, that would someohow made his title reign better?

The important thing is that he took one every decent out there, except Foreman. And that's really not that shabby. That he filled it out with a a couple of no-hopers doesn't make it worse. They also bring some risk to the table, as Spinks clearly showed.

No ... you are making justifications and excuses. If he had fought nobody, it would've been Dempseyesque ... but we're not comparing to others as you seem so fond of doing ... we're literally asking ourselves if these fighters had any business fighting for the title ... take your Ali tinted sunglasses off and the answer is an emphatic "NO!".

That Ali lost to Leon isn't an indication of 'some risk' IMO ... more an indication of just how far he had slipped and just how much he thought that he could get away with subpar conditioning, gesturing to the crowd and fighting without intensity, putting his faith in the judges to keep the title for him.

If it's a poor reign taking on Lyle, Bugner, Frazier, Young, Norton and Shavers I would like to know which reigns you think are good.

Argumentative and intentionally dismissive of the initial point. The Lyle performance was crap ... he played and fannied about for far too long ... if Lyle was a more educated boxer, he'd have been the champ on points by miles ... that Ali finished him with that straight right and the triple hook, followed by a barrage of punches in the manner he did, shows that he was fannying about ... I prefer when he comes out and boxes professionally, myself, without playing games in the ring.

Anyway, the point is that no matter how many great defences he had, YOU nor I can defend facing a Wepner, Coopman, Dunn and Evangelista. Using another champion's reign doesn't extinguish the fact that these are relatively subpar fighters in my eyes. Basically what you are doing in principle is akin to someone using Duran's prior exhibitions of toughness and his Barkley performance to totally absolve his lack of top conditioning and subsequent quit job in No Mas.

Ali is the greatest HW to have stepped into the ring, IMO. He doesn't need you, me or anyone else to defend his moments of trashy performances ... and yes, there are some and yes, there are some "rather eyebrow raising" defences ... let's call a spade a spade.


So Botha and Rahman was big time contenders then? And Wladimir K wasn't? Maybe Lewis should get more flak for his poor defences.

Who called Rahman or Botha big time ... were they mandatories and did they get ducked? I'm sure you've seen the figure that MDWC highlighted for the number of times Ali faced a mandatory. If a Joe Frazier is a no. 3 and Norton is a mandatory, I don't think anybody would mind holding off a mandatory for a little while, just to face Frazier. If a Foreman is a mandatory and an Evangelista is barely top 10 ... I have a problem with putting off your mandatory.

Maybe Lewis should get more flak, but that's neither here nor there ... can you please stop skirting around the oh so horrifying act of daring to critique Ali ... he is no deity, just a man. Using another's examples to lessen the Ali situation only demonstrates to me an inability to actually recognise that yes ... Ali did get favourable treatment there. How many HW champions would be able to skip on facing 10 or so mandatory fights without being stripped of the title?


Fact remains, that for his 3,5 year reign the only one who can claim to have gotten a somewhat raw deal is Foreman - for 8-9 months. Again, which champions in HW history compares favourably?

The highlighted is true ... the following is your emotively charged bias shining through. This thread only refers to Foreman not getting a rematch ... any mention of other champions, unless to be used as precedent or to qualify a vague area of boxing convention is unnecessary.

To use Sullivan's creed: "I'll lick any man in the house" as a core value that the HW crown is supposed to be the most glamorous and most respected title in all of boxing indicates that its prestige and value should be maintaned at all times. Just because Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, whomever, may all have used their status to avoid legitimate challengers by facing relative ham and eggers doesn't negate this. Comparing Ali, the greatest HW ever, to any other champion is futile ... he quite simply faced the greater competition. This, however, doesn't mean that I can look at an Evangelista or a Dunn ... a Wepner or a Spinks and be impressed.

[My dinner with Conteh]

But Young wasn't the mandatory going in to that fight. Foreman was, and if he'd won anything but a title shot would be a pretty obvious duck.

As it was, he'd only really been passed over when Ali took on Evangelista instead. That's really not that blatant. Of course, the org that had Foreman as a mandatory should, according to their own rules, have stripped Ali already in late 1976, but that it didn't happen isn't really anything new or unique in boxing.


Ali avoiding his mandatory in 76, 77 and 78 so why he all of a sudden fight him if he beat Young seems as likely as fighting his new mandatory- Norton (which he also had 60 days to sign to fight). He refused to sign for a 4th Norton fight aying "Jose suliman doesn't tell me what to do". Irrespective of whether you think there should have been a 4th fight with Kenny. Maybe there shouldn't, but then again, his win in Yankee Stadium hardly closed the deal. Look, at this stage of his career he simply didn't want to fight them- that's plain for all to see.

[My dinner with Conteh]

What you call "ducking" in '77, I call "smart business". Why? Because if you are risking your health as a professional boxer, once you reach the top, you are entitled to milk it for all its worth.

Well, you've made your bed with that statement, i look forward to throwing this one back at you. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

I'm sure you've seen the figure that MDWC highlighted for the number of times Ali faced a mandatory. If a Joe Frazier is a no. 3 and Norton is a mandatory, I don't think anybody would mind holding off a mandatory for a little while, just to face Frazier. If a Foreman is a mandatory and an Evangelista is barely top 10 ... I have a problem with putting off your mandatotry.


Yep. Ali was fortunate that Foreman was dropped from the top spot and that Frazier then filled in. Fight on, great money earner, mandatory fulfilled. He then went seven fights without one. I don't think even Floyd Patterson could match that.

[Unforgiven]

Ron Lyle was among those who didn't really deserve a shot at Ali either.

People forget that now, but Lyle had been thoroughly outboxed by Jimmy Young three months earlier, and Young was considered just a journeyman.
Nowadays these guys are revered as some type of "super-contenders" !

Anyway, Foreman was beaten in 8 rounds by Ali and didn't fight for 13 months afterwards, so I wouldn't champion his case for a rematch too strongly.

[Bokaj]

No ... you are making justifications and excuses. If he had fought nobody, it would've been Dempseyesque ... but we're not comparing to others as you seem so fond of doing ... we're literally asking ourselves if these fighters had any business fighting for the title ... take your Ali tinted sunglasses off and the answer is an emphatic "NO!".

As I see it you'r completely missing the point, so let me spell it out for you. Let's imagine Ali's reign without the Coopman, Wepner, Spinks etc. It would look like this:

1975: Defends against Lyle, Bugner and Frazier

1976: Defends against Young and Norton

1977: Defends against Shavers

This is not a bad reign. Foreman should have gotten rematch in late '76 or early '77 and Young should probably have had one in late '77 or early '78, but otherwise there's no real lapses. It's still a better reign than most. Better than for example Lewis's.

Adding Wepner, Coopman, Dunn, Evangelista and Spinks doesn't make this reign very much better, but it sure as hell doesn't make it worse.


That Ali lost to Leon isn't an indication of 'some risk' IMO ... more an indication of just how far he had slipped and just how much he thought that he could get away with subpar conditioning, gesturing to the crowd and fighting without intensity, putting his faith in the judges to keep the title for him.

Ok. Like Tyson's loss to Douglas and Lewis's to Rahman, you mean? How was Douglas and Rahman more deserving contenders? You never answered me that.


Argumentative and intentionally dismissive of the initial point. The Lyle performance was crap ... he played and fannied about for far too long ... if Lyle was a more educated boxer, he'd have been the champ on points by miles ... that Ali finished him with that straight right and the triple hook, followed by a barrage of punches in the manner he did, shows that he was fannying about ... I prefer when he comes out and boxes professionally, myself, without playing games in the ring.

Now you're getting off the subject. No one has claimed that Ali put on a great perfomance against Lyle, only that Lyle was a solid contender.

Anyway, the point is that no matter how many great defences he had, YOU nor I can defend facing a Wepner, Coopman, Dunn and Evangelista. Using another champion's reign doesn't extinguish the fact that these are relatively subpar fighters in my eyes.

Look above.

Basically what you are doing in principle is akin to someone using Duran's prior exhibitions of toughness and his Barkley performance to totally absolve his lack of top conditioning and subsequent quit job in No Mas.

Now I don't follow you. And by the way, I think the talk about Duran's lack of conditioning is BS as well. He didn't look the least bit tired, just flustered.

Ali is the greatest HW to have stepped into the ring, IMO. He doesn't need you, me or anyone else to defend his moments of trashy performances ... and yes, there are some and yes, there are some "rather eyebrow raising" defences ... let's call a spade a spade.

Again you confuse things. I haven't said a word about Ali's perfomances, but he didn't really have one good perfomance after Manilla.

As for his second reign, the fact that only Ali's first reign, Tyson's reign and Louis's reign compares favourably (and Louis took on many no-hopers, but he too beat the ones who mattered) makes me feel that it wasn't that bad. Ali fought everyone that mattered, the only mark against him is not giving some of them (most notably Foreman) rematches.


Who called Rahman or Botha big time ... were they mandatories and did they get ducked? I'm sure you've seen the figure that MDWC highlighted for the number of times Ali faced a mandatory. If a Joe Frazier is a no. 3 and Norton is a mandatory, I don't think anybody would mind holding off a mandatory for a little while, just to face Frazier. If a Foreman is a mandatory and an Evangelista is barely top 10 ... I have a problem with putting off your mandatotry.

It was you who said that Lewis would get ripped for making as poor defences as Coopman and Spinks, and I just pointed out two of his defences that was just as poor.

I don't know if Wladimir K. was mandatory, but he was ranked nr. 1 by The Ring, and Lewis sure as hell didn't seem that eager to take him in.


Maybe Lewis should get more flak, but that's neither here nor there ... can you please stop skirting around the oh so horrifying act of daring to critique Ali ... he is no deity, just a man.

Were you drunk when writing this? Again, it was you who brought up Lewis.

Using another's examples to lessen the Ali situation only demonstrates to me an inability to actually recognise that yes ... Ali did get favourable treatment there. How many HW champions would be able to skip on facing 10 or so mandatory fights without being stripped of the title?

What 10 mandatories did he skip? Please list me the 10 fighters out there that didn't get their deserved shot at the title.

And using comparisons is a very valid method I think. It's almost always how we make sense of things.

[Bokaj]

Ali avoiding his mandatory in 76, 77 and 78 so why he all of a sudden fight him if he beat Young seems as likely as fighting his new mandatory- Norton (which he also had 60 days to sign to fight). He refused to sign for a 4th Norton fight aying "Jose suliman doesn't tell me what to do". Irrespective of whether you think there should have been a 4th fight with Kenny. Maybe there shouldn't, but then again, his win in Yankee Stadium hardly closed the deal. Look, at this stage of his career he simply didn't want to fight them- that's plain for all to see.

No, he didn't seem to keen to take them on, thats for sure. But I'm still not going to give him flak for probably having continued to duck Foreman if Foreman hadn't lost. I just judge his actual actions, not the probable ones.

I suppose the most reasonable thing might have been to have agreed to take on the winner between Foreman and Young after defending against Evangelista.

That no such agreement was reached and that Ali didn't take on the winnner (Young) counts against him. But I don't see it as massive black mark. It's more along the lines of Holmes not giving Witherspoon a rematch, I supposse.

[Bokaj]

To use Sullivan's creed: "I'll lick any man in the house" as a core value that the HW crown is supposed to be the most glamorous and most respected title in all of boxing indicates that its prestige and value should be maintaned at all times.

I hope you see the delicious irony in quoting Sullivan here.

[META5]

As I see it you'r completely missing the point, so let me spell it out for you. Let's imagine Ali's reign without the Coopman, Wepner, Spinks etc. It would look like this:

1975: Defends against Lyle, Bugner and Frazier

1976: Defends against Young and Norton

1977: Defends against Shavers

This is not a bad reign. Foreman should have gotten rematch in late '76 or early '77 and Young should probably have had one in late '77 or early '78, but otherwise there's no real lapses. It's still a better reign than most. Better than for example Lewis's.

It would be you that is completely missing the point. It is not a bad reign, never said it was ... some of the fighters that got a shot at the title, however, were bad ... very, very bad. This is simple, why you just don't say it is beyond me. Ali, like other champions, used his status as champion to fight relative joke fighters and got away with it ... I don't much agree with it.

Adding Wepner, Coopman, Dunn, Evangelista and Spinks doesn't make this reign very much better, but it sure as hell doesn't make it worse.

Fighting an Evangelista for the title, when a Foreman could've rematched, let alone a Spinks who had done NOTHING to push him into contention is nothing more than a publicity stunt ... indeed, it makes a mockery of the title. It doesn't make the reign worse ONLY because of who Ali had beat during his reign, and MORE IMPORTANTLY because of who he beat when chasing Frazier. It is his record versus the contenders when chasing Frazier, eventually resulting in beating Foreman for the title that is more impressive, more worthy of being lauded than his title reign if you ask me.


Ok. Like Tyson's loss to Douglas and Lewis's to Rahman, you mean? How was Douglas and Rahman more deserving contenders? You never answered me that.

Tyson's loss to Douglas is one of the first reasons people often diminish his chances in hypothetical H2H match ups with other ATGs. It was and will always be one of the biggest upsets of all times, made even worse by Douglas' career in the aftermath. Douglas, by the way, had done a lot more than Spinks, was more capable on the night than Spinks was and on comparative film, showed himself to be a better boxer ... compare the Spinks that beat Ali and the Douglas that beat Tyson and ask yourself, whom would be more formiddable against other ATGs.

Lewis' loss to Rahman is a BIG stain on his record. He did, however, settle the argument in the rematch emphatically ... something that Tyson has never done to somebody that beat him. Douglas was more deserving than Spinks or Evangelista and Rahman was certainly no worse a fighter ... this however, doesn't detract from the fact that a fighter like Spinks or Evangelista didn't have business fighting for the title, whilst Foreman was around, making soundwaves.


Now you're getting off the subject. No one has claimed that Ali put on a great perfomance against Lyle, only that Lyle was a solid contender.

Sorry to get off subject ... Lyle was a good contender that got his shot by being dominated by Jimmy Young. Good fighter, whether he deserved his shot ... questionable. I think it's apparent that Ali started looking at fighters that he thought he wouldn't struggle with or that he could play around with in the ring. That is the only way that I can interpret his performance in the Lyle fight. So you see, I'm using his performance in conjunction with subsequent defences to try to understand why some of the fighters were given a shot at the title.

Now I don't follow you. And by the way, I think the talk about Duran's lack of conditioning is BS as well. He didn't look the least bit tired, just flustered.

That's one thing that we can agree on ... using conditioning as an excuse is BS when it's your job as a fighter to come into a bout in the best shape possible. The principle I'm using is that some people gloss over the Duran incident as if it never happened, using his Brawl In Montreal and Hagler and Barkley outings as illustrations of what the man is about as if it deletes No Mas. I agree that all his hard work shouldn't be undone by one incident, as it should be the whole sum of his work, but as a single incident, I refuse to forget it ... likewise, the sum of Ali's work means the Foreman issue is relatively miniscule, however, I don't like it when people avoid calling a spade what it is. Foreman was avoided and Ali fought people he had no business fighting for the title, whilst a Foreman or Kenny Norton, for example, could've been fought.

As for his second reign, the fact that only Ali's first reign, Tyson's reign and Louis's reign compares favourably (and Louis took on many no-hopers, but he too beat the ones who mattered) makes me feel that it wasn't that bad. Ali fought everyone that mattered, the only mark against him is not giving some of them (most notably Foreman) rematches.

Yes ... Ali virtually fought everyone that there was to fight ... this is something that I have already stated.

It was you who said that Lewis would get ripped for making as poor defences as Coopman and Spinks, and I just pointed out two of his defences that was just as poor.

I don't know if Wladimir K. was mandatory, but he was ranked nr. 1 by The Ring, and Lewis sure as hell didn't seem that eager to take him in.

Then isn't that something that we should criticise Lewis for. HW champions, by virtue of being the champion, should take on THE BEST threat to their crown ... I'm not denying one or two tune up fights after facing a beast such as Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield etc. isn't such a bad thing, but the blatant avoidance of fighters who work themselves into contention isn't something that I like to see from anyone, whether it's SRR, Ali, Leonard, Hagler, RJJ, Pea or PBF ... if I'm a fan, I still want my fighter to face the very best.

What 10 mandatories did he skip? Please list me the 10 fighters out there that didn't get their deserved shot at the title.

And using comparisons is a very valid method I think. It's almost always how we make sense of things.

10 mandatory fights as opposed to fighters. I apologise for not making that distinction. Ali never fought a mandatory for almost 3 years ... that is a problem. Let's not skirt around it with, "Well he fought x and y anyway" ... let's just say that he should've fought at least one or two mandatory fights in that period, rather than allowing a Spinks or Evangelista to fight for the title.

Look Bokaj, yourself and I sit on the same side of the fence, just that I'm not defending poor defences. I'm not shitting on his record or career, either. I've already said that I think him to be the greatest HW ever and my posting history would tell you that I oft jump to his defence where I think he gets a raw deal ... the one thing I don't do though, is defend him where I think that he was in the wrong.

Yes, I know the irony of using the Sullivan creed cos the guy was a coward who utilised the colour bar. However, just cos a man falls short of integrity doesn't mean that the principles that he espouses aren't good principles. I still believe that the HW champion should seek to prove himself versus the very best at all times ... don't you? Imagine if Ali had defeated Foreman a second time and Foreman still goes on to win the HW title in his old age, don't you think that actually improves Ali's legacy?

[Bokaj]

It would be you that is completely missing the point. It is not a bad reign, never said it was ... some of the fighters that got a shot at the title, however, were bad ... very, very bad. This is simple, why you just don't say it is beyond me. Ali, like other champions, used his status as champion to fight relative joke fighters and got away with it ... I don't much agree with it.?

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't think much of Coopman, Evagnelista et al. (even though both Spinks and Evangelista was ranken in the top 10). I've just stated that he took on those that mattered. The only thing that can be hold against him is not giving Foreman/Young a rematch, and while it would have been better if he did it's not that dramatic IMO.



Fighting an Evangelista for the title, when a Foreman could've rematched, let alone a Spinks who had done NOTHING to push him into contention is nothing more than a publicity stunt ... indeed, it makes a mockery of the title.

We just disagree here I suppose. Taking on a soft (but still top 10) opponent right after giving one his absolutely toughest opponents a rubber match is hardly "making a mockery of the title" IMO.

But he should either have scheduled a meeting with Foreman after Evangelista or a meeting with the winner between Foreman/Young. He didn't, and that does count against him some. But, again, very few title reigns are perfect, and this was after all guys he'd already beaten.



It doesn't make the reign worse ONLY because of who Ali had beat during his reign, and MORE IMPORTANTLY because of who he beat when chasing Frazier. It is his record versus the contenders when chasing Frazier, eventually resulting in beating Foreman for the title that is more impressive, more worthy of being lauded than his title reign if you ask me.

Those were pretty similar his run after FOTC had some good wins in it (Ellis, Quarry) and some fill outs (Lubbers, Mathis, Lewis). Of course, it wasn't a title reign, so it might compare favourable in that llight. Still, doesn't really change anything of what I said above.


Tyson's loss to Douglas is one of the first reasons people often diminish his chances in hypothetical H2H match ups with other ATGs. It was and will always be one of the biggest upsets of all times, made even worse by Douglas' career in the aftermath. Douglas, by the way, had done a lot more than Spinks, was more capable on the night than Spinks was and on comparative film, showed himself to be a better boxer ... compare the Spinks that beat Ali and the Douglas that beat Tyson and ask yourself, whom would be more formiddable against other ATGs.

What had Douglas done that was spectacular? Losing to Tucker, whom Tyson already beaten? I'd put Spinks and Douglas down as weak challengers both.

That Douglas looked better on the night has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about what they had achived prior to getting their shot, not how well they did when they got it.

But Douglas and Spinks, like Rahman, shows that even the easy defences pose their inheritant risk. Therefore it's better making them than none.


Lewis' loss to Rahman is a BIG stain on his record. He did, however, settle the argument in the rematch emphatically ... something that Tyson has never done to somebody that beat him. Douglas was more deserving than Spinks or Evangelista and Rahman was certainly no worse a fighter ... this however, doesn't detract from the fact that a fighter like Spinks or Evangelista didn't have business fighting for the title, whilst Foreman was around, making soundwaves.

I'd put Rahman and Douglas in the same bracket as Spinks and Evangelista. Theey were all fringe contenders.


Sorry to get off subject ... Lyle was a good contender that got his shot by being dominated by Jimmy Young. Good fighter, whether he deserved his shot ... questionable. I think it's apparent that Ali started looking at fighters that he thought he wouldn't struggle with or that he could play around with in the ring. That is the only way that I can interpret his performance in the Lyle fight. So you see, I'm using his performance in conjunction with subsequent defences to try to understand why some of the fighters were given a shot at the title.

EVERYONE makes some kind of judgement about risk/reward when taking on opponents. What's important here is that Lyle was a deserving challenger. Nothing special, but a solid contender.

Your whole reasoning above is a lot of hairsplitting. In the year after regaining his title Ali takes on Lyle, Bugner and Frazier. That is FAR, FAR from bad. And that his first defence was against Wepner doesn't change this fact.

That's one thing that we can agree on ... using conditioning as an excuse is BS when it's your job as a fighter to come into a bout in the best shape possible. The principle I'm using is that some people gloss over the Duran incident as if it never happened, using his Brawl In Montreal and Hagler and Barkley outings as illustrations of what the man is about as if it deletes No Mas. I agree that all his hard work shouldn't be undone by one incident, as it should be the whole sum of his work, but as a single incident, I refuse to forget it ... likewise, the sum of Ali's work means the Foreman issue is relatively miniscule, however, I don't like it when people avoid calling a spade what it is. Foreman was avoided and Ali fought people he had no business fighting for the title, whilst a Foreman or Kenny Norton, for example, could've been fought.

True, but things has to be put into a context. And if you look at boxing history, up to this day, these are quite minor allegations. I would say that Ali's two reigns and Louis's reign was the only one where a no deserving challenger got denied (Ali had after all already beaten Young, Foreman and Norton - this is rematches were are talking about). Even Tyson's reign would look a little bit better if for example Witherspoon (who was top 5 during the whole of Tyson's reign as well as during the years leading up to it) and Dokes were given title shots instead of Biggs and Douglas.

And look at who the other champions didn't take on:

Sullivan - anyone black (most notably Peter Jackson)

Jeffries - anyone black (most notably Johnson)

Johnson - anyone black (most notably Langford)

Dempsey - anyone black (most notably Wills) + Greb

Marciano - Valdes

Patterson - Just about anyone deserving

Holmes - Thomas, Dokes and Page as well as deserved rematches to Norton and Witherspoon

Tyson - Witherspoon deserved a shot

Bowe - Lewis

Lewis - Should probably have taken on Wladimir. Sure as hell more deserving than Rahman and Botha at least.


So, if Ali's second reign was that bad, which ones were good?

Oh, and if you think (which you seem to do) that it's a black mark taking on weak fighters while taking on the best as well, then Louis's reign should of course be mentioned as a very bad example.

[META5]

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't think much of Coopman, Evagnelista et al. (even though both Spinks and Evangelista was ranken in the top 10). I've just stated that he took on those that mattered. The only thing that can be hold against him is not giving Foreman/Young a rematch, and while it would have been better if he did it's not that dramatic IMO.

Honestly speaking, Ali probably didn't deserve the decision in Young. The fact that Ali seemingly got gifts and didn't seek to clarify the situation, as Louis did in his reign, when putting in subpar efforts is a stain.

We just disagree here I suppose. Taking on a soft (but still top 10) opponent right after giving one his absolutely toughest opponents a rubber match is hardly "making a mockery of the title" IMO.

But he should either have scheduled a meeting with Foreman after Evangelista or a meeting with the winner between Foreman/Young. He didn't, and that does count against him some. But, again, very few title reigns are perfect, and this was after all guys he'd already beaten.

Coming into fights in the shape that he did and getting gift decisions was a mockery, IMO. Being gifted the title in the 3rd Norton was a mockery and facing and losing to Spinks was a mockery ... there are other forces at work in some of these circumstances, but Ali sure played his part. I'm glad that you said that he should've scheduled for Foreman or the winner of Foreman v Young after Evangelista ... I'd have preferred for him to beat Foreman again, rather than face Evangelista at all. You've said it yourself, he beat the very best ... who would've accused him of ducking Evangelista?


Those were pretty similar his run after FOTC had some good wins in it (Ellis, Quarry) and some fill outs (Lubbers, Mathis, Lewis). Of course, it wasn't a title reign, so it might compare favourable in that llight. Still, doesn't really change anything of what I said above.

The difference is that he was now reduced to just another contender and in this case, swept the contenders that Frazier could even hope to argue deserved a shot ahead of him ... he even beat Foreman ... to me, fucking impressive. I think it compares much more favourably than being a champion and seeing somebody clamouring for a fight, only to fight 'ranked' stiffs ... you and I both know that not every top 10 fringe contender is a solid challenger, whereas in some eras, some of the fringe contenders have been the more competent fighters and not just for their era.


What had Douglas done that was spectacular? Losing to Tucker, whom Tyson already beaten? I'd put Spinks and Douglas down as weak challengers both.

Yes, that they both were ... but honestly, in light of their professional careers up to the point that they challenged, stylistic factors and physical factors such as reach, height, weight involved, who was more of a 'risk' to the champion in your opinion?

That Douglas looked better on the night has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about what they had achived prior to getting their shot, not how well they did when they got it.

But Douglas and Spinks, like Rahman, shows that even the easy defences pose their inheritant risk. Therefore it's better making them than none.

Yes, the easy defences do have their risk ... stepping into the ring inherently poses a risk, but the ATGs are the ones that are supposed to deal with the easy defences. I, too, would rather have a busy champion than a lazy one and I'm happy that Ali travelled ... he actually was a world champion and didn't restrict himself to fighting a whole career in one city like the titlists of today.


I'd put Rahman and Douglas in the same bracket as Spinks and Evangelista. They were all fringe contenders.

Yes, all fringe contenders ... I ask you, whom were the more formiddable fighters?


EVERYONE makes some kind of judgement about risk/reward when taking on opponents. What's important here is that Lyle was a deserving challenger. Nothing special, but a solid contender.

Lyle was a solid contender ... I don't know if I'd consider him a deserving challenger, in light of what Jimmy Young did with him.

Your whole reasoning above is a lot of hairsplitting. In the year after regaining his title Ali takes on Lyle, Bugner and Frazier. That is FAR, FAR from bad. And that his first defence was against Wepner doesn't change this fact.

I admitted that I was hairsplitting when I said in light of the sum of Ali's career, the Foreman issue is miniscule ... I meant that.

True, but things has to be put into a context. And if you look at boxing history, up to this day, these are quite minor allegations. I would say that Ali's two reigns and Louis's reign was the only one where a no deserving challenger got denied (Ali had after all already beaten Young, Foreman and Norton - this is rematches were are talking about). Even Tyson's reign would look a little bit better if for example Witherspoon (who was top 5 during the whole of Tyson's reign as well as during the years leading up to it) and Dokes were given title shots instead of Biggs and Douglas.

And look at who the other champions didn't take on:

Sullivan - anyone black (most notably Peter Jackson)

Jeffries - anyone black (most notably Johnson)

Johnson - anyone black (most notably Langford)

Dempsey - anyone black (most notably Wills) + Greb

Marciano - Valdes

Patterson - Just about anyone deserving

Holmes - Thomas, Dokes and Page as well as deserved rematches to Norton and Witherspoon

Tyson - Witherspoon deserved a shot

Bowe - Lewis

Lewis - Should probably have taken on Wladimir. Sure as hell more deserving than Rahman and Botha at least.


So, if Ali's second reign was that bad, which ones were good?

Oh, and if you think (which you seem to do) that it's a black mark taking on weak fighters while taking on the best as well, then Louis's reign should of course be mentioned as a very bad example.

I didn't say that Ali's reign was "so bad" ... this is another time that I'm reiterating it ... I said that he had some defences against guys that were relatively mediocre. I didn't imply that his integrity as a fighter was diminished, but I am categorically stating that the gloss is taken off when an Evangelista receives a title shot, whereas a Foreman who had worked his way into being the mandatory, doesn't get the rematch. Consider Ali talking about an ex-champion's right to a rematch when losing to Spinks and then consider his prior behaviour with Foreman, especially with regards to whom he fought in Foreman's or Young's place?

I don't actually think it's a black mark to have one or two tune up fights after facing a beast such as a Foreman or Holyfield, as I've already stated ... I do however, think it's a black mark to use tune up fighters to add to your title defences in the avoidance of more deserving fighters, whether or not you've already beaten them ... otherwise, there'd be no case to accuse Jack Johnson of ducking Langford ... afterall, he'd already beaten him and Langford's efforts to gain another match up didn't mean anything right?

[Bokaj]

Honestly speaking, Ali probably didn't deserve the decision in Young. The fact that Ali seemingly got gifts and didn't seek to clarify the situation, as Louis did in his reign, when putting in subpar efforts is a stain.

This I agree with. But I've already stated that he should have taken on the winner of Foreman/Young. (I don't think Young did enough to win over Ali, by the way. A draw and an immediate remacth would probably havee been the best outcome)

Coming into fights in the shape that he did and getting gift decisions was a mockery, IMO. Being gifted the title in the 3rd Norton was a mockery and facing and losing to Spinks was a mockery ... there are other forces at work in some of these circumstances, but Ali sure played his part.

So you're suggesting that it was Ali's fault that he got the decision against Norton? You think he paid off the judges? I don't.

Thing is, most dominant champions get gifts from the judges. Louis got it against Walcott, and Tyson was actually AHEAD on one of the judges' cards against Douglas...

What I'm really tired of is this BS that "only Ali could get away with that". When you scrutinize most great champions, you'll see that they got away with just as much or even more.

I'm glad that you said that he should've scheduled for Foreman or the winner of Foreman v Young after Evangelista ... I'd have preferred for him to beat Foreman again, rather than face Evangelista at all. You've said it yourself, he beat the very best ... who would've accused him of ducking Evangelista?

Of course, it would look better if he'd taken on Foreman directly. But I for one won't slag him for taking on a softer challenger after Norton III. Doing so is quite nit-picking I think.

Ali should have made clear that he would face the winner of Foreman-Young, though. That he didn't counts against him, but not terribly much IMO.


The difference is that he was now reduced to just another contender and in this case, swept the contenders that Frazier could even hope to argue deserved a shot ahead of him ... he even beat Foreman ... to me, fucking impressive. I think it compares much more favourably than being a champion and seeing somebody clamouring for a fight, only to fight 'ranked' stiffs ... you and I both know that not every top 10 fringe contender is a solid challenger, whereas in some eras, some of the fringe contenders have been the more competent fighters and not just for their era.

I think Alis run after FOTC was really good, so I won't argue with you there. It was certainly better than Frazier's so called reign. I think that Ali got more shafted by Frazier during this period than Foreman did by Ali during 1976.


Yes, that they both were ... but honestly, in light of their professional careers up to the point that they challenged, stylistic factors and physical factors such as reach, height, weight involved, who was more of a 'risk' to the champion in your opinion?

I can say for sure that Douglas was considered the lesser risk. He was the biggest underdog in the history of the sport.

Trying to discern just which of them was the biggest no-hoper is hard to say, it's enough to state that they are in the same bracket.


Yes, the easy defences do have their risk ... stepping into the ring inherently poses a risk, but the ATGs are the ones that are supposed to deal with the easy defences. I, too, would rather have a busy champion than a lazy one and I'm happy that Ali travelled ... he actually was a world champion and didn't restrict himself to fighting a whole career in one city like the titlists of today.

Well, then what's your gripe. 'Cause Ali gave the chances to almost all who deserved it and kept busy in the interrim with lesser fighters. I truly don't see the problem. That he looked shit doing so after Manilla (and a couple times before as well) shouldn't be confused with this. Yes, at least one of Foreman, Young and Norton deserved another shot at him, but that's about it.

I think all this is a lot ado about nothing. The irony is that it's so popular to say "if it was any other than Ali then there would be a ruccus about it" when it's quite the opposite. I don't think this would really be an issue if it was anyone else but Ali.

Where for example are the threads about Duran ducking Buchanan? Now, Duran, that's a sacred cow around here. Ali isn't.

[META5]

This I agree with. But I've already stated that he should have taken on the winner of Foreman/Young. (I don't think Young did enough to win over Ali, by the way. A draw and an immediate remacth would probably havee been the best outcome)



So you're suggesting that it was Ali's fault that he got the decision against Norton? You think he paid off the judges? I don't.

I don't think he paid off the judges, but I do think that he was comfortable with the judges' decision. Louis for example, would let his fists do the talking by KOing the troublesome fighter in a rematch. People often say that Young did nothing to deserve the win, but on a round by round basis, defence, effective aggression, ring generalship and offence, can we really say the Young fight was a draw type fight? Young had Ali missing a hell of a lot and punched Ali to the body without the reply many a time ... did Ali REALLY earn a draw in that match up?

Thing is, most dominant champions get gifts from the judges. Louis got it against Walcott, and Tyson was actually AHEAD on one of the judges' cards against Douglas...

Yes, most do ... and that is downright disgusting. It should be that the better man in the fight won the fight, but alas, history has shown this to not be true and that is not Ali's fault ... neither should its historical occurence absolve blame where Ali or anyone else is concerned.

What I'm really tired of is this BS that "only Ali could get away with that". When you scrutinize most great champions, you'll see that they got away with just as much or even more.

Most "only Ali could get away with it" jibes are out of frustration of Ali being shoved down people's throats and people having their genuine criticisms of Ali glossed over or shouted over by the wave of Ali defenders. A vast number of Ali fans beautify the uglier parts of the man's character and career and this is what pisses off people and makes them overly-reactive ... I call a spade a spade. Where I think Ali was wrong, I say it and where I think he was right, I say it. Hence my, "Ali, like many other champions" used his status to avoid taking on more formiddable challengers.

Of course, it would look better if he'd taken on Foreman directly. But I for one won't slag him for taking on a softer challenger after Norton III. Doing so is quite nit-picking I think.

Ali should have made clear that he would face the winner of Foreman-Young, though. That he didn't counts against him, but not terribly much IMO.[/.quote]

Again, "in light of the sum of his career, the Foreman issue is miniscule" ... but I'm happy to see that we've resolved to agree that him not stating his intention to face either a Foreman or a Young should count against him and then, in light of the sum of his career, it shouldn't count "terribly much". You see, we can admit a flaw or failing without seeking to diminish him as a fighter.

[quote=Bokaj]I think Alis run after FOTC was really good, so I won't argue with you there. It was certainly better than Frazier's so called reign. I think that Ali got more shafted by Frazier during this period than Foreman did by Ali during 1976.

I agree on the whole Frazier making Ali jump through hoops, but after the despicable behaviour from Ali running up to FOTC, perhaps, some sweet justice for Frazier? Perhaps, it was good for Ali to shut up for once, allow his fists to do the talking and emphatically state his case for a rematch. Indeed, it hurts his career not one little bit that Frazier didn't give an immediate rematch, given Ali's subsequent behaviour.

Additionally, Frazier's shafting being worse than Ali's shafting of Foreman doesn't detract from the fact that Foreman was shafted there. In light of other champions' behaviour, it was minor, yes, but ducking is still ducking and openly boasting about being a businessman as opposed to a HW champion is whatever you make it out to be.

I can say for sure that Douglas was considered the lesser risk. He was the biggest underdog in the history of the sport.

Trying to discern just which of them was the biggest no-hoper is hard to say, it's enough to state that they are in the same bracket.

I'm happy to put them in the same bracket, though, if I had to face one of them at the time they gt their shot, I know it wouldn't be Buster in the opposite corner.

Well, then what's your gripe. 'Cause Ali gave the chances to almost all who deserved it and kept busy in the interrim with lesser fighters. I truly don't see the problem. That he looked shit doing so after Manilla (and a couple times before as well) shouldn't be confused with this. Yes, at least one of Foreman, Young and Norton deserved another shot at him, but that's about it.

I look at Ali coming in undertrained and sloppy as a slight against his professionalism at times. I look at him ignoring the calls to face more worthy challengers as a slight ... in the sum of his career, this doesn't take anything away from him, cos as I've said, he was the greatest and beat the best competition. This doesn't mean that I will say that it was okay for him to not rematch Foreman, Young or Norton at earlier opportunities/when they became mandatory defences. In my mind, the HW champion should leave no doubt as to whom is the best ... e.g. rematching Young and beating him decisively; facing Foreman who had worked his way into the mandatory position or seeking another rematch with Norton to rectify what wasn't made clear during their series.

I think all this is a lot ado about nothing. The irony is that it's so popular to say "if it was any other than Ali then there would be a ruccus about it" when it's quite the opposite. I don't think this would really be an issue if it was anyone else but Ali.

Where for example are the threads about Duran ducking Buchanan? Now, Duran, that's a sacred cow around here. Ali isn't.

Yes, there is a bit of a double standard where Ali is concerned, but that's self-inflicted.
i) Some of his fans put him on a pedestal so high and so condescending of other ATGs that the smallest things are used to denigrate him as a reaction to what is at times, almost deification; and
ii) The man was the self-proclaimed greatest. He holds himself up to higher levels of scrutiny, higher standards of principle, higher expectancies of performance and consistency, by his very own words.

Actually, before I noticed that you had started posting on this site, there were times when Duran was oft criticised for ducking Buchanan and very much criticised for the manner in which he won the title. I, myself, having been one of those arguing that Duran owed Buchanan a rematch, simply by nature of winning on a foul, know for a fact that others haven't just glossed over it. Neither has SRR not meeting Burley been glossed over, neither has his or Leonard's insistence that they only fight if their contractual demands are met, gone without appraisal.

The fact is that every fighter that plays the boxing politics game gets criticised at one time or another, just that with Ali having such a number of diehard fans, which in turn creates diehard haters, his name being brought up in such discussions is much more likely ... that's one of the burdens of being "The Greatest"

[Bokaj]

I don't think he paid off the judges, but I do think that he was comfortable with the judges' decision. Louis for example, would let his fists do the talking by KOing the troublesome fighter in a rematch. People often say that Young did nothing to deserve the win, but on a round by round basis, defence, effective aggression, ring generalship and offence, can we really say the Young fight was a draw type fight? Young had Ali missing a hell of a lot and punched Ali to the body without the reply many a time ... did Ali REALLY earn a draw in that match up?

I think so. And if you listen to Cosell's commentary, you'll hear that he and most of the ringside reporters have no clear winner at the end. I agree with them.

Yes, Young negated Ali for almost the entire fight. But he didn't land much himself and lost points by sticking his frigging head out thorugh the ropes when attacked.

People make a point of how Young showed that Ali couldn't fight on the front foot. But no one mentions that a severly depleted and very unprepared Ali still had enough offense to make a skilled defensive fighter like Young look like a rank amateur on several occassions. I mean getting away from the opponent by sticking you upper body through the ropes...



Most "only Ali could get away with it" jibes are out of frustration of Ali being shoved down people's throats and people having their genuine criticisms of Ali glossed over or shouted over by the wave of Ali defenders. A vast number of Ali fans beautify the uglier parts of the man's character and career and this is what pisses off people and makes them overly-reactive ... I call a spade a spade. Where I think Ali was wrong, I say it and where I think he was right, I say it. Hence my, "Ali, like many other champions" used his status to avoid taking on more formiddable challengers.

While this is not completely untrue, I still believed he did it less than most. And I actually feel that Young was the one who was shafted out of a rematch, not Foreman.



Again, "in light of the sum of his career, the Foreman issue is miniscule" ... but I'm happy to see that we've resolved to agree that him not stating his intention to face either a Foreman or a Young should count against him and then, in light of the sum of his career, it shouldn't count "terribly much". You see, we can admit a flaw or failing without seeking to diminish him as a fighter.

Yeah, sure. What I turned against originally was how starkly you put it. I don't remember the exact words, but I think it was to the effect that his second reign wasn't worth much at all. And that I don't agree with, but it would have been even more convincing if he took on for example the winner of Young-Foreman.

I just don't like when things are blown out of proportion. That doesn't mean I think Ali was flawless.


I agree on the whole Frazier making Ali jump through hoops, but after the despicable behaviour from Ali running up to FOTC, perhaps, some sweet justice for Frazier? Perhaps, it was good for Ali to shut up for once, allow his fists to do the talking and emphatically state his case for a rematch. Indeed, it hurts his career not one little bit that Frazier didn't give an immediate rematch, given Ali's subsequent behaviour.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. "He was mean to me before the last fight, so he won't get another shot."

But I don't want to make a big deal out of Frazier avoiding giving Ali a rematch, I was just putting things in perspective.

Additionally, Frazier's shafting being worse than Ali's shafting of Foreman doesn't detract from the fact that Foreman was shafted there. In light of other champions' behaviour, it was minor, yes, but ducking is still ducking and openly boasting about being a businessman as opposed to a HW champion is whatever you make it out to be.

True (see above). But, as I said, I feel Young got more of a raw deal than Foreman. That Foreman (previously convincingly beaten by Ali) didn't get a title shot within a year of his comeback is hardly a classic hard luck story.

As stated, if Ali had agreed to meet the winner of Young-Foreman I would have beeen completely satisfied with his behaviour. And Foreman wouldn't have gotten a title shot in that scenario either, so...

Sure, Ali could have taken on Foreman directly after Norton, but I don't hold it against him that he didn't. Promising a shot to the winner of Foreman Young would have been satisfactory enough IMO (sorry for the broken record routine).


Yes, there is a bit of a double standard where Ali is concerned, but that's self-inflicted.
i) Some of his fans put him on a pedestal so high and so condescending of other ATGs that the smallest things are used to denigrate him as a reaction to what is at times, almost deification; and
ii) The man was the self-proclaimed greatest. He holds himself up to higher levels of scrutiny, higher standards of principle, higher expectancies of performance and consistency, by his very own words.

I think this about Ali's die hard fans is a bit overplayed on this forum. Sure, there are some, but they aren't that much worse than anyone else.

When one hears how Jeffries, Dempsey and even Marciano are made into demi-gods by some of their fans, I don't feel that Ali is that badly elevated in comparison.

And start a negative thread about Louis and see the how many that will indignatally come to his defence.

Actually, before I noticed that you had started posting on this site, there were times when Duran was oft criticised for ducking Buchanan and very much criticised for the manner in which he won the title. I, myself, having been one of those arguing that Duran owed Buchanan a rematch, simply by nature of winning on a foul, know for a fact that others haven't just glossed over it. Neither has SRR not meeting Burley been glossed over, neither has his or Leonard's insistence that they only fight if their contractual demands are met, gone without appraisal.

The fact is that every fighter that plays the boxing politics game gets criticised at one time or another, just that with Ali having such a number of diehard fans, which in turn creates diehard haters, his name being brought up in such discussions is much more likely ... that's one of the burdens of being "The Greatest"

I haven't seen any criticism of Duran pertaining to Buchanan, but of course I don't know what happened before. But I think that Duran, great as he was, often is defended to ludicorus lengths. There is a host of excuses for every loss he had.

And that Robinson effortlessly tops most p4p lists even though he didn't take on the very best out there is a kind of preferential treatment I don't see any other fighter getting.

Bu the one who gets the unjustified criticism on this board isn't Ali, but Leonard. That he's actually accused of "luring" Duran to an early rematch and of tricking Hagler by deciding the conditions for their fight is just ludicrous to me.

I also feel that Foreman is overrated and overly defended by many. He had one of the most carefully and cautiously planned careers in the history of boxing. He got three title shots even though he met less than 10 ranked opponents all in all. He had trouble with every decent boxer he met and was beaten by most of them, yet some actually are offended when told that he's not top 10 material.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Taking on a soft (but still top 10) opponent right after giving one his absolutely toughest opponents a rubber match is hardly "making a mockery of the title" IMO.


Evangelista wasn't top 10. He then lost to Zanon and was mysteriously given a top 10 slot so Ali had a hand-picked opponent, and all-of-a-sudden, legitimate. Zanon, by the way was ranked lower than him after beating him and ranked outside the top 10. A joke title defence, as was Spinks (in terms of deserving contenders). At that stage Ali was doing anything in his power to avoid Norton.


I'd put Rahman and Douglas in the same bracket as Spinks and Evangelista. Theey were all fringe contenders.

Douglas was on a decent winning run and Rahman on a winning run at least, Evangelista had just been well-beaten. Not comparable really.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think so. And if you listen to Cosell's commentary, you'll hear that he and most of the ringside reporters have no clear winner at the end. I agree with them.


A fair few had Young ahead. The Associated Press had him 69-66. One or two had it by a 10-5 margin.


I haven't seen any criticism of Duran pertaining to Buchanan, but of course I don't know what happened before. is a kind of preferential treatment I don't see any other fighter getting.


I did actually. There was definitely much fudging from Duran's camp there. However, they at least did offer a date and venue (Panama for a derisory figure) and were rightly turned down. As a former champ Ken deserved a chance to regain the crown- just like George Foreman.

[Bokaj]

Evangelista wasn't top 10. He then lost to Zanon and was mysteriously given a top 10 slot. Zanon, by the way was ranked lower than him after beating him and ranked outside the top 10. A joke title defence, as was Spinks. At that stage Ali was doing anything in his power to avoid Norton..

Evangelista was ranked nr. 7 by The Ring for 1977. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Rahman's best yearly ranking was 9 before fighting Lewis.

Douglas was on a decent winning run and Rahman on a winning run at least, Evangelista had just been well-beaten. Not comparable really.

Ok. Compare Evangelista to Botha then if you will, and Rahman to Spinks. The point being that fill outs as title defences are hardly uncommon.

[Bokaj]

A fair few had Young ahead. The Associated Press had him 69-66. One or two had it by a 10-5 margin.

Well, I was just quoting Cosell's reporting during the fight. How did you score it by the way?


I did actually. There was definitely much fudging from Duran's camp there. However, they at least did offer a date and venue (Panama for a derisory figure) and were rightly turned down. As a former champ Ken deserved a chance to regain the crown- just like George Foreman.

Maybe that was before I started posting here, because I haven't seen it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Oh, Ring magazine sanctioned that fight, I didn't realise? :think

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well, I was just quoting Cosell's reporting during the fight. How did you score it by the way?


Young by 2...and this was about 15 years ago when I was definitely head-deep in an 'Ali phase'.

[Bokaj]

Oh, Ring magazine sanctioned that fight, I didn't realise? :think

The Ring's ratings aren't gospel, but they are usually used as a decent reference.

[My dinner with Conteh]

...and of all the years you're quoting 'Ring Ratings', it's the year of their greatest shame. :yep

[Bokaj]

...and of all the years you're quoting 'Ring Ratings', it's the year of their greatest shame. :yep

Ain't that just life.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The Ring's ratings aren't gospel, but they are usually used as a decent reference.


Yeah, but in 77 they probably weren't. The point I was making is that Evangelista jumped into the top 10 after his loss to Zanon- who himself wasn't ranked in the top 10. Zanon "completely outboxed Alfredo and walked off with a clear points victory". Yet Evangelista received a shot. This is the kind of thing that happened in the days of Johnny Saxton and co.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ain't that just life.


Yep. Life is bent, boxing is bent, Ali's yawnfest of a second title reign was about as bent as they come.

[Bokaj]

Yeah, but in 77 they probably weren't. The point I was making is that Evangelista jumped into the top 10 after his loss to Zanon- who himself wasn't ranked in the top 10. Zanon "completely outboxed Alfredo and walked off with a clear points victory". Yet Evangelista received a shot. This is the kind of thing that happened in the days of Johnny Saxton and co.

Fair enough. That Evangelista actually got a second title shot says a bit too much about how boxing often works.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Of course, Larry Holmes title reign is choc-a-block with undeserving challengers. Far more so than Ali (although this was always going to be the case with split alphabet titles).

[ray fredrickson]

You know all these guys that love Ali arent going to want to look at the ?Ali didnt want to fight Foreman again PERIOD!!!!!!!!

[mr. magoo]

Yeah, but in 77 they probably weren't. The point I was making is that Evangelista jumped into the top 10 after his loss to Zanon- who himself wasn't ranked in the top 10. Zanon "completely outboxed Alfredo and walked off with a clear points victory". Yet Evangelista received a shot. This is the kind of thing that happened in the days of Johnny Saxton and co.


I have to concur with a lot of what you have been saying lately dinner. About a year ago, I posted a thread asking others why on earth Alfredo Evangelista received title shots against both Ali and Holmes, and within close time segments of one another at that. Whoever the hell this guy was, he never defeated nor even lost competitively to anyone who even remotely resembled world class material. His bouts with Lorenzo Zannon and Lucien Rodriguez mean virtually nothing to me as both those other guys came from the same mold and were equally as undeserving..

[AnthonyJ74]

So he doesn't come up to the standards shown by Dunn and Coopman then? Yeah, of course. "It doesn't make sense"- he was mandatory contender, fighter of the year, beat two of the top four. He ws earning high praise after the 2nd Frazier fight, I don't care if you weren't imprssed, others were:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

George more than earned a rematch with Ali. Beating both Frazier and Lyle, not to mention Scott Ledoux and Dino Denis, placed him as the number one guy in the division. Foreman should have been fighting Ali instead of Jimmy Young. Foreman was probably frustrated and mentally spent due to his inability to get another title shot!

[AnthonyJ74]

So Foreman proved he could beat Frazier! This was hardly in question.

I realize this is no-rematch-for-poor-Foreman thing has been a longtime pet peeve of yours, but would you consider that, as far as title shots go, things usually move to the beat of the champion, and every truly hungry challenger has to dance along as best he can and bide his time? Coopman? Evangelista? Et al? Just part of the show: now a risk, now a soft touch. But a challenger must be ready.

Foreman did things his own surly, erratic way and paid the price.

Ali waited 3 full years to get another title shot after FOTC. Why couldn't the younger Foreman?

Ali lost to Ken Norton in 1973 and then rematched him later that year. That whole NOrton thing delayed Ali's title shot a bit.

[AnthonyJ74]

When a guy is clearly beaten, this normally tends to quiet calls for his getting a rematch, regardless of how many Dunns there are out there for his conqueror.

Foreman comes out of retirement to make a fool of himself in Canada, displaying immature lack of self-control before a ranting, ringside Ali, and nothing but diminished skills against his 5 punching bags. How does this bring him closer to credibility?

Even as Foreman was struggling mightily against a less-than-greatly-regarded Lyle, Cosell voiced what the world asked itself: Whatever happened to that invincible George Foreman? A diminished George had to work his way back up, began the process pretty well for a while there, but ultimately failed again in San Juan. Is this Ali's fault?

The five fights in Toronto were exhibition fights; they were glorified sparring sessions. Plus, Foreman beat Lyle and Frazier after that; how much more "rebuilding" or "working back up" did the guy have to do?

[AnthonyJ74]

It is not very reasonable to expect an aging champion, who regained a title wrested unfairly from him outside the ring, to defeat Samson (Ken Norton) and immediately sign to fight Hercules (George Foreman), is it.

So, Foreman howled for instant satisfaction after his shocking defeat? I'd be amazed if he hadn't. Anyone in his shoes would. He had just lost embarrassingly to a huge, broken-down underdog.

In my book, he needed to calm down, take a page from Ali's Battles, get in line, and, come his chance, come through like a champion. He did anything but. Again, what do you think fueled his amazing comeback if not the realization that he really stunk it up bad the first time around? He was the antithesis of his old self in patience, perseverance, passion, playing to the crowd.

Ali lost to a kid with seven pro fights; if that's not embarrasing, I don't what is. And he got an immediate title shot afterwards. Ali really stunk the joint out in that first fight against Leon Spinks. By your rationale, Ali should have got in line, bided his time, proved himself worthy, and then came through when his title shot came.

[AnthonyJ74]

I'm not worried that your opinion impoverishes Ali one trillionth of an iota.

What young undefeated champion loses his crown and retires? Foreman.
This comes with a steep price, pal, and glaring out of magazine covers ain't gonna cut it.

What you call "ducking" in '77, I call "smart business". Why? Because if you are risking your health as a professional boxer, once you reach the top, you are entitled to milk it for all its worth. Any ex-champ will tell you this. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest Ali was yellow. I am certain he would have eventually faced George Foreman again, as he did Frazier and old nemesis Norton.

But Foreman (not the priest, not the bishop, not the butcher, not the cook), but George Foreman alone, lost to Young and re-retired. End of story.

You are ignoring the dates here. The Young fight was in 1977. Ali ignored Foreman all through 1975-1976, during the times when George reestablished himself and was the mandatory, number one contender. Are you honestly saying that Wepner, Dunn, Coopman, Lyle, et al, deserved their shots more so than George did? Come on!

[Unforgiven]

Although it's clear to me that Muhammad Ali wanted no part of a Foreman rematch, I dont really see how Foreman necessarily deserved the shot either. I dont think his performance in Zaire warranted an immediate rematch at all. And then Foreman went inactive for 15 months.

By the time Foreman had re-established himself there were Ken Norton and Jimmy Young with legitimate calls for rematch shots too - I mean, these guys actually lasted the distance with Ali and probably beat him.

And then Foreman lost to Young.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman being mandatory is the main point here (and a former champ). Why did Patterson get a shot in 65 vs Ali? He beat a couple of top 10s and was a former champ that's why. You'll find most former heavyweight champs have been given the same favourable treatment.

[Unforgiven]

You are ignoring the dates here. The Young fight was in 1977. Ali ignored Foreman all through 1975-1976, during the times when George reestablished himself and was the mandatory, number one contender. Are you honestly saying that Wepner, Dunn, Coopman, Lyle, et al, deserved their shots more so than George did? Come on!

Foreman lost to title in October 1974, and didn't fight again until January 1976.
He was active throughout 1976 and into 1977 (5 wins), but lost to Young in March 1977.

Of course Foreman deserved a shot more than the likes of Dunn and Coopman and Wepner, but it's not as if he did a hell of a lot of fighting to pressure a shot.
Between losing to Ali and losing to Young - a period of 29 months - he spent the first 15 months doing no real fighting (except for gimmicky exhibitions where he looked shockingly unlike a serious fighter), and that was STRAIGHT AFTER his rather dismal knockout loss in Africa.

[Unforgiven]

Foreman being mandatory is the main point here (and a former champ). Why did Patterson get a shot in 65 vs Ali? He beat a couple of top 10s and was a former champ that's why. You'll find most former heavyweight champs have been given the same favourable treatment.


So, let's use the equivalent standard with Foreman. He deserved a shot after beating Lyle and Frazier, which brings us to June 1976.

Ali's next fight is Ken Norton, a guy who's on a decent winning streak and who's previous showings against Ali in non-title fights warrant him a shot. Norton's arguably as deserving as Foreman, and proven himself as no easy pickings for Ali.

Ali-Norton 3 is a hard fight for Ali, and he doesn't fight again for 8 months and when he does it's against a bum. But by that time Foreman has been eliminated by Jimmy Young.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ali-Norton 3 is a hard fight for Ali, and he doesn't fight again for 8 months and when he does it's against a bum. But by that time Foreman has been eliminated by Jimmy Young.


He retired to get out of the fight and the 90 day demand from the WBC that he had to 'sign' to fight Foreman. Even if he signed to fight Foreman and beat a bum that would be more acceptable. But he didn't. His constant retirements were to dance around the mandatory edict.

In 1977 he signed to fight the winner of Norton-Bobick but the wrong man won, then he agreeed to fight the winner of Norton-Young, again the wrong man won. He then fortunately lost to Spinks (so he had an 8 fight pro to beat to create some kind of worthless 'history'.)

[Unforgiven]

He retired to get out of the fight and the 90 day demand from the WBC that he had to 'sign' to fight Foreman. Even if he signed to fight Foreman and beat a bum that would be more acceptable. But he didn't. His constant retirements were to dance around the mandatory edict.

Well, that's between him and the WBC.
I dont understand how the WBC could recognize his "retirement" without the declaring the title vacant. They basically allowed him to fight whoever he wanted.

But that's irrelevant to me and (I assume) the vast majority of the world who simply recognized Ali as the champion, regardless of sanctioning body politics. The way I see it, Ali was champion and he was fighting too many bums and ducking rematches with a few good fighters. But his ducking of Foreman in particular wasn't severe at all, when you examine the timeline and the weakneses in Foreman's case.

[Bokaj]

But that's irrelevant to me and (I assume) the vast majority of the world who simply recognized Ali as the champion, regardless of sanctioning body politics. The way I see it, Ali was champion and he was fighting too many bums and ducking rematches with a few good fighters. But his ducking of Foreman in particular wasn't severe at all, when you examine the timeline and the weakneses in Foreman's case.

I agree with this to a large degree.

In general, I would say that Ali's reign looked quite solid up until and including the rubber match with Norton. From there it started to slide. He only took on one worthwhile challenger (Shavers) for the remainder of his reign.

[McGrain]

Good thread, good read.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well, that's between him and the WBC.
I dont understand how the WBC could recognize his "retirement" without the declaring the title vacant. They basically allowed him to fight whoever he wanted.

But that's irrelevant to me and (I assume) the vast majority of the world who simply recognized Ali as the champion, regardless of sanctioning body politics. The way I see it, Ali was champion and he was fighting too many bums and ducking rematches with a few good fighters. But his ducking of Foreman in particular wasn't severe at all, when you examine the timeline and the weakneses in Foreman's case.


Ducking is ducking. Either you do or don't in my book. He did. And yes it was the WBC's fault for letting him get away with it. They were going to call an interim champ while he made his mind up what he was doing. He agreed to their demands only to renege and say "they don't tell me what to do".

[McGrain]

How do you boys think Ali would have done with Foreman at around the point the fight should have been made? Ali was undeniably on the slide, but Foreman certainly lost that air of invincibility after Zaire. Who you got?

I feel Foreman did pretty badly against Ali, strategy aside, even.

[Unforgiven]

Ducking is ducking. Either you do or don't in my book. He did.

When Foreman had a strong case, Ali fought Norton instead. That doesn't seem so bad.

He ducked Norton thereafter. That was bad.

[Bokaj]

When Foreman had a strong case, Ali fought Norton instead. That doesn't seem so bad.

He ducked Norton thereafter. That was bad.

Yeah, I feel that Young and Norton were the ones who were primarily screwed out of a rematch, not Foreman. Foreman was hardly undeserving of one in late '76 and early '77, however.

[prime]

Ali lost to Ken Norton in 1973 and then rematched him later that year. That whole NOrton thing delayed Ali's title shot a bit.

This is my whole point. Ali was left to cool his heels after FOTC, but did what a champion at heart would do: he got cracking, defeating all worthy contenders, got shocked along the way by little known Norton, avenged the loss, and continued to prove his relevance and hunger, his deserving of a title shot, racking up the wins. Foreman, on the other hand, retired. This set him back, deservedly so.

[prime]

The five fights in Toronto were exhibition fights; they were glorified sparring sessions. Plus, Foreman beat Lyle and Frazier after that; how much more "rebuilding" or "working back up" did the guy have to do?

The point here is: Foreman had just come out of retirement, having lost his title convincingly. He comes back in Toronto against the 5, clearly diminished, particularly lacking in stamina. The unintended, but unequivocal message was he posed no greater threat to Ali than when he lost to him a year earlier.

[prime]

You are ignoring the dates here. The Young fight was in 1977. Ali ignored Foreman all through 1975-1976, during the times when George reestablished himself and was the mandatory, number one contender. Are you honestly saying that Wepner, Dunn, Coopman, Lyle, et al, deserved their shots more so than George did? Come on!

Kindly read my earlier posts through where I address this. It's not as simple as: "Ali ignored Foreman all through 1975-1976." Had Foreman handled his defeat properly, he would have put greater pressure on for a rematch way earlier, there would have come a point it would have been unavoidable (as happened in the case of Ali-Norton III). But he was his own worst enemy by retiring, blowing it in San Juan and re-retiring.

Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Young, Shavers, Bugner...not a bad list of victims, along with the necessary soft touches. Under any circumstances, it is easy for armchair warriors to demand a champ make perilous defense after perilous defense. I don't see it that way. And we would all do the same thing these champions do: as Foreman himself has said on Champions Forever, the job of the champion is to make as much money as he can without risking. Of course! Elementary!

I am convinced Ali would have eventually faced Foreman, but Foreman made too many mistakes. It is the height of revisionism to label Ali a ducker.

[prime]

Well, you've made your bed with that statement, i look forward to throwing this one back at you. :good

:good

[HomicideHenry]

In 1977 he signed to fight the winner of Norton-Bobick but the wrong man won, then he agreeed to fight the winner of Norton-Young, again the wrong man won. He then fortunately lost to Spinks (so he had an 8 fight pro to beat to create some kind of worthless 'history'.)

I remember a story on Bobick, where he said something to the effect that Spinks was a coward to not fight Ken Norton after he defeated Ali. That and Bobick referred to Ali as that 'god damned Cassisus Clay', and that he should have fought him.

[Bokaj]

Ali lost to Ken Norton in 1973 and then rematched him later that year. That whole NOrton thing delayed Ali's title shot a bit.

Frazier had already lost to Foreman when this happened. Ali had actually gotten himself in real good shape the fight before (against Bugner) because he was preparing for the rematch he was promised he would get after Frazier had gotten past Foreman. But...

[My dinner with Conteh]

Frazier had already lost to Foreman when this happened. Ali had actually gotten himself in real good shape the fight before (against Bugner) because he was preparing for the rematch he was promised he would get after Frazier had gotten past Foreman. But...


Exactly. So that cancels the phoney "Ali had to wait" story. Not if Joe had beat George he wouldn't. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

The point here is: Foreman had just come out of retirement, having lost his title convincingly. He comes back in Toronto against the 5, clearly diminished, particularly lacking in stamina. The unintended, but unequivocal message was he posed no greater threat to Ali than when he lost to him a year earlier.


But this all changed within a few months. Many experts were actually predicting George would win, based on his Frazier and Le Doux fights and Ali's robbery vs Young. Still, if he posed no threat Ali should have signed because that what he was into then, according to you, making money with small risks,which is what it's all about. :yep

[My dinner with Conteh]

...and you'd think he would have definitely received a title shot after he lost to Young. After all, that's how Ron Lyle got one. :hey

[Bokaj]

Exactly. So that cancels the phoney "Ali had to wait" story. Not if Joe had beat George he wouldn't. :good

Ali still had to wait. But, yeah, it definitely makes a difference that the fight already was planned. Ali can't really claim to have been shafted out of that, even if Joe's vacation was a long one.

[My dinner with Conteh]

No, Ali did well to keep active- beating up on Frazier leftovers for a year or so. He should have received a rematch sooner, then 'who knows', Joe would have been a bit more confident as he'd still have his '0' and wouldn't have suffered the embarrassment that was Jamaica.

[Bokaj]

No, Ali did well to keep active- beating up on Frazier leftovers for a year or so. He should have received a rematch sooner, then 'who knows', Joe would have been a bit more confident as he'd still have his '0' and wouldn't have suffered the embarrassment that was Jamaica.

Would have been an interesting fight. Hard to know if Frazier would have approached it any differently than he did their actual rematch. He wouldn't have much to prove, but perhaps have been more confident. He didn't seem very hesistant in any of their fights, though.

[META5]

I think so. And if you listen to Cosell's commentary, you'll hear that he and most of the ringside reporters have no clear winner at the end. I agree with them.

Yes, Young negated Ali for almost the entire fight. But he didn't land much himself and lost points by sticking his frigging head out thorugh the ropes when attacked.

People make a point of how Young showed that Ali couldn't fight on the front foot. But no one mentions that a severly depleted and very unprepared Ali still had enough offense to make a skilled defensive fighter like Young look like a rank amateur on several occassions. I mean getting away from the opponent by sticking you upper body through the ropes...

The body through the ropes was embarassing to watch ... I wouldn't usae any fight where Ali was in as bad a shape as he was for Young to evaluate his abilities as a fighter to be honest. I just think that he did himself and the sport a major disservice by coming into bouts in that kind of shape and I think he was very lucky to escape with a draw. Honestly, I hate to watch the fight and struggle to find an unbiased way that I can give Ali a draw, let alone have him winning the thing.


While this is not completely untrue, I still believed he did it less than most. And I actually feel that Young was the one who was shafted out of a rematch, not Foreman.

As I said, by comparing who he did fight, comparing who he didn't to other champions is futile ... just that I would've liked to see him settle the score with Young and perhaps, if the timeline allowed for it, defeat Foreman for a second time. Put it like this, if he had beaten Young decisively in a rematch, there'd be no qualms from me about the Foreman thing, other than the WBC issue of retirement and non-retirement, which is why I said that he used his status to do things that other champions have done ... i.e. avoid a fighter. Some people say that Foreman didn't deserve the rematch because of a poor showing in Zaire ... but then, it is an ex-champion's right is it not? According to Ali it is, and even moreso if that ex-champ becomes mandatory.

Yeah, sure. What I turned against originally was how starkly you put it. I don't remember the exact words, but I think it was to the effect that his second reign wasn't worth much at all. And that I don't agree with, but it would have been even more convincing if he took on for example the winner of Young-Foreman.

Forgive my bluntness ... I didn't mean to imply that his second reign wasn't worth much, especially in light of how it compares to certain other ATGs' reigns ... but even I tire of some of Ali's antics and I'm a big fan. To be honest, I even tire of talking about the man at times, kinda closes me off to other ATGs, but I'm trying to discover even more about other fighters as I go along.

I just don't like when things are blown out of proportion. That doesn't mean I think Ali was flawless.

I'm the same ... sometimes, though, I play Devil's Advocate, either to provoke areas of discussion or to really draw out someone's true feelings or knowledge on a certain issue ... MDWC does this very well ... you'd even think he hates some of his favourite boxers ... sometimes, it allows you to gain a little enjoyment out of the forum.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. "He was mean to me before the last fight, so he won't get another shot."

But I don't want to make a big deal out of Frazier avoiding giving Ali a rematch, I was just putting things in perspective.

Mean is understating the treatment that Ali gave to someone that owed him nothing, yet helped him out when a lot of people suddenly weren't his friend anymore.

I think Ali's going through the top contenders to get to Frazier turned out to be a blessing in disguise ... it gave Foreman a top win and introduced the Norton trilogy ... these are all integral parts of Ali's legacy.

True (see above). But, as I said, I feel Young got more of a raw deal than Foreman. That Foreman (previously convincingly beaten by Ali) didn't get a title shot within a year of his comeback is hardly a classic hard luck story.

Agreed. Young is the type of fighter that would've got Charley Burley treatment if he were around in the '40's. IMO, he wouldn't have got a shot cos of how bad he'd make the champ look. I can understand why Ali didn't want a part of him again ... Young should've got an instant rematch or at least a shot after beating Foreman.

As stated, if Ali had agreed to meet the winner of Young-Foreman I would have beeen completely satisfied with his behaviour. And Foreman wouldn't have gotten a title shot in that scenario either, so...

That woulda been justifiable on account that Young had beaten the mandatory and arguably the champ. I could live with that.

Sure, Ali could have taken on Foreman directly after Norton, but I don't hold it against him that he didn't. Promising a shot to the winner of Foreman Young would have been satisfactory enough IMO (sorry for the broken record routine).

Ideally, rematch Young and face Foreman in '77, I guess.


I think this about Ali's die hard fans is a bit overplayed on this forum. Sure, there are some, but they aren't that much worse than anyone else.

Thank God that you weren't around when we had some intense Ali crusaders ... we had guys that would convince you that Ali took punches on the jaw on purpose to show the world that he had the strongest teeth around or he didn't KO people stark cold cos he was too nice to do that to another fighter.

When one hears how Jeffries, Dempsey and even Marciano are made into demi-gods by some of their fans, I don't feel that Ali is that badly elevated in comparison.

Agreed. A lot of the time though I feel like it's done to counteract the abundance of Ali praise at the expense of their ATG champion.

And start a negative thread about Louis and see the how many that will indignatally come to his defence.

Louis deserves to be defended for things that are said and aren't true, as does anyone else. However, if it's blind worship and denial of truth, this is something that I cannot condone.

I haven't seen any criticism of Duran pertaining to Buchanan, but of course I don't know what happened before. But I think that Duran, great as he was, often is defended to ludicorus lengths. There is a host of excuses for every loss he had.

I don't accept many of the excuses for losses that people offer for any fighter. However, there are circumstances where factors should be taken into account. Duran being way outsized by Hagler, naturally, is taken into account. Old school fighters riding the railroads, being underfed, undertrained and undersized is taken into account. All things considered, I think you'll find that there are a few that will vwhemently disagree with the Duran apologists.

And that Robinson effortlessly tops most p4p lists even though he didn't take on the very best out there is a kind of preferential treatment I don't see any other fighter getting.

I wouldn't say that he routinely avoided taking on the best, but yes, he avoided some of the elite Black fighters of his era. He did, however, take on Gavilan and that's an ATG by anyone's standard right there. I actually rate SRR no. 1, myself, but not just to rate him there ... his record, his skills on film when past his prime and the short clips that I have of him at welterweight in addition to a wealth of testimony from people that lived and breathed boxing during this era convince me that this was the greatest fighter inside the squared circle.

Bu the one who gets the unjustified criticism on this board isn't Ali, but Leonard. That he's actually accused of "luring" Duran to an early rematch and of tricking Hagler by deciding the conditions for their fight is just ludicrous to me.

I also feel that Foreman is overrated and overly defended by many. He had one of the most carefully and cautiously planned careers in the history of boxing. He got three title shots even though he met less than 10 ranked opponents all in all. He had trouble with every decent boxer he met and was beaten by most of them, yet some actually are offended when told that he's not top 10 material.

Up and until he initially retired, you cannot really criticise Leonard for anything other than being a media darling, if you're against that kind of thing. A lot of people dislike him for the businessman way he took to boxing when he came back ... for making Hagler wait for him after saying it'd never happen, only to take him on when himself and Dundee noticed Hagler was slipping (especially if you're Rooster) ... I personally dislike the way he politricked winning two different weight titles on the same night, one being created just for him and all ... but that doesn't take away from what he accomplished in the ring or from the fact that he has arguably the greatest 1st tier wins in his record of any fighter.

Foreman is both overrated and underrated. That's another discussion for another day, though :D

[My dinner with Conteh]

Would have been an interesting fight. Hard to know if Frazier would have approached it any differently than he did their actual rematch. He wouldn't have much to prove, but perhaps have been more confident. He didn't seem very hesistant in any of their fights, though.

I agree actually.

[Bokaj]

I agree actually.

Don't sound so surprised. :cool:

[Bokaj]

The body through the ropes was embarassing to watch ... I wouldn't usae any fight where Ali was in as bad a shape as he was for Young to evaluate his abilities as a fighter to be honest. I just think that he did himself and the sport a major disservice by coming into bouts in that kind of shape and I think he was very lucky to escape with a draw. Honestly, I hate to watch the fight and struggle to find an unbiased way that I can give Ali a draw, let alone have him winning the thing.

I've only watched it once, and won't do it again. I think many rounds was hard to score and I didn't have a clear winner. If Young had taken the title it would have been one of the most unconvincing ways it had been taken in IMO.


As I said, by comparing who he did fight, comparing who he didn't to other champions is futile ... just that I would've liked to see him settle the score with Young and perhaps, if the timeline allowed for it, defeat Foreman for a second time. Put it like this, if he had beaten Young decisively in a rematch, there'd be no qualms from me about the Foreman thing, other than the WBC issue of retirement and non-retirement, which is why I said that he used his status to do things that other champions have done ... i.e. avoid a fighter. Some people say that Foreman didn't deserve the rematch because of a poor showing in Zaire ... but then, it is an ex-champion's right is it not? According to Ali it is, and even moreso if that ex-champ becomes mandatory.

He could without a doubt have handed all that better. Perferably by doing what he said he'd do - retire.


Forgive my bluntness ... I didn't mean to imply that his second reign wasn't worth much, especially in light of how it compares to certain other ATGs' reigns ... but even I tire of some of Ali's antics and I'm a big fan. To be honest, I even tire of talking about the man at times, kinda closes me off to other ATGs, but I'm trying to discover even more about other fighters as I go along.

I can understand that.


I'm the same ... sometimes, though, I play Devil's Advocate, either to provoke areas of discussion or to really draw out someone's true feelings or knowledge on a certain issue ... MDWC does this very well ... you'd even think he hates some of his favourite boxers ... sometimes, it allows you to gain a little enjoyment out of the forum.

He's a scouser. Taking the piss out of people is considered an art form over there I've heard. ;)



I think Ali's going through the top contenders to get to Frazier turned out to be a blessing in disguise ... it gave Foreman a top win and introduced the Norton trilogy ... these are all integral parts of Ali's legacy..

Yeah, much of Ali's career and life seems to have been scipted somehow. The perfect story, more or less.


Agreed. Young is the type of fighter that would've got Charley Burley treatment if he were around in the '40's. IMO, he wouldn't have got a shot cos of how bad he'd make the champ look. I can understand why Ali didn't want a part of him again ... Young should've got an instant rematch or at least a shot after beating Foreman.

Would be interesting to hear Young's own view. The man seemed to have been shafted on several occassions.


Ideally, rematch Young and face Foreman in '77, I guess.

That would have been ideal


Thank God that you weren't around when we had some intense Ali crusaders ... we had guys that would convince you that Ali took punches on the jaw on purpose to show the world that he had the strongest teeth around.

Yeah, I'm glad for that. Might even have been caught up in it. Or just the opposite... (not likely, though :rasta)


Agreed. A lot of the time though I feel like it's done to counteract the abundance of Ali praise at the expense of their ATG champion..

You're seeing Ali all over the place. Those guys were being made into demi-gods before Ali was born, so let's not put everything on his doorstep.

Louis deserves to be defended for things that are said and aren't true, as does anyone else. However, if it's blind worship and denial of truth, this is something that I cannot condone.

Sure he does. But he does have a bit of a sacred status, not totally undeserved, though.


I don't accept many of the excuses for losses that people offer for any fighter. However, there are circumstances where factors should be taken into account. Duran being way outsized by Hagler, naturally, is taken into account. Old school fighters riding the railroads, being underfed, undertrained and undersized is taken into account. All things considered, I think you'll find that there are a few that will vwhemently disagree with the Duran apologists..

I know. It's a two way street to some extent. But sometimes when you hear why some of his really bad losses just was because of this and that... The guy insulted Leonard more horribly than Ali insulted Frazier IMO, but still Leonard is the one who gets the stick for "luring" Duran into an early rematch. Incredible.


I wouldn't say that he routinely avoided taking on the best, but yes, he avoided some of the elite Black fighters of his era. He did, however, take on Gavilan and that's an ATG by anyone's standard right there. I actually rate SRR no. 1, myself, but not just to rate him there ... his record, his skills on film when past his prime and the short clips that I have of him at welterweight in addition to a wealth of testimony from people that lived and breathed boxing during this era convince me that this was the greatest fighter inside the squared circle.

Robinson was a truly fantastic fighter and might very well have been the best ever. But still, I feel that he gets more leeway for the ones he avoided than most would get.


Up and until he initially retired, you cannot really criticise Leonard for anything other than being a media darling, if you're against that kind of thing. A lot of people dislike him for the businessman way he took to boxing when he came back ... for making Hagler wait for him after saying it'd never happen, only to take him on when himself and Dundee noticed Hagler was slipping (especially if you're Rooster) ....

But when people critize Leonard for this, it's like he's the only fighter thinking about the business side, and that's BS. Duran, Hagler, Hearns - they all did. Robinson was very explicit that he was business man, and wouldn't take on stupid risks for low rewards. Dempsey perfected this to an art form, but hid behind his manager and without tarnishing his image of a bad boy.

Thing is, Leonard made just about all the rights fights happen. This is what sets him apart, not that he wanted to do so on his own terms.

I personally dislike the way he politricked winning two different weight titles on the same night, one being created just for him and all ... but that doesn't take away from what he accomplished in the ring or from the fact that he has arguably the greatest 1st tier wins in his record of any fighter.

The Lalonde things was ridiculous in the aspects you mentioned, but that seems to gloss over the fact that Leonard beat a guy that was quite a bit naturally bigger.

[dmille]

Try reading some contemporary literature on the subject, then you'll realise it's you that have fallen victim to "revisionist bullshit".

I read it when it was news.

[prime]

...and you'd think he would have definitely received a title shot after he lost to Young. After all, that's how Ron Lyle got one. :hey

Yes, but your boy retired. :hey

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yes, but your boy retired. :hey

Not right away he didn't. :good