HOLMES V NORTON - Great Fight.... BUT

[Bill Butcher]

This should have been a unanimous decision for Larry Holmes.

The last 3 rds were special as they went toe to toe but for the most part Holmes was outboxing Ken Norton.

1 judge had Norton a 143-142 winner, the other judges were only marginally better, both having Holmes a 143-142 winner. I thought Larry won wider than that.

Ps. What about Muhammad Ali`s prediction 10 mins before the fight - Holmes by split decision, nice pick.

:thumbsup

[Holmes' Jab]

I had: 8-6 Holmes, with one even round. Larry did enough in the final exchanges.

[Mendoza]

Holmes won cleanly in a tough match up. 9-6 or 8-6-1 are good scores. I do think Norton might have won the final round though.

[ChrisPontius]

Ps. What about Muhammad Ali`s prediction 10 mins before the fight - Holmes by split decision, nice pick.

:thumbsup

Ali wanted everything but get back an other time in the ring with Norton.

[quintonjacksonfan]

All three judges had it tied going into the last round.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Norton won final round, no doubt. But Holmes rightful winner. I had it 9-5 going into the 15th. Holmes dominated first half of fight.

[Bill Butcher]

Norton won final round, no doubt. But Holmes rightful winner. I had it 9-5 going into the 15th. Holmes dominated first half of fight.

Exactly the way I had it.

[natonic]

I re-watched this recently and It seemed like Holmes controlled most of the fight. I was surprised when I added up my scorecard. I think I had Holmes by 2. It didn't seem that close to me. Real good fight though.

[Bill Butcher]

Ali wanted everything but get back an other time in the ring with Norton.

Ali was all done by then.

The 1st fight, Ali came in stupidly out of shape & lost clearly.
The 2nd fight Ali came in ready & won close but clear.
The 3rd fight Ali was shot & lucky to get the verdict.

Prime v prime Ali wins 11-4 in a 15 rder, imagine the 1st half of fight 2 except for the entire fight.
Norton would be lucky to do any better than Terrell or Chuvalo IMO.

:thumbsup

[anut]

i scored it 115 to 114 for holmes.....close....but holmes won.

[ChrisPontius]

Ali was all done by then.

The 1st fight, Ali came in stupidly out of shape & lost clearly.
The 2nd fight Ali came in ready & won close but clear.
The 3rd fight Ali was shot & lucky to get the verdict.

Prime v prime Ali wins 11-4 in a 15 rder, imagine the 1st half of fight 2 except for the entire fight.
Norton would be lucky to do any better than Terrell or Chuvalo IMO.

:thumbsup

Well, he'd certainly do better than Terrel since he barely won a round. I'd expect something like a 9-6 decision for Ali at his peak. Chuvalo gave Ali a pretty rough one. I will add that even the in late 60's, Ali didn't constantly dance, as the Chuvalo and Terrel fights illustrate.

[Mendoza]

Ali was all done by then.

The 1st fight, Ali came in stupidly out of shape & lost clearly.
The 2nd fight Ali came in ready & won close but clear.
The 3rd fight Ali was shot & lucky to get the verdict.

Prime v prime Ali wins 11-4 in a 15 rder, imagine the 1st half of fight 2 except for the entire fight.
Norton would be lucky to do any better than Terrell or Chuvalo IMO.

:thumbsup
Norton might have scored a knockdown, or maybe even a TKO vs Ali in the first fight if it was 15 rounds.

Ali had trouble vs top jabbers at ALL phases of his career. Doug Jones, Norton, Lyle, Young, and when he was well past it, vs Holmes.

Norton might have been able to beat Ali in the 1960's, in fact if he had 3 chances I think he would win one of them.

[JohnThomas1]

Ali had trouble vs top jabbers at ALL phases of his career. Doug Jones, Norton, Lyle, Young, and when he was well past it, vs Holmes.


Not against Terrell he didn't

;)

[Bill Butcher]

I will add that even the in late 60's, Ali didn't constantly dance, as the Chuvalo and Terrel fights illustrate.

Agreed... BUT you will notice that.....

1. Ali only went flatfooted when in control & with a decent lead in the fight.

2. Ali could immediately start dancing at any time throughout a 15 rd fight from 1-15 rds.

3. Any time Ali did get on his toes there wasnt a sinlge opponent that didnt start dropping rds to him as he was so fluid.

4. Norton`s style would trouble Ali enough that Ali would make sure he gets on his toes more than he did vs Terrell & Chuvalo once he realises that boxing flatfooted is were Ken is most dangerous.

Ps. I do agree that Ali wins at least 9 rds in his prime vs Norton in a 15 rder, even more if he doesnt mess around boxing flatfooted for long spells.

:thumbsup

[Bill Butcher]

Norton might have scored a knockdown, or maybe even a TKO vs Ali in the first fight if it was 15 rounds.


Ali had trouble vs top jabbers at ALL phases of his career. Doug Jones, Norton, Lyle, Young, and when he was well past it, vs Holmes.


Norton might have been able to beat Ali in the 1960's, in fact if he had 3 chances I think he would win one of them.

Top line - If it was 15 rds then we would likely have seen an in shape Ali - probably world champ too since its 15 rds - & it would have resembled the 2nd fight more than the 1st fight since were talking if`s.

2nd line - You can remove the Holmes, young & 3rd Norton fights from there as the man should have been retired by then.
Before that, he went 1-1 with Ken, beat Doug Jones close but clear & stopped Lyle so if good jabbers were a problem for him then they at least werent a HUGE problem.

Last line - Specifically, the Ali of which fight from Liston-Folley (we did say primes) would you fancy Norton to beat ?

No need for a rematch after seeing this one & he aint getting 3 chances because Ali would be 2-0 up if there even was a rematch which I doubt.

:thumbsup

[ChrisPontius]

4. Norton`s style would trouble Ali enough that Ali would make sure he gets on his toes more than he did vs Terrell & Chuvalo once he realises that boxing flatfooted is were Ken is most dangerous.


I more or less agree with points 1-3, but on this one, i'm not sure.

Chuvalo is most dangerous when you're flat-footed as well, and he landed some hard body shots. Ali was wide ahead, but i would imagine he'd rather avoid them if he could. But he didn't.

Now, Norton doesn't apply the same amount of pressure, but i'm not sure if he could dance all the way through.

[My2Sense]

I thought Holmes won exactly 8 rounds to 7.

I believe I gave Holmes rounds 1-7, and 13.

I thought Norton won the infamous final round, but Holmes had already clinched the decision when he won the 13th.

[My2Sense]

This should have been a unanimous decision for Larry Holmes.

The last 3 rds were special as they went toe to toe but for the most part Holmes was outboxing Ken Norton.

1 judge had Norton a 143-142 winner, the other judges were only marginally better, both having Holmes a 143-142 winner. I thought Larry won wider than that.



Did you know that all three judges had the fight dead even going into the last round? Two gave the round to Holmes, one to Norton. I've always thought Norton deserved the final round, but Holmes had already won 8 rounds before that.

[biglads]

i scored it 115 to 114 for holmes.....close....but holmes won.

Keep watching after the 12th. :good

[JohnThomas1]

Keep watching after the 12th. :good


:lol: :lol:

[he grant]

I'd rather watch JT's chick there ....

I think all agree it was an extremely close fight ... Norton was still at the top of his game and came into the fight in tremendous shape ... Holmes was slightly injured but came to fight and would not pass on his shot at the title

...The fight really could have gone either way ... Holmes had that huge 13th and Norton came back for the big 14th ... Norton won the first two minutes of the 15th but Holmes rallied and staggered him in the final 45 seconds ...

There should have been an immediate rematch but for some political reason Norton was forced to fight an elimination bout against Shavers and we know how that turned out ...

It's nice to see Norton get some respect here from some posters as I feel he is terribly underated on the whole ... we know he did not match up well against huge punchers but was murder for almost everyone else ...

[JohnThomas1]

I'd rather watch JT's chick there ....


:lol:

:good

There should have been an immediate rematch but for some political reason Norton was forced to fight an elimination bout against Shavers and we know how that turned out ...


Actually i can answer this, and i only just found out the other day.

Holmes said Norton would never get a rematch because he "had nothing to gain from it", immediately after the fight.

No kidding. If anyone really debates it i'll find the mag/page number etc.

[young griffo]

:lol:

:good



Actually i can answer this, and i only just found out the other day.

Holmes said Norton would never get a rematch because he "had nothing to gain from it", immediately after the fight.

No kidding. If anyone really debates it i'll find the mag/page number etc.
And therein lies the difference between Ali and Holmes.
Which is why to this day people respect Holmes but don't really like him.

[JohnThomas1]

And therein lies the difference between Ali and Holmes.
Which is why to this day people respect Holmes but don't really like him.

Yeah, the one big area Holmes falls down in is in granting deserved rematches and not fighting two maybe three peeps in his second half end of prime. Both Norton and Witherspoon deserved immediate rematches and them along with Thomas (for a fight) were told in no uncertain terms twasn't happening.

[TIGEREDGE]

dont forget that Larry was fighting with one arm for most of the fight

i had him winning by 2

[Robbi]

Norton won final round, no doubt.

I thought Holmes won the final round. If you look at who was doing the best for the longest period of the round it was Norton. However, if you watch the last 20-25 seconds that was the most dominant part of the round for either fighter and it belonged to Holmes. Norton was edging Holmes, just, throughout the rest of the round. But IMO Holmes won the round based on the entire three minutes. It's arguable though, no question.

[My dinner with Conteh]

And therein lies the difference between Ali and Holmes.


Yeah, Foreman really didn't want a rematch. :think

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah, Foreman really didn't want a rematch. :think

That's prolly the only example tho, where Holmes has multiple. The other thing is Ali did soundly beat Foreman, where Witherspoon, Weaver, Norton, Williams etc were very tight affairs.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well, there's Young, Norton 4 maybe. It's not as if Ali left little doubt after those defences. Kenny and Jimmy had to fight for the right but still, no title shot, which went to Spinks. So Norton had to fight an eliminator, just like he did with Shavers when Holmes was champ. Yes, if Ali beat Spinks then Norton was next, but he'd been saying that for 18 months anyway and kept fudging the issue. Also, Foreman was mandatory of course, many of the Holmes ones weren't.

[anut]

i scored it 115 to 114 for holmes.....close....but holmes won.

i meant 144 to 143 for holmes

[JohnThomas1]

Well, there's Young, Norton 4 maybe. It's not as if Ali left little doubt after those defences. Kenny and Jimmy had to fight for the right but still, no title shot, which went to Spinks. So Norton had to fight an eliminator, just like he did with Shavers when Holmes was champ. Yes, if Ali beat Spinks then Norton was next, but he'd been saying that for 18 months anyway and kept fudging the issue. Also, Foreman was mandatory of course, many of the Holmes ones weren't.

Sounds fair, but he still ain't in Larry's league.

[heehoo]

Great fight, one of the greatest ever, Holmes won more rounds and the decision should not have been nearly as close as it was in the end.

[young griffo]

Well, there's Young, Norton 4 maybe. It's not as if Ali left little doubt after those defences. Kenny and Jimmy had to fight for the right but still, no title shot, which went to Spinks. So Norton had to fight an eliminator, just like he did with Shavers when Holmes was champ. Yes, if Ali beat Spinks then Norton was next, but he'd been saying that for 18 months anyway and kept fudging the issue. Also, Foreman was mandatory of course, many of the Holmes ones weren't.
Pretty hard on Ali considering he had met Norton 3 times and was in his mid 30's by this stage not in his prime like Larry.I think maybe he gets a pass for this one.

Foreman was an interesting one as I've got no doubt Ali had absolutely no fears about stepping in the ring with him again after the beating he gave him in Zaire,plus how he looked against Lyle.Maybe it may have happened if Young didn't get in the way.

As for Jimmy Young I'm glad Ali-Young 2 didn't happen as their first fight was dreadful and who'd really want to sit through 15 rounds of that again?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Sounds fair, but he still ain't in Larry's league.


Who is? :yep

[My dinner with Conteh]

Pretty hard on Ali considering he had met Norton 3 times and was in his mid 30's by this stage not in his prime like Larry.I think maybe he gets a pass for this one.


He met Norton three times but Norton was regarded as nothing more than tune-up first time out, rematch he wanted becuase he lost and title defence made becuase it was 1-1 and he couldn't just fight the Coopman's and Dunn's for the rest of his reign- and Norton was regarded as the #1 contender in many eyes.


Foreman was an interesting one as I've got no doubt Ali had absolutely no fears about stepping in the ring with him again after the beating he gave him in Zaire,plus how he looked against Lyle.Maybe it may have happened if Young didn't get in the way.


Foreman was the mandatory for almost all of Ali's second reign, that reason more than any gives him the right of a rematch. Ali made one mandatory defence from 74-78, that should never be allowed.


As for Jimmy Young I'm glad Ali-Young 2 didn't happen as their first fight was dreadful and who'd really want to sit through 15 rounds of that again?


Probably about four more people than wanted to sit through Ali-Evangelista.

[Bokaj]

Even after Manilla Ali faced Young, Norton and Shavers. Yes, at least one of Foreman and Young should have had a rematch, but at that point in his career I have a hard time faulting him. He should have been retired by then, though, of course.

[Bokaj]

Foreman was the mandatory for almost all of Ali's second reign, that reason more than any gives him the right of a rematch. Ali made one mandatory defence from 74-78, that should never be allowed.

Foreman can't have been mandatory for "almost all of Ali's reign", since he took a year off after Zaire and retired in 1977. There were only 14 months between his victory over Lyle and loss to Young. During that time Ali took on Young and Norton.

And Foreman must have been the only mandatory Ali didn't face.

[My dinner with Conteh]

But Foreman must have been the only mandatory he skipped, and he did retire when Alli still was champion after all.


Yeah but he was still regarded as the best 'other' heavyweight in the world from 74-77 and Ali made 7 defences without a mandatory, which is a lot of fudging, let's be honest.

[Bokaj]

Yeah but he was still regarded as the best 'other' heavyweight in the world from 74-77 and Ali made 7 defences without a mandatory, which is a lot of fudging, let's be honest.

Ali made four defences between Foreman's combeback against Lyle and loss to Young, and two of them were against Norton and Young. Just before that he had faced Frazier. I don't think those are shameful stats at all.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yes, but Foreman was mandatory after 1975 (only dropped lower to inactivity during that 75 itself). In that period Ali fought four times without a mandatory then signed to fight again before Forman's loss, so that was 5 defences when he'd verbally agreed to the contest throughout 1976. He began fudging the issue by announcing his retirement...then announcing he wasn't retired...then retiring again...

[My dinner with Conteh]

Shameful stats has nothing to do with it, rules are rules- at least they're meant to be.

[Bokaj]

Shameful stats has nothing to do with it, rules are rules- at least they're meant to be.

1975 - Foreman is inactive. 1976 - Foreman establish himself as nr. 1 contender during the year, but Ali faces one mandatory this year in Norton. 1977 - Foreman loses to Young in March and promptly retires.

It's hardly Dempsey/Wills material, is it? And Foreman could hardly have been the mandatory before his win over Frazier in july 1976. That was 9 months before he retired. Ali fought Norton (the nr. 1 contender at that point) in september, which means that he went six months and one (scheduled) defence without taking on the new nr. 1. I don't really see the scandal here.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Good post, but with one fatal flaw...Norton wasn't Ali's mandatory. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

Foreman can't have been mandatory for "almost all of Ali's reign", since he took a year off after Zaire and retired in 1977.


He was. From after Zaire to mid-1975. Then after the Frazier fight until he lost to young.



And Foreman must have been the only mandatory Ali didn't face.


True- and Norton (as of 77). Frazier was the only mandatory Ali did face.

[Bokaj]

Good post, but with one fatal flaw...Norton wasn't Ali's mandatory. :good

I would like to know your source concerning this. In either case, Norton was rankend nr. 1 by The Ring.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I would like to know your source concerning this.


Knowledge.


In either case, Norton was rankend nr. 1 by The Ring.


That wasn't the issue. The point was 'rules are rules' and one mandatory in 11 defences stinks. Accept this.

[Bokaj]

He was. From after Zaire to mid-1975. Then after the Frazier fight until he lost to young.

Again, source please! In any case, Foreman was inactive during that first period, and the other period only lasted 9 months. And Ali had the Norton fight already scheduled before Foreman beat Frazier. When Ali-Norton III was agreed, Norton was the nr. 1 contender, according to The Ring's rankings.

All in all this means that Ali went for 6 whole months without facing the nr. 1 contender. Unheard of!

[My dinner with Conteh]

What source would be valid?

[Bokaj]

Knowledge.





That wasn't the issue. The point was 'rules are rules' and one mandatory in 11 defences stinks. Accept this.

No. Not when your "knowledge" is the only source, and when a severly depleted Ali took on every other noteworthy contender. The one he didn't take on, was an active contender for little more than a year during Ali's reign, and had already been convincingly beaten by him.

I fail to see the huge controversy.

[My dinner with Conteh]

All in all this means that Ali went for 6 whole months without facing the nr. 1 contender. Unheard of!


Norton wasn't the #1 contender in the eyes of the governing bodies. Norton wasn't mandatory. I'm not saying it wasn't good that Ali fought Norton, the top ranked contender in Ring (mainly due to Foreman's inactivity, of course), i'm saying Ali consistently fudged facing his mandatory- Foreman. Understand?

[My dinner with Conteh]

I fail to see the huge controversy.


Fighting one madatory in 11 defences is the contoversy. You think this is okay?

[Bokaj]

What source would be valid?

Well, where ever you got it from, as long as it's not from Big George himself.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Well, where ever you got it from, as long as it's not from Big George himself.


A variety of sources. Pick one. :yep

[Bokaj]

Norton wasn't the #1 contender in the eyes of the governing bodies. Norton wasn't mandatory. I'm not saying it wasn't good that Ali fought Norton, the top ranked contender in Ring (mainly due to Foreman's inactivity, of course), i'm saying Ali consistently fudged facing his mandatory- Foreman. Understand?

But he was an active mandatory for 9 months, according to you. That's hardly consistent "fudging". If Foreman had beaten Young and Ali still had chosen to fight Shavers instead, then I can see your point. But not otherwise.

[My dinner with Conteh]

But he was an active mandatory for 9 months, according to you. That's hardly consistent "fudging".


Er, no. Are you making your own stuff up now? Let me re-iterate:


Foreman- #1 with governing bodies:

Nov 74- summer 75.
Oct 75- March 1977.


Ok?

[Bokaj]

Let's play this out: Ali faces the mandatory in October 1975 in a brutal battle, and takes on a bum (Coopman) in his next defence. After that he faces the nr. 2 contender (Young) and follows it up with another bum (Dunn). Shortly after that fight Foreman establish himself as the mandatory, according to you, but by this time Ali already has a scheduled fight with Norton. After Norton he schedules a fight with another bum (Evangelista) instead of fighting Foreman, who during that time looses to Young and retires.

So all in all you can say that Ali skipped his mandatory for one fight. Yes, champions have been stripped of titles for this, but nothing is really consistent in boxing. In any case, it hardly constitutes ducking on Ali's part.

[Bokaj]

Er, no. Are you making your own stuff up now? Let me re-iterate:


Foreman- #1 with governing bodies:

Nov 74- summer 75.
Oct 75- March 1977.


Ok?

But he was inactive during the whole of 1975. He took a year off.

[My dinner with Conteh]

...and that's why halfway through the year Frazier was installed as mandatory. Foreman announced his comeback late 1975 and the Lyle fight was signed. I was merely giving you the dates of Foreman tenure as #1 contender. I'm not claiming Ali avoided him in 75, but as of 76 and before Young he clearly did.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Let's play this out: Ali faces the mandatory in October 1975 in a brutal battle, and takes on a bum (Coopman) in his next defence. After that he faces the nr. 2 contender (Young) and follows it up with another bum (Dunn). Shortly after that fight Foreman establish himself as the mandatory, according to you, but by this time Ali already has a scheduled fight with Norton. After Norton he schedules a fight with another bum (Evangelista) instead of fighting Foreman, who during that time looses to Young and retires.

So all in all you can say that Ali skipped his mandatory for one fight. Yes, champions have been stripped of titles for this, but nothing is really consistent in boxing. In any case, it hardly constitutes ducking on Ali's part.



I've only just read this. Let me tell you yet again- Foreman was mandatory for the whole of 1976 and until the Young fight in 1977. A no point did Ali sign to fight him, this was after he said he would later that year (76) and again in March of 1977 (when Foreman fought Young as Ali renaged and signed to fight Evangelista.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Shortly after that fight Foreman establish himself as the mandatory, according to you.


Are you still saying he wasn't?

[PowerPuncher]

Er, no. Are you making your own stuff up now? Let me re-iterate:


Foreman- #1 with governing bodies:

Nov 74- summer 75.
Oct 75- March 1977.


Ok?

You really want to see Foreman back in with Ali after Manilla? Ali was shot after that 1 and earned the right to duck a rematch

[My dinner with Conteh]

You really want to see Foreman back in with Ali after Manilla? Ali was shot after that 1 and earned the right to duck a rematch


No. I'd rather see Dunn fight him instead. In a stadium littered with empty seats :lol:

[PowerPuncher]

No. I'd rather see Dunn fight him instead. In a stadium littered with empty seats :lol:

Point is Ali was fucked after Manilla and should have retired, he got ruined badly enough by continuing, imagine how much worse he would have been with a Foreman rematch to boot

[My dinner with Conteh]

I totally agree. He should have packed it in. But, oh no, the attention and deification was just too much to give away- and that led to his condition as of today if we're honest. :-(

[Bokaj]

I've only just read this. Let me tell you yet again- Foreman was mandatory for the whole of 1976 and until the Young fight in 1977.

It's this I have a hard time to believe. Why would he be mandatory after winning just one fight after losing the title? Actually, you said that he was mandatory even for six months right after losing his title. By the same token Frazier should have been mandatory after losing his title to Forman. But he wasn't, he had to fight it out with Ali to get a title shot, but lost. Therefore it would be reasonable that Foreman only became mandatory after beating Frazier in their rematch, not after losing his title.

That's why I would like a source.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It's this I have a hard time to believe. Why would he be mandatory after winning just one fight after losing the title? Actually, you said that he was mandatory even for six months right after losing his title. By the same token Frazier should have been mandatory after losing his title to Forman. But he wasn't, he had to fight it out with Ali to get a title shot, but lost. Therefore it would be reasonable that Foreman only became mandatory after beating Frazier in their rematch, not after losing his title.

That's why I would like a source.


He was still the number one contender, like, for instance, Ali was still the #1 contender after Frazier beat him in 1971. Maybe Frazier should have been the number one contender but Foreman probably still was because he mashed Joe.

Ali was due for a compulsory defence in late 75, due to Foreman's inactivity, Frazier was made Numebr One. They fought, Frazier lost, Foreman came back, he's the #1 again.


Still, not getting this and what source do you require?

[Bokaj]

He was still the number one contender, like, for instance, Ali was still the #1 contender after Frazier beat him in 1971. Maybe Frazier should have been the number one contender but Foreman probably still was because he mashed Joe.

Ali was due for a compulsory defence in late 75, due to Foreman's inactivity, Frazier was made Numebr One. They fought, Frazier lost, Foreman came back, he's the #1 again.


Still, not getting this and what source do you require?

It's not for me to say which source, it's for you. You did get it from somewhere, right?

Anyway, if it is as you say; that Foreman was mandatory for 6 months after losing his title and then again immediatly after his comeback, then I think the fact that Ali wasn't stripped is as wrong as Foreman being the mandatory without really doing something.

Frazier wasn't the mandatory after losing to Foreman and Ali wasn't the mandatory after losing to Spinks. And the loss to Spinks was a split decision, so I don't really see why Foreman should be the mandatory after being convincingly beaten and KO'd. Ali actually had a better claim to be that after FOTC. But he went for two years as the nr. 1 contender after that fight without being the mandatory.

So, if you're right, the governing bodies made a fucked up decision in making Foreman the mandatory, and then didn't impose it. Sounds like boxing to me.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It's not for me to say which source, it's for you. You did get it from somewhere, right?


Of course.


Anyway, if it is as you say; that Foreman was mandatory for 6 months after losing his title and then again immediatly after his comeback, then I think the fact that Ali wasn't stripped is as wrong as Foreman being the mandatory without really doing something.


Probably had a lot to do with his annihilations of Frazier and Norton. Even though Joe and Kenny were due title shots the general feeling was that if they were to annexe Ali's crown, they'd be mashed by Foreman (probably a similar feeling when Ali defended vs Patterson, bearing in mind what Liston had done to Floyd).



Frazier wasn't the mandatory after losing to Foreman and Ali wasn't the mandatory after losing to Spinks. And the loss to Spinks was a split decision, so I don't really see why Foreman should be the mandatory after being convincingly beaten and KO'd. Ali actually had a better claim to be that after FOTC. But he went for two years as the nr. 1 contender after that fight without being the mandatory.



Fair enough, so you can say Joe ducked a rematch just like Ali did. That's fine.




So, if you're right, the governing bodies made a fucked up decision in making Foreman the mandatory, and then didn't impose it. Sounds like boxing to me.



This is by-the-by, i'm not suggesting Foreman deserved a shot in 75, he didn't. But he knocked out Lyle, then Frazier, which was a more impressive 76 than Norton had. He was #1 anyway. Still, Ali didn't sign to fight him as he promised when George gatecrashed a press-conference in November of 1976 when Ali was announcing he had signed to fight Bobick!!!!

[Bokaj]

This is by-the-by, i'm not suggesting Foreman deserved a shot in 75, he didn't. But he knocked out Lyle, then Frazier, which was a more impressive 76 than Norton had. He was #1 anyway. Still, Ali didn't sign to fight him as he promised when George gatecrashed a press-conference in November of 1976 when Ali was announcing he had signed to fight Bobick!!!!

Well, if he hadn't retired four months later he might well have gotten that fight.

And I do think that Ali deserved a rematch with Frazier more in early 1973 than Foreman deserved a rematch with Ali in early 1977. Ali gave a better account of himself in FOTC than Foreman did in Zaire. And after FOTC he was constantly active, comfortably beating Elllis, Mac Foster, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Quarrry, Patterson etc, while Foreman had had much less fights, and had a very close win over Lyle and an easy one over Frazier as his best wins.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I'm not concerned whether he deserved one or not. He was mandatory contender, the rules stipulated that the champion had to fight at least one compulsory each year. It seems they wavered that in 1976 and 1977. He took the Young fight because Ali refused to fight him. This was after promising a fight in November 1976 when Foreman embarrassed him in front of his fawning arselicks at a press conference. What happened next? Ali announced his retirement. Then announced he was going to fight again- and originally signed to defend his crown against, wait for it, Mike Schutte. :huh

Ali then spent 1977 fudging fights, signing to fight the winner of Norton-Bobick but 'oops' the wrong man won, then signing to fight the winner of the eliminator Norton-Young- the wrong man won again it seems as he then decided he wanted an interim defence against Spinks or Righetti. :lol: (Foreman-Frazier was meant to be an eliminator too- but the wrong man won again of course).

[My dinner with Conteh]

And I do think that Ali deserved a rematch with Frazier more in early 1973 than Foreman deserved a rematch with Ali in early 1977. Ali gave a better account of himself in FOTC than Foreman did in Zaire. And after FOTC he was constantly active, comfortably beating Elllis, Mac Foster, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Quarrry, Patterson etc.


This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about by the way. But anyway, the difference being is that Frazier had defended his crown only three times after the Ali win, whereas Ali had defended his eight times and signed for a ninth before Foreman was considered.

[Bokaj]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about by the way. But anyway, the difference being is that Frazier had defended his crown only three times after the Ali win, whereas Ali had defended his eight times and signed for a ninth before Foreman was considered.

It was you who brought it up, I think. This might have been a bit derailed, though...

But my point is: if the organizations had Foreman as the mandatory challenger for the first half of 1975 and for the whole of 1976, then that is as fucked up as not stripping Ali for not fighting Foreman during this period. It evens out.

[Bokaj]

I'm not concerned whether he deserved one or not. He was mandatory contender, the rules stipulated that the champion had to fight at least one compulsory each year. It seems they wavered that in 1976 and 1977. He took the Young fight because Ali refused to fight him. This was after promising a fight in November 1976 when Foreman embarrassed him in front of his fawning arselicks at a press conference. What happened next? Ali announced his retirement. Then announced he was going to fight again- and originally signed to defend his crown against, wait for it, Mike Schutte. :huh

Ali then spent 1977 fudging fights, signing to fight the winner of Norton-Bobick but 'oops' the wrong man won, then signing to fight the winner of the eliminator Norton-Young- the wrong man won again it seems as he then decided he wanted an interim defence against Spinks or Righetti. :lol: (Foreman-Frazier was meant to be an eliminator too- but the wrong man won again of course).

Damn, you seem to know a whole lot about how Ali thought. :yep

As for "the mandatory" see my previous post. As for Ali ducking dangerous contenders... he fought everyone of note during his second reign except Foreman, who only was active for about one year and the nr. 1 contender for 6 months of that reign., and who had alreat comfortable beaten.

Before you start with, "but he was the mandatory..." see my previous post.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It was you who brought it up, I think. This might have been a bit derailed, though...

But my point is: if the organizations had Foreman as the mandatory challenger for the first half of 1975 and for the whole of 1976, then that is as fucked up as not stripping Ali for not fighting Foreman during this period. It evens out.


It doesn't even out. Foreman was mandatory because of how he beat Norton I imagine. What did Norton do to do to be cemented No: 1 status (in your eyes)? He beat Quarry, who'd been well-beaten by Frazier and Foreman beat Lyle and Joe. So from June 76 onwards Foreman 'deserved' to be mandatory, even if you think he didn't before. Ali was due to fight one that very year, but then didn't. He should have at least signed to fight Foreman some time in 1976 like he promised.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Damn, you seem to know a whole lot about how Ali thought. :yep.


What is this supposed to mean? The truth is you've been well proven wrong here and you're trying to get away from it with bullshit "He shouldn't have been Number one so Ali is allowed to duck him" is basically what you're saying. How crap is that? :lol:

[Bokaj]

It doesn't even out. Foreman was mandatory because of how he beat Norton I imagine. What did Norton do to do to be cemented No: 1 status (in your eyes)? He beat Quarry, who'd been well-beaten by Frazier and Foreman beat Lyle and Joe. So from June 76 onwards Foreman 'deserved' to be mandatory, even if you think he didn't before. Ali was due to fight one that very year, but then didn't. He should have at least signed to fight Foreman some time in 1976 like he promised.

Why would he have been mandatory for what he did before losing the title? If he was, I just think its' silly. He come off of a quite embarrassing loss and became mandatory? Why then wasn't Ali mandatory after FOTC and Frazier after losing to Foreman?

[Bokaj]

What is this supposed to mean? The truth is you've been well proven wrong here and you're trying to get away from it with bullshit "He shouldn't have been Number one so Ali is allowed to duck him" is basically what you're saying. How crap is that? :lol:

Proven with what?! You have strange version of proof, my friend. I've asked for sources and you provided me with... nothing.

And I repeat, IF the organizations had Foreman as a mandatory long before he beat Frazier (even before he beat Lyle) then that's as silly as not stripping Ali for failing to face him. Ali's own comeback after FOTC was far more impressive, but that didn't make him mandatory.

[Bigcat]

I watched that again a few months ago, what a great fight, but.... one of those hard to score fights in my humble opinion.. Norton and Larry boxed a few rounds that were too close to score clearly, i think that is what happened, the ringside judges were undecided on many rounds, and even though Larry seemed to orchestrate the tempo, Norton somehow ended up getting credit for rounds he was merely competing in.. Larry UD. not SD..

Norton very gallent and hard working loser....

[My dinner with Conteh]

Proven with what?! You have strange version of proof, my friend. I've asked for sources and you provided me with... nothing..




What exact proof do you want I asked?


And I repeat, IF the organizations had Foreman as a mandatory long before he beat Frazier (even before he beat Lyle) then that's as silly as not stripping Ali for failing to face him. Ali's own comeback after FOTC was far more impressive, but that didn't make him mandatory.


Frazier would have had to fight Ali after Foreman as he was Number One, and it would have been his 4th defence without taking on his mandatory if he didn't. Then he would have been right accused of ducking if he hadn't given Ali a rematch.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Greg Page didn't necessarily do much to become Holmes' mandatory. The fact remains, whether his ranking was deserved or not, Holmes ducked facing him.

[My dinner with Conteh]

So, Foreman loses to Ali- he gets rated ahead of Norton who in 1974, has beaten just Boone Kirkman (who Foreman trounced years before) and lost to George himself and was embarrassed. Yet, it appears so shocking that Foreman's rated ahead of him. :lol:

[Bokaj]

So, Foreman loses to Ali- he gets rated ahead of Norton who in 1974, has beaten just Boone Kirkman (who Foreman trounced years before) and lost to George himself and was embarrassed. Yet, it appears so shocking that Foreman's rated ahead of him. :lol:

He not only gets rated above him, he's mandatory according to you. Something Ali wasn't for two years after FOTC, even though he more or less cleaned out the division during that time.

It seems very strange to me that a champ's mandatory should be someone he just convincingly beat. And obviously that's not always the case.

[Bokaj]

What exact proof do you want I asked?

And i told you! A source! Where did you get the information that Foreman was mandatory from nov 1974 to july 1975 and from jan 1976 to march 1977?


Frazier would have had to fight Ali after Foreman as he was Number One, and it would have been his 4th defence without taking on his mandatory if he didn't. Then he would have been right accused of ducking if he hadn't given Ali a rematch.

Ali had been nr. 1 for two years. Foreman had only been nr. 1 for 9 months when he lost to Young and retired. But according to you he had somehow been mandatory for 12 months more than that.

[My dinner with Conteh]

He not only gets rated above him, he's mandatory according to you. Something Ali wasn't for two years after FOTC, even though he more or less cleaned out the division during that time.

It seems very strange to me that a champ's mandatory should be someone he just convincingly beat. And obviously that's not always the case.


What i'm saying, is he's the Number one contender still. Ali was due to have a mandatory late 75, Foreman, if active, would have been that challenge (if he wasn't ducked). Frazier became #1 due to the aforemtnioned inactivity, and filled the slot. When George come back he was again installed as #1 and mandatory contender for a fight late 1976. Ali, despite four defences didn't have a mandatory, then failed to do so the following year. He fudged out this by anouncing retirement after retirment, wherein the WBC/WBA were waiting for 'written confimation' and as soon as this was forthcoming and were going to announce 1 vs 2 for the vacant title- George vs Kenny. Obviously, the written confirmation never did arrive.


ps. Imagine Tyson losing the WBC crown in his first defence, then being rated behind Berbick? No, I can't imagine it either.

[My dinner with Conteh]

And i told you! A source! Where did you get the information that Foreman was mandatory from nov 1974 to july 1975 and from jan 1976 to march 1977?.


Well, hard to pinpoint: possibly Ring, more likely Boxing Illustrated, Boxing International and Boxing News. 1976 was a particularly good year for the collection. I have virtually every issue of all mentioned (the full 52 issues of B.News, which makes for fascinating 'duckage' reading). :D :good




Ali had been nr. 1 for two years. Foreman had only been nr. 1 for 9 months when he lost to Young and retired. But according to you he had somehow been mandatory for 12 months more than that.

He was again Number one contender when Frazier lost and he signed to fight Lyle. Obviously, he wasn't mandatory in 1975 becuase Ali had fulfilled that obligation. However, if Ali had fought his mandatory in 76 it would have had to have been Foreman. Can you not grasp this concept? :huh

[Bokaj]

He was again Number one contender when Frazier lost and he signed to fight Lyle. Obviously, he wasn't mandatory in 1975 becuase Ali had fulfilled that obligation. However, if Ali had fought his mandatory in 76 it would have had to have been Foreman. Can you not grasp this concept? :huh

I suppose you mean that he was the organization's nr. 1 before he even met Lyle, because Norton was The Ring's nr. 1 at that point.

Still, it doesn't change my view that to make Foreman mandatory without him even having a fight afte Zaire is as wrong as not stripping Ali for not facing him.

And now from Ali's point of view: He faced the nr. 1 and 2 in the Ring Ratings that year and took on bums in between. I don't know if he felt any pressure from the organizations to fight Foreman, but it seems very reasonable to me that he took another easy fight after facing Norton, who he had been scheduled to fight since the beginning of the year. Had Foreman not lost and retired, and still not got his shot, then I can see the controversy, but not as it is.

For the first 2 years of his reign Ali gave rubber matches to his two toughest oppponents and took on tough contenders in Lyle, Bugner and Young. IF Foreman for some bizarre reaon became the mandatory coming off a bad loss I can't fault Ali for not immediatly facing him when even the organizations didn't seem to pressure him to do that.

After beating Frazier, Foreman clearly was the main contender, but then Ali was already scheduled to fight Norton, and 6 months after that fight Foreman retired. That might very well have been a lucky break for Ali, but such things happens. I don't think Foreman was hard done by. If he was mandatory before beating Frazier that was a gift, just as Ali in that case got a gift by not being stripped.

I don't think my opinion regarding this will change.

[PowerPuncher]

I totally agree. He should have packed it in. But, oh no, the attention and deification was just too much to give away- and that led to his condition as of today if we're honest. :-(

Agreed Frazier should have been his last fight, the rest of Ali's fights are largely irrelevant to his legacy. Been on top of the world and having your identity as World Heavyweight Champ is a hard addiction to give up

[ChrisPontius]

It's actually quite normal for the former champion to still be #1 or #2 contender after being knocked out, even if it happened in devastating fashion. Patterson was after being iced by Johansson, Liston was the #1 contender after quitting against Clay, Frazier was still the #2 contender after Foreman destroyed him, Tyson after being beaten by Douglas, Lewis post-Rahman, etc etc. Perhaps not always justified, but this is simply the way it is and has always been.

[Bokaj]

It's actually quite normal for the former champion to still be #1 or #2 contender after being knocked out, even if it happened in devastating fashion. Patterson was after being iced by Johansson, Liston was the #1 contender after quitting against Clay, Frazier was still the #2 contender after Foreman destroyed him, Tyson after being beaten by Douglas, Lewis post-Rahman, etc etc. Perhaps not always justified, but this is simply the way it is and has always been.

Yes, but not necissarily mandatory. Patterson's and Liston's rematches was due to clauses in the contracts, if I'm not mistaken. Foreman and Ali didn't have such a clause.

Tyson had 4 fights after losing to Douglas before he got another shot. Frazier needed to get past Ali to get a shot, but didn't. Ali more or less cleaned out the division for 2 years after FOTC, but still got superseeded by Foreman. Spinks was stripped a belt because he took on Ali and not Norton, etc, etc...

[My dinner with Conteh]

I suppose you mean that he was the organization's nr. 1 before he even met Lyle, because Norton was The Ring's nr. 1 at that point.


Yes, you know this. Stop trying to move the goalposts into a 'Ring magazine' debate. I'm talking about sanctioning bodies and rules. I think you know this. You're obviously going this route because you've already been proven wrong about Norton being mandatory. And, George was #1 with the Ring for the first half of 1975 too.


Still, it doesn't change my view that to make Foreman mandatory without him even having a fight afte Zaire is as wrong as not stripping Ali for not facing him.


This happens all the time in boxing. A beaten champ often remains the number one ranked. Do you not know this?

And now from Ali's point of view: He faced the nr. 1 and 2 in the Ring Ratings that year and took on bums in between. I don't know if he felt any pressure from the organizations to fight Foreman, but it seems very reasonable to me that he took another easy fight after facing Norton, who he had been scheduled to fight since the beginning of the year.


Foreman spent most of late 1975, ALL of 1976 and the first three months of 1977 asking Ali for a rematch. He was the Number one contender after all.


I can't fault Ali for not immediatly facing him when even the organizations didn't seem to pressure him to do that.


The organisations giving him too much leeway is the crux of the argument. However, he made it awkward for them by announcing his retirement through the second half of 1976, they were waiting for written confirmation, then he'd come out and say he signed to fight...Bobick, or Schutte, etc.


after beating Frazier, Foreman clearly was the main contender, but then Ali was already scheduled to fight Norton, and 6 months after that fight Foreman retired.


He consistently fudged out of signing to fight Foreman after he'd promised to the world. The Boxing News headline Nov. 1976: "Ali accepts Foreman challenge". The headline the week after? "Ali announces retirement". :lol:


I don't think my opinion regarding this will change.

Try not to mistake me for someone who gives a fuck. :good

[fists of fury]

The best I could do to help resolve the issue (or fan the flames) is the Ring magazine ratings. (Not official I know.)

March 1975: Ali champ

Foreman number one challenger

March 1976: Ali champ

Foreman ranked 4th

March 1977: Ali champ

Foreman number 1 challenger

[fists of fury]

I must be honest, it sounds like 'fudging' to me.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yes, but not necissarily mandatory. Patterson's and Liston's rematches was due to clauses in the contracts, if I'm not mistaken. Foreman and Ali didn't have such a clause.


Patterson and Liston were still Number one contenders regardless. Yes, even after Floyd's 2 minute cameo. :good


Tyson had 4 fights after losing to Douglas before he got another shot. Frazier needed to get past Ali to get a shot, but didn't.


That's because his mandatory was overdue, so Douglas had to fight Holyfield (as opposed to Tyson-Evander, which pencilled in for summer 1990). Holyfield was the mandatory, not Tyson. Tyson became mandatory late 1990 and the fight was scheduled for November 1991.



Ali more or less cleaned out the division for 2 years after FOTC, but still got superseeded by Foreman. Spinks was stripped a belt because he took on Ali and not Norton, etc, etc...


Yeah, Frazier avoided an Ali rematch, we've established this. And yes, Leon was stipped of the belt- purely because of Ali's fudging of his mandatory.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The best I could do to help resolve the issue (or fan the flames) is the Ring magazine ratings. (Not official I know.)

March 1975: Ali champ

Foreman number one challenger

March 1976: Ali champ

Foreman ranked 4th

March 1977: Ali champ

Foreman number 1 challenger


True. Foreman ranking went to #2 around May of 76.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I love the way he's mentioned Spinks being stripped too. :lol:

That's part of my argument. All of a sudden, the rules apply when Ali isn't champ. Ridiculous. :huh

[Bokaj]

I love the way he's mentioned Spinks being stripped too. :lol:

That's part of my argument. All of a sudden, the rules apply when Ali isn't champ. Ridiculous. :huh

I used Spinks as an example of the ex-champ not being mandatory. And yes, Patterson, Liston and Ali were still nr. 1 after losing, but not mandatory. Patterson and Liston got their immediate rematches due to clauses, not because they were mandatory. Ali didn't get and immediate rematch (after FOTC) and neither did Frazier. Had Frazier gotten a rematch (when Forman was champ) it would only have been after beating Bugner and Ali.

It's you who make the difference between mandatory and nr. 1. Going into 1976 Norton was nr. 1 (but not mandatory according to you) and Young was nr. 2. After beating Frazier, Foreman must have become nr. 1, but then Ali had a scheduled meeting with Norton. After that he "ducked" Foreman for a total of 6 months. Poor big George.

To Fists of Fury: That Foreman was nr. 1 going into 1975 doesn't mean anything since he wasn't active that year.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I used Spinks as an example of the ex-champ not being mandatory. And yes, Patterson, Liston and Ali were still nr. 1 after losing, but not mandatory. Patterson and Liston got their immediate rematches due to clauses, not because they were mandatory.


But the fact remains, if there wasn't a rematch clause, providing they didn't lose in the meantime, when a mandatory was due- it's they who get the fight.


It's you who make the difference between mandatory and nr. 1. Going into 1976 Norton was nr. 1 (but not mandatory according to you) and Young was nr. 2. After beating Frazier, Foreman must have become nr. 1, but then Ali had a scheduled meeting with Norton.




Who was Norton Number One with?


After that he "ducked" Foreman for a total of 6 months. Poor big George.


He was called out throughout late 1975 and 1976 and early 1977 to 'sign' for a fight. He didn't.


To Fists of Fury: That Foreman was nr. 1 going into 1975 doesn't mean anything since he wasn't active that year.


Yes, but they didn't know that in March 1975. :lol: He was installed as #1 probably because he's trounced Joe and Kenny.

[ChrisPontius]

As for Spinks being stripped.... he wasn't the only one. Monzon and Conteh were immediately stripped when they didn't face their mandatories (yet respectable opponents, especially in Monzon's case), around the same time by the same governing bodies. I don't see what's so hard in admitting that Ali retained his title because he was Ali and for that reason only.

[Bokaj]

But the fact remains, if there wasn't a rematch clause, providing they didn't lose in the meantime, when a mandatory was due- it's they who get the fight.

Except for Spinks being stripped what examples are there at HW? Patterson wasn't in anyway forced to take on Liston, for example.







Who was Norton Number One with?

The Ring.







He was called out throughout late 1975 and 1976 and early 1977 to 'sign' for a fight. He didn't.

How nice it would be to get a title shot every time you call out for it. Fact is, in late 1975 Ali faced Frazier, and Foreman had done nothing since losing in Zaire. Only after beating Frazier was he truly top of the rest. 9 months later he retires. This is hardly one of the classic hard luck stories of contenders, especially since he had already been bested by Ali.

[Bokaj]

I don't see what's so hard in admitting that Ali retained his title because he was Ali and for that reason only.

Of course, Ali got benefits for being Ali. No way was he gonna get stripped, no matter what more or less.

But - IF Foreman was mandatory long before beating Frazier again I see this as just as arbitrary as Ali not being stripped for not facing him. In either case, I don't feel Foreman was hard done by.

The possible leeway Ali got by the org. wasn't even as wide as the one Frazier got when Ali was nr. 1 and clamouring for a rematch. Only 10-15 years earlier Patterson could have avoided Liston forever without being stripped.

And Frazier himself would have had to get by Ali to get a rematch with Foreman in 1974. I don't see why Foreman should have been a special case and getting a rematch as soon as he wanted after Zaire.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The Ring..



AHa ha, are you actually serious? What the hell has this got to do with being mandatory/number one contender? It seems that all's you've got in this debate is one old browned copy of the Ring, dated March 1976 or something and getting all your info from that. :lol:


I'm getting off...for now, before I go i'll highlight something for you, so it finally (if possible gets through to that grey matter of yours):


Ken Norton was never the #1 contender and/or mandatory in the eyes of the WBC or WBA for Ali's crown while George Foreman was fighting.



Got that? Phew.

[My dinner with Conteh]

and Frazier himself would have had to get by Ali to get a rematch with Foreman in 1974. I don't see why Foreman should have been a special case and getting a rematch as soon as he wanted after Zaire.


He didn't want one as soon as he wanted, he wanted it as the mandatory contender, which was due in late 1976, and by then, the only really big fight out there.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It's you who make the difference between mandatory and nr. 1. Going into 1976 Norton was nr. 1 (but not mandatory according to you) and Young was nr. 2.


This paragraph proves you're an absolute joke. Norton was number one contender but not mandatory and then in the next post I ask you what he was number one in, you reply "The Ring". What the hell that has to do with mandatory title defences only you'll know it appears. :lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

Except for Spinks being stripped what examples are there at HW? Patterson wasn't in anyway forced to take on Liston, for example.


There aren't many examples because champs usually fight their mandatory. Michael Spinks springs to mind of course, as someone who bottled out of the HBO tournament as he shit his pants as soon as Tyson came on the scene.


ps. After Foreman retired, Ali spent most of 77 avoided his mandatory again, which was finally, Norton.

[My dinner with Conteh]

As for Spinks being stripped.... he wasn't the only one. Monzon and Conteh were immediately stripped when they didn't face their mandatories (yet respectable opponents, especially in Monzon's case), around the same time by the same governing bodies. I don't see what's so hard in admitting that Ali retained his title because he was Ali and for that reason only.


Exactly. And Conteh was stripped for not fighting Cuello. Hardly an ex-champ, who'd say, already KO'd Marvin Johnson and Saad Muhammad in 2 rounds (like George had to the Numbers 2 and 3).

[Bokaj]

This paragraph proves you're an absolute joke. Norton was number one contender but not mandatory and then in the next post I ask you what he was number one in, you reply "The Ring". What the hell that has to do with mandatory title defences only you'll know it appears. :lol:

I'm not as fond of name calling as you are, but you continue to misunderstand me - a lot.

I've never said that Norton's ranking with The Ring should make him mandatory. But The Rings rankings are usually used to argue for a contender's claim (even if they're not formal) and I merely said that Ali took on the nr. 1 and nr. 2 fighters in 1976 as ranked by The Ring going in to the year.

So, are we clear?

One more question: Don't you see anything odd with Foreman becoming the mandatory directly after Zaire, a favour that wasn't extended to either Ali or Frazier after they lost their respective titles?

That's why, I've asked for a specific source about it, but you seem a bit shy there.

[Bokaj]

He didn't want one as soon as he wanted, he wanted it as the mandatory contender, which was due in late 1976, and by then, the only really big fight out there.

You said he was mandatory during the first half of 1975 and going in to 1976.

[My dinner with Conteh]

One more question: Don't you see anything odd with Foreman becoming the mandatory directly after Zaire, a favour that wasn't extended to either Ali or Frazier after they lost their respective titles?

That's why, I've asked for a specific source about it, but you seem a bit shy there.


Look, Foreman is the number one contender with the wbc and wba after Zaire. Ali doesn't have to face him exactly then as mandatory, but he's in that position and when the mandatory was due- late 75, then Foreman, if active, has the fight. He was dropped from 1 to 2 by the WBC (not the WBA) and Frazier became #1 contender and filled the mandatory slot- as soon as Manila was over Foreman was again #1 contdner, due for mandatory sometime in 1976. Is this clear?

[My dinner with Conteh]

You said he was mandatory during the first half of 1975 and going in to 1976.


He was. Droped to 2 because of inactivity, re-installed as 1 after Manila. But Ali had the choice to wait for the whole of 76 to fight his mandatory challenger, which was again, Foreman.

[Bokaj]

To summarise: Going strictly be the rules it seem reasonable that Ali should have been stripped in late 1976 for taking on Evangelista instead of Foreman. But when the fuck have the boxing orgs. ever gone strictly by the rules? Hell, Foreman has actually been one of the main benificiaries of boxing's lax standards. He begun with getting the title fight against Frazier that Ali should have had, and in the 90's he got another two shots at the title with much weaker credentials. That's boxing. Yes, Ali was considered a demi-god in the late 70's and could do no wrong, but he hasn't gotten any favours that other champions haven't.

Patterson could have avoided Liston until hell froze over, Frazier basically took two years off but still retained the title, and Holmes refused very valid rematches and top contenders. And of course if we go back to for example the days of Dempsey, things were even worse.

So if you want me to weep for Foreman's unfair treatment because of Ali's status as an "untouchable"... Well, that just won't happen.

[My dinner with Conteh]

As for Spinks being stripped.... he wasn't the only one. Monzon and Conteh were immediately stripped when they didn't face their mandatories (yet respectable opponents, especially in Monzon's case), around the same time by the same governing bodies. I don't see what's so hard in admitting that Ali retained his title because he was Ali and for that reason only.


The thing also is that the sanctioning bodies were being messed about by Ali too. For example, after Norton, the WBC ordered that he fight Foreman "within 90 days". What happened? Ali announced his retirement. ha ha ha.

[My dinner with Conteh]

To summarise: Going strictly be the rules it seem reasonable that Ali should have been stripped in late 1976 for taking on Evangelista instead of Foreman. But when the fuck have the boxing orgs. ever gone strictly by the rules?.


The point was, Ali's ducking of his mandatory far more so than the WBC and WBA forcing him to go through with it. That, no matter what, he avoided the fight like it was the Black Plague. And that's all there is to it. If you're only written evidence is one issue of the Ring and that Thomas Hauser book then good luck with that.


So if you want me to weep for Foreman's unfair treatment because of Ali's status as an "untouchable"... Well, that just won't happen.


I don't give a fuck about your crappy opinion. You've been proven wrong enough times here to know your opinion is useless.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hell, Foreman has actually been one of the main benificiaries of boxing's lax standards.


Foreman was stipped of the WBA title for not facing his mandatory in 95, and he hadn't even made one defence. Good work again. :cool:

[Bokaj]

So you mean Foreman wasn't a benificiary of the circus that boxing often is? That he actually earned his 2 title shots in the 90's? :rofl

Just one more time: You have proven fuck all. I've asked for sources but got none. Hell, you don't even seem to understand what I mean with source.

Well, here's how it goes. This is the source for the times I've mentioned The Ring's ratings (and I don't confuse them with being mandatory, but they can still be illuminating): [Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Hauser book haven't been referred to at all by me.

And that's it from me about this. I didn't like your adolescent tone before, and now I've just about had my fill of it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

My source. How about Boxing Illustrated, almost every issue from the entire decade, including 74,75, 76, and 77. BI produced WBC/WBA ratings every month until around 1977... :good


...and all's you repsond with is one month's worth of Ring ratings. Well done! :lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

And that's it from me about this. I didn't like your adolescent tone before, and now I've just about had my fill of it.


You'll find my exasperation when I'm arguing with the likes of Bill1234, but you won't find this when i'm debating with JohnThomas, Chris P, StoneHands, John Garfield, etc. Get the link now?


Yet again, you've reverted to 'Ring ratings' which has had fuck all to do with anything i have said. The Ring don't pick mandatory contenders. Maybe one day (I'll guess at some time around winter 2011) you will grasp this.


Again, sources: Ring- probably missing about 15 issues from the whole of the 1970s. 1976 complete, Three missing from 1975 but they didn't print WBA/WBC ratings anyway for the most part.


Boxing Illustrated: missing about 10 from the decade. 1974, 75, 76, 77 virtually complete. Two missing from 74, when Foreman was still champ. So this era is well and truly covered.


Boxing News: weekly mag. Have all 52 issues from 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 6 missing from 75, every issue from 76, 4 missing from 1977, all issues from 78, 14 missing from 1979. They intermittently printed governing bodies ratings, around every six to eight weeks.



I have odd issues of World Boxing/Boxing International from 75 and 76 too. About 10. But on the whole, I'm a bit dry on source material :-)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Boxing News is the real gem here- tons of info. Like i said before, headline: Nov 19th: "Ali accepts Foreman Challenge", week later, November 26th, headline: "Ali announces retirement".* :lol:


Loads of similar stuff throughout year- Ali retires about four times to put off rematch. Does the dsame with Norton throuhgout much of 1977 too. Kenny then writes to Ring about it (March 1978 issue).



* Just in case you missed it first time. :good

[Bill1234]

As for Spinks being stripped.... he wasn't the only one. Monzon and Conteh were immediately stripped when they didn't face their mandatories (yet respectable opponents, especially in Monzon's case), around the same time by the same governing bodies. I don't see what's so hard in admitting that Ali retained his title because he was Ali and for that reason only.

Exactly.:good

[Bokaj]

Yet again, you've reverted to 'Ring ratings' which has had fuck all to do with anything i have said. The Ring don't pick mandatory contenders.

Perhaps you should read my post again. Slowly this time.

[Bill1234]

You'll find my exasperation when I'm arguing with the likes of Bill1234, but you won't find this when i'm debating with JohnThomas, Chris P, StoneHands, John Garfield, etc. Get the link now?

It's comments like this that make me feel welcome here and wanting to come back.:thumbsup

[JohnThomas1]

It's comments like this that make me feel welcome here and wanting to come back.:thumbsup

:lol:

Hang in there mate hahaha

[My dinner with Conteh]

Perhaps you should read my post again. Slowly this time.

That's all you've been going on about. I know this, I have the actual issue.


This is the kind of stuff that was baffling me. Your insistence of going on about Numbers 1 and 2 when i KNEW they were with Ring. I don't care. Look at the bit highlighted (your quote), what the hell does 'mandatory' have to do with a magazine?


"It's you who make the difference between mandatory and nr. 1. Going into 1976 Norton was nr. 1 (but not mandatory according to you) and Young was nr. 2."


Again, just so it sinks in for future reference (or you could be Bill and keep deny it for the next decade like the manchild you probably are):


Ken Norton was never the #1 contender and/or mandatory challenger with the governing bodies until Foreman retired


Ken Norton was never the #1 contender and/or mandatory challenger with the governing bodies until Foreman retired

Ken Norton was never the #1 contender and/or mandatory challenger with the governing bodies until Foreman retired

Ken Norton was never the #1 contender and/or mandatory challenger with the governing bodies until Foreman retired

Ken Norton was never the #1 contender and/or mandatory challenger with the governing bodies until Foreman retired

:good

[Bokaj]

You just wasted a lot of nice colours, because I don't say that he was.

I just mentioned at one point that Norton and Young was rated nr. 1 and nr. 2 by The Ring going into 1976, but I never said that either of them was mandatory with the organizations. Obviously, this simple fact didn't go through.

You don't seem to catch on quickly, and persist going on about something I've clarified several times. Hopefully you understand now and can quit obsessing, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

You just wasted a lot of nice colours, because I don't say that he was.


Well you did previously, until proven wrong.



I just mentioned at one point that Norton and Young was rated nr. 1 and nr. 2 by The Ring going into 1976, but I never said that either of them was mandatory with the organizations. Obviously, this simple fact didn't go through.


You mentioned it a million times. I knew it all along, I didn't care. Yet, you kept mentioning it and you did say Norton was mandatory contender.



You don't seem to catch on quickly, and persist going on about something I've clarified several times.

Stop telling lies then (see above)