Ali vs. Frazier II Was closer than the scorecards indicated and 'Smokin Joe' did nail Mr. Ali with many hard left hooks. It is possible, that a Judge looking for more 'substance' than 'style' could have scored it for 'Smokin Joe',,,,,,,,,, say maybe 6-5-1 in Rounds.
I don't know why people hate on Ali so much. Most of you are making stuff up to make it look like he was some crooked boxer who didn't earn anything which is far from the truth.
No one is making things up, well apart from maybe Frank. Ali has the least haters on this forum accept for maybe Louis or Robinson. The fact of the matter is that after he worked so hard to get to where he did, he received a lot of help when he reached that point. No one is taking away his achievements from him, but the fact he won rounds on merit of being Ali is undeniable and that many consider 67 Ali unbeatable when the harsh reality of it that prime for prime Frazier may well beat Ali and Norton certainly would with fair judging.
Well Ali was so beat up by Chuvalo that he defended his title two months later in England... I think we would define robbery. To me robbery is when next to no one, save the judges, agree with the decision. And that's not the case with the third Norton fight. It was a close fight. A controversial fight. But a 'bad decision'? Not really as that implies a majority, an unnatural majority, have Ken winning going away. And that's not the case. Hell a lot of us have Ali winning and not just rabbid fan boys. So while some scream robbery, I think we should call it what it is. A close fight.
Only outright gift decision I thought Ali ever received was against Jimmy Young.Much like the Froch-Dirrell fight,I don't see see how the champion should benefit just because of perceived "negative tactics".Young soundly outboxed and outworked Ali and I've never been able to justify Ali winning. The Shavers and third Norton fights seemed close fights to me.Don't see a robbery in either. If it was only his name that prevented Perez from docking points from Ali,why didn't Perez ever deduct points from Mauro Galvano in his fight with Nigel Benn? The holding was far more excessive in that fight,and Galvano wasn't even trying to win that fight. The fact is,some refs are more lenient with holding than others.
Im not ignoring them, nor am i claiming to know more than the doctors. Indeed, i would say its old hat what you posted about Ali peeing blood because most on here would have known that already, its been stated several times in books and documentaries straight from Ali's mouth. That doesnt mean George won the fight but it does mean that he did damage to him. Unfortunately for george and yourself, the judges dont have x-ray vision to see this and even if they did, theres nothing in the rulebook to give extra points for internal injuries. As for the first part of your post, its pretty clear that your squirming to try and get some kinda explanation out to justify your previously ludicrous statement cos its all over the place. Peace man:rasta
prime Norton (which he was when he fought Ali) beats prime Ali? Ali of the late 60s was a different man to the Ali of 72/73 mate Norton would always give him trouble, thats the nature of styles, but to claim he 'certainly would' is a bit of an over-statement:good
What Ali lacked in physical attributes he gained in ring IQ and mental toughness. In my eyes. 70-73 Ali wasnt substantially worse than 67 Ali as most suggest. I'd also take a prime George to knock the **** out of a pretty unexperienced Ali, but most would frown upon 67 even coming close to losing.
You're one to talk, ****ing Robinson hater. :rofl :good A lot of this stuff is true, although I still recognize him as the #1 Heavyweight.
I don't think I had him winning a fight after the thriller but his legacy was already secured by then.
ha ha! Thats not really a level playing field is it? Prime george v inexperienced Ali. I could make a case for prime Tyson to knock the **** outta an inexperienced joe louis but we all know thats all ifs and buts:good