Ali-Gift Decisions?

Well put.

Ali fans see what they want to see when watching his fights. In those later years he did little to no fighting. His jab was a fick that was short much of the time. He had lost the snap in that righthand. He just wasnt the same fighter.

It got so sick in the late 70s I believe one judge gave Ali the 1st Spinks fight.

 

Alis prime might have been 1968 to 1970.

 

Wow Goyourownway!

You are actually being nice in this response. Thank-you.

I watched all three Ali vs Norton fights and I still can't count enough rounds that Ali won in the third fight to justify him getting the decision.

Many people had a vested interest in Ali at that time, and the fear of him retiring was too much for the sport to give Norton the rightful decision. The only way Norton was earning a draw is if he was able to knock Ali down in the last round albeit still a robbery. Boxing would still find a way to deny Kenny the victory.

Shavers faded late against Ali which cost him just like Lyle.

 

John Maff,

I should go back, and watch the video, with a closer eye.

Not sure how I scored it back in 1974, but I think
I had Muhammad Ali winning by a 5-4-3 margin (in Rounds of course).

116-115,,,,,,, on the 10-point must system.

I took a peak,,,,,,,,

Muhammad Ali edges out 'Smokin Joe' in Round 1, by 'slapping' like a girl as Joe chases.

Round 2, I had even, up to the moment that Muhammad Ali shook Joe with a right-hand.
When Tony Perez stopped the Round, I had to give it to Muhammad Ali by the slightest-margin.
When the round resumed, the last 25-seconds or so were even.

 

No worries there..any hate he recieves is overwhelmed by the excesses of the opposite kind..unblinking, blind hero worship.

 

:deal

 

The same can be said for any boxer ever.

 

Ali with out a doubt one of the top Heavyweight,p4p champs all-time,now for the gifts Jimmy Young,Norton 3, Ali got presents.

 

Well considering he never fought in those years it wasn't. Simple as that. Personally I feel his prime was 67, however from about 73 was where he reached his peak mentally and ring IQ whys. Thats why I feel 70-73 Ali is not that much worse than 67 Ali. If you where to combine the mental side of Alis game from 73 and the physical peak he was at in 67 then in my eyes he would be unbeatable, however it's the lack of boxing knowledge and in experience (although he did have a fair bit) that often makes me pick against Ali for Big George, Frazier and Norton and 50-50 fights with the likes of Holmes and Lewis.

 

Would fights from mid-1967 thru early-1970 have taken there toll on the
Champion Muhammad Ali.

Bouts with Oscar Bonavena and a Floyd Patterson II bout were on the table
for 1967.

Thad Spencer, after defeating Ernie Terrell in August 1967, would have been a
desired bout for the 'Pacific-Northwest', for late-1967.

Those bouts alone, would have taken a bit out of Muhammad.

 

Based on that criteria,you'd have given the third Leonard-Duran fight to Roberto,maybe ? :huh Leonard pitched a shutout in that one,but he suffered more facial damage than Duran,as he was cut in three places. How about the Fight of the Century ? Nobody can deny that Frazier won,but his face was pounded to a pulp.

 

I give less regard 2 skin damage .
Especially when it's due 2 cheats .
I haven't seen Duran vs Leonard #3 so i won't answer about it specifically .

 

I agree. Ali's enforced hiatus between 1967-70 extended his time at the top. Much the same applies to Sugar Ray Leonard 1982-1987 (Kevin Howard fight being the exception)

 

Which is why I used the word might, instead of was.

And the difference between Ali and Ray Leonard or Robinson is that unlike them his retirement was not voluntary. So no Ali gets no credit for war time. But it does make you wander.

Do I think that fighting those years would have cost Ali some on the backend? Probably, although comparing it to Leonards retirement Ali was gone for a much shorter time. Unlike Leonard Ali was not going to be taking a whole lot of punishment from top guys, although he and Frazier probably hook it on a year earlier (and Frazier probably still wins, although the fight is even closer).

But I can't believe anyone would think that Ali fighting those years would have been bad for him. So he loses some years on the back. Big deal. maybe that means no comebacks against Holmes and Berbick. Maybe that means no Spinks fights. So his second reign is cut down to 3 years or 2 and 8 or 9 defences. However his first reign is extended to 6 years and somewhere between 12 and 18 defenses. Hell even if Ali is completely done after Manila and losses the belt goods legacy would have been secured by his first reign.

 

In "Facing Ali" Holmes states that he often saw Ali pissing blood after sparring sessions. Doesn't mean he was badly beaten every day in sparring. He certainly wasn't by Chuvalo, if anyone is insane enough to imply that.