Foreman was the number one mandatory contender- he beat up Frazier again, was hotly tipped to beat Ali mid-76 and it would have been another massiv heavyweight bout. He was constantly in the press asking for the rematch; gatecrashed an Ali press conference and a 2nd fight was agreed in principle...Ali fudged the issue through 1976 by retiring...then coming back...then retiring every other week. The likes of Tony Tucker used to get a shot at the crown from his seemingly endless position as #1 mandatory contender- apart from the bogus ranking he enjoyed, he couldn't draw flies to a bucket of ****; while Foreman was a former undisputed champ, the #1 contender and the biggest fight out there. It was an obvious duck by a fading champ, meanwhile George took a risky Young fight because Ali reneged on a deal to fight him. Here's Ali photographed leaving that press conference I mentioned earlier... This content is protected
Agreed. I could see Ali ducking a Shavers rematch sooner than I could see him ducking Foreman. I would go as far as to say Foreman was one of the easiest, most conclusive fights against a top opponent of his second act. Given the extraordinary wars he had been through, the idea that he would duck a rematch with someone he toyed with at times is hard to believe. Like I said in my previous post, Ali made a choice to use his remaining fights to run the gauntlet and beat everybody once rather in finding himself stuck in endless rematches and trilogies with anybody who gave him a tough fight (which, by that point, was virtually everybody). It was his right as the dominant boxer of his era to be a little hypocritcal in demanding rematches for his losses and never giving them for his victories. I think it was the correct course of action, given his age and the depth of the division.
For someone who keeps trumpeting how they were there and witnessed the events you dont really seem to remember Frazier giving interview after interview where he stated that he wanted a rematch with Foreman. Is that selective or you just dont remember? You also show an appalling level ignorance/naivete on the subject of Dempsey ducking Wills.
What has n't been mentioned yet is the fact that it was George Foreman who wanted no part of an IMMEDIATE rematch. Why else would he have stayed inactive through the whole of 1975 ? George knew better than anyone else that a return bout with Ali in early 1975 would have resulted in Muhammad clearly winning again no matter what tactics George brought to the table. After the third Norton fight,Ali had fought two extremely tough ones in as many years,and did n't fancy a potential third one with Foreman. Whereas a couple of years earlier he'd have taken all three men on. Indeed,he'd have probably cited a Foreman return as an easier option than ones with Frazier and Norton, and with good reason. As he grew older,he miscalculated with so called easy fights. We all saw that apart from a Jean-Pierre Coopman here and an Alfredo Evangelista there,there was no such thing as an easy fight for him anymore. Yet another reason,in my opinion,why he should have packed it in for good after Manilla.
not the first time not the last time he didn't do enough research..but what do you expect? its not the first time hes been wrong
IMHO Ali is THE greatest HW of all time (I still cite the summer-67-summer-70 inactive period as a wrecking bomb walkthru that would have left everyone speechless!) However, I stand by my previous post. He was great enough to step up in his post-exile career but every bout post-Foreman was carefully crafted. NO Foreman rematch, probably lost to Norton in the 3rd one, no Young rematch, my afformentioned Lyle/Shavers rematches. Bugner (sadly) was simply a "I want to stay on my feet for 15 rounds non-action joke". Tho no one agrees with me, I still think he tanked in the initial Spinks (7-0-1 gimma break) knowing the Gong-show loving quart o' beer newbie would get his big bucks for an immediate rematch. Hey, its sad to face the truth but it simply is the way it is. Dunn? Evangilista? next bum? Again, why fight Spinks in 78 with the others out there? I'm out, my $0.02 IMHO. And once again (not that it matters but I'm a registered centrist Democrat) it should have been Floyd Patterson and not Muhammad carrying that torch at the Olympics (my prejudice is showing)
It MAY be a true that Ali carefully managed his career post-Foreman, but even then, those opponents are better than the signature wins of basically every other heavyweight champion after Louis until around Lewis. And that's pretty amazing.
why don't just revert to your "****ing scumbag" lines because you have yet to provide contemporary quotes or articles such as I have... such as the one wherein Kearns himself states that Wills deserves a title shot. Was Dempsey so replaceable, such an easily fabricated commodity, that he was slave to every whim of Kearns and Rickard. If so, that is really the most damning evidence that could be provided to prove his lack of abilities as a championship fighter. On the other hand, if he was the great fighter than most believe (myself included), wouldn't he have had the upper hand in the relationship, being the irreplaceable goose laying the golden eggs? You folks have trapped yourself in your own argument, on the one hand stating that Dempsey was the greatest fighter of his day or many day after, and on the other stating that he was a puppet of his masters. So, there we have it: Dempsey was either not as great a fighter as everyone claims or he himself deferred from fighting Wills. (Clapping the dust from my hands and sauntering way) I again prove myself your master in discussion.
Who said he was a puppet? That's all you. It's clearly stated that the promoter of the Dempsey vs Wills fight was not willing to a fulfill contractual financial agreement to Dempsey so in turn Dempsey called the fight off. Now,who's at fault?? You claim Dempsey but again if Klitschko doesn't get his money for Povetkin fight in a escrow account like he wants and calls off the fight,is he ducking Povetkin? No of course not but you can't seem to comprehend that Dempsey is not at fault here. Same situation,different fighters. You've done a little research,like every time we debate, and you come up on the wrong side.
It is patently obvious that you have performed no research on the subject other than listening wide-eyed to the myth making machine surrounding Dempsey. I was collecting my thoughts on Dempsey's two "signings" when I remembered this bit of wisdom from an esteemed colleague which encapsulates the case better than I am capable of in my current state... "that signing (the one with Floyd Fitzsimmons) was tantamount to a payoff of step aside money to Wills. Fitzsimmons was a close friend of Dempsey's (Dempsey had once given his own car to Floyd's wife) and wrote a contract that no promoter in the world at that time could have fulfilled allowing Dempsey to walk away from the Wills fight and allowing Wills to take home $50,000. The other "contract" Dempsey signed. Which wasnt really a contract was admitted by Dempsey in his bio to have been written in a manner that allowed him out of it. A quick newspaper search will show you that it was not a contract. It was simply an "agreement" that stated Dempsey "would" fight Wills within sixty days of the signing if a promoter made Dempsey a "favorable" offer. There was no date for the fight, no site, no promoter, and no guidelines stating what Dempsey or Kearns would consider favorable. In essence a promoter could offer them a $10,000,000 purse and they could walk away saying it was unfavorable. Thats just what they did (not that they were offered ten million) because no promoter could stage such an event within sixty days and Dempsey and Kearns wouldnt accept ANY monetary offer. So they walked away. Dempsey always blamed the New York commission for barring a Wills fight. However, this is bull****. After Tamany Hall won back the govt in 1922/1923 it was populated by progressives who were very eager to get the black vote. They pushed and pushed and pushed for a Dempsey-Wills bout. Regardless of the racial views of the Athletic commission there were literally tons of venues that were offering to host the match both inside and outside the country."
lol at Seamus..but hey Dempsey was ducking. "no promoter in the world at that time could have fulfilled"..can you go into more detail please Seamus? Rickard / Kearns didn't want to promote a fight, where a black fighter gets to contend for the HW championship so..what other promoters were willing to stage the bout..do you know? What other offers were made to Dempsey?? It's quite clear you have a agenda against Dempsey and you've been saying this over and over since 2008
You also said most historians believe Dempsey ducked Wills? Name them The only person I'll accept in ducking is Langford due to Dempsey admitting it,which is why we have this problem.
Dempsey never ducked Wills. The bout could not be made for several reasons totally out of Dempseys control. The legacy of jack johnson was fresh on the minds of those who controled the sport. For many years I also felt ali won his bout with foreman easily....certainly the scoring was in alis favor. You really need to look at that fight again. The first round george was getting to ali and remember every punch he would land had thunderous power. Ali during those first three rounds was hurt bady several times. He himself stated that george had me out several times but he never knew it. The first foreman frazier fight was looked on akin to dempsey willard. Noone would have paid to see a return bout in 73/74...nobody. There was a huge push by foreman it get a rematch and the public would have paid to see it. Ali had three yesrs to make it happen but it never did. Ali wanted no part of a second bout with George.
Just for fun, I decided to take you up on your offer and I re-watched the first round of Ali-Foreman, just to see if you're on to something. The first round was absolutely dominant by Ali. Foreman landed one clean left and a few grazing blows, and Ali came right back with cleaner, harder shots. I don't see any evidence of Foreman even bothering Ali. Now, its easy for you to say, "yes, well, that's what Ali wanted you to think, but in reality, he was this close to collapsing in dire pain", but that's not what the video shows, not what the judges saw, and not what Foreman saw. They saw a shocking ass whipping, lol. *edit - just saw round two again as well. After a strong start by Foreman, Ali seized momentum and won the majority of the round. No evidence of being hurt there, either. Foremans only effective work was to the body, and it never backed Ali off or caused him to buckle or cover up. Ali always came roaring back in those exchanges, and won them. Round 3 - probably the only really effective punch landed by Foreman with a minute left in the round. If you can make any credible argument at all that Ali was hurt from anything Foreman threw, this would be it. But I can name a half dozen fights where Ali was considerably more hurt than that. And, as it turned out, Ali went on to land the only effective blows for the remainder of that round And if you notice at the very end of the round, Foreman himself is a bit hurt and stumbles every so slightly back to his corner as the bell rings. And that's what led directly to the demolition job that Ali put on Foreman from that point on. I just don't see what you're seeing in this fight, and given the scorecards, neither did the judges. Either way, I stand by my point that Ali had nothing to fear from Foreman. The only thing that kept Foreman in the fight was the very thing that was his undoing. He couldn't land cleanly on Ali against the ropes, couldn't land at all in the center of the ring, was tied up in-close, and burned up all his energy swinging at air. What would have gone differently in a rematch? If Foreman tried to keep Ali off the ropes, he would have been boxed in circles all night. Ali simply had Foremans number, and Ali knew it. I'm far more inclined to believe that Ali, by that stage of his career, had a general policy of not giving rematches to people he beat the first time, even in close fights. I don't think it had anything to do with Foreman in particular. He had harder fights than that and didn't grant rematches, he had easier fights and didn't grant rematches. He had inconclusive fights and still didn't give rematches. I dont think he ducked anybody, it was just how he approached that stage of his career.