Foreman's zaire defeat.

Funnily enough,pre fight,the heat was considered to be one of the factors as to why the 32 year old Ali would lose !

 

Ali had no say in the choice of venue for that fight.

 

Ali was throwing PLENTY of punches. By the end of the fifth round George's face was puffed up while Muhammad's was virtually unmarked. Unless Zack Clayton was also hitting George.

 

Cuento masilav duovas

 

That fight was King's ''coming out''. Once the bout was signed, everyone involved that had any influence were trying for an ideal 'world-shaking' venue. It may not have mattered that Ali had no choice, he had EVERYTHING working in his favor for this one. Granted, he trained like a demon and George was, arguably more complacent, but I think an Astrodome bout was warranted given George's champion status. As I've said, I think Ali is the greatest HW of all time and, he may have beaten George in any location but he had all the 'pull' at that time, and for the next three years.
Bottom line: the 2nd Ali wasn't nearly as good as the pre-exile Ali. The summer 67-summer 70 Ali would have whooped ANY of the all-time great HW champs butt (with some problems here and there)
Norton had his number, Young wasn't fooled by the old man, never gave George a rematch, his moxie kept him on his feet against a predictable Shavers, and All the ''joe louis bums of the month'' he fought? Geez o pete, I'm glad we were able to see his mid-70's bouts on regular TV. I was there, I was watching but did anyone doubt the obvious outcome(s).
IMHO this is difficult to say, but his second comeback may well have paved the way for boxing's demise.

 

The idea that young Ali was better than older Ali is not any revelation.

However there is no doubt that the Ali who was champion during the 70s faced an array of challengers perhaps unmatched in hwt history and guess what ....he won them all.

First he became the only man to ever ko Foreman for a 10 count. Huge achievement.
Secondly he stopped Ron Lyle.
Third he became the only fighter aside from Foreman to stop Frazier. In a tough give and take battle Ali came back to stop Joe. True sign of all time greatness.
Forth he beat Bugner by 15 round decision.
Fifth he won a close 15 round decision over Norton.
Sixth he beat Shavers by 15 round decision.

Can't beat those credentials.

 

Greetings Houdini!
The Foreman bout had all the ballyhoo and opinion both for and against Ali.
Was the Lyle nod REALLY an accomplishment?
Manilla? Two GREAT fighters long past prime.
Bugner, quite simply, was an overrated fighter that millions continue to prop up as truely great. He had his shot, backed away, fought defensively thruout, and basically got his ass whooped.
Norton had the 2nd Ali's number and may have won that 3rd fight.
Earnie fought an uncharacteristic fight, hurt Ali early and than backed off (see Lyle) After the early rounds, you could see he wasn't going to try to gas himself and left himself a predictable victim.

 

You can do what your doing with any champion. Bottom line is....he beat all the leading contenders for his title. Those contenders were possible the greatest array of challengers ever in hwt history.

Again...Ali is the only man to ko Foreman for a 10 count. There is no ballyhoo...Ali scored a clean ko. As per the NY Times...."the knockout was clean, decisive, conclusive".

Lyle was a great contender...huge puncher and in great condition. Ali stopped him in 11 rounds.

Alis bout with Frazier in 75 was perhaps his greatest fight. What historians look for when ranking all time greatness is the ability to come back in tough fights against tough opposition and win. This fight erased all thought that Ali was just a fancy Dan boxer. This fight proved Ali was as tough as they come. Will to win second to none.

Bugner was a top 5 contender...solid credentials. Ali beat him with ease.

Norton was no 1 contender. In a tough give and take close fight Ali got the nod. There is no evidence of a fix, no evidence that judges were bought off and the ref who scored the bout 8-6-1 for Ali was perhaps the most well respected ref in boxing history. Certainly the decision was disputed but that does not change the fact that Ali got the nod. To show how close the fight was CBS TV rebroadcast the bout several weeks later. They had a panel of experts score the bout round after round. At the end of 15 rounds they tabulated all scores and guess what....it was scored a draw! So an Ali win by one round is not far fetched by any stretch of the imagination.

Shavers again he won without really any controversy. Earnie changed his style for a reason. He watched fighter after fighter exhaust them selves by pounding on a rope a doping Ali. Perfectly logical if you lived through that time for a challenger to try something different rather than go down a path again that had not worked. Just as easily Earnie could have gone all out, exhausted himself and became a ko victim himself. Ali was tough....I don't see Shavers doing something everyone before him failed to accomplish.

 

Beating Foreman was a major victory, one of history's best in the HW division.
His fight versus Frazier in Manila was an epic war.

But you're over-egging the rest of that second reign.

 

Foreman's camp had the pull he was champ,that's how it works.atsch
NAME ONE THING THAT WAS MORE FAVOURABLE TO ALI THAN FOREMAN IN KINSHASA.

Ali saved boxing and is responsible for the huge purses of today ask Leonard etc. You do talk some crap.

 

Name a heavyweight champion who fought better competition during his reign ?

 

Outside of Joe Frazier in Manila (who you don't rate as a great fighter), and perhaps Norton (who I believe was robbed against Ali), I don't think there were a particularly good crop of challengers lined up in that second reign.

Of course, most heavyweight reigns of any substance (ie. more than one or two defences) will have mediocre line up, but champions like Marciano and Tyson, for example, generally made better showings than Ali did, there was not the controversy over decisions, the lousy performances ... sub-par challengers tended to get obliterated.

 

You dont think.
Norton
Frazier
Lyle
Bugner
Young
Shavers
is a particularly good crop?
Show me a better one.

 

Right again,McVey :good

 

Well, I said "ouside of Frazier and perhaps Norton" ...

I think Norton was robbed, tbh.
Young possibly was too. Ali v Young was awful.

Ron Lyle was coming off a clear points defeat to Jimmy Young. That didn't make him a particularly credible challenger.

Shavers and Bugner were not bad challengers at all, but no world-beaters.

Joe Frazier, I believe, was a great fighter, albeit somewhat post-prime.



Larry Holmes beat ... Shavers, Berbick, Cooney, Witherspoon .... who believe, as a crop were as good as Shavers, Young, Lyle and Bugner .... and no one really raves about Holmes's opposition.

Tyson beat ... Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams etc. .... destroyed them really. You could easily argue they were as good as Bugner, Shavers, and more credible than Lyle.

Marciano beat ... Walcott, LaStarza, Charles x2, C0ckell, Moore ... no controversial decisions, and they stack up quite well against Ali's whole second reign.