Why didn't Foreman get a rematch against Ali?

Even before he fought Lyle, the word was that the fight was on:

This content is protected

 

So if he had chosen to take on no one instead of them, that would someohow made his title reign better?

The important thing is that he took one every decent out there, except Foreman. And that's really not that shabby. That he filled it out with a a couple of no-hopers doesn't make it worse. They also bring some risk to the table, as Spinks clearly showed.

If it's a poor reign taking on Lyle, Bugner, Frazier, Young, Norton and Shavers I would like to know which reigns you think are good.

So Botha and Rahman was big time contenders then? And Wladimir K wasn't? Maybe Lewis should get more flak for his poor defences.

Fact remains, that for his 3,5 year reign the only one who can claim to have gotten a somewhat raw deal is Foreman - for 8-9 months. Again, which champions in HW history compares favourably?

 

But Young wasn't the mandatory going in to that fight. Foreman was, and if he'd won anything but a title shot would be a pretty obvious duck.

As it was, he'd only really been passed over when Ali took on Evangelista instead. That's really not that blatant. Of course, the org that had Foreman as a mandatory should, according to their own rules, have stripped Ali already in late 1976, but that it didn't happen isn't really anything new or unique in boxing.

 

My felling is that ali new that although he was still the best in the division that he was getting older and his skills were declining. Add to that the fadt that he was rocked several times and that he took terrific punches to the body that he didn't want or need the headache of fighting foreman again. That fight was actually harder on ali than most people realize.

He also probably considered the possibility that the results might be different a second time around.

 

I'm not worried that your opinion impoverishes Ali one trillionth of an iota.

What young undefeated champion loses his crown and retires? Foreman.
This comes with a steep price, pal, and glaring out of magazine covers ain't gonna cut it.

What you call "ducking" in '77, I call "smart business". Why? Because if you are risking your health as a professional boxer, once you reach the top, you are entitled to milk it for all its worth. Any ex-champ will tell you this. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest Ali was yellow. I am certain he would have eventually faced George Foreman again, as he did Frazier and old nemesis Norton.

But Foreman (not the priest, not the bishop, not the butcher, not the cook), but George Foreman alone, lost to Young and re-retired. End of story.

 

Yeah, I've got the clear feeling that Ali would rather not fight Foreman a second time. But also think that Foreman's loss to Young meant that Ali never needed to badly embarass himself in his possible efforts to avoid Foreman.

 

In a nutshell, both guys have to share the blame.

Foreman fudged around for a year after losing to Ali, then Ali fudged around for a year while Foreman was in line for a shot. Then Foreman lost to Young and that was that.

 

Page fought Berbick two fights after Ali did, not previous.

 

No ... you are making justifications and excuses. If he had fought nobody, it would've been Dempseyesque ... but we're not comparing to others as you seem so fond of doing ... we're literally asking ourselves if these fighters had any business fighting for the title ... take your Ali tinted sunglasses off and the answer is an emphatic "NO!".

That Ali lost to Leon isn't an indication of 'some risk' IMO ... more an indication of just how far he had slipped and just how much he thought that he could get away with subpar conditioning, gesturing to the crowd and fighting without intensity, putting his faith in the judges to keep the title for him.

Argumentative and intentionally dismissive of the initial point. The Lyle performance was crap ... he played and fannied about for far too long ... if Lyle was a more educated boxer, he'd have been the champ on points by miles ... that Ali finished him with that straight right and the triple hook, followed by a barrage of punches in the manner he did, shows that he was fannying about ... I prefer when he comes out and boxes professionally, myself, without playing games in the ring.

Anyway, the point is that no matter how many great defences he had, YOU nor I can defend facing a Wepner, Coopman, Dunn and Evangelista. Using another champion's reign doesn't extinguish the fact that these are relatively subpar fighters in my eyes. Basically what you are doing in principle is akin to someone using Duran's prior exhibitions of toughness and his Barkley performance to totally absolve his lack of top conditioning and subsequent quit job in No Mas.

Ali is the greatest HW to have stepped into the ring, IMO. He doesn't need you, me or anyone else to defend his moments of trashy performances ... and yes, there are some and yes, there are some "rather eyebrow raising" defences ... let's call a spade a spade.

Who called Rahman or Botha big time ... were they mandatories and did they get ducked? I'm sure you've seen the figure that MDWC highlighted for the number of times Ali faced a mandatory. If a Joe Frazier is a no. 3 and Norton is a mandatory, I don't think anybody would mind holding off a mandatory for a little while, just to face Frazier. If a Foreman is a mandatory and an Evangelista is barely top 10 ... I have a problem with putting off your mandatory.

Maybe Lewis should get more flak, but that's neither here nor there ... can you please stop skirting around the oh so horrifying act of daring to critique Ali ... he is no deity, just a man. Using another's examples to lessen the Ali situation only demonstrates to me an inability to actually recognise that yes ... Ali did get favourable treatment there. How many HW champions would be able to skip on facing 10 or so mandatory fights without being stripped of the title?

The highlighted is true ... the following is your emotively charged bias shining through. This thread only refers to Foreman not getting a rematch ... any mention of other champions, unless to be used as precedent or to qualify a vague area of boxing convention is unnecessary.

To use Sullivan's creed: "I'll lick any man in the house" as a core value that the HW crown is supposed to be the most glamorous and most respected title in all of boxing indicates that its prestige and value should be maintaned at all times. Just because Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Tyson, Lewis, whomever, may all have used their status to avoid legitimate challengers by facing relative ham and eggers doesn't negate this. Comparing Ali, the greatest HW ever, to any other champion is futile ... he quite simply faced the greater competition. This, however, doesn't mean that I can look at an Evangelista or a Dunn ... a Wepner or a Spinks and be impressed.

 

Ali avoiding his mandatory in 76, 77 and 78 so why he all of a sudden fight him if he beat Young seems as likely as fighting his new mandatory- Norton (which he also had 60 days to sign to fight). He refused to sign for a 4th Norton fight aying "Jose suliman doesn't tell me what to do". Irrespective of whether you think there should have been a 4th fight with Kenny. Maybe there shouldn't, but then again, his win in Yankee Stadium hardly closed the deal. Look, at this stage of his career he simply didn't want to fight them- that's plain for all to see.

 

Well, you've made your bed with that statement, i look forward to throwing this one back at you. :good

 

Yep. Ali was fortunate that Foreman was dropped from the top spot and that Frazier then filled in. Fight on, great money earner, mandatory fulfilled. He then went seven fights without one. I don't think even Floyd Patterson could match that.

 

Ron Lyle was among those who didn't really deserve a shot at Ali either.

People forget that now, but Lyle had been thoroughly outboxed by Jimmy Young three months earlier, and Young was considered just a journeyman.
Nowadays these guys are revered as some type of "super-contenders" !

Anyway, Foreman was beaten in 8 rounds by Ali and didn't fight for 13 months afterwards, so I wouldn't champion his case for a rematch too strongly.

 

As I see it you'r completely missing the point, so let me spell it out for you. Let's imagine Ali's reign without the Coopman, Wepner, Spinks etc. It would look like this:

1975: Defends against Lyle, Bugner and Frazier

1976: Defends against Young and Norton

1977: Defends against Shavers

This is not a bad reign. Foreman should have gotten rematch in late '76 or early '77 and Young should probably have had one in late '77 or early '78, but otherwise there's no real lapses. It's still a better reign than most. Better than for example Lewis's.

Adding Wepner, Coopman, Dunn, Evangelista and Spinks doesn't make this reign very much better, but it sure as hell doesn't make it worse.

Ok. Like Tyson's loss to Douglas and Lewis's to Rahman, you mean? How was Douglas and Rahman more deserving contenders? You never answered me that.

Now you're getting off the subject. No one has claimed that Ali put on a great perfomance against Lyle, only that Lyle was a solid contender.

Look above.

Now I don't follow you. And by the way, I think the talk about Duran's lack of conditioning is BS as well. He didn't look the least bit tired, just flustered.

Again you confuse things. I haven't said a word about Ali's perfomances, but he didn't really have one good perfomance after Manilla.

As for his second reign, the fact that only Ali's first reign, Tyson's reign and Louis's reign compares favourably (and Louis took on many no-hopers, but he too beat the ones who mattered) makes me feel that it wasn't that bad. Ali fought everyone that mattered, the only mark against him is not giving some of them (most notably Foreman) rematches.

It was you who said that Lewis would get ripped for making as poor defences as Coopman and Spinks, and I just pointed out two of his defences that was just as poor.

I don't know if Wladimir K. was mandatory, but he was ranked nr. 1 by The Ring, and Lewis sure as hell didn't seem that eager to take him in.

Were you drunk when writing this? Again, it was you who brought up Lewis.

What 10 mandatories did he skip? Please list me the 10 fighters out there that didn't get their deserved shot at the title.

And using comparisons is a very valid method I think. It's almost always how we make sense of things.

 

No, he didn't seem to keen to take them on, thats for sure. But I'm still not going to give him flak for probably having continued to duck Foreman if Foreman hadn't lost. I just judge his actual actions, not the probable ones.

I suppose the most reasonable thing might have been to have agreed to take on the winner between Foreman and Young after defending against Evangelista.

That no such agreement was reached and that Ali didn't take on the winnner (Young) counts against him. But I don't see it as massive black mark. It's more along the lines of Holmes not giving Witherspoon a rematch, I supposse.