Why didn't Foreman get a rematch against Ali?

I hope you see the delicious irony in quoting Sullivan here.

 

It would be you that is completely missing the point. It is not a bad reign, never said it was ... some of the fighters that got a shot at the title, however, were bad ... very, very bad. This is simple, why you just don't say it is beyond me. Ali, like other champions, used his status as champion to fight relative joke fighters and got away with it ... I don't much agree with it.

Fighting an Evangelista for the title, when a Foreman could've rematched, let alone a Spinks who had done NOTHING to push him into contention is nothing more than a publicity stunt ... indeed, it makes a mockery of the title. It doesn't make the reign worse ONLY because of who Ali had beat during his reign, and MORE IMPORTANTLY because of who he beat when chasing Frazier. It is his record versus the contenders when chasing Frazier, eventually resulting in beating Foreman for the title that is more impressive, more worthy of being lauded than his title reign if you ask me.

Tyson's loss to Douglas is one of the first reasons people often diminish his chances in hypothetical H2H match ups with other ATGs. It was and will always be one of the biggest upsets of all times, made even worse by Douglas' career in the aftermath. Douglas, by the way, had done a lot more than Spinks, was more capable on the night than Spinks was and on comparative film, showed himself to be a better boxer ... compare the Spinks that beat Ali and the Douglas that beat Tyson and ask yourself, whom would be more formiddable against other ATGs.

Lewis' loss to Rahman is a BIG stain on his record. He did, however, settle the argument in the rematch emphatically ... something that Tyson has never done to somebody that beat him. Douglas was more deserving than Spinks or Evangelista and Rahman was certainly no worse a fighter ... this however, doesn't detract from the fact that a fighter like Spinks or Evangelista didn't have business fighting for the title, whilst Foreman was around, making soundwaves.

Sorry to get off subject ... Lyle was a good contender that got his shot by being dominated by Jimmy Young. Good fighter, whether he deserved his shot ... questionable. I think it's apparent that Ali started looking at fighters that he thought he wouldn't struggle with or that he could play around with in the ring. That is the only way that I can interpret his performance in the Lyle fight. So you see, I'm using his performance in conjunction with subsequent defences to try to understand why some of the fighters were given a shot at the title.

That's one thing that we can agree on ... using conditioning as an excuse is BS when it's your job as a fighter to come into a bout in the best shape possible. The principle I'm using is that some people gloss over the Duran incident as if it never happened, using his Brawl In Montreal and Hagler and Barkley outings as illustrations of what the man is about as if it deletes No Mas. I agree that all his hard work shouldn't be undone by one incident, as it should be the whole sum of his work, but as a single incident, I refuse to forget it ... likewise, the sum of Ali's work means the Foreman issue is relatively miniscule, however, I don't like it when people avoid calling a spade what it is. Foreman was avoided and Ali fought people he had no business fighting for the title, whilst a Foreman or Kenny Norton, for example, could've been fought.

Yes ... Ali virtually fought everyone that there was to fight ... this is something that I have already stated.

Then isn't that something that we should criticise Lewis for. HW champions, by virtue of being the champion, should take on THE BEST threat to their crown ... I'm not denying one or two tune up fights after facing a beast such as Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield etc. isn't such a bad thing, but the blatant avoidance of fighters who work themselves into contention isn't something that I like to see from anyone, whether it's SRR, Ali, Leonard, Hagler, RJJ, Pea or PBF ... if I'm a fan, I still want my fighter to face the very best.

10 mandatory fights as opposed to fighters. I apologise for not making that distinction. Ali never fought a mandatory for almost 3 years ... that is a problem. Let's not skirt around it with, "Well he fought x and y anyway" ... let's just say that he should've fought at least one or two mandatory fights in that period, rather than allowing a Spinks or Evangelista to fight for the title.

Look Bokaj, yourself and I sit on the same side of the fence, just that I'm not defending poor defences. I'm not shitting on his record or career, either. I've already said that I think him to be the greatest HW ever and my posting history would tell you that I oft jump to his defence where I think he gets a raw deal ... the one thing I don't do though, is defend him where I think that he was in the wrong.

Yes, I know the irony of using the Sullivan creed cos the guy was a coward who utilised the colour bar. However, just cos a man falls short of integrity doesn't mean that the principles that he espouses aren't good principles. I still believe that the HW champion should seek to prove himself versus the very best at all times ... don't you? Imagine if Ali had defeated Foreman a second time and Foreman still goes on to win the HW title in his old age, don't you think that actually improves Ali's legacy?

 

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't think much of Coopman, Evagnelista et al. (even though both Spinks and Evangelista was ranken in the top 10). I've just stated that he took on those that mattered. The only thing that can be hold against him is not giving Foreman/Young a rematch, and while it would have been better if he did it's not that dramatic IMO.

We just disagree here I suppose. Taking on a soft (but still top 10) opponent right after giving one his absolutely toughest opponents a rubber match is hardly "making a mockery of the title" IMO.

But he should either have scheduled a meeting with Foreman after Evangelista or a meeting with the winner between Foreman/Young. He didn't, and that does count against him some. But, again, very few title reigns are perfect, and this was after all guys he'd already beaten.

Those were pretty similar his run after FOTC had some good wins in it (Ellis, Quarry) and some fill outs (Lubbers, Mathis, Lewis). Of course, it wasn't a title reign, so it might compare favourable in that llight. Still, doesn't really change anything of what I said above.

What had Douglas done that was spectacular? Losing to Tucker, whom Tyson already beaten? I'd put Spinks and Douglas down as weak challengers both.

That Douglas looked better on the night has nothing to do with this discussion. We're talking about what they had achived prior to getting their shot, not how well they did when they got it.

But Douglas and Spinks, like Rahman, shows that even the easy defences pose their inheritant risk. Therefore it's better making them than none.

I'd put Rahman and Douglas in the same bracket as Spinks and Evangelista. Theey were all fringe contenders.

EVERYONE makes some kind of judgement about risk/reward when taking on opponents. What's important here is that Lyle was a deserving challenger. Nothing special, but a solid contender.

Your whole reasoning above is a lot of hairsplitting. In the year after regaining his title Ali takes on Lyle, Bugner and Frazier. That is FAR, FAR from bad. And that his first defence was against Wepner doesn't change this fact.

True, but things has to be put into a context. And if you look at boxing history, up to this day, these are quite minor allegations. I would say that Ali's two reigns and Louis's reign was the only one where a no deserving challenger got denied (Ali had after all already beaten Young, Foreman and Norton - this is rematches were are talking about). Even Tyson's reign would look a little bit better if for example Witherspoon (who was top 5 during the whole of Tyson's reign as well as during the years leading up to it) and Dokes were given title shots instead of Biggs and Douglas.

And look at who the other champions didn't take on:

Sullivan - anyone black (most notably Peter Jackson)

Jeffries - anyone black (most notably Johnson)

Johnson - anyone black (most notably Langford)

Dempsey - anyone black (most notably Wills) + Greb

Marciano - Valdes

Patterson - Just about anyone deserving

Holmes - Thomas, Dokes and Page as well as deserved rematches to Norton and Witherspoon

Tyson - Witherspoon deserved a shot

Bowe - Lewis

Lewis - Should probably have taken on Wladimir. Sure as hell more deserving than Rahman and Botha at least.


So, if Ali's second reign was that bad, which ones were good?

Oh, and if you think (which you seem to do) that it's a black mark taking on weak fighters while taking on the best as well, then Louis's reign should of course be mentioned as a very bad example.

 

Honestly speaking, Ali probably didn't deserve the decision in Young. The fact that Ali seemingly got gifts and didn't seek to clarify the situation, as Louis did in his reign, when putting in subpar efforts is a stain.

Coming into fights in the shape that he did and getting gift decisions was a mockery, IMO. Being gifted the title in the 3rd Norton was a mockery and facing and losing to Spinks was a mockery ... there are other forces at work in some of these circumstances, but Ali sure played his part. I'm glad that you said that he should've scheduled for Foreman or the winner of Foreman v Young after Evangelista ... I'd have preferred for him to beat Foreman again, rather than face Evangelista at all. You've said it yourself, he beat the very best ... who would've accused him of ducking Evangelista?

The difference is that he was now reduced to just another contender and in this case, swept the contenders that Frazier could even hope to argue deserved a shot ahead of him ... he even beat Foreman ... to me, ****ing impressive. I think it compares much more favourably than being a champion and seeing somebody clamouring for a fight, only to fight 'ranked' stiffs ... you and I both know that not every top 10 fringe contender is a solid challenger, whereas in some eras, some of the fringe contenders have been the more competent fighters and not just for their era.

Yes, that they both were ... but honestly, in light of their professional careers up to the point that they challenged, stylistic factors and physical factors such as reach, height, weight involved, who was more of a 'risk' to the champion in your opinion?

Yes, the easy defences do have their risk ... stepping into the ring inherently poses a risk, but the ATGs are the ones that are supposed to deal with the easy defences. I, too, would rather have a busy champion than a lazy one and I'm happy that Ali travelled ... he actually was a world champion and didn't restrict himself to fighting a whole career in one city like the titlists of today.

Yes, all fringe contenders ... I ask you, whom were the more formiddable fighters?

Lyle was a solid contender ... I don't know if I'd consider him a deserving challenger, in light of what Jimmy Young did with him.

I admitted that I was hairsplitting when I said in light of the sum of Ali's career, the Foreman issue is miniscule ... I meant that.

I didn't say that Ali's reign was "so bad" ... this is another time that I'm reiterating it ... I said that he had some defences against guys that were relatively mediocre. I didn't imply that his integrity as a fighter was diminished, but I am categorically stating that the gloss is taken off when an Evangelista receives a title shot, whereas a Foreman who had worked his way into being the mandatory, doesn't get the rematch. Consider Ali talking about an ex-champion's right to a rematch when losing to Spinks and then consider his prior behaviour with Foreman, especially with regards to whom he fought in Foreman's or Young's place?

I don't actually think it's a black mark to have one or two tune up fights after facing a beast such as a Foreman or Holyfield, as I've already stated ... I do however, think it's a black mark to use tune up fighters to add to your title defences in the avoidance of more deserving fighters, whether or not you've already beaten them ... otherwise, there'd be no case to accuse Jack Johnson of ducking Langford ... afterall, he'd already beaten him and Langford's efforts to gain another match up didn't mean anything right?

 

This I agree with. But I've already stated that he should have taken on the winner of Foreman/Young. (I don't think Young did enough to win over Ali, by the way. A draw and an immediate remacth would probably havee been the best outcome)

So you're suggesting that it was Ali's fault that he got the decision against Norton? You think he paid off the judges? I don't.

Thing is, most dominant champions get gifts from the judges. Louis got it against Walcott, and Tyson was actually AHEAD on one of the judges' cards against Douglas...

What I'm really tired of is this BS that "only Ali could get away with that". When you scrutinize most great champions, you'll see that they got away with just as much or even more.

Of course, it would look better if he'd taken on Foreman directly. But I for one won't slag him for taking on a softer challenger after Norton III. Doing so is quite nit-picking I think.

Ali should have made clear that he would face the winner of Foreman-Young, though. That he didn't counts against him, but not terribly much IMO.

I think Alis run after FOTC was really good, so I won't argue with you there. It was certainly better than Frazier's so called reign. I think that Ali got more shafted by Frazier during this period than Foreman did by Ali during 1976.

I can say for sure that Douglas was considered the lesser risk. He was the biggest underdog in the history of the sport.

Trying to discern just which of them was the biggest no-hoper is hard to say, it's enough to state that they are in the same bracket.

Well, then what's your gripe. 'Cause Ali gave the chances to almost all who deserved it and kept busy in the interrim with lesser fighters. I truly don't see the problem. That he looked **** doing so after Manilla (and a couple times before as well) shouldn't be confused with this. Yes, at least one of Foreman, Young and Norton deserved another shot at him, but that's about it.

I think all this is a lot ado about nothing. The irony is that it's so popular to say "if it was any other than Ali then there would be a ruccus about it" when it's quite the opposite. I don't think this would really be an issue if it was anyone else but Ali.

Where for example are the threads about Duran ducking Buchanan? Now, Duran, that's a sacred cow around here. Ali isn't.

 

I don't think he paid off the judges, but I do think that he was comfortable with the judges' decision. Louis for example, would let his fists do the talking by KOing the troublesome fighter in a rematch. People often say that Young did nothing to deserve the win, but on a round by round basis, defence, effective aggression, ring generalship and offence, can we really say the Young fight was a draw type fight? Young had Ali missing a hell of a lot and punched Ali to the body without the reply many a time ... did Ali REALLY earn a draw in that match up?

Yes, most do ... and that is downright disgusting. It should be that the better man in the fight won the fight, but alas, history has shown this to not be true and that is not Ali's fault ... neither should its historical occurence absolve blame where Ali or anyone else is concerned.

Most "only Ali could get away with it" jibes are out of frustration of Ali being shoved down people's throats and people having their genuine criticisms of Ali glossed over or shouted over by the wave of Ali defenders. A vast number of Ali fans beautify the uglier parts of the man's character and career and this is what pisses off people and makes them overly-reactive ... I call a spade a spade. Where I think Ali was wrong, I say it and where I think he was right, I say it. Hence my, "Ali, like many other champions" used his status to avoid taking on more formiddable challengers.

 

I think so. And if you listen to Cosell's commentary, you'll hear that he and most of the ringside reporters have no clear winner at the end. I agree with them.

Yes, Young negated Ali for almost the entire fight. But he didn't land much himself and lost points by sticking his frigging head out thorugh the ropes when attacked.

People make a point of how Young showed that Ali couldn't fight on the front foot. But no one mentions that a severly depleted and very unprepared Ali still had enough offense to make a skilled defensive fighter like Young look like a rank amateur on several occassions. I mean getting away from the opponent by sticking you upper body through the ropes...

While this is not completely untrue, I still believed he did it less than most. And I actually feel that Young was the one who was shafted out of a rematch, not Foreman.

Yeah, sure. What I turned against originally was how starkly you put it. I don't remember the exact words, but I think it was to the effect that his second reign wasn't worth much at all. And that I don't agree with, but it would have been even more convincing if he took on for example the winner of Young-Foreman.

I just don't like when things are blown out of proportion. That doesn't mean I think Ali was flawless.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. "He was mean to me before the last fight, so he won't get another shot."

But I don't want to make a big deal out of Frazier avoiding giving Ali a rematch, I was just putting things in perspective.

True (see above). But, as I said, I feel Young got more of a raw deal than Foreman. That Foreman (previously convincingly beaten by Ali) didn't get a title shot within a year of his comeback is hardly a classic hard luck story.

As stated, if Ali had agreed to meet the winner of Young-Foreman I would have beeen completely satisfied with his behaviour. And Foreman wouldn't have gotten a title shot in that scenario either, so...

Sure, Ali could have taken on Foreman directly after Norton, but I don't hold it against him that he didn't. Promising a shot to the winner of Foreman Young would have been satisfactory enough IMO (sorry for the broken record routine).

I think this about Ali's die hard fans is a bit overplayed on this forum. Sure, there are some, but they aren't that much worse than anyone else.

When one hears how Jeffries, Dempsey and even Marciano are made into demi-gods by some of their fans, I don't feel that Ali is that badly elevated in comparison.

And start a negative thread about Louis and see the how many that will indignatally come to his defence.

I haven't seen any criticism of Duran pertaining to Buchanan, but of course I don't know what happened before. But I think that Duran, great as he was, often is defended to ludicorus lengths. There is a host of excuses for every loss he had.

And that Robinson effortlessly tops most p4p lists even though he didn't take on the very best out there is a kind of preferential treatment I don't see any other fighter getting.

Bu the one who gets the unjustified criticism on this board isn't Ali, but Leonard. That he's actually accused of "luring" Duran to an early rematch and of tricking Hagler by deciding the conditions for their fight is just ludicrous to me.

I also feel that Foreman is overrated and overly defended by many. He had one of the most carefully and cautiously planned careers in the history of boxing. He got three title shots even though he met less than 10 ranked opponents all in all. He had trouble with every decent boxer he met and was beaten by most of them, yet some actually are offended when told that he's not top 10 material.

 

Evangelista wasn't top 10. He then lost to Zanon and was mysteriously given a top 10 slot so Ali had a hand-picked opponent, and all-of-a-sudden, legitimate. Zanon, by the way was ranked lower than him after beating him and ranked outside the top 10. A joke title defence, as was Spinks (in terms of deserving contenders). At that stage Ali was doing anything in his power to avoid Norton.

Douglas was on a decent winning run and Rahman on a winning run at least, Evangelista had just been well-beaten. Not comparable really.

 

A fair few had Young ahead. The Associated Press had him 69-66. One or two had it by a 10-5 margin.

I did actually. There was definitely much fudging from Duran's camp there. However, they at least did offer a date and venue (Panama for a derisory figure) and were rightly turned down. As a former champ Ken deserved a chance to regain the crown- just like George Foreman.

 

Evangelista was ranked nr. 7 by The Ring for 1977. http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_1978

Rahman's best yearly ranking was 9 before fighting Lewis.

Ok. Compare Evangelista to Botha then if you will, and Rahman to Spinks. The point being that fill outs as title defences are hardly uncommon.

 

Well, I was just quoting Cosell's reporting during the fight. How did you score it by the way?

Maybe that was before I started posting here, because I haven't seen it.

 

Oh, Ring magazine sanctioned that fight, I didn't realise? :think

 

Young by 2...and this was about 15 years ago when I was definitely head-deep in an 'Ali phase'.

 

The Ring's ratings aren't gospel, but they are usually used as a decent reference.

 

...and of all the years you're quoting 'Ring Ratings', it's the year of their greatest shame. :yep