Why didn't Ali rematch Foreman?

Unfortunately the stars never aligned right again....I would have loved to have seen the
"re-match" in the Houston Astrodome while I was living down there.

I think the fight would have been a toss-up.

 

Yep, Dundee loosened the ropes so that his fighter would be knocked out of the ring to the floor six feet below. This was after he began the process of global warming so that it'd become too hot for Foreman.

Loose ropes wouldn't change the fact that Foreman was throwing wide bodyshots and leaving himself exposed to right hand counters all night. It wouldn't change the fact that Foreman had no Plan B that night when his attack wasn't working. Ali still got to him mentally and had Foreman believing his best blows were ineffectual.

I could just as easily say that Ali wouldn't have used the rope-a-dope at all if the ring had more 'bounce' in it. The ring was apparently firm enough from the humidity that dancing would have exerted even more energy out of Ali.

The point is, everything about the ring wasn't right for Foreman. It wasn't for Ali either. The difference is Ali had a Plan A (dancing, right hand leads) and whether you think it was pre-planned or not, a Plan B (the rope-a-dope). Hell, maybe he had a Plan C, you never know. However, Foreman had nothing else but "Knock his head off." And he caved both mentally and physically when that plan failed. Even worse, Frazier had already proven a viable Plan B existed--"Pull that man off the ropes and make him fight."

That's what makes the victory untainted. There was no lucky punch, no injury to Foreman or Ali, failed drug test, or whatever. Ali came in with a plan and achieved success where other younger and supposedly better fighters had failed.

Besides Liston-Patterson II, no one in this thread has brought up a rematch being given to someone immediately after they lost their title by knockout.

Ali had to fight for 3 more years after losing to Frazier before he got a nontitle rematch with Frazier and another title shot (and he didn't even lose by knockout). Frazier had to wait 2 years after losing the title to Foreman to get a title shot and didn't get an official rematch until another year after that. If you spend a year inactive, go life and death with someone the guy who beat you already beat by TKO, then a post-Manila Frazier goes 5 rounds with you, you're not gonna impress. As I also said in that post, Foreman had done absolutely nothing to prove he was a better fighter since Zaire.

Even if you view the second Frazier win as the 'game changer' that made Foreman look the better fighter, it opens up a window of about a year where the match could have been made. By the time, Ali already was looking to retirement and not looking as impressive as he had been in Zaire or even Manila.

On that point, I don't think Foreman did enough to force the issue either. The reason I say that Norton or Young had a better case for a rematch was not only because of the closeness of their defeats, but because they had maneuvered themselves into becoming mandatory challengers. Maybe that was Foreman's plan by fighting Young, but it failed, Foreman retired, and we're back where we started: Ali-Foreman II never happened.

 

It was both their faults.

Foreman didn't genuinely pursue a rematch straightaway; and then after he had earned the shot, Ali stalled it until he lost to Young.

 

What did Foreman do to earn a shot and when do you think a second fight should or could have taken place?

 

Plan TZ whatever , Ali won because he could lay on the ropes which took a critical part of the energy of Foreman's punches.
Tight ropes => Ali loses by stoppage or at least a wide decision , even shorter career for him.

 

Well, being the mandatory contender and knocking out Frazier and Lyle didn't do much harm.


The second fight should have been signed after Norton (which is what the WBC forced), but Ali 'retired'....then came back, then 'retired...etc etc.

 

Well, someone brought up Patterson-Johannsson I think (me, in fact). There's been others- Marciano-Walcott, Tyson-Holyfield off the top of my head. Plus, who's suggesting the rematch should have been 'immediate'? The rematch should have been made because it was the biggest money-spinner against the mandatory challenger.

Norton was only ever mandatory after Foreman retired. In fact, Ali only fought one mandatory in 11 defences of his title in his second reign.

It wasn't, he fought Young because Ali wouldn't fight him.

 

Norton was Alis mandatory in 76, George was NABF champ.
A window between Alis September 76 fight with Norton and Foremans March 77 loss to Young is all there was when George was in a position to have a rematch. Beating Frazier and Lyle was good but Ali had already done so in 75 and beat Young and Norton in 76. George blew it when he lost to Young

 

Norton wasn't Ali's mandatory. And Foreman took the Young fight when Ali reneged on his agrement to fight Foreman, which he agreed on in August 1976, then again in November. The fight wasn't officially signed, so Foreman kept active and took on a risky fight with Young, which led to the retirement.

 

Good post ! As you allude,Foreman was simply up against a guy who totally perplexed him and he was unable to solve the Ali enigma.

 

No doubting these facts. I reckon that the Young fight was a pointer as to how an Ali-Foreman rematch could have panned out !

 

Probably, but I think Young was better than Ali in 1977. But that's by-the-by, the 'he would have won anyway' that posters come out with doesn't wash. That's the kind of thing we should be saying if the Evangelista fight didn't happen.

 

Danny McAlinden.