In the Norton rematch, the commentator (Tompkins I think) says something like "look at the physique on kenny norton", pacheco without agreeing says something like "Hey Ali's no slouch in that department"...a few minutes later comes the classic "LOOK AT ALI'S SMOTHERING, HE'S ONE OF THE BEST SMOTHERERS AROUND".
Being in the minority has never bothered me,sometimes when you look around at your adversaries ,it reinforces your belief that you are right.The decision for Ali was unanimous,so were all the officials bought?Saying "thanI care to remeber implies you were around at the time,if you are still in your teens,you werent,I dont mean that because you are young your opinion isnt valid ,but its entirely possible it might be coloured by a lot of revisionist hindsight.I dont remeber screams of robberey from the press after the Young fight,infact quite a few castigated him for being so negative when faced with a clearly out of shape disinterested Champion,Young had his chance and he didnt step up to the plate.
The problem when discussing Ali is that you have your Ali worshipers and your Ali haters....everyone has a leaning one way or another and it's usually quite subjective. Ali did get favourable decisions but one could suggest that the judges rewarded him for his defensive abilities (has any heavyweight ever slipped punches as well as he?) as well as his acuracy. Also judges will quite often reward head shots more than body shots, even if the work to the body is effective. As for going overboard and suggesting that there was a huge conspiracy involving Ali's victories....how do you keep all those people quiet for so long? According to some we're talking about many heavyweight title/elimination fights which would require many individuals conspiring together continuously over many years (Liston through to Frazier/Norton) And not one person comes out with their hands up after all this time?!?! Please. As for his holding and pushing down on Frazier's head...Frazier wasn't shy about using his forearms when possible and wouldn't hesitiate to stick his head in Ali's face. Fact is that if his opponents didn't come in to clinch then Ali would be focusing on the their punches, not their necks.
I think that some people forget that Norton 3, Young and shavers fights were all unamious, that's nine judges all agreeing on who won the fight.
Nine people making bad decisions. Unpreceadented! Three judges usually make bad decisions in ALL bad fights. Your point?
Yes, just shows how many judges were right up Ali's arse at that time. Even Art Lurie had him beating Spinks. It wouldn't surprise me if a new poster soon came up with a thread: "Ali-Spinks: Did leon Really Win?" Then take their first fight using Lurie's card as a template and have it 143-142 to Ali. :blood
Honestly, thinking it's impossible to get three people to see something the same way at any one time is ******ed.
I dont think there was any "conspiracy", it's just people being pragmatic about their careers. It happens all the time in boxing, it is THE NORM. Certain "house fighters" will be protected somewhat by officials, to varying degrees. We take that for granted. A young prospect who's being built up by a promoter will be treated differently to "the opponent" usually, to some extent. Obviously, when it becomes an outrage we protest, but we tolerate at its normal level. It's the same with superstar fighters. Judges and referees usually give them the benefit of the doubt to some extent. It's about money. Example, Bowe versus Mathis Jr. - Bowe should have been DQ'd but the referee asked the commissioner first, and decided Mr.Riddock Bowe was not to be DQ'd. It was ruled a No-Contest. But when Louis Monaco KOs Buster Douglas with a late punch he is DQ'd and gets another "L" on his record. This happens all the time. "House fighters" are allowed to fight on when badly hurt, but the opponent is stopped as soon as he starts shipping some punishment. Happens all the time. And we've all seen far more outrageous officiating. Officials with integrity dont allow themselves to do anything so biased as to actually BLATANTLY AID the favoured fighter, but most are still guilty of some "uneven" officiating. Referees and judges dont want to get a reputation for DQing big name prospects when they could have docked another point, or for scoring close fights against the box-office fighter. Sanctioning bodies and promoters dont want that, and they're the people who employ the officials. Boxing is a great sport but imagine how great it would be if the fighters were always treated equally.
Great post. Talking of Bowe, the Tubbs contest was a definite 'L' for me, but the bandwagon had to keep on a-rolling, they wouldn't want an 'L' on his record for his world title challenge, because Brad from Keokuk, Iowa would lose interest in a second.
Yep. Another thing - both fights were in Atlantic City, New Jersey. I've heard that the boxing commisioner there, Larry Hazzard, was a friend of Rock Newman's.
I think there's enough blame to go around for the clinching in the fight. Ali held way more than in the FOTC. In 1971, he grabbed momentarily when Frazier was getting off more on the inside. But he generally pushed Frazier away right after grabbing in the first half of the fight -- he didn't hold on and wait for Mercante to break them. In the second half of the fight, when he tried to grab and hold on longer, Frazier pulled his arms free or shoved Ali off and banged him. In 1974, when Ali grabbed, he held on until Perez came to break them. And Frazier didn't work as hard to pull his arms free and punch as he had in 1971. Perez is correct, Frazier did let clinches continue. But that's not an excuse for Perez. Ali was clearly holding often enough and long enough to have been warned and then penalized if he didn't stop. Perez should have done more to assert himself and the rules against clinching. As long as he didn't, Ali was going to take as much advantage as he could.