10-9 Foreman Pretty clear round for Foreman. Ali landed a couple hard shots at the end, but he did next to nothing offensively for two-plus minutes. Had it been the Dokes-Weaver fight, Joey Curtis would've stopped it around the two-minute mark. (LOL)
Nice to know there are people that know how to score a round. Unbelievable that there are some in this thread who would call what Foreman did in round 5 ineffective. Somebody in here alluded that one of the combination sequences late in the round by Ali stunned Foreman, and because Foreman never stunned Ali in that type manner the round in their opinion goes to Ali. That's just not how a round is supposed to be scored. As of this post there are 15 votes that Foreman won the round and 8 votes that Ali won the round. Quite frankly that is a travesty. 8 votes to many that Ali won the round. I'm very adamant about this. If you scored round 5 to Ali, you have no clue how to score a round.
That's my favorite fight. The announcer was either a Foreman fanboy or doesn't know crap about boxing, right before the round 8 KO you can hear him say "Even fight so far..." and he makes numerous statements like that throughout the fight. The opposite is true, I thought Ali won every single round up to that point. He stole the round 5 with that late combination/flurry.
That is what is known as a contradictory statement. I grant you, Ali's composure wouldn't have much bearing on scoring the round if he hadn't rung Foreman's bell with volleys of shots later in the session. He would have simply been outworked. I was quite specific in my choice of words. I did not categorically state that Ali was "in control" throughout the first two minutes of the round (although there are moments, particularly in the first minute, where it appears that George's forward momentum is being used against him). I don't relish typing the same thing over and over (and you are not the only fellow on BF24 with a habit of necessitating it), so I'll just use the quote function; But seeing as you raised the issue, it's not exactly true that Ali isn't showing signs of having a design. He's talking to George throughout the round, actively goading him to keep throwing the punches, leaning on him where he can. It's also interesting that he finds such a burst of energy, after having been sagging way back into the ropes for the preceding 30 seconds – there's more than a little possum at play. Furthermore; I'm a big fight game reader, and I happen to have Angie Dundee's book to hand. Here's what he has to say about what went down in the corner prior to the 5th; ^ That's not to say that one cannot still score the round for George. More to say that it would be wrong to suggest that Ali didn't demonstrate a design in the round. Aside from Angie's testimony, it's quite visible, as I noted in my fifth paragraph in this post. Likely true that some shots discomforted him to whatever degree (only Ali could tell us the extent), probably downstairs. And what does that mean? Means Ali plays great poker. Think about it. You are correct, it was an intuitive improvisation. Once he felt the exertion of dancing in the Kinshasa heat for one round, he realised the folly of an orthodox stick and move gameplan in those conditions. It was never my point that Ali came into the fight with a plan to rope-a-dope Foreman. Having said that, I will note that, by the time of the 5th round volley, he was sitting down on his shots, which signals that he was very conscious of Foreman's exertion and had an intent to capitalize and do damage. His gameplan had definitely taken shape by that point in the fight. To reiterate Dundee's words; ^ Evidence of intent, for sure. Not that I require it, as it's perceptible watching the fight, but just some extra grist for the mill. But regardless of what Ali's conscious plan is or isn't, the round ends with George the worse for wear for Ali's punches and bears some impression of having been orchestrated by Ali to some degree. This would account for why it's such a contentious round. The count in this thread is 10-5-1 in Foreman's favor (perhaps even as a result of your early chastisement of a fellow on the first page, which may have discouraged some alternate points of view), but it's 13-12-3 on the scorecards site I mentioned earlier. Very close. Ali was a man to make a case for himself. And he always had a knack for persuasion, let's face it. He could charm an audience into agreeing with him on most any point. He might possibly be magnanimous enough, having defeated George well within the distance, to pat him on the head and award him a 5th round he ultimately never needed to win. But if it meant something to him, you better believe he's staking his claim. All Ali ever needed to hear from his corner, in his own words, was whether he won the round. So I guess Angie is the guy whose word Ali would typically rely on as to whether or not he'd won a round. But it doesn't seem like he even needed that much from Angie after the first few rounds in Zaire, such was his own assurance in his effectiveness. Angie doesn't say whether he advised Ali as to who won the 5th, but he does offer this account of rounds 5-8; ^ From that, it sounds like you could be surprised by an Ali account of the 5th round. It may've been much more bullish than you expect. Reality is, a lot of scorers are splitting that round. Ali rocked Big George with multiple clean blows and highlighted Foreman's weariness (on George's own admission) by contrast with his own seeming freshness. He went back to the corner with the edge. That accounts for the distinct lack of unanimity. But we have long ago established that's not all he did. That's terribly assumptive. I'm a critically minded guy. Ali is, indeed, great, and he is among my favorite characters and competitors in the sport's history, but I do not need him to win every round he ever fought, or even every fight. You might be surprised by how critical of Ali I can be. I've been carrying an idea for a somewhat extensive article on Clay/Ali which will deconstruct both his career and his character in a way that it seems nobody who can credibly call themselves a fan of the man (as I do) has been critical or honest enough, in terms of dropping their romantic illusions, to have attempted thus far.
^ Continued from above... That's not quite what I said, but I'll pardon you and draw your attention to a thoughtful post which looked at the round from a few different approaches (try to put aside the matter of who he does or doesn't score for); The Mercante principle is the one I generally practice when scoring a round. But it's not foolproof, so I allow some leeway for a third so strong as to overshadow the larger part and also for emphatic rallies of this type. Had Ali's rally been some shade less emphatic, or perhaps even had George's first minute looked a bit less like he was being toyed with (he walked into some impudent jabs and a flush hook), @divac and I would not be having our discussion. You, @divac, are applying Mercante principle, and there's nothing wrong with that. You are certainly within the bounds of reason to score the round to George. The point we're arguing is whether it's outrageous to give the round to Ali. Bear in mind, I haven't stated my own scoring of the round. For all you know, I may give it to George. Could be it's so close, and George has such a fair, honest case, that, after having been forced to scored the lion's share of the first four against him, I decide that it would be very harsh to not reward his output in the 5th. I haven't told you either way. In a case like this, I'm more interested in the potential for discussion than plunking down my categorical 2¢. Speaking of which... That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Mine is that the round is open to interpretation, it's up to you whether you respect that or not. You are at least a more gracious correspondent than Ra's Al-Ghul. That's some kind of kudos.
You did a nice job of breaking down the points I made and putting your interpreation of them. I do respect your opinion on the matter but I will say that I do think you're taking what mightr have happened before round 5 and after round 5 and then interpreted how round 5 should be scored. The way I go about scoring round I try never to consciously let previous rounds play into how I'm scoring the existing round and when I'm rewatching a fight to rescore it, I try not to let what happened in a later round change my mind about how I scored an earlier round. A boxing match has to be score round by round in the moment and not through revisionist eyes. Though you might say you're not scoring it through revisionist eyes, seeing round 5 unfold for myself I just cant buy that contention. I do however agree with most of the points you have made, what I don't agree with you about round 5 is that Ali's punches did more damage or were somehow more effective than Foreman's in round 5. From my viewpoint, Foreman teeter tottering around the ring was the result of he himself expending so much energy and trying to hurt Ali that he just burnt himself out. A completely fatigued fighter is going to be a lot easier to move if you hit him with a shot, even with a shot that doesn't land clean. Was it the potency of Ali's shots that stunned Foreman, or was it the fact Foreman plum punched himself out in that round? Ali having a few seconds where he lands some good shots isn't going to erase all the work Foreman did for most of the round. I would say Foreman won 2:30 or the round big while Ali only won 30 seconds of the round not even as big but only clear. Big outweight clear by a long shot to me and in this case most of Foreman's work was big because he was putting everything behind his shots which to me counts in the scoring criteria. (A scoring arm punch jab doesn't count as much as a jab thrown with your full body weight behind it.) The intensity and weight behind Foreman's punches must be weighed in comparison to Ali's when you score that round, along with all the other factors as you know. We disagree but as always with someone who brings it like you do in a civilized manner, I do the same, or so I try. LOL! I will say this about your quotes from Angelo Dundee, you can throw those quotes in a garbage can as you and I both know Dundee is a bonafide drama queen with a propensity to overstate and in cases even fabricate scenarios to suit his own Agenda. I don't hold it against Dundee because part of me appreciates Dundee for always sticking by and vouching for his fighter even when he knows his depiction might not be quite accurate. I would just take a lot of what Dundee said with a grain of salt, and its not just a Dundee thing, a lot of trainers do the same thing, Emmanuel Steward was pretty much the same way, he often told what happened in fights through revisionist eyes and more often than not to suit his agenda to make himself look good.
Ali cleaner more effective blows to the face Combos to the head. Big George was the aggressor with great work to the body, but it didn’t phase Ali. His sloppy work up top is what cost him the round. Ali & Sugar Ray new how to flurry in the last 30 seconds.
You could argue that Ali could have had a KD counted against him. The ropes held him up for 2/3 rds of the round even though he wasn't really hurt. Not saying SHOULD have, but you could argue that. That was a Foreman round IMO.
Ey, I can only tell you that I'm calling it how I see it. And I'm not at pains to change your mind. We have a different position on it, and that's fine. Well, I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that he's fabricating the statements he attributes to Ali in the corner after the 4th, but, as you went on to imply, dramatic overstatement could be said to be a trait of the trade, so whose testimony could we take seriously? Angie's words aren't my Exhibit A so much as further grist to my mill, they just tally with what I'm seeing already. And they add a little bit of interest to the thread, besides. There's a lot of compelling testimony that we can't just pull up on Google, so I always think it's a good thing to get some of these passages out of books and onto forums. Have a swell weekend, my man.
