Ali "The Greatest" losing to Spinks

I don’t think Ali took a single minute of either of those two fights seriously. He likely fought on cruise control for both of them and needless to say was years past his primed

 

Ali did look terrible for his last several fights

 

Good post,Flash. Anyone who thinks that Ali threw the first fight should look again at the 15th round. Muhammad was throwing everything at Spinks prompting one commentator to ask where Ali had been for the previous 14 stanzas. Unfortunately for him,he was too knackered to nail Leon.

 

How many of you had watched the Ledoux fight? Leon had a draw against the guy going into the Ali fight. Hardly the credentials warranting a title shot. Other guys were around quite capable of beating Ali at that time. And lets face it--a draw against Scott Ledoux is not going to get very many heavyweights in top shape for a title defense.

And after the Ali bouts---Leon was destroyed by Coetzee and it really blew out a lot of candles and a lot of the media that were thinking Spinks was going to be a fixture in the division for a long time. Lots of folks thought that---more fights and experience plus the olympic medal, so it was assumed he would improve a bunch just from the Ali victory.

 

Norton got a draw vs LeDoux and was probably lucky not to be stopped in the last round.

 

I

I think Walcott's technique only really was refined into his later career, he was blue collar and supporting a whole family on his paycheck and most of his late 20's and early 30's were doing just that. He looks pristine going against a young Marciano. Not to say a younger Walcott wouldn't have fared well or better, you did list some great wins, I just think the best Walcott we got was 37

 

Indeed, he was supporting his family, fighting part time, which is a reason for his spotty record. Walcott got knocked out by Abe Simon in 1940. There is a 4 year gap, then he comes back at 1944 for what I can only assume is a full time professional run.
He then sets on a path of destruction, taking out nearly every worthy fighter of the 1940s on his way to challenge Louis, where he has the single best showing of his entire career, almost besting the fading Louis.
To me, that hyper mobile, pristine reflexes Walcott is the best version of the fighter.
I just don't see how at 37, after 21 years of pro fighting he is anywhere near to his prime. Especially considering that he hit prime 5 years ago when he was beating Bivins, Oma, Murray and more.

 

His detractors can only point to "embarrassing" losses and "gift" decisions when he was washed. That's all they have and all it's they will ever have. He had been fighting professionally for 18 years when he lost to Spinks. How would Rocky have fared in his eighteenth year of professional boxing?

 

On this thread though it's just people putting the loss in context. It's a bad loss to have in one respect, but the context is that Ali was already diminished. He should not have been in the ring. Yes there are people who will give Ali 'a pass' on things, however that's not what's happening here. Things, and not just boxing obviously, should be seen in context.

The loss to Spinks is not representative of Muhammad Ali at his best or his career as a whole. I would think you cannot argue about that -right?

 

Yeah, what are you saying here?