Floyd Patterson challenges Muhammad Ali for the heavyweight title, November 22, 1965. After it was all over, after Ali had verbally and physically abused Patterson for more than half an hour, he revealed the unvarnished truth about his performance during a post-fight interview in the ring, just minutes after scoring the grisly stoppage: “I predicted that the way he’d been talking about me that I would give him a good whippin’ and I am so thankful that he did have the power to stand up like he did because that’s what he got—a good whippin’.” Later, Ali would walk back these remarks for an interview with Howard Cosell, but only the credulous could ignore the circumstances extant before, during, and after the fight. The man with the best view of the action in the ring that night, Referee Harry Krause, seemed disgusted by the entire display. He told reporters what was obvious to most at the time but has since been downplayed by a potent combination of hero worship and identity politics. “From what I could see,” said Krause, “it was Clay’s intention to humiliate Patterson and to give him the worst possible beating without ending the fight.” https://hannibalboxing.com/after-the-fall-the-comeback-of-floyd-patterson-part-ii-muhammad-ali/
I’m always curious about these unwritten rules and unseeable lines that are crossed — why is it bad for a boxer to beat his opponent as badly as possible? Ali was a cold-blooded killer in the ring. I don’t recall anyone being upset because Mike Tyson beat people up.