Ali's Second Reign ...

Ali's best years in the seventies were 1972-74,formwise. Although he put on a very good show in the FOTC beforehand,and in Manilla one year afterwards,these years were when Muhammad came as near as he could to his sixties self. Beating Foreman was his last fight in that window,so it was inevitable that he would decline from that point onwards.

His legacy was sealed after the Zaire bout,and compounded after Manilla.
Most champs would have been in the same boat had they commenced their second reign at the age of 32.

 

Holmes had left Ali's camp before Manilla. If Muhammad had trained as hard for Manilla as he did for the Foreman fight,I doubt whether Ali-Frazier III would have been a legendary bout. Ali's victory over Joe would have been signifigantly more emphatic. And that's no disrespect to Joe,who fought an excellent fight.

 

His resume over 1970-75 was second to none.

 

I can see where your coming from and you make some valid points, but IMO he was entitled to a few 'beer money' fights so to speak and some of those fights he did seem to just go through the motions. I think he was capable of a lot more, if pushed, which not too many done. I completely disagree with the Norton 3 performance bein described as 'pathetic' TBH. I thought it was a good scrap and a close fight regardless of what some might say

 

After the thriller he lost to young (imo), later in the year he lost to norton (imo), he then lost to shavers (imo) and lost to spinks (imo)

From 75-80 he was a gatekeeper being protected by sympathetic judges.

From 76 - 77 you had young beating ali and foreman so there's no way he can rank above jimmy there. from 77-78 you had norton beating ali and young so again there's no way you can rank ali above kenny there, from 78-80 you had holmes beating norton and shavers so again ali can't be ranked top there.

What he did from 70-75 is brilliant, great and legendary. everything after that was.... meh.

 

I agree with your assessment of the third Norton fight,johnmaff. I go along with the consensus that Muhammad was very lucky in getting the verdict in that one,but I reckon it's way.......way over the top to call it a robbery.

 

To be honest, the word robbery isn't really appropriate despite us all using it time and time again.

Boxing is a subjective sport and for me if the wrong man wins, they get a gift decision. whether it's wrong by 1 point or wrong by 11 rounds if the wrong man wins in my books, they get no credit from me.

 

I think Ali was the greatest HW ever my main reason being that none of us saw him in what would have been his prime (summer 67 - summer 70)
But sadly, looking back on his post-exile reign, I see major reasons to criticize him.
He got into Foreman's head along with all the delays, loose ropes, etc.., etc...
And...never gave Foreman a rematch.
Lost the third fight with Norton.
IMHO the 'Thrilla' is overrated; two over the hill HOF'ers giving it a last ditch effort and that is commendable.
A bum of the month resume that may have been worse than Louis's bums.
IMO blew the Spinks bout on purpose (I won't be popular here) only to go on record as the only HW to regain the 'crown' for a third time. Patterson was more impressive against Ellis in 1968.
In retrospect, despite his greatness, Ali basically played us for fools after regaining the title for the 2nd time.

 

I can only assume that Ali,even by his most fierce critics,gets judged on a far higher standard than other great heavyweight champs. Think about it ! Ali's softer opponents were no softer than those whom Joe Louis included in his Bum of the Month club.

The results of the Jimmy Young and third Ken Norton fight,especially the latter,were controversial but no more so than the judges decision in the first Louis-Walcott fight,the Holmes-Witherspoon Holmes-Williams,and Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield I.


We don't hear about these as much as we do about Ali's.

 

Stevie - the difference between Louis - Walcott 1 & Ali -Norton 3 is that Louis rematched Walcott and put the record straight...Ali did not rematch Norton.

Louis gets props from me for that...

 

There's credibility in the above posts. I was looking at the fights I mentioned in isolation though. Besides,Holmes never rematched Witherspoon or Williams.

 

Once you accept the truth behind his decisions it's much easier to appreciate just how good ali actually was.

I mean the very end of any conceivable prime for ali has to be the thriller. He never looked world class again.

After beating frazier what was his record? I can't rightly remember but i'm sure he'd beaten everyone he fought and had racked up, I think, 13 meaningful defences in the process.

Rather than thinking of ali as a 70's heavyweight, consider him to be a 64-74 hw. Anything after that is too far past prime to be of major relevance.

So yeah he beat evangelista and leon but he also deserved to lose to young, norton, shavers, and leon.

Maybe if the judges had actually scored for young he'd have become more motivated and chased a rematch, as it was he could pretty do whatever he wanted knowing he'd get the decision.

I've seen people question the questioning of decisions because it's happened a lot throughout history, but the answer isn't to shy away from it, it's to dig deeper and embrace it.

Yes walcott deserved to beat louis, yes pea deserved to beat chavez, yes lewis deserved to beat holyfield. Evaluate people's career's consistently and if a decision needs questioning, question it!

Does ali deserve extra criticisim for his series of gifts? No because it's judges making the call not him. But does he deserve credit for a fight he shouldn't have won? Only if you actually think he won it.

 

That's correct Steveie...that's why I didn't mention them!

Hope you're keeping well mate...

 

Some brutal criticism going on here, on par with 'elbows too pointy'
Shame