Did Ali have the easiest Heavyweight reign 65'-67'

I don't think Tyson's first reign is critized. And it shouldn't be. Louis' gets his amount of unfair stick (but not threads like these, really), but Holmes, Johnson and Dempsey did have some big holes in their reigns after all, even though it has been pointed out enough times. Frazier did too, brief as his was.

 

Audley Harrison for example ?

 

chuvalo fought the right fight he was hitting and landing hard body shots and at times had ali grimacing in pain:think

 

Still won't bother me as long as he fights Haye and Vitaly. Won't watch it, though.

 

I guess it boils down to being consistent in our critcisms.

If you admit a fighter fought a good few unworthy challengers in-between real or reasonable challengers then it makes no sense to hold the "X number of defences" in high esteem.

Some fighters take a load of flak for only having a small number of defences or for being inconsistent in title fights, but they didn't take advantage of the title by fighting 2 or 3 unworthys in-between.

 

It's a disgrace for a world champion to defend against someone who's not even on the fringes of world class.

 

Cooper deserved a rematch. London was a tune up for the real fight the following month, the deserving top 5 Mildenberger who beat Machen. So what if a washed up gate keeper spoiled a couple prospects back home?

 

A reign mainly should be judged by if the champion fought his best challengers. And I think that's how they are judged on this forum. That is why the reigns of for example Johnson, Dempsey and Holmes does get critized.

 

From some accounts, Cleveland Williams was always on the "dont need him" list in the Ali camp, until they were sure he was damaged goods. He was considered too much of a risk.

-------------------------------

From Sports Illustrated, November 1966 :

This content is protected

 

Again, nobody is defending Williams as one of Ali's finest defenses. It was his 5th defense that year before facing the #1 and #2 guys. If he avoided them and fought Williams muttering something like "More money in Big Cat, I own a Hotel now.." than we can complain.

 

True, but each of those champions reigns were 6-7 years.
Ali's was 3 years up until him getting de-licensed to fight.

As we both agree, not many really pressing challengers are going to emerge in 2 or 3 years.

 

As long as the defend against the ones they should defend against, I don't really care. And even unworthy challengers can spring surprises and make for very good fights. Bert Cooper comes to mind (not a knock on Holy, though, since he was only a last minute replacement).

 

I'm not complaining, or criticizing. I think his first reign was okay. As as been pointed out, fighting so often means you have to fight some second-raters.

The article is interesting. The Dundees were always wary of putting Clay in with Williams.

 

No. But Liston, Patterson, Terrell and Folley are a pretty good bunch to me. Mildenberger was alright, as well. The rest matters less. At least Chuvalo made for an entertaining fight, and I suppose that matters needed to be settled with Cooper, with the "split glove" losing proportions. Williams is perhaps the most depressing one, but on the bright side the poor guy at least got a last pay-day.