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

No, doesn't look that way to me either.
Just goes to show how written reports cannot always be trusted at all.

 

Indeed.

 

Louis gets his fair share of criticism too though. I mean, people have had long discussions here about the crappiness of Jack Roper, for example.

 

Yeah, but I guess my point is that every fighter who defends at the rate that Louis and Ali did will occasionally fight a guy that's deemed to be a soft touch (at least going into the fight, anyway). Louis had his Roper and Thomas...Ali had London and a faded Williams.

Does that make Louis' reign any less creditable? Should it make Ali's first reign any less creditable either?

Is all I'm saying.

 

Yeah, Louis gets undue criticism from some. His reign up until WWII was close to flawless. After the war I'd say he defended a bit too seldom. He took on his mandatories, but had he defended more frequently other deserving contenders would have gotten a shot too.

But all in all it was a tremendous reign.

 

Nice one!:good

 

in that time frame i think chuvalo gave him his toughest challenge,chuvalo was throwing and landing a lot of body shots that had ali grimacing even though ali pulled if a victory it was a very close decision:think

 

Yeah, he had balls facing Tyson again, even though it was just an exhibition. Some of Tyson's punches were vicious and would have really hurt him had it not been for the headgear and 16 oz gloves.

So, what do you say? Would you find any interest in a Tyson-Tillis rematch after seeing how Mike handled him here? Would you say "nah, it was just an exhibition, doesn't mean anything"?

 

It was anything but a close decision. Chuvalo didn't win more than 1-2 rounds. It was competitive, though.

 

No, none of it makes their reigns less creditable.
But I dont think 10 defences is necessarily more credible than 4 or 5, if the remaining 5 or 6 are absolute soft touches. I dont give much extra credit for the extra quantity, a little perhaps, it depends on the quality. I mean, sure an underdog can pose a risk (as the likes of Buster Douglas and Hasim Rahman show) but at a certain point (the Dunns and Coopmans) the win carries no weight at all.

 

I dont think the exhibition proved anything for or against the merits of either man in regards to how they would do against each other.
I think Tillis was thoroughly discredited by losses to Joe Bugner, Mike Williams, Frank Bruno, John Duplooy and was firmly in the role of trial horse and sparring partner.

 

Ok. Let's say the exhibition confirmed that. They were certainly not playing around.