HOLMES V NORTON - Great Fight.... BUT

You really want to see Foreman back in with Ali after Manilla? Ali was shot after that 1 and earned the right to duck a rematch

 

No. I'd rather see Dunn fight him instead. In a stadium littered with empty seats

 

Point is Ali was ****ed after Manilla and should have retired, he got ruined badly enough by continuing, imagine how much worse he would have been with a Foreman rematch to boot

 

I totally agree. He should have packed it in. But, oh no, the attention and deification was just too much to give away- and that led to his condition as of today if we're honest. :-(

 

It's this I have a hard time to believe. Why would he be mandatory after winning just one fight after losing the title? Actually, you said that he was mandatory even for six months right after losing his title. By the same token Frazier should have been mandatory after losing his title to Forman. But he wasn't, he had to fight it out with Ali to get a title shot, but lost. Therefore it would be reasonable that Foreman only became mandatory after beating Frazier in their rematch, not after losing his title.

That's why I would like a source.

 

He was still the number one contender, like, for instance, Ali was still the #1 contender after Frazier beat him in 1971. Maybe Frazier should have been the number one contender but Foreman probably still was because he mashed Joe.

Ali was due for a compulsory defence in late 75, due to Foreman's inactivity, Frazier was made Numebr One. They fought, Frazier lost, Foreman came back, he's the #1 again.


Still, not getting this and what source do you require?

 

It's not for me to say which source, it's for you. You did get it from somewhere, right?

Anyway, if it is as you say; that Foreman was mandatory for 6 months after losing his title and then again immediatly after his comeback, then I think the fact that Ali wasn't stripped is as wrong as Foreman being the mandatory without really doing something.

Frazier wasn't the mandatory after losing to Foreman and Ali wasn't the mandatory after losing to Spinks. And the loss to Spinks was a split decision, so I don't really see why Foreman should be the mandatory after being convincingly beaten and KO'd. Ali actually had a better claim to be that after FOTC. But he went for two years as the nr. 1 contender after that fight without being the mandatory.

So, if you're right, the governing bodies made a ****ed up decision in making Foreman the mandatory, and then didn't impose it. Sounds like boxing to me.

 

Of course.

Probably had a lot to do with his annihilations of Frazier and Norton. Even though Joe and Kenny were due title shots the general feeling was that if they were to annexe Ali's crown, they'd be mashed by Foreman (probably a similar feeling when Ali defended vs Patterson, bearing in mind what Liston had done to Floyd).

Fair enough, so you can say Joe ducked a rematch just like Ali did. That's fine.

This is by-the-by, i'm not suggesting Foreman deserved a shot in 75, he didn't. But he knocked out Lyle, then Frazier, which was a more impressive 76 than Norton had. He was #1 anyway. Still, Ali didn't sign to fight him as he promised when George gatecrashed a press-conference in November of 1976 when Ali was announcing he had signed to fight Bobick!!!!

 

Well, if he hadn't retired four months later he might well have gotten that fight.

And I do think that Ali deserved a rematch with Frazier more in early 1973 than Foreman deserved a rematch with Ali in early 1977. Ali gave a better account of himself in FOTC than Foreman did in Zaire. And after FOTC he was constantly active, comfortably beating Elllis, Mac Foster, Buster Mathis, Chuvalo, Quarrry, Patterson etc, while Foreman had had much less fights, and had a very close win over Lyle and an easy one over Frazier as his best wins.

 

I'm not concerned whether he deserved one or not. He was mandatory contender, the rules stipulated that the champion had to fight at least one compulsory each year. It seems they wavered that in 1976 and 1977. He took the Young fight because Ali refused to fight him. This was after promising a fight in November 1976 when Foreman embarrassed him in front of his fawning arselicks at a press conference. What happened next? Ali announced his retirement. Then announced he was going to fight again- and originally signed to defend his crown against, wait for it, Mike Schutte. :huh

Ali then spent 1977 fudging fights, signing to fight the winner of Norton-Bobick but 'oops' the wrong man won, then signing to fight the winner of the eliminator Norton-Young- the wrong man won again it seems as he then decided he wanted an interim defence against Spinks or Righetti. (Foreman-Frazier was meant to be an eliminator too- but the wrong man won again of course).

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about by the way. But anyway, the difference being is that Frazier had defended his crown only three times after the Ali win, whereas Ali had defended his eight times and signed for a ninth before Foreman was considered.

 

It was you who brought it up, I think. This might have been a bit derailed, though...

But my point is: if the organizations had Foreman as the mandatory challenger for the first half of 1975 and for the whole of 1976, then that is as ****ed up as not stripping Ali for not fighting Foreman during this period. It evens out.

 

Damn, you seem to know a whole lot about how Ali thought. :yep

As for "the mandatory" see my previous post. As for Ali ducking dangerous contenders... he fought everyone of note during his second reign except Foreman, who only was active for about one year and the nr. 1 contender for 6 months of that reign., and who had alreat comfortable beaten.

Before you start with, "but he was the mandatory..." see my previous post.

 

It doesn't even out. Foreman was mandatory because of how he beat Norton I imagine. What did Norton do to do to be cemented No: 1 status (in your eyes)? He beat Quarry, who'd been well-beaten by Frazier and Foreman beat Lyle and Joe. So from June 76 onwards Foreman 'deserved' to be mandatory, even if you think he didn't before. Ali was due to fight one that very year, but then didn't. He should have at least signed to fight Foreman some time in 1976 like he promised.

 

What is this supposed to mean? The truth is you've been well proven wrong here and you're trying to get away from it with bull**** "He shouldn't have been Number one so Ali is allowed to duck him" is basically what you're saying. How crap is that?