HOLMES V NORTON - Great Fight.... BUT

Why would he have been mandatory for what he did before losing the title? If he was, I just think its' silly. He come off of a quite embarrassing loss and became mandatory? Why then wasn't Ali mandatory after FOTC and Frazier after losing to Foreman?

 

Proven with what?! You have strange version of proof, my friend. I've asked for sources and you provided me with... nothing.

And I repeat, IF the organizations had Foreman as a mandatory long before he beat Frazier (even before he beat Lyle) then that's as silly as not stripping Ali for failing to face him. Ali's own comeback after FOTC was far more impressive, but that didn't make him mandatory.

 

I watched that again a few months ago, what a great fight, but.... one of those hard to score fights in my humble opinion.. Norton and Larry boxed a few rounds that were too close to score clearly, i think that is what happened, the ringside judges were undecided on many rounds, and even though Larry seemed to orchestrate the tempo, Norton somehow ended up getting credit for rounds he was merely competing in.. Larry UD. not SD..

Norton very gallent and hard working loser....

 

What exact proof do you want I asked?

Frazier would have had to fight Ali after Foreman as he was Number One, and it would have been his 4th defence without taking on his mandatory if he didn't. Then he would have been right accused of ducking if he hadn't given Ali a rematch.

 

Greg Page didn't necessarily do much to become Holmes' mandatory. The fact remains, whether his ranking was deserved or not, Holmes ducked facing him.

 

So, Foreman loses to Ali- he gets rated ahead of Norton who in 1974, has beaten just Boone Kirkman (who Foreman trounced years before) and lost to George himself and was embarrassed. Yet, it appears so shocking that Foreman's rated ahead of him.

 

He not only gets rated above him, he's mandatory according to you. Something Ali wasn't for two years after FOTC, even though he more or less cleaned out the division during that time.

It seems very strange to me that a champ's mandatory should be someone he just convincingly beat. And obviously that's not always the case.

 

And i told you! A source! Where did you get the information that Foreman was mandatory from nov 1974 to july 1975 and from jan 1976 to march 1977?

Ali had been nr. 1 for two years. Foreman had only been nr. 1 for 9 months when he lost to Young and retired. But according to you he had somehow been mandatory for 12 months more than that.

 

What i'm saying, is he's the Number one contender still. Ali was due to have a mandatory late 75, Foreman, if active, would have been that challenge (if he wasn't ducked). Frazier became #1 due to the aforemtnioned inactivity, and filled the slot. When George come back he was again installed as #1 and mandatory contender for a fight late 1976. Ali, despite four defences didn't have a mandatory, then failed to do so the following year. He fudged out this by anouncing retirement after retirment, wherein the WBC/WBA were waiting for 'written confimation' and as soon as this was forthcoming and were going to announce 1 vs 2 for the vacant title- George vs Kenny. Obviously, the written confirmation never did arrive.


ps. Imagine Tyson losing the WBC crown in his first defence, then being rated behind Berbick? No, I can't imagine it either.

 

Well, hard to pinpoint: possibly Ring, more likely Boxing Illustrated, Boxing International and Boxing News. 1976 was a particularly good year for the collection. I have virtually every issue of all mentioned (the full 52 issues of B.News, which makes for fascinating 'duckage' reading). :good

He was again Number one contender when Frazier lost and he signed to fight Lyle. Obviously, he wasn't mandatory in 1975 becuase Ali had fulfilled that obligation. However, if Ali had fought his mandatory in 76 it would have had to have been Foreman. Can you not grasp this concept? :huh

 

I suppose you mean that he was the organization's nr. 1 before he even met Lyle, because Norton was The Ring's nr. 1 at that point.

Still, it doesn't change my view that to make Foreman mandatory without him even having a fight afte Zaire is as wrong as not stripping Ali for not facing him.

And now from Ali's point of view: He faced the nr. 1 and 2 in the Ring Ratings that year and took on bums in between. I don't know if he felt any pressure from the organizations to fight Foreman, but it seems very reasonable to me that he took another easy fight after facing Norton, who he had been scheduled to fight since the beginning of the year. Had Foreman not lost and retired, and still not got his shot, then I can see the controversy, but not as it is.

For the first 2 years of his reign Ali gave rubber matches to his two toughest oppponents and took on tough contenders in Lyle, Bugner and Young. IF Foreman for some bizarre reaon became the mandatory coming off a bad loss I can't fault Ali for not immediatly facing him when even the organizations didn't seem to pressure him to do that.

After beating Frazier, Foreman clearly was the main contender, but then Ali was already scheduled to fight Norton, and 6 months after that fight Foreman retired. That might very well have been a lucky break for Ali, but such things happens. I don't think Foreman was hard done by. If he was mandatory before beating Frazier that was a gift, just as Ali in that case got a gift by not being stripped.

I don't think my opinion regarding this will change.

 

Agreed Frazier should have been his last fight, the rest of Ali's fights are largely irrelevant to his legacy. Been on top of the world and having your identity as World Heavyweight Champ is a hard addiction to give up

 

It's actually quite normal for the former champion to still be #1 or #2 contender after being knocked out, even if it happened in devastating fashion. Patterson was after being iced by Johansson, Liston was the #1 contender after quitting against Clay, Frazier was still the #2 contender after Foreman destroyed him, Tyson after being beaten by Douglas, Lewis post-Rahman, etc etc. Perhaps not always justified, but this is simply the way it is and has always been.

 

Yes, but not necissarily mandatory. Patterson's and Liston's rematches was due to clauses in the contracts, if I'm not mistaken. Foreman and Ali didn't have such a clause.

Tyson had 4 fights after losing to Douglas before he got another shot. Frazier needed to get past Ali to get a shot, but didn't. Ali more or less cleaned out the division for 2 years after FOTC, but still got superseeded by Foreman. Spinks was stripped a belt because he took on Ali and not Norton, etc, etc...

 

Yes, you know this. Stop trying to move the goalposts into a 'Ring magazine' debate. I'm talking about sanctioning bodies and rules. I think you know this. You're obviously going this route because you've already been proven wrong about Norton being mandatory. And, George was #1 with the Ring for the first half of 1975 too.

This happens all the time in boxing. A beaten champ often remains the number one ranked. Do you not know this?

Foreman spent most of late 1975, ALL of 1976 and the first three months of 1977 asking Ali for a rematch. He was the Number one contender after all.

The organisations giving him too much leeway is the crux of the argument. However, he made it awkward for them by announcing his retirement through the second half of 1976, they were waiting for written confirmation, then he'd come out and say he signed to fight...Bobick, or Schutte, etc.

He consistently fudged out of signing to fight Foreman after he'd promised to the world. The Boxing News headline Nov. 1976: "Ali accepts Foreman challenge". The headline the week after? "Ali announces retirement".

Try not to mistake me for someone who gives a ****. :good