HOLMES V NORTON - Great Fight.... BUT

I'm not as fond of name calling as you are, but you continue to misunderstand me - a lot.

I've never said that Norton's ranking with The Ring should make him mandatory. But The Rings rankings are usually used to argue for a contender's claim (even if they're not formal) and I merely said that Ali took on the nr. 1 and nr. 2 fighters in 1976 as ranked by The Ring going in to the year.

So, are we clear?

One more question: Don't you see anything odd with Foreman becoming the mandatory directly after Zaire, a favour that wasn't extended to either Ali or Frazier after they lost their respective titles?

That's why, I've asked for a specific source about it, but you seem a bit shy there.

 

You said he was mandatory during the first half of 1975 and going in to 1976.

 

Look, Foreman is the number one contender with the wbc and wba after Zaire. Ali doesn't have to face him exactly then as mandatory, but he's in that position and when the mandatory was due- late 75, then Foreman, if active, has the fight. He was dropped from 1 to 2 by the WBC (not the WBA) and Frazier became #1 contender and filled the mandatory slot- as soon as Manila was over Foreman was again #1 contdner, due for mandatory sometime in 1976. Is this clear?

 

He was. Droped to 2 because of inactivity, re-installed as 1 after Manila. But Ali had the choice to wait for the whole of 76 to fight his mandatory challenger, which was again, Foreman.

 

To summarise: Going strictly be the rules it seem reasonable that Ali should have been stripped in late 1976 for taking on Evangelista instead of Foreman. But when the **** have the boxing orgs. ever gone strictly by the rules? Hell, Foreman has actually been one of the main benificiaries of boxing's lax standards. He begun with getting the title fight against Frazier that Ali should have had, and in the 90's he got another two shots at the title with much weaker credentials. That's boxing. Yes, Ali was considered a demi-god in the late 70's and could do no wrong, but he hasn't gotten any favours that other champions haven't.

Patterson could have avoided Liston until hell froze over, Frazier basically took two years off but still retained the title, and Holmes refused very valid rematches and top contenders. And of course if we go back to for example the days of Dempsey, things were even worse.

So if you want me to weep for Foreman's unfair treatment because of Ali's status as an "untouchable"... Well, that just won't happen.

 

The thing also is that the sanctioning bodies were being messed about by Ali too. For example, after Norton, the WBC ordered that he fight Foreman "within 90 days". What happened? Ali announced his retirement. ha ha ha.

 

The point was, Ali's ducking of his mandatory far more so than the WBC and WBA forcing him to go through with it. That, no matter what, he avoided the fight like it was the Black Plague. And that's all there is to it. If you're only written evidence is one issue of the Ring and that Thomas Hauser book then good luck with that.

I don't give a **** about your crappy opinion. You've been proven wrong enough times here to know your opinion is useless.

 

Foreman was stipped of the WBA title for not facing his mandatory in 95, and he hadn't even made one defence. Good work again.

 

So you mean Foreman wasn't a benificiary of the circus that boxing often is? That he actually earned his 2 title shots in the 90's? :rofl

Just one more time: You have proven **** all. I've asked for sources but got none. Hell, you don't even seem to understand what I mean with source.

Well, here's how it goes. This is the source for the times I've mentioned The Ring's ratings (and I don't confuse them with being mandatory, but they can still be illuminating): http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_1975

The Hauser book haven't been referred to at all by me.

And that's it from me about this. I didn't like your adolescent tone before, and now I've just about had my fill of it.

 

My source. How about Boxing Illustrated, almost every issue from the entire decade, including 74,75, 76, and 77. BI produced WBC/WBA ratings every month until around 1977... :good


...and all's you repsond with is one month's worth of Ring ratings. Well done!

 

You'll find my exasperation when I'm arguing with the likes of Bill1234, but you won't find this when i'm debating with JohnThomas, Chris P, StoneHands, John Garfield, etc. Get the link now?


Yet again, you've reverted to 'Ring ratings' which has had **** all to do with anything i have said. The Ring don't pick mandatory contenders. Maybe one day (I'll guess at some time around winter 2011) you will grasp this.


Again, sources: Ring- probably missing about 15 issues from the whole of the 1970s. 1976 complete, Three missing from 1975 but they didn't print WBA/WBC ratings anyway for the most part.


Boxing Illustrated: missing about 10 from the decade. 1974, 75, 76, 77 virtually complete. Two missing from 74, when Foreman was still champ. So this era is well and truly covered.


Boxing News: weekly mag. Have all 52 issues from 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 6 missing from 75, every issue from 76, 4 missing from 1977, all issues from 78, 14 missing from 1979. They intermittently printed governing bodies ratings, around every six to eight weeks.



I have odd issues of World Boxing/Boxing International from 75 and 76 too. About 10. But on the whole, I'm a bit dry on source material

 

Boxing News is the real gem here- tons of info. Like i said before, headline: Nov 19th: "Ali accepts Foreman Challenge", week later, November 26th, headline: "Ali announces retirement".*


Loads of similar stuff throughout year- Ali retires about four times to put off rematch. Does the dsame with Norton throuhgout much of 1977 too. Kenny then writes to Ring about it (March 1978 issue).



* Just in case you missed it first time. :good

 

Exactly.:good

 

Perhaps you should read my post again. Slowly this time.

 

It's comments like this that make me feel welcome here and wanting to come back.:thumbsup