How shitty was Ali's second title reign ! ? !

There are few reigns that compare favourably. Perhaps Tyson's, Louis' and Ali's first do, but otherwise... Johnson? Dempsey? Charles? Patterson? Holmes? etc...

To get to the point, the thread starter is full of it.

A rematch should have been given to at least one of Foreman/Young, and Norton had a decent shout at giving one more shot after his controversial loss. But Ali fought all there was to fight basically and the fill outs like Wepner and Coopman doesn't change that fact. And whether one agrees with the decisions against Young/Norton/Shavers or not, it's hardly Ali's fault.

He should have made a greater effort to settle at least one of those with a rematch, but that's about what you can blame him for. And that's a ****ing picnic compared to for example Dempsey ducking the nr. 1 contender for some 5+ years.

 

i am not saying it was the best title reign there was or that ali was at his best but.......
if ali was as you say flubby and out of shape and still won what does that say about his oponents like lyle and shavers ???

 

Ok. This I agree with. After the fight against Shavers he said in a British TV show, when asked about giving Norton another shot, that he had started to fight only for the money two years earlier.

 

Numerous champions had their share of controversial and inconclusive results. Up to,and including Manila Ali's victories were emphatic enough. He scored a shutout over wepner before knocking him out. After allowing Lyle to outwork him he got serious and stopped him with a blazing combination and as fine a right hand as he ever threw. Joe Bugner was thoroughly outclassed,and we all know the Manila achievement. 1976 onwards his form was patchy and eked out close and contoversial decisions,but he had got old as every one does.

 

Goddamn right.......:good

SR.BILL

 

This is true, but I do think He Grant has a point in Ali seldom shoving up in proper shape or mindset. It was only in Manilla, the rubbermatch against Norton and in the rematch against Spinks that he really brought his best. It's not like he was a disgrace in the other fights (even though he was against Young and Spinks), but he didn't seem very interested.

 

Look, according to Dr. Ferdie Pacheco, Ali was all but done with fighting after he escaped with a narrow points win over Norton in '76. Pacheco spoke his mind about Ali's health and was released from the camp..... Ali was supposedly gonna just stick around for a lil' while longer fighting safe opponents to bank some more greenbacks before fully retiring.... Then came up Earnie Shavers for a big money fight at MSG and Ali and company couldn't resist..... Ali was slipping by '77 without a doubt, but he still was in good enough shape to put forth one last supreme effort against Shavers......... After Shavers, Ali was wasted....... The rematch with Leon Stinks in the fall of '78 sucked weenie.... The rest is history.........
rasta

MR.BILL

 

This is all true, but I can understand why he relaxed after such a momentous achievement as Zaire was. It's like Frazier after FOTC. As you say it really speaks loads of his talent that he even at that age could underachieve and still beat guys like that (although controversially at times).

In a perfect world you should retire the moment you don't give everything when you defend something like the HW title, but it's not always like that. Most of what occured after Manilla came dangerously close to travesty, though, and he shouldn't have let it slip that far. I guess that he didn't love boxing much anymore, but still held plenty of love for the spotlight and the green. Sad, but that's how it often goes.

This is a very interesting question. I think he very well might have if he could retain the love and commitment he had to boxing before his exile, but that's a big if. For me the stumbling block would be Norton if there was any. He would beat Frazier ca 1969 IMO, and since he beat all others even with the exile I see no reason why he wouldn't in this scenario. That leaves Norton.

Let's say they meet in '73, just like they did in reality. At 31 and with no lay-off, Ali wouldn't be too far from his peak. If he still has the motivation to keep in good shape I see him edging Norton and winning a rematch, perhaps a bit more comfortably. The only one stopping him then is Holmes sometime 77-78.

 

It was about money at this point, and fame. Taking on the most dangerous fighters in the world in every fight as opposed to some filler would have seen him knocked out of the lime light pretty fast, yes?

Anyway, can't fault the man for it, especially considering during his first career he had almost no filler on his way up.

It's going to be there at the beginning of a career or the end of one, really.

 

Good points..... Every champ has a "Filler" fight on his resume.......... The longer you reign, the more "Fillers" will eventually surface..... That's natural too......

In my book, Joe Louis had LOTSA' fill time in the 40s..........:shock: Let the arrows fly....:scaredas:

MR.BILL

 

You really think that a list which has Frazier, Norton, Young, Lyle, Shavers and Bugner is 'c' plus? I would say that even Evangelista and possibly Wepner were acceptable. The only really easy touches were Coopman and Dunn.

The point is that Ali took on everyone, including the top ranked fighters. I think that is a commonly accepted fact by anyone who has followed boxing seriously for any length of time.

I am not really getting into how he performed (I believe that he did okay considering the stage of his career), but rather the fact that he risked his title against all the top ranked guys.

 

Those other champions you listed generally didn't LEAVE their title fights close in the first place. They were good enough to beat their challengers decisively.

 

Not true, he'd already had a few disputed wins before that.