Muhammad Ali's 'controversial' decisions.

That was not amateur boxing.

 

What points? There are usually four criteria to score the rounds, and "points" are only used to subtract one or more for knockdowns, fouls or losing the round too badly.

 

Shavers was not an effective aggressor. Ali was out punching him by a huge margin most every round. Working counts more so than standing around conserving energy. You don't win the hwt championship in that manner.

 

What does winning the hwt championship have to do with scoring a fight? They are both equal, I'm not giving even rounds to the champion just because he's the champion. That's a wrong idea altogether.

 

He "won" those fights because of who he was...not for what he did. I'll watch a fight now...one of the fighters will get pounded...cut...and knocked down...and I say to no one in particular,"If that guy was Ali in the '70's...he would have won that round on all 3 scorecards!"

 

Vince, along with the AP, UPI, and NY daily decisions in Ali's favor in this bout (all ringside and not watching the tv commentators mind you), the Ring and Boxing Illustrated scribes also had no question about the decision in Ali's favor being the correct one. I can't recall anyone in the general boxing world questioning it either.

 

Thats understandable of course but not the way rounds are usually scored by the pro's. Usually a judge and ref will break down the round into thirds and who won each third. Its like the Ali-Norton third go and the 15th round where in the first two and a half minutes Ken landed one jab while Ali landed nine of the slaps you referred too giving him the first two thirds vote. In the last 40 seconds Ken threw a big onslaught and took the last third but didn't knock down or hurt Ali for two points, so the first two rounds of "slaps" took the round. Same with the Shavers bout and what took place in most of the rounds Earnie lost. Breaking down who won each third of a round for the winner of each is usually called the Arthur Mercante method of scoring.

 

I add up my own fractional points during the round rather than split it in three. A hard punch that did damage gets a point, while a jab or a slap only gets maybe 1/4 or 1/2 depending on how hard and clean it landed.

 

This is a classic example of revisionism. The history is clear....all the typical sources scored the bout for Ali....but this is ignored...the official decision is ignored...and someone with an agenda wants to convince the world the champion lost the fight. Now this is a bout some on here including myself saw live and remember it's aftermath and details and still there are some who want to deny truth. Imagine how much easier revisionism is to imply when everyone who saw the event are long dead!

 

The bout is on film and anyone can score it for himself. There's no revisionism of any kind. Just because you have looked up what, 5 sources, and talked to a couple of friends who saw the bout with you, you wanna claim nobody questioned the decision?

 

I lived through that time...so I know. You didnt so you guess.

 

I'm not guessing, I've actually seen opinions of several newspapers' writers who questioned the decision, and I didn't need to spend much time finding them. The fight was on TV, so a lot of them had seen it, who didn't live in New York. You never even looked for them.