Who should Ali have fought but didn't?

It is a pretty perfect resume as it is. To be picky Ali would need to have met ingo Johansson to bag the full set of champions who were active during his career. I think Joe Louis and marciano both fought every champion who was active during their careers.

 

Ingo wouldn't fight in the US because of the tax structure.
Liston wanted him and Ingo wouldn't fight because of that.

 

I consider Ali to be the greatest heavyweight ever simply because we never saw his three year prime (summer 67-summer 70) Consider the matchups we would have seen him in that period. An earlier Frazier fight, Bonavena, maybe Peralta in Buenos Aires, Martin, Ellis, a late sixties Quarry, etc...
That being said, in retrospect, Muhammad played us for fools in his second reign.
An earlier poster mentioned Machen during the Clay era. Angie didn't want a young Cassius anywhere near him circa late 62 early 63. But that's not a knock against young Clay, Dundee moved him up cautiously chosing to fight against the 'winnable' contenders Jones & Cooper.
My knock against Ali, now looking back, is that he held ALL the cards in his second reign.
Examples:
The Foreman fight was, basically, troweled out as Champ Ali vs. Challenger Foreman. They should have fought in the Astrodome.
The whole Zaire thing was just what the Ali camp wanted; play George up like a frigging Uncle Tom, loose ropes, other accusations not proven; just enough to fry a young Foreman's head to 'mush' which it did. Post-Ali Foreman wasn't even the same person he was prior to that.
Never gave George a rematch!
He picked and choose his opponents carefully after Zaire.
Norton IMO beat him at Yankee Stadium in 76; simply look at Ali's body language after the final bell sounded.
He put Joe Louis's 'bums of the month' rap to shame!
Dunn? Lubbers? Evangilista? etc.. Should have given his purse to the poor for putting us thru those waste of times!
No rematch with Young (but it wouldn't have made a difference, another decision for Ali)
He fought em' once and then moved on, as if that was all he needed to do.
No Holmes in 77? He would have gotten his ass hammered!
And yes, I'm saying it again, he threw the 1st Spinks fight knowing the green 7-0-1 clod would take an immediate rematch (for bucks) so he could be the 1st 3-time HW champ. Patterson-Ellis anyone?
Sometimes the truth hurts. I put him as THE greatest as I said earlier, but can't anyone see his second reign as a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' despite his greatness?

 

Ali clearly ducked the Foreman remach.

 

Ali didn't miss anybody, but I don't agree with those who gave him a pass on a Foreman rematch. George flattened Lyle and Frazier far more convincingly than Ali did. He earned a number one spot. He never should have had to fight Young. Ali didn't want to go through the rigors of a rematch with George. Zaire was magical for Ali, and it's really hard to duplicate magic. And older, heavier, less motivated Ali would have had his hands more than full with an angry and vengeful Foreman. He would not have been able to rope a dope him again. I'm sure Ali was thrilled when Young beat George.
Aside from that, I can't think of anyone notable that Ali didn't face.

I agree with most of what Jowcol said, except the part of throwing the Spinks fight. Leon pummeled him. It was too risky to take a beating like that. Leon could've and should've fought Norton next, which would have been fair. I doubt Ali threw that fight very much. He had way too much pride to endure another loss on his record.
Aside from that, I agree with Jowcol 100 percent.

 

How can anyone paint Zaire as champ Ali against challenger Foreman?? Ali wasnt given much of a chance at all in that fight. He was more popular, yes, but Foreman was all too easily shoehorned into the villain role. And frankly at the time he was more than happy to play that roll. To pretend Ali had it his own way is ridiculous. The difference is he was a lot stronger mentally than Foreman and was also a lot better at handling the pressure of "the big dance." It didnt help that Ali had Foreman's number and was a stylistic/physical nightmare for him being a durable cutie with quick hands and balls the size of Mount Everast a great brain for fighting. Anyone who wants to blame the ropes for Ali beating Foreman is as bad as Foreman with the excuses. Had Ali told Foreman ahead of time that he was going to languish on the ropes the entire fight Foreman would have been happily drooling over the prospect, loose ropes or not. Instead Ali beat Foreman at his own game, and outboxed, outpunched, outthought, and outsped him when they were anywhere other than the ropes. What exactly could have Foreman have EVER done that would have seen him defeat Ali? Keep him off the ropes? Dont make me laugh. Outjab him? Funny. Foreman only ever fought one way in his entire career and thats not the way to beat Ali. Only one judge in that fight gave Foreman as many as two rounds (and that was being overly generous). Ali simply had Foreman's number.

 

Funny, why would he or better yet why should he rematch a guy he KTFO, without any controversy:huh, usually only close fights warrant rematches..

Should Holmes have rematched Cooney,? Cooney gave Holmes a tougher fight than George gave Ali...
Should Lennox Lewis have given David Tua a rematch after he gave him a boxing lesson???, and schooled him
Should Vitali Klitchko have given Chris Arreola a rematch:huh, ummm no..

Ali picked the toughest fight for 75, which was rightfully Fraizer Manilla, if Ali had rematched Foreman he would have knocked his ass out again, George ALWAYS had trouble with slick boxers, hell remember the Young fight???

Even Tommy Morrison who was small next to George gave him a boxing lesson:deal, and won a clear UD....

 

Nope, can't think of any

that's why he gets respect around here

 

Ali may very well have beat Foreman again due to the psychological edge, though the same tactics would not likely work again. But I would not say at all that Morrison gave Old George a boxing lesson. George was a very wise boxer in his 2nd career, but he though a contender quality fighter in one of the strongest era, he had significant limitations of speed & mobility, Tommy fought a very wise fight & Foreman just could not catch him.

This was not due to better boxing ability.

 

Foreman at his absolute best could not beat Ali.
How would a much more mentally weaker Foreman since their last meeting, present a challenge to the now much more confident Ali?

Was Foreman faster? punching harder? developed a better boxing IQ?

i dont see any improvements Foreman could have made, except conserving his tank and maybe making it to the distance (and still losing). If Foreman had improved he wouldnt have struggled with Lyle and Young

Foreman was mentally ruined after the rumble in the jungle.

 

You're by far one of the most pathetic posters on this website.

 

Its true that there were lesser men getting title shots at Ali between 1975-1977. But a rematch with George wasn't really necessary. There was nothing close, controversial or indecisive about that first fight. It would be one thing if George took him the distance in a life and death battle resulting in a narrow decision or if Foreman suffered a cut from a headbutt or if the referee stopped it too early. But none of these things happened. Furthermore, instead of immediately campaigning for a rematch and getting back in the ring with a meaningful opponent, Foreman took 15 months off after Zaire then very nearly lost to Ron Lyle who Ali basically dominated. Then not too far down the road we had the Jimmy Young loss.

 

Hi Choklab, thanks for taking time to reply.

I'm aware of the history around Louis-Walcott, on reflection my initial post/point was possibly not clear enough, I used the Louis-Walcott analogy from the point of view of the controversial decisions rendered in Louis-Walcott 1 & Ali-Norton 3.

Louis gave Walcott the rematch; Ali didn't give Norton the rematch - Louis gets extra props from me (for what that's worth!!!!!) for that.

Cheers!

 

ali, fought norton 3 times right!!