Why didn't Foreman get a rematch against Ali?

I agree with your bottom line, and you add interesting discussion points to boot.

As any bully, Foreman was indeed shocked and awed after taking his beating. His post-the-fact erraticism proved no less. He would certainly lose an immediate rematch because he was shattered inside. Your Shavers example has merit because it proves Foreman would have to go through a 15-round war to defeat Ali in '77, and, as stated, he lacked the skills and mental preparation.

I personally don't "credit" Shavers for Ali's deterioration any more than I would look to Manila. Shavers had a hellish right, but really not much else.
Actually, I would say Leon Spinks hammered Ali more overall in their first fight, on account of the Rope-a-Dope.

Sadly, my gut disagrees with your scoring of the "Drama", but I do concur it is an amazing last hurrah by the Greatest --who by then clearly showed early Parkinson's symptoms.

I like "drain bramage" and, with your permission, am adding it along with "fading into Bolivian" and "Poles on Prozac", to my fistic phrases.

 

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. He spent from late 75 to early 1977 trying to get a rematch.

He then spent 1976, beating top contenders and earning Fighter of The Year plaudits from Ring.

Well, that's just a joke.

Top line is, he more than earned one by beating two of the top four and was the official #1 contender. Ron Lyle and Evangelista were granted shots by losing.

You should always rely on your first instinct.

 

So, what dues should he have paid in 1976, he beat Frazier and Lyle? How many of Ali's contenders during his second reign did something like this?

 

The point being the fight should have been signed before March 1977 when he fought Young.

 

His '76 contributions simply paid off part of the huge debt he incurred under the following itemizations:
a) showing himself utterly inept with an old challenger idling shamelessly on the ropes.
b) losing steam after 5.
c) falling for the count inside 8.
d) retiring after his first defeat.
e) staging the Canadian charade that only accentuated his perceived flaws against an Ali in the form of lack of stamina and boxing skills.
f) coming to life and death against a guy Ali coasted with and stopped inside 11.

Then he loses to Young.

It just doesn't add up for Foreman.

 

Yeah, that's reasonable. But did he have the Shavers fight signed by then? If he didn't there's always the possibility that Foreman would have gotten the shot if he'd beaten Young.

 

So he doesn't come up to the standards shown by Dunn and Coopman then? Yeah, of course. "It doesn't make sense"- he was mandatory contender, fighter of the year, beat two of the top four. He ws earning high praise after the 2nd Frazier fight, I don't care if you weren't imprssed, others were:

This content is protected

 

:huh

Well, Young didn't get it so that's highly unlikely.

 

Oh yeah, his showing in Zaire was the real reason for no rematch becuase it was never going to make as much money as a Richard Dunn fight.

An exhibition? Yeah, that rules out a shot at the title, it always has done.

Swapped coasted for "generally looked shite". He owned a blowout of Norton, who had life and death with Ali. Who said he should have shot after the Lyle fight anyway? (Ron got one after being outclassed by Young of course).

 

Just in case the "he didn't want a rematch" crap surfaces again.

This content is protected

This was the interview before the Lyle fight. Check the date. He wanted another a go alright, he was desperate.

 

"MEXICO CITY (UPI) - The winner of the Sept 28 heavyweight title bout between champion Muhammad Ali and Ken Norton must fight No. 1 contender George Foreman no later than 90 days later, the World Boxing Council says." - report printed in various sources on Aug 20th, 1976

Should have happened then at the latest, or at the earliest when Foreman, as the ex-champion, called for an immediate rematch after the meeting in Zaire...at least according to Ali's way of thinking in regards to his "it's the ex-champion's right to a rematch" and "you have to beat the champion twice" talk on CBS' Sports Saturday in early March of 1978 (calling for an immediate Spinks rematch when it looked like Spinks-Norton might take place).

 

True. Good post, he even agreed to fight Foreman himself:

Boxing News headline 20th November 1976 (cover) "Ali agrees to Foreman rematch"

Boxing News headline 27th November 1976 (back page) "Ali retires". :good

 

So Foreman proved he could beat Frazier! This was hardly in question.

I realize this is no-rematch-for-poor-Foreman thing has been a longtime pet peeve of yours, but would you consider that, as far as title shots go, things usually move to the beat of the champion, and every truly hungry challenger has to dance along as best he can and bide his time? Coopman? Evangelista? Et al? Just part of the show: now a risk, now a soft touch. But a challenger must be ready.

Foreman did things his own surly, erratic way and paid the price.

Ali waited 3 full years to get another title shot after FOTC. Why couldn't the younger Foreman?

 

Ali had the WBC wrapped around his ****, they soon advocated their 'policy' when Spinks became champ. :-(

 

Well, the fact that there was a new champion may have had something to do with it. If the champ loses (Frazier), the wait will almost always be longer. He'd lost to Norton in between so he wanted that rematch also. If Frazier was still champ they'd have rematched some time in 1973 no doubts. The WBA were already beginning to give Joe the squeeze about the men he was fighting (Daniels, Stander).