If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years

[I Feel Fine]

Yes, you could imagine how surprised I was when, after you had announced that Norton probably won the second fight before you had even seen it, you actually had Norton winning once you did see it. Who could have predicted that?...

If there was a conspiracy in the boxing world to keep Ali, the "cash cow", undefeated and marketable then Ali would have never lost a decision. But; he lost four. So shutup with the conspiracy garbage. Most people had Ali winning the second fight; this is not a minority opinion. The only fights where people universally agree that he got the decision but should have lost were Young and Norton III; both post-Manila fights where he was not the same fighter. But according to you Ali had like 10 gift decisions. If you intentionally score every fight for Ali's opponent then you are no less biased than the judges who you claim gave all the close rounds to Ali. Its a non-starter to say that every time Ali gets a close win it must have been because of judges bias.

Holmes-Norton, by the way, was no less close than Ali-Norton II. And Holmes got as many gifts as Ali, if not more. The notion that Ali was the only champion that got a couple of breaks is ridiculous, there are so many you could point to. Ali is not even an exceptional case. Neither is Sugar Ray Leonard, really. But they were both the "golden boys" of their eras, both made a lot of money, were both the big stars; so they have a target on their back from revisionist fans.

This conversation has been beaten to death on this forum. You seem to think that if you repeat it enough times that people will start to agree with you. Don't you have anything else to troll about? Tell us more about how Duran beat Benvenutti...

[elmersalsa]

Yes, you could imagine how surprised I was when, after you had announced that Norton probably won the second fight before you had even seen it, you actually had Norton winning once you did see it. Who could have predicted that?...

If there was a conspiracy in the boxing world to keep Ali, the "cash cow", undefeated and marketable then Ali would have never lost a decision. But; he lost four. So shutup with the conspiracy garbage. Most people had Ali winning the second fight; this is not a minority opinion. The only fights where people universally agree that he got the decision but should have lost were Young and Norton III; both post-Manila fights where he was not the same fighter. But according to you Ali had like 10 gift decisions. If you intentionally score every fight for Ali's opponent then you are no less biased than the judges who you claim gave all the close rounds to Ali. Its a non-starter to say that every time Ali gets a close win it must have been because of judges bias.

Holmes-Norton, by the way, was no less close than Ali-Norton II. And Holmes got as many gifts as Ali, if not more. The notion that Ali was the only champion that got a couple of breaks is ridiculous, there are so many you could point to. Ali is not even an exceptional case. Neither is Sugar Ray Leonard, really. But they were both the "golden boys" of their eras, both made a lot of money, were both the big stars; so they have a target on their back from revisionist fans.

This conversation has been beaten to death on this forum. You seem to think that if you repeat it enough times that people will start to agree with you. Don't you have anything else to troll about? Tell us more about how Duran beat Benvenutti...

Can you have at least some decency? Do you have any good manners?

As for the Duran vs Benvenutti, you know what I was referring about. At least I am a man that admit for my mistakes, I was referring to Nino Gonzalez and I wrote his name plenty of times. At least YOU KNOW WHAT I WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT.

See, guys like you get emotional when it comes to Muhammad Ali. I don't think that you were a greater fan of his than I am. Because I do not defend him like you do, or have different opinion does not make me a fan of his?....you got a LOT OF GROWING UP TO DO.

NO FIGHTER IN HISTORY HAD MORE BREAKS THAN THE BELOVED Muhammad Ali...NONE and that is the truth. To me, he lost to Norton all the 3 times....The money $$$$$$$ influence separates TRUE SPORTSMANSHIP from what really happened in those 3 fights.

[Robinson]

We are confusing fights...Ali-Frazier ll was not all that close...As for the Ali-Norton trilogy it was so close that it ultimately came down to who you like...

"We" are not confusing anything. I didn't say anything about Ali-Frazier II, which I thought Ali won, I was responding to robinson not understanding what I was saying to elmer. And the Ali-Norton trilogy was close, which I never disputed. I thought they split the first two fights, and I thought Norton won the third, primarily because Ali was old by then. If Ali had been in his prime he would have won more clearly.

It's hard to follow what is in quotes and what is directly responded to.When you look at the quote and the response the subject appears to be Frazier...Ali won the second and third fights against Frazier convincingly... There can be no doubt about the outcome of the third one...I thought the first one was closer than some experts.

I think Ali is argubly the greatest boxer of all time...That being said I do think 64-67 Ali does better against some fighters and 72-75 Ali does better against other fighters...I'll cal the 70-71 era the transition era... "Ali outboxed Sonny Liston...He outfought Frazier and Foreman."

Even though pre layoff Ali was infinitely quicker and could dance longer I am not convinced the pre lay off Ali was better...He burnished his reputation in Kinshasha and Manilla...He begain it in Miami Beach and Lewiston...

As for the Norton trilogy I thought the judges and refs had it right...

No worries

PEACE

I have to agree with you here. Young Ali used speed and reflexes and well...youth
to his great adavantage, plus even at that age he was somewhat bigger than
alot of his foes, and this helped give him that greatness edge.

The mid 70s Ali was matured, more relaxed and seemed to be more of an in-ring
thinker. He did not rely on that zap and flash of his youth instead he was
more posed and had a certain timing about him.

I suppose it can be said for the 'two foremans' the young one was impatient,
firery, powerful and young and danger to some, but tameable to others...

yet the returning Foreman was relaxed, composed, smarter and more self
aware which allowed him to bide his time and not 'panic' in the ring...always
eager for that KO.

I have to agree with in the regards that the two 'versions' of Ali pose different
strengths and weaknesses against certain opponents.

[Robinson]

I had Norton-Ali II as a draw. I can see either camp claiming victory.
I think Norton did not throw enough to be decisive.

I dont think it was like the Norton-Holmes fight, I do feel
Holmes won that fight.

[I Feel Fine]

NO FIGHTER IN HISTORY HAD MORE BREAKS THAN THE BELOVED Muhammad Ali....

Holmes did. Ali got gifts against Young and Norton III. Holmes got gifts with Witherspoon, Williams and Ferguson. And if Ali didn't win the second Norton fight, which he did, then Holmes sure as shit didn't win his fight with Norton; and at least Ali was in his 30's fighting a prime Norton, Holmes was in his 20's fighting a 34 year old Kenny.

[Ezzard]

If Ali lost the decisions to Young, Norton II and III, and lets throw in Shavers too... It wouldn't make much difference to his standing IMO.

In boxing the guy making the money maybe does get the nod in close calls but we can all watch these fights and make our own decisions.

maybe Ali gets more scrutiny, fair enough, he's oconsidered the greatest of HWs... Heavy is the head that wears the crown but when it comes down to it he does wear the crown.

[I Feel Fine]

Louis has a similar ranking and, in his time, he was almost as famous as Ali, if not as famous. And Ali has always had hardcore critics, Louis has never had that, really, certainly not in the long run. And he still has many fans, certainly among knowledgeable fans. Thus he should get as much scrutiny as Ali. You can make any fighter look bad if you put them under the microscope and are picky enough. Walcott claimed the referee in their second fight was biased; elmer could take that and say Louis' second win over Walcott wasn't legitimate. We know about the first fight. Louis-Godoy I was a close fight, most had Louis winning, as most had Ali winning the second Norton fight. Elmer can take that fight and say "no, no, Godoy won." He could blame Louis-Schmeling II on Schmeling's age, he was 33. Sharkey was certainly past it. Braddock hadn't fought in three years, and dropped Louis. You can fornicate with any fighter's career in that way. But when its Ali its acceptable, when its Louis it is considered sacrilegious to say anything seriously negative; even though Ali fought better fighters and was tested more.

And I'm amazed at how Holmes' career is whitewashed these days.

[Collins2000]

Louis has a similar ranking and, in his time, he was almost as famous as Ali, if not as famous. And Ali has always had hardcore critics, Louis has never had that, really, certainly not in the long run. And he still has many fans, certainly among knowledgeable fans. Thus he should get as much scrutiny as Ali. You can make any fighter look bad if you put them under the microscope and are picky enough. Walcott claimed the referee in their second fight was biased; elmer could take that and say Louis' second win over Walcott wasn't legitimate. We know about the first fight. Louis-Godoy I was a close fight, most had Louis winning, as most had Ali winning the second Norton fight. Elmer can take that fight and say "no, no, Godoy won." He could blame Louis-Schmeling II on Schmeling's age, he was 33. Sharkey was certainly past it. Braddock hadn't fought in three years, and dropped Louis. You can eff with any fighter's career in that way. But when its Ali its acceptable, when its Louis it is considered sacrilegious to say anything seriously negative; even though Ali fought better fighters and was tested more.

And I'm amazed at how Holmes' career is whitewashed these days.

Why keep bagging Holmes? Whitewashed? Hahahahahaha. He was a great champ............. and you know it.

You don't need to constantly try and drag down Holmes to make Ali look better.

Leave that sort of crap to Elmo and his mentor.

[elmersalsa]

NO FIGHTER IN HISTORY HAD MORE BREAKS THAN THE BELOVED Muhammad Ali....

Holmes did. Ali got gifts against Young and Norton III. Holmes got gifts with Witherspoon, Williams and Ferguson. And if Ali didn't win the second Norton fight, which he did, then Holmes sure as shit didn't win his fight with Norton; and at least Ali was in his 30's fighting a prime Norton, Holmes was in his 20's fighting a 34 year old Kenny.

HE HE HE HE...YEAH RIGHT...The great Larry Holmes was 29 years old. Both fighters would have beaten Ali of the 60s at any given time. They were that GOOD.

I saw the Holmes fight with Truth Williams. It was not a robbery. It did not matter if Larry win or draw or lose the fight anyway. He was not the money maker in boxing. It was Marvin Hagler at the time. So a Holmes loss would have not hurt the promoters' pockets.

[elmersalsa]

If Ali lost the decisions to Young, Norton II and III, and lets throw in Shavers too... It wouldn't make much difference to his standing IMO.

In boxing the guy making the money maybe does get the nod in close calls but we can all watch these fights and make our own decisions.

maybe Ali gets more scrutiny, fair enough, he's oconsidered the greatest of HWs... Heavy is the head that wears the crown but when it comes down to it he does wear the crown.

No question about that Ezzard, I also believe that Ali was the greatest heavyweight ever, but the thing that the majority consensus of people think is that this man could not do no wrong, or was way ahead over everybody else which he was not. By looking at his fights, he had lots of flaws and leeway that no fighter in history ever had. There was no TRUE SPORTSMANSHIP when he was around. If you lose, you lose. Don't lose and still get the "victory"...It was not his fault. Maybe it was the promoters or the judges faults. Or maybe the media.

[Robinson]

Why do people not like Holmes...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Why do people not like Holmes...

Some people don't like him because he beat Ali....Though, that's not the case here...I think some folks took umbrage at his Rocky comments...

[Robinson]

He was the HW champion of the world, he should be
able criticise who ever he wants.

I really some how dont think that Marciano would care
and like Larry said himself, he has posters of Marciano
up in his gym.

There is more respect in a champion having your poster
up in their gym than some 'historian' writing a love letter
to you in a boxing mag.

[I Feel Fine]

Lots of replies here. None of them thought provoking, as usual of this thread. I'll give scattered responses; you can figure out what reply goes to what poster.

I think of Holmes as a top 5 Heavyweight. But fans today are whitewashing his career. He got more breaks than Ali ever did (and, once again, Ali didn't get all that many, regardless of what his critics say), and against lesser opposition.

I wouldn't favor either Holmes or Norton to beat Ali in the 60s.

Holmes-Williams was a robbery.

When did I say I didn't like Holmes?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

He was the HW champion of the world, he should be
able criticise who ever he wants.

I really some how dont think that Marciano would care
and like Larry said himself, he has posters of Marciano
up in his gym.

There is more respect in a champion having your poster
up in their gym than some 'historian' writing a love letter
to you in a boxing mag.

He can say whatever he wants...But one should be delicate in talking about folks who can't defend themselves because they are dead...

The comments didn't bother me... It's common sports vernacular now...So and So can't carry So and So's jock strap but it irked a lot of boxing fans...

Oh, I think Holmes beats Rocky rather handily...No disrecpect to the Rock but those seven inches and thirty five pounds that Larry has over Rocky comes in rather handy...

[Robinson]

I disagree IFF I think Holmes won that fight against
Williams.

[Collins2000]

Lots of replies here. None of them thought provoking, as usual of this thread. I'll give scattered responses; you can figure out what reply goes to what poster.

I think of Holmes as a top 5 Heavyweight. But fans today are whitewashing his career. He got more breaks than Ali ever did (and, once again, Ali didn't get all that many, regardless of what his critics say), and against lesser opposition.

I wouldn't favor either Holmes or Norton to beat Ali in the 60s.

Holmes-Williams was a robbery.

When did I say I didn't like Holmes?

Why feel the need to constantly pull down Holmes to build up Ali?

Ali's record stands well enough on it's own without the constant ragging on Holmes career to try to make your point.

The only people in here who don't accept that Ali (and Holmes) were great and dominant champs are Elmo and his mentor and you will never convince them no matter how many great champs you
berate.

[I Feel Fine]

Pointing out that Holmes got a couple of gifts and that his fight with an older Norton was closer than some make it out to be or that he could have fought some better opponents is not berating him. Certainly not by the standards of this fourm.

[p4p1]

I wouldn't favor either Holmes or Norton to beat Ali in the 60s.
?

only way either of them beat ali in the 60's is before 64