Was ALI lucky ?

Loki · Post by **Loki** » 24 Aug 2005, 13:13

I have the greatest respect for ALI. He may have been the greatest, but I have some doubts.

Firstly,
Both Liston fights, from what I have seen, read and heard were fixed. Liston clearly was in interested in winning. The second fight was terrible. Ali hardly clipped him with his right. Truly a mockery of the sport.

Secondly,
The other thing that doesn't sit right with me, is the "Rumble in the Jungle" in Zaire, 74. I know the general perception is that Ali employed the "rope-a-dope" and Forman punched himself out. From what I have seen from the DVD, Foreman didn't look half as bothered to either KO Ali like he did against Norton & frasier. Also, the final KO punch delievered from Ali was piss poor. I know Foreman was tired, but even so, I can't swallow it.

Can someone, please put me right as I'm losing my faith.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 24 Aug 2005, 13:58

I suppose he was lucky for being banned for over 3 years too eh?!!....

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 24 Aug 2005, 15:15

Nah - The Listion (espeically fight one) were 100% legit....as was the Foreman bout (possibly Foreman didn't feel 100%.....but you can't take that away from Ali...and Ali still fought a hell of a fight).

Where I have some questions regarding Ali....isn't with the Listion or Foreman fights....but with his disputible decisions over Norton (twice) and Ellis -

Ali could easily have 3 or 4 more losses on his record -

Another fact is Ali lost the biggest fight of his life - That was certainly Ali-Frazier I (both guys were in their prime and undefeated).

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 24 Aug 2005, 15:24

meade95 wrote:Nah - The Listion (espeically fight one) were 100% legit....as was the Foreman bout (possibly Foreman didn't feel 100%.....but you can't take that away from Ali...and Ali still fought a hell of a fight).

Where I have some questions regarding Ali....isn't with the Listion or Foreman fights....but with his disputible decisions over Norton (twice) and Ellis -

Ali could easily have 3 or 4 more losses on his record -

Another fact is Ali lost the biggest fight of his life - That was certainly Ali-Frazier I (both guys were in their prime and undefeated).

What Ali was in his prime with just 18 rounds in 4 years?!!!!.... I don't think so!....

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 24 Aug 2005, 16:08

silkov wrote:
meade95 wrote:Nah - The Listion (espeically fight one) were 100% legit....as was the Foreman bout (possibly Foreman didn't feel 100%.....but you can't take that away from Ali...and Ali still fought a hell of a fight).

Where I have some questions regarding Ali....isn't with the Listion or Foreman fights....but with his disputible decisions over Norton (twice) and Ellis -

Ali could easily have 3 or 4 more losses on his record -

Another fact is Ali lost the biggest fight of his life - That was certainly Ali-Frazier I (both guys were in their prime and undefeated).
What Ali was in his prime with just 18 rounds in 4 years?!!!!.... I don't think so!....

\

Ahh - Come on - Ali was young and hungrier then ever when him and Frazier met in 71 - He had just went 15 rounds (TKO 15th over Oscar Natalio Bonavena) - Those 15 rounds were only 3 1/2 months prior to the Frazier fight -

Mentally Ali never wanted a fight more than Frazier I (Foreman is right up there as well) -

But Ali looked sharp in the gym by every account going into his first fight with Frazier, he was young, hungry , undefeated and coming off two straight wins.....He WANTED and asked for the Title shot...and he got it!

Yes, Ali was as close to his prime as ever in that fight (in terms of youth, desire, speed, RG, etc, etc)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Aug 2005, 16:13

ali may have been a little past his prime, but not by much. remember he was only 29 years old. and he showed agaisnt quarry, bonevena that he hadnt lost too much. id say he lost some speed but he defintely wasnt too far out of his prime.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 24 Aug 2005, 16:28

Sorry, watch Ali in 66 and 67 and then watch him vs Bonavena and Frazier and you'll see a completely different fighter. He had no legs and hadn't adapted to the loss of his legspeed and much of his reflexes at that point... to say it was a peak Ali is very far off the mark.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 24 Aug 2005, 16:43

silkov wrote:Sorry, watch Ali in 66 and 67 and then watch him vs Bonavena and Frazier and you'll see a completely different fighter. He had no legs and hadn't adapted to the loss of his legspeed and much of his reflexes at that point... to say it was a peak Ali is very far off the mark.

Come on - 29 and past his prime - (and he hadn't even been through the ring wars yet!! - that made him such a legend) - It would be one thing if Ali had been through the wars of his carreer from say 22 to 26 years old...but this just isn't the case -

Not buying it - (and I have seen Ali fights from 66, 67) - Ali was a more complete fighter in 71-75 then he was in 66-67 -

Again, Ali never wanted a fight more than the first Frazier fight - He was 29 and full of himself - (in fact, in just about every sport the age of around 29 is about dead on for one's prime - in terms of both physical and mental skills)

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 24 Aug 2005, 16:51

Ali lost a 'little' leg speed and natural stamina (as from a natural physical standpoint your stamina will peak in your early-mid 20s) but his handspeed remained (actually I think his greatest exibition of handspeed is against Foreman in Zaire) and he could still move very fast and had excellent reflexes. He also filled out a little more (215 as opposed to 208). I would say Ali was slightly past his prime vs Frazier but that it wasn't so much that it would have made a big difference.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 24 Aug 2005, 19:50

dempseyfire wrote:Ali lost a 'little' leg speed and natural stamina (as from a natural physical standpoint your stamina will peak in your early-mid 20s)

Ahh, I'm not so certain about this - Perhaps if just looking (or taking into account) "natural stamina" - endurance - Early 20's would put most at their primes -

But in no way shape or form are any athletes in virtually any sports considered at their "best" or "prime" in their early 20's - They are always older then their early or mid-20's before reaching their primes-

In sport after sport....between 27-31 are when most are at their absolute best in terms of natural abilities, learned skills, smarts, etc, etc - It is in these years that they hit their true total peak -

The Ali at 29 would have beat the Ali at 25 (without a doubt in my mind).

There are few exceptions to this rule....but they are certainly the exceptions...and not the normal rule -

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 24 Aug 2005, 20:09

Ali was nowhere near as quick after the suspension as he was before, nowhere near as sharp either. It's impossible to go out for a few years and come back as good as you were.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 24 Aug 2005, 20:14

mrbassie wrote:Ali was nowhere near as quick after the suspension as he was before, nowhere near as sharp either. It's impossible to go out for a few years and come back as good as you were.

He was every bit as sharp in the ring (just watch Foreman fight and a half dozen others) - (IMO)

He might not have been as "quick" (slighly) - but he was smarter, hit harder, had more size to take punishment, etc, etc, etc -

Again, no atheletes in any sport are considered at their full peak in their early 20's - Nope - Basketball, Football, Tennis, Hockey, etc, etc....are all at their best once they have both the natural athletic abilities...ALONG with the smarts, experience, etc, etc combined - This happens in their late 20's / early 30's -

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 24 Aug 2005, 23:18

i think ali was the greatest, the first liston fight was legit, but the second was suspect IMO.
its funny how before the three year lay off Ali prided himself on how no one could hit him, and after it he prided himself on how much punishment he could absorb.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 25 Aug 2005, 02:19

Loki wrote:I have the greatest respect for ALI. He may have been the greatest, but I have some doubts.

Secondly,
The other thing that doesn't sit right with me, is the "Rumble in the Jungle" in Zaire, 74. I know the general perception is that Ali employed the "rope-a-dope" and Forman punched himself out. From what I have seen from the DVD, Foreman didn't look half as bothered to either KO Ali like he did against Norton & frasier. Also, the final KO punch delievered from Ali was piss poor. I know Foreman was tired, but even so, I can't swallow it.

Can someone, please put me right as I'm losing my faith.

Are you for real mate. George was going hell for leather at Ali. Remember, Ali don't fight like Norton and Frazier. Them guys are there to be hit. Ali was so clever in that fight and still he took an absolute pounding from George. Some serious body shots were thrown and George also landed great head shots. Ali's 'riding' of the punch and his capacity to take punishment beat Foreman. As for the KO punch, it was a 2-3 punch combo from a 15 stone Ali, it had to hurt as they landed flush.......

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Aug 2005, 04:37

In some ways Ali was lucky and unlucky (if that makes sense). I think he was lucky in both his second and third fights with Norton. Well lucky in terms of getting the decision and unlucky in that it prolonged his career.

I know what Loki means regarding the fight in Zaire. I think having read so much about it befroehand I expected to see Ali being swamped every round but it's not like that. Ali comes back with crisp accurate counters. he hardly misses a punch. he never looks introuble either but he was a master of seeming to be unhurt and rarely looked in toruble even when absorbing some great shots, so partly it's becasue he disguised being hurt so well.

I also agree that the Ali after the lay off, though a little slower of foot would have beaten the pre layoff Ali. He had more ring savvy and had not deteriorated that much.

The two fights I'd like to have seen are the Liston rematch not the actual one, but when Sonny was in great shape, the one that got postponed because of Ali's injury. I think Liston had a lot to prove and it would have been very different.

I'd also liked to have seen a rematch with Foreman who would have adopted different tactics on the rematch and would have learned from his mistakes.

I still think Ali wins both fights but they would have been great great fights . His style was made for big punchers. These two fights would have added to Ali's legacy.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 06:05

meade95 wrote:
silkov wrote:Sorry, watch Ali in 66 and 67 and then watch him vs Bonavena and Frazier and you'll see a completely different fighter. He had no legs and hadn't adapted to the loss of his legspeed and much of his reflexes at that point... to say it was a peak Ali is very far off the mark.
Come on - 29 and past his prime - (and he hadn't even been through the ring wars yet!! - that made him such a legend) - It would be one thing if Ali had been through the wars of his carreer from say 22 to 26 years old...but this just isn't the case -

Not buying it - (and I have seen Ali fights from 66, 67) - Ali was a more complete fighter in 71-75 then he was in 66-67 -

Again, Ali never wanted a fight more than the first Frazier fight - He was 29 and full of himself - (in fact, in just about every sport the age of around 29 is about dead on for one's prime - in terms of both physical and mental skills)

Have you actually watched Ali's pre exile fights?.... I doubt it somehow!... 8)

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 06:08

Ali won the second and third Norton fights clearly... it is a myth that Norton was robbed... same as the myths saying that the Liston fights were fixed. People can't knock Ali's record or the quality of his opposition or say that he ducked anyone so they come out with these myths imo.

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 25 Aug 2005, 10:28

No way Liston (I) and the Foreman fights were fixed.

I have no doubt that the Liston (II) fight was a legit knockdown, Liston never saw the punch coming. But it is strange he didn't bounce up right away.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 10:47

locoxelbox wrote:No way Liston (I) and the Foreman fights were fixed.

I have no doubt that the Liston (II) fight was a legit knockdown, Liston never saw the punch coming. But it is strange he didn't bounce up right away.

Liston didn't get up straightaway because Ali was standing over him and he was indeed dazed. Walcott made a terrible mixup with the count and the ending was a ridiculous farce (they should have just been allowed to box on) but it wasn't a fix. Ali connected with a solid punch that Liston walked into, making it that much harder. Most of those who claim the Liston fights were fixed haven't even seen the fights.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 25 Aug 2005, 11:02

silkov wrote:Ali won the second and third Norton fights clearly... it is a myth that Norton was robbed... same as the myths saying that the Liston fights were fixed. People can't knock Ali's record or the quality of his opposition or say that he ducked anyone so they come out with these myths imo.

Norton clearly won their second fight (in which Ali got the decision) - The Ring magazine did a whole report on this and something like 10 of 12 after reviewing the tapes said Norton won -

Additionally they reviewed the third fight as well and it was like 8 of 12 said Norton won that fight also -

So with all due respect....your notion that Ali clearly won both fights is just off (and shows a complete bias) -

But I do agree with you regarding Liston - The first fight was 100% legit...and I think the second fight had more to do with Liston not wanting to fight...then anything to do with a fix -

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 11:18

meade95 wrote:
silkov wrote:Ali won the second and third Norton fights clearly... it is a myth that Norton was robbed... same as the myths saying that the Liston fights were fixed. People can't knock Ali's record or the quality of his opposition or say that he ducked anyone so they come out with these myths imo.
Norton clearly won their second fight (in which Ali got the decision) - The Ring magazine did a whole report on this and something like 10 of 12 after reviewing the tapes said Norton won -

Additionally they reviewed the third fight as well and it was like 8 of 12 said Norton won that fight also -

So with all due respect....your notion that Ali clearly won both fights is just off (and shows a complete bias) -

But I do agree with you regarding Liston - The first fight was 100% legit...and I think the second fight had more to do with Liston not wanting to fight...then anything to do with a fix -

You say I am biased but the problem I think is that many people are biased against Ali and say that Norton was robbed against him. For me I have watched the second fight a number of times and see Ali winning most of the early rounds then tiring and allowing Norton to catch up but he then wins the last round and with it the fight. I'm not saying it wasn't a close fight it was, but for me Ali's early lead and strong finish gets him the fight. The third fight was again very close with neither man producing good form (it was very cold) but Norton again let Ali close out the fight and he (Norton) just did not do enough to unseat a world champion.
All the articles I have read on the second fight seem to agree that Ali's strong finsih and early lead got him the victory. Many people have only watched highlights of the second fight and these often leave out some of the first 6 rounds when Ali was basically doing what he wanted. It was only when his legs tired round about the 6th that Norton started landing with any consequence.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2005, 11:57

I think you can add to this that there is a natural subjectivity to judging a fight. The only reasonable voice I have in some of these arguments (and I have not heard it in this thread) is that when a fight is close....it's close. So no one gets robbed it's just the best decision that those judges could have handed down on those days. DLH is a walking example of someone who won the "chaos" lottery of life. About the only thing that brings justice in his case is that in the end the numbers probably work out about right for him. But I would love to "adjust" the record.

For the record I thought the judges got it honestly correct (in terms of outcome) in the Ali Norton Trilogy. The Jimmy Young fights with both of them were more controversial in my mind. Norton Holmes was a tough one to judge as well.

Monday morning quarterbacking in boxing is always interesting.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 12:20

BoxBuzz wrote:I think you can add to this that there is a natural subjectivity to judging a fight. The only reasonable voice I have in some of these arguments (and I have not heard it in this thread) is that when a fight is close....it's close. So no one gets robbed it's just the best decision that those judges could have handed down on those days. DLH is a walking example of someone who won the "chaos" lottery of life. About the only thing that brings justice in his case is that in the end the numbers probably work out about right for him. But I would love to "adjust" the record.

For the record I thought the judges got it honestly correct (in terms of outcome) in the Ali Norton Trilogy. The Jimmy Young fights with both of them were more controversial in my mind. Norton Holmes was a tough one to judge as well.

Monday morning quarterbacking in boxing is always interesting.

Well that what I was trying to say really. All the Ali vs Norton fights were close... so that is one of the reasons why I get peeved when people go on about how Norton was robbed against Ali because the fights were too close to be robberies. The difference between the Ali vs Norton 3 and vs Young bouts and his first fight with Leon Spinks is that Spinks was the aggressor and 'took' the title from Ali while both Norton and Young were too defensive minded and laidback to take the verdicts.
I also think Ali's rep as the 'greatest' goes against him sometimes as people often tend to expect too much of him in fights, espoecially in the 70s... sometimes it seems every close fight Ali was in he should have lost according to some people.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 25 Aug 2005, 12:47

I don't think there is any controversies surrounding Ali-Foreman. Foreman stamina was awful, seen later against Jimmy Young. It wasn't that he didn't try, he just tired completely.

Both Liston fights are definitely suspicious. Fight one I don't think there is enough evidence to hold up as a fixed fight, though the second there is. Both fights will always be put into questioning but no definite answer will ever arise. People who think it is fixed will always believe it was and vice versa.

Of Ali's questionably decision victories, I have only seen Ali-Norton 3, which I fully believe Norton won. I can possibly see a draw, but not an Ali victory.

I will admit I am in no way a fan of Ali, but I give him his due. He was the best in one of the strongest eras and beat some great fighters and is definitely top 3 all time heavys, but I don't think he is the "greatest" like he coined himself and others claim.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:19

Sherlock wrote:I don't think there is any controversies surrounding Ali-Foreman. Foreman stamina was awful, seen later against Jimmy Young. It wasn't that he didn't try, he just tired completely.

Both Liston fights are definitely suspicious. Fight one I don't think there is enough evidence to hold up as a fixed fight, though the second there is. Both fights will always be put into questioning but no definite answer will ever arise. People who think it is fixed will always believe it was and vice versa.

Of Ali's questionably decision victories, I have only seen Ali-Norton 3, which I fully believe Norton won. I can possibly see a draw, but not an Ali victory.

I will admit I am in no way a fan of Ali, but I give him his due. He was the best in one of the strongest eras and beat some great fighters and is definitely top 3 all time heavys, but I don't think he is the "greatest" like he coined himself and others claim.

If Ali vs Liston2 was fixed then it was the worse fix in history. The simple fact is Liston went down and their was a messup over the count. Liston was hit by a quick punch that came over his blind side as he was moving in. Nat Fleischer the editor of the RING mag whose integrity was never questioned said himself that the fight was not a fix and incidentailly it was he who told Walcott that Liston had been counted out... even though he had no right to have any control over the fight.
Yes, it was a shambles but not a fix... imo.

Who do you think is the best Heavyweight ever then Sherlock?...

Was ALI lucky ?

Was ALI lucky ?

Re: Was ALI lucky ?