BoxRec

oliverfennell wrote:Ali fought everybody of note from the late 60s, through the 70s, and some who remained notable in the 80s. He fought his peers (Foreman, Frazier, Liston), titlists (Terrell, Ellis, Norton), the major contenders (Young, Cooper, Quarry, Shavers, Bugner, Williams), the old guard (Patterson, Moore) and the next generation (Holmes, Berbick, Spinks).

Is there anyone of note who he didn't meet, for whatever reason?

Not really. Ali pretty much fought everyone. One minor point. Ali could have given Foreman a re-match.

Conversely, you could also argue that Ali WON the first Norton fight - one of the ringside judges scored the contest 6-5-1 to Ali.
The same with the first Spinks fight - judge Art Lurie scored it 8-7 to Ali!
There will always be a difference of opinion in close fights - but it works both ways :-)

SteveO wrote:Conversely, you could also argue that Ali WON the first Norton fight - one of the ringside judges scored the contest 6-5-1 to Ali.
The same with the first Spinks fight - judge Art Lurie scored it 8-7 to Ali!
There will always be a difference of opinion in close fights - but it works both ways :-)

There is no way Ali won the first Norton fight. Watch it sometime. Norton ripped Ali with jabs, rights, and hard body shots. Ali in some trouble in the final round. At best Ali only won five rounds. The juding in some of Ali's fights was horrible in favor of Ali. See the Lyle fight score cards.

I've watched the fight several times and scored it 6-6, but what I'm saying is that Ali fans will score favourably for their man and Ali haters will score favourably for the opponent. Sometimes it is difficult to be unbiased - these are arguments that can never be won.

We have talked about almost every decison that Ali ever won on other threads.
This thread was actually interesting.
Are there any significant names that he could have fought during his time?
It doesn't seem that there really are any. No one has really come up with anyone credible.
How many other heavyweight champions that you can say that about?

SteveO wrote:I've watched the fight several times and scored it 6-6, but what I'm saying is that Ali fans will score favourably for their man and Ali haters will score favourably for the opponent. Sometimes it is difficult to be unbiased - these are arguments that can never be won.

There is such thing as being an OBJECTIVE scorer, regardless of who you are rooting for.

Any score giving Ali the first Spinks and Norton fights, or making them draws, is just flat-out WRONG, those are fights where it does not come down to a matter of opinion . . there is a crystal clear winner.

As to the larger thread, yes, Ali basically fought them all. One of the big reasons why he's down in history as one of the very best.

Ambling Alp wrote:We have talked about almost every decison that Ali ever won on other threads.
This thread was actually interesting.
Are there any significant names that he could have fought during his time?
It doesn't seem that there really are any. No one has really come up with anyone credible.
How many other heavyweight champions that you can say that about?

Agreed.

He fought everybody during his time. There are many what ifs with other fighters but the only 2 I can think of are a Foreman rematch and a wish that the original Ali-Liston II fight had gone ahead without Ali getting injured and pulling out.

The fact that Ali beat these 2 convincingly shows you just how hard it is to come up with a name.

I believe a rematch with Foreman was on the cards, but then Big George lost to Jimmy Young and retired for 10 years so that was that.
[/quote]

I Feel Fine wrote:Boxing is scored on a rounds basis, in case you don't know. I had Barkley beating Duran by the same margin I had Norton winning the third fight... three rounds... and Duran-Barkley was only a 12 rounder. Again, you'll have to amend a lot of records before you start tampering with Ali's.

I think I've made myself clear on Ali-Norton II and Ali-Shavers. Ali's career is overanalyzed, always has been, and anything he does or doesn't do gets magnified. Those fights wouldn't be considered quite so controversial if it was another fight, or at least the second Norton fight wouldn't be.

If you think Ali-Norton III and Ali-Young and Ali-Shavers are Ali's defining fights, you have a lot to learn about boxing and what happens to a fighter over the course of a long career. Seen Holyfield in the last few years?

First of all, I have never said that those fights are definining fights for Ali. He has his place in history... All I am saying is that his record is more deceiving than what people believe when reading his ledger.


Fights are scored in round or 10 or 5-point basis, my friend. Duran dropped Barkley in the 11th and that sealed the fight in my scorecards. He also had him hurt in the second round. I had Duran winning for 3 or 4 points. Great fight, one of the very best fights that I have ever seen.

I Feel Fine wrote:Are you f-cking stupid? Illegal tactics? Have you even seen a Duran fight? Holding behind the head is nothing compared to some of Duran's tactics.

Ali got two gifts in his career, you people make it sound like half of his decisions were robberies. Come off it.

I sort of love the irony of hearing people talk about Ali like he was some sort of media creation. Ali in his prime was the most hated fighter in boxing history, and the media never stopped ripping him. Get off the granberry bandwagon.

You stupid son of a bitch...Stop calling me names. Holding behind the head is ILEGAL. READ THE BOXING RULES, YOU STUPID MORON.

As an Ali fan I had to give the naysayers at least that. He hold behind the head and the referees gave him leeway, like if they did not see it. That was politics of the times. Get over it.

elmersalsa wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Boxing is scored on a rounds basis, in case you don't know. I had Barkley beating Duran by the same margin I had Norton winning the third fight... three rounds... and Duran-Barkley was only a 12 rounder. Again, you'll have to amend a lot of records before you start tampering with Ali's.

I think I've made myself clear on Ali-Norton II and Ali-Shavers. Ali's career is overanalyzed, always has been, and anything he does or doesn't do gets magnified. Those fights wouldn't be considered quite so controversial if it was another fight, or at least the second Norton fight wouldn't be.

If you think Ali-Norton III and Ali-Young and Ali-Shavers are Ali's defining fights, you have a lot to learn about boxing and what happens to a fighter over the course of a long career. Seen Holyfield in the last few years?

First of all, I have never said that those fights are definining fights for Ali. He has his place in history... All I am saying is that his record is more deceiving than what people believe when reading his ledger.


Fights are scored in round or 10 or 5-point basis, my friend. Duran dropped Barkley in the 11th and that sealed the fight in my scorecards. He also had him hurt in the second round. I had Duran winning for 3 or 4 points. Great fight, one of the very best fights that I have ever seen.

The end of the first Duran had him on queer street. The fight was close. I can't see anyscenario that has Duran losing by 3 points.

The most dominant rounds in the fight were Duran's. He definitely won 1,9,10,11 and 11 being by 2 pts. The rest of the rounds were close. I gave Duran 2 & 12 as well for a 1 pt win.

Duran rarely if ever lost any points for any of his fouls, and he bent and broke the rules far more than Ali did. Ditto for Hagler, Marciano, Greb, whoever you want to name. Again, this is what I mean when I say Ali's career is overanalyzed in comparison to other fighters. You hear more about Ali's holding than you do of some of those other fighters exploits.

Duran had big rounds against Barkley, but he was also inactive in many of those rounds. I'm pretty sure I had the 2nd and 12th for Barkley, but I don't remember.

You gave Barkley every close round. I can see that on your scorecard. But you can't all that a robbery. There were a lot of close rounds and you gave Duran none of them.

I think I was fair in the rounds I gave to Barkley and to Duran. Duran went a lot of rounds being inactive, and Barkley was a bigger man landing some big punches. I don't think I'm alone in thinking Barkley won the fight. I think Duran's performance is more impressive than the actual win. He was a declining fighter who got a close, questionable decision over a young, hungry fighter, thats the point of the comparison to Ali-Norton III.

I Feel Fine wrote:I think I was fair in the rounds I gave to Barkley and to Duran. Duran went a lot of rounds being inactive, and Barkley was a bigger man landing some big punches. I don't think I'm alone in thinking Barkley won the fight. I think Duran's performance is more impressive than the actual win. He was a declining fighter who got a close, questionable decision over a young, hungry fighter, thats the point of the comparison to Ali-Norton III.

You're not alone and I have always said the fight could go either way. I just take issue with the calls of it being a robbery. I thought Norton was a pretty clear winner of that fight.

I can't take issue with someone siding with Barkley. But it is giving him every benefit of the doubt. A lot of close rounds and none of them going Duran's way.

Again, not saying it's wrong. But no where near a robbery when a guy has the 4 most dominate rounds in a close fight.

I did think Barkley won some of the close rounds with activity. But in terms of the question of it being a robbery, one judge had Duran winning by four points, one had him winning by six points... not exactly a fair reflection of the fight in my mind.

I Feel Fine wrote:I did think Barkley won some of the close rounds with activity. But in terms of the question of it being a robbery, one judge had Duran winning by four points, one had him winning by six points... not exactly a fair reflection of the fight in my mind.

I can't argue with that. I had him winning by 1pt.

oliverfennell wrote:Ali fought everybody of note from the late 60s, through the 70s, and some who remained notable in the 80s. He fought his peers (Foreman, Frazier, Liston), titlists (Terrell, Ellis, Norton), the major contenders (Young, Cooper, Quarry, Shavers, Bugner, Williams), the old guard (Patterson, Moore) and the next generation (Holmes, Berbick, Spinks).

Is there anyone of note who he didn't meet, for whatever reason?

He refused to give Doug Jones and Jimmy Young return fights (after they beat him).

elmersalsa wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Are you f-cking stupid? Illegal tactics? Have you even seen a Duran fight? Holding behind the head is nothing compared to some of Duran's tactics.

Ali got two gifts in his career, you people make it sound like half of his decisions were robberies. Come off it.

I sort of love the irony of hearing people talk about Ali like he was some sort of media creation. Ali in his prime was the most hated fighter in boxing history, and the media never stopped ripping him. Get off the granberry bandwagon.

You stupid son of a bitch...Stop calling me names. Holding behind the head is ILLEGAL. READ THE BOXING RULES, YOU STUPID MORON.

As an Ali fan I had to give the naysayers at least that. He hold behind the head and the referees gave him leeway, like if they did not see it. That was politics of the times. Get over it.

Worth repeating.

SteveO wrote:I believe a rematch with Foreman was on the cards, but then Big George lost to Jimmy Young and retired for 10 years so that was that.

But then Ali refused to fight Young even though Young had beaten Foreman.

SteveO wrote:Conversely, you could also argue that Ali WON the first Norton fight - one of the ringside judges scored the contest 6-5-1 to Ali.
The same with the first Spinks fight - judge Art Lurie scored it 8-7 to Ali!
There will always be a difference of opinion in close fights - but it works both ways :-)

And the judges gave Ali the decision against Jimmy Young.
One gave Ali ten rounds and Young three rounds. LOL

The 'judges' you are talking about are shills who know they will be asked back only if they go along with the agenda.

"There will always be a difference of opinion in close fights"

CORRECTION:

There will always be internet posters who DON'T HAVE A CLUE what goes on in boxing.

Jones deserved a return bout? Ali beat him convincingly in the eyes of anyone who knows how to score a fight. And then Jones lost to Chuvalo and Terrell, so Ali fought them. Jones didn't deserve shit.

I won't say that Young didn't deserve a rematch, but Ali should have retired by then.

If Ali should have lost points for holding, then so should fighters like Marciano, Duran, Hagler, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Greb, Hopkins, Castillo and all these other fighters who bend the rules as much or more than Ali ever did. When did Lewis ever lose points for holding, he held as much as Ali. Holyfield held twice as much against Tyson as Ali ever did in any individual fight, and that's considered to be one of the great performances in the history of the sport. No point deductions there.

Ali's career, again, being overanalyzed by those who hate him for reasons that have little to do with boxing.

I Feel Fine wrote: Ali's career, again, being overanalyzed by those who hate him for reasons that have little to do with boxing.

Worth repeating.

Obviously Granberry is an Ali hater who can only see what he wants to see and ignore the facts!

granberry wrote:

SteveO wrote:Conversely, you could also argue that Ali WON the first Norton fight - one of the ringside judges scored the contest 6-5-1 to Ali.
The same with the first Spinks fight - judge Art Lurie scored it 8-7 to Ali!
There will always be a difference of opinion in close fights - but it works both ways :-)

And the judges gave Ali the decision against Jimmy Young.
One gave Ali ten rounds and Young three rounds. LOL

The 'judges' you are talking about are shills who know they will be asked back only if they go along with the agenda.

"There will always be a difference of opinion in close fights"

CORRECTION:

There will always be internet posters who DON'T HAVE A CLUE what goes on in boxing.

And then there are those who have a clue, honestly know the fundamentals, AND turn a blind eye to the reality of a great fighter whom they have a personal bitterness about, probably because they notched their hero/s. (Perhaps more than once).

Oh and their are some contributors that NEVER comment on Ali-Terrel......though they have been asked time and time again.

And of course they are welcome here, because their opining offers great and wonderous variety to the opinion pool.