BoxRec

in my humble opinion ali - and i love the guy - lost all three to kenny norton. he was past his peak, obviously, but norton won every time.

edit

Ezzard wrote:In the early 1980s footballer Paolo Rossi was banned from playing. In the 1982 world cup he ahdn't kicked a ball in 12 months previous. In his first game he looked rusty.

The commentators all said it was madness even playing a man with no practice. Brian Clough disagreed and pointed out that he'd have an 18 month holiday and should be fresh.

Rossi was top scorer in the tournament and Italy won the world cup.

It does not necessarily translate to Ali but it does prove that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to a layoff.

I don't know much about soccer but in boxing it's a much bigger disadvantage to come back from a long layoff. How many examples are there of a fighter having that long of a layoff and coming back at close to the same level that quickly?

Even Leonard wasn't quite the same fighter against Hagler as he was at his best, and he probably came the closest. There are many, many examples of guys coming back from layoffs and not being nearly as good.

DaveV17 wrote:I Feel Fine,
Ferdie Pacheco and Howard Cosell are two of Ali's biggest fans, I would not put much stock into anything either of them had to say about Ali. Anyone who thinks Ali won the 3rd Norton fight is also one of Ali's biggest fans. All one has to do is see Ali at the end of the fight to realize that Ali knew he lost. I saw all three of those fights when they happened and the closest one was the second one - and Ali really lost that one too.

Conspiracy theorist, are we? So you know more about Ali's condition than Ali's doctor? And Ali was also lying in the post fight interview? Why did it take him 6 rounds to start throwing right hands at Lubbers... was it because Lubbers was such a brilliant defensive fighter? Ali didn't hold back with his right hand in any other the other fights in his career... is Ali such a great fighter that he can never sustain injuries?

He won the fight, anyway, so this is silly. And you keep insisting about the third fight, I do not think Ali won that fight... who are you trying to convince?

DaveV17 wrote:In the 70s, any fight Ali was in was going his way on the judges' scorecards. You say that you have heard people claim Ali won the 3rd Norton fight? I have heard many people say that Frazier won the second Ali fight, I have heard many people say that Earnie Shavers beat Ali, I have heard almost everyone who saw the fight say that Jimmy Young beat Ali, I have heard a surprising number of people say that Alfredo Evangelista beat Ali. There were a lot of close decisions for Ali in the 70s,(and some not so close, like Norton 3) and not surprisingly, given the political mood of the country, Ali was given the decision in each close fight.

Frazier did not win the second fight, anyone who thinks so probably doesn't like Ali. If Evangelista won more than three or four rounds on anyone's scorecard that person has a psychotic hatred of Ali, the fight was not close. I doubt even granberry could give Evangelista that fight. I agree with Shavers and Young, but again, Ali was shot in those fights and should have been in retirement, Ali wasn't 1/3 of the fighter he was in his prime when he fought those two fighters. How would a 34 year old, 230 pound Jimmy Young do against a prime Ali? He'd be lucky to escape the fifth round.

I'm finished with this, you don't know enough about this period to make the claims you're making.

edit

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you, but I think my knowledge of boxing is quite capable, and unlike you I've actually seen these fights. Ali-Evangelista was about as competitive as Holmes-Cobb.

edit

I can listen to people talk about the Young fight, the Norton rubber match, the Shavers fight- I thought Ali lost those fights too. But claiming he should have lost the Evangelista fight is retarded. Plain and simple. Evangelista did not put on a good performance, and Ali basically toyed with him. Ali was the clear winner, saying otherwise is pushing it.

Its silly the way people harp on the last five years of Ali's career. It speaks more of his critics than of Ali. No one does this to Robinson and Charles and Hearns.

Ezzard wrote:In the early 1980s footballer Paolo Rossi was banned from playing. In the 1982 world cup he ahdn't kicked a ball in 12 months previous. In his first game he looked rusty.

The commentators all said it was madness even playing a man with no practice. Brian Clough disagreed and pointed out that he'd have an 18 month holiday and should be fresh.

Rossi was top scorer in the tournament and Italy won the world cup.

It does not necessarily translate to Ali but it does prove that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to a layoff.

Yeah, but a lot of fighters have 18 month layoffs. Sometimes they look good, sometimes they don't. Ali had a 43 month layoff.

this thread has been milked to boring point.

ali, great as he is/was, is not the best subject for a thread in my opinion. perhaps too much has been said so many times and we have all thought about him and every facet of his career before.

It is definitely over done. There's three Ali threads a week.

I Feel Fine wrote:

Ezzard wrote:In the early 1980s footballer Paolo Rossi was banned from playing. In the 1982 world cup he ahdn't kicked a ball in 12 months previous. In his first game he looked rusty.

The commentators all said it was madness even playing a man with no practice. Brian Clough disagreed and pointed out that he'd have an 18 month holiday and should be fresh.

Rossi was top scorer in the tournament and Italy won the world cup.

It does not necessarily translate to Ali but it does prove that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to a layoff.

Yeah, but a lot of fighters have 18 month layoffs. Sometimes they look good, sometimes they don't. Ali had a 43 month layoff.

Again, I know, there's a lot of possible outcomes.

IMO, without the layoff Ali gets his 3 peak years at HW, but the fights that really make him stand out would have been even harder than they were.

DaveV17 wrote: Ali never avenged anything with Norton. Ali lost the first and third fights big, the second one was closer, but Norton probably won it too. Ali and Norton both know who won the fights. Norton always says that he beat Ali all three times. The third fight is the worst decision I have seen in a championship fight.

Then...you must not have seen very many...I can think of 20 worse championship decisions in about 10 seconds...the fight you refer to was a virtual draw...no clear cut obvious dominant winner...Norton didn't do what Frazier did 5 years earlier, and he didn't do what he himself (Norton) did 3 years earlier...the '76 fight could have easily gone either way...Norton actually looked better in both previous fights...and, in fairness, so did Ali...the '76 fight actually...sucked...compared to the first two...think about it...

Sweet Scientist wrote:

DaveV17 wrote: Ali never avenged anything with Norton. Ali lost the first and third fights big, the second one was closer, but Norton probably won it too. Ali and Norton both know who won the fights. Norton always says that he beat Ali all three times. The third fight is the worst decision I have seen in a championship fight.

Then...you must not have seen very many...I can think of 20 worse championship decisions in about 10 seconds...the fight you refer to was a virtual draw...no clear cut obvious dominant winner...Norton didn't do what Frazier did 5 years earlier, and he didn't do what he himself (Norton) did 3 years earlier...the '76 fight could have easily gone either way...Norton actually looked better in both previous fights...and, in fairness, so did Ali...the '76 fight actually...sucked...compared to the first two...think about it...

I do agree with Sweet Scientist... Norton won IMO but there were many rounds when he just stood off Ali.

Decagon wrote:There were plenty of alphabet titles around when Ali was champion.

Bullshit. There was the WBA and later the WBC.

Ezzard wrote:In the early 1980s footballer Paolo Rossi was banned from playing. In the 1982 world cup he ahdn't kicked a ball in 12 months previous. In his first game he looked rusty.

The commentators all said it was madness even playing a man with no practice. Brian Clough disagreed and pointed out that he'd have an 18 month holiday and should be fresh.

Rossi was top scorer in the tournament and Italy won the world cup.

It does not necessarily translate to Ali but it does prove that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to a layoff.

You are going to compare boxing to soccer? In soccer a player can lag behind the play for periods and come up when needed. He has nine others helping him apart from the goalkeeper. In boxing you have the other man in front of you for three minute periods with one minute breaks and no help. It is like comparing apples and watermelons.

zojo, wrote:If he did not lose those three years, he would not be the symbol of the 60s that he is now. He would be a very good champion and talked a lot about on this forum in Ali vs. _____ dream match-ups.

However, he would NOT be the celebrity and media darling/icon that he is today if he did not lose those three years.

Totally disagree. Clay/Ali was always going to be a superstar and celebrity. He was the biggest name in SPORT BEFORE 1967. He exploded onto the scene and would have been possibly a bigger athlete than what he was, were it not for the suspension. His personality and skills combned made him into the GOAT

Brute wrote:

Ezzard wrote:In the early 1980s footballer Paolo Rossi was banned from playing. In the 1982 world cup he ahdn't kicked a ball in 12 months previous. In his first game he looked rusty.

The commentators all said it was madness even playing a man with no practice. Brian Clough disagreed and pointed out that he'd have an 18 month holiday and should be fresh.

Rossi was top scorer in the tournament and Italy won the world cup.

It does not necessarily translate to Ali but it does prove that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to a layoff.

You are going to compare boxing to football? In football a player can lag behind the play for periods and come up when needed. He has nine others helping him apart from the goalkeeper. In boxing you have the other man in front of you for three minute periods with one minute breaks and no help. It is like comparing apples and watermelons.

No, I'm comparing one professional athlete's lay off and its consequences to another. With so few comparisons to be made (of prime athletes having enforced out time from their sport) it is wholly reasonable.

If you wanted to discuss the merits of one apple (the only one in the world) and the only other fruit was a water melon then you'd be quite justified in making your comparison.

Ezzard- There are many examples of a boxer who was off for 3 plus years and coming back that weren't as good as they were previously.
How many boxers can you name that were as good after that long of a layoff?

Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard- There are many examples of a boxer who was off for 3 plus years and coming back that weren't as good as they were previously.
How many boxers can you name that were as good after that long of a layoff?

Bobby Gunn

Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard- There are many examples of a boxer who was off for 3 plus years and coming back that weren't as good as they were previously.
How many boxers can you name that were as good after that long of a layoff?

Nobody who could both fly as close to the sun as Ali could and who lost their prime years.

You're talking about the finest fighting man the world has ever produced.

Anyway, my basic point is that Ali lost somethign from that layoff but he also gained something. My comparison was just an attempt to illustrate this.

Sweet Scientist wrote :
think this is somewhat flawed...What "wear and tear"...how much "wear and tear" did he endure from '64 - '67? Damn little!...How much "wear and tear" would have he suffered from '67 - '70??? Who, other than Frazier...was going to "wear and tear" Ali during those 3 1/2 years?

Ali suffered far more (physically) by the 3 1/2 year layoff than he ever would have by 3 1/2 more years of "wear and tear"...

Ali's layoff resulted in diminished skills (speed and reflexes) that Ali never completely recovered...

Frazier did his best work against Ali while Ali laid on the ropes...a direct result of the layoff induced diminished skills...an Ali who could still move on his feet, like the 1967 version, fights Frazier COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than the 3/8/71 fight, Ali never needed to lay on the ropes in the '60's, he was well conditioned, young and fast...Frazier would have still been his toughest opponent....and Frazier may have looked good a few rounds...but I don't see him winning more than a few rounds in a 1968 fight, watch the '68 Frazier - Mathis fight...Ali wouldn't have run out of gas like Buster...and he wouldn't be laying on the ropes, catching hooks and giving away rounds like the post-layoff Ali...

Ali's "wear and tear" came from the layoff...he didn't have the speed, reflexes & endurance he had earlier...and when he came back, he had to stand and fight (and absorb heavy punishment in the process)...something he rarely had to do to win fights earlier in his career...

Wear and Tear from a layoff. I can't believe someone would make a rediculous comment like that.
You probably were praising him during the ..... Soap on a rope .....or
dope a rope... whatever.... it was called. Seemed more like WWF.
Get over it and stop looking for redicules excuses.

RAPID1 wrote:Sweet Scientist wrote :
think this is somewhat flawed...What "wear and tear"...how much "wear and tear" did he endure from '64 - '67? Damn little!...How much "wear and tear" would have he suffered from '67 - '70??? Who, other than Frazier...was going to "wear and tear" Ali during those 3 1/2 years?

Ali suffered far more (physically) by the 3 1/2 year layoff than he ever would have by 3 1/2 more years of "wear and tear"...

Ali's layoff resulted in diminished skills (speed and reflexes) that Ali never completely recovered...

Frazier did his best work against Ali while Ali laid on the ropes...a direct result of the layoff induced diminished skills...an Ali who could still move on his feet, like the 1967 version, fights Frazier COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than the 3/8/71 fight, Ali never needed to lay on the ropes in the '60's, he was well conditioned, young and fast...Frazier would have still been his toughest opponent....and Frazier may have looked good a few rounds...but I don't see him winning more than a few rounds in a 1968 fight, watch the '68 Frazier - Mathis fight...Ali wouldn't have run out of gas like Buster...and he wouldn't be laying on the ropes, catching hooks and giving away rounds like the post-layoff Ali...

Ali's "wear and tear" came from the layoff...he didn't have the speed, reflexes & endurance he had earlier...and when he came back, he had to stand and fight (and absorb heavy punishment in the process)...something he rarely had to do to win fights earlier in his career...

Wear and Tear from a layoff. I can't believe someone would make a rediculous comment like that.
You probably were praising him during the ..... Soap on a rope .....or
dope a rope... whatever.... it was called. Seemed more like WWF.
Get over it and stop looking for redicules excuses.

THANKS p4p1
TU: To you as well.

sorry i didnt read the last part of your post... i dont agree with u... you are an idiot