BoxRec

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 17:19**

Collins2000 wrote:
man wrote: as i understood it, he really pumped them up on this bumaye-thing.
that was pretty active. and he definitely did it during the fight.
yes, great show. but no, no good sportsmanship. i think ali is great,
but i think he has build up a too uncritical audience as well ...
Enough with the "I think Ali is great but... " statements that are in all your posts. Just admit you can't stand the guy.

Two points...

Ali would have really given people something to talk about if he loaded up and hit Foreman as he was falling...

The only fighter I dislike is Tyson for his disrespect of women and the way he revled in his brutality and wanted to make the most brutal and unforgiving of sports more brutal and unforgiving...But even then I still feel bad that he ruined his own life...

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 17:23**

Collins2000 wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:The great Archie Moore told on NBC that also the pulling and holding behind the neck, plus the heat, it drained the great George Foreman. So many ILEGAL STUFF in that fight and the great Muhammad Ali got his way.

Was not this Don King's first great promotional fight?
Didn't the heat affect Ali too?

And Foreman used illegal tactics against Frazier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEuGaRp ... re=related

He pushed him off at least six times instead of using his jab to keep Frazier at bay...

Foreman just got owned by a superior boxer...
Most haters will never accept that.

Dirty tactics

Hitting after the bell

Hitting below the belt

Hitting on the break

Headbutting your opponent

Thumbing your opponent in the eye

Clinching has to rate at the bottom and surely Big George could have forcefully broke up a clinch if he was strong enough which he obviously wasn't...

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 20:25**

"No chance, Kym.

Ali beat his ass fair and square. Took an undefeated champ who the 'experts' claimed was going to destroy Ali and stood him on his head.

George knows that too.

Let's leave the revisionism to You Know Who."

Collins
Im not trying to be a revionist, I just think that Foreman does a pretty
good job in a rematch and takes Ali especially if the fight happens around
'76. Peak for Peak I favour Ali, but in the time of a rematch I really do like
big george, the Foreman-Young fight withstanding.

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 20:28**

TOIH2008

I am not talking about race or where ones deep seated ancestorial
roots go back.

Both are Americans...one more proud of this fact than the other.

The surroundings in Zaire were geared towards Ali more so than
Foreman. That is what I meant.

"Why wasn't it a neutral site?

Was not Africa George Foreman's ancestral homeland too?"

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 23:44**

Robinson wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:"No chance, Kym.

Ali beat his ass fair and square. Took an undefeated champ who the 'experts' claimed was going to destroy Ali and stood him on his head.

George knows that too.

Let's leave the revisionism to You Know Who."
Collins
Im not trying to be a revionist, I just think that Foreman does a pretty
good job in a rematch and takes Ali especially if the fight happens around
'76. Peak for Peak I favour Ali, but in the time of a rematch I really do like
big george, the Foreman-Young fight withstanding.

I can't see it myself, particularly in light of what Young did to him...

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 23:48**

Robinson wrote:TOIH2008

I am not talking about race or where ones deep seated ancestorial
roots go back.

Both are Americans...one more proud of this fact than the other.

The surroundings in Zaire were geared towards Ali more so than
Foreman. That is what I meant.

"Why wasn't it a neutral site?

Was not Africa George Foreman's ancestral homeland too?"

One could say both were of African descent,one more proud of the fact than the other but that wouldn't be fair to either man...I think both were proud of both their ancestry and the place they now call home... I do think it's callous to disregard the fact that most of George Foreman and Muhammad Ali's ancestors had little choice in choosing their new homeland like most of our forebearers...I know my forebearers didn't come to America on slaveships...

Posted: **19 Aug 2008, 23:55**

Collins2000 wrote:
Robinson wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:"No chance, Kym.

Ali beat his ass fair and square. Took an undefeated champ who the 'experts' claimed was going to destroy Ali and stood him on his head.

George knows that too.

Let's leave the revisionism to You Know Who."
Collins
Im not trying to be a revionist,
I just think that Foreman does a pretty
good job in a rematch and takes Ali especially if the fight happens around
'76. Peak for Peak I favour Ali, but in the time of a rematch I really do like
big george, the Foreman-Young fight withstanding.
I can't see it myself, particularly in light of what Young did to him...

We can never get away from the fact that George Foreman was 24 years old and in his prime and Muhammad Ali was 32 and past it...George Foreman was 40-0-37...He had done in four rounds to Joe Frazier and Ken Norton what Ali couldn't do to them in a combined fifty one rounds; knock them out...

George was intoxicated with his own invincibility...Muhammad Ali schooled him...

Nothing more...Nothing less...

Posted: **20 Aug 2008, 00:05**

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Robinson wrote:TOIH2008

I am not talking about race or where ones deep seated ancestorial
roots go back.

Both are Americans...one more proud of this fact than the other.

The surroundings in Zaire were geared towards Ali more so than
Foreman. That is what I meant.

"Why wasn't it a neutral site?

Was not Africa George Foreman's ancestral homeland too?"
I never meant a thing about Africa and all that....I meant the fact that
Ali was so celebrated over there and Foreman was treated as merely
an opponent and not the champion.

One could say both were of African descent,one more proud of the fact than the other but that wouldn't be fair to either man...I think both were proud of both their ancestry and the place they now call home... I do think it's callous to disregard the fact that most of George Foreman and Muhammad Ali's ancestors had little choice in choosing their new homeland like most of our forebearers...I know my forebearers didn't come to America on slaveships...

Posted: **20 Aug 2008, 00:25**

Robinson wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Robinson wrote:TOIH2008

I am not talking about race or where ones deep seated ancestorial
roots go back.

Both are Americans...one more proud of this fact than the other.

The surroundings in Zaire were geared towards Ali more so than
Foreman. That is what I meant.

"Why wasn't it a neutral site?

Was not Africa George Foreman's ancestral homeland too?"
I never meant a thing about Africa and all that....I meant the fact that
Ali was so celebrated over there and Foreman was treated as merely
an opponent and not the champion.

One could say both were of African descent,one more proud of the fact than the other but that wouldn't be fair to either man...I think both were proud of both their ancestry and the place they now call home... I do think it's callous to disregard the fact that most of George Foreman and Muhammad Ali's ancestors had little choice in choosing their new homeland like most of our forebearers...I know my forebearers didn't come to America on slaveships...

How about when fighters have to fight other fighters in their own hometown?

Ali fought Brian London in of all places, London...

" " fought Henry Cooper in London

" " fought Karl Mildenberger in Germany

" " fought Doug Jones in New York

" " fought Ken Norton in Southern California, twice, once in his hometown of San Diego

Respectfully, one can carry this hometown argument a bit too far...

They have a saying in America basketball that the fan is the sixth man...To which many a basketball player has said , when is the last time a fan made a basket or blocked a shot...

Posted: **20 Aug 2008, 00:36**

I never said anything about hometown advantage or
any of that.

I think perhaps I was unclear in my intial post.

In any case, it does not matter.

All I was suggesting is that the circumstances in Zaire seemed
more favourable to ALi than to Foreman. None of that had to
do with any 'home town advantage' or one man being more
African than the other...

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 00:45**

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Dirty tactics

Hitting after the bell

Hitting below the belt

Hitting on the break

Headbutting your opponent

Thumbing your opponent in the eye

Clinching has to rate at the bottom and surely Big George could have forcefully broke up a clinch if he was strong enough which he obviously wasn't...

HOLDING BEHIND THE NECK IS ILEGAL...SIR Ali did it too many times in that fight.

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 09:33**

elmersalsa wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Dirty tactics

Hitting after the bell

Hitting below the belt

Hitting on the break

Headbutting your opponent

Thumbing your opponent in the eye

Clinching has to rate at the bottom and surely Big George could have forcefully broke up a clinch if he was strong enough which he obviously wasn't...
HOLDING BEHIND THE NECK IS ILEGAL...SIR Ali did it too many times in that fight.

Pushing your opponent which Foreman , successfully did and to great effect , against Frazier and tried to do against Ali , unsuccessfully and to no effect, is illegal too...

To use common parlance, Ali was Foreman's papi or daddy that night... I would also say Ali made Foreman his bitch that night but that would be homophobic and profoundly unfair to a great boxer and decent man like George Foreman...The only thing more unfair is trying to diminish the great accomplishment of Ali beating a 40-0-0-37 boxer when that boxer was in his prime and Ali was well past his...

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 18:15**

Collins2000 wrote:Enough with the "I think Ali is great but... " statements that are in all your posts. Just admit you can't stand the guy.

oh no. not at all. he was a marvellous boxer, had extraordinary humor
and was a great, caring guy. besides an absolutely great boxer. but that
does not make everything he did unquestionable. and i critizise the lack of
objectivity in "when we were kings". which is supposed to be a documentary
and not a feature.

i believe that the way he mocked his opponents displayed lack of taste.
you would not expect taste from a normal boxer, but from a guy as bright
as muhammed ali i do.

summing up: i don't buy into "the greatest" myth. to me marciano and jack
johnson were above him as boxers; lennox lewis in terms of smartness and
sportsmanship.

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 19:34**

It's a shame that some people are trying to take away from Muhammad Ali on a bulletin board what he won in the ring but everybody knows that on October 30th, 1974 he turned George Foreman inside out...

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 19:56**

No he won a good fight and took Foremans title away.

Foreman proved that he was not turned inside out and
showed that he could bounce back from that loss and
others with tremendous zeal and optimism.

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 20:34**

I've seen George interviewed numerous times- he gives Ali all the credit- a lot of people never heard the ref get to "10" before George got up but Foreman himself said it would have had the same outcome. They portray Foreman as a mean SOB because he was one- if you read George's bio- he talks at length at what a mean and angry person he was- it's just testimony of how much he has changed. That fight loss put him in the depths of despair- he hit rock bottom but he climbed his way out and became a better person. He won back the belt in his forties wearing the same trunks- he got his redemption.

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 20:48**

George is in my fave five with the greatest, Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Oscar DeLaHoya...

Posted: **21 Aug 2008, 23:32**

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Dirty tactics

Hitting after the bell

Hitting below the belt

Hitting on the break

Headbutting your opponent

Thumbing your opponent in the eye

Clinching has to rate at the bottom and surely Big George could have forcefully broke up a clinch if he was strong enough which he obviously wasn't...
HOLDING BEHIND THE NECK IS ILEGAL...SIR Ali did it too many times in that fight.
Pushing your opponent which Foreman , successfully did and to great effect , against Frazier and tried to do against Ali , unsuccessfully and to no effect, is illegal too...

To use common parlance, Ali was Foreman's papi or daddy that night... I would also say Ali made Foreman his bitch that night but that would be homophobic and profoundly unfair to a great boxer and decent man like George Foreman...The only thing more unfair is trying to diminish the great accomplishment of Ali beating a 40-0-0-37 boxer when that boxer was in his prime and Ali was well past his...

NOBODY IS DIMINISHING Ali's victory over Foreman...In fact, it was one of the most greatest wins in boxing history as well as one of boxing's greatest moments. But HOLDING BEHIND THE NECK IS ILEGAL and he did it PLENTY OF TIMES.

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 02:47**

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:It's a shame that some people are trying to take away from Muhammad Ali on a bulletin board what he won in the ring but everybody knows that on October 30th, 1974 he turned George Foreman inside out...

nobody does that. the very basis of this thread is that ali won the fight
not just in the final round, but was ahead on all cards and in fact
dominated the fight. it is whenWeWereKings's attempt to pump
up the knockout by saying that foreman dominated and ali was
afraid which i am opposing. ali won clear and straight. against
an opponent who was seen as the clear favorite.

what i am saying is that the view on the real scene in terms of
real boxing is distorted by the ali-myth. if another reigning
champion had been treated the way foreman was, there would
be criticism. in this case there was and is ... none. nevertheless
i am sure foreman would have lost anyways. even if he had been
allowed to continue, with the knockdown being counted as just a
knock down, ali would have become more dominant and had
taken him out in the tenth or eleventh IMO.

just think about it this way: the absolute dominant heavy weight
champion, undefeated ko-king gets into a match where he is
highly favorised. he goes forward the whole fight through, gasses
out and gets consequently knocked down at the very end of a
round and is then counted out quickly? usually the champ gets a
little extra chance to make it, is allowed to continue a little longer
than others. in this case it was the opposite. that is all i am saying.
and it does not take anything away from ali's accomplishment.

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 02:56**

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:George is in my fave five with the greatest, Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Oscar DeLaHoya...

i thought the same but changed my mind. the more often i see
the foreman bouts of his first career, the more i think he was
a strong man, but a lousy boxer. lack of defense and reflexes and
basically no footwork. wild punching. intimidating his opponents.
without the intimidation he lost the main thing that had made him
champion.

interesting thing to me is that i believe he was in certain ways a
better boxer in his second run. much better reflexes and defense
in general. certainly due to age, but he learned as well to use his
offensive energy much more efficiently. he simply became smarter.
had he been like that in his early twenties ... wow. i think his career
would have turned very differently if he had suffered an early loss,
that would have made him use his head and not only his arms.

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 02:59**

on the holding behind the neck thing. someone of his corner said
he gassed out because ali held him like that. i think that is wishful
thinking. wild punching with many missing shots throughout seven
rounds does the job pretty on its own. the gassing out was clearly
foreman's fault and foreman's only.

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 08:59**

interesting thing to me is that i believe he was in certain ways a
better boxer in his second run. much better reflexes and defense
in general. certainly due to age, but he learned as well to use his
offensive energy much more efficiently. he simply became smarter.
had he been like that in his early twenties ... wow. i think his career
would have turned very differently if he had suffered an early loss,
that would have made him use his head and not only his arms.

Heard Teddy Atlas say that "old George" would have kicked "young George's" ass..

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 09:16**

boxingchick wrote:Heard Teddy Atlas say that "old George" would have kicked "young George's" ass..

best way to say it ... :)

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 11:10**

Young Foreman might have been a little quicker than old Foreman. But neither Foreman was especially quick. Foreman's best asset, young and old was his strength. When he came back he came back bigger and stronger and more relaxed. He also had better defense. His punching power was always there but older Foreman didn't waste his energy swinging at targets he couldn't hit.

Foreman himself considers the older Foreman a better fighter than the young one.

Posted: **22 Aug 2008, 11:29**

'older' Foreman was also more composed...and did not seem to
burn out with frustration. Though I always look to the Peralta
fight and that shows how adaptive and talented as a game player
that 'young' George could be.

I think after blowing Norton and Frazier away Foreman was convinced
he could knock every man out and when he did not, well he was not
happy.

When he returned George was a very smart and wise man. Possibly
one of the sports smartest fighters.

I always recall seeing a young Foreman leaving an Ali fight
saying that he never liked to watch fights and found them
boring. Yet years later as we know Foreman became a true
student and teacher of the sport and even a damned good
colour commentator. That in itself is a progressive difference.

BoxRec

"when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view

Re: "when we were kings" ... how wrong a view