BoxRec

So it's the 40th anniversary of Ali - Foreman, and naturally it's being feted as not only one of the biggest fights ever, but one of the biggest upsets.

Culturally, for so many reasons ranging from an upset over a seemingly impregnable, huge beast by an ageing Ali; to an unexpected Heavyweight world title fight in a corrupt, poor, largely unheard of African state, this fight is boxing legend.

The official, and largely supported line, is that an over the hill, seemingly shot, Muhammad overcame astronomical odds to defeat the the most destructive, terrifying and intimidating Champion ever, using tactical brilliance, psychology and extreme courage.

Now, many elements of that story have a grounding in reality, and some totally representative of a number of truths.

I do feel however, that the more complex story is rarely told, and that due to the mythology of the Ali legend, most don't even care or want to consider a number of factors surrounding the fight. To me, not only does this do a disservice to both Ali and Foreman, but a disservice to sports fans.

Please find below some numbered factors, that I feel merit attention for the real boxing fan.

1. AGE: Ali was 32 years old. 32. Not some ageing wreck coming back for a beating. And of those 32 years, 3 1/2 were inactive, thus his body was not being punished during this enforced 'sabbatical'. Now I'm aware that modern nutrition has prolonged athlete's effective primes, but consider that Kovalev is considered 'pre prime' at 31, Mayweather was beating young buck Canelo at 36, Archie Moore was 39 when he won the championship, B Hop is 49, Ray Robinson beat Carmen Basilio after almost 200 fights at age 36, and probably most significantly, George Foreman was almost 45 when he ko'd Moorer, and whose career included around a 10yr layoff.

Ali was not old. He was still in his prime.

2: WEIGHT: Foreman was considered huge, a beast, enormous. Yet a svelte Ali weighed in at 216 1/2 lbs, George at 220 lbs. 3 1/2 lb difference. Virtually insignificant at Heavy, and enabled Ali to use his weight and strength to push Foreman.

The size factor is no factor.

3. DELAY: reports rarely mention that a Foreman cut postponed the fight for a month 8 days before the original fight date. Foreman hated being in Zaire. It was hot, the populace were largely Ali fans, and George wanted to train in France after this. He was refused and had to stay to ensure the fight. Psychologically this was not helpful. Foreman's camp was apparently not great and his handlers were not strategists; basically just expecting Foreman power to batter Ali.

The location, heat and delay were detrimental to Foreman's camp. He was rather ill prepared.

4. FIGHT ODDS: it is often repeated that Ali was given NO chance against Foreman and that this was one of the biggest upsets of all times. But in reality, sports books opened at 3-1 Foreman, and the best price available at any time was 7-1. Ali an outsider, yes. But hardly compares to Buster's 42-1 shot or, to put some local perspective, Khomitsky's 9-1 against Frank Buglioni :-)

So, Ali was a deserved outsider, but not exactly hopeless or the biggest upset in modern sports.

5. ROPES: famously, Foreman blamed the lose ropes on aiding Ali's rope-a-dope. I agree with him. Watch the whole fight:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ijOjRTqPICk
Ali is able to lean back on the ropes, putting his head out of contact range, and covering his body and / or using Mayweather's favourite tactic of smothering an opponent when they come in, pushing out his elbows and gloves and avoiding being hit in the head very often.

The ref was Ali biased in terms of tactics, and there is no doubt the lose ropes aided 'rope a dope'. I will look again, but I recently read an article by Ali's people saying they deliberately cut, stretched, loosened the rope for Muhammad's tactic.

So what, if any, significant conclusions can be taken?

- Firstly, even if you don't accept the points above wholly, I think Muhammad was and on the original date would've been the winner regardless.

- I believe that weight, size, condition, age, were largely irrelevant and exaggerated factors.

- As were the odds. This wasn't the level of upset that has been mythologised.

- Whilst I wouldn't suggest there was any deliberate foul play (ropes notwithstanding), there were a number of environmental and mental factors that damaged George heavily

- this fight, the result, the cultural significance of the event should not be underestimated, I just think some factors are largely ignored in favour of the Ali myth

-----

Ps I am not trying to degrade Ali, the most important boxing and probably Sports figure ever, I just think it's fair to to demythologise certain aspects.

PPS I'm more than prepared to hear criticism and disagreement of the above points; but if your only point is to say I'm a pudendum and know nothing about boxing without constructive analysis, I'm not sure that's very helpful LOL :-)

PPPS I am a pudendum sometimes :-)

I think the main thing to point out is that none of the above is new and has all been covered before. You can make a similar case about it not being that much of a shock when Ali beat Liston, and again for when Douglas beat Tyson

I think the the thing is that Foreman, Liston and Tyson had built up an aura of invincibility either through previous performance or through sheer presence or both, and on each occasion it did look as though the title holders were clear favourites. With the exception of the Douglas fight (and maybe even then)some knowledgeable fight figures had predicted the right outcome.

So sorry reggae you arent turning over anything that hasnt been looked at before.

No mention of a quick stoppage?

what's happening, I think as years go by, is that there's a bit of an Ali industry that peddles particular myths to keep it ticking over. All these anniversaries and stuff are about branding. That's not to take away from Ali himself, who had a great career and was a great man IMO, but to sell books / DVDs / other merch to casual sports fans he is becoming almost deified, which is kinda silly. This article is a good read for an alternative take on the Rumble...
http://deadspin.com/how-muhammad-alis-r ... 1652932623

after what foreman did to joe frazier and ken norton,two guys who beat ali,and ali not being the same fighter since the lay off,i believe its still one of the greatest performances and upsets ever

Ali had slowed after his enforced three-year absence but only in terms of movement; the hands were still fast and he built up massive reserves of stamina leading up to Foreman, who had blown away Frazier, Roman and Norton. True, Foreman was brilliantly prepared by Dick Sadler and Archie Moore but nobody in Foreman's camp really expected Ali to survive the early rounds and it all unravelled as Ali refused to buckle. In the end Ali had the balls, the handspeed (he threw a LOT of shots off the ropes), the chin, the slickness and the experience to come through. He was too much of a boxer, too much of a man, for the 1974 version of George Foreman.

I take the points on board but I still think it's one of the most impressive performances on the big stage. Ali was as tough as he was skillful.

However, speaking purely out of ignorance as I wasn't around at the time, why was it accepted to do dealings with such a corrupt African leader??

orbtastic wrote:No mention of a quick stoppage?

I think we should play Granberry bingo...

I'll start. Ali once voiced some opinions that weren't too smart.

orbtastic wrote:No mention of a quick stoppage?

or the succubus? DD

Some good points here.

To broomhall - I know there's nothing new here (not sure anything new could be found on Ali mind). The main pint I was trying to make was that whilst there is no doubt the win is historical; I feel, as another poster points out, that the Ali myth has taken over and brushed over some very pertinent matters that should not be forgotten

Junker wrote:what's happening, I think as years go by, is that there's a bit of an Ali industry that peddles particular myths to keep it ticking over. All these anniversaries and stuff are about branding. That's not to take away from Ali himself, who had a great career and was a great man IMO, but to sell books / DVDs / other merch to casual sports fans he is becoming almost deified, which is kinda silly. This article is a good read for an alternative take on the Rumble...
http://deadspin.com/how-muhammad-alis-r ... 1652932623

That Deadspin article is good stuff, thank you.

Into this cauldron however I think we should add Foreman's doggie & pimp hat combo:



From this we can see that George expected either to sic his doggie on Ali & that would be that, or that Muhammad would be so wowed by the pimp hat he'd just roll over & capitulate.

I think the opening poster is bang on and has constructed a very well informed and well written post.

Sometimes the myth outweighs the reality, not just in boxing but also in various other spheres, particularly when it comes to the 1960's / 70's. That era saw "the best ever" in almost everything from Pele to Ali. The truth is this was the era that saw events become widely available to the public via television and therefore these stars captured the imagination like few others have managed to before or since. Before that era very few got to see the stars, after that era it's the old "things were better in my day" syndrome.

Junker wrote:what's happening, I think as years go by, is that there's a bit of an Ali industry that peddles particular myths to keep it ticking over. All these anniversaries and stuff are about branding. That's not to take away from Ali himself, who had a great career and was a great man IMO, but to sell books / DVDs / other merch to casual sports fans he is becoming almost deified, which is kinda silly. This article is a good read for an alternative take on the Rumble...
http://deadspin.com/how-muhammad-alis-r ... 1652932623

Returning to that article again, it is bloody instructive--watching those In Living Colour & SNL segments--to see how someone who cannot be touched critically these days was viewed post-retirement. I remember reading old boxing encyclopedias as a child & noting the sort of shrugging, cautionary respect paid to Ali, it is weird thinking about it how his long illness & public reticence has created a vacuum that has been filled by unquestioning myth.

I can just imagine the storm of protest about those TV shows now, their irreverent disparaging tone... But there was a time when he was fair game.

Because old racists like to co-opt & propagate the view of Ali when he retired it's sometimes difficult to believe that anybody but old racists ever thought that way about him, but it is important to remember he was a divisive, polarising figure & that the adulation that has grown for him down the years is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Also, he was probably once unkind to a kitten.

PS: Also, that In Living Colour impression of Sugar Ray is, like, the best thing ever.

The Deadspin article is correct, but it doesn't say anything that hasn't been said or acknowledged many times previously.

Much like a lot of mythology surrounding Ali's career & big fights, a new industry seems to have sprung up that enjoys telling us all what we have known for 40+ years.

Junker wrote:what's happening, I think as years go by, is that there's a bit of an Ali industry that peddles particular myths to keep it ticking over. All these anniversaries and stuff are about branding. That's not to take away from Ali himself, who had a great career and was a great man IMO, but to sell books / DVDs / other merch to casual sports fans he is becoming almost deified, which is kinda silly. This article is a good read for an alternative take on the Rumble...
http://deadspin.com/how-muhammad-alis-r ... 1652932623

Interesting point. Didn't Ali sign his likeness away years ago to a sports agency? If so, lots of people stand to make money to keep the narrative going.

reggaereggae wrote:Some good points here.

To broomhall - I know there's nothing new here (not sure anything new could be found on Ali mind). The main pint I was trying to make was that whilst there is no doubt the win is historical; I feel, as another poster points out, that the Ali myth has taken over and brushed over some very pertinent matters that should not be forgotten

It is ever thus with any "legendary" fighter, and why it can be so hard to debate logically with Dempsey or Marciano fans.

It is also interesting to note that the "good guy, bad guy" scenario comes into play-the forces of light-represented by Ali (who bizarrely was/is a member of a racist religious sect) and the dark side represented by Foreman/Liston/Tyson.

Ironically Foreman had waved the US flag at his Olympic games win, whereas Ali had dodged the draft, and remained a Black Muslim -and yet Foreman was the bad guy-to us Brits anyway, I dont know how it played out in the states?

I dont know how this happens-a sort of mass hypnosis I guess?

From the deadspin article:

"The rope-a-dope myth has played an important role in Ali's apotheosis, filling in holes in his resume as a boxer and cultural figure. His career in general is now seen through the prism of his victory over Foreman. Among other things the knockout ratified and deodorized the victories over Liston, though the stink on those fights had always been richly deserved. But the myth itself accomplished the unlikelier feat of reframing Ali's past, which to that point had been unpalatably controversial for many Americans. Skeptics now had to reckon with the saga of a man who'd courageously absorbed the unstinting assault of boxing's most fearsome puncher and come back for a dramatic win. These were the people who'd seen Ali's draft resistance as an act of cowardice instead of a principled stand, who'd looked at Ali—with his hairless body, his self-professed prettiness, his flamboyant personality, his high voice, his lack of interest in anything besides boxing, his less-than-rugged boxing style—and whispered about his sexual orientation, who'd believed that Ali hadn't served his duty to his country or to the ring, having failed to engage in bloody, to-the-death combat on either front. The Foreman fight satisfied those requirements for many, and thus opened the floodgates for the mainstream political acceptance and corporate sponsorship that has for at least 25 years defined Ali's legacy—first President Ford, then the Olympic torch, then the Ali Center, which was made possible by a government land grant. If rope-a-dope was a lie, it at least disabused many Americans of far bigger illusions."


"whispered about his sexual orientation"????

Never heard that one before. Heck, didn't Holmes remark about how many women Ali had around him as a distraction when he was Ali's sparing partner?

zojo, wrote:From the deadspin article:

"The rope-a-dope myth has played an important role in Ali's apotheosis, filling in holes in his resume as a boxer and cultural figure. His career in general is now seen through the prism of his victory over Foreman. Among other things the knockout ratified and deodorized the victories over Liston, though the stink on those fights had always been richly deserved. But the myth itself accomplished the unlikelier feat of reframing Ali's past, which to that point had been unpalatably controversial for many Americans. Skeptics now had to reckon with the saga of a man who'd courageously absorbed the unstinting assault of boxing's most fearsome puncher and come back for a dramatic win. These were the people who'd seen Ali's draft resistance as an act of cowardice instead of a principled stand, who'd looked at Ali—with his hairless body, his self-professed prettiness, his flamboyant personality, his high voice, his lack of interest in anything besides boxing, his less-than-rugged boxing style—and whispered about his sexual orientation, who'd believed that Ali hadn't served his duty to his country or to the ring, having failed to engage in bloody, to-the-death combat on either front. The Foreman fight satisfied those requirements for many, and thus opened the floodgates for the mainstream political acceptance and corporate sponsorship that has for at least 25 years defined Ali's legacy—first President Ford, then the Olympic torch, then the Ali Center, which was made possible by a government land grant. If rope-a-dope was a lie, it at least disabused many Americans of far bigger illusions."


"whispered about his sexual orientation"????

Never heard that one before. Heck, didn't Holmes remark about how many women Ali had around him as a distraction when he was Ali's sparing partner?

He did, but granberry for one always loved insinuating that. I'm not sure if his current incarnation in BOTP has mentioned it...

I'm struggling to see the logic in much of this naïve post.

reggaereggae wrote: Ali was 32 years old. 32. Not some ageing wreck coming back for a beating. And of those 32 years, 3 1/2 were inactive . . . Ali was not old. He was still in his prime.

You are making the mistake of comparing modern fighters boxing twice a year against handpicked opposition, preserving their record & health, with fighters who competed in a polar opposite system. A 32 year old boxer in 1974 was old. 32 having turned pro in 1960 and boxed Liston twice, Cooper twice, Jones, Banks, Chuvalo twice, Patterson twice, Quarry twice, Bonavena, Frazier twice, Ellis, and Norton twice, is an old 32. Not quite the bum-of-the-every-6-to-12-to-18 months campaign that extends our modern champions ad infinitum.

reggaereggae wrote: 2: WEIGHT: Foreman was considered huge, a beast, enormous. Yet a svelte Ali weighed in at 216 1/2 lbs, George at 220 lbs. 3 1/2 lb difference. . . The size factor is no factor.

Are you saying that men of a similar weight must be of the same physical strength? Are you really saying that?

reggaereggae wrote: The location, heat and delay were detrimental to Foreman's camp. He was rather ill prepared.

He had the same horrors out in Caracas with Norton. He bombed Norton in two so that gets neatly swept under the rug. Doesn't aid an argument against Ali.

reggaereggae wrote: 4. FIGHT ODDS: it is often repeated that Ali was given NO chance against Foreman and that this was one of the biggest upsets of all times. But in reality, sports books opened at 3-1 Foreman, and the best price available at any time was 7-1. Ali an outsider, yes. But hardly compares to Buster's 42-1 shot or, to put some local perspective, Khomitsky's 9-1 against Frank Buglioni :-) .

I can't believe that anyone would refute that Muhammad Ali was expected to get killed in the jungle. The contemporaneous print is endless, if you step away from your computer and seek sources beyond Wikipedia and message boards.

reggaereggae wrote: 5. ROPES: famously, Foreman blamed the lose ropes on aiding Ali's rope-a-dope. I agree with him. . . I recently read an article by Ali's people saying they deliberately cut, stretched, loosened the rope for Muhammad's tactic.

Ali was getting the better of Foreman in the centre of the ring. He was too quick and too accurate. He would have won whatever terrain that night, in my opinion. By the way, who are "Ali's people"? Awfully vague. The same people who say Dundee cut Clay's gloves and got him a 5 minute respite? You know, that other thing that never happened?

To summarise, I'm not some Ali fanatic, I am well aware he is a flawed man, and his struggle with his illness has endeared him to most people's heart etc etc. What I'm struggling to understand is why you would write such a long post trying to degrade one of the greatest fights ever when clearly you haven't researched or reflected on it much at all. Weird.

Might watch "When we were Kings " again this weekend. Cracking little documentary and Ali played a lot of mind games on Foreman in build up.

Everything went right for Ali that night. Part of me thinks if there was a rematch, Foreman would've smartened up and beat Ali in a more controlled and careful manner.

Why was there no rematch? I would like to think Foreman tried everything to get Ali to agree to it.

Foreman was relegated to almost a sideshow freak after that fight. He had to resort to fighting five men on the same night and was jeered and laughed at the whole time (with Ali joining in with the heckling from ringside), one of the guys even kissing him and telling him he couldn't hit hard! Then he ended up re-matching a half blind Frazier in a fight nobody was interested in. He also had that amazing up and downer against Lyle where he was on the verge of being KO'd.

It's fair to say he was damaged goods after Ali, insofar as his bubble of invincibility and mask of menace had been unceremoniously stripped from him.

Then he lost to Young and had his religious experience and that's all she wrote.

Can you imagine someone kissing Foreman on the cheek or telling him he couldn't punch prior to Ali? I know Ali kept asking Foreman is that all you got during their fight but nobody had done that prior to that point, nobody.

It would be like Golovkin getting beaten up and stopped against Martinez, then coming back six months later and fighting Michel Mothmora, Latif Mundy, Martin Concepcion, Kassim Ouma and Dashon Johnson on the same night.

Ian1973 wrote:I think the opening poster is bang on and has constructed a very well informed and well written post.

Sometimes the myth outweighs the reality, not just in boxing but also in various other spheres, particularly when it comes to the 1960's / 70's. That era saw "the best ever" in almost everything from Pele to Ali. The truth is this was the era that saw events become widely available to the public via television and therefore these stars captured the imagination like few others have managed to before or since. Before that era very few got to see the stars, after that era it's the old "things were better in my day" syndrome.

Very true.

Most people are romantics at heart and love a good story. The story of a past his prime Ali taking on the unstoppable beast Foreman is a great one.

Its classic pro wrestling booking. One story that always works in wrestling is the one where a new big nasty bad guy comes on the scene and beats up all the fan favourites up and takes the title. Then, a legendary bad guy from the past comes back, to take on the new champ and becomes a massive hero when he beats the big bad champ and wins the belt back.


Ali was a total "bad guy" before Rumble, most people paid to see him get beat, but he did a great "babyface" turn, overcame all the odds to beat Foreman and became a legend.

Who gives a fcuk if some of the actual events dont all fit the story. The big picture is all that counts.

zojo, wrote:

Junker wrote:what's happening, I think as years go by, is that there's a bit of an Ali industry that peddles particular myths to keep it ticking over. All these anniversaries and stuff are about branding. That's not to take awayAliom Ali himself, who had a great career and was a great man IMO, but to sell books / DVDs / other merch to casual sports fans he is becoming almost deified, which is kinda silly. This article is a good read for an alternative take on the Rumble...
http://deadspin.com/how-muhammad-alis-r ... 1652932623

Interesting point. Didn't Ali sign his likeness away years ago to a sports agency? If so, lots of people stand to make money to keep the narrative going.

Yes I believe so. Im sorry to say it but a lot of these people will be rubbing their hands together when he eventually passes away. They can orchestrate a global outpouring of grief and sell special edition box sets of anything bearing his name. Ali was a great fighter but is being turned into a artificial t-shirt / bedroom poster icon like Che Guevara or Malcolm X. Its all about image creation, not reality, which is fine but its not to my taste.