Ali sports century [Archive]

hellfire508

10-10-2006, 02:40 AM

While I do agree the most deserving challenger should be given a shot, its not like Ali faced bums during the second reign. Since you saw the thread over at ESB, I'll just copy a bit of what I said over there:

These are Ali's defences post-Zaire:

1975
Joe Frazier -- (2nd ranked contender at end of 74)
Ron Lyle -- (3rd ranked contender at end of 74)
Chuck Wepner -- (8th ranked contender at end of 74)
Joe Bugner -- (5th ranked contender at end of 74)
Coopman -- (Was a bum)

1976
Jimmy Young -- (2nd ranked contender at end of 75)
Richard Dunn -- (Nothing)
Ken Norton -- (1st ranked contender at end of 75)

1977
Evangelista -- (Nothing)
Earnie Shavers -- (Despite being ranked 6th at end of 75, and not losing a fight in 76, wasn't in the 10 at end of 76 - still very good opponent)

Then we get to Leon Spinks.

_______
That's a bit I did at ESB.

The only fighter who didn't get a shot during that period who deserved one, was George Foreman, who Ali had knocked out anyway (though he still probably deserved one before Young beat him). After George and everyone else Ali faced, the highest ranked contender who didn't get a shot was Bobick. Ali ducked nobody, I don't care who you are, you can't fight the best possible opponent every fight. He was still fighting the best out there, with some lower ranked contenders scattered between the best.

You can look at any heavyweight champion and claim they didn't fight the best contender at that time:
Look at this year: I've picked a year of Louis' reign at random, 1938.
Top ten contenders at the end of 1937 were:

1. Max Schmeling
2. Tommy Farr
3. Nathan Mann
4. Alberto Lovell
5. Tony Galento
6. Jimmy Adamick
7. Lou Nova
8. Bob pastor
9. Roscoe Toles
10. Andre Lenglet

Louis fought against Mann (3rd), then Harry Thomas (nobody), then the rematch with Schmelling (1st).

Then, 1939 came along, and Louis fought John Henry-Lewis, who wasn't in the top 10 contenders. Then Jack Roper, who had almost a 1 for 1 win/loss record, and obviously wasn't ranked, and then Galento. What about Max Baer and Lou Nova? They were the 1st and 2nd ranked contenders, Max was stopped by Nova in June, so that's fair enough (though he should've been faced before Roper, Henry-Lewis and Galento), but why wasn't Nova faced then? He had just beaten the number 2 contender Baer in convincing fashion, but instead Louis faced Pastor, around the same time Nova faced Galento (which he lost anyway).

So basically, I've picked two years at random, and I found that Louis faced tomato cans instead of the top 2 contenders. Yes, the contenders were beaten later in the year, but that's not to say Louis didn't have plenty of opportunity to fight them. Much like Foreman with Ali? Young beat him, but Ali could've faced him prior to that. But big deal? These guys had amazing reigns, thats the bottom line.

Southpaw Stinger

10-10-2006, 08:58 AM

Dempsey 1919

10-10-2006, 12:50 PM

Great post. K coming your way.

Yeah, it was good. I'll k you up also.

Yogi

10-10-2006, 10:32 PM

Great post. K coming your way.

That's not a good post...With comments like "Ali ducked nobody" and other things, that's more of a fanboy's post, who has either ignored, or hasn't gone back and learned about what Ali was (or wasn't) doing behind the scenes and how the boxing public looked at things or how the press reported them.

Also, the comparision to Louis is quite laughable and for a few reasons...

Was there anything even remotely close to the doubt surrounding Louis' supremacy at the top of the division, like there was during Ali's second reign, when many didn't even think he was the best, or even second/third best heavyweight in the division from 1976 on?

Was a boxing organization threatening and continuously threatening to strip Louis from his title for not defending against the number one contender, as was the case throughout all of 1977 and early 1978 with Ali when he refused to face Norton again?

Heck, could you ever see Louis telling the fight reporters that he was "bigger than boxing" when word of the threatened stripping got out, or could you see Louis ever telling an elite contender (that just beat him, I might add...Norton did in '76) to go prove himself again against the top contenders before he's worthy of another title shot, which is exactly what Ali did just after their third meeting?

Was there ever close to the amount of public pressure, press and prestige surrounding those potential fights of Louis' when compared to the degree of another Norton/Ali fight?

Was Louis ever accused even one time in the press (newsparers, magazines, etc.) for ducking those opponents, which Ali was accused of doing many times in 1977/early 78 (accusations can be found dealing with Norton, especially, as well as Young & Foreman to lesser extents...and Bobick, of course)?

That's only a select few differences and those were only of Norton, but...They do not come close to being comparable!

I don't have to "claim" that Ali "ducked anybody", which is something he did, according to those who knew the scene from then a lot better than you or I, and can be easily seen if, as an Ali fan, you pulled your fingers out of your ears ("la, la, la, la, la...Ali is a God") and do some research on his actions, intentions, etc., from that time (post Norton fight, which makes it late '76 to early '78)...Lots of very good resouces available, including many different newspare archives.

Piss or get off the pot.

That'd be my message to Ali from that time...

Piss or get off the ****ing pot!

P.S. If Ali could have gotten things entirely his way, you would have seen such HOF names such as Alfio Righetti & Lorenzo Zanon, and could add them to the names of Dunn & Evangelista). God knows there's much written about those potential matchups, and Ali's efforts in trying to make them happen...especially the potential Righetti fight, which was talked about in the papers for most of 1977.

hellfire508

10-10-2006, 11:22 PM

That's not a good post...With comments like "Ali ducked nobody" and other things, that's more of a fanboy's post, who has either ignored, or hasn't gone back and learned about what Ali was (or wasn't) doing behind the scenes and how the boxing public looked at things or how the press reported them.

Also, the comparision to Louis is quite laughable and for a few reasons...

Was there anything even remotely close to the doubt surrounding Louis' supremacy at the top of the division, like there was during Ali's second reign, when many didn't even think he was the best, or even second/third best heavyweight in the division from 1976 on?

Was a boxing organization threatening and continuously threatening to strip Louis from his title for not defending against the number one contender, as was the case throughout all of 1977 and early 1978 with Ali when he refused to face Norton again?

Heck, could you ever see Louis telling the fight reporters that he was "bigger than boxing" when word of the threatened stripping got out, or could you see Louis ever telling an elite contender (that just beat him, I might add...Norton did in '76) to go prove himself again against the top contenders before he's worthy of another title shot, which is exactly what Ali did just after their third meeting?

Was there ever close to the amount of public pressure, press and prestige surrounding those potential fights of Louis' when compared to the degree of another Norton/Ali fight?

Was Louis ever accused even one time in the press (newsparers, magazines, etc.) for ducking those opponents, which Ali was accused of doing many times in 1977/early 78 (accusations can be found dealing with Norton, especially, as well as Young & Foreman to lesser extents...and Bobick, of course)?

That's only a select few differences and those were only of Norton, but...They do not come close to being comparable!

I don't have to "claim" that Ali "ducked anybody", which is something he did, according to those who knew the scene from then a lot better than you or I, and can be easily seen if, as an Ali fan, you pulled your fingers out of your ears ("la, la, la, la, la...Ali is a God") and do some research on his actions, intentions, etc., from that time (post Norton fight, which makes it late '76 to early '78)...Lots of very good resouces available, including many different newspare archives.

Piss or get off the pot.

That'd be my message to Ali from that time...

Piss or get off the ****ing pot!

P.S. If Ali could have gotten things entirely his way, you would have seen such HOF names such as Alfio Righetti & Lorenzo Zanon, and could add them to the names of Dunn & Evangelista). God knows there's much written about those potential matchups, and Ali's efforts in trying to make them happen...especially the potential Righetti fight, which was talked about in the papers for most of 1977.

Actually, if you read what I said, I didn't deny fighters were deserving of a shot at Ali's title post 74. Foreman did deserve a rematch perhaps, and as I have recently found out, he was the mandatory at one point. Nonetheless, he wasn't faced, and once Young beat him, he was off the scene anyway. As for Norton, I felt he edged the third fight, and possibly should have gotten a 4th match. I'm sure eventually the shot would've been given to Norton. Ali faced Evangalista and Shavers in the 12 months following Yankee stadium, meanwhile Norton faced a couple of guys and then Young in the eliminator bout for the title. Norton won, but Ali lost to Leon Spinks. Ali should've given Norton a rematch in those 12 months prior probably, however, he didn't, and had already faced him 3 times, so it can't be seen as "ducking" in my opinion.
By the way, speaking of Lorenzo Zanon, that was the guy Norton faced after the third Ali fight, wasn't it? :ugh:

And like I said, I was not trying to imply Louis was ducking anybody. I was merely picking a year at random, looking at the contenders and stating whether he faced the top contenders. Tell me, during Ali's second reign, who did the press claim were "better" than Ali, if he was the 3rd best fighter going around? Foreman? Can't be, Ali knocked him out in 8. Frazier? Nope, Ali laid the smackdown in Manila on that 2nd ranked contender. Who else was there? Norton, the 1st ranked contender, who Ali beat in the third fight. Regardless of our opinion on the outcome, Ali officially won the fight, and even if it was the wrong decision, it was a very close fight. Who else was there? Young, Shavers, Lyle? These guys were the top contenders, and Ali beat them. Who else was there? I don't understand?

To answer your question regarding Louis: No, he was not being threatened of being stripped of the title for not fighting the number 1 contender. However, he did go several fights without fighting the top ranked contender. I'm not too familiar with who were the mandatories at the time, so I can't really say. I can only go by who were the top ranked contenders. At the end of 1939, Galento, Pastor, Nova, Farr, Schmelling were the top 5 contenders. Who did Louis fight through 1940? Godoy twice, Paycheck, and McCoy. Of which, only Paycheck was a ranked contender, (6th). Like I said, I am NOT implying Louis ducked anybody, I am merely pointing out that the "best" fighters out there were not always fought by the champions. Sure, he fought them eventually or previously, much like Ali did, but not at the time they were the top contenders.

How about another example? Floyd Patterson? Faced a fighter making his professional debut in one defence. Didn't fight the likes of Machen, or Carter who were the highest ranked contenders (except for Jackson, who Patterson did beat). He then faced Harris and London, who weren't ranked in the top 10 either!

My point is, no champion fights the best available fighters, or highest ranked challenger every fight. Ali included. During that second reign, he did not fight the best every fight, but during the second reign as a whole, he did fight the best at some point during that time, like it or not.

Heckler

10-11-2006, 12:10 AM

Im not going to try deny that Ali took the easy way out at times, by the time he reclaimed the title he had been fighting for over a decade, gone through many a war in the ring and was probably trying to coast through the remainder of his career.

Dempsey 1919

10-11-2006, 01:26 AM

You all are leaving some things out. You are comparing Louis' pre-layoff years, to Ali's post layoff years, which doesn't make any sense. Have you forgotten that Louis' only worthy opponent after the war was Billy Conn? After Conn, he fought Tami Mauriello, who was ranked, but I believe not that highly. Then he fought Walcott twice, someone who many have not even heard of. So Louis' competition is just as dismal as Ali's after their primes, considering that Louis defended only four times. Ali's nine title defenses were just as good as Louis' 21. He fought Sonny Liston a top ten of all-time, Patterson a top 20, Williams a top 30, and good fighters like Folley and Terrell. His worst opponent was Brian London, who I believe was still ranked #9 at the time. The only all-time noteworthy opponents of Louis title run between '37 and 42 was Schmeling, Conn, and maybe Nova, while Ali had Liston, Patterson, Williams and Folley. Louis did fight guys who weren't ranked, like Roper and I believe lewis. SO I would say that Ali's resume is more impressive than Louis'.

SABBATH

10-11-2006, 02:03 AM

Yogi,

Me thinks thou is attempting to flame some of our younger perhaps less informed posters south of the 49th.

Comparing Ali's opponents to those of Joe Louis is apples to oranges because of the eras they fought in. Ali consistantly fought the top fighters of his era and thus can be excused for Dunn and Coopman (Evangelista was rated top 10 from 1976-79 and no worse than some Joe Louis title contenders).

There may have been a demand for Ali-Norton 4 because of Ali-Norton 1,2 & 3. Because of the social atmosphere of the USA in the 30's and 40's, Louis did not have to fight the best available contenders because Joe didn't grant title fight opportunites to the top black heavyweight fighters of his era. That is a fact.

Light-heavyweight John Henry Lewis was a friend of Joe's and got the title fight as a financial favour. Lewis had his boxing licence revoked shortly after the fight when it became known that he was in fact legally blind.

The next black fighter that Louis fought was his last challenger Jersey Joe Walcott who had to fight and defeat most of the other top black heavyweights to get his title shot, and only after obtaining a number one ranking. So from 1937-47 Louis fought one black man, a legally blind light-heavyweight. Sounds to me like Louis drew the color-barrier.

Black heavyweight Jimmy Bivins was rated #1 by Ring Magazine in 1942 and was later considered the 'interim heavyweight champion' when Louis was in the Army. That year, Louis instead of fighting Bivins, rematched with Buddy Baer who earned his rematch by being inactive after already being convincingly defeated in 7 rounds by Louis. And let's not forget that Baer was defeated by black heavyweight Eddie Blunt the same year and two fights before his initial title opportunity against Louis, but hey Blunt was black and Baer was white so who got the title shot?

Bivins would defeat Tami Muriello for the second time in 1943 before going undefeated in 25 fights leading into 1946 before dropping a split decision to Walcott. During the same time frame that Bivins was going undefeated, Muriello would lose two fights before getting a #1 ranking and a 1946 title fight with Louis.

Getting back to Blunt, it's interesting to note that in 1940 Blunt KO'd Tony Musto in 7 rounds. In Musto's next fight he was outpointed by undefeated black heavyweight Buddy Walker (rated #5 in 1940). Musto 'earned' his 1941 title fight with Louis by winning only 2 of his previous 6 fights and just 5 of his previous 14 fights. Musto was likely the second least deserving challenger that Louis fought (more on #1 Jack Roper later). Why was Musto given a title fight instead of Blunt or Walker who had just defeated him? Perhaps because Musto was white and Blunt and Walker were black?

Louis granted a title fight to Abe Simon one month after Simon lost a decision to black heavyweight Jim Thompson. Louis then granted a rematch to Abe Simon who 'earned' his second title fight with Louis by getting floored 4 times and knocked out by black heavyweight Lem Franklin in 5 rounds. But the #2 ranked Franklin was black and Simon was white so Simon got the title shot.

As for Franklin, he went 18-0 with 17 KO's from 1940-41 and defeated Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, Tony Musto and Abe Simon all by KO. During this same time frame, Louis gave title fights to Al McCoy who was coming off two losses, Arturo Godoy who was coming off a loss and was 2-2 in his last 4 fights, and Musto who had just lost Walker, Blunt, Burman and Godoy in his last 6 fights. .

When Billy Conn went into the Army and was inactive from 1942-46 he somehow recieved a #1 heavyweight contender ranking (after being completely absent in the ratings from 1942-44) which lead to his rematch with Louis. Granting Conn #1 contender status after 4 years of inactivity is a joke. During the time that Conn had ZERO fights, black heavyweight contender Elmer 'Violent' Ray was somehow rated below Conn at #4. Not surprisingly, during Conn's period of inactivity, Ray went 47-1 with 40 KO's. So Louis rematched with Conn because of public demand? Fair enough. However, after the Conn rematch Ray would continue on his winning ways going 9-0 with 8 KO's eventually being rated as high as #2, never getting a title shot and eventually dropping a majority decision to Jersey Joe Walcott in 1947 when Ray was 37 years old and now past his prime.

Black heavyweights Roscoe Toles (rated top ten 1937-39) and Jack Trammell would defeat Harry Thomas in 1936 and 1937 before Thomas went on to a 1938 title fight with Louis.

Turkey Thompson (rated top ten 1941-43, 1947) Lee Q. Murray (rated top ten 1943-47) Curtis Sheppard (rated top ten 1943-46) Harry Bobo (rated top ten 1942) are some of the other deserving black heavyweights that Louis never granted title fights to.

Louis closed the door on better qualified black challengers in favour of less deserving white fighters like Al McCoy who 'earned' his title fight with two straight losses. The worst example being the hapless Jack Roper who had been beaten 40 times and suffered 13 KO's before facing Louis in a title fight. And this was Louis in his fighting prime! Why was he fighting such a stiff? This title opponent was so embarassing that afterwards The California State Athletic Commission would be highly criticized for even sanctioning this mismatch.

To Roper's credit he was coming off an impressive (for him) one year 7 fight undefeated streak. Incidentally, the last man to defeat him had been black heavyweight Al 'Big Boy' Bray.

Yogi

10-11-2006, 02:11 AM

You all are leaving some things out. You are comparing Louis' pre-layoff years, to Ali's post layoff years, which doesn't make any sense. Have you forgotten that Louis' only worthy opponent after the war was Billy Conn? After Conn, he fought Tami Mauriello, who was ranked, but I believe not that highly. Then he fought Walcott twice, someone who many have not even heard of.

I made it as far as here, Butterfly, and realized that once again you don't know what your talking about...

Conn = #1 contender when Louis faced him

Mauriello = #1 contender when Louis faced him (most recently beat top 5 ranked, Bruce Wood****)

Walcott = #1 contender when Louis faced him (wasn't given much of a betting chance of beating Louis, but contary to what you believe, was a accomplished heavyweight who beat a number of rated and highly rated heavyweight contenders, was also very well known amongst the boxing community, and certainly was most deserving of the shot given to him)

Those were from the Ring annual rankings from 1945, 1946, and 1947, respectively (Mauriello & Walcott also ranked very highly each year previous...Mauriello #2 in '45, and Walcott #3 in '46.).

Brief and simple...

Now go away.

Yogi

10-11-2006, 04:36 AM

Actually, if you read what I said, I didn't deny fighters were deserving of a shot at Ali's title post 74. Foreman did deserve a rematch perhaps, and as I have recently found out, he was the mandatory at one point. Nonetheless, he wasn't faced, and once Young beat him, he was off the scene anyway. As for Norton, I felt he edged the third fight, and possibly should have gotten a 4th match. I'm sure eventually the shot would've been given to Norton. Ali faced Evangalista and Shavers in the 12 months following Yankee stadium, meanwhile Norton faced a couple of guys and then Young in the eliminator bout for the title. Norton won, but Ali lost to Leon Spinks. Ali should've given Norton a rematch in those 12 months prior probably, however, he didn't, and had already faced him 3 times, so it can't be seen as "ducking" in my opinion.
By the way, speaking of Lorenzo Zanon, that was the guy Norton faced after the third Ali fight, wasn't it? :ugh:

And like I said, I was not trying to imply Louis was ducking anybody. I was merely picking a year at random, looking at the contenders and stating whether he faced the top contenders. Tell me, during Ali's second reign, who did the press claim were "better" than Ali, if he was the 3rd best fighter going around? Foreman? Can't be, Ali knocked him out in 8. Frazier? Nope, Ali laid the smackdown in Manila on that 2nd ranked contender. Who else was there? Norton, the 1st ranked contender, who Ali beat in the third fight. Regardless of our opinion on the outcome, Ali officially won the fight, and even if it was the wrong decision, it was a very close fight. Who else was there? Young, Shavers, Lyle? These guys were the top contenders, and Ali beat them. Who else was there? I don't understand?

To answer your question regarding Louis: No, he was not being threatened of being stripped of the title for not fighting the number 1 contender. However, he did go several fights without fighting

Yes, Foreman was a mandatory of Ali's for some time, and so was Norton in the year (apx) following Foreman loss to Young...by both the WBC & WBA, and was ranked as such well before he fought Young. Norton was also the #1 contender in The Ring, as well. I don't need to tell you that there was a significant amount of time between Ali's mandatories, and I'd be willing to bet that there wasn't another fighter around since the days of boxing organizations (i.e. WBA & WBC and later groups) that was afforded such special treatment from the people in charge of those organizations...And to think that the WBC even had the nerve to threaten the precious Ali with taking the title away from him.

I also thought Norton more than "edged" the third fight with Ali...Not a one-sided fight by no means, but I thought Norton clearly won more rounds and also won his rounds more emphatically (Ali just barely sneaked or stole most of whatever rounds I gave to him rounds, which were only five in total...six if I was being a little bit more generous to Ali, although I think I did give him the benefit in a couple of close rounds already).

Who were better than Ali during that time frame between '76 and '78?

Well, for one, you can find many opinions in both the press, conversation, or from other sources who have watched, and you can see that there are plenty of boxing people (fans from then & now, reporters, etc.) who have the opinion that Ali wasn't any better than Jimmy Young the night he fought him in '76. Ditto for Norton in '76 (especially), and even for Shavers in '77...All the fights were controversial, and I'd betcha if you were to take a poll (Butterfly excluded) from a large group of people who watched all three of those fights, and asked them who they thought won, I'd be willing to bet that Ali comes up on the short end in two, if not all three of those fights...Shavers being the only one that may have gone his way, although I, myself though Shavers won a fairly close one (or "edged" it if you will, 144-142).

The other two?

Besides miss the odd punch he threw and land one at a substancely less rate, Ali did next to nothing against Young, who, although wasn't lighting up the lamp with regularity himself, was more than effective enough in landing a much higher number of punches and at a better rate, as well as better controlling the ring...Young won more rounds, and he won the fight clear enough, in my opinion.

And Norton was pitching what was almost a shutout for the first 9 rounds of the third meeting between him & Ali (and was dominant/very clear winner in most of those rounds), before reducing both his workrate & punchrate...Ali also got some of his legs back, and he increased his activity in the later goings. Still, Ali was only edging the rounds he was winning late, and even then Norton was still winning them late (Last round, especially)...Norton, was more dominant, clearly won more rounds, and won that fight.

Norton and Young were better than Ali the night they fought them, as was Shavers slightly, in my opinion.

Now through 76-78, Ali's only convincing wins were against second, third or fourth rate European "contenders"...whatever you want to call them. He didn't beat Young or Norton, in my opinion, nevermind convincingly. And the Shavers fight certainly wasn't convincing in his favour either, as I personally didn't even think he won.

Nevermind this "official" stuff now...You and I both know the means (video) are there to make up our own minds as to who we think won a fight (from this discussion), and I think we both are good enough judges of what we see on tape/DVD and have each seen enough fights to where we're going to trust our judgement fully...I don't need three "officials" telling me that Jose Luis Ramirez beat Whitaker in their first meeting, when my own eyes & judgement tell me something completely & totally different. Nor will I put any stock in those "official" decisions by the three men (and/or woman) in those cases where I have a clearly view.

But to answer your question as to who was better than that version of Ali...I'm for surely taking both Norton and Young over him, on the strength of both of their respective performances against Ali, their better & more convincing resumes against other top heavyweights from those couple of years, as well as I just flat out think they were & showed that they had better overall ability to fight and better skills than that Ali.

Shavers (who wasn't thought of as highly as Young or Norton...he was a "just good enough" defense from Ali while he sat on the title)?

Little to choose from based off of their fight, but I will take Shavers knockouts over Howard 'KO' Smith, Henry Clark & Tiger Williams over Ali's wins over Evangelista, Dunn, and Coopman...Well, I don't recall ever seeing Smith (he was ranked though), but I have seen Williams, and he certainly looks to me like a better fighter and a tougher fighter to beat than either Evangelista and especially, Dunn or, uhh...Coopman.

That's close.

Heck, in a head-to-head matchup, even the young Larry Holmes from the Roy Williams fight beats Ali, in my opinion, and probably without not much difficulty. Though, I don't base any of my rankings off of unprovable mythical matchups, so I really can't put Holmes over Ali based off of that one win over Williams.

What else?

Oh, Louis...

Again, I don't see the comparision to what was going on then to what was going on with Ali, but I can say that even though Louis may have gone a couple of fights without facing the #1 guy, and war excluded, he certainly didn't go years without facing the top ranked or mandatory challenger (he had the NBA to deal with, and faced the top contder yearly, at the least...McCoy wasn't ranked by The Ring, but he was the 8th ranked heavyweight going into the Louis fight according to them). And those top five guys that you named from that year...Louis just knocked out the numder one contender and in convincing fashion (Galento), who himself had just knocked out the number three or four (Nova). He had also just convincingly knocked out the number two contender too, and had also previous defeated the number four guy (Farr), who went on a losing streak after losing to Louis. And, who else was there...Schmeling?

*scratches head*

I don't see the point or the comparision with the Louis example, Hellfire...I honestly don't.

But Floyd Patterson ducked deserving fighters, yes...No question. Or at least some will tell you it was because of Cus and his feud with the IBC...

Who knows, though, and there's probably various reasons why the likes of Machen, Folley, Williams, etc. never got their shots at Patterson's title.

Cus said to be a bit of a hypocrite though, according to lifelong friend (since the mid 50's) and HOF'er, Reg Gutteridge;

"The oddball manager was also a mass of contradictions because it was well known in the fight game that he kept the company of shady characters, and amongst them were known Mafia bosses and underworld heavies."

Umm...Ok, I don't know what else I left, but I really got to go to bed.

Yogi

10-11-2006, 04:40 AM

Smasher;

I'm old. It's late. I'm tired.

I can't read that right now, nevermind respond to it tonight...but I'll get back to you tomorrow evening at some point.

It is good to see you, though.

SABBATH

10-11-2006, 08:55 AM

Little to choose from based off of their fight, but I will take Shavers knockouts over Howard 'KO' Smith, Henry Clark & Tiger Williams over Ali's wins over Evangelista, Dunn, and Coopman...Well, I don't recall ever seeing Smith (he was ranked though), but I have seen Williams, and he certainly looks to me like a better fighter and a tougher fighter to beat than either Evangelista and especially, Dunn or, uhh...Coopman.. You are aware that Roy 'Tiger Williams' was employed as Ali's sparring partner and was beaten by Richard Dunn?

I'll wait for your response to my previous post....

hellfire508

10-11-2006, 09:51 AM

Bah that post is massive. I really can't be bothered going through the whole damn thing. I'll just skim over it.

Umm, firstly.. I thought Norton beat Ali, but I didn't think Young or Shavers did. We recently had a poll at ESB on Ali-Shavers, Ali won the poll convincingly. A while back was Ali-Young, Ali also won that poll.

I really can't be bothered discussing Louis any more, it was just a random thing I brought up to point out the best available fighter was not always faced, I was never trying to compare the two reigns.

Patterson, yeah, poor effort by him.

Overall, good post, I disagree on the Young and Shavers fights (though I do acknowledge they were very close fights, and I wouldn't protest too much if Young had gotten the decision). But basically, after these long posts, we've gotten nowhere. Ali didn't fight the best possible fight ever fight, which I acknowledged from the start, but I don't see what else there is to argue? He should have given rematches? That's about it.

SABBATH

10-11-2006, 10:14 AM

Hellfire, you might want to read my lengthy post before Yogi's regarding the standard Ali is being held to compared to Louis...

hellfire508

10-12-2006, 08:24 AM

Yogi

10-12-2006, 03:24 PM

You are aware that Roy 'Tiger Williams' was employed as Ali's sparring partner and was beaten by Richard Dunn?

I'll wait for your response to my previous post....

I was aware of the Williams/Ali relationship, yes, but I do admit that I didn't check the records of Dunn & Williams. I see that now...Dunn got the decision over Williams a few years before, which took place in Dunn's hometown...

It was a work!

Nah, I can't say that, because I'm not aware of the specifics of the bout, and it's not all that important in how it pertains to the discussion seeing as how I don't have a strong opinion either way on the point I was trying to make there...Norton, especially, and Young were my answers to Hellfire's questions, whereas Shavers was named as another "close" possibility (the Foreman fans can take up his case he they so choose, but I personally could care less about Foreman).

And...

I see your other lengthier post there, and once again it seems like the only defense for Ali's actual ducking of Norton, is accusations of Louis also doing some kind of ducking.

It may have been with you, but I can remember having a fairly detailed discussion about Louis and the black heavyweight of his time on here. I looked into that then (via the news arhchives and whatnot), and I didn't see anything that stood out or made it even close to obvious that Louis was ducking any black fighters of his day. I mean, sure...Louis defended against some opponents that weren't as qualified as (black AND white heavyweights included), but back then when I did do some contemporary research, I failed to see an strong argument.

This is a completely different situation than the Ali/Norton one, but if you guys are so hell bent on discussing or discrediting Louis and his choice of opponents, then I'll bite and try to defend Louis, I guess.

But in the meantime, without briinging up Louis' name, can somebody actually defend Ali and his "Ali rejects Norton's demands for a rematch" (a fight that the postfight reports show that even Ali and his people had doubts about the decision) "I'm bigger than boxing" (when threatened to be stripped of his title), and his other comments & actions such as him claiming the proven most capable, number one contender didn't deserve a rematch until he defeated the other top ranked contenders?

Ok...I'll get on the Louis subject, although some archived info may have to be looked up again by myself (some specifics I still remember from my previous research, but I don't want to pull a boxrec blunder like I did with Williams & Dunn). I might even have to address each point in seperate posts, as this discussion/post will likely be of some length if I didn't go that route.

Wait, before I get to Louis, a couple of things...

Evangelista wasn't rated at year's end in 1976 from what I see, and considering he did nothing from that time but lose to Zanon before facing Ali, I can't see any reason why he would have been rated as a top ten contdenr by The Ring going into the fight with Ali. I can only assume Evangelista got the ranking in the 1977 end of the year annual on the strength of going the distance with Ali and his picking up the European title...I don't see any evidence to suggest Evangelista was ranked by The Ring before the fight, though.

"There may have been demand for Ali-Norton 4."

No need to use "may" because there WAS demand for another fight and lots of it. Norton demanded it, as did the WBC. The boxing fans demanded it, as they wanted to see the issue settled, etc., etc...It was THE single biggest fight to be made in the division (any division, actually) at the time, and the purses talked about suggest it would have been the highest paying fight in history...Archived readings state purses in the $15 million range, to be split between the fighters.

Ok, moving on...

SABBATH

10-12-2006, 03:54 PM

According to The New York Times:

Nov 6, 1977 "If Muhammad Ali's public declaration in the ring before the fight means what it said, Ken Norton won a fourth shot at the heavyweight champion by winning a razor-close, split decision over Jimmy Young tonight."

Jan 6, 1978, "Muhammad Ali has formally filed an agreement with the World Boxing Council to Fight Ken Norton, thereby avoiding being stripped of the heavyweight championship."

January 8, 1978 "In a flourish of apparent conformity, Muhammad Ali has complied with the World Boxing Council edict that he defend the world heavyweight title against Ken Norton..."

Of course in Ali's next fight he lost to Leon Spings ending the possibilty of Ali-Norton IV.

Ali may have dragged his heels on Ali-Norton IV as Ali's retirement plans back then shifted day to day. Ali was afforded no more leniency than Joe Frazier who didn't grant Ali a rematch while Ali was #1 contender from 1971-73. Joe instead defended against stiffs like Ron Stander and Terry Daniels. No outcry to strip Frazier of his title do I recall...

Yogi

10-12-2006, 05:22 PM

Jimmy Bivins is the first name you brought up, Smasher, but do a timeline on that...Bivins was rated in The Ring rankings as the top contender at 1942 year's end. In 1941, he was no where to be found in their heavyweight ratings.

You are aware Louis was already enlisted in the army at the end of 1942 (when Bivins was ranked), and had been for a year previous?

"The toughest fighter in the world became a soldier of the United States Army here yesterday as Joe Louis, the Negro boy whose battling fists have brought him $2,263,784 and the world's heavyweight championship, enlisted to fight for his country at $21 a month." - Jan 13th, 1941 issue of NY Times

You are aware that the army wouldn't allow Louis to defend the title against anybody from May/June of that year on, aren't you (May reports state that Louis was "likely to be "barred" from defending his title, and after pleading his case, it was only a couple of weeks later that he was officially barred from fighting by the army, with the stipulation being he had to finish basic training first)?

The only fight talked about of Louis' for the remainder of the year was a much anticipated rematch with the very deserving Billy Conn, preliminarily scheduled for the fall of that year, and the only reason that fight was talked about in the first place was because both fighters were in the military and their complete fight purses would have went to benefit the military. But even then that proposed matchup fell through before too long, as the army pulled the plug on that possibility (led by Secretary Stimson)...

Louis wasn't even allowed to fight a charitable event against a fellow soldier (Bivins wasn't, so...the Simon rematch was also a charitable fight between soldiers willing to give their purses for military benefit), who was also his #1 contender and most desevring challenger.

Buddy Baer was ranked ahead of the unranked Bivins in Jan of 1942 (based off the 1941 year end), so...Using a timeline, though, I'd like to hear your case as to why an unranked Bivins should have gotten the shot over a not only higher rated fighter, but an actual ranked fighter...Cause he was black?

Bivins #1 position gained by the end of 1942 appears to be largely based on his work over the last few months of 1942, with wins over contenders like Pastor and Savold...All after the army closed the book on any chance of Louis defending the title.

Had the army not barred Louis from fighting and had allowed him to defend his title through the war years, then yes, Bivins would have had the pedigree and the postion to garner a deserved title shot. But nothing he did before that time suggests he was a "ducked" challenger or anything like that...Nor have I ever found any mention of a possible Louis/Bivins matchup (not even an issued challenge by Bivins) from before the war while searching through the news archives.

We could discuss Bivins deserving a title shot after Louis was discharged from the army in Oct of 1945, but that would leave us with a closed window of only a few months, and after Louis & Conn had already signed a deal to finish their business they started earlier...A big money fight I might add that the boxing public couldn't wait to see happen again (LOADS of anticipation written about in the press in the year or two up to the fight).

By that time Louis was discharged, Bivins' most recent fight was a "close unpopular decision" over some guy named Yancy Henry (Who?), and it wasn't but a few months later when Bivins was getting beat up by Walcott...Yeah, maybe it was a SD for Walcott, but the fight reports don't describe it as being much in the way of a close fight...

"Walcott defeats Bivins.

Bivins was soundly licked all the way. For most ring observers' money, he didn't win more than two of the ten rounds and a big share only gave him one heat."

Worth noting, that in addition to winning the vast majority of the rounds according to "most ring observers", Walcott also knocked Bivins down in the seventh and "battered" him for the rest of the round.

Through the war years when the title was frozen and some of the heavyweights were in the military, Bivins was judged to be the best active heavyweight in the world going by The Ring's ratings (given that same #1 position by the NBA for the first time in July of 1943). That was the only time frame when Bivins was a logical & much deserving challenger to Louis' title, as largely both before and after that period of war, Bivins comes up short.

Ok, that's enough about Bivins for now...

Who's next?

Umm...Eddie Blunt?

Is that the same Eddie Blunt who worked as a sparring partner for Louis, who, during those sessions, was reported to have "battered Blunt", "stagger Blunt" or "BLUNT BADLY BATTERED...Louis halts action against partner after one round" (three quick quotes from three seperate sessions/days)...

"Getting back to" THAT Eddie Blunt?

Yogi

10-12-2006, 05:56 PM

I'm taking a bit of a break, Smasher, and I'll get on with Elmer Ray, who besides Bivins, is said to be the other most deserving black challenger from Louis' time.

I see a 47-1 streak or whatever it was, yet just browsing Ray's record I see absolutely nothing in the way of impressive victories over ranked contenders from that streak...Besides Walcott, which he may not have won from, could you find one ranked contender that Ray beat during that time, because a quick browse didn't show anything to me?

Ray has a bit of a cult following nowadays (some of the stuff written about him nowadays is revisionist history stuff), it seems, but why should Louis have fought him instead of Tami Mauriello?

Mauriello was ranked higher as a contender (and had been for some time), and actually had recent wins over ranked heavyweight contenders when he stepped into the ring with Louis (Wood**** & Oma, to name two...Speaking of "works", those two names together brings up a good & interesting story from Mullan's boxing enclyclopedia).

But Ray was considered for a possible title shot after Louis faced Mauriello, as the pre-fight reports from the first Walcott/Ray fight illustrates that they were clashing for "a shot at Joe".

"The likely next victim to be served up to Joe Louis will be trotted out and put on display for the folks in Madison Square Garden tomorrow night." - Washington Post, Nov 15th, 1946

Victim trotted out?

That's some pretty derogatory terms for a fighter who Louis was supposedly ducking, but who knows...It might be indictive of the boxing public's views on Ray.

Now, Ray was given the nod in that fight from the judges, but was said to have "failed to impress" in doing so. I don't know if the fight was unfairly judged or whatnot, but I do know that Ray "failed to impress" so much that the N.B.A stated that neither fighter were worthy of a title shot and left the #1 contender spot open when their next quarterlies came out ("No logical contender").

Ray & Walcott fought a rematch three months later, Walcott knocked Ray down three times in Ray's hometown, and yet still could only come home with a majority decision.

The better black heavyweight at the time got the next shot at Louis.

P.S. Looking over Ray's record again, I still don't see a ranked conteder that was defeated by him during that three year streak of his.

SABBATH

10-12-2006, 10:19 PM

I will try and revisit this when I have more time but let me state that I have never said Louis 'ducked' anybody. I was quite clear that Ali and Louis came from two different eras and a comparison to the two fighters in terms of challengers was "apples to oranges".

Black heavyweights in the Louis era did not get the same opportunities afforded white heavyweights. It was a sign of the times. Many were avoided and those white heavyweights that did fight and lose to them were able to rebound immediately with title fights against Louis like Bear, Simon, and Musto did.

I also have never stated that any of the black heavyweights that Louis did not fight would have beaten him, although there is always that possibilty especially when talking about punchers like Ray and Franklin.

There is a clear double standard here. Black fighters miss out on their title opportunities due to one loss or a "failed to impress" win as was the case in Ray-Walcott. Never mind that white fighters were granted title fights with Louis coming off of losses as was the case with McCoy and Godoy (sounds like a comedy team...McCoy and Godoy, I like that) .

Louis as far as I'm concerned also 'failed to impress' in his fight with Walcott. In fact he 'failed to win' IMO.

Elmer Ray doesn't have any notable wins during his 47-1 40 KO's stretch besides Walcott? Ray also KO'd Lee Savold in 2 rounds during this run. Do you think an explosive puncher like Ray just might have been avoided at this time by a guy like Mauriello who had been decked by John Thomas, Lee Oma, Joe Baksi, Lee Savold (twice), Lou Nova, Jimmy Bivins and Gus Lesnevich?

I would take those wins over Walcott and Savold over Mauriello's KO of Bruce Wood**** (sorry can't help smirking at that name). Wood****'s resume is pretty shallow and his #5 ranking was likely based on his undefeated record at the time. All of his fights were in England leading up to his Mauriello loss and I question if the powers that be responsible for his rating had ever seen him fight. I don't quite see how this win elevates Mauriello to #1, unless he was being groomed for a title fight which appears to be the case.

Looking at Mauriello's record during this time, I fail to see him take a risk against Walcott, Lee Q Murray or Ray. You can make a case for Mauriello being rated #1 at the end of 1945, but he had been twice defeated by Bivins who had wins at this time during his own undefeated run against Lee Q Murray X2, Curtis Sheppard and Melio Bettina. Bivins also should have been rated higher than Mauriello IMO.

Eventually Bivins lost decisions to Walcott, Murray and Charles but that is the inevitable when you face the best black contenders. I can't envision Mauriello coming out on the winning end of multiple fights against the likes of Walcott, Murray and Charles.

As for newspaper accounts I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the newspaper accounts of Ray being trotted out as a 'victim'. The same things were being said about the 10-1 underdog Walcott, which was completely unfair when looking at his resume. It appears that outside of Louis, black heavyweights weren't afford a great deal of respect in the media during this time.

Again, a sign of the times.

Always a slice Yogi. I will try to revisit this later as I would like to discuss Lem Franklin, although this discussion should have taken place over at our other water cooler...

Dempsey 1919

10-12-2006, 11:11 PM

Wow! See? That's why I love this forum. All this information is very interesting, and I commend both Sabbath and Yogi for making this very enjoyable. Good k for both guys!:boxing:

SABBATH

10-16-2006, 06:42 PM

Louis wasn't even allowed to fight a charitable event against a fellow soldier (Bivins wasn't, so...the Simon rematch was also a charitable fight between soldiers willing to give their purses for military benefit), who was also his #1 contender and most desevring challenger.
I'm scratching my head over why or how exactly Abe Simon was granted a rematch with Louis.

Simon was KO'd in 13 rounds by Louis in March 1941. Then in October 1941 Simon was KO'd by black heavyweight Lem Franklin in 5 rounds being floored in 4 different rounds. Franklin's win over Simon "strengthened his claims for a chance at Joe Louis's crown" according to the New York Times.

"FRANKLIN HALTS SIMON IN FIFTH; Finishes New York Giant in Eight Rounds Less Than It Took Louis to Turn Trick

CLEVELAND, Oct. 20 (AP) -- Lem Franklin, 201, of Cleveland, scored a fifth-round technical knockout over 255-pound Abe Simon of New York in their scheduled ten-round match at the Arena tonight, to strengthen his claims for a chance at Joe Louis's crown.

Now Franklin was no journeyman. Going into the Simon fight, Franklin had 23 KO's in 27 wins and the Simon win was his 18th KO in his last 19 fights. The decisive Simon KO elevated Franklin's ranking to #2 in the world behind the #1 rated Billy Conn who had already been KO'd by Louis in June of that year. Should getting KO'd in a gallant effort in a title justifiably make Conn the #1 contender? Incidentally, Simon was rated #5 at the end of 1941 after getting KO'd by Franklin.

The Simon KO capped of an excellent run by by Franklin who went 18-0 with 17 KO's during which time from 1940-41 he defeated among others Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, Tony Musto and as previously mentioned Abe Simon with all wins coming by KO. During this same time frame, Louis granted title fights to Al McCoy who was coming off two losses, Arturo Godoy who was coming off a loss and was 2-2 in his last 4 fights, and Musto who had just lost Walker, Blunt, Burman and Godoy in his last 6 fights. Simply put, none of those fighters were more deserving of a title shot than Franklin

So Lem Franklin was rated higher than Simon. Lem Franklin convincingly knocked Simon out 5 rounds. Lem Franklin was on an impressive winning streak. Joe Louis had already knocked Simon out.

WHY DID ABE SIMON GET A SECOND TITLE FIGHT WITH JOE LOUIS INSTEAD OF LEM FRANKLIN?

Dempsey 1919

10-16-2006, 06:55 PM

I'm scratching my head over why or how exactly Abe Simon was granted a rematch with Louis.

Simon was KO'd in 13 rounds by Louis in March 1941. Then in October 1941 Simon was KO'd by black heavyweight Lem Franklin in 5 rounds being floored in 4 different rounds. Franklin's win over Simon "strengthened his claims for a chance at Joe Louis's crown" according to the New York Times.

"FRANKLIN HALTS SIMON IN FIFTH; Finishes New York Giant in Eight Rounds Less Than It Took Louis to Turn Trick

CLEVELAND, Oct. 20 (AP) -- Lem Franklin, 201, of Cleveland, scored a fifth-round technical knockout over 255-pound Abe Simon of New York in their scheduled ten-round match at the Arena tonight, to strengthen his claims for a chance at Joe Louis's crown.

Now Franklin was no journeyman. Going into the Simon fight, Franklin had 23 KO's in 27 wins and the Simon win was his 18th KO in his last 19 fights. The decisive Simon KO elevated Franklin's ranking to #2 in the world behind the #1 rated Billy Conn who had already been KO'd by Louis in June of that year. Should getting KO'd in a gallant effort in a title justifiably make Conn the #1 contender? Incidentally, Simon was rated #5 at the end of 1941 after getting KO'd by Franklin.

The Simon KO capped of an excellent run by by Franklin who went 18-0 with 17 KO's during which time from 1940-41 he defeated among others Willie Reddish, Eddie Blunt, Jimmy Bivins, Curtis Sheppard, Tony Musto and as previously mentioned Abe Simon with all wins coming by KO. During this same time frame, Louis granted title fights to Al McCoy who was coming off two losses, Arturo Godoy who was coming off a loss and was 2-2 in his last 4 fights, and Musto who had just lost Walker, Blunt, Burman and Godoy in his last 6 fights. Simply put, none of those fighters were more deserving of a title shot than Franklin

So Lem Franklin was rated higher than Simon. Lem Franklin convincingly knocked Simon out 5 rounds. Lem Franklin was on an impressive winning streak. Joe Louis had already knocked Simon out.

WHY DID ABE SIMON GET A SECOND TITLE FIGHT WITH JOE LOUIS INSTEAD OF LEM FRANKLIN?

Very good points, Sabbath. Did you look at my newest Who's # 1 thread? :D

Yogi

10-16-2006, 08:24 PM

Smasher;

Sorry for the delay in responding, but with me being on a stretch of working 10-12 hours a day & 7 days a week, I just haven't had the time to post much as of late.

I'll try to respond to a few points while I have the time, though, so...Umm?

No, odds are black heavyweights didn't get the same opportunities that the white heavyweights had (financial/gate attraction being one of them), but I still fail to see a black heavyweight from that time that was most deserving of a title shot...There were probably some black heavyweights that were better than some of Louis' more 'optional' defenses against white heavyweights, but I don't think these leading black heavyweights were neccessarily better than the more deserving white challengers of Louis' reign, or were in a definate position to challenge Louis...It's certainly doesn't look anything close to the cases of a Peter Jackson, a Sam Langofrd, or a Harry Wills, who were all THE most deserving challenger to the heavyweight title at their respective times.

Yes, Louis failed to impress against Walcott the first time, but unlike Ali when he was given a controversial decision against Norton in their third fight, Louis immmediately sought a rematch with Walcott (Louis was "disgusted" with his performance and wanted to set things straight) and granted him one a short time later.

And yep...I did say Elmer Ray didn't have any wins against fellow contenders during that streak, save the Walcott fight which he may or may not have gotten the best of things. Lee Savold is a quality name to have on your resume if you were a contender in that era, but he was in and out of the ratings at that time, and had been out of them for a couple/few years when he fought & lost to Ray...It's worth noting also that the Ray/Savold fight happened over a month and a half AFTER Louis had already signed to defend against the number one contender, Tami Mauriello (a fight that took place only three weeks after Ray/Savold). That Savold win for Ray would have had NO bearing on him getting a title shot over Mauriello, as is the case with Ray's "win" over Walcott (took place months after the Louis/Mauriello fight).

Hindsight may tell us that Wood**** wasn't much, but at the time Mauriello beat him he was one of the leading contenders, as was Lee Oma when Mauriello had taken two out of three the year previous to challenging Louis...

Mauriello had recent wins against ranked contenders at the time he faced Louis, which enabled him to keep his very high ranking that he had over the last few years, whereas Elmer Ray had zilch, nadda...NONE.

Ray...Pfft. He may have been good, or possibly(?) even very good with his aggressive, bob-and-weave, and hard hitting style, but I fail to see why he SHOULD have been given a title shot at the time over a higher ranked, Mauriello, or even later on...Walcott was the best of the post war black heavyweights, and had proven so by defeating the other leading black heavyweights of the day. Walcott recieved the #1 contender spot and was most deserving of his title shot, thus Louis defended against him twice.

Yogi

10-16-2006, 08:40 PM

WHY DID ABE SIMON GET A SECOND TITLE FIGHT WITH JOE LOUIS INSTEAD OF LEM FRANKLIN?

Probably because both fighters were a part of the army and had agreed to donate their purses to the Army Fund. If that fight was anyhting like Louis' rematch with Baer, odds are the army asked the fighters in advance in they were willing to give up their purses for the fight...

Besides, Lem Franklin had already been knocked out by Bob Pastor in a title eliminator of sorts, even before Louis had signed for the charitable defense/rematch against Simon (two days before, actually). There were talks that the winner of Pastor/Franklin would go on to face Louis, and judging by the fact that there were some brief talks of another Louis/Pastor fight in 1942, I've gathered that to be the truth...Had Franklin defeated Pastor, and had the circumstances of the world been different, I could see him being in a title fight with Louis during that year.

But I will say that, even though he might not have been as good as Bivens or Ray, Franklin seems to have been in the best position for a possible title shot when considering the timeline and everything else. Doesn't mean I think he SHOULD'VE gotten one, though, just because he may have been better than a Jack Roper or somebody like that who also got a title shot.

Yogi

10-16-2006, 08:42 PM

By the way, Smasher;

Our old buddy there, Mike Tyson, should be utterly ashamed of himself for not once fighting against a white heavyweight during any of his title defenses.

SABBATH

10-16-2006, 11:08 PM

The Ali-Norton Louis-Walcott comparison once again is apples to oranges. Walcott was unquestionably the #1 contender, having beaten most of the other top heavyweights of his era. He remained #1 after the first Louis fight likely as a combination of his strong showing against Louis and his pre-title fight resume.

Walcott had a stronger showing against Louis than Norton did against Ali, dropping Louis twice and actually getting more points than Walcott on the card of judge Frank Forbes, who in error wrote on the back of his card that Louis was the winner. The error cost Walcott the heavyweight championship. Walcott afterwards filed a protest with the State Athletic Commission who denied the reversal of the decision Walcott sought and a rematch was granted instead.

The New York Times:

Dec 9, 1947 The State Athletic Commission yesterday rejected the request of Jersey Joe Walcott for a reversal of the decision which enabled Joe Louis to, retain his world heavyweight title in last Friday night's controversial bout in Madison Square Garden.

Although his loss to Ali was disputed, Norton didn't have a comparable resume as Walcott did to justify being the #1 contender after Ali-Norton III and forcing an immediate rematch.

George Foreman had blown Norton out two years earlier and in 1976 Foreman had just convincingly beaten Joe Frazier for the second time and had a KO win over Ron Lyle in back to back fights. Add to the fact that George was the ex-champion and I would say Foreman was far more deserving of #1 contender status and a fight with Ali than Norton.

Norton's resume in fact is quite shallow from 1974-76, with a washed up Jerry Quarry his best win.

Had Norton and company been fighting in the Joe Louis era, Norton likely would have had to fight and defeat (probably more than once) the other top black heavyweights dotting the top ten landscape from 74-76 like Ron Lyle, George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Earnie Shavers, and Larry Holmes to earn his #1 status as Walcott had to.

Suddenly I don't envision Norton being the #1 ranked heavyweight.

The New York Times:

"Ali Scoffs at Rematch, Urging Norton to Beat Foreman First; Ali: No Rematch Unless Norton Beats Foreman

Sep 30, 1976 Calling George Foreman the "rightful contender" for his world heavyweight title, Muhammad Ali rejected a demand by Ken Norton yesterday for an immediate rematch."

Foreman then went and blew his chance at a title fight when he lost to Jimmy Young 6 months after Ali-Norton III and retired. With Foreman gone, it now was Young and Norton who met to decide who was the #1 contender. After Norton won (debatable decision IMO) he appropriately established himself as the #1 contender, and the wheels were in fact in motion for Ali-Norton IV.

Again, according to The New York Times:

Nov 6, 1977 "If Muhammad Ali's public declaration in the ring before the fight means what it said, Ken Norton won a fourth shot at the heavyweight champion by winning a razor-close, split decision over Jimmy Young tonight."

Jan 6, 1978, "Muhammad Ali has formally filed an agreement with the World Boxing Council to Fight Ken Norton, thereby avoiding being stripped of the heavyweight championship."

January 8, 1978 "In a flourish of apparent conformity, Muhammad Ali has complied with the World Boxing Council edict that he defend the world heavyweight title against Ken Norton.

Yogi

10-18-2006, 09:07 PM

Sabbath;

Walcott probably had the better quantity on his resume before facing Louis, which helped him climb the rankings as a proven & plenty capable heavyweight...But Norton had that win over Ali from a few years earlier (and a strong performance in losing a very close rematch), which already showed that Norton could compete with and defeat the very best heavyweights of his time.

Yes, Norton lost to Foreman two/three years earlier, but a loss to Foreman looks better than a loss to one, Johnny Allen, who Walcott lost to less than three years before challenging Louis.

I also can't say for sure that Walcott's performance against Louis the first time around, was any better than Norton's performance in the third Ali fight...Don't have the full fight to judge in with accuracy (only about 15-20 minutes worth), and I've 'heard' that the full fight is no longer available in it's entirely, or all that close to it's entirely...Walcott did score a couple of legitimate knockdowns of Louis though (as well as him getting the better of things from what I've actually seen), so if you, yourself are confident in saying Walcott performed slightly better than did Norton, then hey, I won't argue otherwise, although I 'think' the difference would be quite minimal (both Walcott, based on the available info, and Norton should have won those fights, and by a clear enough margin).

And yes, before losing to Young, Foreman was the former champion, was again the mandatory challenger to Ali's title, and by all rights deserved his shot at Ali again. There's certainly an argument there for Foreman being ducked by Ali, but that one is for those who are fans of the big dope, which, I'm afraid, I am not.

Norton was already the number one contender before facing Young, and had been for some time (post Young/Foreman...Foreman had the position up 'til that point). And that #1 position was unanimous, whether you ask the WBC, the WBA, or The Ring...

"Bobick was undefeated with a 38-0 record and beat Larry Holmes in the 1972 Olympic Trials; Norton rated No. 1 contender by WBC and WBA."

Incidentally, right after the Bobick fight the Washington Post published a story which once again showed Ali's refusal to meet Norton again ("No Norton Bout, Champ Says" reads the heading).

That's just not right, especially when one considers that Norton had just defeated Ali according to most opinions, as well as being the mandatory number one contender according to all sources and had been for some time...What ticks me off more than anything, is that Ali was allowed to fight for so long without making a mandatory defense against either Norton or Foreman. Ali's last defense against a mandatory was versus Frazier in the Thrilla...That was October of 1975. The organizations seemed to have allowed Ali very special treatment in making his own matches at his own convinience, and it wasn't over until two years after making his last mandatory, when the WBC finally came forward and pressured Ali. Just the fact that the WBC felt the need to threaten Ali shows that Ali's lack of *something* must've been a serious problem.

I also don't put any relevance into Ali signing something before the Spinks fight, especially when he already had a fight set up, and had already plenty of opportunities to defend againt the much deserving, Ken Norton, who had already defeated Ali in a title fight according to most who have seen or saw the fight. Ali also didn't express much interest in facing Norton after the Spinks fight either, as evidence by his public begging for the rematch with Spinks (hypocrite he is...Foreman related comment, as you know), which was a plea that came only a couple of days after Norton had agreed to take a $200,000 payday againt Spinks for either a May or June title fight. Ali could've sat back, let Norton take care of Spinks for a title he should've been awarded in 1976, and then meet the new champion in the fall of that year, which would have fit perfectly into the schedule Ali made for himself at that time. But nope...Ali went out of his way and did/said everything possible to ensure the Norton/Spinks fight didn't happen. Even after defeating Spinks in the rematch, Ali didn't express much interest in defending against the most deserving challngers or even a single deserving challnger...Mike Rossman?

Heck, even though this is something that I don't believe in, there are some opinions out there that state Ali threw the first fight with Spinks.

Ali didn't want any part of Norton after their third meeting, and I think the available evidence suggests exactly that.

But getting back to Louis and only because you dragged me into it, there was one statement made very early in the discussion by you, Smasher, that I'm still having a tremendous amount of trouble with...

"Louis did not have to fight the best available contenders because Joe didn't grant title fight opportunities to the top black heavyweights of his era. That is a fact."

Besides your mention of a few blacks being better than a couple of Louis' lesser title opponents who were white, which was a given and goes without saying, I've yet to see you expand on your supposedly "fact"ual statements there...

Pre-War, what black heavyweights would you say were better or more accomplished than the likes of Tommy Farr, Max Schmeling, Bob Pastor, Lou Nova, Billy Conn, etc...Lem Franklin?

Post-War, if Jersey Joe Walcott wasn't the best contender, and also the best black contender, then who the hell was?

i.e. I think you're wrong to say those things for the most part (Bivins the exception, but Louis had very little to do with Bivins not recieving a shot...WW II was to blame for that, and it had nothing to do with "Joe didn't grant title fight opportunities"), and also to run those statements off as being "fact", when they're anything but factual.

wmute

10-18-2006, 10:07 PM

I would like to thank Yogi and SABBATH for the info, but...

what's the point of the argument?

Dempsey 1919

10-19-2006, 10:35 AM

Yogi

10-19-2006, 02:07 PM

Good points, Yogi, but I wouldn't blame Ali because he was a shot fighter after Manila and shouldn't have been in the ring at that time. Louis However, although past his best, had some good years left in him, since he was not engaged in hard fights like Ali was.

Whether Ali was shot or not is pretty much irrelevant, Butterfly, because as the world champion he had an obligation to defend against the most worthy challenger and to do so within a set time period (both WBC & WBA have and have had the same rule where the champion must make a mandatory defense at least once every year)...

Yes, Ali WAS to blame for the number one contender(s) not getting a title shot at him for a period of time that well exceeds the time period the organizations allow/allowed.

Wmute, apparently I've been sucked into yet another 'Louis versus Ali' discussion (favourites listed first; our selection in bold type), although this one is at least different than the normal & unprovable mythical matchup discussions that go on.

Dempsey 1919

10-19-2006, 02:36 PM

Whether Ali was shot or not is pretty much irrelevant, Butterfly, because as the world champion he had an obligation to defend against the most worthy challenger and to do so within a set time period (both WBC & WBA have and have had the same rule where the champion must make a mandatory defense at least once every year)...

Yes, Ali WAS to blame for the number one contender(s) not getting a title shot at him for a period of time that well exceeds the time period the organizations allow/allowed.

Yes, I understand that, Yogi. But IMO a figthers greatness should be mostly based on accomplishments in their primes. Some fighters burn out quicker than others. But a fair judgment would be to look at their peak performances and opponents when they were at their peak, or close to it. So...

Primes:

Ali

1964-1967

Louis

1938-1942

or...

When they weren't too green, and weren't too shot.

Ali

1962-1967, 1970-1975

Louis

1935-1942, 1946-1948

SABBATH

10-19-2006, 06:18 PM

Yogi,

Let me clarify a few points. Ali won the title in October 1974. Foreman didn't get the immediate rematch nor do I recall a demand for one from Foreman's camp. Instead Foreman chose to be inactive for all of 1975 which saw him drop in the ratings to the #4 position.

Feb 20, 1975, Muhammad Ali, the world heavyweight boxing champion, disclosed yesterday that negotiations were under way for a title defense against George Foreman later this year in an "ancient setting" that closed-circuit TV promoters identified as Cairo."

Instead, Ali made his mandatory #1 defence against Joe Frazier in October 1975, within the 1 year period.

In 1976 Norton was the #1 mandatory defence and Ali met that obligation when he defended against Norton in September. Two years as champion and two mandatory challenges met. So far so good.

Now a quick few words about Ali-Norton III. You've made reference to Norton "defeated Ali according to most opinions". I'm not sure whose opinions you are relying on specifically however, after the fight a ringside poll between the top 22 boxing scribes had an even split 11 and 11 as to who won the fight. The scoring was very close and left room for debate but so are alot of fights between a boxer and an aggressor where there are no knockdowns, no fighter is visibly hurt and both guys left the ring basically unscathed. See Leonard-Hagler for example.

In any event Ali was deemed the winner by those that mattered most, the three judges and Norton became the #2 contender and Foreman became the new #1 mandatory. Ali then had a year which would have been September 1977 to defend against Foreman.

Nov 23, 1976, The on-again, off-again retirement of Muhammad Ali is apparently off again. The heavyweight champion announced his retirement from boxing last month in Turkey after defending his title against Ken Norton. Yesterday in Houston Ali said he wanted to fight the former champion, George Foreman.

Dec 14, 1976, Herbert Muhammad, manager of Muhammad Ali, has given Don King, the promoter, 90 days to raise the money for an Ali-George Foreman fight, and Ali has agreed to the fight as his next bout, King said yesterday.

By all intents and purposes it looked like Ali-Foreman was transpiring for 1977 until Foreman went and lost a tune-up fight to Jimmy Young in March. Now we're back to Norton being #1 and a mandatory challenger. This gives us a 6 month window for the fight to take place within the year which it did not as Ali defended against Earnie Shavers instead, the next hardest punching heavyweight after Foreman retired. Not the mandatory challenger granted, but no soft touch either.

The WBC then made Norton-Young a WBC Eliminator fight when Ali did not defend against the mandatory #1 which up until March of that year had been the now retired Foreman. After Norton-Young Ali announced he would fight the winner and later filed an agreement with the WBC to defend against Norton. Once again.

Nov 6, 1977 "If Muhammad Ali's public declaration in the ring before the fight means what it said, Ken Norton won a fourth shot at the heavyweight champion by winning a razor-close, split decision over Jimmy Young tonight."

Jan 6, 1978, "Muhammad Ali has formally filed an agreement with the World Boxing Council to Fight Ken Norton, thereby avoiding being stripped of the heavyweight championship."

January 8, 1978 "In a flourish of apparent conformity, Muhammad Ali has complied with the World Boxing Council edict that he defend the world heavyweight title against Ken Norton."

So by the time Ali fought Spinks in February 1978 it had been 17 months since he made a mandatory defence, not 2 years and Norton had been the #1 contender since March, again not 2 years (I'm assuming Norton was granted that position immediately after #1 rated Foreman lost to Young). The WBC then granted Ali an extension to defend against Norton. I believe it was supposed to take place 90 days after the Spinks fight which Ali lost anyway.

So in reality in February 1978, Ali was 5 months past when he should have made his mandatory defence which isn't a great length of time when you look at Ali's two predecessors.

Ali was #1 contender after losing to Frazier in 1971 and held that position (save for the 6 months between Norton I & 2) until October 1974, a lengthy 3 1/2 years. Frazier chose to defend against Stander and Daniels and the lower rated Foreman in the 22 months after the Ali fight. No threat of Frazier being stripped do I recall.

Foreman won the title in January 1973 and didn't face the mandatory challenger Ali until October 1974, 21 months later. No threat of Foreman being stripped do I recall.

As for Ali wanting an immediate rematch with Spinks, why wouldn't he? Many champions are granted return matches after losing their title. Ali was old by boxing standards and likely wanted immediate revenge as opposed to sitting back and waiting in the wings while growing older. Whose to say Ali wouldn't have been frozen out by Don King/WBC (one and the same) for another year or more, especially when the Don King managed Larry Holmes was waiting in the wings. Why criticize a long standing champion for wanting an immediate return match after losing his title on a split decision?

Why all the fuss?

After defeating Spinks in the rematch, Ali didn't express much interest in defending against the most deserving challengers because he retired.

Ali fought every formidable and notable heavyweight contender during the 1970's and beat them all. The quality of his opposition isn't questionable as far as heavyweight champions go.

Even when Ali came out of retiremement, he turned down $8,000,000 to fight WBA champion Mike Weaver (after a $250,000 cash advance) in favour of the same payday against the better more formidable Larry Holmes.

Even when Ali continued to fight on well past being shot it was against Trevor Berbick, the only challenger who had lasted 15 rounds with Holmes, who had just knocked out ex-champ John Tate the previous year and would derail #1 contender Greg Page the following year.

Ali certainly never lacked *something*.

Yogi

10-19-2006, 10:14 PM

Smasher;

You're under the impression that Norton was the mandatory (WBC & WBA) when he fought Ali for the third time, but that was not the case...After losing to Ali in Zaire, Foreman was installed as the number one contender and had that position up until mid 1975 when he was dropped due to inactivity, which caused Frazier to be bumped up to that position. When Frazier lost in the Thrilla it was again Foreman who was in the number one or mandatory position, which was a position he held up until the loss to Young in early 1977. It was only then when Norton became the top contender by both the WBC & WBA, and that was the position held until 1978...

I know the Ring rankings from 11 months before the third Norton/Ali fight (winner listed first, of course) suggest that Norton was the mandatory, but it was really Foreman who had the top position when that third fight happened between Norton & Ali.

My comment about "most observers" thinking Norton won, is a general one based largely on the amount of opinions that I've heard/read over the years. Whether it be opinions of boxing fans, writers, or whoever...the opinions I have come across over the years have sided with Norton as the winner of the fight, and it's not by a small margin. In fact, I can remember reading an opinion about a year ago saying that he/she thought Ali won the fight, and I was like "Wow, that's rare"...Apparently, if TKO11's CBZ post is true and it should be because he gave a source (I've also posted with him to a limited extent in the past at **********, and he knows a great deal about the sport), even Ali didn't think he won the fight ("Yeah, I lost...I got beat."). That same or similiar opinion is illustrated to a lesser extent in the NY Times from a day or two after the fight, when the article expresses some doubt that Ali & his corner thought he won the fight.

And once again, I don't put any stock into Ali signing something in Jan of 1978, as we can both find quite a few instances where he stated his intentions on fighting somebody only to see him change his plans for whatever reason (whether it be Norton, Foreman, Bobick, etc.), Ali's actions in the year previous to that suggests he didn't want to fight Norton again, as does his actions following the loss to Spinks.

You can find quotes from Ali stating beforehand that he'd meet the Norton/Bobick winner in what was supposed to be yet another "elimination" fight for Norton;

"Madison Square Garden announced it has signed Duane Bobick and Ken Norton for a 12-round elimination bout." - Washington Post, Dec 7th, 1976

Yet after Norton bounced those right hands off of Bobick, you can then find quotes stating "No Norton Bout, Says Champ".

On a sidenote of interest, going into that Norton/Bobick fight Ali had predicted a win for Bobick..."He (Ali) predicted Bobick would beat Norton, but lose to Foreman" - Indiana Gaztette, Dec 7th, 1976.

Had Ali defeated Spinks in their first meeting, I'm fairly confident that the title would have been split up anyways with the WBC stripping Ali of that title.

Speaking of the Spinks loss...Of course Ali is going to want a rematch and with his begging & pleaing, he expressed that wish quite well. But he wouldn't have lost any time out of his schedule had he waited for Norton's rightful accent to the title...Like I said earlier, the Norton/Spinks fight was talked about taking place in May or June, which would've gave Norton enough time to get ready for a fight with Ali in the fall...

"THE spectacle of the former heavyweight champion of the world going on network television to beg for Ken Norton's shot at the title was embarrassing."

Norton's shot at the title, is ****ing right...and to me, Ali's display shows much fear that Norton would defeat Spinks, which takes away his only chance of regaining the title.

I'm not sure how much pressure Frazier had recieved from the orgs to defend against the top challenger, but I do recall a Foreman/Quarry discussion on here before (may have been elsewhere), and I defintely do recall Foreman getting some "hurry up and sign" pressure to defend again either Quarry or Ali, and I believe that pressure was put forth in the late months of 1973...The NY Times should have a little something on that, as I believe that's where I saw the quote.

Also there's some conflicting reports on the Foreman/Norton fight;

"This win (first Ali fight) earned Norton the number one contender spot, which he kept until Ali reversed the decision later that year. During the interim, Norton had agreed to fight Foreman for the title, regardless of the Ali rematch result."

If that was the case then Foreman did sign to defend againt the number one contender at the time, although more than one contemprary report states that the Foreman/Norton fight wasn't officially signed until mid-December of 1973 (both the NY Times & Washington Post indicate the bout was signed on Dec 18th and the Post confirmed the signing on the 20th). I'll believe the latter.

Why all the fuss?

I really have no idea...It started when I saw a post from Hellfire on another site, and went from there. Actually, I had forgotten about bringing it up, but then Hellfire seemed interested in a discussion, so I took part. And when you came into the equation with the post on Louis and subsequent posts, well...I think we're both stubborn rockheads or something along those lines, which causes us both to go on and on and on and on...and on, til we've exhausted the conversation well beyond it's lifeline.

Hard Boiled HK

10-19-2006, 10:51 PM

So exactly what are we arguing about here?

SABBATH

10-19-2006, 11:52 PM

Hard Boiled,

We're not arguing, we're discussing. And if you think this is long winded check out the Smasher vs Yogi Ali-Bobick Contract discussion especially if you're looking for an insomnia cure.

Anyway, a few points and I'll put this baby to rest.

Regarding Norton not being the #1 contender in 1976. I have the prefight Ali-Norton III World Boxing issue from September 1976 and Norton is referred to as the #1 contender throughout the issue. I read it today to verify. Norton was also rated #1 by the magazine with Foreman at #2.

Ring Magazine also rated Norton at #1 at the beginning of 1976, and the Ali-Norton deal was done in May of that year. I'm not sure how Foreman was suddenly ranked at #1 jumping ahead of Norton when he was completely inactive in 1975 and by May 1976 had had only had one fight, looking sloppy and getting face planted by Ron Lyle.

Regarding expert's opinions, I've discussed Ali-Norton III at length with boxing journalist and IBRO member Frank Lotierzo (check out his Joe Louis article on www.coxscorner (http://www.coxscorner).tripod.com (http://www.tripod.com) ) who also scored the fight for Ali. Speak to enough people and you'll get varying opinions. I watched the fight several times last week (30th anniversary) and don't really know what all the fuss is about. A close fight, often times uneventful with room for debate, not unlike a thousand fights I've seen over the years. By no means a one-sided fight. Their styles contradicted each other. Harold Lederman is a respected judge as is Mercante a referee. I trust their scoring was on the level.

Regarding Foreman-Norton. Apparently Ali was originally approached about fighting Foreman after losing to Norton but Ali wanted to avenge the Norton and Frazier fights before fighting for the title, so Norton was approached and accepted.

I'll quote Butch Lewis who held the promotional rights (Top Rank) to Leon Spinks regarding Ali-Spinks II.

"Ali said to me, I know you guys got the title. You can make me wait a year, two years, to get a chance to win it back. I never asked you for a favour before, but I'm asking for one now. Give me a shot before I'm too old to win."

Ali was 36 years old fading fast and knew it. I don't find it 'embarassing' that Ali asked for a return fight when so many others who have lost titles get return fights. The article that you quoted was by Red Smith a notorious Ali detractor who chose the words 'spectacle' and 'embarrassing' and in his columns seemed to be on a personal quest to constantly bring Ali down a notch and bump Joe Louis up when he had the opportunity. For example, after Frazier-Ali, "If they fought a dozen times, Joe Frazier would whip Muhammad Ali a dozen times and it would get easier as they went along." Red's column on Ali losing to Norton in 1973 came equipped with Red's confirmation of how Louis and other pressure fighters would have beaten Ali. OK Red. Dave Anderson was another, who among other ditties picked Foreman to KO Ali in one round. "...for the first time in his career Muhammad Ali will be counted out. That could happen the first round." Smith and Anderson's bias often showed through in the columns that were printed in the New York Times. Take their opinions and choice of words with a grain of salt as I do.

Ali had been heavyweight champion or #1 rated contender for 14 years. Spinks held the cards and it was him who gave Ali the return fight instead of Norton. Spinks didn't have to but he did and the WBC stripped Spinks and gave it to Norton.

Keep in mind the political influence Don King had over the WBC and the number of top rated heavyweights King had contracts with. There is no way I see Ali getting a WBC title shot at Norton in 1978 at all. King double dipped on Holmes as manager and promoter and believe me Holmes would have gotten a #1 WBC rating and fight with Norton before Ali ever would have, pushing an Ali title fight back to 1979 if at all.

When Ali was champion, Herbert Muhammad used King to his advantage over the years, getting top dollar out of King without ever letting King get Ali under contract. Herbert later made a conscious effort to distance himself from King, even selling Ali short to the tune of 2 million dollars to let Arum promote Ali-Norton III instead of King. King owed Herbert Muhammad nothing, least of all an immediate title shot to a faded Ali who I'm quite sure the WBC wouldn't rate #1 and make a mandatory.

Ali's best chance to reclaim his crown was at the earliest convenience and that's what he got.

Sigh.........Good night.

Dempsey 1919

10-20-2006, 01:44 AM

VERSATILE2K12

10-20-2006, 02:10 AM

foreman is better then ali.and every1 i talk to knows this

Yaman

10-20-2006, 08:53 AM

Foreman is overrated and would have lost to any version of Muhammad Ali.

Southpaw Stinger

10-20-2006, 10:06 AM

Foreman is overrated and would have lost to any version of Muhammad Ali.

Foreman is not overated and he's not greater than Ali either.

Dempsey 1919

10-20-2006, 12:12 PM

If prime Foreman fought Ali post manila then he definetely would knock Ali out, no question, but prime Ali would just be too fast for foreman.

Hard Boiled HK

10-20-2006, 01:17 PM

Foreman is overrated and would have lost to any version of Muhammad Ali.

I don't think Foreman was overrated. If there was a rematch, Foreman would have won.

Dempsey 1919

10-20-2006, 01:39 PM

I don't think Foreman was overrated. If there was a rematch, Foreman would have won.

After Manila, not before.

Southpaw Stinger

10-20-2006, 02:05 PM

After Manila, not before.

Depends if Ali trains properly or not. He definatly didn't want to fight George again despite numerous attemps to organise a rematch and Foremans position as number 1 challenger.

Yogi

10-20-2006, 10:36 PM

Good posting, Smasher, and thanks for the discussion.

SABBATH

10-20-2006, 11:14 PM

Good posting, Smasher, and thanks for the discussion.
Back at ya brother.

NJFighter91

10-20-2006, 11:35 PM

that video sucked...

no disrespect to ali...i love him as a fighter and what hes done...but the vid still sucks

Yaman

10-21-2006, 08:09 AM

I don't think Foreman was overrated. If there was a rematch, Foreman would have won.

Foreman was too dumb and unskilled to beat a genius like Ali. To suggest such a thing is the true sign of Foreman being grossly overrated.

NJFighter91

10-21-2006, 10:31 AM

i think foreman made his whole "i saw god" thing up...it was an excuse to not fight ali again

Southpaw Stinger

10-21-2006, 11:46 AM

i think foreman made his whole "i saw god" thing up...it was an excuse to not fight ali again

He never had the opportunity to fight Ali again. He spent 3 years calling Ali out and being the number 1 contender with no success. I don't believe in that "I saw god" thing anyone cause I think all that religious stuff is nonsense, but they are not connected.

Dempsey 1919

10-21-2006, 01:59 PM

He never had the opportunity to fight Ali again. He spent 3 years calling Ali out and being the number 1 contender with no success. I don't believe in that "I saw god" thing anyone cause I think all that religious stuff is nonsense, but they are not connected.

Well, that's your opinion.

Oasis_Lad

10-21-2006, 02:00 PM

Well, that's your opinion.

and a fine opinion it is

who's up for a religious debate ? :D

Dempsey 1919

10-21-2006, 02:56 PM

and a fine opinion it is

who's up for a religious debate ? :D

Oh please, not that again!:eek:

Oasis_Lad

10-21-2006, 03:00 PM

Oh please, not that again!:eek:

lol!

i know you love a good religious debate butterlips

Krucial

10-21-2006, 03:06 PM

on the g that brought a tear 2 my eye
specially dat lil boy part

ali will always be the greatest
couldnt NOONE **** wit em in his prime

Dempsey 1919

10-21-2006, 03:07 PM

on the g that brought a tear 2 my eye
specially dat lil boy part

ali will always be the greatest
couldnt NOONE **** wit em in his prime

Yeah, that's why it makes my blood boil hen I hear people say that Ali's overrated. It's just stupid to even think that after all he's accomplished.

Yogi

10-21-2006, 03:16 PM

(Wood**** & Oma, to name two...Speaking of "works", those two names together brings up a good & interesting story from Mullan's boxing enclyclopedia).

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in reading this story, but if they/you are then here is Harry Mullan's writing on that Woodcok/Oma "fight";

'Despite the tight control excercised by the Board of Control, there have been occasional scandals in British boxing. One such was Bruce Wood****'s fourth-round knockout of the American, Lee Oma, in London in September 1948. Wood**** was European and British heavyweight champion, and his promoter Jack Solomons was trying to bring him back from a catastrophic defeat by another American, Joe Baksi. Oma had beaten Baksi, as well as top men like Lou Nova, Tami Mauriello and light heavyweight championGus Lesnevich. He looked a tough proposition for Wood**** and the fight generated so much interest that all 10,600 seats at Harringay Arena were sold out nearly a fortnight before the show.

The rumours began when Oma was seen to be lackadaisical in training and soon they hardened to a specific allegation: that he had been paid 5,000 pounds to take a dive. When the fight got under way, the American was strangely lethargic, scarcely throwing a punch for three rounds. At the end of the third, boos came from all around the arena as the fans showed their displeasure with his lack of effort. Oma made a slight show of agression early in the fourth, but then crashed for the full count when Wood**** landed a right to the jaw. The press were scathing, and the result produced one of the great headlines in British sports journalism: "Oma Coma Aroma".

Wood**** vigorously denied that anything improper had occurred. In his autobiography, he wrote: "So far as I am concerned, I can honestly say that I have never taken part in a fixed fight in my life." And then he added, perhaps significantly, "It would, I suppose, be possible for one man to have agreed to lose without the other knowing about it, but such is the bush-telegraph system of the training camps of boxing that even that possobility is remote."

The truth of the Oma affair will never be ascertained. If the fight was fixed, then only Oma and Solomons need to have known about it. Wood**** was a fighter of blazing honesty and exemplary courage, who would never knowingly have allowed himself to be part of such a shoddy deal, but it would be naive to pretend that such arrangements did not occasionally happen. British libel laws are so strict that they prohibit discussion of other possible fixes involving boxers who are still living, but the number of questionable results in the last 40 years is reasonably low.'

Dempsey 1919

10-21-2006, 03:18 PM

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in reading this story, but if they/you are then here is Harry Mullan's writing on that Woodcok/Oma "fight";

'Despite the tight control excercised by the Board of Control, there have been occasional scandals in British boxing. One such was Bruce Wood****'s fourth-round knockout of the American, Lee Oma, in London in September 1948. Wood**** was European and British heavyweight champion, and his promoter Jack Solomons was trying to bring him back from a catastrophic defeat by another American, Joe Baksi. Oma had beaten Baksi, as well as top men like Lou Nova, Tami Mauriello and light heavyweight championGus Lesnevich. He looked a tough proposition for Wood**** and the fight generated so much interest that all 10,600 seats at Harringay Arena were sold out nearly a fortnight before the show.

The rumours began when Oma was seen to be lackadaisical in training and soon they hardened to a specific allegation: that he had been paid 5,000 pounds to take a dive. When the fight got under way, the American was strangely lethargic, scarcely throwing a punch for three rounds. At the end of the third, boos came from all around the arena as the fans showed their displeasure with his lack of effort. Oma made a slight show of agression early in the fourth, but then crashed for the full count when Wood**** landed a right to the jaw. The press were scathing, and the result produced one of the great headlines in British sports journalism: "Oma Coma Aroma".

Wood**** vigorously denied that anything improper had occurred. In his autobiography, he wrote: "So far as I am concerned, I can honestly say that I have never taken part in a fixed fight in my life." And then he added, perhaps significantly, "It would, I suppose, be possible for one man to have agreed to lose without the other knowing about it, but such is the bush-telegraph system of the training camps of boxing that even that possobility is remote."

The truth of the Oma affair will never be ascertained. If the fight was fixed, then only Oma and Solomons need to have known about it. Wood**** was a fighter of blazing honesty and exemplary courage, who would never knowingly have allowed himself to be part of such a shoddy deal, but it would be naive to pretend that such arrangements did not occasionally happen. British libel laws are so strict that they prohibit discussion of other possible fixes involving boxers who are still living, but the number of questionable results in the last 40 years is reasonably low.'

Great story, Yogi! Got any others?