A close look at the core of the 70's HW division.

Again, the controversy which occurs when certain boxers of times past are compared with recent or current HW's. Let's get realistic! Since Clay/Ali is at the core for the fame of the other 70's boxers, namely Norton and Frazier, who'se entire credibility is based around Muhammad Ali wins/close fight with, let's take a close look at this masterful performers career and try to understand WHY he is hailed as the "greatest" You see it seems pretty clear to me that much of Ali's career, is based largely on luck! In officiating controversies, In getting rematches, And in odd circumstances all which favoured him. This occurred right throughout his career. George Logan: Corner threw in the towel when George was strongly fighting back. Sonny Banks: Stopped on his feet at the start of the round with hardly a punch thrown. Clay was decked in this fight previously with a left hook! Doug Jones: Sub-Cruiser bum 30-10 Doug Jones gives Clay a hiding, gets robbed, crowd boos and throws peanuts at Clay. Clay couldn't beat Jones convincingly. Henry Cooper: 185lb sub cruiser 27-8 bum, 8 years older than Clay also decks Clay badly from which his corner pulls a split glove buying recovery time and using illegal smelling salts. Could have been KO, could have been DQ. Sonny Liston: In his 40's, never fought a proper HW with a good record who wasn't coming off losses, retires with even scorecards via injury, takes a dive in the rematch. Pre-existing injury confirmed by doctor. Oscar Bonavena: 5'10", 210lbs, earned shot by beating 3 bums (Piries, Woody, Ramos). Ali never went to a neutral corner for any of the knockdowns, and basically stood over Oscar as he was getting up, allowing him to score 2 more quick knockdowns and win on the 3 knockdown rule. The scorecards were also farcically one-sided. Joe Frazier: 5'11" 210lbs Beat Ali in the 1st, Ali clinched over 150 times in 12 rounds in the 2nd, as he did in the 1st, yet never had a point taken away. In Manila Futch pulled the plug on Frazier just as Ali was getting ready to quit. Most analysts give Frazier 2 of the 3 matches, Frazier should have won the trilogy. Ken Norton: Ali never bested Norton in the ring and didn't win more than a handful of rounds in any of the fights. The rubbermatch at Yankee Stadium was particularly egregious, and a hugely controversial result at the time. With fair judging Norton would be 2-1 against Ali at the very least, and ought to be 3-0. Foreman thinks Norton won all three, as do many others. As Norton put it, and I quote, Ali was 5 rounds ahead before the opening bell. Ali never really beat Norton. George Foreman: Where to begin? Foreman was effectively held prisoner in a stockade (Ali was put up in the presidential suite) and couldn't spar for a month beforehand because of a cut eye. What with that, the setting in a thuggish third world police state, the loose ropes and the quick count, a very strange fight with odd circumstances that benefitted Ali. He was also reluctant to rematch, in spite of Foreman campaigning for one. Ron Lyle: Ali spent most of the first the first ten rounds covering up on the ropes and should have been warned/DQ'd for not fighting. Lyle was ahead on the cards and stopped on his feet by the ref the only moment Ali was in the fight. Very weak stoppage for that era and again controversial. Ali was hurt worse in other fights (Frazier I, Norton I) and allowed to continue. Compare with Lyle-Foreman, a non-title fight which carried on through multiple knockdowns and was only ended with a ten count. Very fishy for a lot of people or, as Lyle's trainer Chick Ferrara put it, "it wasn't kosher". Jimmy Young: 17-4 at fight, 34-19 bum, 209lb virtual cruiser. Ali didn't land a good punch in 15 rounds. Pitiful decision greeted with loud boos, and again controversial at the time. Earnie Shavers: Robbed against Ali, again, many analysts have Shaver winning! Leon Spinks: Whips Ali in the 1st, could have done it in the 2nd too if he'd bothered to take his 26-11 bummy 195lb career seriously! THIS^ and the full low down on the quality of the rest of his opponents should give the OTNB something concrete to mull over for awhile. So before my credentials are attacked again by LAced Up, Billeau and the crew, first investigate WHY this guy should be considered the greatest in the first place? All in all a rather doubtful record. That's what I would say. Even against the criteria of the day (which is another story!) So hopefully you begin to see that when guys like Norton and Frazier etc are rated because they faced the "greatest", it just might not be as great as it seemed! ;)