Muhammad Ali's legendary status is based mainly on his luck in rematches

ALI WAS REALLY LUCKY when it comes to rematches.

In fact, one could say that the ONLY reason why Ali is a household name is because he was so "rematch lucky".

Just imagine the following hypothetical scenario, in which Cassius Clay (aka Muhammad Ali) had less luck:

  1. Ali loses to Frazier (as he did in their first fight) but would never rematch Frazier.
  2. Ali loses to Ken Norton (as he did in their first fight) but would never rematch Norton.
  3. Ali loses to Leon Spinks (as he did in their first fight) but would never rematch Spinks.
  4. Ali wins against Sonny Liston but then loses in the rematch instead of winning by a ridiculous gift stoppage.
  5. Ali wins against Foreman, gives Foreman a rematch and (very likely) loses the rematch
  6. Foreman annihilates Ken Norton and Joe Frazier (as he indeed did, KO2 and KO2)
  7. Leon Spinks ends his career with a bummy record of 26-16 (= Spinks' record without the Ali rematch)


It would be completely and utterly clear for anybody, that Ali is merely a B level boxer, who has hardly ever beaten convincingly a top opponent and who has the greatest difficulties "against such tomato cans like Norton, Frazier or Spinks", whereas Foreman is clearly the top dog of the 1970s having beaten all bigger names.

It's only because Ali was lucky enough to be given a rematch against Frazier, Norton and Spinks to avenge his losses.

And it's only because Ali REFUSED to give Foreman a rematch so that Ali's aura of superiority could continue to shine.

Ali was simply lucky he didn't live in times of countless TV channels, governing bodies and boxing promoters like is the case nowadays.

And it's exactly the non-rematching of Wladimir Klitschko vs Ross Puritty and Wladimir Klitschko vs Corrie Sanders and of Vitali Klitschko vs Chris Byrd that feeds AliFants and Klitschko haters to this very day.

Ali's rematching is _THE_ major reason for Ali's resume being considered a top resume. Without his rematches he would have a completely different level of resume with a far worse Win-Fight-ratio and far less world titles won.



What would have happened with Ali in our times?

Would Ali live in our times (= the times of competing TV networks and competing belt organizations) and let's say Don King had 4 belt holders (Norton, Frazier, Liston, Spinks) it would be extremely difficult for Ali to stage a rematch.

When Don King had 4 belt holders at the same time…

  • Rahman
  • Ruiz
  • Byrd
  • Brewster

…not one unification bout was staged among them.


Because 4 champs generate more money.

And 5 to 10 world championships per year generate more money than 2 or 3.

Additionally each of these 4 champs would have to have different mandatory opponents.

Additionally each of these 4 champs would possibly be broadcast by different TV networks.

That's how complicated things are nowadays.

And guess what: although the situation was more rematch friendly back in Ali's days (the further you go back in time the rematch friendlier it was), it took Ali 13(!) fights before he finally could avenge his first career loss to Frazier.



Muhammad Ali was lucky

Not only was Ali lucky that the rematches happened, but also the way how they went.

The rematch Ali vs Norton was a SD split decision.

The rematch Ali vs Frazier was a narrow UD decision (8-4, 7-4, 6-5), with many nowadays fans giving the edge to Frazier.

The rematch against Leon Spinks was actually forbidden by the rules of the WBC. Spinks (as the WBC belt holder) was ordered by the WBC to not rematch Muhammad Ali, but to face the WBC mandatory. Only because Spinks chose to drop his WBC belt, Ali got his rematch.

The rematch against Sonny Liston is the most contested KO in boxing history. That's all you need to know. A disgrace inside the ring (the referee didn't even start to count) and outside the ring (Sonny Liston's wife and son were kidnapped by Muhammad Ali's Muslim friends).




So there you have it. Slight changes in the way things had fallen into place and Ali's record would have been far far worse.

Muhammad Ali's legendary status is based mainly on his luck in rematches, 3.7 out of 5 based on 23 ratings
Did you find this information useful? Then please donate...

Comments (39)

  • DS says:
    [ip2username: Kypo Meki]
    #5287 DS (2012-11-14th)

    Okay, this is just ridiculous.

    "against such tomato cans like Norton, Frazier or Spinks",

    If that story was real, Frazier would be the guy who beat everybody except Foreman, not a tomato can. Norton or Spinks can't be called tomato cans neither.

    Big thing isn't Ali getting those rematches, it's him WINNING ALL OF THEM. He dominated his era, period. Would he be that great today? That's another subject. Just don't try to diminish his accomplishments.

    • Admin says:
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5292 Admin (2012-11-14th)
      Big thing isn't Ali getting those rematches, it's him WINNING ALL OF THEM.

      That's exactly what I am saying. Ali's fame wouldn't be as near as great if he hadn't won them if he couldn't rematch them.

      If that story was real, Frazier would be the guy who beat everybody except Foreman, not a tomato can. Norton or Spinks can't be called tomato cans neither.

      Frazier feeds on Ali's name. Without Ali being considered great their one-time-encounter wouldn't be considered great either.

      Instead Frazier's record would be 32-2 (yawn) with world title wins over Ellis (201 lbs), Foster (188 lbs), Daniels (195 lbs).

      Not only would Frazier be far less famous but also known for ducking hard punchers (as he indeed did).

      The names Frazier+Ali go together. Without Ali being famous, Frazier would be pretty unknown, especially since many of Frazier's fights wouldn't have happened because Foreman would have ruled.

  • EDM says:
    [ip2username: Xavy Zode]
    #5355 EDM (2012-12-02nd)

    I was searching for a site dedicated to heavyweight boxing. I certainly didn't know I"d find such a gem. I'm going through your site, reading older posts. I hope you post more and with greater frequency.

    Also, the Liston fight was total BS! I would love to see this article picked up by a larger newsmaker. Thoughts about Ali and his greatness would change.

  • Bruce Crichton says:
    [ip2username: Wagy Gope]
    #5400 Bruce Crichton (2012-12-07th)

    "The rematch Ali vs Frazier was a narrow UD decision (8-4, 7-4, 6-5), with many nowadays fans giving the edge to Frazier."

    Actually, it was a comfortable win for Ali and giving Frazier the decision is revisionism.

    All the same, rematches did make Ali's name and, in particular, not giving Foreman a rematch helped Ali and hurt George.

    By comparison, imagine that Joe Louis never got a rematch with Max Schmeling. His standing would have been badly hurt by that while his 1 round rematch win helped him immeasurably.

    If Foreman had fought Ali in 1976, I reckon Ali would have been in dire trouble and George would have regained the title.

    • Admin says:
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5402 Admin (2012-12-07th)
      By comparison, imagine that Joe Louis never got a rematch with Max Schmeling. His standing would have been badly hurt by that while his 1 round rematch win helped him immeasurably.

      Good point.

  • Bruce Crichton says:
    [ip2username: Wagy Gope]
    #5401 Bruce Crichton (2012-12-07th)

    "And guess what: although the situation was more rematch friendly back in Ali's days (the further you go back in time the rematch friendlier it was), it took Ali 13(!) fights before he finally could avenge his first career loss to Frazier."

    That's not Ali's fault, I'm afraid.

    Frazier fought didn't fight again in 1971 and fought 2 stiffs in 1972. He then lost by massacre to George Foreman and didn't fight Ali again until it suited both men, in 1974. Their rematch was, effectively, an eliminator for a shot at the title.

    • Admin says:
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5403 Admin (2012-12-07th)

      Yes, that's not Ali's fault. But it's equally not Wladimir's fault to not rematch Ross Puritty. I'm just saytng "Even though it was easier to rematch back then, it took Ali so long, hence nowadays rematches are even harder to stage".

      Heck, and I am not even talking about rematches, my statements equally apply to first matches:

      Tyson and Wladimir had 10 overlapping years.
      Tyson and Lennox had 16 overlapping years.
      Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis had 9 overlapping years.
      Larry Holmes and George Foreman had 25 overlapping years.

      Theoretically these fights could have been made (earlier), but there was the TV channel business and the prison business etc.

  • MirrorMan says:
    [ip2username: Jegi Puda]
    #5431 MirrorMan (2012-12-13th)

    I used to like your site but the more I read, the more I realize how much of a biased, dishonest hypocrite you are. "If Ali hadn't done this" "If Ali hadn't done that". From what I gather you love to stick to facts, reality and mostly statistics. Why ignore them when it goes against your argument. Fact is, Ali did have those rematches and Ali did win them. That's all there is to it. It's useless to delve into hypothetical to try to put him down. I'm not a fan of his but your campaign against him is useless and simply ridiculous.

    What if Wlad wasn't so tall? I believe he isn't skilled, it's only his height and weight that gives him such an advantage. Oh wait, height and weight is part of boxing right? Just like having accessible rematches back in Ali's day. You gotta make do with what you have and Ali achieved something great back in his days, not many boxers of his time can boast about reaching his level. You cannot compare boxers across eras, that's retarded. You're essentially faulting Ali for having reached his prime in his era.

    Sorry but that article is rubbish.

    • Admin says:
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5446 Admin (2012-12-25th)
      What if Wlad wasn't so tall?

      What if he wasn't so tall? What if he wasn't so fast? And so strong.

      Are you complaining about someone's body features in a martial arts competition?

      And why should we stop at body features. Why not complain about Wlad's work ethics?

      "Oh he only wins because he always comes in shape and well prepared"

      How does that sound?

  • Aswin Kini MK says:
    [ip2username: Mowe Tidu]
    #5448 Aswin Kini MK (2012-12-27th)

    There you go again. I come to this site after one year looking for some objective views and what do I get? Some argument on WHAT IFs and BUTs.. Unfortunately, in real life, ifs and buts do not work.

    I could also argue in the same vein:
    1) If Wladmir had been a few years older, he would have boxed Lennox Lewis in his prime. There is a fair chance that either he would have knocked out Lewis or got knocked out himself because A) Lewis had a nasty right hand and uppercut and ability to jump on opponents like Andrew Golota and Ruddock. He even knocked out a peak Shannon Briggs, well it was a TKO and it still counts, while Vitali went the distance with a 40-year old, ancient version of the same fighter (No disrespect to Vitali, but I really think that if he cannot knockout an old Briggs, he cannot be considered as THE BEST KO artist as you claim).

    2) If Vitali hadn't been Wladmir's brother, I bet Wladmir wouldn't be even champion. Let's be objective here, for all the talent Wladmir possesses, he doesn't possess the most important skills to defeat Vitali… A) A strong chin and B) Killer Instinct.
    I could easily state that Vitali would have without a doubt knocked out a prime or aged version of Wladmir with ease. ON the other hands, Wladmir even on his best day cannot knock out Vitali. So, I am sorry to say that your judgement of Wladmir being the bestest in the WORLD doesn't stand true. Deal with it. VITALI AND WLADMIR are TWO DIFFERENT BOXERS. DO NOT MIX THEIR RECORDS. I will give them complete credit for their victories, but unfortunately, to be number one, a CHAMPION must have defeated the second best boxer in the business. Neither Vitali nor Wladmir did that, so please let's not argue in vain. IF they are brothers, it is their problem, not the problem of boxing fans.

    3) Using your very own benchmark, I could easily argue that if Wladmir had been present when Shannon Briggs, Golota, Holyfield, Morrison, Mercer, etc had been in their prime, he surely would have never had a picture perfect record. For heaven's sake, even a kid knows that the more tough fights a boxer has, the more damage he suffers. Wladmir would have at least had 3-5 more defeats in his career if he had faced the competition that Lennox had. You could easily say that he knocked out Ray Mercer, who gave Lewis a tough fight, but let's not forget that Mercer was into his late 30s…. A fighter in his 30s, no matter how great he is, cannot fight at his peak. Surely, Wladmir could still have won a championship, but he would nowhere be as dominant as he is considerd now. Briggs, Mercer, and Bowe in their prime could have done some major damage to Wladmir. Even if he had won against them, the damage obtained during the fights could have really shortened his career. The same applies for Vitali.

    Fortunately, for you, these never happened. And fortunately for me, Ali's accomplishments still stand valid, apart from his dubious decision to duck Foreman. Let's be fair here. Boxer's need to be appraised on what competition they fought rather than whom they didn't. I am fair to you. Wladmir is the best boxer in this era, apart from the fact that he never fought Vitali the strongest contender. The same applies for Vitali. Therefore, let's not tarnish the legacy of either boxers. Let Ali's legacy rest where it is and focus on Wladmir's future accomplishment. If you still want to go ahead and bash Ali on your so-called facts, feel free to do so. BUt you would be considered a hypocrite. :evil:

    • Honza says:
      [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
      #5452 Honza (2012-12-30th)

      Great post man. Author of this site is only objective when he is talking about modern boxers not about Ali or Frazier. It is obvious that he hates them both. That is why he said nothing positive about them at all.

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Miu Mary]
        #5471 Honza (2013-01-07th)

        Hey admin you again have some glitch in your flag labelling system. I am again wrogly labelled as american. Actually Tehre are three flags that are shown above my comments: United states or EU or Czech republic which is the right one. :)

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5829 Tommo (2013-03-31st)

      Whilst we are in disagreement over Golden age greats I like your argument how accumulated damage facing many tough opponents over the span of a fighters career is deleterious to a fighter as their career progresses. Agreed. However I do not rate the age 38 to be past prime for a HW. Lighter boxer yes but at HW I believe age wise a boxers prime on the norm is anywhere 25-40 (35 being about the pinnacle of muscular power and bone density and aerobic capacity, only speed declines at younger age in an athlete who has had continuous training.). But as you correctly pointed out and I believe it is the accumulated damage to head and body that takes its toll. This is I believe an important factor how Wladimir has remained in prime form for so long because while not willing to engage at times and accused of lacking killer instinct for such a capable and imposing fighter he also does not get hit anywhere near as much as any other champion boxer.

  • Johnny Cannon says:
    [ip2username: Zywo Pemi]
    #5519 Johnny Cannon (2013-02-22nd)

    The most ridiculous, biased sports article that I have ever read (congrats-you're #1!!). I'm a fan of Ali's but have friends that just don't like him, and not one of them has denied him his due. Your "what if" scenarios are insane.

    Ali has been lucky in all his rematches. That's your case against him. Are you 12?

    • Admin says:
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #5522 Admin (2013-02-23rd)

      Look, my article cannot be summed up as "Ali was lucky because he won". That would indeed be childish and would use the same type of logic that I so much argue against because it's so typical for Ali fans: Converting wins to failures ("Wlad beat him so easily? Must have been a bum!") and losses to virtues ("Ali lost to Frazier? Wow! Frazier must be a hell of a fighter!"). This is deranged logic exemplified typically by AliFants.

      I fully credit Ali with the second time wins.

      But that's not what the article is about. My article is about TV channels and boxing politics and the difficulty nowadays to make matches let alone rematches.

      The point of my article is that Ali lived in a time where rematches (or fights in general) could be staged far easier than nowadays. And would Ali live in our times then most probably he would not get a second chance and hence his record would look utterly different.

      So Ali was not lucky because he WON the rematches but because the rematches took place.

      Up to this day people use Vitali Klitschko's unavenged losses to Chris Byrd and Lennox Lewis as a proof. Unavenged losses _are_ used as an argument, far more often than avenged losses. Up to this day people argue that Lennox must be one of the greatest because he avenged all his losses. Yes, Lennox is great but not mainly because he avenged his losses.

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Bote Kitu]
        #5529 Honza (2013-02-28th)

        But that's not what the article is about. My article is about TV channels and boxing politics and the difficulty nowadays to make matches let alone rematches.

        I think you are not right here. I think that Klitschkos has contract that guarantee them instant rematch if they loose to the oponent. But maybe it is hard to other boxers to get a rematch.

        • Tommo says:
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5573 Tommo (2013-03-20th)

          Yeah that sounds likely too. Whether or not Ali was lucky in his rematches is a fair debate (I agree), but the champs today would have to have a rematch clause in their contracts, be stupid not to, esp at hw where they only need to get tagged with a lucky punch to lose it all. I doubt Ali would have any trouble today in that regard.

  • Aswin Kini MK says:
    [ip2username: Xeji Muza]
    #5526 Aswin Kini MK (2013-02-27th)

    I am surprised that you didn't even bother to reply to my previous comment. So, you consider Ali to be lucky in his rematches,then why don't you consider Vitali and Wladmir to be lucky for being brothers and work as a tag team??
    The way I see it, Wladmir has been happily letting the hitters go to Vitali (Sanders, Arreola, Chisora)while Wladmir has neatly handled slick boxers? And these are supposed to be all time greats?

    Let me be clear with a few things.
    1) Your love for Klitchkoes seems to cloud your judgement so much that you label every non-believer to be an alifant – which is not a healthy attitude?
    2) You shamelessly combine the records of 2 boxers (Wladmir and Vitali) and represent them to be one?
    3) You don't even consider the fact that in order to be an alltime great, you have to 1) Face and beat the no2 fighter in your generation or 2) Avenge most of your, if not, all losses, and 3) Don't have your brother cover up your ass by taking on the difficult contenders and then claim that you have can beat them because your brother did so?

    While it is ok to criticize/praise any boxers, please ensure you have at least a few valid points. Ali did what was asked of him? He beat his opponents in his rematches, he ducked Foreman (Who wouldn't, unless he wanted to get killed in the ring. Ali had his own faults, but he still did a lot for the sport of boxing and is considered an alltime great for his yeoman service to the sport. FYI, Ali boxed all over the world and had people rooting for him. Wladmir is a great in his own right, but it would be a long time before we can declare him an alltime great. Just because Ali isn't 6,6 and doesn't weight 240 pounds doesn't decrease his legend by even an inch.

  • Honza says:
    [ip2username: Xisu Napy]
    #5534 Honza (2013-03-05th)

    Author shut create article Klitschko vs Klitschko. That would be interesting. But today Vitali has absolutely no chance against Wlad. I have senn his fight with Charr. Vitali is hardly second best boxer in the world. I think Haye would beat him badly.

    • IDIOTS says:
      [ip2username: Wuna Syto]
      #6184 IDIOTS (2013-05-13th)

      Vitali would win easy , like George Foreman , Liston , Lewis would win against Wladimir.

      It makes no difference who is better , Wlad has not the chin and any of these boxers
      can hit him easy , Wladimir too but all of these guys would survied wladimirs punches
      and he not.

      But it makes no sense to discuss it with you, you have simply no idea of Boxing. 8-)

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Luma Pyjo]
        #6332 Honza (2013-07-13th)

        Of course I do not have any idea of boxing right? Sorry but Wlad is quicker and hit a lot harder than Vitali. So his chances of beating his odl brother are big. But again no idea rigt? :)

      • Tommo says:
        [ip2username: Loze Xivu]
        #6429 Tommo (2013-08-01st)

        This guy is comparing the Vitali of the Lewis fight to Wladimir. Of course that Vitali would stand better chances. Even back in those days Wlad was considered the more agile and the better fighter of the 2, it's stated on all the promos. Of course this all changed when Wlad got KO'd by Sanders.

        Let me tell you, I somewhat believe in authors fat article increasing punch resistance and just maybe the reason Wladimir appears to have a considerably softer chin than his brother is perhaps because of the fact he comes in to fight so lean and in shape, he has virtually zero body fat. Could be that Wlad has the Ken Norton syndrome lol. I wouldn't mind making a small bet that if Wlad keeps fighting and one day puts on a little chub, we would never see him knocked out either again just like his brother who incidentally has always carried a little extra plumage.

        Anyway this German is an idiot. "Vitali's chin trumps Wladimir's speed, skills and power!" Maybe but definitely not certainly and certainly not today!

        Wladimir has faced an opponent on the same level as Vitali, David Haye and won…

        Vitali faced an opponent comparable to Wladimir too, in Lewis… And lost!

        • Honza says:
          [ip2username: Revi Gusa]
          #6453 Honza (2013-08-09th)

          I wouldn't mind making a small bet that if Wlad keeps fighting and one day puts on a little chub, we would never see him knocked out either again just like his brother who incidentally has always carried a little extra plumage.
          They are both slim and muscular. They both have decent chin but Vitali does not have iron chin. That stupid claim is based on ONE match wich lasted 6 rounds and his face was bloody mass. I have to disagree here. And comparing him to Kenny Norton is not fair because Ken faced harder hitters then Wlad I think. George, Cooney were very hard hitters. And no I do not believe Sanders or Purity hit harder then George or Cooney.
          Other then that I agree that Vitali at his absolute best lost to Lennox who was comparable boxer to Wlad. Haye is comparable to Vitali in terms of quality and he lost to Wlad.

  • Tommo says:
    [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
    #5572 Tommo (2013-03-20th)

    Yeah despite a convincing win for Wladimir, Haye WAS good competition. Especially for a former cruiser ;)

    Anyway I must agree with our admin friend, although the way you describe Ali's best opposition as "tomato cans" is a bit over the top since they were nominally either champs or top contenders, none of them would be much more than mince meat in modern boxing except Foreman (who actually proved it) which is Ali's shining achievement. Yes he did it only through highly unconventional means, everyone has seen the fight. But he still did it and nothing can take that away, whether he ducked him after or not. I think he deserves respect for that. Lucky in rematches too, he was far from dominant. But he was still the champion of his day. Can't compare him to modern heavies and label him a loser because he isn't at their h2h p4p level.

    Could be that Ali is such a household name because really there wasn't much real competition around then, in the "golden age" of hw boxing except his hard hitting mate George. The term Golden Age should more deservedly be given to the 90s in my opinion. With the last of Tyson, the beginning of K-bros, Lennox at the forefront and a whole slew of top contenders (holy, bowe, morrison, tua and half a dozen more, even big George).

    • Honza says:
      [ip2username: Mepi Zuna]
      #5710 Honza (2013-03-27th)

      I have to agree. 90s were golden age of boxing. So many great names. And of course so many great battles ( Mike vs. Holy, Lewis vs. Mercer, Bowe vs. Holy, Morrison vs. George etc.).

  • Honza says:
    [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
    #6130 Honza (2013-04-21st)

    Muhammad was lucky because of rematches? Yes and he was very nice to other fighter to give them second chance to beat him. He face Quarry, Patterson, Liston, Bugner and Chuvalo twice and also had trilogy with Joe Frazier and also trilogy with Ken Norton. It was not the same with for example Lennox Lewis who always beaten somebody only once. Lewis had a chance for rematch when he got beaten but refused to offer rematch to fallen oponent. Also why Vitali never wanted fight Byrd again? Chris still remains as one of Vitalis toughest oponents (Byrd was definetly not dominated by Vitali). Wladimir, Mike, Muhammad are champions who faced already defeated oponents once again. That is also worth to mention.

  • Jamie says:
    [ip2username: Dazy Mome]
    #6404 Jamie (2013-07-29th)

    Imagine if Wlad had never been knocked out three times.

    Imagine sugar ray had never won a fight.

    Imagine all the people living life in peace.

  • MAK99 says:
    [ip2username: Zeji Buxa]
    #6476 MAK99 (2013-08-15th)

    Probably the stupidest article on boxing I have ever read. How can you suggest having a re-match against an opponent who has beaten you already is a way of padding out your career stats? Too pour even more scorn on your pathetic argument, Ali won the re-matches. Ali was undisputed champion in an era when their were only 2 belts, not in the current era when there are about 2 million governing bodies. Take a couple of pills, relax and learn a little about boxing before posting any more articles.

  • fred hofmann says:
    [ip2username: Tyvo Sepi]
    #6478 fred hofmann (2013-08-17th)

    Alot of fights were fixed in Alis time..The liston fight was fixed and ali can be seen saying did i hit him? In the film after the foreman claimed to have been drugged and dick sadler foremans cornerman can be seen joking alot with ali in the pre fight banter..sadler als can be seen with ali after the foreman fight on several occasions.he may have even worked for ali.The biggest thing a casual observer may have missed with ali was angelo dundee..angelos brother chris was a well known promoter of boxing with ties to the mafia including frankie carbo.These are facts.I love Ali but i even think the spinks fight was fixed..ali was a bad actor and can be seen doing nothing saying spinksll get tired etc in the 1pst fight

    • Honza says:
      [ip2username: Revi Guta]
      #6485 Honza (2013-08-18th)

      Alot of fights were fixed in Alis time..
      There is no real evidence about fix matches so it is not very valid to start with this. Sonny Liston was legitly knockdowned by Ali but he did not want to get up because Ali refused to go to his corner. Ali was asking for being dq. You can not act like this. George also said that he was trying to find excuses because he could not believe that he lost. He thought that he is unstoppable.
      The biggest thing a casual observer may have missed with ali was angelo dundee..angelos brother chris was a well known promoter of boxing with ties to the mafia including frankie carbo.These are facts.
      Please for this fact watch documentary Facing Ali ok? Liston was mob boxer and when mafia tryied to manipulate with Alis matches they had to face very strong force that was nation of islam. Ali and Frazier were both known for not having dirty hands with mafia. So it is pretty insulting trying say Ali had connection to mafia only because his trainer had italian roots. So according to this: George foreman, Ray Leonard and Jimmy Ellis matches were also fixed because their trainer was Dundee. But it is also true that nation of islam were fanatics and their tactics were dirty.

  • povetkin says:
    [ip2username: Jixu Raxy]
    #6509 povetkin (2013-09-16th)

    You know, Povetkin will simply end your stupid forum. because he will destroy all your stupid ideas about fat and height being the most important things. When we put your obsession with fat and height aside, there is nothing in that forum to take seriously.

  • Otis the Sweaty says:
    [ip2username: Mevi Supa]
    #6810 Otis the Sweaty (2013-12-04th)

    Okay, first of all, I love your blog. I want to congratulate you on using stats and evidence to back up your opinions.

    You and I are on opposite sides of the fence re the Klitschkos (you love them, I hate them, especially Vitali) but you make good arguments to support your points and I agree with a huge amount of what you say.

    I do want to bring up though something about the whole heavyweight/superheavyweight thing: Beginning with Sonny Liston there was a real change in the size and physique of heavyweight champions. Before Liston all of the heavyweight champs except for Jess Willard were really either cruiserweights or light heavies by todays standards. And this change was NOT because of weight lifting because most heavyweights didn't start lifting weights seriously until pretty recently.

    That said, without the use of heavy weight lifting guys like Vitali, Lewis and Wlad probably come in around 235, which still makes them bigger than guys like Liston and Ali, but not as much as it seems at first glance.

    So if we want to compare the Klitschkos to previous champs, it only makes sense to do it to the champs from Liston on. Here is my list of Wlad vs previous modern champs:
    Sonny v Wlad Sonny by KO
    Ali v Wlad Ali by decision
    Frazier was a cruiserweight, not eligible
    Foreman v Wlad Foreman by KO
    Ali(second career) v Wlad Wlad by decision
    Holmes Wlad by KO
    Spinks was a cruiserweight, not eligible
    Tyson Tyson by KO
    Douglas Wlad by KO
    Holyfield had to use steroids to become a heavyweight, not eligible
    Bowe Wlad by KO
    Lewis Lewis by KO

    So Wlad in my mind matches up pretty well but not great.

    As for Vitali, I think he loses to Lewis, first career Ali and Holmes. I would favor him over all of the others though including Wlad.

    So while I agree that both Klitschos are all time greats, I don't think either is the greatest of all time. Now if you could somehow combine them into one fighter, then yes, Vitalamir Klitschko would be the greatest heavyweight ever. But that isn't reality.

  • Suissac says:
    [ip2username: Wegi Jura]
    #7507 Suissac (2014-09-03rd)

    You have the luck part right but it wasn't in getting rematches. Fighters lose all the time and often get a second shot at their conqueror.

    The luck Ali had was all the officiating controversies and odd circumstances in many of his fights, which almost always favored him, stretching right back through his career.

    Early on there was George Logan, whose corner threw in the towel while he was still gamely fighting back against Clay, as he was then, or Sonny Banks, who was stopped on his feet by the ref at the beginning of the round with barely a punch having been thrown. having earlier decked Clay with a hook. Then there was Henry Cooper and the whole split glove controversy.

    Doug Jones – A majority of ringside reporters had Jones winning. Not for the last time in Ali's career, the decision was greeted with loud boos at MSG and the crowd threw peanuts into the ring.

    Liston – One of the toughest men ever to set foot in the ring quits with a "sore shoulder" and then gets KO'd by a popcorn shot that wouldn't have knocked his grandmother of her feet. The stench lingers 50 years later.

    Bonavena – 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.

    Frazier II & III – Ali clinched over 150 times in 12 rounds, yet never had a point taken away. In Manila Futch pulled the plug on Frazier just as Ali was getting ready to quit.

    Norton II & III – 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.

    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.

    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".

    Young – Ali didn't land a good punch in 15 rounds. Pitiful decision greeted with loud boos, and again controversial at the time.

  • Jethro's Flute says:
    [ip2username: Ryto Geji]
    #7703 Jethro's Flute (2014-11-16th)

    "Frazier II & III – Ali clinched over 150 times in 12 rounds, yet never had a point taken away. In Manila Futch pulled the plug on Frazier just as Ali was getting ready to quit. "

    What utter sh*te. Frazier told Futch he couldn't see the punches coming and the previous 2 rounds had Ali hitting him at will.

    Futch saved his life by retiring him in that fight, which I have on DVD. The fight is a one-sided pasting by Ali and a 1975 newspaper report by the Daily Mirror reported it as such.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Luxa Xyso]
      #7725 Tommo (2014-11-30th)

      Some objective fans have Frazier 2-1 against Ali (Frazier>Ali) This is enough to already declare Foreman the greatest boxer of the 70's.

      I think the most reasonable opinion is 1-1-1 for their trilogy, the conclusion being they were both ridiculously incompetent punch bags with basically non-existent punches.

      As a side note Norton is objectively 3-0 vs Ali (Ali never convincingly beat Norton and clearly lost most of their fights, Norton>Ali)

      The kindest you can possibly be to Ali, is to have it 2-1 for Norton vs Ali, or 2-0-1, which is still bad.

      Ali mythology is dead. It was killed the moment someone video taped the fights.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Dajy Bowe]
      #7740 Tommo (2014-12-07th)

      And Frazier could NEVER see ANY punches coming dumbass, neither could Ali!

      Frazier has an excuse because he was f*cking BLIND!

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Ryvo Bedi]
        #7769 Honza (2014-12-26th)

        Yeah Carl They were so bad. But maybe even you are blind if you see Mormeck being 6 feet 1 inch. That was one of the worst things you have said. He is listed as 5 feet 11 inches tall and I think even that is exxageration. He is more like 5 feet 10 inches tall. When Muhammad and George were both around 6 feet 2 inches or 6 feet 3 inches. Ken Norton clerly lost second fight with Muhammad. Even the first one was even. I would give third one to Ken then.

  • Write a comment

    :wink: :twisted: :roll: :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :evil: :cry: :arrow: :?: :-| :-x :-o :-P :-D :-? :-) :( :!: 8-O 8-)
    Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies