Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Makes a Mockery of! (Rumble in the Jungle at 40)

tim wandtim wand Posts: 2,945
edited November 2014 in The cake stop
Todays Promoter protected irrelevant heavy weight division, This was an Iconic fight between two great warriors,
I hope Ali is well enough to share in the memories of this great fight!!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/29796214

Posts

  • ... and of course I strongly recommend to watch "when we were kings" the film documentary about Rumble in the Jungle
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    Pretty poor fight though!! :wink:
  • crispybug2crispybug2 Posts: 2,915
    Paulie W wrote:
    Pretty poor fight though!! :wink:


    It was so much more than just a fight though.

    As someone said earlier, go and watch 'When We Were Kings'.......it's the sports documentary against which all other sports documentaries are measured and found wanting!
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 15,047
    Paulie W wrote:
    Pretty poor fight though!! :wink:

    That's as maybe. But the drama was immense. No-one gave Ali a chance after seeing Foreman destroy Frazier. People were genuinely incredulous.
  • From the technique point of view, heavyweight fights have never been good... blows are too devastating and a good one is often enough, as Tyson's early career clearly points out.

    If you want to see good boxing, then there is no better time than the 1980s, with the big 4: Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran taking on each other.

    It was about the drama: everybody supported Ali, but Foreman was the scariest thing ever seen on a ring, he was unstobbable... bigger, faster, meaner and younger... it was a machine... I think Rocky IV digged deep into that idea
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 15,047
    From the technique point of view, heavyweight fights have never been good... blows are too devastating and a good one is often enough, as Tyson's early career clearly points out.

    If you want to see good boxing, then there is no better time than the 1980s, with the big 4: Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran taking on each other.

    It was about the drama: everybody supported Ali, but Foreman was the scariest thing ever seen on a ring, he was unstobbable... bigger, faster, meaner and younger... it was a machine... I think Rocky IV digged deep into that idea


    Hagler v Hearns, when Tommy did his involuntary break dance across the ring. 3 incredible rounds.
  • tim wandtim wand Posts: 2,945
    Those were the days, The great Vegas Fights,

    Hagler V Leonard (dodgy score cards)

    Hagler V T Hearns ( round 3 TKO) but three rounds of the best boxing you ll ever see.

    Leonard V Duran (No mas) great drama.

    And I can still see, Feel the Punch Hagler took Leicester chancer Tony Sibson out with.

    Hagler was the better fighter but for some reason I loved Sugar Ray Leonard, Never seen a middleweight with hand speed like that.

    The British Middleweights. Benn, Eubank, Collins and Watson came something close to bringing great fighting back to the division, but nowadays its rubbish by comparision.

    Mayweather V Pacquiao Should have happened years ago (if it ever will at all) and that might get close.
  • tim wand wrote:
    Mayweather V Pacquiao Should have happened years ago (if it ever will at all) and that might get close.

    I think fighters and promoters have become too greedy and don't seem to be able to arrange these big fights anymore.

    The heavyweight division is even worse... I mean, if even a nightclub bouncer like Chisora gets a shot at the title, it must be pretty damn bad.
    And more, Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Amir Khan... good prize fighters, but in the same league as Marvin Hagler? I think not!
  • seanoconnseanoconn Posts: 7,159
    Foreman was an awesome, terrifying, destructive beast and the best heavyweight of that era but no one would beat Ali in Zaire or the Philippines.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,585
    tim wand wrote:
    Those were the days, The great Vegas Fights,

    Hagler V Leonard (dodgy score cards)

    Hagler V T Hearns ( round 3 TKO) but three rounds of the best boxing you ll ever see.

    Leonard V Duran (No mas) great drama.

    And I can still see, Feel the Punch Hagler took Leicester chancer Tony Sibson out with.

    Hagler was the better fighter but for some reason I loved Sugar Ray Leonard, Never seen a middleweight with hand speed like that.

    The British Middleweights. Benn, Eubank, Collins and Watson came something close to bringing great fighting back to the division, but nowadays its rubbish by comparision.

    Mayweather V Pacquiao Should have happened years ago (if it ever will at all) and that might get close.

    An excellent summary in my opinion.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    seanoconn wrote:
    Foreman was an awesome, terrifying, destructive beast and the best heavyweight of that era but no one would beat Ali in Zaire or the Philippines.

    I'm not sure I agree with either point. I think the Ali of 74 and 75 was incredibly resilient and his loss of hand and foot speed (and slower reflexes) meant we saw more clearly just how big a fighting heart he had. But for me he was a lesser fighter than the Ali of 65 or 66. I doubt that Zaire Ali could have beaten the Frazier of 70, 71 or a prime Joe Louis or Larry Holmes of 79, 80 and one or two others.

    No-one expected Ali to have a chance against Foreman - Ali was on the way down while Foreman had just blown away Frazier and Norton two fighters who's beaten Ali. So no doubt it was an incredible shock at the time and an incredible event. You look at it now and you think "styles make fights". Foreman was slow of foot and while he had fast hands he threw predictable punches which meant someone with Ali's gifts of slowing but still quick reflexes, a great fighting brain and a very solid chin was able to avoid, roll with or simply take what Foreman threw at him. There are periods of the fight when Foreman looks amateurish which is in large part to do with Ali but is also a reflection of his limited style of fighting - a few years later Foreman would lose to Jimmy Young and these limitations would emerge again. None of which belittles the event - I just wonder whether people who eulogise about the Rumble in the Jungle have seen the fight itself (or much of Foreman before or after Zaire) as opposed to the bits of the fight in When We Were Kings.
  • seanoconnseanoconn Posts: 7,159
    pblakeney wrote:
    tim wand wrote:
    Those were the days, The great Vegas Fights,

    Hagler V Leonard (dodgy score cards)

    Hagler V T Hearns ( round 3 TKO) but three rounds of the best boxing you ll ever see.

    Leonard V Duran (No mas) great drama.

    And I can still see, Feel the Punch Hagler took Leicester chancer Tony Sibson out with.

    Hagler was the better fighter but for some reason I loved Sugar Ray Leonard, Never seen a middleweight with hand speed like that.

    The British Middleweights. Benn, Eubank, Collins and Watson came something close to bringing great fighting back to the division, but nowadays its rubbish by comparision.

    Mayweather V Pacquiao Should have happened years ago (if it ever will at all) and that might get close.

    An excellent summary in my opinion.
    Quite. Hagler was truly marvellous :D and his middleweight division was my favourite era of boxing.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • seanoconnseanoconn Posts: 7,159
    Paulie W wrote:
    seanoconn wrote:
    Foreman was an awesome, terrifying, destructive beast and the best heavyweight of that era but no one would beat Ali in Zaire or the Philippines.

    I'm not sure I agree with either point. I think the Ali of 74 and 75 was incredibly resilient and his loss of hand and foot speed (and slower reflexes) meant we saw more clearly just how big a fighting heart he had. But for me he was a lesser fighter than the Ali of 65 or 66. I doubt that Zaire Ali could have beaten the Frazier of 70, 71 or a prime Joe Louis or Larry Holmes of 79, 80 and one or two others.

    No-one expected Ali to have a chance against Foreman - Ali was on the way down while Foreman had just blown away Frazier and Norton two fighters who's beaten Ali. So no doubt it was an incredible shock at the time and an incredible event. You look at it now and you think "styles make fights". Foreman was slow of foot and while he had fast hands he threw predictable punches which meant someone with Ali's gifts of slowing but still quick reflexes, a great fighting brain and a very solid chin was able to avoid, roll with or simply take what Foreman threw at him. There are periods of the fight when Foreman looks amateurish which is in large part to do with Ali but is also a reflection of his limited style of fighting - a few years later Foreman would lose to Jimmy Young and these limitations would emerge again. None of which belittles the event - I just wonder whether people who eulogise about the Rumble in the Jungle have seen the fight itself (or much of Foreman before or after Zaire) as opposed to the bits of the fight in When We Were Kings.
    My point was not that Ali was in his best shape in Zaire but if he could get a fighter out of his comfort zone, (a foreign country) and cocoon that person in Ali world, with all the razzmatazz and trash talk with no escape, he'd have that man beaten before he entered the ring. Ali won a victory of the mind, had the fight taken place on US soil, foreman would have won in my opinion.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,585
    seanoconn wrote:
    My point was not that Ali was in his best shape in Zaire but if he could get a fighter out of his comfort zone, (a foreign country) and cocoon that person in Ali world, with all the razzmatazz and trash talk with no escape, he'd have that man beaten before he entered the ring. Ali won a victory of the mind, had the fight taken place on US soil, foreman would have won in my opinion.
    From the BBC report/review yesterday.

    "Gene Kilroy: I remember a press conference at Jack Dempsey's restaurant [the 1920s heavyweight legend owned a notorious boxing hangout on New York's Broadway] and George walked in.
    Ali looked him straight in the eye and said: 'Sonny Liston [whom Ali beat to win the world heavyweight crown for the first time in 1964] pulled this stuff when you were a little boy, you think I'm scared of you? I'll whip you right here.' George walked away and Ali sat down and said: 'Mr Dempsey, I just won round one…'"
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • city_boycity_boy Posts: 1,616
    edited October 2014
    pblakeney wrote:
    tim wand wrote:
    Those were the days, The great Vegas Fights,

    Hagler V Leonard (dodgy score cards)

    Hagler V T Hearns ( round 3 TKO) but three rounds of the best boxing you ll ever see.

    Leonard V Duran (No mas) great drama.

    And I can still see, Feel the Punch Hagler took Leicester chancer Tony Sibson out with.

    Hagler was the better fighter but for some reason I loved Sugar Ray Leonard, Never seen a middleweight with hand speed like that.

    The British Middleweights. Benn, Eubank, Collins and Watson came something close to bringing great fighting back to the division, but nowadays its rubbish by comparision.

    Mayweather V Pacquiao Should have happened years ago (if it ever will at all) and that might get close.

    An excellent summary in my opinion.

    +1
    I'm not a boxing aficionado myself but did love boxing in the 80's. One of my favourite fighters was Lloyd ' The Ragamuffin Man' Honeyghan and his victory over the then rated world's best pound for pound fighter Don 'Cobra' Curry was a classic IMO. However it was the start of the second round of his first defence (I think) against Johnny Bumphus that provided one of my favourite memories of that era.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8jNXMOJTiVY
    Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.
  • seanoconn wrote:
    My point was not that Ali was in his best shape in Zaire but if he could get a fighter out of his comfort zone, (a foreign country) and cocoon that person in Ali world, with all the razzmatazz and trash talk with no escape, he'd have that man beaten before he entered the ring. Ali won a victory of the mind, had the fight taken place on US soil, foreman would have won in my opinion.

    I think Foreman suffered the climate, it must have been hot and humid and Ali had prepared for that... by round 8 Foreman could barely move. Same match in an air conditioned ring in America, no contest...
  • tim wandtim wand Posts: 2,945
    How about Mcguigan V Cruz in 125 degree heat in the car park at Ceasers :!:
  • RDWRDW Posts: 1,900
    For once, a Wikipedia page is quite moving:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rumble ... #Reactions

    'Foreman and Ali became friends after the fight. Ali had trouble walking to the stage at the 1996 Oscars to be part of the group receiving the Oscar for When We Were Kings, a documentary of the fight in Zaire, due to his Parkinson's disease. George Foreman helped him up the steps to receive the Oscar.

    Over years George Foreman revised his opinions on Muhammad Ali and his bout with him on several accounts, declaring "We fought in 1974, that was a long time ago. After 1981 we became the best of friends. By 1984, we loved each other. I am not closer to anyone else in this life than I am to Muhammad Ali." stating that "Then, in 1981, a reporter came to my ranch and asked me: 'What happened in Africa, George?' I had to look him in the eye and say, “I lost. He beat me.” Before that I had nothing but revenge and hate on my mind, but from then on it was clear. I’ll never be able to win that match, so I had to let it go." and eventually endorsing the conclusion about Muhammad Ali that "He's the greatest man I've ever known. Not greatest boxer that's too small for him. He had a gift. He's not pretty he's beautiful. Everything America should be, Muhammad Ali is."'
  • No way was Hagler better than Leonard. Ray had better hand speed, movement, stamina and skill. Dont forget he came back after only one fight in 5years (and that was 3yrs before) & moved up a couple of weight divisions to fight and beat Hagler.
    Hagler was great, super hard, if you stood toe to toe with him he would wear you down. Look at the mess he made of Mustafa Hamsho

    Leonards standard of opponent before the Hagler fight was better, Wilfred Benitez, peak Duran, Hearns (that 1981 fight was great as well).

    Round 1 of Hagler-Hearns is one of the best rounds of boxing I have ever seen, the only thing close is Round 10 of Bowe-Holyfield I
  • The recent ESPN 30 for 30 documentary 'No Mas' is also worth a watch, it covers both Leonard-Duran fights and interviews both fighters for their thoughts now.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzHJMtOyb4
  • tim wandtim wand Posts: 2,945
    Holeysocks wrote:
    No way was Hagler better than Leonard. Ray had better hand speed, movement, stamina and skill. Dont forget he came back after only one fight in 5years (and that was 3yrs before) & moved up a couple of weight divisions to fight and beat Hagler.
    Hagler was great, super hard, if you stood toe to toe with him he would wear you down. Look at the mess he made of Mustafa Hamsho

    Leonards standard of opponent before the Hagler fight was better, Wilfred Benitez, peak Duran, Hearns (that 1981 fight was great as well).

    Round 1 of Hagler-Hearns is one of the best rounds of boxing I have ever seen, the only thing close is Round 10 of Bowe-Holyfield I


    I Loved Sugar Ray, I ve got a VHS of his highlights from the 76 Benetiz fight all the way to the Final Hagler fight.

    There is a bit where the announcer calls him into the ring " The pride of Palmer Park Detroit" and Ray throws a 12 punch full combination after vaulting the ropes and entering the ring.

    If you slow it down as you could with the technical wonders of VHS you can see he throws the full combination in less than a second , awesome hand speed.

    They say he came out of retirement to fight Hagler, but it is known he had at least 5 warm up fights behind closed doors and was in pretty good shape .

    Leonard was the classiest middleweight I ve ever seen. Took Belts at four different weights ( Hearns first to do it at 5) but Hagler was solid hardness, they called Duran hands of stone but Hagler was all stone.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,585
    Yup.
    Leonard was the classiest ever boxer IMHO, even eclipsing Ali.

    You could argue about who was the best but I think he had the most class and style. Not necessarily the most important attributes for a boxer but he had them in spades.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Do you remember the way Hagler ended Round 1 against Hearns? The glare at Tommy and the stroll back to the corner after what had just happened - jeez yeah stone! certainly was a privilege to be a boxing fan when the Four Kings were fighting

    Ali was truly a one off, a great fighter. Went to see 'When we were Kings' in the Cinema, and even the Wife enjoyed it! The Rumble in the Jungle may not have been the greatest fight ever, but it showed something in Ali, that he would think it out and find a way to win. The fight also just meant so much, everyone had him written off. On watching the film I remember being struck by how effortlessly charismatic Ali was, the press conferences, the interaction with Kids on training runs - he could just made people so happy.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 15,047
    From the technique point of view, heavyweight fights have never been good... blows are too devastating and a good one is often enough, as Tyson's early career clearly points out.

    If you want to see good boxing, then there is no better time than the 1980s, with the big 4: Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran taking on each other.

    It was about the drama: everybody supported Ali, but Foreman was the scariest thing ever seen on a ring, he was unstobbable... bigger, faster, meaner and younger... it was a machine... I think Rocky IV digged deep into that idea


    Charming fella apparently. :wink:
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    tim wand wrote:
    Holeysocks wrote:
    No way was Hagler better than Leonard. Ray had better hand speed, movement, stamina and skill. Dont forget he came back after only one fight in 5years (and that was 3yrs before) & moved up a couple of weight divisions to fight and beat Hagler.
    Hagler was great, super hard, if you stood toe to toe with him he would wear you down. Look at the mess he made of Mustafa Hamsho

    Leonards standard of opponent before the Hagler fight was better, Wilfred Benitez, peak Duran, Hearns (that 1981 fight was great as well).

    Round 1 of Hagler-Hearns is one of the best rounds of boxing I have ever seen, the only thing close is Round 10 of Bowe-Holyfield I


    I Loved Sugar Ray, I ve got a VHS of his highlights from the 76 Benetiz fight all the way to the Final Hagler fight.

    There is a bit where the announcer calls him into the ring " The pride of Palmer Park Detroit" and Ray throws a 12 punch full combination after vaulting the ropes and entering the ring.

    If you slow it down as you could with the technical wonders of VHS you can see he throws the full combination in less than a second , awesome hand speed.

    They say he came out of retirement to fight Hagler, but it is known he had at least 5 warm up fights behind closed doors and was in pretty good shape .

    Leonard was the classiest middleweight I ve ever seen. Took Belts at four different weights ( Hearns first to do it at 5) but Hagler was solid hardness, they called Duran hands of stone but Hagler was all stone.

    SRL was a great Welterweight but didnt fight enough at Middle to be conisdered anywhere near the best or classiest at the weight. His win over Hagler was astonishing at the time but Hagler fought an odd fight - too conservative, he seemed simply not to believe that he could lose so didnt fight with anywhere near the intensity of the Hearns fight for example. Age also had something to do with it.

    I find it interesting that Hagler is seen as some kind of toe-to-toe slugger - not saying this is particularly your view Tim - when he was a fine boxer; very tough, steel chin and could go into the trenches no doubt but he threw great combinations, could switch hit, was a fine counterpuncher and until the later years of his career had great movement. Worth watching some of his Philly fights with Seales, Monroe, Watts and others (some of which he lost) to see his artistry.
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    pblakeney wrote:
    Yup.
    Leonard was the classiest ever boxer IMHO, even eclipsing Ali.

    You could argue about who was the best but I think he had the most class and style. Not necessarily the most important attributes for a boxer but he had them in spades.

    SRL was a great fighter - aboslutely no doubt - but not many would put him at the very top of the list. Historically there have been better fighters: watch Sugar Ray Robinson - he is superior to SRL in pretty much anyway you want to mention in my opinion.
  • Paulie WPaulie W Posts: 1,492
    seanoconn wrote:
    My point was not that Ali was in his best shape in Zaire but if he could get a fighter out of his comfort zone, (a foreign country) and cocoon that person in Ali world, with all the razzmatazz and trash talk with no escape, he'd have that man beaten before he entered the ring. Ali won a victory of the mind, had the fight taken place on US soil, foreman would have won in my opinion.

    I think Foreman suffered the climate, it must have been hot and humid and Ali had prepared for that... by round 8 Foreman could barely move. Same match in an air conditioned ring in America, no contest...

    I dont disagree that Ali coped with the fight delay better than Foreman and this may have impacted on his condition although no-one was suggesting that prior to the fight when the press were salivating over just how great Foreman looked in training. I also dont doubt that Ali thrived off the environment and the support in Zaire and that Foreman definitively didnt. The suggestion, however, that Foreman wins easily in an Amercian ring doesnt really stand up. Post-Ali Foreman showed significant weaknesses: in his comeback fight versus Ron Lyle he was down a couple of time and in serious trouble besides that and he lost to Jimmy Young - a kind of Ali-lite - a year after that. You could argue that he hadnt recovered from the loss to Ali - and there would be some truth in that. But you could also argue that he was a fighter who struggled against opponents who didnt unravel under his initial assault; that he had some stamina issues and struggled to develop a Plan B when Plan A failed. I think Ali would always have had the answer to 70s Big George.
  • tim wandtim wand Posts: 2,945
    All these middleweights ( I put them in that division despite them moving between weights/ in Hearns case 5 different weights) were technically brilliant boxers.

    I think promoters of the day liked the good and evil personas, especially when dealing with Duran, who was a technically gifted as any of them, but always seemed cast as a slugger.

    The point you make about Leonard making most of his fights at Welterweight ( Olympics and most title defences) is very true and again I think the Welterweight division as always been seen as containing more purists/ boxers than out and out fighters.

    Hagler was as good as any one for ring craft. Especially as you say Switch Hitting and combinations, working to the body. But just the look of him and his unbelievable fitness in an Era of 15 Round championship fights ( probably Leonards first victory was getting the fight down to a 12 rounder) cast him as a slugger when put against people like Ray.
  • debelidebeli Posts: 582
    Certainly Foreman and Ali were both outstanding boxers. But this bout has been whipped into the realm of myth. It was also a part of the dawn of a dirty period in boxing. Ali's pre-match taunts and his showmanship (he was selling tickets) were the ushering-in of the era that gave us the pantomime absurdity of Chisora and Haye. The transition is seamless. Somehow Ali is allowed to get away with it because he rhymes.

    It was Don King's first big fight.... It was held in the disgraceful kleptocratic autocracy of Zaire....

    Ali is a man of corage, skill and conviction. His stand against the draft was noble, but he was also being terribly manipulated by EM and others.

    He was also a man who could say the most terrible things about his opponents and get away with it.

    It was an extraordinary fight, but by no means the greatest sporting event of the century, nor even the greatest fight.

    The media fascinate about lists of 'Best Ever' or (these days) 'Most Iconic'. There has to be a list and it has to have a number-one event.

    Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Holyfield, Tyson were all outstanding heavyweights.
Sign In or Register to comment.