It's Fall (Autumn) of '76. So Foreman had returned from his 2 year sulk. He's on a roll after a barn-burner with Ron Lyle and an assault charge on a bald Joe Frazier. Ali's not the same fighter now; the 3rd Frazier fight has noticeably taken something out of him. He's squeezed past Jimmy Young but still managed to score a KO of Richard Dunn. Instead of fighting Norton and LeDoux, respectively, Ali and Foreman sign to fight the anticipated rematch. Foreman is hell bent on revenge, Ali is not as hungry as before. Foreman may be smarter now...he may not fall for the rope-a-dope. Ali is a little slower and less "spiteful" in the ring, but he still has the chin, the heart, the smarts and the experience. What transpires?
It never gets easier for me, this subject. To my eyes, Ali is not the only fighter in this match to have gone backwards in the two years since the actual meet. Some contend Foreman was never the same after that loss, & I'm honestly inclined to agree with that viewpoint. The decline was not physical --- Foreman was a touch heavier than before, but essentially the same fighter in an ostensible sense. I know it's harped on about a good deal, but mentally, was he the same force? I don't think so. Really, this is down to Foreman's mental decline going up against Ali's physical one, & I can truly state I do not have, & never really have had, an answer which really satisfies me. I just cannot picture a definite winner. I give a lot of weight to Ali overcoming the mental obstacle of Foreman by virtue of having actually beaten him, & the strength that would endow him with --- but I also don't under-estimate Ali's pretty severe physical decline post-Manila. He went from being a post-prime fighter (pre-Kinshasa) to a fast-fading one (post-Manila). "Ali went to Manila as an is, but left...as a was." Forget who said that, I think the author of Ghosts Of Manila? It sounds facile, but it rings true. Just whose decline would ultimately be the most telling is up for grabs, in my eyes.
Ooooh. Both men were pretty dramatically declined. Foreman would be more cautious, much less sure of himself, more easily hurt/discouraged by shots and i think would give Ali more space to 'dance'. But of course Ali wasn't offering up much of a fan-dango by that point. I think the whole thing would be far less high octane and come over as something of an anti-climax. By the later rounds it'd probably settle back to the ropes, given Foreman's genuinely outstanding nous in cutting off the ring and Ali's slower legs, but i don't think it'd come to the same kind of satisfying denouement, more likely fizzling out to a limp decision with Foreman pacing himself out of fear of a repeat collapse. Ali by contentious decision.
I've often wondered what was being said in Foreman's corner. We will sadly never really know first-hand. Moore, at the very least, surely would not have been encouraging Foreman's fightplan throughout --- he was shrewder than that. Saddler, I could see being less attentive, & encouraging Foreman's failing tactics. Saddler had a lot to do with the foible which was a young Foreman largely dispensing with what was once a very promising jab --- the same jab which would form the staple of his offense during the man's comeback in the 80's & 90's. I wonder sometimes if there wasn't a lot of stern disagreement going on in that corner between rounds.
Foreman, if anything, was a lesser fighter by this time and shattered emotionally... I think Ali wins with room to spare even at that advanced age because he would play with George's mind, which was very fragile at that time
