Muhammad Ali is willing to admit he made a mistake in assessing Joe Bugner.

“Give Joe two more years,” he said following a close 12-round unanimous decision over the 22-yearold Englishman Wednesday night, “and he will be the world heavyweight champion.”

Ali, 33, had predicted another St. Valentine’s Day massacre and a seventh- round knockout but he was lucky to escape with a victory. The surprising Bugner wasn’t ever on the verge of a knockout.

Posting his 10th straight victory since his 1971 loss to smokin’ Joe Frazier, Ali was a 58-52,57-54-56-53 winner on the three judge’s scorecards.

“It was my condition and speed that pulled me through,” boxings folk hero said. “If I had been carrying 10 extra pounds, I could easily have lost.”

Improving his record to 41-1, the former Cassius Clay took the last three rounds on the cards of judges Roland Dakin, Lou Tabat, and Ralph Mosa, by 5-4 scores on Nevada’s five point must system.

If Ali, who came in at 217 compared with Bugner’s 219, expected an easy fight, he found out early it wasn’t going to be that way. Bugner sent Ali back off-balance with a right early in the opening round. Then he tagged the ex-champ with a series of lefts and rights to the head that sent Ali back on his heels.

The Hungarian-born Bugner, who won the European heavy-weight crown for the second time in October, was cut over his left eye in the second round and it stayed open most of the rest of the way. Bugner was in command until the sixth and the seventh, when Ali attempted to make his knockout prediction come true.

But although Ali won the sixth and the seventh, Bugner came back until the 10th – Ali’s best round. Ali belted his former sparring partner around the ring and had his face a mask of blood.

Bugner, who was a 25-1 underdog in his own hometown of London, said Ali never had him in trouble.

“I was baffled a little bit, but I wasn’t actually hurt,” he said. “I didn’t realize Muhammad’s legs were as good as they were, I’m pleased he had as much respect for my ability as he did and got himself into as good condition as he did.”

The victory was worth $275,000 for Ali, while Bugner, who suffered his fifth loss in 50 fights, is expected to get $125,000 from his guarantee and revenue from closed-circuit TV in the United States and Europe.

A crowd of 5,700 paid a gate of $296,000 for the fight at the Las Vegas Convention Center. -oOo Cluttered Corner By Milt Phillips OKLAHOMA’S LEGISLATORS are hearing proponents and opponents of the “Equal Rights” amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If 36 state legislatures approve the proposal it will become an amendment to, and a part of the U.S. Constitution. We have noted on teevee and read in our state newspapers, some very emotional pleas to legislative committees to approve the amendment. We have also viewed on teevee, and read in the newspapers, some very sound arguments against the proposed amendments. It seems to us the opponent of the “equal rights” amendment have made the more sound, sensible arguments. The proponents and supporters seem to depend more on emotion. We recall watching one lady attorney appear before a legislative committee with the teevee cameras grinding. Her presentation was calm, made sense to us, and contained logic rather than emotion. On the same teevee program we noted one of the lady proponents make an emotional speech, seemingly attempting to elicit sympathy for an “abused, minority, ill-treated group” of women in the USA. Somehow this appeal didn’t ring true to us. When one lady we watched on teevee as she appeared before the Oklahoma lawmakers, she insisted the women do not want special treatment “as a weaker sex” under state and federal laws. They wanted EQUALITY she insisted. We don’t believe that. Women are entitled to have, and should have the protection state and federal laws provide for them. They bear the children. They own the sensitive nature of the human being to a far greater extent than the male. They have been accorded a high place because they deserve such a place in enlightened society. These are the views we see and read are being presented by the opposition to the so called (and we think misnamed) “equal rights” amendment. We want our wife and daughter and granddaughter and daughter-in-law to have more than “equal” rights – we want them to have preferential rights. We hope our state legislators agree with the sound presentations of opposition, such as that being made by a prominent lady legislator from Edmond, Jan Turner. We hope our State Representative and our State Senator from this district vote a resounding “No” when this comes to a vote in the state legislature, if it does get that far.