heavyweight tourney

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 13 Jan 2002, 10:31

not only follow boxing but fought pro for 15 years. know a few things about the sport.if you didnt know about ali s jab you dont know much. holmes had the second best jab.ask him who had the best jab. also ask where he learned how to jab like that. ali. you say trainers dont say much about ali. ask the old time trainers about ali. as tyson being faster than ali that is a joke.i take it you just watch tapes. if you had seen him in his prime you would know the difference. by the way who is your favorite fighter. person who knows.

DL · Post by DL » 13 Jan 2002, 13:26

Anonymous, my favorite heavyweights would be Louis, Holmes, Tyson, in no particular order. My favorite fighters would include Monzon, Duran, Tony Ayala (early 80's), Hagler, Hearns, Holyfield, and others. If you think Ali was great, that is your opinion, I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. Ali looked great twice, against Zora Folley(old, scared, slow), and Cleveland Williams (old, disabled). The rest of the time he looked very ordinary to me. Most of my memories of Ali were of him against Bonevena, Shavers, Young, Evangelista, the three loses to Norton, and the loss to Leon Spinks(who barely beat Alfio Righetti, and fought a draw with Scott LeDoux in his two previous fights). Ali was neck and neck with Bonevena going into the last round, he could easily have lost all of the other fights, and probably would have if he wasn't Ali. When Ali lost his size and speed advantages, he wasn't much of a fighter. He didn't have the great technical skills of a Larry Holmes or Roberto Duran that enable them to fight competitively long after the physical skills are gone. I'm not trying to convince you because I won't, but to me he was and always will be over-rated as a fighter. I think that it will be obvious to fight fans of the future when his videos are watched. Those people won't care about his status during the Viet Nam war, they will judge him by his ability to box. I don't think they will be impressed.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 14 Jan 2002, 18:27

ali was the best. when i see someone that comes that close i will be happy. dont think i will. by the way norton did not beat him 3 times. yes he lost fights when well over the hill. back in the 60s he *was simply the best* the best ever.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 14 Jan 2002, 19:38

sure larry learned to jab in part from ali, does that not mean he couldnt be better? if so then this world would still be living in caves eating raw meat, your logic is flawed anonymous. and even if holmes said ali had a better jab, which i would like to see this interview, it is possible he just said it to not take flak, i know im guilty of saying one thing yet not believing it, bottom line is he knew when he said it if he tarnished the ali name he would lose respect something which would hurt his pocket book.

DL i believe is the person who pointed out to me that ali is considered so great in the 60's because he was the first large heavyweight with flash, speed, and a big mouth, look for yourself nobody was all that quick in the upper echelons of heavyweight boxing that adds to the illusion he was and is faster than anybody because people refuse to look at tapes and compare. then go watch his comeback when he had to deal with frazier and foreman guyys who also had speed, maybe less but not by much, im telling you ali was the same man only a little older during his comeback and still a very viable fighting age, watch his early fights, he tries to dance aganst quarry i belive and bonevana and these guuys had developed what prior generations lacked which is speed and thats why it didnt work as well as it did against over the hill pattersons and bloated moore.

ali was above average ill give him that, the best personality nobody really compares but saying he is the best hands down is a hogwash, bottom line

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Jan 2002, 14:26

if you dont think ali was the best. your wrong. as for holmes losing respect he never had much. rocky could not carry is jock strap. remember that statement. but mike spinks could and did. he shut his mouth after the kid beat him. not once but twice. what about that. o.yes you will say he was robbed. well if he was so good why did he leave it up to the judges. from one who knows.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 16 Jan 2002, 02:25

if you dont think ali was the best. your wrong

right...excuse me for being so blind and forming an informed opinion. i refuse to indulge your close minded conversation anymore.

SteveO · Post by **SteveO** » 16 Jan 2002, 08:53

Ali had the skills and boxing brain to potentially beat anybody past or present.

DL · Post by DL » 16 Jan 2002, 13:28

Anonymous,
When Ali was 36, he lost to Leon Spinks. Spinks was 6-0-1 at the time, having fought a draw with Scott LeDoux. Most thought LeDoux had won. Does anyone honestly believe that Holmes, Louis, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson(will be 36 in June), etc. would have been beaten by Spinks at that age. No great fighter would have been. How do you explain that defeat? This is my explanation, Spinks was not much of a fighter, but he was active. Ali never developed any defensive skills, his only skills were his size when he fought the small guys early in his career and his chin later. Ali didn't have much offensive either, pitter pat punches, he held a lot, and waited for the biased judges to give him the decision. Spinks was so active that the judges could not give Ali the decision. If Larry Holmes had lost to a Leon Spinks, he would have been a laughing stock, but the media supported Ali and never stopped writing that he was the greatest and now many people believe it. Larry Holmes defeated Ray Mercer when he was 41, he gave Holyfield a tough fight at 41, he beat Jesse Ferguson at 44, he went the distance with Oliver McCall at 44. Ali couldn't come close to beating Trevor Berbeck at 38-39. Holmes could still fight when his physical skills were gone, because he was a great boxer. Ali was not. I have nothing at all against Ali, I just hate to hear people call him the greatest. If Ali and his boxing career are looked at objectively, he can not be called the greatest. He might be in the all time Heavyweight top 10-15.

A Gift Decision · Post by **A Gift Decision** » 16 Jan 2002, 14:11

Ok. ALi lost to Leon Spinks and I agree that probably none of the guys you mentioned would have lost him at the age of 36. However, the age is not the same for all fighters. Ali's fighting was based on his lightening speed and reflexes and not puncing power like Lewis, Tyson Foreman ect. Speed is gone at the age of 36 but power isn't so the comparsion isn't so simple. And Ali might have had a bad day. You could argue for example that a 24-year-old Ali never would have lost to James Douglas. And I think it takes a great fighter to whup Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Norton.
Moreover, you stated tha Ali should be placed in the all-time top 10-15. Well, even if you can find fifteen guys who would defeat Ali (which I can't), you should remember that it's not all about who could beat whom ect. Ali had the title for eight years and he was the best of the division for a decade, not too many have done that.

DL · Post by DL » 16 Jan 2002, 17:16

I'll take some abuse for this, but the Buster Douglas who showed up in Tokyo to fight Mike Tyson was a good, tall, boxer,with a great jab. He had looked good in his last three fights, beating McCall, Berbeck, and Mike Williams who was a hot prospect at the time. Buster was not motivated enough to continue training after the Tyson fight, but for that one fight he was tough. I agree that beating Liston, Frazier, and Foreman was impressive. There are a lot of questions about both Liston fights, especially the second. The Foreman fight was also strange. Foreman was injured prior to the fight and the fight was postponed and Foreman was not allowed to leave the country. Ali was treated well in Zaire, while Foreman was not and did not enjoy the stay. That fight may have been a fluke in which everything worked out for Ali. Frazier in my opinion defeated Ali in 1971 when both fighters were closest to their primes. Joe was 28, Ali 29, both were in shape. The last two fights, Frazier was much heavier, especially around his waist, and he had been destroyed by Foreman. To me Frazier was a shell of himself in the two loses to Ali. I am not running Ali down, I am just pointing out items that others would point out about any fighter other than Ali. The media has repeated the mantra, "Ali is the Greatest" so many times for so long that many take it as truth. In my opinion, he wasn't the greatest, and wasn't even close to being the greatest. I saw all three fights with Norton, Ali lost them all. The only one that was close was the second. Ali lost about 10-12 rounds in the third fight with Norton and everyone including Ali was shocked when he was given the decision.

SteveO · Post by **SteveO** » 17 Jan 2002, 08:55

Ali simply underestimated Spinks in their first fight and gave him a boxing lesson in the rematch. Ali never lost to the same fighter twice!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 17 Jan 2002, 19:15

steve o. your right. ali was the best. i wonder the real reason people like r. ray dont like the truth. you can tell he knows nothing about ali. some of his statements are funny. but the champ is 60 today. he would whip r.ray today. like to see that. ha. ha. from one who knows.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 17 Jan 2002, 20:11

ok i personally dont hold the spinks, holmes or berbick fights against ali, its just not right...he was old and parkinsins (spelling) may have already taken a slight effect on him according to some physician, but Steve0 you said ali never lost to anyone twice? explain knorton, sure it goes down as a W but come on, gimme a break

age isnt the same for everyone as 'Gift' pointed out as bernard hopkins has shown us he is still young (so far) in the ring, some age gracefully others do not, ali didnt i believe.

ok sure ali came up with the right formula to beat guy most of the time but not always, and when he did lose we dont blame ali, norton was goofy, frazier, ali had just made a comeback, and spinks, holmes and berbick he was too old to be in the ring anyway. point of fact is he couldnt always come up with that formula, now im going on a limb here and saying *possible* he couldnt come up with one for lewis, then he loses, no questions asked.

now lets look at em and break it down again

better jab: neither
lewis has the reach advantage albeit slight and he is taller again slightly which helps him, maybe ali is quicker but im unconvinced he would have been that much fasterwith a jab save maybe a flick which is useless.

power: lewis
ali didnt knock anyone out after his layoff, whys that? people were bigger and were therefore taking punches from bigger guys developing chins, all the old men and little guys were gone exposing ali's lack of raw power. lewis knocks giants out, perhaps less talented but still capable of taking a punch better than say williams.

boxing ability: lewis
ali relied on dancing around slow guys in his early career with his hands down doing what prince does in just twist your head to let te punch slide off while picking them off with his jab, his second part of his career he tried and learned he couldnt out pace guys as well so he relied on covering and taking punches a little bit more. whereas lewis dominates every fight with his jab, save ones where he underestimates guys and dosnt train properly...kind of like ali did to spinks so lets not go overboard here with that comment.

resume: ali
lewis dominates his competition, just like tyson did thats why everyone thinks he has fought nobodys his whole career in comparisson to the tiara wearing pedastal placed ali with fights with more name fighters than any other heavyweight, wonder why that is? ali let guys compete with him so people like bonevana and norton are now famous because of ali, i mean really what did norton do that makes him special aside from his ali fights and his battle with holmes? so basically im syaing either ali fought built up opponents like lewis has done to some people, or, key word *or* lewis has been able to dispose of top level guys while ali struggled to do so

speed: tie
ali could move quicker and was more agile while i think lewis may be quicker with throwing the meaningful punches, the hooks uppercuts and cross.

now i know nobody will agree with this, what brainwashed media zombie wouldnt? but now you are inside my head in why lewis is more than capable of dissmissing an ali while i remain skeptic in that ali could do the same.

i just wish somehow this fight could be made so that vegas would give ali outrageous odds, you guys would all bet on him and id be able to get rich from the 5:1 odds id be getting off of lewis

i hate myself for addressing this comment, but, im a kid, with very limited amatuer boxing experience, im a lightheavyweight, granted ali is a diseased man of 60 but i dont think i could beat him either, and i doubt you could either anonymous.

and youre right i know nothing of ali, ive only got over a dozen of his fights taped and have only watched each at least 10 times, my knowledge pales in comparrison to you. let me guess you grew up and watched every last one of his fights? makes sense it could explain why you are so unwilling to admit his flaws, or are you a child of a different era and have fallen for what boxing analysts and media writers have portrayed as the absolute best heavyweight of any era? either way its a shame another mind is wasted in refusing to even consider thinking outside the proverbial box could be true

prince · Post by **prince** » 19 Jan 2002, 09:30

I can tell you how Ali would beat Lewis.

Lewis thinks ' aah, this guys crap, I can beat him with my eyes closed'

.....and gets beaten.

Easy Peazy!!!!!!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 19 Jan 2002, 12:14

prince. your right. lewis and ali. no contest. ali all the way. beleive me i seen ali in his prime. no way lewis beats him.lewis might have been a good sparring partener. thats all.

DL · Post by DL » 19 Jan 2002, 17:10

If you don't think Ali was the greatest, just ask Larry Merchant, Jim Lampley, Will Smith, Dave Letterman, any actor, rock star, etc., the real experts of boxing. LOL. Ali was never the greatest. Please explain how Ali would beat Lewis easily, yet he was lucky to beat 182 pound Henry Cooper(Ali was knocked down and almost out, quick thinking by Dundee saved him), 180 pound Doug Jones (another disputed decision), when he was in his prime. The truth is Ali never beat a good fighter decisively, he held and got away with tactics other fighters would have been disqualified for using, and he "won" rounds from judges when he didn't throw a punch. Lennox Lewis is not a great fighter, but neither was Ali. Lewis is bigger, stronger and better fundamentally than Ali. The only thing Lewis would have to worry about is if Ali could hold himself upright for most of the fight, he would get the decision.

Justin · Post by **Justin** » 20 Jan 2002, 05:02

Justin · Post by **Justin** » 20 Jan 2002, 05:03

DL,

I'll just ignore your comment about saying Ali wasn't great. No, he wasn't the greatest, but he sure as hell was a great! No one can dispute that! Ali did Just enough to win in every fight, no matter who he was fighting.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 20 Jan 2002, 07:01

why cant it be disputed justin? DL and i keep giving you guys reasons why we dispute his greatest title and you guys give us nothing but 'he comes up with fight plans' and 'he has the best jab, ask holmes, he'll tell you' and 'ali is the best' come on, he was good but you guys have to let go of his fights with frazier, foreman and liston...well not let go but dont base opinions soley on those fights because the rest of the time he was above mediocre and barely

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 20 Jan 2002, 07:48

smoking joe. sonny liston. george foreman. yes ali beat them. and a lot more of them. because he was the best. big george came back at 50 and beat some of guys that you guys think are great. ali beat george when george was in his prime. he beat smoking joe when joe was still smoking. he beat liston who if you look at closely was a terror who beat a lot of good fighters. your fighters of today just dont have it. most are pretenters not contenters. from the bossman.

DL · Post by DL » 20 Jan 2002, 12:29

Anonymous, you signed your last post as Bossman. You also wrote earlier that you fought pro for 15 years. Are you Eddie "Bossman" Jones?

Justin · Post by **Justin** » 20 Jan 2002, 14:33

On 2002-01-20 11:01, Ridiculous_Ray wrote:
why cant it be disputed justin? DL and i keep giving you guys reasons why we dispute his greatest title and you guys give us nothing but 'he comes up with fight plans' and 'he has the best jab, ask holmes, he'll tell you' and 'ali is the best' come on, he was good but you guys have to let go of his fights with frazier, foreman and liston...well not let go but dont base opinions soley on those fights because the rest of the time he was above mediocre and barely

RR,
Those fights (Frazier, Foreman, and liston) accounted to 6 fights, in which ali was 5-1 vs other great fighters... He also beat such guys as Norton (3 times, having a hard time though), Shavers, spinks, The mongoose, and many other top 10 heavyweights of the time...

and then you add in his 2 beatings of the great Floyd Patterson

What I'm saying is, if you don't consider Ali an all-time great, then on what grounds would you consider someone an all-time great?

Would you consider Marciano great, although he only beat one other great, who was way past his prime? I just wanna see who and what you would consider an all-time great.

SteveO · Post by **SteveO** » 20 Jan 2002, 14:37

Ali fought (and beat) EVERYONE who was considered a contender during his first 2 reigns as champion - you really can't do better than that!

DL · Post by DL » 20 Jan 2002, 15:59

Read my post above for my argument about the Foreman, Frazier, and Liston fights. Ali never beat Norton, please watch Ali-Norton III, did Ali win over 2-3 rounds? The judging in Ali's favor was ridiculous in those days. Again, Frazier was fat when Ali beat him and he had been beaten severely by Foreman. He was only a shadow of what he had been when he soundly beat Ali on 3-8-71. Liston did not fight at all in fight 2, almost everybody considers that one to be fake. In number 1, who knows what happened, Ali tried to quit early, Liston quit late. Who knows what kind of pressure Liston was feeling from Ali's "new friends" who were present that night. Foreman was in Zaire, a place he didn't want to be, he was injured prior to the fight, he wasn't allowed to leave the country while he healed. Foreman was a virtual prisoner when he fought Ali. If you think Foreman had nothing to fear, please read the latest issue of National Revue. Prior to the arrival of tourist in the country for that fight, the pick pockets and other small time criminals were rounded up, taken to the very arena where the fight was to take place and executed. I don't blame Foreman for not wanting to fight there. None of you Ali fans have made a good argument yet for Ali. He had wins over Foreman, Liston, and Frazier, but they are all tarnished. He also has 3 loses to Norton, and he would have loses to Shavers, Young, Jones, and others if he didn't have the judges in his favor. Ali was just a symbol of the 60s who is still admired by those stuck in those times, and by those who will not examine the old videos. Just watch Ali, see for yourself if he is great.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 20 Jan 2002, 19:11

NOW IT IS THE JUDGES. WHAT NEXT. YOU GUYS JUST DONT GET IT. HE WAS THE BEST. EVERYTIME WE PROVE A POINT YOU HAVE ANOTHER EXCUSE. POOR GEORGE DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT THERE. ALI * NEW FRIENDS* WERE AT THE LISTON FIGHT. * SO WHAT* JUST GIVE IT UP. THE BOSSMAN. NO I AM NOT EDDIE JONES.