heavyweight tourney

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 20 Jan 2002, 19:31

TO EVERYONE ON THIS SITE. PLEASE DONT TAKE ANYTHING PERSONAL THAT I SAY. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT ALI WAS THE GREATEST. EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION. YES I GREW UP IN ALI*S TIME. BUT I WATCHED A LOT OF FIGHTS OVER THE YEARS. AS SAID BEFORE. 15 YEARS PRO. SO LETS CONTINUE THE HEALTHY DEBATES. I JUST DONT WANT TO HURT ANYBODYS FELLINGS. IF I DID I APOLOGIZE. THE CANADIAN BOSSMAN.

DL · Post by DL » 20 Jan 2002, 20:57

Anonymous, I enjoy the debate too. You don't hurt my feelings, and I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings either. I just feel strongly that Ali is an overrated media creation. I believe that his political views were/are favorable to the media, and the media treats him like he is the greatest. If Ali's name had no political ramifications, or if his name was associated with right wing politics, the media would not consider him the greatest. I just enjoy pointing out to people that Ali wasn't the greatest. In my opinion, he isn't even close. By the way, I have always pointed out that the judging in his fights was biased in his favor, along with most of the crowds. All of this was/is the result of favorable media coverage.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 20 Jan 2002, 22:18

ali did fight only top guys during his title reigns but he didnt in reality beat everyone and he often struggled against those B level guys which is sad. ali's victories over floyd and archie are as legit as mike tysons victories over holmes and spinks, old guys and above their natural weight for each respective fighter. the liston fights, while the first was legit the second was a joke. he couldnt ever soundly dispatch ken and on the second half of his career though he was older (not at the point where he fought holmes and spinks but just before) he was second rate mediocre heavyweight. he had nothing, no more speed, no power his skills werent as sharp and he had yet to hit 35. yes ali accomplished some pretty hefty goals during his career but you gotta look at the fact he fought what would be considered tiny heavyweights by todays standards and had judges give him fights to get those wins. his style when he was young was dance with your hands down, like prince and we all know what happens to a guy like that when they get placed in against a REAL boxer they get beaten, ali never fought a -real- boxer during his first reign, nobody would let that keep your hands down crap fly in this day of heavyweights. then during his second reign he still possessed speed, but he was no longer up against clevlands and listons and old men but up against real bad asses who were as big and as quick so he had to learn to take punches as you can see from everyone of his fights from post suspension, you can tell me that a little guy like ali would be able to stand up to a barrage of 12 rounds from a giant like lewis, it just aint happening. i can sense im starting to trail off so one more thing

marciano would be a great cruiser but as you stated the guy fought wolcot...old lewis, old and bloated moore and a past his prime floyd, nothing great came from this guy so why bring him up? but at least he dispatched the 2nd tier guys

A Gift Decision · Post by **A Gift Decision** » 21 Jan 2002, 10:52

For those who don't consider Ali a great. I can understand you who say that Ali would be beaten by many other champions, it's very possible that Holmes, Bowe, Lewis ect. would have defeated him. Still, I think he must be considered as a great. For example, Jesse Owens was most certainly a great athlete, though he wouldn't win one good runner today. But he was great in HIS time (as was Ali). They both were clearly far superior to their timers!

Justin · Post by **Justin** » 21 Jan 2002, 13:51

Yes yes, Gift Decision is exactly right, in my opinion greats are made by being the best possible, given the time/era, and circumstances.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 22 Jan 2002, 00:45

hey i believe ali was and is an all time great, but the best heavyweight ever? i think other have claim to that spot just as much as him. and do i believe he can compete with todays giants with his early style of keeping his hands down or his later style of absorbing punches just wouldnt fly.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 04 Mar 2002, 03:19

All i am going to say is directed at the clown that said that Ali is a media creation and then , in the same damn breath said that he was impressed with Tyson in his prime...fella you need to check your facts and your stats...if anybody was a media creation it was your homie Tyson. Hand picked guys from day one, he fought the champs of the day, true but who was there really ? Tucker , Thomas and Berbick...virtual nobodies. I won't go any further than this because it is a waste of time but Dog, get it together would you ?

Ali came out on top of the the best division of heavyweights ever seen in the history iof boxing so what exactly makes him a media creation ? Jeez. Do your research.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 04 Mar 2002, 03:22

And if anybody would like to address me personally and tell me why Ali was not the greatest heavyweight of all time then please, feel free...i am in the mood to school some ignoramuses.

DL · Post by DL » 04 Mar 2002, 08:12

Well Robot, what makes you think Ali was the greatest? I read a book about Ali, the hype is always there. The author tells about his jab, his speed, etc. Then I watch him on video, he holds, he has no fundamentals, he wins rounds when he does nothing but hold. Another huge misconception is that he faced great opposition. Do your research, go back and read the magazines of the day. You will find that the heavyweight division was considered weak then by contemporary writers. You are the one who believes the hype, Ali was a personality, not a great figher.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 04 Mar 2002, 11:55

On 2002-03-04 12:12, DL wrote:
Well Robot, what makes you think Ali was the greatest? I read a book about Ali, the hype is always there. The author tells about his jab, his speed, etc. Then I watch him on video, he holds, he has no fundamentals, he wins rounds when he does nothing but hold. Another huge misconception is that he faced great opposition. Do your research, go back and read the magazines of the day. You will find that the heavyweight division was considered weak then by contemporary writers. You are the one who believes the hype, Ali was a personality, not a great figher.

Before i discredit your assinine and uninformed comments i would like you to tell when the heavyweight era was strong. And who was a great heavy to you. Address these questions please , i might as well kill three birds with one stone.

Thanks.

ps. I am sure that because you read a book about Ali you feel that you are an authority but i urge YOU to do your research.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 04 Mar 2002, 12:01

On 2002-03-04 12:12, DL wrote:
Well Robot, what makes you think Ali was the greatest? I read a book about Ali, the hype is always there. The author tells about his jab, his speed, etc. Then I watch him on video, he holds, he has no fundamentals, he wins rounds when he does nothing but hold. Another huge misconception is that he faced great opposition. Do your research, go back and read the magazines of the day. You will find that the heavyweight division was considered weak then by contemporary writers. You are the one who believes the hype, Ali was a personality, not a great figher.

Just for your own research (this should help your little argument) ALL contemporary writers feel that the eras that they are living through are weak by comparison. If you ask any so-called expert nowadays which the most talented era in history they will all say "mid 60's to mid 70's"

If you don't like Ali's politics that's one thing but don't try and take away from his legend as a boxer because you end up making yourself sound silly.

DL · Post by DL » 04 Mar 2002, 14:15

I don't have anything against Ali or his politics, he simply wasn't a great fighter. He had no boxing fundamentals, that is why he was never dominant when he returned to boxing against guys who were his size. Notice skilled fighters like Larry Holmes, Roberto Duran can fight until they are old at an effective level. All Ali had was the ability to take punches. No defense, no offense, he just got pounded and if he stood up most of the time he was given a decision. He was popular, if you want to say he was great because of his ability to interest the non boxing fan in his fights, he may be great on that level. Ppularity is not greatness as a boxer.

DL · Post by DL » 04 Mar 2002, 14:19

By the way, I consider Larry Holmes and Joe Louis to be great heavyweights. I also consider Mike Tyson to have been great at periods of his career. I don't consider any era to have a lot of great heavyweights, but the era of today compares favorable with the 70s. Let's get this out of the way too, I don't consider Frazier to have been anywhere near his best when he fought Ali in fights 2 & 3. He was 10+ pounds heavier than the first fight, and you could see the weight in his gut. He was having problems in fights with guys he would have walked through prior to March 8, 1971. So when Ali and Frazier were closest to their best, Frazier won.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 04 Mar 2002, 20:34

All you guys are bickering about the thing with Lewis' height and reach. True Ali didnt fight anyone bigger when he was in his prime. But the only examples you use to destroy his greatness is examples that were made far after his prime (which was lost in prison). Lewis is hardly as mobile or as quick as Ali. Not only that but Lewis is not as mentally strong as Ali (he threw a hissy fit after the draw with Holyfield). A person like Ali had George Foreman beat before they ever got in the ring, would have Tyson crying before they got in the ring (and eating lunch), would have Lewis shocked at this madman hes fighting. Lewis has ability no doubt, but I dont care what anyone of you say...Im not an Ali fan but he is the best Heavyweight for the simple reason that hes a ring general he can do things that no one else can do. Ali by UD.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 04 Mar 2002, 21:06

your forgeting that yeah frazier wasnt half the fighter after the first ali fight but ali wasnt half the fighter after the layoff

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 05 Mar 2002, 00:32

On 2002-03-04 18:19, DL wrote:
By the way, I consider Larry Holmes and Joe Louis to be great heavyweights. I also consider Mike Tyson to have been great at periods of his career. I don't consider any era to have a lot of great heavyweights, but the era of today compares favorable with the 70s. Let's get this out of the way too, I don't consider Frazier to have been anywhere near his best when he fought Ali in fights 2 & 3. He was 10+ pounds heavier than the first fight, and you could see the weight in his gut. He was having problems in fights with guys he would have walked through prior to March 8, 1971. So when Ali and Frazier were closest to their best, Frazier won.

Ali had just come back from a three and a half year layoff when he faced frazier first...was he at his best ?

Ali had no skills ? Did you see him fight during his prime , pre Vietnam ? Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams Ernie Terrell hell even George Chuvalo . He had a lightning quick, fundamentally sound jab (maybe the fastest ever in heavyweight history) the best lateral and foot movement, he could brawl with the best of them and he was overall a better boxer than both Holmes and Louis during his prime. Why are you in denial ? Watch some of the old footage.

For the record, the mid 60's to early seventies was the best era for heavyweights ever. You contest that fact but you don't want to back it up with any qualifying statments.

For depth their was

Frazier
Quarry
Bonavena
Chuvalo
Liston
Ellis
Lyle
Foreman

and this list can go on an on . Their is no deeper era , ever. And Ali came out on top, period. Even if you want to talk about his Norton decisions, big deal. Is that all their is ? Any great champ was given the good end of a bad decision and it never made them any less great.

Ray Leonard
Cesar Chavez
Oscar de la Hoya

this list can go on and on too.

Ali is the greatest heavyweight of alltime and the fact that you even brought Tyson into the argument is pretty ridiculous. If you want to talk handpicked competition and media creation then he is the guy that you should be bashing.

DL · Post by DL » 05 Mar 2002, 02:21

You are obviously an Ali fan. If you think Ali had good fundamentals, you are wrong. He pulled straight back from punches, he carried his hands low, he didn't slip punches. The lack of fundamentals became apparent when the size and speed advantage he had was gone. Sure looked good against Zora Folley and Cleveland Williams. Williams was totally washed up after being shot, Folley was old, slow, and scared. When Ali came back to boxing in 1970, he was 28 years old. He never dominated again, because he was no longer the only 6-3, 210 pound guy with some speed. He didn't do so well with Norton, Shavers, Young, and he had his hands full with others. Then to cap off his career he lost to Leon Spinks. Take a look at Spinks' record before and after the Ali fight. Not too impressive in either direction. You're going to say Ali was old, was he? He was 36, the same as Lennox Lewis is now, Tyson will be 36 in June. If either of those guys fought the Leon Spinks of 1978, Spinks wouldn't last a round. Get some video of Ali, watch that, forget the hype and you will see an ordinary guy fighting. He just doesn't live up to the hype.
And Nope, I don't agree that the 60s-70s were a great time for heavyweights. Foreman was good, but he was huge and powerful at that time. Today, his 217 pounds would be considered undersized. The Liston-Ali fights...who knows what happened in either of them, especially the second one. Ali might have just been bigger and faster, or Liston might have lost his desire,or, it could have been fake, I don't know. The true test of greatness is when a fighter can lose his physical attributes and still beat good fighters. Larry Holmes defeated Ray Mercer at age 45. Ali couldn't even beat Leon Spinks at age 36. Ali was not effective against fighters who were equally as big and fast. He looked good against some of the small, old fighters of the 60s. He never looked great against the bigger, faster guys he faced in the 70s. I've seen almost every fight Ali ever had, and I have seen him live in an exhibition, so you aren't going to surprise me with anything. I have taken an objective look at Ali's skills and fights, and he just wasn't a great fighter.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 05 Mar 2002, 02:39

On 2002-03-05 06:21, DL wrote:
You are obviously an Ali fan. If you think Ali had good fundamentals, you are wrong. He pulled straight back from punches, he carried his hands low, he didn't slip punches. The lack of fundamentals became apparent when the size and speed advantage he had was gone. Sure looked good against Zora Folley and Cleveland Williams. Williams was totally washed up after being shot, Folley was old, slow, and scared. When Ali came back to boxing in 1970, he was 28 years old. He never dominated again, because he was no longer the only 6-3, 210 pound guy with some speed. He didn't do so well with Norton, Shavers, Young, and he had his hands full with others. Then to cap off his career he lost to Leon Spinks. Take a look at Spinks' record before and after the Ali fight. Not too impressive in either direction. You're going to say Ali was old, was he? He was 36, the same as Lennox Lewis is now, Tyson will be 36 in June. If either of those guys fought the Leon Spinks of 1978, Spinks wouldn't last a round. Get some video of Ali, watch that, forget the hype and you will see an ordinary guy fighting. He just doesn't live up to the hype.
And Nope, I don't agree that the 60s-70s were a great time for heavyweights. Foreman was good, but he was huge and powerful at that time. Today, his 217 pounds would be considered undersized. The Liston-Ali fights...who knows what happened in either of them, especially the second one. Ali might have just been bigger and faster, or Liston might have lost his desire,or, it could have been fake, I don't know. The true test of greatness is when a fighter can lose his physical attributes and still beat good fighters. Larry Holmes defeated Ray Mercer at age 45. Ali couldn't even beat Leon Spinks at age 36. Ali was not effective against fighters who were equally as big and fast. He looked good against some of the small, old fighters of the 60s. He never looked great against the bigger, faster guys he faced in the 70s. I've seen almost every fight Ali ever had, and I have seen him live in an exhibition, so you aren't going to surprise me with anything. I have taken an objective look at Ali's skills and fights, and he just wasn't a great fighter.

How can you say that Ali was not as effective against bigger or stronger guys ?

Foreman. bigger and stronger, regardless of how he measures up to todays heavies.

How can you say that he couldn't beat Spinks at 36 ?

Ali lost the first fight with Spinks but clearly won the rematch. (and don't forget that Parkinson's had already clearly set in with Ali before the Spinks' fights, though i am sure that you will deny that)

Because Ali held his hands low doesn't mean that he lacked fundamnetal skill. Roy Jones holds his hands low as well and can get away with it because of superior speed. And for that matter, how many heavies fight fundamentally sound fights ?

I know that before his layoff nobody at heavyweight ever fought better whether or not he was fundamentally sound is irrelevant. As for not looking good later on in his career (or not looking as good as he did before his layoff) really should not matter. The end result is that he fought and beat everybody out there, period. And please don't give that Frazier nonsense again because if you expect andbody to take your Manila argument seriously then you have to take into account that Ali was most certainly NOT at his best in that first fight.

Anyway, i am glad that your opinion is far from the majority. And the majority includes far more than play by play guys and celebrities so i don't know who you are trying to kid.

I have to address the Spinks comments once more, if you are going to compare a disease ridden Ali at 36 (who not coincidentally had fought and won more wars then any other heavy in history) to coddled and virtually untouched , due to fighting one or two overmatched fighters per year Tyson and to a lesser extent Lewis then somehow , for some reason, logic has escaped you.

DL · Post by DL » 05 Mar 2002, 02:48

Robot, we aren't going to agree. I may be in the minority about Ali now, but I won't be when new fans watch Ali videos and forget the hype. I have also never talked to anyone in boxing who thought Ali was the best. The people who believe he was the best are the 60s crowd and the celebrity crowd. You are fighting a losing battle, you better hope that ESPN Classics stops showing his fights. It is really disheartening for young people to see a guy who has been hyped as the greatest getting knocked down and almost out while in his prime against 184 pound Henry Cooper, or seeing him get a gift decision against 180 pound Doug Jones. The hype is in place, but the empirical evidence will show the truth. Ali was not the greatest.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 05 Mar 2002, 13:08

On 2002-03-05 06:48, DL wrote:
Robot, we aren't going to agree. I may be in the minority about Ali now, but I won't be when new fans watch Ali videos and forget the hype. I have also never talked to anyone in boxing who thought Ali was the best. The people who believe he was the best are the 60s crowd and the celebrity crowd. You are fighting a losing battle, you better hope that ESPN Classics stops showing his fights. It is really disheartening for young people to see a guy who has been hyped as the greatest getting knocked down and almost out while in his prime against 184 pound Henry Cooper, or seeing him get a gift decision against 180 pound Doug Jones. The hype is in place, but the empirical evidence will show the truth. Ali was not the greatest.

You still have not come up with a counter to any of my arguments nor have you said who it is that you think is the greatest.

The fact is , all of the best fighters have had poor showings throughout their careers, Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard , Henry Armstrong , Benny Leonard , Jack Johnson etc , etc. Because a fighter get's complacent against the likes of Henry Cooper or Hasim Rahman does not mean that they are not great. It means that they have moments of imperfection which, i hate to break it to you, is Human.

Well, it's 2002 and the world of boxing and the surrounding world still feels that Ali is the greatest...when will your prediction come to pass ? It's already been about 35 years.

DL · Post by DL » 05 Mar 2002, 17:45

I have already told you that I think the best heavyweights were Larry Holmes and Joe Louis. Most people who haven't been around boxing probably consider Ali the greatest, but most boxing people don't consider him the best. I don't recall your arguments, you have read mine and you are the one who hasn't countered the arguments. So far you have repeated the mantra, "Ali was the greatest." I'm sure Will Smith, Alan Alda, Barbra Streisand, etc. agree with you. I would rather hear the opinion of people who know the difference beteween a jab and a hook.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 05 Mar 2002, 18:02

Ali would have been too fast for Joe Louis, and Ali employed Larry Holmes as a sparring partner!

DL · Post by DL » 05 Mar 2002, 19:22

Big Deal, Willie Pastrano used Ali as a sparring partner. Does that mean that Ali could never be better than Pastrano. You Ali fans amaze me, Ali is too fast for Joe Louis, but he wasn't too fast for Henry Cooper, Doug Jones, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Jimmy Young and others. I don't want to denigrate your hero, but his accomplishments just don't add up to being the greatest. Ali received more gift decisions, more gift rounds, if he hadn't been a political figure no one would call him the greatest.

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 06 Mar 2002, 00:00

On 2002-03-05 23:22, DL wrote:
Big Deal, Willie Pastrano used Ali as a sparring partner. Does that mean that Ali could never be better than Pastrano. You Ali fans amaze me, Ali is too fast for Joe Louis, but he wasn't too fast for Henry Cooper, Doug Jones, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Jimmy Young and others. I don't want to denigrate your hero, but his accomplishments just don't add up to being the greatest. Ali received more gift decisions, more gift rounds, if he hadn't been a political figure no one would call him the greatest.

So to you , Larry Holmes was the greatest ? I suppose that was because he was more fundamentally sound than Ali ? It seems that you are putting alot of weight into the fact that you are a "boxing person" or at least that you are in those circles. If that is the case than you would know that Holmes emulated Ali's style what with the hands held low and the pitty pat jab . Anyway, it seems to me whether you would like to admit that you have some kind of a bias. I guess that is your prerogative , however , if Ali beating Frazier twice , Liston twice , Foreman twice (all three are top ten alltime heavies on most peoples list) as well as every other top ten boxer in his time (which is the heavies greatest era whether you care to admit or not) doesn't make him the best heavy ever then i don't what possibly could. You could disect both Louis ' and Holmes' records and neither of these come close competition wise and furthermore you keep trying to focus on the the Henry Cooper's and Jimmy Youngs that Ali had problems with but let me tell you something my friend. Joe Louis had Max Schmeling (and didn't face nearly the same calibre comp that Ali did) and Holmes had his Michael Spinks (who was a blown up lightweight). Unfortunately for you your argument doesn't hold water.

As for futile attempts to try and discredit the REAL boxing fans that appreciate Ali's accomplishments by comparing us to Liza Minelli etc , you are only succeeding in making yourself look silly.

by the way, to whoever reads this post , Joe Louis and Larry Holmes and i have them listed as the number two and four heavies of alltime.

_________________
I'm knocking out all bums!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: humanrobot on 2002-03-06 04:03 ]</font>

humanrobot · Post by **humanrobot** » 06 Mar 2002, 00:06

On 2002-03-05 23:22, DL wrote:
Big Deal, Willie Pastrano used Ali as a sparring partner. Does that mean that Ali could never be better than Pastrano. You Ali fans amaze me, Ali is too fast for Joe Louis, but he wasn't too fast for Henry Cooper, Doug Jones, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Jimmy Young and others. I don't want to denigrate your hero, but his accomplishments just don't add up to being the greatest. Ali received more gift decisions, more gift rounds, if he hadn't been a political figure no one would call him the greatest.

As for your argument about Ali winning gift decisions and gift rounds...ha ha, you must be talking about very late in his career when he was very far removed because he was one of the planets most hated performers until about 1973.

the date is a guess but the premise is truth.