Doug Jones
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Poor granny, in denial.granberry wrote:
Never happened... never happened... never happened... never happened...
Yes, irene, it goes without saying that many thought that Ali couldn't bean Foreman at 32, but he did, just as its possible that Louis at 32 could. As I said, I do give Louis a chance, but at 32 I would make Foreman the clear favorite. I also think Ali's style helped him more against Foreman than Louis' might have. But, as I said, I would make a prime Louis a slight favorite over a prime George. Though, as I said, I don't think he beats George as easily as Ali did, if at all. The one Ali opponent I do favor to beat a prime Louis is Liston. I definitely think Liston would have beaten a 22 year old Louis. I wouldn't favor any of Louis' opponents to beat Ali, in his prime or at 32.
And yes, henry, that includes Rocky.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 31 Mar 2008, 23:22, edited 1 time in total.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
I think Louis fought every man that he could. He defeated many former champions, triumphed over adversity and transcended boxing without allowing himself to be a symbol for anything negative.
He answered the call to arms without question and put his prime years as a boxer on hiatus without gripe or grievance. He returned to the ring without excuse or regret.
Like an prize fighter he was not without fault or condemnation. He has never boasted, to my knowledge to be anything more or less than what he was.
His fans, are as dogmatic at times as any others, though many seem to be from a different era, where the fundamentals and hard work meant more than flash, glamour and popularism.
Ali, for me was naturally gifted and had great qualities who brought with him a great deal of attention that was perhaps at times not the best for the sport. It seems now, that the younger generation are in love with the idea of this man an infatuation of pop culture iconism. He is a poster child of attitude and defying things that though un-popular may be perhaps found to be right.
An almost absolute belief that he is the best, without ever having seen any one else fight. Now thats not the people here, but thats a majority of his public fans.
A war robbed both men of perhaps there best years, while one became the champion of patriotism and the 'effort' the other a champion of a 'revolution' of me-ism. Being denied the rights to box for being a conciencous objector is BS, but Ali never wore the uniform that awarded the freedoms that he had, even if for the colour of his skin may of been denied at times. In any case he never seemed to have to worry about where his next meal was.
Who faced the better fighters, well I shall aknowledge Ali in this aspect. He displayed the best technique and near perfection as a boxer, then Louis is my pick.
The debate that I have noticed in here, seems mroe about fandom than the fighter. About Cultistic iconism of the Ali men and his critics.
To deny Ali his place in history or the men he faced is wrong, hating the man is one thing, hating his fans is another, but to deny the qualities that he displayed is just silly.
To dis-credit Louis as a defence of Ali is also silly.
Thats my take on what I have observed by both camps.
sorry about ranting.
Kym
He answered the call to arms without question and put his prime years as a boxer on hiatus without gripe or grievance. He returned to the ring without excuse or regret.
Like an prize fighter he was not without fault or condemnation. He has never boasted, to my knowledge to be anything more or less than what he was.
His fans, are as dogmatic at times as any others, though many seem to be from a different era, where the fundamentals and hard work meant more than flash, glamour and popularism.
Ali, for me was naturally gifted and had great qualities who brought with him a great deal of attention that was perhaps at times not the best for the sport. It seems now, that the younger generation are in love with the idea of this man an infatuation of pop culture iconism. He is a poster child of attitude and defying things that though un-popular may be perhaps found to be right.
An almost absolute belief that he is the best, without ever having seen any one else fight. Now thats not the people here, but thats a majority of his public fans.
A war robbed both men of perhaps there best years, while one became the champion of patriotism and the 'effort' the other a champion of a 'revolution' of me-ism. Being denied the rights to box for being a conciencous objector is BS, but Ali never wore the uniform that awarded the freedoms that he had, even if for the colour of his skin may of been denied at times. In any case he never seemed to have to worry about where his next meal was.
Who faced the better fighters, well I shall aknowledge Ali in this aspect. He displayed the best technique and near perfection as a boxer, then Louis is my pick.
The debate that I have noticed in here, seems mroe about fandom than the fighter. About Cultistic iconism of the Ali men and his critics.
To deny Ali his place in history or the men he faced is wrong, hating the man is one thing, hating his fans is another, but to deny the qualities that he displayed is just silly.
To dis-credit Louis as a defence of Ali is also silly.
Thats my take on what I have observed by both camps.
sorry about ranting.
Kym
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I don't think people are trying to discredit Louis as a way of defending the Greatest. What we are pointing out is you can find faults with any fighter.
Louis is often picked becasue he is the next best heavyweight.
btw-Louis didn't fight everyone that he could. He could have fought Jimmy Bivins, Turkey Thompson, and Elmer Ray when he was the champion. Nevertheless, he was one of the best "fighting champions" ever.
With the guy who beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier, and Foreman, almost all of the criticism are of fights when he was either on his way up and clearly past his best.
What I ask is that everyone be rated in the same manner.
Pointing out things like a flash knockdown early in his career against Sonny Banks is just stupid. As is crying about every decision that he ever won, expecially those when he was past his best.
Pick another fighter of any other weight and you can make these sort of criticisms.
As fro not being what was best for the sport, that is just silly. Boxing was in decline in popularity in the late 1950's. By the early 1960's it was in big trouble. He carried the sport for almost two decades. Anyone that he fought became more well known, conversely anyone they fought became more well known. He was the master showman. His silly predictions, goofy nicknames etc created a lot of interest for people who otherwise wouldn't have cared about boxing.
Some people realize that his boasting really was an act; often he couldn't even keep a straight face during his silly rants.
He was a remarkably "clean" fighter; he didn't guys when they were down, with his elbow, rabbitt punch etc.
He even tried not to hurt his opponent unnecessarily; watch the 2nd Quarry fight. He wanted the referee to end it so that he wouldn't have punish Quarry any more.
Watch the Foreman fight; he could have hit Foreman again while Foreman was stumbling around; most other fighters would have.
He went out of his way to fight the best fighters available; of course he took on a few lower guys along the way. However, no one else approaches the quality of competition that he fought.
He defended the title 9 times in 3 years, probably would have had a couple more if it wasn't for the hernia operation. He defended it in on the challengersEngland twice, Germany, and Canada. Later on he fought in several other countries.
He wasn't just some guy who was blessed with phenomenal talent who never had to work hard. He was boxing from a very young age. He had unique talents and he used them. What other people consider to be flaws (such as holding his hands low or not body punching much) simply weren't necessary for him.
He also showed that he had a lot of heart and guts later on in his career when his natural skills were declining with age.
Where to rate him? Yes there are people that don't know a lot about boxing that thinks that he was the best. So what? That doesn't mean that he wasn't.
His title reign from 1964-1967 is arguably the most impressive of anyone of any weight. I have asked who in any other weight had a better 3 year reign and I never get an answer. He had good overall competition and defeated them all easily. People that don't like him almost never even mention this period.
Past his best; he was the best heavyweight of the the early 1970's' when the heavyweight division was never better.
So yes, he has a great case for being the best heavyweight of all time, and should be considered atleast one the best of any weight class.
Are there things that he should be crticized for both as a fighter and as a man; of course. However, very rarely on this forum are the criticisms valid.
After he was gone, the sport has been in decline ever since with the exception of a major fight here and there. The sport of boxing is all but dead now. What he did was help delay the inevitable. The sport probably wouldn't have been much more popular in the 1960's and 1970's than it is now if he never existed.
Louis is often picked becasue he is the next best heavyweight.
btw-Louis didn't fight everyone that he could. He could have fought Jimmy Bivins, Turkey Thompson, and Elmer Ray when he was the champion. Nevertheless, he was one of the best "fighting champions" ever.
With the guy who beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier, and Foreman, almost all of the criticism are of fights when he was either on his way up and clearly past his best.
What I ask is that everyone be rated in the same manner.
Pointing out things like a flash knockdown early in his career against Sonny Banks is just stupid. As is crying about every decision that he ever won, expecially those when he was past his best.
Pick another fighter of any other weight and you can make these sort of criticisms.
As fro not being what was best for the sport, that is just silly. Boxing was in decline in popularity in the late 1950's. By the early 1960's it was in big trouble. He carried the sport for almost two decades. Anyone that he fought became more well known, conversely anyone they fought became more well known. He was the master showman. His silly predictions, goofy nicknames etc created a lot of interest for people who otherwise wouldn't have cared about boxing.
Some people realize that his boasting really was an act; often he couldn't even keep a straight face during his silly rants.
He was a remarkably "clean" fighter; he didn't guys when they were down, with his elbow, rabbitt punch etc.
He even tried not to hurt his opponent unnecessarily; watch the 2nd Quarry fight. He wanted the referee to end it so that he wouldn't have punish Quarry any more.
Watch the Foreman fight; he could have hit Foreman again while Foreman was stumbling around; most other fighters would have.
He went out of his way to fight the best fighters available; of course he took on a few lower guys along the way. However, no one else approaches the quality of competition that he fought.
He defended the title 9 times in 3 years, probably would have had a couple more if it wasn't for the hernia operation. He defended it in on the challengersEngland twice, Germany, and Canada. Later on he fought in several other countries.
He wasn't just some guy who was blessed with phenomenal talent who never had to work hard. He was boxing from a very young age. He had unique talents and he used them. What other people consider to be flaws (such as holding his hands low or not body punching much) simply weren't necessary for him.
He also showed that he had a lot of heart and guts later on in his career when his natural skills were declining with age.
Where to rate him? Yes there are people that don't know a lot about boxing that thinks that he was the best. So what? That doesn't mean that he wasn't.
His title reign from 1964-1967 is arguably the most impressive of anyone of any weight. I have asked who in any other weight had a better 3 year reign and I never get an answer. He had good overall competition and defeated them all easily. People that don't like him almost never even mention this period.
Past his best; he was the best heavyweight of the the early 1970's' when the heavyweight division was never better.
So yes, he has a great case for being the best heavyweight of all time, and should be considered atleast one the best of any weight class.
Are there things that he should be crticized for both as a fighter and as a man; of course. However, very rarely on this forum are the criticisms valid.
After he was gone, the sport has been in decline ever since with the exception of a major fight here and there. The sport of boxing is all but dead now. What he did was help delay the inevitable. The sport probably wouldn't have been much more popular in the 1960's and 1970's than it is now if he never existed.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Umm . . Henry Armstrong 1937-1939, Ray Robinson 48-50, Greb 21-23, , . . . .I'd even say Louis 39-41 exceeds what Ali did from 65-67.Ambling Alp wrote:
His title reign from 1964-1967 is arguably the most impressive of anyone of any weight. I have asked who in any other weight had a better 3 year reign and I never get an answer..
You know I'm not in line with the Ali-hate crowd but that's a pretty extraordinary statement to make.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Wow. I thought that there would be more comments from all I wrote in my last post than about his 1964-1967 title reign.
Well, you guys mentioned some impressive title reigns. And I do realize that it was an extraordinary claim to make. (His title 1964-1967 title is argualby the most impressive of anyone of any weight.) However, I have thought a lot about this.
Joe Louis-He was impressive from 1939-1941. However, he did have trouble in some of his fights.
He was knocked down by Galento and Baer, which of course isn't the end all be all but it is worth mentioning. He also had more trouble than he should have in the first fight with Godoy.
His overall competition wasn't as good. Patterson was better than anyone Louis beat during this time (arguably anyone Louis ever beat) and Liston was far better. You could even make the arguement that Terrell was better than anyone that Louis beat during this time.
My conclusion-The only thing superior about Louis; title reign during this time was the sheer number of defenses.
The bottom line is that Louis had more trouble against overall weaker competition. There isn't really much to argue here.
Ray Robinson- Beat some good fighters and one great fighter Gavilan. Had strouble with Gavilan. If you include some non title fights that robinson had during this time, there are some fights that he wasn't dominaint in at all. A very close decison over Gavilan and Abrams, and a draw with Henry Brimm. Can you imagine if the Louisville Lip ever had a draw with someone like that, in his prime?
My conclusion -close but not as good.
Harry Greb - You said 1921-1923, I think you meant 1923-1925. Greb did have a title defesne against Walker and a No-Decison win over Flowers.
My conclusion- Closer, but still not as good. Certainly arguable though.
Henry Armstrong- The most intriguing arguement. After all, Armstrong won title in 3 major weight classes. This includes wins over Ambers and Ross. On the downside, he did lose to Ambers in the rematch and didn't successfully defend either the featherweight or lightweight titles. Obviously this is nitpicking at a phenomenal achievement, but sometimes you have to do that.
My conclusion- Winning 3 titles is a great arguement. However, how is a heavyweight supposed to match that? He would have had to lose about 35 pounds to win the lightheavyweight title and 50 pounds and win the middleweight title. Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up. Next we will hear how he ducked Emile Griffith.
Anyway, as great as Armstrong's title reigns were, you can nitpick at it. Certainly arguable though.
James Jeffries-Beating Corbett, Sharkey and Fitz. Obviously that is pretty impressive. However, he did have a lot of trouble in those fights. He was losing against Corbett and Fitz before scoring knockouts. The Sharkey fight was very competitive. He was also only putting the title on the line about once a year.
These were all great title reigns. However in my opinion not quite as impressive. Realistically, how much more could he have done from from 1964-1967? He beat a great champion to win the title. He made a lot of title defenses. The overall competition wasn't as good as the early 1970's, but it was certainly good. And he had very little trouble doing it. He was never knocked down or hurt. He won 8 fights inside the distance and two by lopsided decision. At the very least, this deserves to be in the conversation as the best title reign, escpecially over a three year period.
Well, you guys mentioned some impressive title reigns. And I do realize that it was an extraordinary claim to make. (His title 1964-1967 title is argualby the most impressive of anyone of any weight.) However, I have thought a lot about this.
Joe Louis-He was impressive from 1939-1941. However, he did have trouble in some of his fights.
He was knocked down by Galento and Baer, which of course isn't the end all be all but it is worth mentioning. He also had more trouble than he should have in the first fight with Godoy.
His overall competition wasn't as good. Patterson was better than anyone Louis beat during this time (arguably anyone Louis ever beat) and Liston was far better. You could even make the arguement that Terrell was better than anyone that Louis beat during this time.
My conclusion-The only thing superior about Louis; title reign during this time was the sheer number of defenses.
The bottom line is that Louis had more trouble against overall weaker competition. There isn't really much to argue here.
Ray Robinson- Beat some good fighters and one great fighter Gavilan. Had strouble with Gavilan. If you include some non title fights that robinson had during this time, there are some fights that he wasn't dominaint in at all. A very close decison over Gavilan and Abrams, and a draw with Henry Brimm. Can you imagine if the Louisville Lip ever had a draw with someone like that, in his prime?
My conclusion -close but not as good.
Harry Greb - You said 1921-1923, I think you meant 1923-1925. Greb did have a title defesne against Walker and a No-Decison win over Flowers.
My conclusion- Closer, but still not as good. Certainly arguable though.
Henry Armstrong- The most intriguing arguement. After all, Armstrong won title in 3 major weight classes. This includes wins over Ambers and Ross. On the downside, he did lose to Ambers in the rematch and didn't successfully defend either the featherweight or lightweight titles. Obviously this is nitpicking at a phenomenal achievement, but sometimes you have to do that.
My conclusion- Winning 3 titles is a great arguement. However, how is a heavyweight supposed to match that? He would have had to lose about 35 pounds to win the lightheavyweight title and 50 pounds and win the middleweight title. Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up. Next we will hear how he ducked Emile Griffith.
Anyway, as great as Armstrong's title reigns were, you can nitpick at it. Certainly arguable though.
James Jeffries-Beating Corbett, Sharkey and Fitz. Obviously that is pretty impressive. However, he did have a lot of trouble in those fights. He was losing against Corbett and Fitz before scoring knockouts. The Sharkey fight was very competitive. He was also only putting the title on the line about once a year.
These were all great title reigns. However in my opinion not quite as impressive. Realistically, how much more could he have done from from 1964-1967? He beat a great champion to win the title. He made a lot of title defenses. The overall competition wasn't as good as the early 1970's, but it was certainly good. And he had very little trouble doing it. He was never knocked down or hurt. He won 8 fights inside the distance and two by lopsided decision. At the very least, this deserves to be in the conversation as the best title reign, escpecially over a three year period.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Ali can't match Armstrong, you're right, thus Armstrong had the much better 3 year period, simple as that.Ambling Alp wrote:Wow. I thought that there would be more comments from all I wrote in my last post than about his 1964-1967 title reign.
Well, you guys mentioned some impressive title reigns. And I do realize that it was an extraordinary claim to make. (His title 1964-1967 title is argualby the most impressive of anyone of any weight.) However, I have thought a lot about this.
Joe Louis-He was impressive from 1939-1941. However, he did have trouble in some of his fights.
He was knocked down by Galento and Baer, which of course isn't the end all be all but it is worth mentioning. He also had more trouble than he should have in the first fight with Godoy.
His overall competition wasn't as good. Patterson was better than anyone Louis beat during this time (arguably anyone Louis ever beat) and Liston was far better. You could even make the arguement that Terrell was better than anyone that Louis beat during this time.
My conclusion-The only thing superior about Louis; title reign during this time was the sheer number of defenses.
The bottom line is that Louis had more trouble against overall weaker competition. There isn't really much to argue here.
Ray Robinson- Beat some good fighters and one great fighter Gavilan. Had strouble with Gavilan. If you include some non title fights that robinson had during this time, there are some fights that he wasn't dominaint in at all. A very close decison over Gavilan and Abrams, and a draw with Henry Brimm. Can you imagine if the Louisville Lip ever had a draw with someone like that, in his prime?
My conclusion -close but not as good.
Harry Greb - You said 1921-1923, I think you meant 1923-1925. Greb did have a title defesne against Walker and a No-Decison win over Flowers.
My conclusion- Closer, but still not as good. Certainly arguable though.
Henry Armstrong- The most intriguing arguement. After all, Armstrong won title in 3 major weight classes. This includes wins over Ambers and Ross. On the downside, he did lose to Ambers in the rematch and didn't successfully defend either the featherweight or lightweight titles. Obviously this is nitpicking at a phenomenal achievement, but sometimes you have to do that.
My conclusion- Winning 3 titles is a great arguement. However, how is a heavyweight supposed to match that? He would have had to lose about 35 pounds to win the lightheavyweight title and 50 pounds and win the middleweight title. Maybe I shouldn't have brought this up. Next we will hear how he ducked Emile Griffith.
Anyway, as great as Armstrong's title reigns were, you can nitpick at it. Certainly arguable though.
James Jeffries-Beating Corbett, Sharkey and Fitz. Obviously that is pretty impressive. However, he did have a lot of trouble in those fights. He was losing against Corbett and Fitz before scoring knockouts. The Sharkey fight was very competitive. He was also only putting the title on the line about once a year.
These were all great title reigns. However in my opinion not quite as impressive. Realistically, how much more could he have done from from 1964-1967? He beat a great champion to win the title. He made a lot of title defenses. The overall competition wasn't as good as the early 1970's, but it was certainly good. And he had very little trouble doing it. He was never knocked down or hurt. He won 8 fights inside the distance and two by lopsided decision. At the very least, this deserves to be in the conversation as the best title reign, escpecially over a three year period.
Greb "closer but still not as good?" Wins over Tommy Loughrin, Gene Tunney, Kid Norfolk, Charley Weinert, Tommy Gibbons . . .that BLOWS those 3 years of Ali OUT OF THE WATER. You've got to be kidding me.
You mention Robinson's "draw" with Brimm. If Ali had fought as many times as Robinson did in that 3 year span, you can bet he would've had a "draw" if not an outright loss. Wins over Mims, two over Gavilan, Bobo Olson, Jake Lamotta (a great fighter). Another clear advantage to Robinson.
Ali in that time span beat Liston in a fight most observers agree, for WHATEVER reason, was not on the level. That has to be taken into account as Liston is by far his best scalp. Then you have Patterson, Chuvalo, and Terrell, all good fighters, but guys I'd put on the same level as Conn, Nova, and Godoy (Godoy-Chuvalo would have been a helluva brawl). Pastor, Lewis, Galento, and Baer were more dangerous than London, Cooper, Mildenberger, and the washed up Williams.
In any case, the 3 year spans of Ali vs Louis and Jefferies's best 3 years are debatable.
Ali vs the others is simply not.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Armstrong had a loss, that has to be factored in.
Greb didn't have all of those fights in a title reign.
The Louisville Lip never would have had a draw with a fighter like Brimm in his prime under any circumstances. If he had we would never hear the end of it.
The first Liston fight was certainly on the level.
His reigns are clearly better than Louis and Jeffries and I pointed out why earlier.
Greb didn't have all of those fights in a title reign.
The Louisville Lip never would have had a draw with a fighter like Brimm in his prime under any circumstances. If he had we would never hear the end of it.
The first Liston fight was certainly on the level.
His reigns are clearly better than Louis and Jeffries and I pointed out why earlier.
I am glad you are passionate about Ali.
I never tried insuinating that he was pure talent and never had to train hard
for his achievements. Thats daft. He had alot of natural athleticism and talent, as well as a tremendous recovery rate when knocked down or 'rocked'.
One could argue that had there been now WW2 then louis may have defended against those men.
I never tried insuinating that he was pure talent and never had to train hard
for his achievements. Thats daft. He had alot of natural athleticism and talent, as well as a tremendous recovery rate when knocked down or 'rocked'.
One could argue that had there been now WW2 then louis may have defended against those men.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
The first Liston fight was a year before.Ambling Alp wrote:Armstrong had a loss, that has to be factored in.
Greb didn't have all of those fights in a title reign.
The Louisville Lip never would have had a draw with a fighter like Brimm in his prime under any circumstances. If he had we would never hear the end of it.
The first Liston fight was certainly on the level.
His reigns are clearly better than Louis and Jeffries and I pointed out why earlier.
Ali had 9 fights in that time-span.
Amrstrong had 54!! Two fights less than Ali had entire career wins. But oh no, he lost once to all-time great Lou Ambers. Robinson had 37 fights in his 3 years. If Ali fights 37 times in 3 years, he's so great he doesn't have one fight that could be judged a draw?? You're in dreamland.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
dempseyfire wrote:The first Liston fight was a year before.Ambling Alp wrote:Armstrong had a loss, that has to be factored in.
Greb didn't have all of those fights in a title reign.
The Louisville Lip never would have had a draw with a fighter like Brimm in his prime under any circumstances. If he had we would never hear the end of it.
The first Liston fight was certainly on the level.
His reigns are clearly better than Louis and Jeffries and I pointed out why earlier.
Ali had 9 fights in that time-span.
Amrstrong had 54!! Two fights less than Ali had entire career wins. But oh no, he lost once to all-time great Lou Ambers. Robinson had 37 fights in his 3 years. If Ali fights 37 times in 3 years, he's so great he doesn't have one fight that could be judged a draw?? You're in dreamland.
Robinson and Armstrong are easily the best in any division. Its almost un-fathomable the activity level of these two great men.
If you want to get down to defences in a short period with good activity level (at HW) Charles 9 defences in just over a year is pretty damned active.
Or Tommy Burns with his 13 defences in around 2 years. (though 2 may be exhibitons ?)
If you want to get down to defences in a short period with good activity level (at HW) Charles 9 defences in just over a year is pretty damned active.
Or Tommy Burns with his 13 defences in around 2 years. (though 2 may be exhibitons ?)
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I have been saying 1964-1967 all along. The Liston fight was in 1964. Thats why I am counting it. Who you beat to win the title has to be considered when rating someones title reign.dempseyfire wrote:The first Liston fight was a year before.Ambling Alp wrote:Armstrong had a loss, that has to be factored in.
Greb didn't have all of those fights in a title reign.
The Louisville Lip never would have had a draw with a fighter like Brimm in his prime under any circumstances. If he had we would never hear the end of it.
The first Liston fight was certainly on the level.
His reigns are clearly better than Louis and Jeffries and I pointed out why earlier.
Ali had 9 fights in that time-span.
Amrstrong had 54!! Two fights less than Ali had entire career wins. But oh no, he lost once to all-time great Lou Ambers. Robinson had 37 fights in his 3 years. If Ali fights 37 times in 3 years, he's so great he doesn't have one fight that could be judged a draw?? You're in dreamland.
Yes the amount of fights has to count for something; however quality is much more important. He rarely bothered with journeyman. He had more title fights than everyone mentioned but Louis during this time.
And no I don't think if Ali fought that many times in a year he would ever have a draw with a fighter that bad. Robinson also had some other close calls as I mentioned earlier.
Obviously in a way this apples and oranges. If he fought back then and was in a lower weight class he would have fought more. If Robinson, Armstrong, and Greb would have fought in the 1960's they would have fought less. Just because someone fights more doesn't mean they are better (or worse for that matter)
Imagine if he would fought 30 or so no-hopers in non-title fights. He would be getting ripped for that. He already gets enough grief for fighting Brian London.
I will ask this: Do you really think anyone else would have fought the amount and quality of fighters that he did and always win easily?
Realistically, what more could he have done during this title reign?
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
THat's 4 years, not 3. You want four years, add in 1938 and Joe's knockout of Max Schmeling.Ambling Alp wrote:I have been saying 1964-1967 all along. The Liston fight was in 1964. Thats why I am counting it. Who you beat to win the title has to be considered when rating someones title reign.dempseyfire wrote:The first Liston fight was a year before.Ambling Alp wrote:Armstrong had a loss, that has to be factored in.
Greb didn't have all of those fights in a title reign.
The Louisville Lip never would have had a draw with a fighter like Brimm in his prime under any circumstances. If he had we would never hear the end of it.
The first Liston fight was certainly on the level.
His reigns are clearly better than Louis and Jeffries and I pointed out why earlier.
Ali had 9 fights in that time-span.
Amrstrong had 54!! Two fights less than Ali had entire career wins. But oh no, he lost once to all-time great Lou Ambers. Robinson had 37 fights in his 3 years. If Ali fights 37 times in 3 years, he's so great he doesn't have one fight that could be judged a draw?? You're in dreamland.
Yes the amount of fights has to count for something; however quality is much more important. He rarely bothered with journeyman. He had more title fights than everyone mentioned but Louis during this time.
And no I don't think if Ali fought that many times in a year he would ever have a draw with a fighter that bad. Robinson also had some other close calls as I mentioned earlier.
Obviously in a way this apples and oranges. If he fought back then and was in a lower weight class he would have fought more. If Robinson, Armstrong, and Greb would have fought in the 1960's they would have fought less. Just because someone fights more doesn't mean they are better (or worse for that matter)
Imagine if he would fought 30 or so no-hopers in non-title fights. He would be getting ripped for that. He already gets enough grief for fighting Brian London.
I will ask this: Do you really think anyone else would have fought the amount and quality of fighters that he did and always win easily?
Realistically, what more could he have done during this title reign?
You're apples and oranges argument doesn't make sense. Clearly, more fights vs top contenders in a year/more wins equates to a more impressive record. And coupled with the names you've never heard of are several HOF opponents. Fighting that often and winning vs such a wide array of tough competition is clearly more impressive than beating a handful of contenders, that's just life. I even seperated their best wins in those years. If you think Terrell, Cooper, Patterson, old Liston are better opponents overall than Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Baby Arizmendi, Ceferino Garcia . . .Kid Gavilan, Bobo Olson, Jake LaMotta . . . etc. I don't know which well to lead you to b/c yours has certainly run dry. The welterweights/middleweights are almost always "deeper" divisions than Heavyweight. Put Brian London in a 147 lb body and he doesn't make it past small-town smokers.
Also, you're mighty quick to say Henry Brimm was "that bad a fighter". Do you know anything about Brimm beyond his boxrec record? Do you have newspaper accounts of the fight saying whether the draw was legit or a bad decision? One is making pretty sweeping judgments.
Last edited by dempseyfire on 01 Apr 2008, 23:56, edited 1 time in total.
I think you have the second Fitz fight confused with the first. Jeffries had the first fight well in hand when he stopped Fitz the first time.Ambling Alp wrote:James Jeffries-Beating Corbett, Sharkey and Fitz. Obviously that is pretty impressive. However, he did have a lot of trouble in those fights. He was losing against Corbett and Fitz before scoring knockouts. The Sharkey fight was very competitive. He was also only putting the title on the line about once a year.
I deliberately limited my comments to his first three title fights, which took place within a period of one year (4 fights, if you count the Finnegan bout as a title fight.) Jeffries became the first heavyweight to defense his title that many times in a year.
He became less active when the Horton Law was repealed in New York, and he was forced to fight in California for smaller purses. Jeff explained he could make more money in a series of vaudeville exhibitions than by defending his title.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I agree with Alp 99% of the time when it comes to Ali, but I do agree that Robinson and Armstrong and Greb had better stretches in their careers than Ali did as champion in the 60's. That said, I think alp's overall point is that Ali had a great title reign in the 60's, and its rarely talked about here, probably because people are too busy looking at an inexperienced or shot Ali to notice.
Ali's title reign in the 60's was like Louis', or Marciano's, or Holmes' or Tyson's. The divisions weren't particularly strong, and so they accumulated a lot of defenses and dominated most of their opponents. The champion was too good for anyone in the division. The difference being, of course, that Ali won his title by beating Liston, who was better than anyone those guys fought in title fights, and that Ali was forced to end his reign prematurely, while those other guys either retired or lost their title. And Ali fought everyone who was around, the best available opponents, while one can't say the same for Holmes, and I think, as alp said, you might question if Louis should have fought more black title challengers.
But, on this forum, where a lot of people seem to have a chip on their shoulder about Ali... particularly because he gets more attention than their favorites do, boo hoo... that logic that applies to Louis or Marciano's or Holmes' and even Tyson's title reigns does not seem to apply to Ali. Some here even seem to be laughing at Ali's title reign in the 60's, which is ridiclous. Ali beat two hall of famers, a paper belt holder, some respected contenders, went undefeated defending the Heavyweight title nine times in three years and didn't lose too many rounds doing it. I think most fighters would take that. That alone is a hall of fame career. And that's only half his career.
People who talk about Cooper II, London and Mildenberger sound like idiots to me. They a) show ignorance of Ali's career, because they don't know that Ali had to fight in Europe because he was being boycotted in the U.S... or they know it already, but have nothing else to criticize so they go after the unfair but easy targets, and b) Mildenberger wasn't anything like some of the slouches that Louis fought. Cooper wasn't much worse than a lot of the fighters in the bum of the month club, and in Cooper's case I think it probably would have been a good idea to give him a rematch, regardless of the political situation, because of the phony controversy over the first fight. Louis would have been beneath fighting Brian London? That's obviously not true. And, again, London was forced on Ali; I know that some on this forum have called Ali the "establishment fighter" but unfortunately he was prevented from fighting in the U.S. on more than one ocassion, and he had to fight what was available... Holmes never got boycotted/banned in the U.S. but he had a good time fighting Zanon's and Jones' and Scott's and Frank's and Frazier's.
Ali's title reign in the 60's was like Louis', or Marciano's, or Holmes' or Tyson's. The divisions weren't particularly strong, and so they accumulated a lot of defenses and dominated most of their opponents. The champion was too good for anyone in the division. The difference being, of course, that Ali won his title by beating Liston, who was better than anyone those guys fought in title fights, and that Ali was forced to end his reign prematurely, while those other guys either retired or lost their title. And Ali fought everyone who was around, the best available opponents, while one can't say the same for Holmes, and I think, as alp said, you might question if Louis should have fought more black title challengers.
But, on this forum, where a lot of people seem to have a chip on their shoulder about Ali... particularly because he gets more attention than their favorites do, boo hoo... that logic that applies to Louis or Marciano's or Holmes' and even Tyson's title reigns does not seem to apply to Ali. Some here even seem to be laughing at Ali's title reign in the 60's, which is ridiclous. Ali beat two hall of famers, a paper belt holder, some respected contenders, went undefeated defending the Heavyweight title nine times in three years and didn't lose too many rounds doing it. I think most fighters would take that. That alone is a hall of fame career. And that's only half his career.
People who talk about Cooper II, London and Mildenberger sound like idiots to me. They a) show ignorance of Ali's career, because they don't know that Ali had to fight in Europe because he was being boycotted in the U.S... or they know it already, but have nothing else to criticize so they go after the unfair but easy targets, and b) Mildenberger wasn't anything like some of the slouches that Louis fought. Cooper wasn't much worse than a lot of the fighters in the bum of the month club, and in Cooper's case I think it probably would have been a good idea to give him a rematch, regardless of the political situation, because of the phony controversy over the first fight. Louis would have been beneath fighting Brian London? That's obviously not true. And, again, London was forced on Ali; I know that some on this forum have called Ali the "establishment fighter" but unfortunately he was prevented from fighting in the U.S. on more than one ocassion, and he had to fight what was available... Holmes never got boycotted/banned in the U.S. but he had a good time fighting Zanon's and Jones' and Scott's and Frank's and Frazier's.