Ali - Bonevena

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 22 Dec 2001, 13:48

Did anyone watch the Ali - Bonevena fight on ESPN Classics last night? I never realized how close Bonevena came to winning that fight. Cosell was announcing and Yancy Durham was keeping score, it was essentially an even fight going into the 15th round on Durham's scorecard. Bonevena had nothing except toughness, strength, and stamina. His footwork, balance, and boxing skills were nonexistent, but he caught Ali a lot of times and looked to have Ali in trouble in the 11th.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 22 Dec 2001, 14:00

This was Ali's second come-back fight after several years of inactivity. He was still showing rust and his timing was off for most of the fight.

You have to give Ali credit for coming back against two top contenders in Quarry and Bonavena after a long layoff. In contrast, after a comparable layoff, Tyson came back against Peter McNeeley!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 22 Dec 2001, 14:07

Exactly, and Ali still managed to deck Bonavena 3 times in the last round - no mean feat against the Argentinian strongman.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 22 Dec 2001, 16:18

Bonevena was a tough guy .He almost beat Frazier to .

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 22 Dec 2001, 21:28

the only thing ali didnt have in that fight was his timing as raf pointed out, aside from that i feel like he was the same ali who clubbed williams a few years prior, just bonevana was more game.

anyway i dont have any comments as to this fight but i would like to stress how much i doubt that bonevena and especially jerry quarry would be able to win titles today. granted today we got a whole heck of a lot of chumps like gooofi, grant, savarese, botha, bostice (his heart keeps him back), ruiz etc, etc, now i dont doubt bonevena could take it to these guys, but you put him in there with guys who got serious power like a tua, a tyson, a lewis, a drago brother and i can tell you he wouldnt last 6 rounds against most of em, now if he were to fight a relatively small by todays standard byrd, or a primed holyfield then youd have a fight but this guy would get dropped like a sack of bricks against a guy who carried power and hasnt been laid off. i will ignore the quarry remark as im hoping you wernt serious, i mean thats just ludacris...maybe a WBU title or a XYZ title but not the linear belt, not by a long shot

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 22 Dec 2001, 22:09

Ray, I have to agree with you, Bonevena was tough, but he looked like a contestant from a Tough Man contest. He would throw punches and fall, he had no balance at all. If any of you get the chance, watch this fight. Its just my opinion, but I don't think that Bonevena would beat many of today's contenders. If he fought Tyson, I wouldn't bet on him lasting a round.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 23 Dec 2001, 08:15

: joe borden boxing in the 60's and 70's was not only that there were good and couple great heavyweights back then . But they fought alot more and fought each other not like todays fighters .We have been waiting for Tyson / Lewis forever .

PWood · Post by **PWood** » 23 Dec 2001, 10:29

Bonavena would not last one round with Tyson??? Just because he was awkward? C'mon! He went 20 rounds with Joe Frazier--and knocked him down 2 times. Being awkward was, ironically, Bonavena's strength! My take on it is that Frazier (even though he was a one-handed fighter) would beat Tyson simply by crushing his spirit. Tyson would quit against Frazier, or find some way to lose. Likewise, Bonavena would give Tyson one helluva fight, too. I watch Tyson fight, and KO that fat European fighter recently (forgot his name)after having a lot of trouble--that Tyson would not come close to beating a tough, hard-punching Bonavena.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 23 Dec 2001, 11:48

I know that many people believe that the fighters of the 60-70s were great. All I can do is ask you to watch the videos of them, if you are open minded you might have a different opinion when you finish. It is all just opinion when fighters of different eras are compared, but it is my opinion that Tyson would destroy Bonevena - and quick.
One reason so many think the fighters of the 60-70s were great is because of the success Foreman had when he returned. There were a few reasons for his success. The first was that he hand picked most of his opponents. He avoided the guys like Oliver McCall who might have taken his punch and punched back. He even avoided Larry Holmes. The second reason is that he was probably better than when he was younger. He was relaxed, and his stamina was definitely better.
I know there are a lot of people on this board who will call me crazy, but I don't think Bonevena could have hit Chris Byrd with a hand full of rocks. Byrd would have stopped him and he would not have taken any punishment from Bonevena. Just my opinion.

Rafael · Post by **Rafael** » 23 Dec 2001, 12:03

Dave, I can only speak for myself, but the reason I believe these fighters were great is exactly because I have watched most of their fights existing on film. Like you, I would urge everyone to watch as many fights from that era as possible. As opposed to you, however, I believe watching these fighters in action will convince most people of their greatness.

P.S. One of the great details about that era is that if you take the top 10 guys, say of the 70's, with very few exceptions, they all fought each other. If you take the 90's in contrast, Holyfield is the only top heavyweight who fought all of the other top guys around.

Cheers.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 23 Dec 2001, 12:10

The main reason the top fighters no longer fight each other is because of Don King/Bob Arum and HBO/Showtime. The titles are too fragmented now and have been for years. I don't blame the fighters for this problem, it is just the times they live in.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 23 Dec 2001, 13:03

Comparing fighters from different eras is not practical for many reasons; tv; money; title belts avalable; etc.
But i believe you can categorically compare them. Fo example, i'd place Chris Byrd in the same category as Jimmy Young-
David Tua, Ray Mercer, Oliver McCall, Hasim Rahman in th same category as Ron LYle Earnie Shavers Oscar Bonavena-
Michael Moorer with Jerry Quarry-
Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson with Joe Frazier, Ken Norton-
and Holyfield, Holmes with Ali, Foreman.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 23 Dec 2001, 21:47

Joe, how can you say that Byrd would not be in the top 20 during the 70s? What did Jimmy Young have that Byrd doesn't have more of? Byrd would be one of the biggest heavyweights of that era, plus he is a slick boxer with speed. You are looking at the 70s through rose colored glasses. The fighters of that time were flawed, just like the ones of today. Norton could not take a punch, Young could not punch, Ali held all the time, Foreman lacked stamina, Quarry was too small, Bonevena couldn't box, Lyle was slow, Shavers was dangerous, but could be knocked out, Bugner was tentative, Frazier never got into great shape again after the first Ali fight, none of them were perfect. The fighters of the late 80s and 90s, Holyfield, Tyson, Witherspoon, Tucker, Lewis, Pinklon Thomas, Bonecrusher Smith, etc. would be more than a match for the 70s group. The fighters of today will probably be as good or better than either group. As long as there is a lot of money in boxing, good athletes will be there to try to get that money.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 23 Dec 2001, 22:29

Dave, what universe did you come from? Here are some of the utterly ridiculous statements you made:

"Frazier never got into great shape again after the first Ali fight"*inane*

"The fighters of the late 80s and 90s, Holyfield, Tyson, Witherspoon, Tucker, Lewis, Pinklon Thomas, Bonecrusher Smith, etc. would be more than a match for the 70s group. The fighters of today will probably be as good or better than either group."*this is not true and you are relying on flawed logic; boxing as a sport has become increasingly marginalised starting in the 80s -- there are fewer boxers, there are fewer fans, there are fewer knowledgeable trainers, there are fewer fights, all lead to a degradation of the quality of the boxers*

"I know that many people believe that the fighters of the 60-70s were great. All I can do is ask you to watch the videos of them, if you are open minded you might have a different opinion when you finish." *note probably everyone on this board HAS watched those videos, and you are in a VERY small minority to come to this "opinion", furthermore, you are in disagreement with every published boxing "expert" and "historian" that i have ever read, and that is a lot of people*

"One reason so many think the fighters of the 60-70s were great is because of the success Foreman had when he returned." *you got that one a little backwards*

"The second reason is that he [Foreman] was probably better than when he was younger. He was relaxed, and his stamina was definitely better." *you're right about the relaxed part at least, but, in boxing, being relaxed is often a negative trait, especially for a puncher; to say the old Foreman's stamina (which SUCKED) was "better" shows an obvious lack of understanding of boxing -- he kept the pace slow for a reason*

"I know there are a lot of people on this board who will call me crazy, but I don't think Bonevena could have hit Chris Byrd with a hand full of rocks. Byrd would have stopped him and he would not have taken any punishment from Bonevena."*so are you saying that Byrd is a better boxer than Ali, or a better puncher than Joe Frazier?*

Honestly, no offense intended, i just can't tell if you are trolling on purpose or if you really just don't know what you are talking about.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 23 Dec 2001, 22:54

you guys i think are missing some of dave and my own points, some people think that if someone was a heavyweight in the 70's and fought a name opponent and put up a fight than that by default makes them better than todays fighters. you have to realize that no matter the era top guys are top guys. the only reason why 70's era heavyweights might be considered a better crop was because there were more people into boxing than, than there are today with basketball and football and whatever else you may have. THAT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE...cant stress it enough, thats the only difference fighters of the day had, the top athletes of 200+ for a decade were boxers where as nowadays boxing takes a back-seat.

but than what todays lacks in just all aroud athleticism we make up for with sheer size, today we have hulking heavyweights who would dwarf guyys like forman and ali and frazier and whoever else you can think of.

im trailing off now i can sense it, but anyway... watch the tapes of these guys like you say you do, you cant tell me you see something in bonevena that would make him able to beat a guy 10-30 lbs bigger than him, chances are faster than him (todays fighters believe it or not seem just as fast if not faster at larger weights).

so in closing i would like you guys who support the crack filled notion that bonavena could be a top guy today by explaining to me what advantages he had, and how he would use those advantages to beat the following list of primed fighters.

-lennox lewis
-vlad klitchsko
-vitali klitchsko
-david tua
-mike tyson
-evander holyfield
-micheal moorer
-george forman (i bet his 40 year old comeback self would beat him)
-chris byrd
-ray mercer
-riddick bowe
-donavan rudduck

im willing to bet that you guys cant think of a way for him to beat even 5 on my short list of this decades top echelon of guys

to make it easier here is a list of guys i still dont think he could beat

-grant (too f'in big)
-golata
-norris
-mccall
-seldon
-briggs
-bruno
-tucker
-douglas
-ruiz
-cooper
-shulz

shame this thread isnt on the first page cause id like to see some response as to how he would go about taking these guys out, of the entire list id say he'd be lucky to get wins over 3 from the first portion and 5 from the second

PWood · Post by **PWood** » 23 Dec 2001, 23:49

First of all, Bonavena had tremendous heart and always came to fight. If you're saying Bonavena wasn't championship material, I might agree. But championship material in his day is not championship material in today's world. In my view, Bonavena beats Seldon, Briggs, Mercer, Ruiz, Norris, Tua, Golata, Bruno and McCall--and probably a few more on that list of yours. Bonavena and Tyson--like Bonavena and Frazier--would be a war. Maybe Tyson wins, maybe not. Bonavena was not a small man. I believe he was around 215 and used his style and lack of height to his advantage.
True, as long as there was a Jimmy Ellis, a Floyd Paterson or a Zora Folley--real slick boxers--Bonavena would never win a title. But, boy do I have a problem with Chris Byrd being put in the same catagory with those fighters. Byrd is not a slick fighter--he's a runner.
Furthermore, Bonavena beats some of the bigger men, too. But the upper-crust, the better fighters would beat him--Lenoxx Lewis, Bowe. Klitchko? What makes him so good, other than his wing-span?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 24 Dec 2001, 02:33

Ray, we'll never convince these guys. They believe that everything from the 60-70s is better. I saw nothing watching Bonevena that would make me think he could survive with Mike Tyson. Alistair, I am not trolling and I can assure you that I don't care what "historians" like Larry Merchant, Jim Lampley, Randy Gordon, etc. have to say. I can watch boxing and I know quite a lot about the sport. How much do you know about the sport? Were you in college in the 60-70s and an Ali fan? I am not a blind "Ali is the greatest" fan. I see many faults with Ali as a fighter, and obviously I don't consider him to be the best. I also remember the heavyweights that many of you think made up the wonderful 70s. By the way, do you guys also think that Alfredo Evangelista could beat most of today's fighters? He gave Ali a tough fight. That makes him great too I guess?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 24 Dec 2001, 02:53

Alistair, When did Joe Frazier get into top shape after March of 1971? He weighed 204-205 for that fight and for most fight prior to that one. Afterward, I don't think he was ever below 210 again. To me that indicates that he was not in top shape. If I remember correctly, he might have been over 215 when he got demolished by Foreman. Frazier never had the hunger again that he had in 1971 and before.

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 24 Dec 2001, 13:09

its a shame that some people can be so blinded...all you could come up with was he had a heart and came to fight... i dont think that would help him when he is outreached by 3-6+ inches, out weighed by 20+ lbs and finds out guys of today are just a wee bit quicker. i mean when people argue top notch guys from way back when beating todays top notch guyys i can understand, but a second teir heavyweight from the 70's is no match for todays standard...im sorry but that is the bottom line.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 24 Dec 2001, 18:24

What was Bonavena's reach measurement?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 24 Dec 2001, 19:47

Steve O, I don't know Bonevena's reach, but I would guess his height as about 5-10, maybe an inch shorter. He looked to be 5-7 inches shorter than Ali.
Joe, if you are comparing Bonevena to Ibeabuchi, you must be from another planet. Ibeabuchi is so much better than Bonevena that it would be like comparing Butterbean to Mike Tyson. Byrd would beat Bonevena with no problem at all.
The fighters of the 70s weren't considered to be a great group in the 70s. It is only now, when looked at with the rose colored glasses that age gives, that they are considered great. Bonevena was an awkward fighter. Larry Holmes would have butchered him, he would have been a bum of the month for Joe Louis. If Ali and Frazier had a tough time with him, well, that says volumes about them.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 24 Dec 2001, 23:35

Joe, Yes, I would surely pick Larry Holmes over Ali, prime vs. prime. I have never been too impressed with Ali and the more I see of him on old videos, I am less impressed by him. He is vastly over rated. Byrd would beat Bonevena by frustrating him and peppering him with punches.
I think that Holmes was a great boxer with a lot of heart and the best jab ever. Holmes was/is technically sound, that is why he could fight effectively into his 40s until he was almost 50 years old. He defeated Ray Mercer while in his 40s I believe.
I also think that Byrd is a good fighter. He is a bigger, faster, probably more powerful Jimmy Young. Since Young probably defeated Ali, we'll have to guess what would happen if Byrd and Ali fought.
You may be right to a degree about Ibeabuchi, he never fought enough to really prove himself, but off of the Tua and Byrd fights I was impressed. And, yes I do think that Tua and Byrd are far better fighters than Bonevena.
I like Bonevena, and with the right training he might have been a good fighter. He just didn't give himself a chance. His balance was terrible, he looped his punches, and he didn't know what defense was. To his credit, he did have some natural gifts like stamina and strength.

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 25 Dec 2001, 10:28

hey joe. jones certainly is great and you may be predjudice about spinks if you know what i mean. however in 1979 alone there was spinks,saad muhammad,mustafa muhammad,marvin johnson,dwight braxton,jerry martin,victor galindez,vonzell johnson and murray sutherland. only 3 today crack that top ten.

Tomato-Can · Post by **Tomato-Can** » 25 Dec 2001, 13:20

correct again joe borden. the 1970s gets my vote for best decade of lightheavys.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 25 Dec 2001, 13:34

Merry Christmas to you too, and you are right about the Lt. Hys. Jones would be great in any era, but probably would be his best at Middleweight. He would be giving up size to Spinks, Foster, Jerry Martin, James Scott, etc. That late 70s group of Lt.Hys will be hard to top. I remember the condition of James Scott and I thought he would never lose and then Martin and Braxton-Qawi both beat him. Good idea, let's discuss these guys. Dave.