Ranking fighters

[silkov]

I have to agree with cosand to at least some degree here. For example try to put ali outside the top five, hell out side the top three of all time heavy weights and see what happens. Forget the fact that he could only throw punches moving to his left, held and laced excessively, couldn't throw a body punch, and beat old men and one dimensional fighters and had a tough time with quite a few ordinary guys. Not to say that he wasn't great, just not the greatest. But people have an image induced by media and so called boxing experts that they cling to. The fact is, most so called experts were coming into the business, or were young fellas around the time Ali was making his name, so the experts of today either got their start sensationalizing the man, or were fans of his growing up. We all have our favorites. So most people just hear about who the greatest was from the experts and wha la Ali is without question the greatest. The point is, who is considered great can usually be traced back to who was popular about a generation earlier, when the so called experts were coming up. I'm sure in the fifties people talked about the fighters of the twenties and the thirties like they were golden. That said, I'm twenty four but I would still argue that some of the older fighters that I've seen on tape, Kid Chocolate, SRR, Dempsey, ect. would have a field day with most of the guys around today.

So, with all those faults you claim he had why do you say Ali was great?

If I subscribed to your views, I'd be a man about it and go the whole hog and say he was pile of crap.

Also, if Ali did have all those faults you list, the guys he beat like Liston, Frazier, Foreman etc were fekkin basket cases I guess.

Christ, and for all those years I thought they were modern day greats because I was brainwashed. Me and most of the others on here.

Lucky you have come along to put us right.

I shall await further gems from you, mate.

I'm waiting too!... but I won't hold my breath!...

[chance]

OK to explain: I can see that Ali was great because he won the title three times beat the other names in his era, and was at the top of his division for a long time. He had great natural ability (range, timing, speed, heart) and that allowed him to do well in that era, despite his lack of fundamentals. In my mind, their are other things that define greatness besides who could beat who, but who could beat who is still very important, and I think Ali was very beatable by some of the other elite all time greats, so for me to say he was the greatest of all time would be absurd. Furthermore he looked bad against some guys that would actually lose against todays heavyweights, I know that's a big claim but think about it, How many times have you turned on espn classic and seen ali fighting some fat balding guy that had no idea how to cut off the ring, had less than a full arsenal of punches, and could barely hold his hands up? Again that doesn't mean he wasn't a good or an influental heavyweight. If you have different standards for ranking greatness than I use or you just order those standards differently you could make an argument to rank him at the top. I just don't rank him in my top three. That doesn't make me a moron.

[The Great John L]

…I know that's a big claim but think about it, How many times have you turned on espn classic and seen ali fighting some fat balding guy that had no idea how to cut off the ring, had less than a full arsenal of punches, and could barely hold his hands up?...

I give up. How many times have you seen this on ESPNC? And based on what you’ve said about him struggling with sub-par competition, you must have seen him struggling against some of those fat, balding guys. Can you name a few of those fat, balding guys that he struggled with?

[silkov]

OK to explain: I can see that Ali was great because he won the title three times beat the other names in his era, and was at the top of his division for a long time. He had great natural ability (range, timing, speed, heart) and that allowed him to do well in that era, despite his lack of fundamentals. In my mind, their are other things that define greatness besides who could beat who, but who could beat who is still very important, and I think Ali was very beatable by some of the other elite all time greats, so for me to say he was the greatest of all time would be absurd. Furthermore he looked bad against some guys that would actually lose against todays heavyweights, I know that's a big claim but think about it, How many times have you turned on espn classic and seen ali fighting some fat balding guy that had no idea how to cut off the ring, had less than a full arsenal of punches, and could barely hold his hands up? Again that doesn't mean he wasn't a good or an influental heavyweight. If you have different standards for ranking greatness than I use or you just order those standards differently you could make an argument to rank him at the top. I just don't rank him in my top three. That doesn't make me a moron.

Sorry mate, but if you're going to come on here and spout a load of moronic crap you're going to be treated like a moron... I suggest you go away and actually learn a bit about boxing before you start trying to teach the rest of us about it!...

[silkov]

…I know that's a big claim but think about it, How many times have you turned on espn classic and seen ali fighting some fat balding guy that had no idea how to cut off the ring, had less than a full arsenal of punches, and could barely hold his hands up?...

I give up. How many times have you seen this on ESPNC? And based on what you’ve said about him struggling with sub-par competition, you must have seen him struggling against some of those fat, balding guys. Can you name a few of those fat, balding guys that he struggled with?

He's probably talking about Earnie Shavers.. :x :x :x . he was bald after all!. 8) .. the fact that he was one of the hardest punchers in history seems not to impress our learned freind 8)

[The Great John L]

…I know that's a big claim but think about it, How many times have you turned on espn classic and seen ali fighting some fat balding guy that had no idea how to cut off the ring, had less than a full arsenal of punches, and could barely hold his hands up?...

I give up. How many times have you seen this on ESPNC? And based on what you’ve said about him struggling with sub-par competition, you must have seen him struggling against some of those fat, balding guys. Can you name a few of those fat, balding guys that he struggled with?

He's probably talking about Earnie Shavers.. :x :x :x . he was bald after all!. 8) .. the fact that he was one of the hardest punchers in history seems not to impress our learned freind 8)

Hmmm.... possibly, but I don't remember Earnie being particularly fat.

[silkov]

I give up. How many times have you seen this on ESPNC? And based on what you’ve said about him struggling with sub-par competition, you must have seen him struggling against some of those fat, balding guys. Can you name a few of those fat, balding guys that he struggled with?

He's probably talking about Earnie Shavers.. :x :x :x . he was bald after all!. 8) .. the fact that he was one of the hardest punchers in history seems not to impress our learned freind 8)

Hmmm.... possibly, but I don't remember Earnie being particularly fat.

Well I dont recall Ali fighting any fatties.... Wepner was thickset, but hardly fat... theres Buster Douglas ofcourse but I'm thinking that our friends video collection doesnt go back that far... and Douglas was actually a damn good boxer... not that 'chance' would notice... even if he had the chance!...
now I'm getting confused.... what sort of bloody name is chance???... he sounds like some Korean Monk!... :x :x :x

[Dentsun4228]

Chance may be talking about Chuck wepner who was somewhat pudgy and balding...and Ali did struggle with him somewhat before putting him away in the last round. Not one of Ali's finer moments, and not really indicative of what he was capable of.

Somebody said that a fight between Marciano and Holyfield at cruiserwt would have been one-sided. My question is: One sided in whose favor? I think Holy would have dusted Marciano off without much of a problem. Holy-frazier would have been more competititive.

Well, I guess I opened a can of worms. Now, I think it's equally silly to say that Ali or Louis weren't that great. I remember an interview with Ali and Schapp in which Ali dissects Louis style. He mentions Joe's flatfooted, shuffling movement. he points out that Joe's opponents also lacked mobility and effective defensive and offensive technique. Of course Louis came along 30 years before Ali, so we're really talking about the natural progression of boxing technique over a period of decades. That is exactly my point...Louis revolutionized the heavywts with combination punching as perfect and quick and deadly as nobody had ever seen before. Joe was way ahead of his time in that sense. He brought in the modern heavywt boxing era. What makes the difference is frame of reference. Some deserve to hold up (like Robinson, Jofre, Duran) and others don't (most obvious examples are marciano, Benny Leonard and mickey walker.)

BTW, I saw film of Harry Greb both online and on TV years ago when Jimmy Jacobs had a show called Big Fights of the Decades on TV.

[cosand]

<<<<But aren't your father and uncle questionable sources? For all we know, they could just be a bunch of fanboys with little real knowledge of the history of boxing, like Bert Sugar>>>>

If I were willing to give up my anonymity, which I am not, there would be no doubt in your mind that your suspician is not the case. You will find myself, my dad, and my Uncles names in the data base of this sight.
Another uncles name belongs as a trainer/co manager for a former champ, but I am not inclined to ask for that correction, because what IS listed is accurate, it is just not complete. besides, I am not inclined to have stupid hair splitting arguements with some of your less then capable editors

I have seen what happens when others have come out and said who they were on this sight. Insults, sklander, personal verbal atttacks on their families...no thanks
You can take whaty i say as the truth that it is...or not
No matter to me either way.

[cosand]

<<<<Sorry mate, but if you're going to come on here and spout a load of moronic crap you're going to be treated like a moron... I suggest you go away and actually learn a bit about boxing before you start trying to teach the rest of us about it!...>>>>>

CASE IN POINT !

Chance makes some good points..but DARES to cut against the grain of fan nuthuggers and speak the truth, and some nincompoop attacks him for it.
The FACT is, Ali was NOT the same fighter after his suspension, and he DID struggle with Wepner, Chuvallo, Shavers (fat bald guys) both before and after.
A great fighter is not GREAT because of because he was flawless from their first fight to last, they were great for their accomplishmants, skill, over all wins and legacy.

But, dont let some quasi elite closed minded twit hear you speak the trutth, especially if it is the truth they didnt know about, or more important, didnt think to point out first !

So..."MATE" ?
WHO was the MORON in that discussion ????
I would say it was YOU, not Chance !

Anyway..like i said, there is NO biggger waste of time then the "who was better" discussion.

[chance]

How to respond to everything at once. First, thanks cosand you seem like a rational guy. As for silkov saying "I suggest you go away and actually learn a bit about boxing before you start trying to teach the rest of us about it " I've been around boxing for most of my life, I've got some amateur experience and my father was a pro fighter and trainer, so was his father. I don't claim to know half of what there is know about boxing, but I do have a pretty solid grasp of the fundamentals, enough to formulate an educated opinion, and though our opinions differ I didn't expect it to get so personal with any of you. I guess that just further proves cosands point. Decagon, I get what you're implying, however, Ali did lack fundamentals. Show me a fight where he's not bailing out or on his front foot, show me any fight, or collection of fights where he throws all ten punches, show me a fight where he actually throws punches moving to the right. If you can do that I will reconsider my opinion. It's not set in stone like alot of opinions around here apparently are. Also, marciano had more technical weapons than both frazier and foreman though he lacked some of what they had physically, but that is for another thread, if you care to discuss that, start the thread and we can do so. Yall are right though, I am new to ranking fighters, it's tough to do sometimes, but I thought, hey it might be fun, maybe spark some intelligent discussion. But hey if all yall want to do is fling insults and not address the arguments with anything substantive, I guess I was just wasting my time.

[Collins2000]

<<<<Sorry mate, but if you're going to come on here and spout a load of moronic crap you're going to be treated like a moron... I suggest you go away and actually learn a bit about boxing before you start trying to teach the rest of us about it!...>>>>>

CASE IN POINT !

Chance makes some good points..but DARES to cut against the grain of fan nuthuggers and speak the truth, and some nincompoop attacks him for it.
The FACT is, Ali was NOT the same fighter after his suspension, and he DID struggle with Wepner, Chuvallo, Shavers (fat bald guys) both before and after.
A great fighter is not GREAT because of because he was flawless from their first fight to last, they were great for their accomplishmants, skill, over all wins and legacy.

But, dont let some quasi elite closed minded twit hear you speak the trutth, especially if it is the truth they didnt know about, or more important, didnt think to point out first !

So..."MATE" ?
WHO was the MORON in that discussion ????
I would say it was YOU, not Chance !

Anyway..like i said, there is NO biggger waste of time then the "who was better" discussion.

You still haven't told us the names of all those great fighters Peralta beat...

[silkov]

<<<<Sorry mate, but if you're going to come on here and spout a load of moronic crap you're going to be treated like a moron... I suggest you go away and actually learn a bit about boxing before you start trying to teach the rest of us about it!...>>>>>

CASE IN POINT !

Chance makes some good points..but DARES to cut against the grain of fan nuthuggers and speak the truth, and some nincompoop attacks him for it.
The FACT is, Ali was NOT the same fighter after his suspension, and he DID struggle with Wepner, Chuvallo, Shavers (fat bald guys) both before and after.
A great fighter is not GREAT because of because he was flawless from their first fight to last, they were great for their accomplishmants, skill, over all wins and legacy.

But, dont let some quasi elite closed minded twit hear you speak the trutth, especially if it is the truth they didnt know about, or more important, didnt think to point out first !

So..."MATE" ?
WHO was the MORON in that discussion ????
I would say it was YOU, not Chance !

Anyway..like i said, there is NO biggger waste of time then the "who was better" discussion.

Just go home please!... I dont give a damn who your father is, you're still a dumb troll!...

[The Great John L]

Chance may be talking about Chuck wepner who was somewhat pudgy and balding...and Ali did struggle with him somewhat before putting him away in the last round.

Ali struggled somewhat with Wepner? Besides the “knockdown” when Wepner stepped on Ali’s foot, it was a completely one-sided beat down.

[The Great John L]

The FACT is, Ali was NOT the same fighter after his suspension, and he DID struggle with Wepner, Chuvallo, Shavers (fat bald guys) both before and after.

Wepner was a bit soft around the middle, but do you really think Shavers and Chuvalo were fat? And that Ali struggled with Wepner? I’d hate to see what you consider a one-sided fight…

[barry]

A good example of the kind of boxing knowledge that this cosands fellow actually knows can pretty much be summed up in the fact that he agrees with all the crap that Rocky50Project always yaps about Marciano, so that should tell anyone all they need to know about cosands boxing know-how!


>>>I dont give a damn who your father is, you're still a dumb troll!<<<


That's being very generous!!


>>>I have seen what happens when others have come out and said who they were on this sight. Insults, sklander, personal verbal atttacks on their families...no thanks<<<


Well…that only happens when the person in question is an idiot who not only insults someone else first, but in reality, is lucky to even tie his own shoes by himself…much less try to seriously debate boxing history…that he has no clue about to begin with. But what we have here is very typical of a coward…to yap bogus, inaccurate claims behind the computer screen behind some fake name!

And for the record…no one gives a shit who you are!!! Stating your name isn’t going to change anyone’s view of you one way, or the other…we all already know that you’re pretty much clueless about boxing and boxing history, so just listing your name is not going to change anything!

Chet Vinci---sound familiar.

[silkov]

I'd like to see him call either Shavers, Wepner or Chuvalo fat to their face...

[silkov]

A good example of the kind of boxing knowledge that this cosands fellow actually knows can pretty much be summed up in the fact that he agrees with all the crap that Rocky50Project always yaps about Marciano, so that should tell anyone all they need to know about cosands boxing know-how!


>>>I dont give a damn who your father is, you're still a dumb troll!<<<


That's being very generous!!


>>>I have seen what happens when others have come out and said who they were on this sight. Insults, sklander, personal verbal atttacks on their families...no thanks<<<


Well…that only happens when the person in question is an idiot who not only insults someone else first, but in reality, is lucky to even tie his own shoes by himself…much less try to seriously debate boxing history…that he has no clue about to begin with. But what we have here is very typical of a coward…to yap bogus, inaccurate claims behind the computer screen behind some fake name!

And for the record…no one gives a shit who you are!!! Stating your name isn’t going to change anyone’s view of you one way, or the other…we all already know that you’re pretty much clueless about boxing and boxing history, so just listing your name is not going to change anything!

Chet Vinci---sound familiar.

I tried to go a little easy on him as I suspect we're dealing with a minor here!... 8) minor in every way I'd say!...

[Les Darcy]

The FACT is, Ali was NOT the same fighter after his suspension, and he DID struggle with Wepner, Chuvallo, Shavers (fat bald guys) both before and after.

So what if the guy was bald? What if he shaves his head? How does being bald detract from his abilities? Marvin Hagler was bald, does that take away from the fact that he was one of the greatest middleweights of all-time?

[torodecayey]

Joe Louis cetainly had flaws ..but thats one hell of a run he had.