Muhammad Ali during the 1960's proved to be the 'fastest man on wheels' (as Marciano elegantly put it) but there were still many old-timers such as RING magazine establisher Nat Fliescher who claimed the 2nd Heavyweight champion in history, 'Gentleman' Jim Corbett, was just as fast, if not faster than Ali.
Most observers note that Ali moved with the speed of a middleweight, though he was a heavyweight at 200 pounds. But what makes me think that this statement is true or plausible is that Jim Corbett, though he was a heavyweight champion, was by today's standards a middleweight-super middleweight at best.
Corbett, who defeated the 'Great' John L. Sullivan by kayo in the 21st round to win the title, was also one of the more better tacticians of his time, drawing with the legendary Peter Jackson who was quite possibly the greatest heavyweight of his time but never got a shot at the title (there are those who say he was better than Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion).
Corbett once in an exhibition landed 100 punches to his opponents 6 in a period of 5 minutes. 100 punches landed, not thrown, but landed. That is definately Ali-like. Corbett also was able to out dance, out hustle and out manuever such men as Jim Jefferies, though Corbett would get knocked out after 23 rounds in his first outing against the bear-like Jeffries, though leading on all cards before the knockout.
That's another trait of Corbett that is eerily like Ali's, he won virtually every single round, if not every damn minute and moment in those rounds. He was a dancing man, like Ali. He used his jab primarily as his weapon of defense, as did Ali. The only difference is that Corbett was white and Ali was black, Corbett by today's standards would be as said prior a middleweight or super middleweight, and Ali was a solid heavyweight, though a small one compared to today's monsters.
So I think the assesment is fair to say Corbett was as fast as Ali, who moved as fast as a middleweight, because:
CORBETT WAS A MIDDLEWEIGHT!
'Gentleman' Jim Corbett: As Fast as Ali?
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
No, the assessment that Corbett was as fast as Ali who moved as fast as a middleweight because "Corbett was middleweight" isn't fair.
Lets start with the obvious. Corbett wasn't a middleweight. He usually weighed around 180-185, well above the middleweight limit of 160. If you are going to call him a middleweight, you may as well call Rocky Marciano a middleweight.
The statement that Ali was as fast as a middleweight is an expression. It means that that he was extremely fast. It doesn't mean that he was the exact same speed as every middleweight. Not all middleweights are the same speed anyway.
As for Nat Fleischer, well he is entitled to his opinion. However, it likely that this is more based on nostalgia than reason. Fleischer likely never saw Corbett in person. (He was 5 years old when Corbett beat Sullivan). Even if he did, he going on recollection from when he was a kid and comparing that to Ali who fought more than 60 years after Corbett.
Unfortunatley there is little film of Corbett, and most of it is not very good. None of it suggests he was nearly as fast as Ali. Of course, that doesn't mean Corbett wasn't fast; Ali had phenomenal speed.
By all accounts Corbett was very fast. However, it's very doubtful that he was as fast as Ali.
Lets start with the obvious. Corbett wasn't a middleweight. He usually weighed around 180-185, well above the middleweight limit of 160. If you are going to call him a middleweight, you may as well call Rocky Marciano a middleweight.
The statement that Ali was as fast as a middleweight is an expression. It means that that he was extremely fast. It doesn't mean that he was the exact same speed as every middleweight. Not all middleweights are the same speed anyway.
As for Nat Fleischer, well he is entitled to his opinion. However, it likely that this is more based on nostalgia than reason. Fleischer likely never saw Corbett in person. (He was 5 years old when Corbett beat Sullivan). Even if he did, he going on recollection from when he was a kid and comparing that to Ali who fought more than 60 years after Corbett.
Unfortunatley there is little film of Corbett, and most of it is not very good. None of it suggests he was nearly as fast as Ali. Of course, that doesn't mean Corbett wasn't fast; Ali had phenomenal speed.
By all accounts Corbett was very fast. However, it's very doubtful that he was as fast as Ali.
I rate the old timers very high, but Nat Fleischer was totally biased for the old-timers. In fact, he would not even rate Ali until he was pretty much on his death bed and ever then he rated Ali very, very low. While some of his picks seem pretty solid Nat Fleischer did not use much common sense when it came to rating fighters as he simply did not judge all fighters with the same criteria and he held the old timers above all else! Nat Fleischer was a very important person for boxing, but he was a hack as a writer and not much better when it came to rating, but he had a lot of positives as well...just not where he though that he did!
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I agree that Fliescher was biased in many ways, but then again Fliescher died before Ali accomplished his greatest feats in the ring---so I think Fliescher was somewhat not far off in his rating of Ali. Fliescher died in 1972 and by that time Ali failed to beat Joe Frazier and lost to Ken Norton, which I think would have hurt his standing, as far as Fliescher goes.
As far as Corbett not being a middlweight-super middleweight, in his fight with Fitzsimmons, I believe he was only 170 pounds, as Fitzsimmons was 167 or 168 when he took the title from Corbett with his solar plexus punch.
As far as Corbett not being a middlweight-super middleweight, in his fight with Fitzsimmons, I believe he was only 170 pounds, as Fitzsimmons was 167 or 168 when he took the title from Corbett with his solar plexus punch.
Boxrec list him Corbett as 184lbs for the Fitz fight.
Firstly I think you need to define whether you are talking about hand speed or how mobile he was.
From the film I've seen it's hard to imagine Corbett was as fast as Ali, I'm the first to point out that the old film is not the best way to judge but if you watch Johnson's fights you can really see his speed not so much with Corbett.
Firstly I think you need to define whether you are talking about hand speed or how mobile he was.
From the film I've seen it's hard to imagine Corbett was as fast as Ali, I'm the first to point out that the old film is not the best way to judge but if you watch Johnson's fights you can really see his speed not so much with Corbett.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
According to the BoxRec database, Corbett weighed 184 for the Fitzsimmons fight. Other sources have him at 183. Either way, he was no middleweight.
Fleischer saw Ali when he was at best and at his fastest. He simply was very biased toward fighters from way back. In 1958, he rated Fitzsimmons as the #3 heavyweight of all time. He didn't have a high opinion of Marciano either.
That's not to say that some of the fighters (such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons) weren't great. Some were better than some more modern fighters and some weren't. However, Fleischer almost always favored the fighters from way back.
Fleischer saw Ali when he was at best and at his fastest. He simply was very biased toward fighters from way back. In 1958, he rated Fitzsimmons as the #3 heavyweight of all time. He didn't have a high opinion of Marciano either.
That's not to say that some of the fighters (such as Corbett and Fitzsimmons) weren't great. Some were better than some more modern fighters and some weren't. However, Fleischer almost always favored the fighters from way back.
re
Couldn't have said it better Alp! Fleischer saw Ali when Ali was at his very best in the ring. The wars with Frazier just showed his toughness...his unmatched skill and speed was evident as early as 1961. Fleischer just simply did not like Ali and that was the reason that he never ranked Ali until he was about to die and even then it was a very low ranking!
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Yeah but...
there were many questions still left unanswered about Ali in the 60's. Many wondered if he could take a solid punch from a hard hitting HW. Many wondered about his heart, what he'd do in a tough situation, etc.
By that time he showed he could be knocked down by guys like Henry Cooper, and the second Liston fight made alot of people think a dive was involved, and then throw in fights with limited London and Mildenberger (even George Chuvalo said he wasn't anything world class).
Plus many 'experts' figured Ali's style, having his hands so low and backing away from punches rather than slip them, were 'suicidal'. Then throw in, yes, the Black Muslims and Ali declining to get drafted---it didnt hold well with most of America.
This man at that time was considered the most hated figure in all of sports, according to Sports Illustrated---hard to believe now, but its true.
I think had Fliescher lived on he would have seen Ali disprove everybody wrong, that he could win tough fights, could take a punch and over come alot of odds---but Fliescher only saw Ali get dropped by Cooper, get dropped by Frazier, get his jaw broken by Norton---get the picture?
Plus, I do think Fliescher's ranking of Jack Johnson as being the greatest HW of all time was a just statement---because in my mind the two best HW's over all by the time Fliescher died was Louis and Johnson---and Ali was virtually a copy of Johnson, but had yet to really reach that greatness and admiration of the public.
Yes Ali proved he was the fastest...but little else at that time. Had Fliescher seen Ali defeat Frazier and Norton in rematches and the Foreman fight, he would have bumped Ali up higher in the ranks.
Yes Fliescher was biased about the old timers, but hell, we're doing the same today, because we dont believe the guys today could beat the guys from the 60's and 70's and prior. -shrugs-
there were many questions still left unanswered about Ali in the 60's. Many wondered if he could take a solid punch from a hard hitting HW. Many wondered about his heart, what he'd do in a tough situation, etc.
By that time he showed he could be knocked down by guys like Henry Cooper, and the second Liston fight made alot of people think a dive was involved, and then throw in fights with limited London and Mildenberger (even George Chuvalo said he wasn't anything world class).
Plus many 'experts' figured Ali's style, having his hands so low and backing away from punches rather than slip them, were 'suicidal'. Then throw in, yes, the Black Muslims and Ali declining to get drafted---it didnt hold well with most of America.
This man at that time was considered the most hated figure in all of sports, according to Sports Illustrated---hard to believe now, but its true.
I think had Fliescher lived on he would have seen Ali disprove everybody wrong, that he could win tough fights, could take a punch and over come alot of odds---but Fliescher only saw Ali get dropped by Cooper, get dropped by Frazier, get his jaw broken by Norton---get the picture?
Plus, I do think Fliescher's ranking of Jack Johnson as being the greatest HW of all time was a just statement---because in my mind the two best HW's over all by the time Fliescher died was Louis and Johnson---and Ali was virtually a copy of Johnson, but had yet to really reach that greatness and admiration of the public.
Yes Ali proved he was the fastest...but little else at that time. Had Fliescher seen Ali defeat Frazier and Norton in rematches and the Foreman fight, he would have bumped Ali up higher in the ranks.
Yes Fliescher was biased about the old timers, but hell, we're doing the same today, because we dont believe the guys today could beat the guys from the 60's and 70's and prior. -shrugs-
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
A little bit of what you are saying is true, but much of it is nonsense.
When Fleischer died (in 1972)Ali had proved he was the fastest, but little else at the time?
Hadn't reached his greatness?
Are you kidding me?
Ali hadn't proved himself in the 1960's? He made 9 title defenses in 3 years. (Would have been more except for the hernia operation).
A knowledgeable, objective person wouldn't hold the Cooper and Frazier knockdowns too much against Ali, especially in comparison to the many knockowns that Louis suffered.
Mildenberger was a pretty decent fighter and Ali beat him easily. London was the worst title opponent Ali had in the 1960's and he was much better than many of the title defenses that Louis and Johnson had. Ali destroyed him in 3 rounds.
The heavyweight divison was awesome in the 1970's and Fleischer missed out on most of this. however the 1960's was very good. Take a look at Johnson and Louis' title defenses. Have you ever heard of the bum of the month club? Johnson ducked McVey, Jeanette, and Langford while champion.
Btw, no Fleischer wouldn't have seen Norton break Ali's jaw. (Though why you would hold that against Ali is anyones guess.) He was already dead.
When Fleischer died (in 1972)Ali had proved he was the fastest, but little else at the time?
Hadn't reached his greatness?
Are you kidding me?
Ali hadn't proved himself in the 1960's? He made 9 title defenses in 3 years. (Would have been more except for the hernia operation).
A knowledgeable, objective person wouldn't hold the Cooper and Frazier knockdowns too much against Ali, especially in comparison to the many knockowns that Louis suffered.
Mildenberger was a pretty decent fighter and Ali beat him easily. London was the worst title opponent Ali had in the 1960's and he was much better than many of the title defenses that Louis and Johnson had. Ali destroyed him in 3 rounds.
The heavyweight divison was awesome in the 1970's and Fleischer missed out on most of this. however the 1960's was very good. Take a look at Johnson and Louis' title defenses. Have you ever heard of the bum of the month club? Johnson ducked McVey, Jeanette, and Langford while champion.
Btw, no Fleischer wouldn't have seen Norton break Ali's jaw. (Though why you would hold that against Ali is anyones guess.) He was already dead.
Last edited by Ambling Alp on 09 Mar 2007, 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
That is a ridiculous statement. Brian London would have been a 1st round KO victim to Louis. Tommy Farr, Bob Pastor, Arturo Godoy, Lou Nova, jersey Joe Walcott, Tami Maurilleo, and Max Schmeling were 10 times better than Brian London, and also stronger than Ali's 60 comp in general. Only Chuvalo, Patterson, and Terrell were real quality wins (Folley and Williams were way past it)Ambling Alp wrote:A little bit of what you are saying, but much of it is nonsense.
When Fleischer died (in 1972)Ali had proved he was the fastest, but little else at the time?
Hadn't reached his greatness?
Are you kidding me?
Mildenberger was a pretty decent fighter and Ali beat him easily. London was the worst title opponent Ali had in the 1960's and he was much better than many of the title defenses that Louis and Johnson had. s. .
It was Ali's 70s wins (Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, Bonavena, Lyle, Norton II) which ushered him into the "Great" category.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
thats exactly what i am trying to say dempseyfire! maybe i went too much in different directions, but at its base that is what i have been trying to say. Ali never exactly became the celebrity or figure of sport and overall boxer that we see him today until 1970-1975.
Thats when he really defined himself. But as far as Joe Louis is concerned, I think in ways he is far more superior to Ali. Take for example that Ali was gone for 3yrs---well Louis was inactive for 4 yrs during WW2 and continued his championship duties.
Imagine if you will, if Ali was still the champion after his 3yr exile, as Louis was after his 4yrs. Ali beat Bonavena and Quarry then lost to Frazier. Louis would defend his title twice against Walcott, one more against Conn, and then throw in 2 or 3 more defenses against guys like Tami Mauriello---and Louis retired as champion---only to lose after being retired for 2 or so years after the fact to a prime Ezzard Charles, one of the more under rated fighters in history.
Thats when he really defined himself. But as far as Joe Louis is concerned, I think in ways he is far more superior to Ali. Take for example that Ali was gone for 3yrs---well Louis was inactive for 4 yrs during WW2 and continued his championship duties.
Imagine if you will, if Ali was still the champion after his 3yr exile, as Louis was after his 4yrs. Ali beat Bonavena and Quarry then lost to Frazier. Louis would defend his title twice against Walcott, one more against Conn, and then throw in 2 or 3 more defenses against guys like Tami Mauriello---and Louis retired as champion---only to lose after being retired for 2 or so years after the fact to a prime Ezzard Charles, one of the more under rated fighters in history.
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:thats exactly what i am trying to say dempseyfire! maybe i went too much in different directions, but at its base that is what i have been trying to say. Ali never exactly became the celebrity or figure of sport and overall boxer that we see him today until 1970-1975.
Thats when he really defined himself. But as far as Joe Louis is concerned, I think in ways he is far more superior to Ali. Take for example that Ali was gone for 3yrs---well Louis was inactive for 4 yrs during WW2 and continued his championship duties.
Imagine if you will, if Ali was still the champion after his 3yr exile, as Louis was after his 4yrs. Ali beat Bonavena and Quarry then lost to Frazier. Louis would defend his title twice against Walcott, one more against Conn, and then throw in 2 or 3 more defenses against guys like Tami Mauriello---and Louis retired as champion---only to lose after being retired for 2 or so years after the fact to a prime Ezzard Charles, one of the more under rated fighters in history.
Yeah, we already know your take on Ali, Rupert. For some reason, you hate the guy and every post you make has at least 2 or 3 digs at Ali.
Then you spend the next week trying to defend your daft claims while everyone else points out error after error in your childish 'analysis'.
Then you disappear for a week and then come crawling back and start again.
Someone summed it up nicely the other week" "That Irish - he has no idea at all".
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Maybe so Collins, but least I ain't conforming to a general exception from most so called experts that Ali was the greatest of all time. I do believe he is very much up there, but the man is also just as mythical, legendary, as he was a fighter---anyone who dont agree with that assumption is obviously a nut hugger.
The man became apart of popular culture unlike any other boxer before him, I think thats partially the reason as to why he's so famous. I've talked to ppl before who absoloutely knew nothing of boxing and when asked who was the greatest boxer ever they automatically say Ali, and they prolly havent even seen his fights!
He's like John Henry, he became larger than life, larger than reasoning to the point of the ridiculous. I say Ali is easily a top 3 HW champion of all time, but with most peoples logic he is the greatest fighter of any weight, just like ESPN did with that stupid 'Who's Number One?' show who put Ali ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson!
Maybe I do diss Ali too much, but least I am thinking outside the box. I actually post a challenge to ANYONE who would actually try and make a case against Ali---the man wasn't a perfect fighting machine by any means---if that's ruined my credability in this forum thats fine---but the man isnt Superman, Batman, The Hulk or some other fantasy/mythical superhuman character either, despite how much people want to make him out to be as.
The man became apart of popular culture unlike any other boxer before him, I think thats partially the reason as to why he's so famous. I've talked to ppl before who absoloutely knew nothing of boxing and when asked who was the greatest boxer ever they automatically say Ali, and they prolly havent even seen his fights!
He's like John Henry, he became larger than life, larger than reasoning to the point of the ridiculous. I say Ali is easily a top 3 HW champion of all time, but with most peoples logic he is the greatest fighter of any weight, just like ESPN did with that stupid 'Who's Number One?' show who put Ali ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson!
Maybe I do diss Ali too much, but least I am thinking outside the box. I actually post a challenge to ANYONE who would actually try and make a case against Ali---the man wasn't a perfect fighting machine by any means---if that's ruined my credability in this forum thats fine---but the man isnt Superman, Batman, The Hulk or some other fantasy/mythical superhuman character either, despite how much people want to make him out to be as.
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Maybe so Collins, but least I ain't conforming to a general exception from most so called experts that Ali was the greatest of all time. I do believe he is very much up there, but the man is also just as mythical, legendary, as he was a fighter---anyone who dont agree with that assumption is obviously a nut hugger.
The man became apart of popular culture unlike any other boxer before him, I think thats partially the reason as to why he's so famous. I've talked to ppl before who absoloutely knew nothing of boxing and when asked who was the greatest boxer ever they automatically say Ali, and they prolly havent even seen his fights!
He's like John Henry, he became larger than life, larger than reasoning to the point of the ridiculous. I say Ali is easily a top 3 HW champion of all time, but with most peoples logic he is the greatest fighter of any weight, just like ESPN did with that stupid 'Who's Number One?' show who put Ali ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson!
Maybe I do diss Ali too much, but least I am thinking outside the box. I actually post a challenge to ANYONE who would actually try and make a case against Ali---the man wasn't a perfect fighting machine by any means---if that's ruined my credability in this forum thats fine---but the man isnt Superman, Batman, The Hulk or some other fantasy/mythical superhuman character either, despite how much people want to make him out to be as.
Rupert, any FOOL can pretend to themselves that boring and mindless prattling is 'thinking outside the box'.
No one in here claims Ali is a superhero out of a comic book, mate. Show me some evidence of a post by any reputable poster on here who claims that sort of shitola. It's all in your muddled pointy head, son.
We don't need a callow youth like you trying to "edumucate" us with your semi-literate offerings in areas where we already know far more than a clown like you will ever know.
And as for blowing your credibility. Hahahahahahaha. You think you ever had any?
By the way, the statement "I ain't conforming to a general exception " has no meaning at all. None. It's more akin to the chattering of a baboon than an attempt at human interaction.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Since December IrishRufusMurphy has started at least 5 anti Ali threads.
They are filled with inaccurracies (That can be easily looked up) and ill logic. He has also done this on other posts that other people stated.
Like everyone else, Ali wasn't perfect fighter, and he isn't above criticism. However, the criticism shouldn't be factually incorrect, and if simply stating an opinion about Ali it should be based on something legitimate and he should be judged as fairly as anyone else.
It's a common trap for someone to not like a certain fighter and to not rate them fairly. It's human nature. However, it's something that people should try to overcome. IrishRufusMurphy's criticism of Ali is taken to a ridiculaus extreme.
They are filled with inaccurracies (That can be easily looked up) and ill logic. He has also done this on other posts that other people stated.
Like everyone else, Ali wasn't perfect fighter, and he isn't above criticism. However, the criticism shouldn't be factually incorrect, and if simply stating an opinion about Ali it should be based on something legitimate and he should be judged as fairly as anyone else.
It's a common trap for someone to not like a certain fighter and to not rate them fairly. It's human nature. However, it's something that people should try to overcome. IrishRufusMurphy's criticism of Ali is taken to a ridiculaus extreme.
Yes that is the problem, if they were things like "Ali wasn't a great in-fighter" or "his defense is overrated" at least we could debate them, claiming Corbett is a 184lb middleweight is just irritating.Ambling Alp wrote:Since December IrishRufusMurphy has started at least 5 anti Ali threads.
They are filled with inaccurracies (That can be easily looked up) and ill logic.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Once again you are guilty of being factually wrong as well as having poor logic.IrishRufusMurphy wrote:thats exactly what i am trying to say dempseyfire! maybe i went too much in different directions, but at its base that is what i have been trying to say. Ali never exactly became the celebrity or figure of sport and overall boxer that we see him today until 1970-1975.
Thats when he really defined himself. But as far as Joe Louis is concerned, I think in ways he is far more superior to Ali. Take for example that Ali was gone for 3yrs---well Louis was inactive for 4 yrs during WW2 and continued his championship duties.
Imagine if you will, if Ali was still the champion after his 3yr exile, as Louis was after his 4yrs. Ali beat Bonavena and Quarry then lost to Frazier. Louis would defend his title twice against Walcott, one more against Conn, and then throw in 2 or 3 more defenses against guys like Tami Mauriello---and Louis retired as champion---only to lose after being retired for 2 or so years after the fact to a prime Ezzard Charles, one of the more under rated fighters in history.
You mention Louis' post WWII title defenses and mention 2 against Walcott, one against Conn and then "2 or 3 title defense against guys like Tami Mauriello"
Thats wrong. Louis had no other title defenses than the two against Walcott, one against Conn, and one against Mauriello.
To compare Louis after WWII to Ali after his layoff is ridiculaus. Louis wasn't remotely near the fighter that he had been.
In the first Walcott fight, he was dropped twice and was given a horrible decison. This fight wasn't even remotely close.
In the 2nd Walcott fight, Louis was knocked down once, was in serious trouble of winning before knocking out Walcott.
In the Conn fight, Louis looked sluggish against Conn who had slipped even more.
His only fight that could be considered impressive after WWII was when he knocked out Mauriello ( a light heavyweight much of his career) in 1 round.
If the post WWII-Louis would have fought Joe Frazier he would have been destroyed. No way would Louis have been able to given Frazier a tough 15 rounds fight like Ali did.
As for Ali, he was a great fighter from 1970-1975, but he was much better from 1964-1967. The wins over Frazier and Foreman were impressive and were better stories than his fights in the 1960's. However, he was a better fighter in the 1960's.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
No it's not a ridiculaus statement. I didn't say that London was better than all of Louis' challengers. I said many of Louis challengers. While London was by far the worst fighter that Ali defended the title against in the 1960's, he wasn't a tomato can. He won the British title. He last 11 rounds with Patterson and almost beat Johannson. (Johannson was was knocked out in the last round, but was saved by the bell)dempseyfire wrote:That is a ridiculous statement. Brian London would have been a 1st round KO victim to Louis. Tommy Farr, Bob Pastor, Arturo Godoy, Lou Nova, jersey Joe Walcott, Tami Maurilleo, and Max Schmeling were 10 times better than Brian London, and also stronger than Ali's 60 comp in general. Only Chuvalo, Patterson, and Terrell were real quality wins (Folley and Williams were way past it)Ambling Alp wrote:A little bit of what you are saying, but much of it is nonsense.
When Fleischer died (in 1972)Ali had proved he was the fastest, but little else at the time?
Hadn't reached his greatness?
Are you kidding me?
Mildenberger was a pretty decent fighter and Ali beat him easily. London was the worst title opponent Ali had in the 1960's and he was much better than many of the title defenses that Louis and Johnson had. s. .
It was Ali's 70s wins (Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, Bonavena, Lyle, Norton II) which ushered him into the "Great" category.
There are several opponents that Louis fought who weren't as good. For example, Harry Thomas, Jack Roper, Johhny Paychek, and Tony Musto were journeyman. Ali only had three quality wins? (Chuvalo, Patterson, and Terrell).
I agree that overall Ali's opponents were better in the 1970's, but his competition in the 1960's was pretty good.
How many worthy contenders didn't get a shot against Ali?
Folley was the #1 contender when Ali stopped him.
Mildenberger was a good fighter, who had a draw with Folley just two months after Folley beat Chuvalo.
Cleveland Williams, had lost one fight in the previous 6 years when he fought Ali. His only lost was a split decision to Ernie Terrell.
This isn't even taking into consideration that Ali had to beat Sonny Liston for the title. Johnson only had to beat Tommy Burns, Louis only had to beat Jim Braddock.
Johnson could have defended the title against McVey, Jeanette and Langford. Instead he fought far inferior opponents. Take at look at his title defenses.
Louis defended the title against some good fighters, but some qualified fighters didn't get a shot. He had several years to fight guys like Elmer Ray and Jimmy Bivins and didn't.
Ali fought the best opponents available. This is not to say that Johnson or Louis wouldn't have been successful if they would have fought the best contenders. They were both great fighters and probably would have been successful in defending the title against ther best. Still, the fact remains that some worthy contenders didn't get a chance for the title during their reigns.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Corbett before making his actual first steps into a professional career (he had 'worked' with pros while as an amateur in exhibitions) was both a middleweight and heavyweight champion out on the west coast.
He fought from 173 pounds to 190+ pounds. Mind you at the time 176 pounds and up was HW and Middleweight was 165 pounds maximum. 166 to 175 was Light Heavyweight.
So pretty much Corbett went from MW to LHW to HW off and on throughout his career---though by today's standards he'd be a MW to Cruiserweight fighter.
The majority of his 'fights' were exhibitions, and most of those exhibitions can be seen on CyberBoxingZone and he fit into the MW class as well as the LHW and HW class for his time---today he wouldn't but wouldnt be missing it by much.
And as far as my threads on Ali---I have made constructibe criticism before on being a bad infighter and one certain things pertaining to his style and how he showed he had harder times in the ring with guys in the mold of Frazier/Marciano/Dempsey.
He fought from 173 pounds to 190+ pounds. Mind you at the time 176 pounds and up was HW and Middleweight was 165 pounds maximum. 166 to 175 was Light Heavyweight.
So pretty much Corbett went from MW to LHW to HW off and on throughout his career---though by today's standards he'd be a MW to Cruiserweight fighter.
The majority of his 'fights' were exhibitions, and most of those exhibitions can be seen on CyberBoxingZone and he fit into the MW class as well as the LHW and HW class for his time---today he wouldn't but wouldnt be missing it by much.
And as far as my threads on Ali---I have made constructibe criticism before on being a bad infighter and one certain things pertaining to his style and how he showed he had harder times in the ring with guys in the mold of Frazier/Marciano/Dempsey.
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Corbett before making his actual first steps into a professional career (he had 'worked' with pros while as an amateur in exhibitions) was both a middleweight and heavyweight champion out on the west coast.
He fought from 173 pounds to 190+ pounds. Mind you at the time 176 pounds and up was HW and Middleweight was 165 pounds maximum. 166 to 175 was Light Heavyweight.
So pretty much Corbett went from MW to LHW to HW off and on throughout his career---though by today's standards he'd be a MW to Cruiserweight fighter.
The majority of his 'fights' were exhibitions, and most of those exhibitions can be seen on CyberBoxingZone and he fit into the MW class as well as the LHW and HW class for his time---today he wouldn't but wouldnt be missing it by much.
And as far as my threads on Ali---I have made constructibe criticism before on being a bad infighter and one certain things pertaining to his style and how he showed he had harder times in the ring with guys in the mold of Frazier/Marciano/Dempsey.
When was the middleweight limit set to 160 pounds?
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I aint for certain when the weights were set, they have changed numerous times throughout the last 200 years. I do remember LaMotta once saying how he had a helluva time making 160 and he was a middleweight, and dabbled against LHW's on occassion (Irish Bob Murphy, Billy Fox among others).
176 and up was HW for a long time
I think 165 to 175 was LHW for a long time
Need clarification to be for certain though, but I dont think I'm too far off the mark for sure.
176 and up was HW for a long time
I think 165 to 175 was LHW for a long time
Need clarification to be for certain though, but I dont think I'm too far off the mark for sure.
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
You seemed pretty certain earlier. It was the basis for your 'thinking outside the box' wasn't it?IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I aint for certain when the weights were set, they have changed numerous times throughout the last 200 years. I do remember LaMotta once saying how he had a helluva time making 160 and he was a middleweight, and dabbled against LHW's on occassion (Irish Bob Murphy, Billy Fox among others).
176 and up was HW for a long time
I think 165 to 175 was LHW for a long time
Need clarification to be for certain though, but I dont think I'm too far off the mark for sure.
Anyway, I always thought 160 was the limit when the Marquess of Queensbury rules were introduced and has been ever since.
But I'm not a boxing historian.
I assumed that you had some knowledge of the London prize ring weights to share with us. Obviously not.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Well I know I've seen fight records from the London Prize Ring days where guys who would be considered welterweights were fighting for MW championships and MW's challenging HW's for their titles. The weight classes were much closer back then and there was just a handful of weight divisions: HW, MW, WW, BW, LW; to the best of my knowledge.
I know LHW wasnt made until the turn of the 20th century and back then the general conception was LHW's were good fighters but not good enough to be HW's, much the same way some view Cruiserweights to the current HW's.
Corbett fought some bare-knuckle bouts but the majority of his career was fought under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, so its unfair to judge him on the London era when he was more or less a product of the new gloved era (3 ounce to 6 ounce gloves back then, or skin tight).
I will check into it more though, but I believe the general idea in those days was that any champion of any weight class was more or less allowed to fight another champion at a different weight, irregardless if that champion fought 'contenders' or not.
I know LHW wasnt made until the turn of the 20th century and back then the general conception was LHW's were good fighters but not good enough to be HW's, much the same way some view Cruiserweights to the current HW's.
Corbett fought some bare-knuckle bouts but the majority of his career was fought under the Marquis of Queensbury rules, so its unfair to judge him on the London era when he was more or less a product of the new gloved era (3 ounce to 6 ounce gloves back then, or skin tight).
I will check into it more though, but I believe the general idea in those days was that any champion of any weight class was more or less allowed to fight another champion at a different weight, irregardless if that champion fought 'contenders' or not.