BoxBuzz wrote:Ok granmaberry......PLEASE speak to my points regarding natural talent vs the fundamentals and how gifted athletes can sometimes thrive on less knowledge and commitment to the basics and carve out just a wee bit of a career. Even if they do annoy the hell out of you. Now Dont go crazy and make a mockery of this point. I'm not talkin about someone who does not have lick of training, rather those who don't follow the rules quite as well as others and yet have at least limited or perhaps even more success. Naz for example...weak fundamentals but hung in there even with Barrera though he lost.
I mean there is a balance, the absolute best fundamentals don't always rise to the top if they are not equaly gifted with intelligence, good eyesight, instinct and speed. All things you never speak to. Or if you do you add them all up and seem to indicate that they don't mean squat. (That hammer thing I was talkin' about)
Let's get some credibility going here, your more than a name caller, your more than a one trick pony, your more than some old cranky codger who likes to fling poo at ol' boxbuzz. Your an Icon! Your a teacher! Your your....well your granberry for god's sake.
I'm looking for something that tells me "I'm still granberry! And I don't have Alzheimers!"
I agree with what you're saying, btw, boxbuzz. Ali wasn't fundamentally perfect, but he had abilities that allowed him to get away with it. When those abilities declined, Ali declined, which is why he had close decisions with Young and Norton that he probably should have lost. But it wasn't because they were fundamentally better. I thought he lost to Shavers too, I'm not sure that Shavers would be called technically brilliant. Ali lost, or should have lost, because he wasn't the same fighter. He was older, he was starting to look older, he was getting slower, he had a lot of wear and tear, especially from Manila. You made the point that if Ali ever encountered someone as good as him who was also fundamentally good, then he might lose. I think that's a good point, and is probably true. But granberry seems to think that just anybody could have beaten Ali if they were any good... which is probably why he has to ignore those "fake" wins over Liston, Patterson and Frazier...
Was Ali technically perfect? No. But talking about how a 34 year old 20 pounds overweight Ali was exposed, in a relatively close fight that he got a decision in and that some would argue (not me) that he did win... I mean, no one believes that Young would beat the Ali of 72-75, do they? Maybe granberry, but does anyone believe Young beats even a younger 70's Ali, let alone a 60's Ali? I don't see any way. And Doug Jones... uhh... that was not a robbery, and Clay admitted himself that he only trained for a four round fight, and it looked that way as he was gassed late... those fights were close, but not necessarily because Jones and Young had "straighter" right hands...
But I found it funny that he would accept excuses for Louis that he wouldn't accept for Ali. I don't believe Louis-Charles was a definitive fight, or that Charles would beat a younger Louis, but how much less definitive was that fight than Ali-Young, really? Not much in my opinion. I don't like to be judgmental, but granberry acts a lot like a troll.