Joe Frazier V Evander Holyfeild

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Sep 2007, 23:07

Denying that Floyd Patterson is a great fighter is lunacy. Patterson is simply a great fighter in his own right and is a Hall of Famer. Ali beat two Hall of Famers back to back in the 60's, Holmes beat one Hall of Famer ins his whole career. Evangelista certainly isn't in Patterson's league. Evangelista's resume going into the Holmes fight was not especially impressive, no more than Patterson or Williams' or many of the Ali opponents your belittling as they went into their fight with Ali.

Young was 220 when he fought Ocasio the first time. I think that should give you an idea of what kind of shape he was in. Who f-cking cares if he was coming off a good performance? Wasn't Douglas coming off a pretty good performance going into the Holyfield fight?

Jones was a joke, plain and simple. He was one of the more inept fighters ever to challenge for the title. Seven other men had beaten Weaver prior to Weaver's encounter with Holmes... I doubt they were all great fighters. Williams was shot, but he still had his punch.

It takes a special kind of hatred to look at the Ali who fought Holmes and say that Ali was just fine for the fight.

Ali's win over Liston alone makes his 60's resume more impressive than Holmes' 70's resume, but that said, you're a biased fool to say Holmes had the better opponents in these fights.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 20 Sep 2007, 23:19

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 20 Sep 2007, 23:36

Not going to do well arguing with you? You don't know anything about boxing. I think I've given you quite a bit more attention than you are deserving of.

Anyway, I suppose Berbick was just a better boxer than Ali too.

As for you, you're a poor man's version of granberry. I haven't said anything unsubstantiated about Ali, least of all on Ali-Holmes; no serious boxing fan would even pretend that Ali was okay for that fight. On the other hand, it seems most of your posts are indeed about distorting Ali's career. That's about all there is to say.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 21 Sep 2007, 07:55

Decagon wrote:Can you imagine the headbutts in this fight?

Very true.

It would be headbutt central!!!!!! :P :P

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 08:27

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Sep 2007, 09:41

DaveV17 wrote:IFF wrote:
"Anyway, I suppose Berbick was just a better boxer than Ali too."

At the time they fought, Berbeck was better than that version of Ali. Berbeck was also better than any of the Ali title defense opponents in the 1960s.
Again, what makes you think something was wrong with Ali when he fought Larry Holmes? Maybe he was just 38 years old, had not fought in awhile, and ran into a much better fighter? So many are ready to accept all of the excuses that have been offered for Ali's performance, but most losing fighters have excuses.

It's widely known Ali achieved his rapid weight loss through the use of Thyroid pills. He was severely dehydrated. It's also clear watching film of him from the Spinks fight on that he was already undergoing the early stages of Parkinson's. In a pre-fight physical at the Mayo Clinic he failed a test when he was asked to put out his hand and touch his nose. He missed his nose each time. Just 3 years after the Holmes fight he was already clearly shaking and his speech was hard to decipher (I've seen film of him from 1983-84 where he's already clearly sufferiing from full blown Parkinsons) Watching interviews during the time of the Spinks fights he's clearly a step slower when speaking and is already beginning to slur his words.

Even without those "excuses" (he shouldn't have been fighting ANYBODY due to health issues, much less Larry Holmes), the inactivity and age would be enough themselves. Any "objective" or "non-worshipping" fan of boxing would acknowledge Ali was shot to pieces. You are the first to ever say Ali was A-OK. I don't even think granberry would attempt that argument.

Your trump-ups of Ocasio, Zanon, and Frank, and Evangelista are pure comedy. Part of me thinks you can't honestly believe what you are typing. The other conclusion would be that you have such a grudge for some reason against Ali you'll resort to the absurd to try to deflate his career. Either are just plain ridiculous.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:00

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:12

For those of you who missed the closet-classic that was Holmes-Frank, here's some footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBb2pZDRYMs

He was GARBAGE. To claim he's on the same level as even the Williams that Ali fought is an irrational argument plain and simple. That's not hero-worshipping, that's clear logic and sense.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:27

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:31

DaveV17 wrote:Thanks for posting that. After seeing that, it looks like Frank would have been one of the best of the 60s fighters. He just came along 15-20 years too late.

I smell troll droppings....

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:37

DaveV17 wrote:Mildenberger - Zanon - Mildenberger had the better record, but he hadn't fought Quarry and Norton. In fact, Milde had never fought out of Germany. Zanon gave Quarry a tough fight and was ahead when the fight was stopped. Zanon was a tall, awkward fighter. Toss up as to who was the better opponent.

So far I've been just following this discussion along in amusement. But I can't help but jump in on this particular comment.

Lorenzo Zanon was a weak hitting, china-chinned southpaw who fought Quarry coming off a two year layoff, who was probably already in the beginning stages of brain damage. In addition to that, Zanon-Quarry was hardly a tough fight. Yes, Zanon was ahead when Quarry stopped him, but, before that happened, it seemed throughout the fight like it was just a matter of when Quarry was going to finally let his hands go.

I'll grant you Zanon was a tall, awkward fighter. That's pretty much all he was.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Sep 2007, 10:58

DaveV17 wrote:Thanks for posting that. After seeing that, it looks like Frank would have been one of the best of the 60s fighters. He just came along 15-20 years too late.

Hahaha. Ok Looney Tunes. Hell, after watching this, it looks like Peter would have been one of the best of the 80s fighters . . .he just came along 15 years too late!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cShCZGGCi2U

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 11:01

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 21 Sep 2007, 11:20

I appreciate someone putting Ali to task. I believe the higher up you're ranked then the more scrutiny you should be put under. Ali rates as the greatest of HWs by most so it seems to me to be fair to put him right under the microscope.

I think his 60's opponents weren't great but I don't think they were all that bad either. All champs have a turkey or 2 thrown in, in between better challenges.

It has been said before that many in the media in the 1970s were aghast that Foreman could lose his crown to a 30+ over the hill former champ. Just goes to show how opinions can change.

Even so, Ali's record stands up against the tightest scrutiny.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 11:30

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Sep 2007, 11:37

DaveV17 wrote:Ezzard, I agree that Ali fought some good competition in the 70s. Between Liston and Bonavena, it was not Ali's fault, but his competition was weak. Some of the most fervent Ali supporters point to his dominance of that weak 60s competition and act like he could have done the same to Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, etc. The reason Ali didn't dominate the 70s competition was not that he was diminished as a fighter, it is that his competition was bigger, more athletic, and better.

Ali had it much tougher in the 70s. Ali returned to competition at age 28, he got in some good work before facing Frazier, and he was well prepared for the fight. In addition while away from the ring, Ali was never in jail, he never had to eat jail food, he could run, train, and spar as much or as little as he wanted during the time he was not fighting.

I have no problem with anyone arguing that Ali was the GOAT, but I do have a problem with the ones who act like it is a fact that should not be questioned. Ali beat some good fighters and he legitimately lost to some good fighters. I just like to see Ali treated like a boxer - not a diety.

Saying Scott Frank was as good as the opponents Ali defended against in the 60s is not "questioning Ali's greatness" or "look at Ali from a balanced point of view" . . it's just plain stupid. You can make a simple, sane argument . . that Ali faced better opposition in the 70s than in the 60s, which I agree with, or that Ali would have had major problems with Norton and Frazier in the 60s like he had in the 70s (I also agree) but then you wash anything you are trying to say down the drain by saying journeyman from the early 80s were who laughed at as legitimate championship opponents were on the same level as Chuvalo, Patterson, Terrell etc. Which is a laughable argument, and throws your credibility out the window.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 21 Sep 2007, 11:40

DaveV17 wrote:Ezzard, I agree that Ali fought some good competition in the 70s. Between Liston and Bonavena, it was not Ali's fault, but his competition was weak. Some of the most fervent Ali supporters point to his dominance of that weak 60s competition and act like he could have done the same to Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, etc. The reason Ali didn't dominate the 70s competition was not that he was diminished as a fighter, it is that his competition was bigger, more athletic, and better.

Ali had it much tougher in the 70s. Ali returned to competition at age 28, he got in some good work before facing Frazier, and he was well prepared for the fight. In addition while away from the ring, Ali was never in jail, he never had to eat jail food, he could run, train, and spar as much or as little as he wanted during the time he was not fighting.

I have no problem with anyone arguing that Ali was the GOAT, but I do have a problem with the ones who act like it is a fact that should not be questioned. Ali beat some good fighters and he legitimately lost to some good fighters. I just like to see Ali treated like a boxer - not a diety.

Well this is somewhat sane. Perhaps Bi Polar phasing would explain it.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 12:13

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Sep 2007, 12:43

Dave17 says so much BS it's hard which comments to reply to, but here a few:
In mentioning the great Scott Frank's wins, you forgot to mention that Wepner was 39 years old.
You also forgot to mention that Ron Stander was 35 and had lost 3 of his last 4 fights when he fought Wepner.
Neither Wepner or Stander were considered top fighters in the 1970's even when they were at their best.

Just a few things that I would like Dave17 to spin:

If Bonavena is considered a good fighter but Ali's opponents that he defended his title against in the 1960's were bad isn't it odd that:

Bonavena barely beat Chuvalo, who you are constantly ripping?
Chuvalo beat Quarry?
Bonavena got beat by a past his prime 37 year old Floyd Patterson in 1972?
Floyd also beat Eddie Machen, whom you seem to have respect for.
Gee, maybe Patterson was pretty good after all.
Btw, Ernie Terrell beat Machen as well.
Bonavena got beat very badly by Folley, a year before Ali beat Folley?

Chuvalo,Patterson, and Folley were all opponents that Ali defended the title against in the 1960's. (he easily beat them all).

Ok, spinmiester Dave, do your thing.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 21 Sep 2007, 12:47

indeed the phasing went negative again.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 21 Sep 2007, 13:00

DaveV17 wrote:Df wrote:
"by saying journeyman from the early 80s were who laughed at as legitimate championship opponents were on the same level as Chuvalo, Patterson, Terrell etc. Which is a laughable argument, and throws your credibility out the window."

George Chuvalo lost to Eduardo Corletti, a guy who was not as good as Scott Frank, Lorenzo Zanon, etc. Chuvalo had lost his last fight prior to fighting Ali and had lost 2 of his last 3. Chuvalo was not a legitimate title contender and was no more of a contender than Frank.

Patterson was knocked down by more than a few hand picked championship opponents. His title reign was marked by who his management avoided. If he had faced Machen, the prime Folley, Cleveland Williams, and Liston instead of Roy Harris, Tommy Jackson, and Pete Rademacher he might be more respected or he might be forgotten. Most of Floyd's opponents were not above Scott Frank level and many of them floored him and one, Johanson beat him.

Terrell was mostly a clutcher, even at his best. He was 6-6, and for much of his career he weighed less than 200 pounds. If you want to argue that he was better than a Leroy Jones or Mike Weaver, or most of Holmes' other opponents, I won't agree. Most of his fights were close and boring. I have seen him fight Thad Spencer (decent, but nothing special), immediately after the Ali fight in the heavyweight tournament and he was not impressive at all. Hardly an all time great.

Obviously. you consider Patterson, Terrell, and Chuvalo to be Ali's best title defenses. Decent fighters, but none of the three are the type fighter who would be considered an overwhelming favorite against Scott Frank. Three others, Henry Cooper, Zora Folley, and Karl Mildenberger would be even less likely to beat Scott Frank, the other two, C.Williams, and Brian London would have little chance of beating Scott Frank. Forget your Thomas Hauser books and take a look at the real fighters. That is a weak group of title contenders in any era.

Have you ever seen Corletti fight??

Case closed right there.

Scott Frank wouldn't even be favored vs Brian London, who at least had a big punch. The film and record clearly shows Frank was an average fighter with no special attributes.

And I've never read a Thomas Hauser book.

I'll let others take it from here.

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 21 Sep 2007, 13:01

kingpawn wrote:
DaveV17 wrote:Mildenberger - Zanon - Mildenberger had the better record, but he hadn't fought Quarry and Norton. In fact, Milde had never fought out of Germany. Zanon gave Quarry a tough fight and was ahead when the fight was stopped. Zanon was a tall, awkward fighter. Toss up as to who was the better opponent.
So far I've been just following this discussion along in amusement. But I can't help but jump in on this particular comment.

Lorenzo Zanon was a weak hitting, china-chinned southpaw who fought Quarry coming off a two year layoff, who was probably already in the beginning stages of brain damage. In addition to that, Zanon-Quarry was hardly a tough fight. Yes, Zanon was ahead when Quarry stopped him, but, before that happened, it seemed throughout like it was just a matter of when Quarry was going to finally let his hands go.

I'll grant you Zanon was a tall, awkward fighter. That's pretty much all he was.

Guess I just wanted to repeat myself ...

Got to go along with Alp, Dempsey and Feel Fine about the lack of logic on display here. In addition to what I said earlier (see above), I forgot the most important point. Besides being possibly already brain damaged, Quarry knocked out super contender Zanon in the last of any of his fights that was even close to credible.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 21 Sep 2007, 14:09

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 21 Sep 2007, 15:43

You kept saying that Ali didn't beat good competition between Liston and Bonavena, which of course implies that you thought Bonavena was a good fighter. Otherwise you would said someone that Ali fought after Bonavena. Now of course you have resort to backtracking and now have to say that you don't think Bonavena was good.

I haven't heard anyone saying that Ali's competition in the 1960's was as good as it was in the 1970's. However saying it was weak is ridiculaus. Saying that people like Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier were better shows that you know very little about boxing.