BoxRec

Posted: **21 Sep 2007, 15:43**

DaveV17 wrote: What I have been saying over and over is that Ali's competition was weak in the 60s, and much better in the 70s. I don't buy that Ali had problems with a lot of fighters in the 70s because he wasn't as good as he was in the 60s. If Ali had fought the type fighters in the 60s that he fought in the 70s he not have cruised throught them like he did Folley, Terrell, etc.

This much of what you're saying is fairly agreeable I think. But you lost us way back when you were trying to make this point by glossing challengers like Scott Frank, Lorenzo Zanon and Leroy Jones as guys who had even a snowball's chance. To sit there and read how Evangelista would have beaten Patterson, written with such assuredness, is hard to take ... Evangelista couldn't even beat Zanon (twice)!

And Leroy Jones? He was an okay fighter. But his one good win against Mike Weaver is even a little dubious when you conisder how up and down Weaver was. Dude already had seven losses going into the fight. Other than that, Jones never fought anyone on the radar.

Posted: **21 Sep 2007, 15:59**

Posted: **21 Sep 2007, 18:11**

While Ali's competition was not exceptional the guys he faced don't seem any worse on a head to head basis than fighters from earlier eras and might be better.

Posted: **21 Sep 2007, 18:40**

The impressive thing about Ali is that he faced so many of the top contenders of his era. Holmes had ability but ranks below Ali because he failed to face so many of the best fighters of his era. He never fought Lyle, Foreman, Young, Bugner, Coetzee, Dokes, Thomas or Page to name some.

Posted: **21 Sep 2007, 19:36**

Dave is operating under the pretense that he's just trying to judge Ali critically and objectively. There is nothing wrong with judging Ali critically and objectively. Dave, however, is not judging Ali in that way, he is instead judging Ali in a biased fashion, trying to tear down anything Ali or Ali's opponents did. He's doing the opposite of what he's saying he's doing, and that should be rather obvious.

Ali's 70's opposition was certainly better-overall-than his 60's opposition. But, that doesn't mean they were bad opponents (they were certainly better than Holmes' first nine title challengers) and that doesn't mean that 70's Ali didn't struggle at times because of the loss of some of his physical gifts.

As for this question of how we should analyze Ali's career; I would say two things. A) I do analyze Ali's career objectively and I haven't said anything unsubstantiated about Ali, and I've admitted faults and I've admitted fights that I thought he should have lost, and B) If we're going to operate under the premise that we should judge all famous fighters critically, and I think we should, then we have to do this to all fighters and not just Ali. That should include Louis, Marciano, Holyfield, Holmes and anyone else who falls under that category.

Posted: **21 Sep 2007, 23:57**

Lyle had been kayoed by Lynn Ball prior to fighting Cooney. It seems rather unlikely that Ball was better than Ali's best foes from the 1960s given his record.

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 06:07**

I Feel Fine wrote:Dave is operating under the pretense that he's just trying to judge Ali critically and objectively. There is nothing wrong with judging Ali critically and objectively. Dave, however, is not judging Ali in that way, he is instead judging Ali in a biased fashion, trying to tear down anything Ali or Ali's opponents did. He's doing the opposite of what he's saying he's doing, and that should be rather obvious.

Ali's 70's opposition was certainly better-overall-than his 60's opposition. But, that doesn't mean they were bad opponents (they were certainly better than Holmes' first nine title challengers) and that doesn't mean that 70's Ali didn't struggle at times because of the loss of some of his physical gifts.

As for this question of how we should analyze Ali's career; I would say two things. A) I do analyze Ali's career objectively and I haven't said anything unsubstantiated about Ali, and I've admitted faults and I've admitted fights that I thought he should have lost, and B) If we're going to operate under the premise that we should judge all famous fighters critically, and I think we should, then we have to do this to all fighters and not just Ali. That should include Louis, Marciano, Holyfield, Holmes and anyone else who falls under that category.

Fine has hit it on the head here.

The main problem with Dave's posts isn't the critique of Ali. If he thinks the 60s opponents were weak then I can live with that. The problem then comes with the promotion of Holmes' lesser opponents. If we judge them on the same basis then Holmes' turkey challengers cannot be rated any higher.

Being a harsh critic is fine but you have to bo consistent.

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 06:54**

Granberry Mark 2, anyone?

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 08:09**

I believed I correctly labled it as "HogWash".

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 10:37**

DaveV17 wrote:Alp wrote:
"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."

alp, you really aren't too alert are you? The reason I mention between Liston and Bonavena is because Bonavena is Ali's first fight after the layoff. If you need help, Ali had a layoff between Folley and Bonavena. Some of you Ali fans consider the Folley fight to be the last fight of Ali's prime. It was really the last fight he had in which he fought consistently weak opposition. Afterward, Ali had warm ups with Bonavena and Quarry, then he stepped it up and fought Joe Frazier.

No Dave, it's you that isn't very alert and you are the one that needs help. First of all, the Bonavena fight wasn't Ali's first after his layoff. He fought Quarry before he fought Bonavena. That is a fact. Do you really know that little about Ali's career? You also could have looked this up pretty easily. If you really think that the Folley fight was his last against "consistently weak opposition", then you would have to conclude that Bonavena wasn't weak competition.

However, I have shown that Folley easily beat Bonavena, an old Patterson beat Bonavena, and Chuvalo gave Bonavena a close fight. Anyone with any sense of logic can see that this is a strong indication that Folley,Patterson,and Chuvalo (3 of Ali's challengers in the 1960's)weren't "weak" competition.

You are also very selective in your logic.
You make a big deal about Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley about being way over the hill when Ali beat him. Yes, he was shot in the back by a bullet in 1964, but had fought several fights after that without losing. He had lost one fight in 6 years. (That was to Terrell)
He was 33 when he fought Ali.

You have Folley hadn't lost in 4 years when he fought Ali. (Again to Terrell). He was the #1 contender. He was 34 when he fought Ali.

If you want to say that Williams and Folley weren't in their absolute prime, that is fair enough. However it's completely illogical to say they are weak cometition considering some of the other arguements that you made where you disregard the notion that a fighter was past his past.

For example:
When it comes to Ali fighting Holmes, you seem to think that was a big win for Holmes. Lets put Ali's health problems aside. Ali was 38 when he fought Holmes. He hadn't fought in 2 years.

You count Cooney's win over Norton, who was 37. However Cooney's loss to Spinks somehow doesn't count for much. Cooney had been off for 1 year and was only 31.

You try to build up Scott Frank by pointing out his wins over Chuck Wepner and Ron Stander. Stander was 35 and Wepner was 39 and both had a lot of wear and tear. Neither were close to elite fighters even in their prime.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about Ali's opponents being over the hill (and they obviously had something left) and then turn around and then try to build up another fighter's career by pointing out his wins over fighters that were far more past it than Ali's opponents.
You don't have credibility with people when you are this unobjective.

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 11:55**

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 15:13**

DaveV17 wrote: ... Scott Frank looks like he might have been a stand up jabber himself. He didn't have the right ring style to compete with the Holmes' jab.

I wanted to pull this out of your last post because something immediately jumped out at me about it. It's the "looks like he might have been" part, which tells me you don't really know. You tell me. Was Scott Frank a "stand up jabber" type of fighter?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to diss Scott Frank. I've not seen that much of him either. But, before you make assertions like you did a while back, it seems you ought to know a little more than you obviously do before suggesting that ...

** Patterson, Terrell and Chuvalo would not have been overwhelming favorites to beat Scott Frank.

** Cooper, Folley and Mildenberger would have been even less likely to beat Scott Frank.

** Brian London and Big Cat Williams would stand little chance of beating Scott Frank.

I myself would want to have seen a few of Scott Frank's fights before making such random, sweeping assertions as that. Then, if my assertions fell under scrutiny, I would have a little more of a leg to stand on.

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 15:36**

First of all Frank doesn't look good. He has little defense, threw few punches, and was wild. secondly, you have to look at a fighters whole career. There are plenty of moments when Jerry Quarry and others looked good. Try finding that with Scott Frank.

I have not made up anything . I pointed out that Ali fought Quarry before he fought Bonavena, after you had said that I "need help" even though you were the one saying that he fought Bonavena first after his layoff.

Interesting that you are now backpedaling from Bonavena. As I have said before, you had to atleast consider him a decent fighter because you kept saying that Ali fought weak competition between Liston and Bonavena.

You did say in an earlier post say that "maybe Holmes had a lot to do with how Ali looked". You also said that was a bigger achievement for Holmes to beat this version of Holmes than it was for Ali to beat Folley, which is of course absurd. Any good amatuer could have beaten Ali that fight. He hardly even threw a punch in some rounds.

Now you are saying Ali fans are just making excuses for the Holmes loss? That he just loss to a better fighter? Wow, that's objectivity. It's a good thing that are totally objective when it comes to Ali. I guess Oliver McCall was better than Holmes since he beat Holmes.

Can you please name all the great 38 year old fighters who beat a fighter as good as a prime Larry Holmes?
Are you that dense that you can't figure out that version of Ali that Holmes beat was remotely close to the fighter that he once been?

You have said over and over that Cooney's win against Norton was significant. However when someone points out Cooney's loss to Spinks you come up with excuses that are a lot weaker than Ali losing to Holmes.

As I have said before, you can't have it both ways. I listed several examples where you ignore the "past his prime" issue , but then you use it yourself when it suits an arguement that are tryng to make. Of course you ignored most of my examples.

Most people are smart enought to know that you take into a fighter's advanced age into consideration and how much wear and tear that he has taken. You usually don't except when it supports some arguement that you are trying to make.
Even if you are going to ignore a fighters age/wear and tear, then at least ingore it all of the time.

Posted: **22 Sep 2007, 19:45**

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 09:39**

What does "doesn't look good" ,mean?. Sorry if that is a complex term that you have never heard before. It means he wasn't impressive. I expanded on this and said why.

Yes, Frank would have unbeaten if you throw out the Holmes fight. And you probably never would have heard of him because his competition was a joke.
"He must have been pretty good to have all those wins"? Have you never heard of a padded record?
Do you really know that little about boxing that you don't know that padded records are quite common?

I can give you the names of dozens of guys who have good winning percentages but weren't any good. When they fought someone good they lost badly. They built up their record by fighting tomato cans.
No, he didn't have to be that good at all to have had all those wins.
If Frank would have been any good, he would have fought a lot tougher competition. He fought weak competition to build up his win loss record so that he could get a big payday in a title fight. This isn't exactly unheard of.

No I don't think the Ali that beat Spinks would have beat a prime Larry Holmes. I do think he would have been much more competitive. However, Ali was already way past it when he fought Spinks, something that virtually anyone that follows boxing realizes. The Ali of say 1966 is not remotely the same fighter as the Ali of 1978 and even less like the Ali of 1980 that Holmes fought.

The reason that I keep mention the Holmes-Ali fight is that you said its a was a good title defense for Holmes and even more ridiculaus when you say it's just an excuse for Ali fans to say that he was 38 and hadn't fought in 2 years.

When Ali defended his title against Williams and Folley, you call them old and past their prime. Williams was 33 and Folley was 35. However, you say it's just an excuse that Ali was 38 when he fought Holmes.

When Cooney lost to Spinks, you defend Cooney by saying he was inactive. He was off for one year when he fought Spinks.
Ali was off for more than 2 years when he fought Holmes.

Ali was old and inactive when he fought Holmes. As usual when it comes to Ali, you really are being completely unobjective.

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 12:40**

kingpawn wrote:
DaveV17 wrote: ... Scott Frank looks like he might have been a stand up jabber himself. He didn't have the right ring style to compete with the Holmes' jab.
I wanted to pull this out of your last post because something immediately jumped out at me about it. It's the "looks like he might have been" part, which tells me you don't really know. You tell me. Was Scott Frank a "stand up jabber" type of fighter?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to diss Scott Frank. I've not seen that much of him either. But, before you make assertions like you did a while back, it seems you ought to know a little more than you obviously do before suggesting that ...

** Patterson, Terrell and Chuvalo would not have been overwhelming favorites to beat Scott Frank.

** Cooper, Folley and Mildenberger would have been even less likely to beat Scott Frank.

** Brian London and Big Cat Williams would stand little chance of beating Scott Frank.

I myself would want to have seen a few of Scott Frank's fights before making such random, sweeping assertions as that. Then, if my assertions fell under scrutiny, I would have a little more of a leg to stand on.

I'm repeating myself again. I did a little checking up on Scott Frank's record, since I've already admitted that I never saw much of him. Only the Holmes fight at the time and his draw with Renaldo Snipes, and never again after those one and only viewings.

Mainly, I'm just trying to shed some perspective on Dave's previous assertions (see above), because I think his fingers got a little quick on the keyboard.

Frank's two most notable victories were in 1978 (a points win over Chuck Wepner) and 1980 (KO1 vs. Ron Stander), two guys that any up-and-comer would look good against because you wouldn't have to go looking for them and you'd have no trouble hitting them, anyway.

The Frank fight was Wepner's last. Stander wasn't quite done yet, but by 1980 he was losing more than he was winning, and most of the losses were to fighters with losing records themselves. Granted, both guys were tough, but neither was very good. By the time Frank got to them, they weren't even a step up ...

So the whole Patterson, Terrell, Chuvalo, etc. ... wouldn't be that big of a favorite thing? That was a reach.

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 13:53**

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 15:43**

Well, Dave, I suppose that's fair enough.

But you didn't specify the versions of the fighters you were so sure Scott Frank would compete favorably with when you were suggesting the odds -- i.e. the Folley who fought Ali, the Terrell who fought Ali and Thad Spencer, the damaged Williams who fought Ali.

I mean, for my money, a big, tall, hard hitting puncher like Williams at his best gives Scott Frank a hell of a whipping. I don't know how he was graded so low by your odds. A tall, long reaching Ernie Terrell at his best gives Scott Frank a whipping. George Chuvalo, who would walk right through Frank's punches, would give him a whipping. Patterson, unless Frank got really lucky, would give him a boxing lesson.

I'm not disagreeing with your being so underwhelmed by much of Ali's '60s competition, if you compare it to his '70s competition. I've scratched my head about that myself. But these '60s fighters you dislike did trade a lot of wins and losses many times against each other during their era. Scott Frank owns wins over no one you can take to the bank.

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 16:12**

Spinmeister Dave,
Where did you previously say that you thought Ali was past his prime when he fought Holmes? You led myself and others to believe that you thought it was an important fight in which to judge Holmes and Ali.

If you think that Ali was past his prime against Holmes, why are you upset that Ali fans point this out and are "making excuses"? That makes no sense. We are pointing out the obvious.

Another quote that I love in regard to the great Scott Frank is "Lasting for 5 rounds taking that Holmes jab gets my respect" Are you serious? Does simply remaining on your feet for 5 rounds against the Holmes jab really impress you?
If that impresses you, then it would make sense that you would be impressed with virtually anyone that Holmes fought.
Do you really think that George Chuvalo for example, wouldn't last less than 5 rounds against Holmes jab?

I don't see how you can look at the Holmes fight, and the Snipes fight,(which you say you barely remember) and going by that think that he was better than the challengers that Ali beat in the 1960's.

First of all, you shouldn't put too much stock in such limited footage.
However if you going to:

What is on the tape that makes you think that Frank could beat anyone decent? He showed very little offense against Holmes. How is going to beat anyone decent throwing few punches, and being wild when he does? Going by the limted video that you have seen, or his record, where is the evidence that he has any power?
Just by going by the tape, do you really think a decent fighter is going to have much trouble hitting him?

You are always going on about the importance of being strong and athletic (and talk little about boxing skills, heart, intelligence stamina), what on this tape indicates that Scott Frank has either? He doesn't look that strong, and certainly doesn't look athletic.

Another statement that is profoundly stupid was that Joe Bugner would be a heavy favorite against all of Ali 1960's challengers. You point out Bugner's decison win over Cooper as some sort of proof. You fail to point important factors:
1. It was a controversial decision that many people thought Cooper deserved.
2. Cooper was 36 years old and it was the last fight of a long career.
3. Except for London, Cooper was probably the worst challenger that Ali faced in the 1960's.

Bugner would only be a heavy favorite against London.
He would have been slight favorite or underdog against Cooper,Mildenberger,Williams,Folley, and Chuvalo.
He would have been Terrell. Of course you point out his losses to Ali and Spencer as some sort of evidence that he would have lost to Frank. (As if Frank would have any chance against Ali or Spencer for that matter). You don't mention the Terrell that beat Jones,Machen, and Folley.
Bugner would have been a huge underdog against Patterson. Probably atleast 5 to 1.

Of course Ali also beat Liston for the title. Obviously Bugner would been a huge underdog against Liston. Probably atleast 10-1.

Bugner was a decent fighter who was fast on his feet when he was young. However the Joe Bugner that fought Marvis Frazier had lost his speed and wasn't nearly as good as he once was. Watch the Marvis Frazier-Joe Bugner. It's pretty obvious.

Sorry that you weren't familiar with the expression that a fighter "doesn't look good".

It's such a rare term that people use.

I'm also sorry that you aren't familar with padded records.
I was assuming that you have actually watched more than a few fights and looked at fighters records and would know these basic things. My mistake.

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 17:07**

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 17:15**

DaveV17 wrote:Kingpawn,
I agree that a prime Cleveland Williams would probably be too much for Scott Frank but a prime Cleveland Williams is not what fought Ali. I would take Frank over the version of Williams that fought Ali not the version who fought Liston.

George Chuvalo is better thought of today than when he was active. If he fought Frank I would lean toward a decision for Frank. Here are a few posts I found about Chuvalo when he was active.

The Ring was advising Chuvalo to retire long before 1970. This is from the September, 1966 issue, page 28 after the Chuvalo - Bonavena fight.

"What lies ahead for Chuvalo? He has failed in virtually every enterprise in the ring. Ungerman (manager) has said that if George proves unequal to achievement of high goals he would give him a job in his poultry business in Toronto.

Off Chuvalo's fight with Bonavena, who still has a long way to go, it might be wise for George to investigate the possibilities of the Ungerman establishment."

This is from the November, 1961 issue of Boxing Illustrated Wrestling News (page 11) coverage of the George Chuvalo - Robert Cleroux fight.

"Just as it takes two to Tango, so it takes two to make a fight. And Chuvalo wouldn't fight! Instead of waging his usual slam-bang, aggressive battle, the Toronto fighter tried to set a new speed record - going backward. So when Cleroux got tired of chasing him, the bout turned into a bore. The only "highlight" of the tug-o-war came when frustrated winner Cleroux twice grabbed Chuavalo and hurled him bodily to the canvas. But even that didn't get George angry enough to open up."

I like Chuvalo, but he was mostly a trial horse and if I had to bet on the fight, I would take Frank by a decision.

Patterson is a fighter that I can never decide about. He had courage and skills, but he was floored often for a top level fighter. In addition, his management avoided top contenders when he was champion. It is hard to get a feeling for how Patterson would do in any fantasy match up. To me, he could never be a heavy favorite but he has a chance against most good fighters.

I was trying to stay out, but please, those of you who collect the boxing rags, put up the "raving" press surrounding Frank and his merits as a title challenger.

Wow, Dave brought up the same paragraphs he brough up before that was not completely complimentary to a professional boxer . . .whoa!! You mean Chuvalo had some bad performances . . .jeez, we never knew.

Chuvalo also had many laudatory write-ups, part. after his rugged clashes vs Patterson and Ali in the first fight.

Scott Frank, on the other hand, was THOUGHT AS CRAP. Then and now. He was A JOKE. A bad one at that. This is like arguing with a 3 year old. This thread should've been over and done with long ago.

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 17:17**

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 17:19**

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 17:32**

DaveV17 wrote:AA wrote:
"nother quote that I love in regard to the great Scott Frank is "Lasting for 5 rounds taking that Holmes jab gets my respect" Are you serious? Does simply remaining on your feet for 5 rounds against the Holmes jab really impress you?
If that impresses you, then it would make sense that you would be impressed with virtually anyone that Holmes fought.
Do you really think that George Chuvalo for example, wouldn't last less than 5 rounds against Holmes jab?"i]

Yes I am impressed that Frank was able to take that type beating for 5 rounds. Yes, Chuvalo would probably be able to take the punishment too if he didn't get too bloody. IMO, the Holmes jab was a serious weapon and if a fighter did not have the defense to at least slow it down the fighter was in for a serious beating. Holmes for all of his talk was not vicious in the ring with fighters who were not a threat to him. He was merciful with Tex Cobb and with Ali and some others, but if he wanted to hurt someone, his jab was a cruel weapon.

You must be really impressed with Lucien Rodriguez then.

How about Fred Houpe and Tom Prater? Oh, I see, Holmes didn't throw a hard jab against them, but saw Frank as a real threat so he took out the big stick, right?

You denegrade Chuvalo showing some crap citations that were critical of some Chuvalo performances (which you could find for ANY fighter) and favor Frank to beat him, whereas the press thought Frank a buffoon and completely unworthy challenger.

log·i·cal /ˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3. reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4. of or pertaining to logic

You are completely lacking by all definitions.

Your theories are weaker than Britney Spears' parenting abilities.

Posted: **24 Sep 2007, 17:32**

The criticisms of Patterson are unfair. Ali didn't beat him with power, therefore the question of Floyd getting knocked down many times in his career means nothing here. Patterson was accused of ducking Machen, Folley and Williams as champion, but he beat Machen at least after becoming champion, and he was willing to fight Quarry and Ellis and Bonavena and even Ali again into old age, and he didn't do too badly against them, some would say he beat Ellis. Patterson was a great fighter.

Frank is not Chuvalo, and no boxing fan is going to be convinced of that.

As for the "excuses" being made for Ali in his 1980 fight against Holmes; that one is just crazy. You have to be some sort of schizophrenic to believe that one. And its not just for Ali, I would say the same for Holmes in his similar situation where he was 38 years old and coming off a layoff and got knocked out by Mike Tyson. I would say that's a legit excuse for Holmes, and I would favor Holmes in his prime to beat Tyson. Same thing for Ali, and Ali was in much worse condition than Larry was when he fought Mike, and Holmes even went on to be a decent fighter in the 90's.

BoxRec

Joe Frazier V Evander Holyfeild

Ali era

Ali rating

Lynn Ball