BoxRec

Posted: **12 Apr 2007, 23:44**

he prolly sees it from the standpoint that Frazier was at his peak and Ali wasn't far from his physical peak.

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 00:23**

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:
Ali's defining moment was the first fight between himself and Frazier.

Two undefeated heavyweight champions.

And he lost.

Fullstop.

End of story.

No rhetoric no bullshit.

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 00:28**

Decagon wrote:
BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:Ali's defining moment was the first fight between himself and Frazier. Two undefeated heavyweight champions. And he lost. Fullstop. End of story. No rhetoric no bullshit.
Why was that his defining moment and not Liston I, Foreman, Frazier III or Spinks II?

Why NOT, Decagon?

I'll tell you why:

Because that alone destroys any chance the Ali industry has to sell their product as the "greatest of all time."

Rule Number ONE of the Ali industry is

NEVER MENTION that Joe Frazier knocked Ali flat on his back and beat Ali thoroughly.

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 00:34**

Decagon wrote:
BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:Ali's defining moment was the first fight between himself and Frazier. Two undefeated heavyweight champions. And he lost. Fullstop. End of story. No rhetoric no bullshit.
Why was that his defining moment and not Liston I, Foreman, Frazier III or Spinks II?

LOL.

I agree with you, Decagon

Ali fighting a drugged novice who had beaten Ali in his 8th professional fight

a novice who left for the ring without his basic equipment and had to go back to the dressing room and borrow a sweaty one from Mike Rossman, who had just fought

a novice whose cornerman Georgie Benton walked out of the ring halfway through the fight in disgust at the farce it was

THAT WAS DEFINITELY ALI'S DEFINING MOMENT.

And the media and all its shills still sell that disgrace as proof that their product is "the greatest of all time."

Yes Spinks II was defintely Ali's defining moment.

And a defining moment for the garbage he turned boxing into.

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 00:46**

granberry wrote:
Decagon wrote:
BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:Ali's defining moment was the first fight between himself and Frazier. Two undefeated heavyweight champions. And he lost. Fullstop. End of story. No rhetoric no bullshit.
Why was that his defining moment and not Liston I, Foreman, Frazier III or Spinks II?
LOL.

I agree with you, Decagon

Ali fighting a drugged novice who had beaten Ali in his 8th professional fight

a novice who left for the ring without his basic equipment and had to go back to the dressing room and borrow a sweaty one from Mike Rossman, who had just fought

a novice whose cornerman Georgie Benton walked out of the ring halfway through the fight in disgust at the farce it was

THAT WAS DEFINITELY ALI'S DEFINING MOMENT.

And the media and all its shills still sell that disgrace as proof that their product is "the greatest of all time."

Yes Spinks II was defintely Ali's defining moment.

And a defining moment for the garbage he turned boxing into.

You're too much.

Bernard Briggs... Sugar Ray Robinson was coming off a 2 year layoff and had a lot of ring rust when he lost to Ralf Tiger Jones, who had over 10 losses... was that Robinson's defining moment?

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 00:52**

granberry wrote:
Decagon wrote:
BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:Ali's defining moment was the first fight between himself and Frazier. Two undefeated heavyweight champions. And he lost. Fullstop. End of story. No rhetoric no bullshit.
Why was that his defining moment and not Liston I, Foreman, Frazier III or Spinks II?
Why NOT, Decagon?

I'll tell you why:

Because that alone destroys any chance the Ali industry has to sell their product as the "greatest of all time."

Rule Number ONE of the Ali industry is

NEVER MENTION that Joe Frazier knocked Ali flat on his back and beat Ali thoroughly.

If that's the case then Rule #1 for Ali haters is to forget that Ali won the trilogy...

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 01:19**

"Why was that his defining moment and not Liston I, Foreman, Frazier III or Spinks II?"

I'll tell you why none of those fights count. Liston was a mafia paper champion, Foreman was the worlds dumbest fighter, Frazier was washed up and Spinks didn’t have a clue.

Next week I will publish the inaugural winner of the Mark Phillipouses award (for having the most talent but not using it) on this site. I think George Foreman might get a nomination or two.

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 01:24**

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:"Why was that his defining moment and not Liston I, Foreman, Frazier III or Spinks II?"

I'll tell you why none of those fights count. Liston was a mafia paper champion, Foreman was the worlds dumbest fighter, Frazier was washed up and Spinks didn’t have a clue.

Next week I will publish the inaugural winner of the Mark Phillipouses award (for having the most talent but not using it) on this site. I think George Foreman might get a nomination or two.

Funny how you can accept excuses for those four fighters but not for a guy coming off a three year layoff who was visibly gassed by the 6th or 7th round.

Cut the bull with Liston, the second fight is very debatable, but not the first... Foreman beat 37 or so fighters with his "dumb style" including Chuvalo, Frazier and Norton... I think Ali should get a bit of credit for knocking him out...

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 07:37**

I Feel Fine wrote:I haven't seen the fight in years, but I recall Shavers taking a lot of punches and that having an effect on him, more than any one punch. Cobb was a very weak, sloppy puncher, but he hit Shavers a lot. Either way, I agree that Shavers was not stopped because of a bad chin in that fight, which was what I was trying to say. I'm sure you're right that he was cut, I don't really remember.

The stoppage was due to the fact that Shavers was taking a lot of punches and not fighting back, due to the fact that he was exhausted. In the last few rounds against Cobb, Shavers was so tired that he could barely keep his balance and did little besides lay against the ropes and allow Cobb to throw punches, many of which landed on the back of the crouching Shavers head. As I recall, Shavers was not off his feet against Cobb.

It’s hard to come up with a fight where Shavers showed a weak chin. When he was knocked down, it was usually either from a LOT of punches (Quarry), or else fatigue -- just about every other Shavers KD.

Posted: **13 Apr 2007, 13:36**

The Great John L wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:I haven't seen the fight in years, but I recall Shavers taking a lot of punches and that having an effect on him, more than any one punch. Cobb was a very weak, sloppy puncher, but he hit Shavers a lot. Either way, I agree that Shavers was not stopped because of a bad chin in that fight, which was what I was trying to say. I'm sure you're right that he was cut, I don't really remember.
The stoppage was due to the fact that Shavers was taking a lot of punches and not fighting back, due to the fact that he was exhausted. In the last few rounds against Cobb, Shavers was so tired that he could barely keep his balance and did little besides lay against the ropes and allow Cobb to throw punches, many of which landed on the back of the crouching Shavers head. As I recall, Shavers was not off his feet against Cobb.

It’s hard to come up with a fight where Shavers showed a weak chin. When he was knocked down, it was usually either from a LOT of punches (Quarry), or else fatigue -- just about every other Shavers KD.

Yeah, that is how I remembered the Shavers-Cobb fight going. That was my point, that Shavers wasn't hurt by one punch in any of his knock out losses, the Cobb fight included. I agree that, on second thought, Shavers really didn't have all that bad a chin. It was usually fatigue or an accumulation of punches.

Posted: **17 Apr 2007, 19:07**

All of those that name Ali as the greatest of all time need to look past the hype and the myth. All I am saying is that he had no defence other than to sway back, and no punch to speak of, he faced hand picked opponents and in his prime was beaten convincingly by a guy called Joe Frazier, a man no one has in their top ten of all time.

So where does that leave the great man? Somewhere below Frazier and above Liston. Still not a bad place to be.

Posted: **17 Apr 2007, 19:27**

I think what alot of people fail to forget is that Ali may have been the fastest in his 'prime', though I think 1970-1975 was at his over all best.

Take Marciano for example, he fought at a MW pace, though people don't seem to believe it. Rocky threw on average 80-100 punches per round. Certainly Marciano would have been able to keep up with a prime Ali, just as much as the 1970-1975 Ali.

Ali was great, did beat alot of good and great fighters, but was every aspect of his career, even his speed, exaggerated? Is it because we see what he is today that we forlorn and talk up the legend that is Ali? Is it because of the sad state of affairs of boxing, that we look back on its most controversial and talkative figure as a sort of Messiah?

At his 'best' (1960's) he was the fastest man on wheels, but hadn't quite faced the adversity that he would in the 1970's. In the 1970's he wasn't as fast, and relied more on taking punishment, psyching opponents out, to win his fights. And in the late 70's to 1981, gift decisions and inadequate opponents such as Dunne, Coopman and Evangelista took up his career.

But somehow, some way, he was able to beat some men we wouldn't have expected him to have beaten (Shavers, Foreman mainly). Does that make him the 'greatest' of all time? I don't know...nobody expected Dempsey to beat Willard, nobody expected Marciano to beat any of the men he faced, and so on and so forth.

There must be a measurement of the truth. As I said before, when doing the Marciano thread, somewhere in between the two extremes: Ali being so fast, so good and so great that NOBODY could win a round against him, and the examples Granberry and other haters state about him....somwhere in between is the TRUTH.

We just need to look for it.

Posted: **17 Apr 2007, 20:33**

To me its just a question of who he beat. He beat five Hall of Fame Heavyweight champions, three of whom are in the top 10, and one of whom is probably top 5 (Foreman.) The 70's Heavyweight division is considered the deepest it's ever been and Ali beat literally every name contender in the division; Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, Mathis, Bugner, Lyle, Shavers, Chuvalo II... guys like Quarry and Lyle and Shavers sometimes being named as "the best guy never to win a title." And as for him not beating the best in 60's... he still beat the best guys around. Tyson had 9 defenses against overall weak fighters and he was the second coming of Christ to some people... Ali was just as dominant in his 9 defenses and he fought solid fighters like Chuvalo and Terrell and he dominated all time great Heavyweights in Liston (to win the title at least, I tend to question the second fight as many people do) and Patterson. To add to it, Ali defended his titles 19 times... what's missing? Where does 'overrated' equate into all of this? Because he had a close decision when he was 21 against Doug Jones, or because as a declining fighter in his mid 30's (which at the time was old for a fighter, unlike today) he had some close decisions? People who criticize Ali always do it either by criticizing the very early part of his career when no fighter can be seriously judged... plenty of all time great fighters had close fights and losses within their first 20 fights... or when he got old... which is equally or even more unfair, since fighters like Robinson and Charles and Armstrong and Hearns had plenty of losses as old fighters and they are not judged badly because of it... and neither should they. All fighters get old. Is anyone seriously going to judge Holyfield's legacy badly because he lost to Larry Donald as an old man? I mentioned Armstrong, I think, and many people think, that he's one of the top 2-3 greatest fighters of all time, and he never held a title after the age of 29... you can't attack the fighter on the basis that they got old... and it's not like Ali got old at a young age, he got old at 34-35, most fighters do with the exceptions of the Hopkins' and the Moore's and the Lewis' and the Walcott's...

If Ali is overrated by some (and he is, some people go overboard and rank him ahead of guys like Robinson and Armstrong which I disagree with, and I think Ali would disagree himself) he is also underrated by some. The idea that he's overrated because he had leaky defense, I mean, how many great Heavyweight champions had leaky defense... Louis was knocked down plenty of times, Marciano and Frazier weren't hard to hit, Holyfield took his share of punches, Holmes got wobbled or dropped by plenty of straight right hands in his time, Dempsey wasn't particularly hard to hit...

Posted: **27 May 2007, 01:04**

does anyone think its a good job he had those years off as some of the boxers around at that period would have tarnished his career and by the time he came back refreshed if he had fought all those years he would never have beaten foreman or frazier

Posted: **27 May 2007, 03:31**

interesting point - a lot of people talk about his layoff in terms of what it would have done to cement his status, but if he had had some real wars? who knows?

Posted: **27 May 2007, 17:17**

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:does anyone think its a good job he had those years off as some of the boxers around at that period would have tarnished his career and by the time he came back refreshed if he had fought all those years he would never have beaten foreman or frazier

I guess you've given up on your bogus claim that Ali is overrated... trying to change the subject, maybe?

No, I don't agree. We're already talking about it in another thread, so its not really worth going into too much detail. To put it shortly, in my opinion, from 67-70 everyone Ali would have met would have been fighters who he beat in real life in the 70's, except 60's Ali is younger and faster... maybe he would have retired sooner if there was no layoff, but that's about it. I don't see what prevents him from beating Foreman if there is no layoff... so long as he takes Foreman seriously.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 13:37**

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:All of those that name Ali as the greatest of all time need to look past the hype and the myth. All I am saying is that he had no defence other than to sway back, and no punch to speak of, he faced hand picked opponents and in his prime was beaten convincingly by a guy called Joe Frazier, a man no one has in their top ten of all time.

So where does that leave the great man? Somewhere below Frazier and above Liston. Still not a bad place to be.

I'm just curious who is #1 heavy of alltime Bernard, Marciano eh

Posted: **31 May 2007, 15:17**

It seems everyone rates him....so if we can convince a few to stop doing this we could get this over rating problem under control.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 17:08**

boxrec wrote:Ali is clearly the best defensive heavyweight fighter of all time. Very quick. Also an excellent counter attacker. But if he wasn't so good defensively, the heavier fighters could have destroyed him. I know he could take punches, but you wonder if he really was that great.... One of the best, deservedly a legend, but i think he is still slightly over rated.

I think you're overating your own reasoning abilities.

If he wasn't a great defensive fighter other Heavyweights could have destroyed him?

Ok... if Rocky Marciano wasn't such a big puncher he would have been 0-49... if Frazier didn't have such a great left hook he might have never been champion... if Chavez wasn't such a great body puncher he might have lost to a number of people... not good reasoning. Ali is not overrated, certainly not based on that logic.

Posted: **31 May 2007, 17:37**

I Feel Fine wrote:
boxrec wrote:Ali is clearly the best defensive heavyweight fighter of all time. Very quick. Also an excellent counter attacker. But if he wasn't so good defensively, the heavier fighters could have destroyed him. I know he could take punches, but you wonder if he really was that great.... One of the best, deservedly a legend, but i think he is still slightly over rated.
I think you're overating your own reasoning abilities.

If he wasn't a great defensive fighter other Heavyweights could have destroyed him?

Ok... if Rocky Marciano wasn't such a big puncher he would have been 0-49... if Frazier didn't have such a great left hook he might have never been champion... if Chavez wasn't such a great body puncher he might have lost to a number of people... not good reasoning. Ali is not overrated, certainly not based on that logic.

Plus, I don’t agree that he was “clearly the best defensive heavyweight fighter of all time”. His defense was excellent, but saying he was clearly the best of all time just doesn’t seem reasonable. Plus, when his quickness and defensive abilities started to decline in the 70’s, he was still beating some of the best HWs of all time, like Norton, Frazier, Foreman and Shavers, so he must have been one tough SOB

Posted: **31 May 2007, 17:42**

Yep, I agree. I'd probably put him top 2-3 in his prime in terms of defense, but he was hittable as he got older. Difference between him and other guys whose natural ability declined with age (Jones) is Ali showed he was also tough, and his chin allowed him to stay on top even with the loss of some of his other abilities. He wouldn't have been as successful in the 70's if he couldn't take beatings. Boxrec's whole premise is ridiculous. Ali had arguably the best chin of any Heavyweight champion.

Posted: **02 Jun 2007, 22:38**

Just watched frazier ali 3 and all the hype surrounding this was over rated as frazier was not a shadow of the fighter he was and also ali had no decent body shots to speak of

Posted: **02 Jun 2007, 23:00**

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:Just watched frazier ali 3 and all the hype surrounding this was over rated as frazier was not a shadow of the fighter he was and also ali had no decent body shots to speak of

Frazier fought one of the best fights of his career in Manila.

Now you have to be a great body puncher to be a great fighter? Ali, frankly, didn't need body punching. Body punching is used a) to lower your hands b) its easier than hitting the head c) to tire you out. Ali never had trouble hitting his opponents heads, so he didn't need it for a or b, and he was a genius at tiring out an opponent so he didn't need it c. What fight did Ali lose for lack of body punching? None.

Posted: **12 Jun 2007, 23:03**

go and have a look at any ali fight after his comeback and with a few mates score them, im betting you will find they are not as convincing victories as the ali camp trys to make us believe

Posted: **12 Jun 2007, 23:31**

Oh stop.

BoxRec

ali over rated