BoxRec

BRR... Misrepresenting your opponent is a time honored tactic, but it doesn't quite work when the words of the person who you are misrepresenting are right there for anyone to glance at.
I believe that the Frazier-Ellis winner was linear champion. In fact, I believe I have said this to you before. I never said or implied that Ali was champion when he returned, much less that he was champion after losing to Frazier which would be quite schizophrenic. I said that it was to Louis' advantage in compiling title defenses that when he returned that he was still champion. That is all I said. Straw man fallacies are all well and good, but you shouldn't make it so obvious.
That Louis was champion for more of his prime years than Ali was before their respective years of inactivity is fact, not open to debate, and any Louis fan with objectivity and honesty (which excludes BRR) would say the same. I am quite sure that neither was the same upon returning, but Louis was boxing exhibitions for that period, he was not storming the beeches at D-Day, so he was in relatively decent boxing condition when he came back, while Ali was overweight and not in boxing condition when he started his training camp for Quarry. It reminds me of AKA Cassius Clay, released in 1970 which was the year of Ali's comeback, where Ali bounces up and down a few times (he was actually discussing Joe Louis at that moment) and after only doing this for maybe half a minute he is rather out of breath. He says to D'Amato at one point during the documentary "I'm out of shape." At that point Ali was apparently convinced that he would never box again.
Ali shouldn't have been allowed to stand over Bonavena. He would have won anyway, but the fact remains. Frazier can hardly complain, he shouldn't have been allowed to hit Ali in the kidneys and Perez accidentally helped him in the 2nd round of the rematch.
Frazier enthusiasts keep coming up with these scenarios for how Frazier might have knocked Ali out after the knockdown in the 15th... next it will be "What if Frazier had brass knuckles and Ali was bled inbetween each round."
----
The idea that Louis stops Ali head to head is quite fanciful, but I think it goes the distance either way.

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Liston
6. Foreman
7. Lewis
8. Dempsey
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield

I Feel Fine wrote:I believe that the Frazier-Ellis winner was linear champion. In fact, I believe I have said this to you before. I never said or implied that Ali was champion when he returned, much less that he was champion after losing to Frazier which would be quite schizophrenic. I said that it was to Louis' advantage in compiling title defenses that when he returned that he was still champion. That is all I said. Straw man fallacies are all well and good, but you shouldn't make it so obvious.
That Louis was champion for more of his prime years than Ali was before their respective years of inactivity is fact, not open to debate, and any Louis fan with objectivity and honesty (which excludes BRR) would say the same. I am quite sure that neither was the same upon returning, but Louis was boxing exhibitions for that period, he was not storming the beeches at D-Day, so he was in relatively decent boxing condition when he came back, while Ali was overweight and not in boxing condition when he started his training camp for Quarry. It reminds me of AKA Cassius Clay, released in 1970 which was the year of Ali's comeback, where Ali bounces up and down a few times (he was actually discussing Joe Louis at that moment) and after only doing this for maybe half a minute he is rather out of breath. He says to D'Amato at one point during the documentary "I'm out of shape." At that point Ali was apparently convinced that he would never box again.

- My little friend, I don't care if you believe in the pinke toothe faery in never-never land, I'm here to instruct you that many of the public as well as a segment of "boxing historians" thought Ali the lineal champ going into the Frazier fight. Ali considered himself champion. It ain't arguable.

Already pointed out to you that Ali was in the full flower of his physical prime having just turned 29 when he lost to Frazier, so that he lost out of more prime years to accumulate title defenses than Louis is his own fault. Joe retired at an age Ali was still accumlating defenses.

As far as Ali getting fat and out of shape, well, that's DA MAN's fault now is it? 2 yrs after his comeback and many fights later he shows up fat and out of shape for Mathis and fought like a big lump of nothing. Many Ali fights like that compared to Joe who was always being in professional shape. Ever consider that the advantages Joe held over Ali could be down to Joe being the more dedicated professional? That maybe he wasn't maximizing his natural talents like Joe was?

My little friend, before his 22nd birthday, Joe was 23-0 with back to back to back to back wins over Carner, Levinsky, Baer, and Uzcudun. Ali was 15-0, having just won his biggest bout yet over Archie Moore. Was it DA MAN who held young Clay back from being a better prospect and contender too?

In nursery school you were always the kid pounding squared pegs into round holes. Ali fans simply never learn, head to head to head in lineal time, Ali falls short of the mark that Louis established. It wasn't until the Rumble and the Thrilla that anyone even considered him to be mentioned in the same breath.

It's all well and good that you "believe" in Ali. Why you insist on showing up on a public forum to take hiding after hiding after hiding trying to boost him over Joe is something perhaps only a shrink may be able to answer.

I don't particularly care what historians or what Ali were saying. I never said that he was the linear champion when he returned in the '70s, before beating Foreman, and I am telling you that you are going to stop putting words in my mouth.
Your note that Ali was able to catch the tail-end of what could be considered his prime years is true, though he was ring rusted when he did. My point, however, was that Louis had more of his prime, which still stands. Louis was given the opportunity to have more years as champion in his prime than Ali was, despite Ali winning the title at a younger age. That Louis was no longer in his prime when he returned is also fair enough, though I never suggested that he was. My point, again, was that Louis was able to accumulate more defenses as champion during his prime and that when he returned he was still champion still able to add defenses, and he did not have to take any immediate tough fights when he returned so whatever rust he might have had did not hurt him as badly. Your comments about Ali and "da man" are ridiculous and are a blatant attempt to bait me into a political discussion, which I won't do. All I said was that Ali's boxing career was over, his being out of shape by the end of his three and a half year layoff had nothing to do with "professionalism" because there was no profession, he was out of the sport and thought he would be for good. Those were the circumstances, he had no reason to stay in shape during his exile and by 1970 he was clearly not in boxing condition, he had to rush to get back into shape for Quarry and looked terrible against Bonavena. Louis was boxing exhibitions and was in reasonable if not top shape when he returned and it should be not suggested, then, that Ali had it easier in his comeback.
As for your comments about them before their 22th birthdays, it is rather non-consequential. Clay was brought along slowly in his first four years, many fighters are, while Louis in his first couple was pretty quick to get into some bigger fights. I think Louis deserves credit for that. But Ali was also the third youngest Heavyweight champion of all time while Louis at 22 at that same age was getting knocked out by Schmeling. Is Ali going to trade that distinction of being the third youngest Heavyweight champion by beating a top ten Heavyweight in Liston who was better than anyone Louis ever met for Louis' wins over Carnera and Baer and the tie salesman before losing to Schmeling? Probably not. I know I wouldn't. Nor would you, if you were honest.
Your ad hominem remarks about me and "Ali fans" are frivolous and not worth reading. Anything one can say about Ali fans in general can be said for Louis' fans or the fans of any great Heavyweight champion. Some are objective, some aren't. I think I am making factual points that people can take or leave, if someone ranks Louis #1 that is fair even if I disagree. Why you are on a public forum is between you and your psychiatrist, but the idea that Muhammad Ali is somehow not in the conversation with Joe Louis is the stuff of comedy. I would never say that Louis is not in the discussion with Ali though, as I said, Louis' opponents would make quite tasty barbecue for Ali's. Foreman could eat five in one night. You are only working to discredit Louis' case with these pathetic arguments, Louis deserves a lot better than these garbage points that you are trying and failing to make.

I Feel Fine wrote:I don't particularly care what historians or what Ali were saying. I never said that he was the linear champion when he returned in the '70s, before beating Foreman, and I am telling you that you are going to stop putting words in my mouth.
Your note that Ali was able to catch the tail-end of what could be considered his prime years is true, though he was ring rusted when he did. My point, however, was that Louis had more of his prime, which still stands. Louis was given the opportunity to have more years as champion in his prime than Ali was, despite Ali winning the title at a younger age. That Louis was no longer in his prime when he returned is also fair enough, though I never suggested that he was. My point, again, was that Louis was able to accumulate more defenses as champion during his prime and that when he returned he was still champion still able to add defenses, and he did not have to take any immediate tough fights when he returned so whatever rust he might have had did not hurt him as badly. Your comments about Ali and "da man" are ridiculous and are a blatant attempt to bait me into a political discussion, which I won't do. All I said was that Ali's boxing career was over, his being out of shape by the end of his three and a half year layoff had nothing to do with "professionalism" because there was no profession, he was out of the sport and thought he would be for good. Those were the circumstances, he had no reason to stay in shape during his exile and by 1970 he was clearly not in boxing condition, he had to rush to get back into shape for Quarry and looked terrible against Bonavena. Louis was boxing exhibitions and was in reasonable if not top shape when he returned and it should be not suggested, then, that Ali had it easier in his comeback.

- HO~HO, your poor mum would be mortified to know the beatings you and your hero have been absorbing at the hands of Joe Louis.

Head to head ring matchups may be debatable, but the career of Louis is irrefutable my little friend. Louis has no more than 5 yrs as champ before being drafted. You admit he was past prime when returning against Conn, so 5 prime yrs is the cut off for Joe.

Ali starts his comeback at age 28 and loses at age 29. You want to debate Ali's condition from the point of him being no more than a couch potatoe in this period, yet the career record on Ali is clear, he could never stay out of a ring for long without stepping in for a show. Moreover, he had 6 weeks to prepare for Quarry which turned out to be a quick, relative easy fight with a 3 rd cuts stoppage. Weight: for Williams, 212, Terrell, 212, Folley, 211, Quarry, 213, Bonavena, 212, Frazier, 215, so by weight your sawed off three legged stool arguement is shaky enough not to bear any weight.

OK, you say, 6 wks not enough time to redistribute said weight where you want it and not enough to regain his fabled reflexes and timing back, but he has 5 more weeks before Bonavena. Bonavena gives him one of his toughest fights and extends him 15 rds, so that's two consecutive contests against prime, rugged bring it type of fighters the same size as Joe. With 3 more months to prepare for Joe, he could take off a month for R&R and have a full 8 wk training camp for Joe.

Clearly he was more motivated than ever in his life to right a wrong. That's incontestable.

Can't speak for you, but when I was 28-29, I could rip the turret off a tank, party all night and go to work the next day in a heartbeat. I entered one of the earliest and now one of the largest 10K races after a challenge, the assertion that I wasn't in good enough condition to complete such a distance. I had never run more than a mile in my life, and that very slowly as punishment by gym coaches in HS, yet I passed up Jim Hines, the 68 Olympic GM and record holder in 100M and finished in 47 min. Sore as hell the next day, but point being that was the average distance of one of Ali's training runs and probably near the pace he set, so the question arises, just how far out of condition really was a storied HOFer in the full flower of his physical prime? AFTER 5 months of training and specific preparation for Frazier? On the BIGGEST STAGE of his life where he was born to perform?

I think we need to also consider, he didn't have to fight Folley in 67 in MSG. Frazier had beaten Ringo in classic donnybrook there in 66 and was coming off consecutive KOs of Machen and Doug Jones. Not saying Ali was ducking Frazier, but just noting that Frazier was around as was a prime Oscar, veteran Machen, and others, so any notion that Ali actually held some kind of advantage over Joe because that he was robbed of his prime in the first fight really doesn't hold water. That's 2 more years added to his previous 3 yrs giving him Joe's 5 yrs in his prime defending his title. Joe had 21 title defenses before being drafted. Allowing Ali the Quarry and Bonavena fights and Frazier, that's 12 Ali defenses, or 9 short. Had Ali been allowed to fight those 3 lost years, now we're into at least 7-8 prime years needed to match the Louis schedule using Ali's 9 defenses/1st 3 yrs pace.

As far as Louis being in better shape because he was boxing exhibitions, clearly he had an extensive record BEFORE being drafted, and if he boxed 4 yrs worth of exhibitions, that's also more consecutive punches and rounds added without a break that you claim penalizes Ali so much that he becomes a couch potatoe. I happened to work with a gentleman who claimed to have boxed Joe during the war as the Navy champion, and let me tell you, even at age 60 he was a speciman who brooked no nonsense. You act like Joe was under professional camps and guidance, when if fact he was eating army food and being moved around often in primitive, dangerous circumstances in a war zone. Big Band King Glenn Miller never made it out of the the war as an example of what can go wrong. Gen George Patton run over by an Army jeep as another.

I never stated that Ali had it easier in his comeback. That's you refuting yourself in the strawman mode. Louis certainly didn't have it easy in his comeback after such a long career, but in typical Louis fashion, he even closes out his career in a much stronger fashion than Ali. Ali a fine career, but when you start adding it all up in comparisons, more often than not he comes out looking like Mickey Mouse, not The Greatest.

Case closed.

"Case Closed" What a loser. I wouldn't call even Wlad a Mickey Mouse fighter, to call Ali that is being a troll.
You say that Louis' career is irrefutable; I never tried to refute it. I ranked Louis #2 and think he is top ten pound for pound. But to say that Ali was wrong or unprofessional or a "couch potato" because he did not stay in shape during a period where he legitimately believed that his boxing career was over is not objective criticism, it is nitpicking with hindsight. To say that the layoff had no effect on him is clearly not true but I will save time by noting that it is quite academic; he won the rematches with Frazier, and losing a close decision to Joe is a bit better than getting knocked out by Schmeling. Frazier is a better fighter than Schmeling in the first place. But to say that Louis did not have the advantage of having more prime years is wrong, which you seem to be backing away from. And I never said that Louis had it easy in his comeback, I only pointed out that he was not completely away from the ring and was at least in reasonable condition when he returned.
As for Ali's pace in setting defenses, he had pretty much the same pace as Louis had once he got passed the hernia which delayed him for a year. Being able to avoid injuries is all part of being a long reigning champion and Louis gets due credit, but Ali's pace was more like nine in two years rather than nine in three years. Ali didn't owe Machen anything, Machen lost to Patterson and Terrell and Ali fought them instead. As for the young guns, after the Folley fight it was announced that he was planning on fighting Bonavena next, perhaps in Japan. You would figure that Frazier probably fights Ali at around the same time that Joe ended up fighting Mathis.
Ali was champion into older age than Louis, which is why he had more wear and tear and which is why he had more losses. He was slurring his speech, his kidney's were in bad shape, and he was on the road to Parkinson's. And not without reason, he had fought some of the biggest wars in Heavyweight history. His career after Manila is therefore even more meaningless than Louis' after the Walcott rematch. We should not be so selective in our hindsight as to not be able to see that. Looking at your rankings I see you have Tyson ahead of Marciano, which I disagree with, but fair enough. You feel that Tyson having six more losses than Rocky does not make the difference. I rank Holyfield ahead of Tyson, and Holyfield having four more losses does not bother me either. Well, I'm not going to rank Louis higher than Ali on the basis of two (really three) more losses just because Louis was lucky enough not to have Parkinsons and a hole in his membrane and wasn't dumb enough to come out of retirement at 38 and 39. If he had done that and had fought champion Walcott a third time and a highly rated contender, maybe a Charles rematch, he would have as many losses as Ali. He was smart enough not to, but it doesn't make him a better boxer nor does it make him a more accomplished boxer. Before Louis and Ali were shot fighters they were about equally consistent, but Ali was beating much tougher opponents. It is rare for a top ten Heavyweight to beat another top ten Heavyweight, Louis beat none, Ali beat three.

Put a blank line between your paragraphs if you want me to read it.

No one asked you to read anything.

Freddie Roach rates Toney the 10th best HW of all time?

I hope he was just having a bad day with his memory.

Mine has probably changed some since the last time we did this...

1 Ali
2 Louis
3 Foreman
4 Marciano
5 Frazier
6 Liston
7 Holmes
8 Tyson
9 Dempsey
10 Patterson

Tyson over Holyfield?

Pfft, join us in the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62lej00IpkU

I Feel Fine wrote:"Case Closed" What a loser.....................To say that the layoff had no effect on him is clearly not true but I will save time by noting that it is quite academic; he won the rematches with Frazier, and losing a close decision to Joe is a bit better than getting knocked out by Schmeling...........His career after Manila is therefore even more meaningless than Louis' after the Walcott rematch. We should not be so selective in our hindsight as to not be able to see that...........I'm not going to rank Louis higher than Ali on the basis of two (really three) more losses just because Louis was lucky enough not to have Parkinsons and a hole in his membrane and wasn't dumb enough to come out of retirement at 38 and 39............It is rare for a top ten Heavyweight to beat another top ten Heavyweight, Louis beat none, Ali beat three.

- Sweet Mother's Milke of Amnesia, barely winning 33% of the scored rounds is losing a close decision now is it? Your words, not mine!

I mistakenly closed the case because I forgot that the Creator forgot to give you a folder to put a case in, so He has endowed me to create this main folder for which all future cases relevant to you shall be kept.

The 2nd and 3rd fights were much closer to modern eyes than the 1st which is generally conceded that Joe whooped the jinn out of Ali. The 11th could easily be scored a 10-8 rd, and the 15th a 10-7 rd, and there's the ruled slip that could've been another KD point under modern scoring.

Make no mistake, being KOed by Schmeling after multiple KDs in 12 rds of a beating just after your 22nd birthday is better qualifications for greatness than needing Angie tearing up your glove to buy time after being airdropped sans parachute hard into the middle of Bolivia with no way home by little Cooper who needed weights in his shoe just to make the heavy limit.

Why would you claim the layoff had no effect on Ali? You seem to be a one man band singing that shrill note. My point was that Ali was in his peak years physical prime and the layoff had hugely sharpened his motivation in his comeback of which he has plenty of time, 6 months worth of training with two fights to prepare for Frazier. The fight pretty much played out like the Chuvalo fight in Ali's "storied" first reign except that Joe carried much heavier ammo in his turret in a quicker to the point tank.

Had Ali retired after Manila, he'd have a 15-1 title record, considerably less than the 22-3 record he currently sports. His career record would be 49-2, close to that of Lewis. I leave it to the "experts" whom all appear to lack proper academic certification since boxing is actually alchemy, not science. The meanderings of it's experts typically have no rational thought patterns as you so ably demonstrate, so I'm not gonna speculate on what they'd think about that.

Now, if we're gonna factor out illness and assorted physiologic occurrences that held back heavies from achieving greater fistic glory, sweet, then I put in for Luther McCarty and Mike Tyson as the two greatest heavies ever. McCarty was well on his way to a brilliant career with much more potential than Willard who eventually dethroned Johnson. Might well have been a prime active experienced McCarty in his 15th title defense Dempsey made his first challenge against, that is if McCarty survived Langford and Jeannette, the big challengers of the preDempsey era.

Tyson, what, he'd be around 60-0, 50 KO career record with 33-0, 25 KO title record and retired by age 30 had his brains not blown themselves out at age 22. Of course if you didn't have that hole in your noggin, why no telling what you might have achieved personally, so praise the good Lord above for what we do have and pass the biscuits with plenty of gravy........... 8)

Ali-Frazier I wasn't a close fight, Ali's back bouncing off the ropes and his leg very visibly- on screen- tripping over Frazier's leg is a knock down, and getting KO'd by Schmeling is preferable to being knocked down by Cooper. You're right, case closed, no point in reading the rest.

Kevin Rooney

1- Joe Louis
2- Rocky Marciano
3- Muhammad Ali
4- Mike Tyson
5- George Foreman
6- Floyd Patterson
7- Joe Frazier
8- Jack Dempsey
9- Evander Holyfield,
10- Jack Johnson


Freddie Roach

1- Joe Louis
2 Muhammad Ali
3- Larry Holmes
4- Joe Frazier
5- Evander Holyfield
6- Jack Johnson
7- Rocky Marciano
8- Mike Tyson
9- George Foreman
10- James Toney


Gil Clancy

1- Joe Louis
2- Rocky Marciano,
3- Muhammad Ali
4 = Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Jack Johnson, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson


Manny Steward

1- Muhammad Ali
2- Joe Louis
3- Larry Holmes
4- George Foreman
5- Lennox Lewis
6- Gene Tunney
7- Jack Johnson
8- Rocky Marciano
9- Sonny Liston
10- Mike Tyson

Feel free to fry any of these lists you don't agree with.

Rooney's list - Johnson too low, Marciano too high!

Freddie Roach - James Toney at HW? WTF is going on?

Gil Clancy - nice to see Gil have Tyson so highly. Ok, I know he has a few guys at NO.4, but I didn't think he would have Tyson up there!

Manny Steward - Lewis too high, Foreman too high, Liston too low!

Just my opinions, but we are all entitled to them!

1 Ali
2 Marciano
3 Louis
4 Dempsey
5 Holmes
6 Holyfield
7 Tyson
8 Lewis
9 Tunney
10 Johnson
HM Foreman
HM Frazier

I'm in the process or redoing my top 10 and extending it, but here it is as it stands currently:

01 Muhammad Ali
02 Joe Louis
03 Jack Johnson
04 Evander Holyfield
05 Lennox Lewis
06 Rocky Marciano
07 Sam Langford
08 James J Jeffries
09 George Foreman
10 Jack Dempsey

Lately I’ve been trying to frequent the Current Scene forum more and I’ve become quite enlightened by the many contributors. This led me to the conclusion that not a single top 10 list in this thread acknowledges the great advancements made in training and nutrition in the past few decades. I think something like this might be a little more objective:

1. Wlad
2. Vitali.
3. Lewis
4. Bowe
5. Sanders (obviously one of the ATG punchers)
6. Valuev
7. Foreman (the improved larger and stronger 80’s-90’s version)
8. Ali (too small to be near the top, but pretty quick and tough)
9. Toney (a bit short but he’s got the weight to make up for lack of height)
10. Louis (very small, but he looks pretty good in film)

Yeah, that looks better.

The Great John L wrote:Lately I’ve been trying to frequent the Current Scene forum more and I’ve become quite enlightened by the many contributors. This led me to the conclusion that not a single top 10 list in this thread acknowledges the great advancements made in training and nutrition in the past few decades. I think something like this might be a little more objective:

1. Wlad
2. Vitali.
3. Lewis
4. Bowe
5. Sanders (obviously one of the ATG punchers)
6. Valuev
7. Foreman (the improved larger and stronger 80’s-90’s version)
8. Ali (too small to be near the top, but pretty quick and tough)
9. Toney (a bit short but he’s got the weight to make up for lack of height)
10. Louis (very small, but he looks pretty good in film)

Yeah, that looks better.

Yeah, a little time spent in Current Scene'll do that to you

Results so far.

Adding up all the top 10s and alloting 10 to first place and 1 to tenth...

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Larry Holmes
4. George Foreman
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Jack Johnson
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Joe Frazier
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Lennox Lewis

11. Mike Tyson
12. Sonny Liston
13. Gene Tunney
14. = Sam Langford, James Jeffries
16. Floyd Paterson
17. Ezzard Charles
18. John L Sullivan
19. = Wladimir Klitschko, James Toney

James Toney in the top 20... there is more than one thing wrong with that list. So much for democracy.

As a consensus poll, it's not too bad, IMO.

Certainly, no one will agree with every placing, but I think it gets more right (or reasonably close, at any rate) than it does wrong (or dramatically wrong).

Toney is probably the worst thing about the compilation.

Toney is just in because there aren't a ton of lists. A couple more would bump him.

It could be a lot worse, my only issue in the top 10 would be Dempsey.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Toney is just in because there aren't a ton of lists. A couple more would bump him.

It could be a lot worse, my only issue in the top 10 would be Dempsey.

Top thirty, you think? How about top fifty? The top-100 more to your liking?

Could Jack Dempsey beat me, or you?

He could beat me, though he would be in an uphill climb against Toney. If you're going head to head, than more like top 200. He can be top20 in relation to his era. Top 10 is just too high.

Freddie Roach voted for Toney, guys...

Right, one vote at 10, we just didn't have enough lists with different names to bump him.