BoxRec

caldo2025 wrote:

man wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:There's another CLOWN that created a post recently here calling Anthony Joshua the next Ali. THE NEXT ALI. Yes, you read that correctly. Joshua hasn't even had a big fight yet.

here is the thing. a prediction is the more
risky and more valid the less data is in. if
AJ had five years of undisputed reign and
koed wilder and five other top five guys in
three, then it is not a prediction that he is
great, it is an observation.

First of all, there's not even enough talent in the heavyweight division now to even consider someone to be "great" for ruling over it for 5 years. Not enough talent at all.

Your description of "great" above is less than what GGG's been doing for 7 years in his division so i'd be interested to see how you consider GGG to be? In your criteria, he should be the greatest ever and I may agree with you.

i think you didn't get the point ...

man wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

man wrote: here is the thing. a prediction is the more
risky and more valid the less data is in. if
AJ had five years of undisputed reign and
koed wilder and five other top five guys in
three, then it is not a prediction that he is
great, it is an observation.

First of all, there's not even enough talent in the heavyweight division now to even consider someone to be "great" for ruling over it for 5 years. Not enough talent at all.

Your description of "great" above is less than what GGG's been doing for 7 years in his division so i'd be interested to see how you consider GGG to be? In your criteria, he should be the greatest ever and I may agree with you.

i think you didn't get the point ...

Perhaps i didn't, you're right. Predictions should still have a little more to go on than what we have with Anthony. We are talking about quite possibly the greatest athlete in the history of the world to this point in Ali. In my book, you just don't go around devaluing a great like that with random ridiculousness. Much less form a boxer that hasn't even really hit the scene yet and he's already talking about retiring. So i'd say that there's a .05 chance that Joshua will resemble Ali's career.

Predictions are one thing. Idiocy is another. Compare Joshua to Holyfield, Bowe or even go a step lower and compare him to Wlad. That's a more responsible way to go here for fans and for Joshua honestly.

caldo2025 wrote:Perhaps i didn't, you're right. Predictions should still have a little more to go on than what we have with Anthony. We are talking about quite possibly the greatest athlete in the history of the world to this point in Ali. In my book, you just don't go around devaluing a great like that with random ridiculousness. Much less form a boxer that hasn't even really hit the scene yet and he's already talking about retiring. So i'd say that there's a .05 chance that Joshua will resemble Ali's career.

Predictions are one thing. Idiocy is another. Compare Joshua to Holyfield, Bowe or even go a step lower and compare him to Wlad. That's a more responsible way to go here for fans and for Joshua honestly.

i hear you. i am not defending the
position that joshua is the next ali,
but i do defend that it is reasonable
to make such a prediction before the
facts of big fights are in.

gus damato thought mike tyson will
we be world champion when he had
no fight of any meaning on his name.
besides that turning out to be true it
was not stupid to make such prediction.

but you didn't only criticise the actual
prediction, you criticised predicting.
and i happen to disagree.

on joshua. no, he is not the next ali,
but it could well be that there will
never be another ali. he was just
unique in his combination of speed,
smarts, tactics, punch resistance and
fighting spirit. but joshua could be the
one who takes the heavy weight division
out of the shit hole it has been diving in
with a dominating yet boring champion.

to me joshua resembles more joe louis
to be honest than ali. solid work, nothing
obviously spectacular, but all in all very,
very effective.

I agree. I often have a hard time finding people to discuss boxing. I have LIVED this over 40 years...spending 20 of those years mach-making at the WORLD CLASS level. I worked with Stevie Cruz, Leonard, Curry, Roy, Paz, Ayalua, Tua, Dorsey, Norris, Mayorga, etc etc. In fact, I helped bring Nigel Benn here to fight Iran Barkley back in the day, and while I'm now retired I still go down to the Maple Ave gym and chop it up with cats from Team Spence, sometimes one or more of the twins' crew is there, etc. But I can't even really talk with some of these 20-something cats who talk reckless about other fighters, claiming Manny and Floyd are the greatest ever, etc.

With that, I had Mikey a top 3 P4P when he was in litigation, and haven't even seen anything to change my mind on that. BUT...I feel what you are saying.
p.s. The worst fans, IMO, are these new-aged British fans who rick-ride AJ. The problem is they talk reckless about America and the US fans, which is why I LMAO each time I hear AJ mention how the US is "the mecca of boxing". With that, I have nothing but LOVE for the UK and it's fans. I literally met my wife of 23 years as I was leaving that Peacock gym back in the day (used to be a bakery that had some killer sausage rolls around the corner) and with my mother being from Belfast grew up learning more about the UK fighters than American fighters, so not hating...just keeping it real.

With that said, how many fighters or just people in the game are on here? I know I see Angel on some forums bumping his gums a lot. Is he on here?

Kalan wrote:

The best Heavyweights from a technical standpoint were... Tunney... Holmes... Johnson... Vitali Klitschko... Ibeabuchi in his last fight... Lewis was very good in the Rahman rematch and hardly made a mistake... Haye is very crafty... and Ortiz is real good as well.

I'll throw one out there, a YOUNG Big Daddy Bowe was one of the most technical Heavyweights I've seen. As he gained his grown-man strength his style changed.

Now.for the guys calling Mikey Garcia a "B" fighter and how he cherry picked Zlaticanin. Well, all I can say is that in 50+ years of seeing sports arguments (from football to tennis to horse racing)....that is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard come out of a human's mouth. I'm serious. It's obvious you guys saying this know NOTHING about boxing. Quit being a follower. I mean it's one thing to say "he's overrated" but to call him a B fighter, please....

See, Ive learned over the years, there are a certain breed of people who focus more on "debating" than they do the actual sport (and gaining knowledge in it). The Internet is perfect for them. They come on to these forums because they like to here themselves talk, see themselves write, etc. Their idea of being successful is 'saving face' instead of truly communicating. It's the downside of the Internet. Any "clown" can get on the mic and pretend. I, of course believe everyone is allowed to have their opinion, just don't cry when you get checked on that opinion. That's all it is. I got paid hella money for my "opinion" in boxing (and still CAN) but I have to go back to calling Mikey a B fighter. Wow. Seriously sir (or ma'am) please try to educate yourself a little more before talking so reckless.
In the meanwhile we can either laugh, or call you out. I'll typically do the latter because I think you are ruining the sport with such "can't get more wrong that than" type statements, and boxing fans should only speak down when they know of which they speak. And you guys saying that. CLOWNS.

JohnP2 wrote:

Kalan wrote:

The best Heavyweights from a technical standpoint were... Tunney... Holmes... Johnson... Vitali Klitschko... Ibeabuchi in his last fight... Lewis was very good in the Rahman rematch and hardly made a mistake... Haye is very crafty... and Ortiz is real good as well.

I'll throw one out there, a YOUNG Big Daddy Bowe was one of the most technical Heavyweights I've seen. As he gained his grown-man strength his style changed.

Now.for the guys calling Mikey Garcia a "B" fighter and how he cherry picked Zlaticanin. Well, all I can say is that in 50+ years of seeing sports arguments (from football to tennis to horse racing)....that is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard come out of a human's mouth. I'm serious. It's obvious you guys saying this know NOTHING about boxing. Quit being a follower. I mean it's one thing to say "he's overrated" but to call him a B fighter, please....

See, Ive learned over the years, there are a certain breed of people who focus more on "debating" than they do the actual sport (and gaining knowledge in it). The Internet is perfect for them. They come on to these forums because they like to here themselves talk, see themselves write, etc. Their idea of being successful is 'saving face' instead of truly communicating. It's the downside of the Internet. Any "clown" can get on the mic and pretend. I, of course believe everyone is allowed to have their opinion, just don't cry when you get checked on that opinion. That's all it is. I got paid hella money for my "opinion" in boxing (and still CAN) but I have to go back to calling Mikey a B fighter. Wow. Seriously sir (or ma'am) please try to educate yourself a little more before talking so reckless.
In the meanwhile we can either laugh, or call you out. I'll typically do the latter because I think you are ruining the sport with such "can't get more wrong that than" type statements, and boxing fans should only speak down when they know of which they speak. And you guys saying that. CLOWNS.

Welcome to Boxrec Current Scene, JohnP2 I hope that you stick around and educate us on some up close and personal boxing history.

Here’s the Top-10 Heavyweights today.

1. Anthony Joshua... 6’6” X 245, Great boxer with devastating punching power
2. Luis Ortiz... 6’4” X 240, Slick boxing southpaw with crushing power
3. Deontay Wilder... 6’7” X 230, Fair boxer and dynamite hitter
4. Tyson Fury... 6’9” X 250, Excellent boxer with fair power, but a head case
5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6’6” X 245, Great boxer and puncher, but aging badly
6. Alexander Povetkin... 6’2” X 230, Great boxer and puncher.
7. David Haye... 6’3” X 225, Great boxer and puncher
8. Andy Ruiz... 6’2” X 250, Good boxer and fair puncher
9. Joseph Parker... 6’4” X 245, Poor boxer, but big puncher
10. Carlos Takam... 6’ 2” X X 245, Fair boxer and good puncher

Ring Magazine’s top 10 for 1978

1. Larry Holmes... 6’3” X 212… Very good boxer, but not a big puncher
2. Ken Norton... 6’2” X 210… Chinny swinger who led with his head and got iced several times
3. Leon Spinks... 6’ X 197… Neophyte who got clobbered many times
4. Ron Lyle... 6’3” X 219... Spent best years in prison. Big puncher w/ minimal skills
5. Jimmy Young... 6’1” X 211… Good boxer with a slick jab, but a feather hitter
6. Kallie Knoetze... 6’1” X 215... Rugged swinger with big punch and no boxing skills or defense
7. Alfredo Evangelista... 6’ X 210... Chinny, small, fat, and an inept punching bag with no power
8. Gerrie Coetzee... 6’3” X 220 1-dimensional swinger with glass chin and poor skills
9. Ossie Ocasio... 5’11” X 205... Cruiserweight - minimal skills, defense, and boxing ability
10. Domingo D’Elia... 6' X 210... A wretched swinger who never beat anyone you ever heard of. Default ranking

JohnP2 wrote:

Kalan wrote:

The best Heavyweights from a technical standpoint were... Tunney... Holmes... Johnson... Vitali Klitschko... Ibeabuchi in his last fight... Lewis was very good in the Rahman rematch and hardly made a mistake... Haye is very crafty... and Ortiz is real good as well.

I'll throw one out there, a YOUNG Big Daddy Bowe was one of the most technical Heavyweights I've seen. As he gained his grown-man strength his style changed.

Now.for the guys calling Mikey Garcia a "B" fighter and how he cherry picked Zlaticanin. Well, all I can say is that in 50+ years of seeing sports arguments (from football to tennis to horse racing)....that is perhaps the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard come out of a human's mouth. I'm serious. It's obvious you guys saying this know NOTHING about boxing. Quit being a follower. I mean it's one thing to say "he's overrated" but to call him a B fighter, please....

See, Ive learned over the years, there are a certain breed of people who focus more on "debating" than they do the actual sport (and gaining knowledge in it). The Internet is perfect for them. They come on to these forums because they like to here themselves talk, see themselves write, etc. Their idea of being successful is 'saving face' instead of truly communicating. It's the downside of the Internet. Any "clown" can get on the mic and pretend. I, of course believe everyone is allowed to have their opinion, just don't cry when you get checked on that opinion. That's all it is. I got paid hella money for my "opinion" in boxing (and still CAN) but I have to go back to calling Mikey a B fighter. Wow. Seriously sir (or ma'am) please try to educate yourself a little more before talking so reckless.
In the meanwhile we can either laugh, or call you out. I'll typically do the latter because I think you are ruining the sport with such "can't get more wrong that than" type statements, and boxing fans should only speak down when they know of which they speak. And you guys saying that. CLOWNS.

Bowe was actually a brawler and not a good boxer or technician at all... He absorbed too many punches which greatly shortened his career and led to the demented condition he finds himself in today. The man can't even talk. He ducked his mandatory Lennox Lewis, even tossing his championship belt into a garbage can... He also ducked most big punchers of his day, such as Mercer, Tua, Tyson, McCall, and Ruddock.. He didn't do well financially and got the living Hell kicked out of his legs in a kickboxing match -- that he was forced to take to try to eke out a living. Poor guy.

Kalan wrote:The best Heavyweights from a technical standpoint were... Tunney... Holmes... Johnson... Vitali Klitschko... Ibeabuchi in his last fight... Lewis was very good in the Rahman rematch and hardly made a mistake... Haye is very crafty... and Ortiz is real good as well.

could not disagree more. you have vitali (!)
klitschko and ibeabuchi, but no louis or ali?

i am a fan, but vitali klitschko was not among
the best heavyweights of all time in terms of
technique.

man wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Perhaps i didn't, you're right. Predictions should still have a little more to go on than what we have with Anthony. We are talking about quite possibly the greatest athlete in the history of the world to this point in Ali. In my book, you just don't go around devaluing a great like that with random ridiculousness. Much less form a boxer that hasn't even really hit the scene yet and he's already talking about retiring. So i'd say that there's a .05 chance that Joshua will resemble Ali's career.

Predictions are one thing. Idiocy is another. Compare Joshua to Holyfield, Bowe or even go a step lower and compare him to Wlad. That's a more responsible way to go here for fans and for Joshua honestly.

i hear you. i am not defending the
position that joshua is the next ali,
but i do defend that it is reasonable
to make such a prediction before the
facts of big fights are in.

gus damato thought mike tyson will
we be world champion when he had
no fight of any meaning on his name.
besides that turning out to be true it
was not stupid to make such prediction.

but you didn't only criticise the actual
prediction, you criticised predicting.
and i happen to disagree.

on joshua. no, he is not the next ali,
but it could well be that there will
never be another ali. he was just
unique in his combination of speed,
smarts, tactics, punch resistance and
fighting spirit. but joshua could be the
one who takes the heavy weight division
out of the poo hole it has been diving in
with a dominating yet boring champion.

to me joshua resembles more joe louis
to be honest than ali. solid work, nothing
obviously spectacular, but all in all very,
very effective.

I've never been a huge fan of predictions like this. For instance, this guy is the next (fill in the blank). I'm as excited about this kid Joshua as i have been of anyone in a long time. Good looking kid. Really intelligent. Tremendous specimen. Skills to back the hype. But we are the apex of the vortex of this guys story. Sure if it ended tomorrow, he'd always be a world champion but like most people I do expect more than that. But putting the pressure on the kid to be the next Ali when he hasn't really had a big fight yet is unfair.

I guess what i'm saying is that i'm someone that focuses more on EXPECTATIONS than PREDICTIONS. People were making grand predictions on this site about Fury after he beat Wlad. The guy will probably never fight again. Everyone just wants to throw enough crap at the wall to have some stick so they can say they called it. Who cares? To me, if you are right once in 100 then you shouldn't brag about that.

caldo2025 wrote:I guess what i'm saying is that i'm someone that focuses more on EXPECTATIONS than PREDICTIONS.

that i second wholeheartedly.

Jip wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:What's with Boxing fans today? Why are you, not we, so quick to raise the boxers up to legendary status without them having done a darn thing yet? You all know who you are.

The people that now call Mikey Garcia the greatest fighter in the world because he beat an outclassed midget last week with 6" wingspan. Garcia has fought no one. He cherry picked a belt from a kid that was not a world champion in reality. Holding a belt these days says nothin.

There's another CLOWN that created a post recently here calling Anthony Joshua the next Ali. THE NEXT ALI. Yes, you read that correctly. Joshua hasn't even had a big fight yet. That guy.

Lomachenko is 7-1 and he's now the greatest boxer in the land according to most CLOWNS...even though he's not proven that he's the best fighter in his division with that unavenged loss.

What's with you people? Can't you just let history write itself and call things as they are in real time? I'm sad for you.

from a techniquel standpoint ali is ahead of any heavyweight ever. josh isnt near that techniqule quality ali had and wont never had.
josh is just so physical and punches so hard, has perfect height and reach, thats why people think of him so high.

yeah, you are correct, garcia outclassed a midget and yes it was cherry picking. for me garcia will always be a good b level boxer, who wont never get a status, but in terms of watching him on tv, yeah the guy is fun to watch, great power, solid tech.

lomachenko, now that is another story. you seem to forget, this is the best amateur boxer ever, with something like a 300 wins 1 loss record, 2 gold medals etc. he is a pure boxing genius. rarely have we seen this combination of a boxer. moves as slick as pernell, hits as quick as judah and has fast footwork like pacquiao. i mean loma is just a rare talent, the way he outclasses good opponents is incredible. donaire was a p4p star and had so much trouble against walthers, wal was tough, strong puncher and loma outclassed him like wal was a d level sparring partner, impressiv. loma is the best boxer in the world. does he have the best record, no its roman. but is he better than roman in all areas, yes he is.

Ali isn’t ahead of every heavyweight in history from a technical standpoint. Ali wasnt even a pure technician he was more of an unorthodox stylist due to his athletic gifts like amazing speed and reflexes. His ring IQ, toughness and will to win was also unbelievable. Ali's punching technique certainly wasn't as good as Joe Louis for example who could throw combinations with amazing balance, precision and power. Ali was more about brains and his athletic gifts like hand and foot speed and reflexes over technical/fundamental boxing. He actually had a few bad habits technically that he got away with due to his God given reflexes and iron jaw.

DareTBG wrote:

Jip wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:What's with Boxing fans today? Why are you, not we, so quick to raise the boxers up to legendary status without them having done a darn thing yet? You all know who you are.

The people that now call Mikey Garcia the greatest fighter in the world because he beat an outclassed midget last week with 6" wingspan. Garcia has fought no one. He cherry picked a belt from a kid that was not a world champion in reality. Holding a belt these days says nothin.

There's another CLOWN that created a post recently here calling Anthony Joshua the next Ali. THE NEXT ALI. Yes, you read that correctly. Joshua hasn't even had a big fight yet. That guy.

Lomachenko is 7-1 and he's now the greatest boxer in the land according to most CLOWNS...even though he's not proven that he's the best fighter in his division with that unavenged loss.

What's with you people? Can't you just let history write itself and call things as they are in real time? I'm sad for you.

from a techniquel standpoint ali is ahead of any heavyweight ever. josh isnt near that techniqule quality ali had and wont never had.
josh is just so physical and punches so hard, has perfect height and reach, thats why people think of him so high.

yeah, you are correct, garcia outclassed a midget and yes it was cherry picking. for me garcia will always be a good b level boxer, who wont never get a status, but in terms of watching him on tv, yeah the guy is fun to watch, great power, solid tech.

lomachenko, now that is another story. you seem to forget, this is the best amateur boxer ever, with something like a 300 wins 1 loss record, 2 gold medals etc. he is a pure boxing genius. rarely have we seen this combination of a boxer. moves as slick as pernell, hits as quick as judah and has fast footwork like pacquiao. i mean loma is just a rare talent, the way he outclasses good opponents is incredible. donaire was a p4p star and had so much trouble against walthers, wal was tough, strong puncher and loma outclassed him like wal was a d level sparring partner, impressiv. loma is the best boxer in the world. does he have the best record, no its roman. but is he better than roman in all areas, yes he is.

Ali isn’t ahead of every heavyweight in history from a technical standpoint. Ali wasnt even a pure technician he was more of an unorthodox stylist due to his athletic gifts like amazing speed and reflexes. His ring IQ, toughness and will to win was also unbelievable. Ali's punching technique certainly wasn't as good as Joe Louis for example who could throw combinations with amazing balance, precision and power. Ali was more about brains and his athletic gifts like hand and foot speed and reflexes over technical/fundamental boxing. He actually had a few bad habits technically that he got away with due to his God given reflexes and iron jaw.

But Ali was a showman, the first and best of it's kind. Ali wanted to put on a show first and foremost. He took unnecessary chances inside the ring and dared to be great and dazzle. Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd in his prime and avoid punishment and win defensively but that's not what folks paid to see him do. Ali's fights were a spectacle. He was going to shuffle, yap and give fans what they paid to see and do all that against the best of the best heavyweights that ever stepped inside the ring. NO ONE was ever more entertaining.

So you can nitpick Ali's form and habits inside the ring but these are all of the reasons that we can sit here and call him great and not even questioning if it's true or not. Because it's a fact. Greatness is just known and seen.

caldo2025 wrote:

DareTBG wrote:

Jip wrote:

from a techniquel standpoint ali is ahead of any heavyweight ever. josh isnt near that techniqule quality ali had and wont never had.
josh is just so physical and punches so hard, has perfect height and reach, thats why people think of him so high.

yeah, you are correct, garcia outclassed a midget and yes it was cherry picking. for me garcia will always be a good b level boxer, who wont never get a status, but in terms of watching him on tv, yeah the guy is fun to watch, great power, solid tech.

lomachenko, now that is another story. you seem to forget, this is the best amateur boxer ever, with something like a 300 wins 1 loss record, 2 gold medals etc. he is a pure boxing genius. rarely have we seen this combination of a boxer. moves as slick as pernell, hits as quick as judah and has fast footwork like pacquiao. i mean loma is just a rare talent, the way he outclasses good opponents is incredible. donaire was a p4p star and had so much trouble against walthers, wal was tough, strong puncher and loma outclassed him like wal was a d level sparring partner, impressiv. loma is the best boxer in the world. does he have the best record, no its roman. but is he better than roman in all areas, yes he is.

Ali isn’t ahead of every heavyweight in history from a technical standpoint. Ali wasnt even a pure technician he was more of an unorthodox stylist due to his athletic gifts like amazing speed and reflexes. His ring IQ, toughness and will to win was also unbelievable. Ali's punching technique certainly wasn't as good as Joe Louis for example who could throw combinations with amazing balance, precision and power. Ali was more about brains and his athletic gifts like hand and foot speed and reflexes over technical/fundamental boxing. He actually had a few bad habits technically that he got away with due to his God given reflexes and iron jaw.

But Ali was a showman, the first and best of it's kind. Ali wanted to put on a show first and foremost. He took unnecessary chances inside the ring and dared to be great and dazzle. Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd in his prime and avoid punishment and win defensively but that's not what folks paid to see him do. Ali's fights were a spectacle. He was going to shuffle, yap and give fans what they paid to see and do all that against the best of the best heavyweights that ever stepped inside the ring. NO ONE was ever more entertaining.

So you can nitpick Ali's form and habits inside the ring but these are all of the reasons that we can sit here and call him great and not even questioning if it's true or not. Because it's a fact. Greatness is just known and seen.

I don't question Ali greatness or his ability to entertain. I'm just pointing out that's he's not the benchmark for a heavyweight technician.

I'm not a huge fan of Mayweather but how are you coming to the conclusion Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd Mayweather defensively (I assume you mean Mayweather not Patterson)? Floyd Mayweather had the defensive fundamentals down and was just technical brilliant defensively, and all that on top of having amazing reflexes like Ali. No way in hell did Ali have the tools to fight like Floyd Mayweather defensively. That's ridiculous mate

DareTBG wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

DareTBG wrote:
Ali isn’t ahead of every heavyweight in history from a technical standpoint. Ali wasnt even a pure technician he was more of an unorthodox stylist due to his athletic gifts like amazing speed and reflexes. His ring IQ, toughness and will to win was also unbelievable. Ali's punching technique certainly wasn't as good as Joe Louis for example who could throw combinations with amazing balance, precision and power. Ali was more about brains and his athletic gifts like hand and foot speed and reflexes over technical/fundamental boxing. He actually had a few bad habits technically that he got away with due to his God given reflexes and iron jaw.

But Ali was a showman, the first and best of it's kind. Ali wanted to put on a show first and foremost. He took unnecessary chances inside the ring and dared to be great and dazzle. Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd in his prime and avoid punishment and win defensively but that's not what folks paid to see him do. Ali's fights were a spectacle. He was going to shuffle, yap and give fans what they paid to see and do all that against the best of the best heavyweights that ever stepped inside the ring. NO ONE was ever more entertaining.

So you can nitpick Ali's form and habits inside the ring but these are all of the reasons that we can sit here and call him great and not even questioning if it's true or not. Because it's a fact. Greatness is just known and seen.

I don't question Ali greatness or his ability to entertain. I'm just pointing out that's he's not the benchmark for a heavyweight technician.

I'm not a huge fan of Mayweather but how are you coming to the conclusion Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd Mayweather defensively (I assume you mean Mayweather not Patterson)? Floyd Mayweather had the defensive fundamentals down and was just technical brilliant defensively, and all that on top of having amazing reflexes like Ali. No way in hell did Ali have the tools to fight like Floyd Mayweather defensively. That's ridiculous mate

I think it's more ridiculous of you to claim that Floyd had more ability than Ali. Ali had 4 different boxing careers and you are obviously more focused on Ali's last last where he took the most damage and couldn't dodge a punch. Ali was the most gifted boxer athletically that i've ever seen. Technically, he created styles inside the ring that have been copied and studied for over 40 years. I'm a little blown away by your disrespect to Ali's body of work.

For one thing, Ali fought everyone, Floyd avoided everyone. If Ali wanted to fight defensively and cherry picked opponents like Floyd, he could have easily and been as dominating or more than Floyd. Another factor to consider is the PEDs factor that is obviously in play in Floyd's career. He's been caught red handed breaking the rules prior to the Manny fight calling into question his cleanliness. Come on, at age 39, it's impossible to be just as quick, fast and powerful as you were in 20s. Take a look at Ali's fight against Trevor Burbick when he was 39. That's how a 39 year old is supposed to look inside the ring. Floyd's obviously benefited from PEDs and no one can convince me otherwise.

caldo2025 wrote:

DareTBG wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:
But Ali was a showman, the first and best of it's kind. Ali wanted to put on a show first and foremost. He took unnecessary chances inside the ring and dared to be great and dazzle. Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd in his prime and avoid punishment and win defensively but that's not what folks paid to see him do. Ali's fights were a spectacle. He was going to shuffle, yap and give fans what they paid to see and do all that against the best of the best heavyweights that ever stepped inside the ring. NO ONE was ever more entertaining.

So you can nitpick Ali's form and habits inside the ring but these are all of the reasons that we can sit here and call him great and not even questioning if it's true or not. Because it's a fact. Greatness is just known and seen.

I don't question Ali greatness or his ability to entertain. I'm just pointing out that's he's not the benchmark for a heavyweight technician.

I'm not a huge fan of Mayweather but how are you coming to the conclusion Ali had the tools to fight like Floyd Mayweather defensively (I assume you mean Mayweather not Patterson)? Floyd Mayweather had the defensive fundamentals down and was just technical brilliant defensively, and all that on top of having amazing reflexes like Ali. No way in hell did Ali have the tools to fight like Floyd Mayweather defensively. That's ridiculous mate

I think it's more ridiculous of you to claim that Floyd had more ability than Ali. Ali had 4 different boxing careers and you are obviously more focused on Ali's last last where he took the most damage and couldn't dodge a punch. Ali was the most gifted boxer athletically that i've ever seen. Technically, he created styles inside the ring that have been copied and studied for over 40 years. I'm a little blown away by your disrespect to Ali's body of work.

For one thing, Ali fought everyone, Floyd avoided everyone. If Ali wanted to fight defensively and cherry picked opponents like Floyd, he could have easily and been as dominating or more than Floyd. Another factor to consider is the PEDs factor that is obviously in play in Floyd's career. He's been caught red handed breaking the rules prior to the Manny fight calling into question his cleanliness. Come on, at age 39, it's impossible to be just as quick, fast and powerful as you were in 20s. Take a look at Ali's fight against Trevor Burbick when he was 39. That's how a 39 year old is supposed to look inside the ring. Floyd's obviously benefited from PEDs and no one can convince me otherwise.

Stop being an idiot. I'm much more of a fan of Ali's style than Floyd Mayweather and he's without question the greater boxer but to think Ali has the tools to just be able to pull of the roll and shell with the technicalities of Floyd Mayweather is absolutely retarded. Yes Ali was probably more naturally gifted than Floyd but Floyd mastered his defensive skills from since he was a kid in the Mayweather gym. What Floyd did defensively isn't just something you can just pull off because you have athletic abilities and a high IQ. You also have to master that stuff in the gym over years and years of practice.

man wrote:

Kalan wrote:The best Heavyweights from a technical standpoint were... Tunney... Holmes... Johnson... Vitali Klitschko... Ibeabuchi in his last fight... Lewis was very good in the Rahman rematch and hardly made a mistake... Haye is very crafty... and Ortiz is real good as well.

could not disagree more. you have vitali (!)
klitschko and ibeabuchi, but no louis or ali?

i am a fan, but vitali klitschko was not among
the best heavyweights of all time in terms of
technique.

Vitali certainly was crafty... He was very difficult to hit and was never knocked down... Nor was he ever behind on points following any of his fights...

Ibeabuchi was never beaten down, or behind on points.. He ripped a super slick undefeated boxer in Chris Byrd... He brutalized him and punched him out.

Ali's technique was flawed.. No body attack or inside game and a lot of clinching... Easy to tag with left hooks and floored 3 times by them in his 20's.

Louis tended to drop his left and was KO'd by Max Schmeling.. He was tagged up like crazy by Billy Conn and floored by Galento, Braddock, and others.

Kalan wrote:Vitali certainly was crafty... He was very difficult to hit and was never knocked down... Nor was he ever behind on points following any of his fights...

Ibeabuchi was never beaten down, or behind on points.. He ripped a super slick undefeated boxer in Chris Byrd... He brutalized him and punched him out.

Ali's technique was flawed.. No body attack or inside game and a lot of clinching... Easy to tag with left hooks and floored 3 times by them in his 20's.

Louis tended to drop his left and was KO'd by Max Schmeling.. He was tagged up like crazy by Billy Conn and floored by Galento, Braddock, and others.

please, that is silly on so many levels,
it is not even worth going into them.

i don't what it is with you. so much
knowledge on the one hand, so many
weird claims on the other.

Jip wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Jip wrote:

from a techniquel standpoint ali is ahead of any heavyweight ever. josh isnt near that techniqule quality ali had and wont never had.
josh is just so physical and punches so hard, has perfect height and reach, thats why people think of him so high.

yeah, you are correct, garcia outclassed a midget and yes it was cherry picking. for me garcia will always be a good b level boxer, who wont never get a status, but in terms of watching him on tv, yeah the guy is fun to watch, great power, solid tech.
omachenko, now that is another story. you seem to forget, this is the belst amateur boxer ever, with something like a 300 wins 1 loss record, 2 gold medals etc. he is a pure boxing genius. rarely have we seen this combination of a boxer. moves as slick as pernell, hits as quick as judah and has fast footwork like pacquiao. i mean loma is just a rare talent, the way he outclasses good opponents is incredible. donaire was a p4p star and had so much trouble against walthers, wal was tough, strong puncher and loma outclassed him like wal was a d level sparring partner, impressiv. loma is the best boxer in the world. does he have the best record, no its roman. but is he better than roman in all areas, yes he is.

Being the best amateur ever doesn't mean much too me. Who the heck has ever wanted to stay in the amateurs for over 300 fights anyway? Most all time great fighters use it as a stepping stool to pro's, not make a career out of being an amateur. What if SRL stayed an amateurs for 300 fights? Floyd? Ali?

The only current fighter that i would date to put an all time monicker on is GGG because he's deserved it. He's on the doorstep of breaking some incredible records and the power that he's showing is once in a 100 years type of power. Not saying that GGG is but when you look at the body of work, i have no problem with people keeping their eyes on GGG for greatness but let's gauge it at the end.

The perfect example is Tom Brady....after last night, he's the GOAT. Hands down. He did what no one else has ever done and officially did it in amazing fashion. GOAT. Now compare Lomenchenko's career so far to Brady's body of work....see what i mean?

so you dont five much credit to an olympic gold medal? so what usain bolt and michael phels are doing with their gold medals is no big deal. vasyl is the greatest amateur boxer, 2 gold medals and 300 fights, only 1 loss. so just because it didnt happen in pro boxing it doesnt count?

gold medals is the highest degree of what a athlete can achieve. not in all sports, but in many. to achieve 2 gold medals and when 99 % of your fights against so many young well trained boxers from all over the world is tough. thats why amateur top boxers are mostly pro top boxer. just ask joshua, usyk, rigondeaux, lomachenko and golovkin. they were all top of the top amateur boxers and now they are top of the top pros. so you see, between amateur and pro there is no big difference.

brady is goat, brady had time. loma is new to pro boxing, he can achieve a lot, just give him time. with 2 gold medals and if he keeps winning impressiv against big names, than maybe he can be in a disscusion of a top 5 atg, surely not goat. but its hard to compare a team sport with single sport. pats have a crazy good team, even without brady. jordan would have never won a ring had he played all his life with the denver nuggets or any other losing team. jordan needed pippen and rodman. brady needs edelman and amendola. not taking anything away from them.

Because the key word is "amateur" Olympians in other sports are the professionals, the best of the best. Amateur boxing is like the college levelof other sports. Having a good amateur boxing career is the equivant to having a good college football career with the gold medal being the Heisman.

Jip wrote:

ldlamb wrote:In track and swimming, the Olympics is the pinnacle of the sport......not so in boxing. Not an apples to apples comparison.

not so in boxing

do u know what oscar de la hoya, muhammad ali, joe frazier, george foreman, sugar ray leonard, meldrick taylor, pernell whitacker, guillermo rigondeaux and vasyl lomachenko all have in common? so you think it doesnt matter so much, do you think it is easy to achieve what these guys achieved?

a olympic gold medal is harder to achieve than a champion chip belt. why? at the olympic games you fight everybody, young well trained athletes, also there is only 1 gold medal. champion chip belts, there are 4 belts, not 1. also, you can cherry pick and fight less good champions to become champion.

even so a gold medal isnt the pinnacle of boxing, which is surely unified champion all belts, or multy division champion or for me the highest p4p king, nevertheless, winning a gold medals, or like vasyl did 2 times, than on top with the best amateur record the world has ever seen is more than phenomenal. super rare achievemant.

They all won the "Heisman" of boxing. Amatuer boxing is like college level sports.