BoxRec

"After the layoff, he (Ali) was never close to this level". AAII

Not true at all.

Some of us won't be fooled by the Ali fan club propoganda put out ever since the FOTC.

As far as Williams goes, yes, he was a shot fighter in Nov, 1966.

Really? Would like to see a list of all of the fighters in boxing history who were better after layoff over 3 years than they were before it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Really? Would like to see a list of all of the fighters in boxing history who were better after layoff over 3 years than they were before it.

Now you change it from "never close" to "better".

Why don't you try being straightforward on your posts?

Never mind, I don't care to waste time with you.

big cat wins before 6 against the earlier floyd...however i give it to floyd by decision - and i reckon its a great attritional fight - when he became a smarter craftsman late in his career. floyd remains my favourite heavyweight

yancey wrote:"After the layoff, he (Ali) was never close to this level". AAII

Not true at all.

Some of us won't be fooled by the Ali fan club propoganda put out ever since the FOTC.

As far as Williams goes, yes, he was a shot fighter in Nov, 1966.

Do you honestly think Ali was as good or better after the ban?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

yancey wrote:"After the layoff, he (Ali) was never close to this level". AAII

Not true at all.

Some of us won't be fooled by the Ali fan club propoganda put out ever since the FOTC.

As far as Williams goes, yes, he was a shot fighter in Nov, 1966.

Do you honestly think Ali was as good or better after the ban?

Do you honestly think Ali was "never close" to his 1966-67 form after the ban?

Patterson beat fighters who were better than Cleveland Williams, who actually is a bit overrated on Boxrec. Fact is, the vast majority of CW's ko's came against soft oppostion, and his best wins aren't all that impressive.

Patterson by clear UD

Patterson is a beloved person in Sweden.

But I go with Williams - too much power.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Williams was certainly not a great fighter. However he wasn't washed up either. This is nothing like Holmes beating an opponent who could hardly even throw a punch. That is an idiotic comparison.
Williams had won a few fights during his comeback since his layoff and had impressed people. Ring Magazine had Williams as their #3 contender before the fight.


Regardless, focusing on Williams is really missing the piont. Watch Ali. He showed phenomenal combinations, accurracy, footwork, speed and reflexes in that fight. You can see that simply by watching him. There are a few fights before that where he was close to that level. Perhaps he was close to that when he fought Folley, when he wasn't clowning around. After the layoff, he was never close to this level.

I'm not surprised your undying love for Ali absorbs this as an insult. It's in fact a compliment, the man did far too much in his career to label a blowout over a washed up contender with bullets inside of him as his career defining performance. I'm not shocked that you'd take offense and label a perceived slight of your hero as "idiotic", but I'd never expect anything other than irrational nuthugging from you when it comes to Ali.

Of course Ali looked phenomenal, he is one of histories greatest fighters taking on a shell of a man. It's like saying Joe Louis was at his destructive best against John Henry Lewis. The best performances involve a challenge for me. Cleveland Williams wouldn't be in my Ali top 25.

yancey wrote:"After the layoff, he (Ali) was never close to this level". AAII

Not true at all.

Some of us won't be fooled by the Ali fan club propoganda put out ever since the FOTC.

As far as Williams goes, yes, he was a shot fighter in Nov, 1966.

Ali was better than ever against Frazier.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Williams was certainly not a great fighter. However he wasn't washed up either. This is nothing like Holmes beating an opponent who could hardly even throw a punch. That is an idiotic comparison.
Williams had won a few fights during his comeback since his layoff and had impressed people. Ring Magazine had Williams as their #3 contender before the fight.


Regardless, focusing on Williams is really missing the piont. Watch Ali. He showed phenomenal combinations, accurracy, footwork, speed and reflexes in that fight. You can see that simply by watching him. There are a few fights before that where he was close to that level. Perhaps he was close to that when he fought Folley, when he wasn't clowning around. After the layoff, he was never close to this level.

I'm not surprised your undying love for Ali absorbs this as an insult. It's in fact a compliment, the man did far too much in his career to label a blowout over a washed up contender with bullets inside of him as his career defining performance. I'm not shocked that you'd take offense and label a perceived slight of your hero as "idiotic", but I'd never expect anything other than irrational nuthugging from you when it comes to Ali.

Of course Ali looked phenomenal, he is one of histories greatest fighters taking on a shell of a man. It's like saying Joe Louis was at his destructive best against John Henry Lewis. The best performances involve a challenge for me. Cleveland Williams wouldn't be in my Ali top 25.

I never said it was his career defining performance.
You can take most of his fights of his first title reign and pick one of them as to when he was at his absolute best.
I agree that Frazier and Foreman for example were much bigger challenges. Have not heard anyone say they weren't.
I and some other people are just using different criteria. We are rating Ali when himself at his best, regardless of opponent.

And yes, there is a big difference between a fighter who is past it (Williams) and one who can't throw a punch.
Ali could not have beaten a 6-round fighter, Williams certainly could have.
And yes comparing the Ali who was 38 years old and had taken a ton of punishment in his career, had recently lost about 40 pounds, was in the early stages of Parkinsons, hadn't fought in two years, and could barely throw a punch to Cleveland Williams is idiotic.

yancey wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Really? Would like to see a list of all of the fighters in boxing history who were better after layoff over 3 years than they were before it.

Now you change it from "never close" to "better".

Why don't you try being straightforward on your posts?

Never mind, I don't care to waste time with you.

No, I still say that Ali was not close to best after the layoff as compared to the level he was at from beating Liston to the Terrell fight. I am not changing anything. I have said this before and still believe it.
That is being straight forward.

I have seen you say many times Ali was in his prime in the first Frazier fight.
If that is true, there should be many examples of fighters throughout history who were off for 3 years or more and were better when they came back.

I am challenging you to come up with a list of other fighters who were better after a layoff of 3 years or longer. Lets see a list.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Williams was certainly not a great fighter. However he wasn't washed up either. This is nothing like Holmes beating an opponent who could hardly even throw a punch. That is an idiotic comparison.
Williams had won a few fights during his comeback since his layoff and had impressed people. Ring Magazine had Williams as their #3 contender before the fight.


Regardless, focusing on Williams is really missing the piont. Watch Ali. He showed phenomenal combinations, accurracy, footwork, speed and reflexes in that fight. You can see that simply by watching him. There are a few fights before that where he was close to that level. Perhaps he was close to that when he fought Folley, when he wasn't clowning around. After the layoff, he was never close to this level.

I'm not surprised your undying love for Ali absorbs this as an insult. It's in fact a compliment, the man did far too much in his career to label a blowout over a washed up contender with bullets inside of him as his career defining performance. I'm not shocked that you'd take offense and label a perceived slight of your hero as "idiotic", but I'd never expect anything other than irrational nuthugging from you when it comes to Ali.

Of course Ali looked phenomenal, he is one of histories greatest fighters taking on a shell of a man. It's like saying Joe Louis was at his destructive best against John Henry Lewis. The best performances involve a challenge for me. Cleveland Williams wouldn't be in my Ali top 25.

I never said it was his career defining performance.
You can take most of his fights of his first title reign and pick one of them as to when he was at his absolute best.
I agree that Frazier and Foreman for example were much bigger challenges. Have not heard anyone say they weren't.
I and some other people are just using different criteria. We are rating Ali when himself at his best, regardless of opponent.

And yes, there is a big difference between a fighter who is past it (Williams) and one who can't throw a punch.
Ali could not have beaten a 6-round fighter, Williams certainly could have.
And yes comparing the Ali who was 38 years old and had taken a ton of punishment in his career, had recently lost about 40 pounds, was in the early stages of Parkinsons, hadn't fought in two years, and could barely throw a punch to Cleveland Williams is idiotic.

Il Duce wrote:I thought this thread was supposed to be about.......Floyd Patterson vs Cleveland 'Big Cat' Williams...

the night ali beat cleveland williams he was as close to unbeatable as he ever came

misterpunch wrote:the night ali beat cleveland williams he was as close to unbeatable as he ever came

Probably so, and though Cleveland may have been compromised, I doubt anyone else in the top ten on that night would have fared much better.

BoxBuzz wrote:

misterpunch wrote:the night ali beat cleveland williams he was as close to unbeatable as he ever came

Probably so, and though Cleveland may have been compromised, I doubt anyone else in the top ten on that night would have fared much better.

They all would have pummeled Williams like a heavy bag.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

misterpunch wrote:the night ali beat cleveland williams he was as close to unbeatable as he ever came

Probably so, and though Cleveland may have been compromised, I doubt anyone else in the top ten on that night would have fared much better.

They all would have pummeled Williams like a heavy bag.

There is where we may differ. However I do think it is the more common assumption for those who know all the details.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

yancey wrote:"After the layoff, he (Ali) was never close to this level". AAII

Not true at all.

Some of us won't be fooled by the Ali fan club propoganda put out ever since the FOTC.

As far as Williams goes, yes, he was a shot fighter in Nov, 1966.

Ali was better than ever against Frazier.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a hell of a lot closer to the truth than the ridiculous notion that post-ban Ali was "never close" to his Nov, 1966 form.

Ok, I will say it again:
Ali was not close to best after the layoff as compared to the level he was at from beating Liston to the Terrell fight. I am not changing anything. I have said this before and still believe it.
That is being straight forward.

I have seen you say many times Ali was in his prime in the first Frazier fight.
If that is true, there should be many examples of fighters throughout history who were off for 3 years or more and were better when they came back.

I am challenging you to come up with a list of other fighters who were better after a layoff of 3 years or longer. Lets see a list.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Ok, I will say it again:
Ali was not close to best after the layoff as compared to the level he was at from beating Liston to the Terrell fight. I am not changing anything. I have said this before and still believe it.
That is being straight forward.

I have seen you say many times Ali was in his prime in the first Frazier fight.
If that is true, there should be many examples of fighters throughout history who were off for 3 years or more and were better when they came back.

I am challenging you to come up with a list of other fighters who were better after a layoff of 3 years or longer. Lets see a list.

What a ridiculous post.

Well it may not mean much, but the answer may well be, no one. Or no one else.

BoxBuzz wrote:Well it may not mean much, but the answer may well be, no one. Or no one else.

It means nothing. A fighters prime is his own. No lists or comparisons are needed.

Well then we agree, as nothing is surely "not much".

yancey wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

yancey wrote:"After the layoff, he (Ali) was never close to this level". AAII

Not true at all.

Some of us won't be fooled by the Ali fan club propoganda put out ever since the FOTC.

As far as Williams goes, yes, he was a shot fighter in Nov, 1966.

Do you honestly think Ali was as good or better after the ban?

Do you honestly think Ali was "never close" to his 1966-67 form after the ban?

I asked you a question. Answer mine and I'll answer yours.