BoxRec

I Feel Fine wrote:Speaking of right crosses, Ezzard Charles used Louis for target practice with right hands all night in their fight... rocked him bad in the late rounds with a right... part of me thinks Charles could have stopped Louis if he had pressed him after that. Charles may have taken it easy on Joe.

Either way, Louis' style was badly exposed in that fight...

IFeelLikeaFairy,

I assume you are talking about the fight where Louis returned to the ring after his retirement---only because the IRS was hounding him.

Why in the world would you assume that what the tired, old Louis showed in that fight was representative of Louis' "style"?

granberry wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Okee Dokee I'll take a crack at this tough question.

Was it because Ol' Ali wadn't nuttin' but media darlin' who had not a lick-o-skill or talent? And that he was controlled by lobsters..er uh mobsters that just needed money rollin' in and found someone they could control? Ya see da wuz Payin the dum ones like Liston, Foreman, Lyle, Williams (who was freshly shot and bleedin' during the fight) to just lay down for him?

Cuz tha's whud I herd thru the grapevine and I beleive's every word of it cuz it's so obveeusly true.

Duz I got it rite boss?

Buzz,

You don't have a clue what the word fundamentals means.

You don't know that there are basics to boxing, just as there are to any subject.

If you want to learn music, you'd better learn what pitches are. And intervals. And be able to handle them.

And meter and rhythm.

And harmony--including chords, chord progressions, key progressions, etc.

And counterpoint---which is obviously a concept for others and not you.

Jimmy Young's right hand traveled in a straight line. It was very short.

So it always landed first.

In comparison, poor Ali's right hand went out in a circular route which was hardly started when Jimmy Young's short, straight right hand had already landed.

The Young fight exposed the flaws and limitations in Ali's style unmercifully.

For fifteen full rounds.

And Ali had no adjustment to make in the entire 15 rounds.

That fight demonstrated with finality that poor Ali would never have had a chance against the great boxers who held the heavyweight title through the years.

Doug Jones staggered Ali with his right hand 15 seconds into their fight.

Why?

Because Doug Jones had a short, ecomonical right hand that traveled in a straight line.

Poor Ali didn't didn't belong in the ring with top level technicians.

When he found himself in such a situation, he just took his beating

and then collected his phony "decision" at the end of the fight.

You have to do better than that to be included among the top fighters of "all time."

First of all no matter how I bait you I have come to learn that you know much of what you are talking about. I know that Ali was not a pure fundamentalist. And I know that a great boxer with his fundamentals honed would always give him a good tough fight. Ali relied on speed, gifted reflexes, a superb jaw AND trained to obsession eyesight. Not to mention a bit of what migh be called pugilistic prognostication. I'm not talking about predicting a round but predicting his opponents actions in real time through his trained eyesight. He could almost sense where things were coming from quite often by reading his opponents body. (except from those equally gifted poker faced left hookers like our friend Joe who put him flat all on his back on one very sacred (to you and the Anti Ali Elite) occasion.

I know he was not the perfect fundamentalist.....and yet he thrived. You, because of some ill gotten spite can not even appreciate this bit of ironic miracle. Instead you want to whine that he was somehow an abberation of the general digestion of boxing brought on by a bad experience at a low budget chinese eatery.

He was truly great. Period end of story. And his flaws such as his arrogance of not buckling down to the fundamentals, make him an outcast rebel to a few who are married to that fundamentalist boxing religion, and will not accept that some are capable of breaking the rules while achieving greatness.

Now as for Jimmy Young....by this time much of what made Muhammad the wonder kid that he was, had come and gone. I actually agree with you that Jimmy did a great job of showing Ali's weaknesses. But they were being shown at a time when his greatest gifts were waning. With all that Jimmy had and all that Jimmy was... this knowledge and grasp of the "fundamentals" would not have served him to a genuine victory when Ali's gifts could have and would have played too powerful a role within that drama. IMHO opinion an Ali trained and dedicated flawlessy to these fundamentals would be about the only fighter who could have beaten the "rebel" Ali. Because these natural gifts with a little knowledge (ok a lot of knowledge to be fair) were enough in his hands to get the job done.

The kid had natural talent and you know it. Your mad because he did not make YOUR GOD (the fundamentals) his GOD and managed to thrive anyway. Boxing is a religion to you isn't it?.....Admit it.

I hope people get my analogy....I'm not talking spiritual religion here. I can see the PM's now. Why do I get myself into these debates?

Decagon wrote:Granberry, I simply don't understand your line of reasoning. You post the exact same thing in every topic (Ali against Jones and Young), even if it has nothing to do with Ali in the first place. Everyone laughs at your posts. Do you somehow think that if you post the Ali/Jones/Young crap another 50 or 60 times, people will stop thinking that it's stupid?

Of course what other explanation could there be? And I enjoy the opportunity to see if I can find the chink in the lead blocking the access to the cerebrum of this particular contributor.

Decagon wrote:Granberry, I simply don't understand your line of reasoning. You post the exact same thing in every topic (Ali against Jones and Young), even if it has nothing to do with Ali in the first place. Everyone laughs at your posts. Do you somehow think that if you post the Ali/Jones/Young crap another 50 or 60 times, people will stop thinking that it's stupid?

decagon,

I get your "reasoning."

The Ali industry is frantic when its ridiculous sales pitch for its mediocre product is questioned.

The Ali industry demands a ONE-WAY communication.

Anyone who doesn't put up with their tired crap should be annihilated.

How dare anyone mention that Joe Frazier knocked Ali flat on his back.

That fight is NEVER supposed to be mentioned.

How dare anyone mention that overweight lighheavyweight Doug Jones beat Ali thoroughly two fights before Ali collected his fake "wins" over Liston.

How dare anyone mention that 185 pound Henry Cooper knocked Ali down TWO ROUNDS before Ali was supposed to be able to beat Sonny Liston.

Genuflect before your phony product, Ali industry saps.

Decagon wrote:Okay, let's have a competition, Buzz. Let's see who can get Granberry to make longwinded posts about Ali/Young/Jones in the most number of completely unrelated topics.

Let's have clueless decagon tell us again that Jack Johnson should not be criticized for refusing to defend his title against Sam Langford, his most dangerous challenger.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Decagon wrote:Granberry, I simply don't understand your line of reasoning. You post the exact same thing in every topic (Ali against Jones and Young), even if it has nothing to do with Ali in the first place. Everyone laughs at your posts. Do you somehow think that if you post the Ali/Jones/Young crap another 50 or 60 times, people will stop thinking that it's stupid?

Of course what other explanation could there be? And I enjoy the opportunity to see if I can find the chink in the lead blocking the access to the cerebrum of this particular contributor.

Buzz,

What you know about boxing you could write on the head of a pin.

And still have room for your name and address.

Give us some more Ali industry talking points, buzz.

It takes the mind of an ameba to regurgitate repetitively the tired talking points of the clueless Bert Sugar-Thomas Hauser-Norman Mailer Ali industry.

Buzz never had a fight with his own sister, and it shows in every post he makes.

granberry, your a bit myopic. I have granted your superior knowledge on many boxing specifics, and have engaged you in sensible things to consider and instead of offering some sort of sensible differing viewpoint based on physics, logic or reasoning you just shout out that I'm foolish, stupid, slothlike, creepy, androgenous, knockkneed, parapalegic or that I have dandruff. I will grant you that each of these accusations help your points, no end.

HOWEVER with that said, you do not actually deconstruct any of my suggestions. You don't speak to gifts that boxers possess other than your precious fundamentals. Which I have some knowledge of but that I don't completely bow to Mecca twice a day in honor of. Please tell us why god given gifts are useless in boxing. Why speed does not matter, why eyesight is useless, why intelligence has no practical application, I suppose strength itself is minimal in it's pragmatic applications in boxing. If what you say is true then you could traine EVEN ME to become perhaps the greatest of all time by simply buckling down and rehearsing the basics.

This reasoning don't work for great musicians, it don't work for great athletes, it don't work for great leaders, it don't work for great traffic cops. But for boxing it becomes the omnipotent potion?

Nope..nada...nill. If you were a carpenter you would tell us that all things must be built through the use of a hammer and a hammer only. Screwdrivers, drills, measuring devices, saws and lathes are purely diversions and perhaps blasphemous.

granberry wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Speaking of right crosses, Ezzard Charles used Louis for target practice with right hands all night in their fight... rocked him bad in the late rounds with a right... part of me thinks Charles could have stopped Louis if he had pressed him after that. Charles may have taken it easy on Joe.

Either way, Louis' style was badly exposed in that fight...

IFeelLikeaFairy,

I assume you are talking about the fight where Louis returned to the ring after his retirement---only because the IRS was hounding him.

Why in the world would you assume that what the tired, old Louis showed in that fight was representative of Louis' "style"?

lmao thank you for proving my point.

Louis was only two years older than Ali when Ali fought Young, and didn't have the wear and tear of fights like Manila on him. Ali was 20 f-cking pounds overweight when he fought Young, not 5-6 like Sonny Liston, 20 pounds; he would not be that heavy again until he came in close to 250 against Berbick. Yet that's a definitive fight, and Louis-Charles isn't? Or Louis coming off a two year layoff makes it less definitive than Ali coming off a three and a half year layoff against Frazier, who he beat in two rematches? And a Frazier knock down is more definitive than a TKO win for Ali?

You're a joke granberry.

And I would admit to you that Young should have gotten the decision over Ali, but not Doug Jones, calling that fight a robbery is nonsense. It was a close fight, not a robbery. And as for Ali-Young, it was closer than Charles-Louis.

I Feel Fine wrote:

granberry wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Speaking of right crosses, Ezzard Charles used Louis for target practice with right hands all night in their fight... rocked him bad in the late rounds with a right... part of me thinks Charles could have stopped Louis if he had pressed him after that. Charles may have taken it easy on Joe.

Either way, Louis' style was badly exposed in that fight...

IFeelLikeaFairy,

I assume you are talking about the fight where Louis returned to the ring after his retirement---only because the IRS was hounding him.

Why in the world would you assume that what the tired, old Louis showed in that fight was representative of Louis' "style"?

lmao thank you for proving my point.

Louis was only two years older than Ali when Ali fought Young, and didn't have the wear and tear of fights like Manila on him. Ali was 20 f-cking pounds overweight when he fought Young, not 5-6 like Sonny Liston, 20 pounds; he would not be that heavy again until he came in close to 250 against Berbick. Yet that's a definitive fight, and Louis-Charles isn't? Or Louis coming off a two year layoff makes it less definitive than Ali coming off a three and a half year layoff against Frazier, who he beat in two rematches? And a Frazier knock down is more definitive than a TKO win for Ali?

You're a joke granberry.

And I would admit to you that Young should have gotten the decision over Ali, but not Doug Jones, calling that fight a robbery is nonsense. It was a close fight, not a robbery. And as for Ali-Young, it was closer than Charles-Louis.

But he's our Joke....so don't dis' him.

I Feel Fine wrote:

granberry wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Speaking of right crosses, Ezzard Charles used Louis for target practice with right hands all night in their fight... rocked him bad in the late rounds with a right... part of me thinks Charles could have stopped Louis if he had pressed him after that. Charles may have taken it easy on Joe.

Either way, Louis' style was badly exposed in that fight...

IFeelLikeaFairy,

I assume you are talking about the fight where Louis returned to the ring after his retirement---only because the IRS was hounding him.

Why in the world would you assume that what the tired, old Louis showed in that fight was representative of Louis' "style"?

lmao thank you for proving my point.

Louis was only two years older than Ali when Ali fought Young, and didn't have the wear and tear of fights like Manila on him. Ali was 20 f-cking pounds overweight when he fought Young, not 5-6 like Sonny Liston, 20 pounds; he would not be that heavy again until he came in close to 250 against Berbick. Yet that's a definitive fight, and Louis-Charles isn't? Or Louis coming off a two year layoff makes it less definitive than Ali coming off a three and a half year layoff against Frazier, who he beat in two rematches? And a Frazier knock down is more definitive than a TKO win for Ali?

You're a joke granberry.

And I would admit to you that Young should have gotten the decision over Ali, but not Doug Jones, calling that fight a robbery is nonsense. It was a close fight, not a robbery. And as for Ali-Young, it was closer than Charles-Louis.

IFeelLikeaFairy,

You are a shill for the Ali industry.

BoxBuzz wrote: If you were a carpenter you would tell us that all things must be built through the use of a hammer and a hammer only. Screwdrivers, drills, measuring devices, saws and lathes are purely diversions and perhaps blasphemous.

Buzz,

Your attempts at logic are painful.

Keep writhing around.

You know nothing about boxing--and you never will.

The best you can do is repeat the tired talking points given out by hacks like Sugar, Hauser, Mailer, ad infininitum.

lol boxbuzz

granberry wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:

granberry wrote: IFeelLikeaFairy,

I assume you are talking about the fight where Louis returned to the ring after his retirement---only because the IRS was hounding him.

Why in the world would you assume that what the tired, old Louis showed in that fight was representative of Louis' "style"?

lmao thank you for proving my point.

Louis was only two years older than Ali when Ali fought Young, and didn't have the wear and tear of fights like Manila on him. Ali was 20 f-cking pounds overweight when he fought Young, not 5-6 like Sonny Liston, 20 pounds; he would not be that heavy again until he came in close to 250 against Berbick. Yet that's a definitive fight, and Louis-Charles isn't? Or Louis coming off a two year layoff makes it less definitive than Ali coming off a three and a half year layoff against Frazier, who he beat in two rematches? And a Frazier knock down is more definitive than a TKO win for Ali?

You're a joke granberry.

And I would admit to you that Young should have gotten the decision over Ali, but not Doug Jones, calling that fight a robbery is nonsense. It was a close fight, not a robbery. And as for Ali-Young, it was closer than Charles-Louis.

IFeelLikeaFairy,

You are a shill for the Ali industry.

I accept your concession to my point.

Ok granmaberry......PLEASE speak to my points regarding natural talent vs the fundamentals and how gifted athletes can sometimes thrive on less knowledge and commitment to the basics and carve out just a wee bit of a career. Even if they do annoy the hell out of you. Now Dont go crazy and make a mockery of this point. I'm not talkin about someone who does not have lick of training, rather those who don't follow the rules quite as well as others and yet have at least limited or perhaps even more success. Naz for example...weak fundamentals but hung in there even with Barrera though he lost.

I mean there is a balance, the absolute best fundamentals don't always rise to the top if they are not equaly gifted with intelligence, good eyesight, instinct and speed. All things you never speak to. Or if you do you add them all up and seem to indicate that they don't mean squat. (That hammer thing I was talkin' about)

Let's get some credibility going here, your more than a name caller, your more than a one trick pony, your more than some old cranky codger who likes to fling poo at ol' boxbuzz. Your an Icon! Your a teacher! Your your....well your granberry for god's sake.

I'm looking for something that tells me "I'm still granberry! And I don't have Alzheimers!"

Terry D wrote:

granberry wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Tommy Hearns and Roberto Duran come to my mind of guys with the best right crosses.

Your idea of the "past" doesn't go back very far, does it Elmer.

LOL

You do not seem to understand the word 'past'.

Arguello dropped his cross perfectly. The KO of Rooney (best trainer ever and Tony Soprano voice coach) comes to mind.

Yes, Terry

Kevin Rooney was "the best trainer ever."

Better than Tommy Ryan, Jack Blackburn, Jimmy DeForest, Charley Goldman, Whitey Bimstein.

LOL

..i just clicked on to this one. nothing to add except gramberry says box buzz never even had a fight with his own sister. well, i happen to know he did and she beat the hell out of him and made him quit. not bad for a pre-teen female.

BoxBuzz wrote:Ok granmaberry......PLEASE speak to my points regarding natural talent vs the fundamentals and how gifted athletes can sometimes thrive on less knowledge and commitment to the basics and carve out just a wee bit of a career. Even if they do annoy the hell out of you. Now Dont go crazy and make a mockery of this point. I'm not talkin about someone who does not have lick of training, rather those who don't follow the rules quite as well as others and yet have at least limited or perhaps even more success. Naz for example...weak fundamentals but hung in there even with Barrera though he lost.

I mean there is a balance, the absolute best fundamentals don't always rise to the top if they are not equaly gifted with intelligence, good eyesight, instinct and speed. All things you never speak to. Or if you do you add them all up and seem to indicate that they don't mean squat. (That hammer thing I was talkin' about)

Let's get some credibility going here, your more than a name caller, your more than a one trick pony, your more than some old cranky codger who likes to fling poo at ol' boxbuzz. Your an Icon! Your a teacher! Your your....well your granberry for god's sake.

I'm looking for something that tells me "I'm still granberry! And I don't have Alzheimers!"

I agree with what you're saying, btw, boxbuzz. Ali wasn't fundamentally perfect, but he had abilities that allowed him to get away with it. When those abilities declined, Ali declined, which is why he had close decisions with Young and Norton that he probably should have lost. But it wasn't because they were fundamentally better. I thought he lost to Shavers too, I'm not sure that Shavers would be called technically brilliant. Ali lost, or should have lost, because he wasn't the same fighter. He was older, he was starting to look older, he was getting slower, he had a lot of wear and tear, especially from Manila. You made the point that if Ali ever encountered someone as good as him who was also fundamentally good, then he might lose. I think that's a good point, and is probably true. But granberry seems to think that just anybody could have beaten Ali if they were any good... which is probably why he has to ignore those "fake" wins over Liston, Patterson and Frazier...

Was Ali technically perfect? No. But talking about how a 34 year old 20 pounds overweight Ali was exposed, in a relatively close fight that he got a decision in and that some would argue (not me) that he did win... I mean, no one believes that Young would beat the Ali of 72-75, do they? Maybe granberry, but does anyone believe Young beats even a younger 70's Ali, let alone a 60's Ali? I don't see any way. And Doug Jones... uhh... that was not a robbery, and Clay admitted himself that he only trained for a four round fight, and it looked that way as he was gassed late... those fights were close, but not necessarily because Jones and Young had "straighter" right hands...

But I found it funny that he would accept excuses for Louis that he wouldn't accept for Ali. I don't believe Louis-Charles was a definitive fight, or that Charles would beat a younger Louis, but how much less definitive was that fight than Ali-Young, really? Not much in my opinion. I don't like to be judgmental, but granberry acts a lot like a troll.

Jaclem wrote:..i just clicked on to this one. nothing to add except gramberry says box buzz never even had a fight with his own sister. well, i happen to know he did and she beat the hell out of him and made him quit. not bad for a pre-teen female.

Exactly, based on the six degrees of seperation theory we are all fairly closely connected to both the worst and the best of humanity......Think about it.....no more than 6 degrees between any of us and ol' granberry. It's downright inspirin' aint it?

So we may not all be great but someone great is none to far away from where we stand. And that should be consoling to most of us.

I Feel Fine wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Ok granmaberry......PLEASE speak to my points regarding natural talent vs the fundamentals and how gifted athletes can sometimes thrive on less knowledge and commitment to the basics and carve out just a wee bit of a career. Even if they do annoy the hell out of you. Now Dont go crazy and make a mockery of this point. I'm not talkin about someone who does not have lick of training, rather those who don't follow the rules quite as well as others and yet have at least limited or perhaps even more success. Naz for example...weak fundamentals but hung in there even with Barrera though he lost.

I mean there is a balance, the absolute best fundamentals don't always rise to the top if they are not equaly gifted with intelligence, good eyesight, instinct and speed. All things you never speak to. Or if you do you add them all up and seem to indicate that they don't mean squat. (That hammer thing I was talkin' about)

Let's get some credibility going here, your more than a name caller, your more than a one trick pony, your more than some old cranky codger who likes to fling poo at ol' boxbuzz. Your an Icon! Your a teacher! Your your....well your granberry for god's sake.

I'm looking for something that tells me "I'm still granberry! And I don't have Alzheimers!"

I agree with what you're saying, btw, boxbuzz. Ali wasn't fundamentally perfect, but he had abilities that allowed him to get away with it. When those abilities declined, Ali declined, which is why he had close decisions with Young and Norton that he probably should have lost. But it wasn't because they were fundamentally better. I thought he lost to Shavers too, I'm not sure that Shavers would be called technically brilliant. Ali lost, or should have lost, because he wasn't the same fighter. He was older, he was starting to look older, he was getting slower, he had a lot of wear and tear, especially from Manila. You made the point that if Ali ever encountered someone as good as him who was also fundamentally good, then he might lose. I think that's a good point, and is probably true. But granberry seems to think that just anybody could have beaten Ali if they were any good... which is probably why he has to ignore those "fake" wins over Liston, Patterson and Frazier...

Was Ali technically perfect? No. But talking about how a 34 year old 20 pounds overweight Ali was exposed, in a relatively close fight that he got a decision in and that some would argue (not me) that he did win... I mean, no one believes that Young would beat the Ali of 72-75, do they? Maybe granberry, but does anyone believe Young beats even a younger 70's Ali, let alone a 60's Ali? I don't see any way. And Doug Jones... uhh... that was not a robbery, and Clay admitted himself that he only trained for a four round fight, and it looked that way as he was gassed late... those fights were close, but not necessarily because Jones and Young had "straighter" right hands...

But I found it funny that he would accept excuses for Louis that he wouldn't accept for Ali. I don't believe Louis-Charles was a definitive fight, or that Charles would beat a younger Louis, but how much less definitive was that fight than Ali-Young, really? Not much in my opinion. I don't like to be judgmental, but granberry acts a lot like a troll.

I don't like to be judgmental, but IFeelLikeaFairy acts a lot like a brainwashed member of the walking army of the Ali Industry.

I've just asked a few questions....and apparently you will not or can not answer them. I'm somewhat dissapointed.

Firstly can I say that I love Granberry's ruthlessly aggressive style! Very amusing.

It does sound a bit like Gran once read a Mark Kram article and was overwhelmed by it in a "How can I be controversial?" way.

I admire your commitment to the golden oldies, Gran, but suggesting that Ali is not an all time great is plain wrong, fundamentals or not.

Yep he's got stamina...but how's a student to learn if he keeps stonewalling?

He should say "I know more than you so ner-ner" and leave it there!

I still remember the very first day last july when Granberry first joined...like it was yesterday. His first words....



"Ali was knocked down by 185 1/2 pound Henry Cooper in the very fight before he fought Liston.

How long would Henry Cooper have lasted with the real Liston?"


I will run this sim just to see....my guess? 4 or 5 rounds maybe.

granberry wrote: I don't like to be judgmental, but IFeelLikeaFairy acts a lot like a brainwashed member of the walking army of the Ali Industry.

Not to get in the way of this confusing argument.

I would co sign Hearns and Duran. Some I don't believe I saw listed

Cleveland Williams
Ike Williams
Wilfredo Gomez
Sal Sanchez
Bobby Chacon
Nard
Roger Mayweather