BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:After reading Alp and Fine's answers I'm surprised that Holmes didn't feature as he could vary his game plan, was highly skilled and gritty.

Johnson has a great chance too. Tunney has the ability but is probably too small.

Charles would have a great chance but again is possibly too small.

Holyfield is a good pick.

Of the swarmers I like Frazier and Dempsey.

I actually wrote that post out twice, the first was too long so I shortened it a bit, but in the original I named Witherspoon, Lewis and Holmes as three opponents who could potentially give Ali a lot of trouble. But I don't like the rest of those guys chances, besides Frazier who was always tough for Ali.

Still, I don't see Holmes winning a trilogy against Ali, especially prime Ali.

As for Liston-Martin, Sonny was pretty old by then and it was a close fight at the time of the knock out. I don't know that Martin beats Liston of the late 50's early 60's.

in 1963 if they hadnt cut alis glove, cooper would have beat him therefore ali may not got the shot at liston at that time. If liston had not been in the hand of the mob he would have beaten ali the first time which would have been then at least his second defeat rendering him just another big mouth yank and possibly wouldnt have had to fight liston again

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:in 1963 if they hadnt cut alis glove, cooper would have beat him therefore ali may not got the shot at liston at that time. If liston had not been in the hand of the mob he would have beaten ali the first time which would have been then at least his second defeat rendering him just another big mouth yank and possibly wouldnt have had to fight liston again

Is that you Crankberry?

Hang on, even The Crankster isn't quite this moronic.

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:in 1963 if they hadnt cut alis glove, cooper would have beat him therefore ali may not got the shot at liston at that time. If liston had not been in the hand of the mob he would have beaten ali the first time which would have been then at least his second defeat rendering him just another big mouth yank and possibly wouldnt have had to fight liston again

Again, Ali's torn glove had no consequence on the fight, he got 5-10 seconds. And the claims about Liston, well, they speak for themselves. The second fight? maybe, the first fight? No way.

Not wanting to give author of this crap the satisfaction of getting this post back on the front page again but I feel that I want to add to the argument.
I was probably only 16-17 when Ali came out of rtirement and fought Fraser, I was so mesmerised by Ali's personality that I argued with anyone that listened how Mohammad got robbed blind in that fight. It wasn't until much later that I saw the fight again on video and realised that Joe beat him fair and square. I wonder how many others look back at Alis career with rose coloured glasses.
Was he the greatest or was he one of the better champs or was he just resiliant.
If I were in the same room with him I would call him the greatest. But I think that would be due to his personality.

Collins2000 wrote:Hang on, even The Crankster isn't quite this moronic.

Nor as punctuationally challenged...

As far as "who best to beat Ali?", I'd say the actual performances supply the surprise answer ... Ken Norton. Not the world's greatest skills, but the following combination of attributes:

1) Similar in size -- very important, as Ali knew how to use his size as well as any HW in history;
2) Very sound technically -- no obvious weaknesses for Ali to exploit;
3) Supremely conditioned, allowing him to apply nonstop pressure for the entire 15 rounds;
4) Came in with a smart game plan and had the discipline to stick to it.

But against the mid-60s Ali, you'd need even more than that, you'd need ATG-type talent and hand-and-footspeed, as well.

I agree eric, the only thing I would say is Ali wasn't 100% for any of the three Norton fights. First fight he trained two weeks and ended up getting his jaw broken, he had a damaged right hand in the second fight and threw maybe two right hands a round for most of the fight, and he was getting on in age and had a lot more wear and tear by the third fight. I don't think Norton ever saw the best Ali, and it wasn't a prime Ali either.

Grant wrote:Not wanting to give author of this crap the satisfaction of getting this post back on the front page again but I feel that I want to add to the argument.
I was probably only 16-17 when Ali came out of rtirement and fought Fraser, I was so mesmerised by Ali's personality that I argued with anyone that listened how Mohammad got robbed blind in that fight. It wasn't until much later that I saw the fight again on video and realised that Joe beat him fair and square. I wonder how many others look back at Alis career with rose coloured glasses.
Was he the greatest or was he one of the better champs or was he just resiliant.
If I were in the same room with him I would call him the greatest. But I think that would be due to his personality.

I don't like this logic. I would say the exact same for Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano. Many Louis and Marciano fans have made statements like this in recent years, Bert Sugar among them (not to say that he doesn't like Ali) that Ali's legacy is blown up because of his personality and because people like him. Its as if Louis and Marciano don't have enormous fanbases and that people don't love their character and who they were as men. And you can't base your opinion of Ali, in hindsight, on one fight where he was coming off a layoff, and which he avenged with two rematches.

isnt getting your jaw broke part of the game

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:isnt getting your jaw broke part of the game

Who said it wasn't?

Ali wasnt even undisputed champ the last 3 times so that will always be a question mark over his career. And anybody that says he was to quick and never took many punches did you see that picture in todays heraldsun of him and his daughter

Ali was THE undisputed champion ALL three times

won the title from Liston, after his 3yr exile came back to gain recognition from Foreman, then lost it to Leon Spinks and regained it....technicall speaking ALi got the undisputed title twice, since Spinks was stripped of the WBC title for not fighting Norton---but he was the man who beat UNDISPUTED champion Ali, so in a sense, Ali won the title from the man.

It exits out whatever ridiculous assumptions anyone ever had...in this case Ali was BIGGER than the organizations, he was the recognized champion ALL three times.

Yeah but not by Ken Norton I bet.

I agree, he kept his hands down, didn't throw any body shots. was NOT a power puncher by any stretch, and fought a lot of stiffs. "The lion of Flaners" Jean Pierre Coopman, who drank champagne between rounds, does not qualify as quality competition. Richard Dunn, and many other stiffs gave Ali a padded record. Ali was a great boxer, but not the greatest. Joe Louis would have picked apart his weakness in about 5 seconds.

T.R.

travrosty wrote:I agree, he kept his hands down, didn't throw any body shots. was NOT a power puncher by any stretch, and fought a lot of stiffs. "The lion of Flaners" Jean Pierre Coopman, who drank champagne between rounds, does not qualify as quality competition. Richard Dunn, and many other stiffs gave Ali a padded record. Ali was a great boxer, but not the greatest. Joe Louis would have picked apart his weakness in about 5 seconds.

T.R.

All the greats had faults.

All the greats fought some weaker opponents in between taking on the best.

You are clutching at straws as usual, mate.

Coopman and Dunn were tune ups. I'd estimate 15-20 of Louis' 25 title defenses were against opposition as good as Coopman and Dunn. No Heavyweight faced opposition as good as Ali's.

Ali didn't need body punching.. name a fight Ali lost because of lack of body punching... name a fight Ali lost due to his keeping his hands low... there are none... unlike Louis in his KO loss to Schmeling.

I Feel Fine wrote:Coopman and Dunn were tune ups. I'd estimate 15-20 of Louis' 25 title defenses were against opposition as good as Coopman and Dunn. No Heavyweight faced opposition as good as Ali's.

Ali didn't need body punching.. name a fight Ali lost because of lack of body punching... name a fight Ali lost due to his keeping his hands low... there are none... unlike Louis in his KO loss to Schmeling.

Whoa, don't go knocking Louis.

Ali has the best opponent list, but the wide majority of Louis's defenses (Baer, Walcott, Conn, Nova, Mann, Schmeling, Farr etc.) were MUCH better than Jean Pierre Coopman.

Ali did get drilled by Frazier and Norton while his hands were down.

I don't allign myself with those describing Ali as horribly over-rated and just a bum, but he was not perfect.

dempseyfire wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Coopman and Dunn were tune ups. I'd estimate 15-20 of Louis' 25 title defenses were against opposition as good as Coopman and Dunn. No Heavyweight faced opposition as good as Ali's.

Ali didn't need body punching.. name a fight Ali lost because of lack of body punching... name a fight Ali lost due to his keeping his hands low... there are none... unlike Louis in his KO loss to Schmeling.

Whoa, don't go knocking Louis.

Ali has the best opponent list, but the wide majority of Louis's defenses (Baer, Walcott, Conn, Nova, Mann, Schmeling, Farr etc.) were MUCH better than Jean Pierre Coopman.

Ali did get drilled by Frazier and Norton while his hands were down.

I don't allign myself with those describing Ali as horribly over-rated and just a bum, but he was not perfect.

no one is perfect - the problem is that we have people who cant accept that the Ali fans realise that, and think that they must not stop until we agree that Steve Hawkings would have beat him

300

There's only been a very few men who seemingly "had it all", the defense, the offense, the speed, the power, etc. But even they lost. Sugar Ray Robinson was arguably the greatest all-around fighter to ever step inside the ropes, and even he was vulnerable. Wilfred Benetiz "The Bible of Boxing" seemingly had it all as well, he was all but untouchable...but even he lost, though you could argue he only lost due to his own methods of training and life style.

I believe all champions do deserve to have an "easy one", Ali had the Wepner's, Dunne's, London's, Coopman's and Evangelista's...but then again he defeated Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Shavers, Norton, Lyle...

Hell in Joe Louis' reign it was grealy considered that Tony Galento, Buddy Baer, Johnny Paycheck, Tami Maurillo, and others were "bums", but in this day and age you could really make the case for Galento or Baer and some others to having the ability to beat the top men of today, let alone the Conn's, Walcott's, Farr's and Schmeling's.

To criticise Ali for taking on easy opponents from time to time is to criticise every other champion or fighter for that matter to ever step through the ropes; Marciano, who more or less jumped passed the "middle" part of the division to the top even defended the title against Don Cockell.

THE only time you can criticise someone for doing so is when they more than had the chance to defend the title against a more meaningful opponent, but side stepped them anyways and defended against a less than stellar opponent....in Ali's case, there wasn't that many 'stellar' opponents left out their to fight but a rematch with Foreman, Gerrie Coetzee (1979), Jack Boddell....see what I mean? Either the better opponents would have come a little too late for Ali to have a chance anyways or it would have been men in the level of the Boddell's, the Gardner's, the LeDoux's that were around.

Ali would have still won against them, how many more Frazier fights, Norton fights, Foreman fights did Ali really need to have to prove his worth? I guess sometimes people get too carried away, there just was nobody really out there to have defeated him in the way people would have wanted: clear and unaminous.

dempseyfire wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Coopman and Dunn were tune ups. I'd estimate 15-20 of Louis' 25 title defenses were against opposition as good as Coopman and Dunn. No Heavyweight faced opposition as good as Ali's.

Ali didn't need body punching.. name a fight Ali lost because of lack of body punching... name a fight Ali lost due to his keeping his hands low... there are none... unlike Louis in his KO loss to Schmeling.

Whoa, don't go knocking Louis.

Ali has the best opponent list, but the wide majority of Louis's defenses (Baer, Walcott, Conn, Nova, Mann, Schmeling, Farr etc.) were MUCH better than Jean Pierre Coopman.

Ali did get drilled by Frazier and Norton while his hands were down.

I don't allign myself with those describing Ali as horribly over-rated and just a bum, but he was not perfect.

Well I was being a bit facetious, but yes, I would say many of Louis' defenses were against bums, and I think even Louis would admit that. It's not necessarily a knock to say that either, those were the fighters who were around. The point I was making is that its ridiculous to even be talking about Coopman and Dunn; every champion takes a tune up. Thomas, Baer, Roper, Galento, Paycheck are not great opponents. Ali wouldn't get away with fighting those fighters, but I think Louis would get that benefit of the doubt if he were to fight a Coopman or a Dunn.

I don't think Ali did himself too many favors keeping his hands low against Frazier and Norton, but I wouldn't say that the Frazier and Norton losses were a direct result of that. I don't believe that he loses those fights if he comes into them at 100%. And to be fair I don't know what Louis' mental state was going into the Schmeling loss, I've heard it said that Louis underestimated Schmeling. But I do think Louis was clearly in better condition than Ali was in his losses to Frazier and Norton. I would say Louis' loss to Schmeling could be said to be a better example of a fighter losing because he kept his hands too low. Schmeling was able to land some bombs over Louis' low left.

Point is, its not always sacrilegious to point out a flaw in Louis, and its not always insightful to criticize Ali. Neither Ali or Louis were perfect, but I think its unfair to give Louis so much more respect and so much larger a benefit of the doubt than Ali. Especially in terms of opposition, as I think its clear Ali had the better list of opponents.

Point is, its not always sacrilegious to point out a flaw in Louis, and its not always insightful to criticize Ali. Neither Ali or Louis were perfect, but I think its unfair to give Louis so much more respect and so much larger a benefit of the doubt than Ali. Especially in terms of opposition, as I think its clear Ali had the better list of opponents.

Never read it put any better than this.

the sad thing is Ali will always be in the eys of millions the greatest but blokes like Kostya and Mundine will never e mentioned in the same breath and pound for pound these 2 far outstrip Ali in there achievements and quality of opponents

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:the sad thing is Ali will always be in the eys of millions the greatest but blokes like Kostya and Mundine will never e mentioned in the same breath and pound for pound these 2 far outstrip Ali in there achievements and quality of opponents

I would like some clarification for this stance, if you would.

BERNARD BRIGGS. wrote:Ali in my opinion was vastly over rated and would have trouble winning a WBO title today. Reasons being
too small
no defence
fought too many stiffs
rudimentry skills where lacking

You are a fuckwit.

Yep.