BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:Corbett cut up Jeff for 18 rounds before the tide turned and Jeff kayoed him in the 21st. IMHO Corbett was a shade faster than Ali. Granted and providing the referees were the same as were in the early 20th century I can't see Ali stopping Jeffries. Think Frazier or Dempsey or Marciano, but taller and heavier and stronger and you had Jeffries.

Ali could whip Corbett and Jeffries in the same night...THAT'S RIGHT I SAID IT!!!

In an ironic sense that reminds me of old timers in the 60s who said Sullivan could of beaten Ali and Frazier, and have enough to decision Joe Louis. Both your argument and theirs lack any real founding but personal preference.

My argument has to do with the vast improvement of skills that Ali would have over both Corbett and Jeffries, not preference.

At any rate, it's just a hypothetical. In all seriousness, I doubt a guy is going 15 or more rounds with one guy and then whipping another world class guy right behind it. I was just trying to make a point of how much better I think Ali is than either of these guys.

If they were both scheduled for 10 rounds or less, yes I absolutely think he'd beat them both in one night. If we're talking about 20 rounds or some sh*t like that. No probably not.

In defense of Jeffries on this one, you can't exactly say Ali wind strictly because of the advancement of the sport over the passed 125 years. Ali wins because he was either the greatest or second best heavyweight of all time with the greatest overall speed and reflexes of any heavyweight of the passed 80 years. Cus let's be honest here, the "evolution" of boxing IMHO has shown a decrease in defense, stamina, toughness, etc. And that's across all weight divisions.

HomicideHenry wrote:In defense of Jeffries on this one, you can't exactly say Ali wind strictly because of the advancement of the sport over the passed 125 years. Ali wins because he was either the greatest or second best heavyweight of all time with the greatest overall speed and reflexes of any heavyweight of the passed 80 years. Cus let's be honest here, the "evolution" of boxing IMHO has shown a decrease in defense, stamina, toughness, etc. And that's across all weight divisions.

It's shown a decrease since the 50's thru the 70's...in Ali's time. There was no decrease to be found. Ali competed in the greatest Heavyweight era ever in the sports history.

Some of the best defensive fighters of all time have come along after the 70's as well, so I don't agree with your assessment that defense has decreased. But I would agree that Stamina and Toughness have decreased somewhat from Boxing's Golden Age.

Il Duce wrote:Keith,

You are too jaded in your views. You must 'LOVE' Muhammad Ali..........

I'm not biased towards Ali at all. I just happen to think he gives Jeffries a beating. I love Tommy Hearns, Holyfield and Holmes, but I'll pick fighters to beat them.

You have zero love for Ali and it shows in your posts, like the one where you picked Corrie Sanders to beat Ali. In his absolute best, Ali was pretty much unbeatable, yet you're the only person on this forum, that picks a big list of fighters to beat him. Take your biased specs off and enjoy one of the best boxers ever to walk the face of the planet.

Il Duce wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Keith,

You are too jaded in your views. You must 'LOVE' Muhammad Ali..........

I'm not biased towards Ali at all. I just happen to think he gives Jeffries a beating. I love Tommy Hearns, Holyfield and Holmes, but I'll pick fighters to beat them.

You have zero love for Ali and it shows in your posts, like the one where you picked Corrie Sanders to beat Ali. In his absolute best, Ali was pretty much unbeatable, yet you're the only person on this forum, that picks a big list of fighters to beat him. Take your biased specs off and enjoy one of the best boxers ever to walk the face of the planet.

Confused Keith

I regard Muhammad Ali as a very good boxer, but believe he was so 'over-rated'.

And he stunk out more joints than a 'cigar-filled' old mans bar.

Pretty much every man and his dog rates Ali and Louis as the two best heavyweights ever. Ali is a three time world champion, an Olympic champion and he beat a handful of hall of famers.

Do you not rate him in your top two?

Il Duce wrote:Absolutely Not

Based on the 'overall', in the Heavyweight Division, I have Muhammad Ali at #11

And you don't think there's a little bit of biased in that decision?

Il Duce wrote:Absolutely Not

Based on the 'overall', in the Heavyweight Division, I have Muhammad Ali at #11

Il Duce wrote:
#1.........Jack Dempsey
#2.........Joe Louis
#3.........Larry Holmes
#4.........Rocky Marciano
#5.........Muhammad Ali
#6.........Jim Jeffries
#7.........Jack Johnson
#8.........George Foreman
#9.........Joe Frazier
#10.......Gene Tunney

That's odd because you had him at number 5 before, above Jeffries?

Il Duce wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Absolutely Not

Based on the 'overall', in the Heavyweight Division, I have Muhammad Ali at #11

And you don't think there's a little bit of biased in that decision?

Biased.....?

Just a fair evaluation on the overall. I'm not fooled by 'hype' and media theatrics.

'Hype'. An Olympic champion, Three time Heavyweight Champion, with wins over SEVEN Hall of Famers and he did that while missing three and a half years.

Il Duce wrote:James J. Jeffries

"I'll walk him down. The man has already been floored several times, and his whiskers are 'weak'."

"Oh, he has a big heart, but he's not smart. I disregard his win over George Foreman, who was nothing more
than a big lug swinging for home-runs against a soft-tossing junk-ball pitcher."

"Many 'junk-ball' pitchers struck out Babe Ruth. That didn't make them great. It makes them lucky."

Ali was only floored 3 times legitimately in his whole career (Wepner was not a true KD), so that certainly doesn't point to him having weak whiskers.

Il Duce wrote:Mr. Controversial

After further evaluation, I dropped Muhammad Ali from #5 to #11.

'Big Jeff' moves up to #5.

Muhammad Ali had too many 'stinkeroo's.

I doubt that very much. The post where you rated Ali the 5th greatest heavyweight ever was just 3 months ago and you never had a good word to say about him then either, same old posts about him as you post today.

HomicideHenry wrote:Cus let's be honest here, the "evolution" of boxing IMHO has shown a decrease in defense, stamina, toughness, etc. And that's across all weight divisions.

Sadly I have to agree with this assessment. The technical skills in boxing today are simply horrible across the board with the heavyweights being particularly bad. I have old instructionals from the 40's and 50's that show under the "basic" techniques sections things that you hardly see anymore.

There was a time when using a shoulder roll to avoid a right hand was considered to be a basic technique. Sure not all guys were great at it but they were at least taught how to perform it back when they were amateurs. Today when a guy like Mayweather does a shoulder roll the announcers scream as if the guy just levitated, as if it was something that they've never seen before.

You rarely see guys parry punches anymore, use the basic stop block and fire a return jab (basic day one boxing years ago), consistently slip/bob and weave to avoid punches etc.

I'm not some old timer that thinks that the "good old days" were perfect. The old nfl teams that I grew up watching in the 1970's would get annihilated by the pro teams of today. Even if they took the modern players off steroids and they played under 1970's rules they would still get pummeled. I only wish that the current boxers were the best ever, if they were I would have no problem admitting it, sadly it just isn't the case.

Syntax Error wrote:

Il Duce wrote:James J. Jeffries

"I'll walk him down. The man has already been floored several times, and his whiskers are 'weak'."

"Oh, he has a big heart, but he's not smart. I disregard his win over George Foreman, who was nothing more
than a big lug swinging for home-runs against a soft-tossing junk-ball pitcher."

"Many 'junk-ball' pitchers struck out Babe Ruth. That didn't make them great. It makes them lucky."

Ali was only floored 3 times legitimately in his whole career (Wepner was not a true KD), so that certainly doesn't point to him having weak whiskers.

Referee called it a knock down. Counted over him and everything.

It only counts as a knockdown if you agree with it?

Corbett was faster than Ali..??@


Based upon what evidence ?!

Some contemporary hating romantic writers that drooled for the
days when coloured men were banned from boxing a strapping
white man?
Or the extensive archival footage one has of Corbett ?>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVwNVzqQeeg

sure the quality is grainy and the speed is retarded due to
the mechanism but one can appreciate fundamentals and form.

It was a different era.

fun idea but ... we have no footage of jeffries etc. we can see that they fought in an upstanding 'gentlemanly' style with simple, pawing punches and clubbing blows. they wore extremely small gloves and were incredibly tough. we have little footage to gleam reactions and skill. basically they were tough but crude.
with the 'sugar ray' style i have no doubt ali would jab jeffries to bits. best chance is that maybe ali would brake his hand on jeffries head.

Presumably Ali knows that he is fighting twenty five rounds against a tough guy with good stamina so he'll train and pace himself expecting a twenty five round fight. While it is a big increase over fifteen boxers could do it in the past, so I don't think Ali would have much trouble adapting. Given the rather primitive style of Jeffries and his poor performance against boxers like Fitzsimmons and Corbett I think Ali wins on points as I don't think Jefferies is going to KO Ali and I don't think that he can win on points.