BoxRec

I just watched clips of a few Muhammed Ali fights and I was shocked at how crappy Ali looked. First I saw a frail and ancient looking 183 lb guy named Cooper pretty much KO Ali, who was saved by his corner cheating by tearing his gloves and getting Ali extra time to recover. Then I saw him lay on the ropes while he let George Foreman hit him with wide slow wild punches until Foreman got tired and pretty much collapsed from exhaustion. Then I saw him stand in the middle of the ring and cover up while throwing about 8 punches a round against Jimmy Young. His only fight plan in this fight seemed to be to hope for the judges to give him credit for doing nothing and amazingly it worked. He would be annihilated by any modern cruiserweight who could throw more than 25 punches a round, like O'Neil Bell. Sure he fought at over 200 lbs but he struggled with little 180 lb HW's like Cooper and Doug Jones, and most modern LHs and CW's walk around at over 200 lbs.

The Great John L wrote:I just watched clips of a few Muhammed Ali fights and I was shocked at how crappy Ali looked. First I saw a frail and ancient looking 183 lb guy named Cooper pretty much KO Ali, who was saved by his corner cheating by tearing his gloves and getting Ali extra time to recover. Then I saw him lay on the ropes while he let George Foreman hit him with wide slow wild punches until Foreman got tired and pretty much collapsed from exhaustion. Then I saw him stand in the middle of the ring and cover up while throwing about 8 punches a round against Jimmy Young. His only fight plan in this fight seemed to be to hope for the judges to give him credit for doing nothing and amazingly it worked. He would be annihilated by any modern cruiserweight who could throw more than 25 punches a round, like O'Neil Bell. Sure he fought at over 200 lbs but he struggled with little 180 lb HW's like Cooper and Doug Jones, and most modern LHs and CW's walk around at over 200 lbs.

Riiiiight ...

The great John L obviously left his boxrec account open and some joker decided to play a JOKE........

Be more careful in the future John L................

The Great John L wrote:I just watched clips of a few Muhammed Ali fights and I was shocked at how crappy Ali looked. First I saw a frail and ancient looking 183 lb guy named Cooper pretty much KO Ali, who was saved by his corner cheating by tearing his gloves and getting Ali extra time to recover. Then I saw him lay on the ropes while he let George Foreman hit him with wide slow wild punches until Foreman got tired and pretty much collapsed from exhaustion. Then I saw him stand in the middle of the ring and cover up while throwing about 8 punches a round against Jimmy Young. His only fight plan in this fight seemed to be to hope for the judges to give him credit for doing nothing and amazingly it worked. He would be annihilated by any modern cruiserweight who could throw more than 25 punches a round, like O'Neil Bell. Sure he fought at over 200 lbs but he struggled with little 180 lb HW's like Cooper and Doug Jones, and most modern LHs and CW's walk around at over 200 lbs.

OK, John L, you obviously know your stuff...

that doesnt seem like a post John L would write

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:that doesnt seem like a post John L would write

It's satire, dude. Too bad it's going to go over a lot of peoples' heads.

kingpawn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:that doesnt seem like a post John L would write

It's satire, dude. Too bad it's going to go over a lot of peoples' heads.

The thing with satire is that there is supposed to be a grain of truth in what is said. Rather than calling it satire, I'd label it drunken rambling.

kingpawn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:that doesnt seem like a post John L would write

It's satire, dude. Too bad it's going to go over a lot of peoples' heads.

8)

Actually, it's a parody of an equally un-educated post. And for the final jeopardy question, can u name the targeted thread?

Decagon wrote:You still haven't offered any evidence that Corbett was better than a hands-down slugger. Sure, compared to Sullivan, he was a boxer, but you put gloves on a kangaroo, and it'll outbox Sullivan.

Perhaps if you would think about what you are asking you'd realise how baseless your comments are. How many fights of Sullivan 's have you seen to base your opinion of his abilities? Have you ever read any actual news accounts of any of his fights? In fact, have you ever seen an entire Corbett fight? I'm sure the "highlights" of Corbett that you have seen were carefully selected by a thorough examination of the entire Fitzsimmons-Corbett fight to ensure that you saw him in his best light. No? Hmmm, let's see some of those random "highlights" of Young vs Ali again so I can watch Ali cover up and stand in the middle of the ring with essentially no movement and no punching. Certainly didn't look like anything that would have had Chris Byrd worried. Or ONeil Bell for that matter...

Decagon wrote:How many fights of Sullivan's have you seen?

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion. Unlike you, I have made no statements in this thread regarding John L's skills. I just assumed that since you were making disparaging remarks about his skill level that you had actually seen him fight. I'm sure you're not the type to just make baseless statements, although I could be wrong about that.

If you put a little thought into this, common sense would tell anyone with a decent IQ that going undefeated for about 15 years would indicate some level of skill and natural ability. But maybe you just have some rare knowledge of boxing that is unavailable to us mere mortal, long time boxing fans.

Oh yes, how long have you actually followed boxing?

Decagon wrote:

The Great John L wrote:If you put a little thought into this, common sense would tell anyone with a decent IQ that going undefeated for about 15 years would indicate some level of skill and natural ability. But maybe you just have some rare knowledge of boxing that is unavailable to us mere mortal, long time boxing fans.

Oh, I get it now. Let's see... John L. Sullivan's first recorded professional bout was on March 14, 1879 (he had several other fights that year, which weren't recorded), and he lost on September 7, 1892. That's 13 years and almost six months. Nicolaia Valuev made his pro debut on October 15, 1993, and to this date (December 29, 2005), he's still undefeated. That's 12 years and two months. So, I guess that means Nicolai Valuev's skilled, too? Since going undefeated for almost 15 years is your main criterion for having skill...

Oh, wait. John L. Sullivan had a draw on March 10, 1888, so technically he only went around 9 years, winning every fight he was in. That makes Nicolai Valuev more skilled than John L. Sullivan, right?

The Great John L wrote:Oh yes, how long have you actually followed boxing?

It's hard to say which fight really hooked me. I was a Larry Holmes fan, starting with his fights with Cooney and Cobb. I started getting serious about boxing history in 1995, when I moved overseas.

Thanks for another educated post. You sure are a clever guy.

I think this post says enough about your knowledge of boxing and general ability to think and reason, that I don't have to add anything else to this discussion.

Speaking of O'Neil Bell, I just saw a replay of his 11th round KO of Sebastian Rothmann, and, while the KO itself was pretty impressive, the thing that struck me about that fight was ...

Bell was on the verge of winning another gift decision!

Rothmann had pretty well controlled Bell through the first 10 rounds of that fight. Looked like Bell vs. Dale Brown all over again. Bell also had two separate point deductions for low blows. In his defense, I will say some of what were being called low blows seemed rather borderline to me. But my point is, if the judges had been scoring that fight properly (i.e. without hometown bias), Bell should have needed the KO to win.

Yet, going into the 11th round, two judges had it even and one judge had Rothmann by only a slim margin.

I think this post says enough about your knowledge of boxing and general ability to think and reason, that I don't have to add anything else to this discussion.

You cant add anything because Decagon was absolutely right. You're point made absolutely no sense.