BoxRec

First,this is just my opinion.I've seen similar posts,but I wanted to do this again anyway.As Cassius Clay,he WAS one of the most skilled heavys of all time.His speed,agility,and boxing skills set him apart from all the rest.There may have been harder punchers before him,but nobody could move like him,it was during this era,that he was the greatest.He also had an iron chin.He won his fights because he was the more highly skilled combatant.As Ali,most of those skills were gone,he just didn't have it.What he did have was old fashioned toughness,rawhide tough.He couldn't move like Clay could,so he outgutted his foes.Gone were the lightning combos,Fred Astaire footwork,replaced by an iron chin,and an iron will.That's why so much controversy surrounded a lot of his fights as Ali,some he didn't deserve the win,but got it,due to the great fighter he once was.And the loss to SPinks was on purpose.Even though his skills were badly eroded by then,he still could have handled Spinks,but let him win,so that he could be the first man to be Champion(Heavyweight)3 x's.Nobody had done that,and a loss on his record to the mediocre Spinks,was well worth his place place in history as the first(and maybe in his mind)last 3x Heavyweight Champion of the world.Ali was good,but Clay was great.

That ain't necessarily so.

BoxBuzz wrote:That ain't necessarily so.

Boxbuzz my friend it is so,at least like I said, "to me",
zuru

zuru wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:That ain't necessarily so.

Boxbuzz my friend it is so,at least like I said, "to me",
zuru

aha! well in that case.....never mind.

Ali didn't lose the first Spinks fight on purpose. He didn't take Spinks seriously enough and Spinks fought a decent fight. He took Spinks seriously enough the 2nd time, and although he was far past his prime, had enough to beat the inexperienced Spinks.
This really isn't that complicated.

zuru wrote:First,this is just my opinion.I've seen similar posts,but I wanted to do this again anyway.As Cassius Clay,he WAS one of the most skilled heavys of all time.His speed,agility,and boxing skills set him apart from all the rest.There may have been harder punchers before him,but nobody could move like him,it was during this era,that he was the greatest.He also had an iron chin.He won his fights because he was the more highly skilled combatant.As Ali,most of those skills were gone,he just didn't have it.What he did have was old fashioned toughness,rawhide tough.He couldn't move like Clay could,so he outgutted his foes.Gone were the lightning combos,Fred Astaire footwork,replaced by an iron chin,and an iron will.That's why so much controversy surrounded a lot of his fights as Ali,some he didn't deserve the win,but got it,due to the great fighter he once was.And the loss to SPinks was on purpose.Even though his skills were badly eroded by then,he still could have handled Spinks,but let him win,so that he could be the first man to be Champion(Heavyweight)3 x's.Nobody had done that,and a loss on his record to the mediocre Spinks,was well worth his place place in history as the first(and maybe in his mind)last 3x Heavyweight Champion of the world.Ali was good,but Clay was great.

Ali didn't loose to Spinks on purpose. He seriously underestimated Spinks and Angelo Dundee even concedes that Ali didn't train properly for the fight because he was so over-confident and didn't think Spinks stood a chance. Spinks trained hard and fought a good fight and beat the aged Ali on a split decision.

zuru wrote:First,this is just my opinion.I've seen similar posts,but I wanted to do this again anyway.As Cassius Clay,he WAS one of the most skilled heavys of all time.His speed,agility,and boxing skills set him apart from all the rest.There may have been harder punchers before him,but nobody could move like him,it was during this era,that he was the greatest.He also had an iron chin.He won his fights because he was the more highly skilled combatant.As Ali,most of those skills were gone,he just didn't have it.What he did have was old fashioned toughness,rawhide tough.He couldn't move like Clay could,so he outgutted his foes.Gone were the lightning combos,Fred Astaire footwork,replaced by an iron chin,and an iron will.That's why so much controversy surrounded a lot of his fights as Ali,some he didn't deserve the win,but got it,due to the great fighter he once was.And the loss to SPinks was on purpose.Even though his skills were badly eroded by then,he still could have handled Spinks,but let him win,so that he could be the first man to be Champion(Heavyweight)3 x's.Nobody had done that,and a loss on his record to the mediocre Spinks,was well worth his place place in history as the first(and maybe in his mind)last 3x Heavyweight Champion of the world.Ali was good,but Clay was great.

I guess you mean the 60s Ali vs. the 70s Ali -- Clay turned to Ali between the two Liston fights. Ali's/Clay's prime was 1965-67, at this time he fought as: Muhammad Ali.

I agree that I rate the 60s Ali slightly higher than the 70s Ali on skills and speed, but it's the 70s Ali who had the legendary battles with Frazier, Foreman, Norton, hence I'd rate him higher on achievements. Tough choice.

pundit wrote:

zuru wrote:First,this is just my opinion.I've seen similar posts,but I wanted to do this again anyway.As Cassius Clay,he WAS one of the most skilled heavys of all time.His speed,agility,and boxing skills set him apart from all the rest.There may have been harder punchers before him,but nobody could move like him,it was during this era,that he was the greatest.He also had an iron chin.He won his fights because he was the more highly skilled combatant.As Ali,most of those skills were gone,he just didn't have it.What he did have was old fashioned toughness,rawhide tough.He couldn't move like Clay could,so he outgutted his foes.Gone were the lightning combos,Fred Astaire footwork,replaced by an iron chin,and an iron will.That's why so much controversy surrounded a lot of his fights as Ali,some he didn't deserve the win,but got it,due to the great fighter he once was.And the loss to SPinks was on purpose.Even though his skills were badly eroded by then,he still could have handled Spinks,but let him win,so that he could be the first man to be Champion(Heavyweight)3 x's.Nobody had done that,and a loss on his record to the mediocre Spinks,was well worth his place place in history as the first(and maybe in his mind)last 3x Heavyweight Champion of the world.Ali was good,but Clay was great.

I guess you mean the 60s Ali vs. the 70s Ali -- Clay turned to Ali between the two Liston fights. Ali's/Clay's prime was 1965-67, at this time he fought as: Muhammad Ali.

I agree that I rate the 60s Ali slightly higher than the 70s Ali on skills and speed, but it's the 70s Ali who had the legendary battles with Frazier, Foreman, Norton, hence I'd rate him higher on achievements. Tough choice.

Well said...

Controversial wrote:Ali didn't loose to Spinks on purpose. He seriously underestimated Spinks and Angelo Dundee even concedes that Ali didn't train properly for the fight because he was so over-confident and didn't think Spinks stood a chance. Spinks trained hard and fought a good fight and beat the aged Ali on a split decision.

It was a split decision, but Spinks really beat the piss out of Ali, with a constant pressure fight. While the fight was competitive, I think Spinks won concincingly.

And if Ali "threw" this fight, he sure did let himself take one hellacious beating in the process. Anyone who thinks Ali lost this fight on purpose should watch the fight again.