http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281315&page=5

The funniest thing I've read in a while here:

* Ali's biggest wins (200+ lbs opponents): a 45year-old welterweight(Archie Moore), a half-blind(Frazier), a probably drugged(Foreman), a 10-year-older bumbeater(Liston), some sub-cruisers(Patterson, Foster, Mildenberger), some 6'0'' or smaller guys(Shavers UD15, Chuvalo UD15), a gun-shot(Cleveland Williams, lost 10feet of intestines before bout)
* Median KO win:198lb. Tallest notable KO:6'3.5''(drugged Foreman)
* His last 15 wins have a median record of 36-12
* THAT was the GOLDEN age of heavyweight


TheGreatA, first of all, thank you for staying calm.


It's not ridiculous. It's FACTUAL. If you find a WRONG statement in my sig then I will correct it immediately.


No, it's not true. Lennox' record is solid. Tyson's also. Joe Louis is good, too. Roy Jones', too. Larry Holmes, too. Marciano's is far worse than Ali's.


Even the most objective fans don't do a record analysis. Instead they concentrate on some "trademark fights" or some "peak performances". Moreover, how objective can a fan be if he is constantly indoctrinated by "experts" that Ali was "The Greatest" and the current division is crap.

Instead I claim here what I have been claiming in different posts: If you want to bore yourself to death by dirtiest clinchfests, powder punches and crappy defense... then watch an Ali fight. Such a dirty clinching, powder punching and crappy defense is unheard of in the current HW division. Nobody fights so dirty, so featherfisty and so defenseless like Ali did. All you have to do is to ACTUALLY WATCH a few Ali fights (e.g. Ali vs Norton or Ali vs Frazier).

The 70ies (and partly the 80ies) were a fantasy hype machine.

I am willing to argue about Ali on FACT-based grounds. All you have to do is to find some posts of mine, where I already featured stats and comparisons.

Please also note that my previous sig was:


Take Chris Byrd... make him smaller, shorten his arms, make him featherfisitier, make him blind on 1 eye...
Put him together in a ring with another featherfist (30%+ KOratio against better natural heavies)...
And what do you get? Thrilla in Manilla (Frazier vs Ali). THAT was the golden age of heavyweight!

I changed it to feature more info about Ali, instead of concentrating on merely 1 fight.

OF COURSE it wasn't one of his biggest wins. Because Archie Moore was a 45 year old welterweight. Actually Archie Moore was older, since he probably lied about his age by making himself 2 or 3 years younger.

You are right, that the correct term shouldn't be "biggest" but something like "mentionworthy". But I have only 500 characters for the sig and I used up all of them.


Sorry, but "Archie Moore" _WILL_ probably be mentioned.


He boxed at 145 and 147. That's welterweight'ish enough. But not only that: Archie Moore's record consists of beating guys who boxed as low as 112lbs! (Alabama Kid). Archie Moore's median opponent was 172lbs.

Can you just IMAGINE the outcry of US fans if Wlad Klitschko would box a near 50-year-old guy who has wins over guys as low as 139lbs (Chuck Vickers), or over guys who boxed as low as 112lbs?


In the 50ies Archie Moore's median fight weight was 180lbs. He would box as a sub-cruiser nowadays. Just tells you how crappy the heavyweight division was.


Willie Pastrano boxed as low as 122 lbs. I see absolutely NO RELEVANCE to anything. The win over Alejandro Lavorante (19-5) is Moore's biggest win in the 1960ies. So what?


First of all, Evan Fields was 37 year old when he lost against Lennox. But more importantly: Lennox was merely 2+ years younger. You try to put an argument against Lewis where there is none.


Again the same story: But this time Lewis WAS EVEN OLDER than Mike Tyson. That Mike Tyson lost against Williams and McBride is based on the fact that both were Tyson's TWO HEAVIEST opponents (Williams: 265, McBride: 271). Tiny Mike couldn't compete with that. I don't buy this "Mike was shot" theory, because it's mainly used when Mike loses or when someone wants to reduce Lennox' achievements. You should rather accept the following statement: Mike is an ATG, but Lennox won because Lennox is a greater ATG.


I don't see how the "beauty of mind" should have anything to do with a career's record. Moreover the win over Golota is not worth much indeed, not because of Golota's mind, but because Golota's level record.


Unsatisfying yes, but gift? The 5 cuts on Vitali's left face were caused by Lennox' punches and because of Vitali's terribly low left hand.


I won't go there, because you try now to downgrade the opponent's opponents. I didn't do that with Ali's opponents' opponents. If I would do it, then Ali would look even worse.


Since when is boxing a "knockdown contest"? Joe Louis won against Baer and Galento. This "knockdown business" is as useless as the "unavenged losses business".

The "90% bums" figure is wrong. Only approx. 7 of 27 title fights were against bummy opponents. The rest were against a median opponent of 52-8 (at bout) & 69-12 (career) which is EXTREMELY good. Joe Louis is an ATG. Not a single chance against modern heavies, but nevertheless an ATG.


So far I didn't see anything convincing. HOWEVER, let me restate, that I am very happy that you try to solve issues by fact exchanges!


The clinching, head-downpushing, insulting _IS_ dirty. Ali has no manners until now. He insults interviewers and obviously finds it funny to smirk like a child.


I urge everyone to watch Ali vs Earnie Terrell (WBA world heavyweight title 1967, Terell at that time 38-4). Ali runs away the whole fight, Terell has no clue what to do: As soon as he comes closer to Ali, Ali clinches, grabs his neck and insults him. Ali lands some weak shots (how could they be strong when he is punching while running backwards?). ANY modern heavy would walk THROUGH Terell. Ali went 15 rounds with him.


Sorry, I don't think that anyone here will ack that Ali had a decent punch.

In his whole career Ali had 15 KOs within 12 rounds against 200+ opponents. That's 48% (15 of 37). That's like Chris Byrd. And that's already including drugged Foreman.


Chris Byrd had 19 KOs against 200+ opponents. Frazier only 10. KOratio of Byrd and Frazier are approx the same (50%). Byrd won 5 world title fights (median opponent at bout 36-5), Frazier 6 (median 39-11).

Byrd's average weight was 213 lbs (median self) vs 225 lbs (median opponents), while Frazier was basically a cruiser beating cruisers: 205 lbs (self) vs 201 (opponents). They are VERY comparable, with Byrd having the better record. Beating Byrd means more than beating Frazier.


Please no examples from Amateur bouts or Olympics.


Who cares that he KOed Chuck Leslie (177 lbs) or Doug Jones (188). I also don't care that Evander Holyfield KOed Rivera (169, 13-3) or Fred Brown (169lbs, 19-37). Meaningless wins for a valid heavyweight comparison.

Frazier's 73% KOrate melts when you delete all the bums and sub-200ers. He had 10 KOs in his whole career (200+ opponents). If you delete bums like Turnbow (8-13) then what stays? In his whole career Frazier had only 4 KOs against better 200+ opponents (better = those who win 75% or more): 2x against Jimmy Ellis who boxed as low as 155, 1x against fatty Buster Mathis and 1x against Chuvalo (Fraziers best KO). Frazier is as overhyped as others in the 70ies.

That Ali had so much problems with Frazier tells more about how limited Ali was, not how good Frazier was. Frazier belongs there where Foreman put him. Having said that: Frazier is more exciting to watch that Ali. I really like Frazier.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281315&page=5

The funniest thing I've read in a while here:

I've mixed it up with this guy before: He's a complete and utter moron. Not to mention a size whore. He thinks any fighter who weighs less than 245 is a bum and the 1950s were horrible because all the Heavyweights (which he refers to as sub-Cruisers) only weighed 190-200 pounds.....so it MUST have sucked.

Poet

I've mixed it up with this guy before: He's a complete and utter moron. Not to mention a size whore. He thinks any fighter who weighs less than 245 is a bum and the 1950s were horrible because all the Heavyweights (which he refers to as sub-Cruisers) only weighed 190-200 pounds.....so it MUST have sucked.

Poet
I gave up on him and I have faaaar more patience than you lol

I gave up on him and I have faaaar more patience than you lol

I made note of your patience being exhausted: I feared I was corrupting you :rofl:

Poet

I made note of your patience being exhausted: I feared I was corrupting you :rofl:

Poet
I'm not sure whether it was that Frazier was featherfisted, Ali was a coward or that the Thrilla in Manilla was a bore that made me crack. Possibly a mixture of the 3 with some other gems.

I'm not sure whether it was that Frazier was featherfisted, Ali was a coward or that the Thrilla in Manilla was a bore that made me crack. Possibly a mixture of the 3 with some other gems.

Well, didn't you know EVERYONE weighing less than 220 is featherfisted? :rofl:

Poet

I've mixed it up with this guy before: He's a complete and utter moron. Not to mention a size whore. He thinks any fighter who weighs less than 245 is a bum and the 1950s were horrible because all the Heavyweights (which he refers to as sub-Cruisers) only weighed 190-200 pounds.....so it MUST have sucked.

Poet
Does he watch fights or just the weigh ins? I've never heard of someone so obsessed with weight. Well Lewis was at his heavyest when he faught Vitali and looked dreadful, still won though.

Does he watch fights or just the weigh ins? I've never heard of someone so obsessed with weight. Well Lewis was at his heavyest when he faught Vitali and looked dreadful, still won though.

I've run into more than a few posters that I would refer to as "size whores". Most of the time it goes hand in hand with "this generation of fighters is better than all the previous". I think is probably has something to do with them nuthugging someone currently fighting ie. there favorite is from this generation so ipso facto this generation must be the best ever.

Poet

At least the guy doesn't suck Ali's dick. Those posters are far worse. You know, commoners. Uniqueness is a quality.

I've run into more than a few posters that I would refer to as "size whores". Most of the time it goes hand in hand with "this generation of fighters is better than all the previous". I think is probably has something to do with them nuthugging someone currently fighting ie. there favorite is from this generation so ipso facto this generation must be the best ever.

Poet
Got to say whilst on paper it doesn't appear the best style match up for Frazier I would fancy him over Wlad for sure.

At least the guy doesn't suck Ali's dick. Those posters are far worse. You know, commoners. Uniqueness is a quality.

It's rare that I see overt Ali nuthugging around here: It's currently out of fashion I suppose. I've seen PLENTY of idiots trying to rip him down, usually to make their own favorite look better.

Poet

At least the guy doesn't suck Ali's dick. Those posters are far worse. You know, commoners. Uniqueness is a quality.
Well to a point, lot of unique people in asylums. Lot of people don't like Ali which is fair enough but to call him a coward is not on.

At least the guy doesn't suck Ali's dick. Those posters are far worse. You know, commoners. Uniqueness is a quality.

Blatant bias, discrediting and stating myths and inaccuracies is not a quality I'd like to have.

Being a commoner (as you put it) is getting pretty unique these days. It's all about having outrageous opinions with nothing to back them up.

Now to be fair to knn, he does try to back his opinions up but his logic is rather flawed if you ask me. I've argued for and against Ali and have been called both a "hater" and a "nuthugger" but I try my best to remain objective, which is far more difficult than being biased for one and against another as knn so very obviously is.

I wouldn't call the man a coward. A fraud, maybe. A cheat, maybe. A racial divider, definitely. An assclown, most definitely.

I wouldn't call the man a coward. A fraud, maybe. A cheat, maybe. A racial divider, definitely. An assclown, most definitely.
Not sure how you mean fraud? Cheat well he cheated on his wife, in the ring he bent the rules as most fighters from Dempsey, Marciano, Holyfield etc do. Race divider? That Nation of Islam stuff never sat easy with me, he did seem to mellow down the years. I give him the benefit of the doubt and put it down to a young man being unduly influenced. Assclown? Probably but he did bring a smile to my face a few times.
I don't have him down as a world statesman etc etc I just think he was probably the best HW I have seen and was an entertainer in and out of the ring.

I wouldn't call the man a coward. A fraud, maybe. A cheat, maybe. A racial divider, definitely. An assclown, most definitely.

There are those who can see him as a human being, a flawed character but not without positives which in my humble opinion outweigh the bad, although not so that all the bad he has done should be forgiven and forgotten.

The man was no saint, for sure. Still, I wouldn't say such harsh words about a man I've never met and talked to.

As GJC said, it shouldn't affect the way you view him as a fighter. There were many great boxers who did terrible things, far worse than what Ali has done.

I've met and talked to Joe Frazier. I'll forgive Ali when he does.

I've met and talked to Joe Frazier. I'll forgive Ali when he does.

And THAT is the primary reason why I'm not very fond of Ali as a person: I feel what he did to Frazier was rediculously wrong. Now that doesn't color my perceptions of him as a fighter: Easily the best Heavyweight I've ever seen, but it doesn't make him one of my favorites. Point of fact my favorite fighter is Joe Louis.

Poet

I've met and talked to Joe Frazier. I'll forgive Ali when he does.
I'm a huge Frazier fan far more than Ali in fact, but it has been 30 years.
To carry that much bitterness around does Joe no good, he should let it go IMO

I rate Louis over Ali. He didn't just beat people, he destroyed them. The execution was nearly flawless. Little wasted motion, never looked like he was particularly trying hard. Poetry in motion.

Ali on the other hand...he relied too often on tiring the other guy out to win fights to me. So when he'd get in there with a guy who could go 15 hard rounds who had a half decent chin, he'd struggle. It never failed. He also never proved himself against a top shelf technical boxer. He made a career and legacy out of beating big punchers. Two best technical boxers he ever fought were Jimmy Young and Larry Holmes. He was over the hill for Young, and shot for Holmes, but hey, I've seen nothing to indicate he'd of beat Young or Holmes in his prime. Granted, I'm aware he officially beat Young. But my scorecard however only had Ali winning 2 rounds, with 1 round even.

lol, i read that whole threwad and quite frankly i think my brain has exploded, the level of idiocy on tunney and knn's behalf, my god

Wow... What a detailed assassination..
I'm with Obama on this one... Joe Louis was the best, but to rape the record of Ali is pretty futile when you consider his immense contribution to the sport..
Ali travelled the world while giving out title opportunities to all comers, bums & greats alike.. He certainly wasn't scared of anyone, but I will always believe he/his corner cheated in the first Cooper fight...
For the record.. I rate Ali at no2...

It's rare that I see overt Ali nuthugging around here: It's currently out of fashion I suppose. I've seen PLENTY of idiots trying to rip him down, usually to make their own favorite look better.

Poet
I would nuthug Ali. In my book he's a hero. One of the few a man sees in a lifetime. Of course he did wrong with the Frazier-bashing. He took his gig too far there.

As for the thread GreatA posted well it's just solid NSB gold (or junk). There have been several incredibly retarded posts as of late. Some real classic quotes could be made.