View Full Version : Who Thinks Butterfly Overrates every single oppnent Ali Has Fought.


Baddest man on da planet
01-12-2006, 06:49 PM
i think he does

!! AI-Holmes!!
01-12-2006, 06:55 PM
Infatuation maybe..... :luvbed:

Southpaw Stinger
01-12-2006, 07:01 PM
Not really. He overates people he hasn't fought. - Bruce Lee!?!

Skydog
01-12-2006, 07:15 PM
I completely agree with this thread. At least he stops the overrating of Tyson, that's one thing I give him props for (cough cough, starter of this thread).

LondonRingRules
01-12-2006, 08:12 PM
Because he's a kid and Ali is a big hero. He's coming around, but being is kid is rough when you got people rubbing your nose in it.

hellfire508
01-12-2006, 08:23 PM
He overrates Ali - who he thinks is invincible. I think Ali beats every heavy in history on his best night, but he was beatable.

Ali's opponents - maybe, I dont know.

Dempsey 1919
01-12-2006, 11:56 PM
lol, i overrate every ali opponent? and i guess you mean i rate them high. i could have sworn that i just rate liston, holmes, foreman, and frazier high, unless those four are the only boxers ali ever fought :rolleyes: .

everyone with a brain knows joe frazier is a top ten hw. the only people who disagrees either don't know boxing history or just plain rascist. during the period of ali's layoff in 1967-70, frazier was one of the most dominant boxers i've ever seen, he destroyed EVERYBODY at that time, most of his opponents were bigger and taller than him. he has the hardest left hook in history period. he definetely deserves the credit i give him.

george foreman destroyed frazier twice, so common sense would tell you that he ranks higher than frazier, making him a top ten hw as well. he is the hardest hitter period. he also won the title at 45, something no other hw could do at that age.

larry holmes fought ali once, and annihilated him; but ali was 38 and was shot, so that really doesn't count. holmes dominated the late '70s and early '80s. his style would enable him to defeat many all-time great hws.

and liston is one of the most underrated boxers in history period if not the most underrated. the only reason he turned out the way he was in the end were because of ali. he lost to ali twice, which there is no shame in, he lost one fight to marty marshall when he was 22; he was young and inexperienced. however, 2 years later he rematched marshall and crushed him. he lost to leotis martin in 1969 when he was 37 years old. martin was a top contender, and it was not the same liston of old. the combination of liston's strength, speed, punching power, and boxing skills made him and un-stoppable force, and he would dominate even the 70s, if he boxed at that time. no question in my mind that liston had everything you would want to become a great fighter, and he was a great fighter.

baddest man on the planet, you should be the last person to talk about other people kissing up to fighters. to you tyson is god. to you tyson could beat ali, foreman, liston, frazier, and holmes combined. douglass knocked out tyson. can you imagine douglass knocking out ali, liston, holmes, foreman or frazier? i don't think so. so before you jump on me, look at yourself first, cause i have a good reason for thinking ali is the best. most people on the face of the planet think ali is the best as well, so it's not like i'm the only one. :cool:

PEACE! :boxing:

Brassangel
01-13-2006, 12:24 AM
I believe that Ali could defeat any fighter in heavyweight history twice if you gave him three shots. Does butterfly overrate him? Maybe. But how can you really overrate someone who's arguably #1? He was beatable, however, even in 1967. It's a boxing ring; any young, primed, top ten fighter would have a shot with great physical and mental conditioning. Even so, Ali, in his prime, would likely beat them 2/3 times.

Tyson is a fighter...no, a subject, that everyone should be careful with. He got beat by Douglas, and Douglas couldn't beat so and so, who lost to so and so, who lost to Ali....blah blah blah. Well, anybody could have beaten Tyson that night, period. And I would take Douglas against almost anybody that same night, period. They were two emotional fighters riding on the polar opposites of their careers and conditioning by that point. Unfortunately for both, niether showed up after that night.

Everybody would agree that stating, "Fighter A couldn't beat Fighters B or C, but Fighter A beat Tyson, so Tyson would lose to Fighters B and C," doesn't work in this sport. It's relative to the crossroads of their respective careers and the styles of the fights. When Ali lost to Leon Spinks, he was the odds-all favorite to win. Was Ali past his prime? Yes. Was he conditioned well? No. Was Leon capable of beating Foreman? Liston? Frazier? Oh my goodness, NO! But the stats will still put an "L" on Ali's record, regardless of the fact that Ali beat guys who could beat Spinks; or the fact that Ali was beyond his years. Same thing goes for Tyson. Was joining King's camp the biggest mistake of his career? Yes. Did he overlook Douglas? Yes. Did he fail to condition properly for almost every fight thereafter? Yes. Doesn't matter though, because everyone will just remember Tyson losing to the largest underdog in heavyweight championship history; regardless of the factors listed above. Your argument is severely flawed here, butterfly.

Nonetheless, I still say Ali is #1. He wasn't perfect, he could be hit, he could be beaten, and he was just a man. But he was the best and would win 2/3 against any heavyweight in history.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 12:31 AM
I believe that Ali could defeat any fighter in heavyweight history twice if you gave him three shots. Does butterfly overrate him? Maybe. But how can you really overrate someone who's arguably #1? He was beatable, however, even in 1967. It's a boxing ring; any young, primed, top ten fighter would have a shot with great physical and mental conditioning. Even so, Ali, in his prime, would likely beat them 2/3 times.

Tyson is a fighter...no, a subject, that everyone should be careful with. He got beat by Douglas, and Douglas couldn't beat so and so, who lost to so and so, who lost to Ali....blah blah blah. Well, anybody could have beaten Tyson that night, period. And I would take Douglas against almost anybody that same night, period. They were two emotional fighters riding on the polar opposites of their careers and conditioning by that point. Unfortunately for both, niether showed up after that night.

Everybody would agree that stating, "Fighter A couldn't beat Fighters B or C, but Fighter A beat Tyson, so Tyson would lose to Fighters B and C," doesn't work in this sport. It's relative to the crossroads of their respective careers and the styles of the fights. When Ali lost to Leon Spinks, he was the odds-all favorite to win. Was Ali past his prime? Yes. Was he conditioned well? No. Was Leon capable of beating Foreman? Liston? Frazier? Oh my goodness, NO! But the stats will still put an "L" on Ali's record, regardless of the fact that Ali beat guys who could beat Spinks; or the fact that Ali was beyond his years. Same thing goes for Tyson. Was joining King's camp the biggest mistake of his career? Yes. Did he overlook Douglas? Yes. Did he fail to condition properly for almost every fight thereafter? Yes. Doesn't matter though, because everyone will just remember Tyson losing to the largest underdog in heavyweight championship history; regardless of the factors listed above. Your argument is severely flawed here, butterfly.

Nonetheless, I still say Ali is #1. He wasn't perfect, he could be hit, he could be beaten, and he was just a man. But he was the best and would win 2/3 against any heavyweight in history.

name one post where i said ali couldn't be beat. name one. i've never said that. obviosly ali lost fights so he can be beat, nobody can deny that.

and like i said, no way ali, liston, frazier, foreman, or holmes would lost to douglass in their primes, no way. tyson lost to douglass in his prime. he was only 23.

Brassangel
01-13-2006, 12:41 AM
You have repeatedly stated that Ali couldn't be hit in 1967. That would imply that he couldn't be beaten. In fact, you said it in the Ali vs. Louis thread. While that's not a career spanning comment, it still states exactly what you are denying.

Secondly, you have also stated repeatedly that fighters who are 22 or 23 years old are still green and not fully developed. Apparently this only applies to fighters who better cement your arguments. Furthermore, everybody and their sister knows that Tyson was not in his prime anymore as soon as he went into King's camp. Prime age? Perhaps. Prime mental and physical conditioning? Definitely not. 5 pounds heavier than normal, standing flat-footed, throwing an average of 16 punches around without working behind the jab, etc. He was as out of sync for this fight as Ali was against Holmes.

Finally, you could notice/comment on the positive statements I throw in your direction from time to time. I have observed that you only point out the few statements that you find negative, and then make quick one liners instead of posting a decent debate. Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I nuts? Even if I'm nuts, I still think that Ali was the best ever.

On a side note: Ali's cornermen said that they never saw Ali fight as prepared, or as serious as he did in 1974 against George Foreman. They said, "I would take that Ali over the one from the 1960's any day. He was a smarter fighter, and he took his opponent seriously. All the speed in the world can't give you what he gave in that fight..." While Muhammad Ali was no longer in his physical prime at that point, it was the defining moment of his greatness.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 01:30 AM
You have repeatedly stated that Ali couldn't be hit in 1967. That would imply that he couldn't be beaten. In fact, you said it in the Ali vs. Louis thread. While that's not a career spanning comment, it still states exactly what you are denying.

Secondly, you have also stated repeatedly that fighters who are 22 or 23 years old are still green and not fully developed. Apparently this only applies to fighters who better cement your arguments. Furthermore, everybody and their sister knows that Tyson was not in his prime anymore as soon as he went into King's camp. Prime age? Perhaps. Prime mental and physical conditioning? Definitely not. 5 pounds heavier than normal, standing flat-footed, throwing an average of 16 punches around without working behind the jab, etc. He was as out of sync for this fight as Ali was against Holmes.

Finally, you could notice/comment on the positive statements I throw in your direction from time to time. I have observed that you only point out the few statements that you find negative, and then make quick one liners instead of posting a decent debate. Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I nuts? Even if I'm nuts, I still think that Ali was the best ever.

On a side note: Ali's cornermen said that they never saw Ali fight as prepared, or as serious as he did in 1974 against George Foreman. They said, "I would take that Ali over the one from the 1960's any day. He was a smarter fighter, and he took his opponent seriously. All the speed in the world can't give you what he gave in that fight..." While Muhammad Ali was no longer in his physical prime at that point, it was the defining moment of his greatness.

just because he didn't show smarts in the 60s doesn't mean he wasn't smart. he was smart all along and if he needed to use it when he was young, then he would have used it. but there was no need to, so he didn't.

and all tyson had to do was train for the douglass fight and he would have won. he still had the physical ability to be the tyson of old, so he was in his prime. just because you are out of shape, doesn't mean he wasn't in his prime. frazier didn't prepare alot for the foreman fight but he was 29 and could have been in better condition and he still was in his physical prime. ali weighed 214 1/2 against chuvalo in 1966 the first time and 217 1/2 against brian london in 1966, when his weight was 210-212, but does that mean he wasn't in his prime? no, so what makes it any different for tyson. ali in '66 was 24 and frazier in '73 was 29 but tyson was only 23 and he was past his prime? get the heck out of here!

Yogi
01-13-2006, 02:20 AM
during the period of ali's layoff in 1967-70, frazier was one of the most dominant boxers i've ever seen

Butterfly, do you mind if I steal your line of reasoning in regards to mythical matchups?

I hope not, cause I'm going to do so anyways...

If the less than mediocre Manuel Ramos could buckle Frazier's knees with a right uppercut and VERY nearly knock him down in the first round, just imagine what the much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting Primo Carnera would've done to Joe...

Primo Carnera KO-1 Joe Frazier

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 02:28 AM
Butterfly, do you mind if I steal your line of reasoning in regards to mythical matchups?

I hope not, cause I'm going to do so anyways...

If the less than mediocre Manuel Ramos could buckle Frazier's knees with a right uppercut and VERY nearly knock him down in the first round, just imagine what the much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting Primo Carnera would've done to Joe...

Primo Carnera KO-1 Joe Frazier

frazier was ten times as fast as carnera. carnera is the worst hw champion in history by far, (or at least one of the worst) and would not bother frazier, period. did you see how max baer manhandled carnera? is baer better than frazier? heck no! so frazier would have literally killed carnera!

Yogi
01-13-2006, 02:34 AM
so frazier would have literally killed carnera!

To steal some more of your logic...

How would Frazier go about doing that when Carnera is 6'5" and 260 lbs, whereas Frazier's only a mere 5'11" and 205 lbs?

LondonRingRules
01-13-2006, 05:31 AM
========name one post where i said ali couldn't be beat. name one.========

** It's easier to name the posts where you said Ali could be beat.

Zip.......Zero.........0.........Nada!

MaximRecoil
01-13-2006, 07:19 AM
To steal some more of your logic...

How would Frazier go about doing that when Carnera is 6'5" and 260 lbs, whereas Frazier's only a mere 5'11" and 205 lbs?

LOL. Sounds like Carnera was "unbeatable", well, only beatable by someone weighing more than 260 pounds and being taller than 6'5" of course. If I had a nickel for everytime someone has used height and weight as a determining factor in "fantasy fights"...

For example:
ha! that is the biggest piece of crap anybody can think about. marciano is five-ten and 185. ali is six-three and 210 in his prime! rocky has a 67" reach and ali has an 84" reach lol! marciano is a glass chin cruiserweight. ali is a full-fledged heavyweight with arguably the best chin in boxing history! the only chance the brockton blockbuster has is if he fought a 1960 ali, who was six-two 183, and about a 79" reach, still lol!

Yaman
01-13-2006, 10:10 AM
Butterfly you don't know **** about Tyson.
Tyson could be prime untill he was 37. Its the TRAINING that makes you great. He didn't train for the fight against Douglas. But he did party all night in Tokio with Don King. Did you ever see the fight? No i guess. I watched the whole fight a lot of times, and he was not even half of the Tyson he was a few years back.

And your comment on the age and prime thing...not being in shape. Ali was not in shape against Frazier1 and he lost. Does that mean he wasn't in his prime???? hah

sweeetscience
01-13-2006, 10:22 AM
You have repeatedly stated that Ali couldn't be hit in 1967. That would imply that he couldn't be beaten. In fact, you said it in the Ali vs. Louis thread. While that's not a career spanning comment, it still states exactly what you are denying.

Secondly, you have also stated repeatedly that fighters who are 22 or 23 years old are still green and not fully developed. Apparently this only applies to fighters who better cement your arguments. Furthermore, everybody and their sister knows that Tyson was not in his prime anymore as soon as he went into King's camp. Prime age? Perhaps. Prime mental and physical conditioning? Definitely not. 5 pounds heavier than normal, standing flat-footed, throwing an average of 16 punches around without working behind the jab, etc. He was as out of sync for this fight as Ali was against Holmes.

Finally, you could notice/comment on the positive statements I throw in your direction from time to time. I have observed that you only point out the few statements that you find negative, and then make quick one liners instead of posting a decent debate. Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I nuts? Even if I'm nuts, I still think that Ali was the best ever.

On a side note: Ali's cornermen said that they never saw Ali fight as prepared, or as serious as he did in 1974 against George Foreman. They said, "I would take that Ali over the one from the 1960's any day. He was a smarter fighter, and he took his opponent seriously. All the speed in the world can't give you what he gave in that fight..." While Muhammad Ali was no longer in his physical prime at that point, it was the defining moment of his greatness.you're not nuts ...Ali In HIS PRIME would have cleaned up the division. As to Ali's fighters being overrated...nonsense.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 10:57 AM
To steal some more of your logic...

How would Frazier go about doing that when Carnera is 6'5" and 260 lbs, whereas Frazier's only a mere 5'11" and 205 lbs?

don't make me laugh. i never use size as the only factor. if i did then why do i have ali beating everyone then? there are lots of guys that were bigger than ali so why don't i rank them higher? frazier is fast, has boxing skills and a piledriver left hook. carnera has a glass chin, ****ty footwork, no handspeed and his power p4p is not even that good. i use skills and size.

i use these as a criteria for matchups in that order.

1. boxing skills

2. size

3. stamina

4. heart

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 10:59 AM
========name one post where i said ali couldn't be beat. name one.========

** It's easier to name the posts where you said Ali could be beat.

Zip.......Zero.........0.........Nada!

like i said name one i didn't ask you to name all, so how is it easier to name one where ali could be beat when i only asked for one. it proves that you can't name one and i am correct. :cool:

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:04 AM
LOL. Sounds like Carnera was "unbeatable", well, only beatable by someone weighing more than 260 pounds and being taller than 6'5" of course. If I had a nickel for everytime someone has used height and weight as a determining factor in "fantasy fights"...

For example:

no retard, that quote doesn't mean anything. ali has boxing skills, marciano has none. so that plus ali's size advantage would have marciano stopped by the 10th. if it were the other way around, if marciano had boxing skills and ali had none, then despite the size advantage ali had marciano would win. i had never said, nor will i ever said that size is the only determining factor in a matchup. so everyone jumping on me on this thread, including this ****** who started this thread about me, won't do you any good 'caus ya'll are dead wrong!

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:08 AM
Butterfly you don't know **** about Tyson.
Tyson could be prime untill he was 37. Its the TRAINING that makes you great. He didn't train for the fight against Douglas. But he did party all night in Tokio with Don King. Did you ever see the fight? No i guess. I watched the whole fight a lot of times, and he was not even half of the Tyson he was a few years back.

And your comment on the age and prime thing...not being in shape. Ali was not in shape against Frazier1 and he lost. Does that mean he wasn't in his prime???? hah

read this.

and all tyson had to do was train for the douglass fight and he would have won. he still had the physical ability to be the tyson of old, so he was in his prime. just because you are out of shape, doesn't mean he wasn't in his prime. frazier didn't prepare alot for the foreman fight but he was 29 and could have been in better condition and he still was in his physical prime. ali weighed 214 1/2 against chuvalo in 1966 the first time and 217 1/2 against brian london in 1966, when his weight was 210-212, but does that mean he wasn't in his prime? no, so what makes it any different for tyson. ali in '66 was 24 and frazier in '73 was 29 but tyson was only 23 and he was past his prime? get the heck out of here!

i don't know why you're jumping on me when i agree with you retard. just shows you like to start ****. :mad:

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:09 AM
you're not nuts ...Ali In HIS PRIME would have cleaned up the division. As to Ali's fighters being overrated...nonsense.

at least one person agrees with me. good karma for you!

moondog0
01-13-2006, 11:48 AM
Ali was a great champion for many years, does Butterfly overrate him? I"m not sure but my opinion is that Foreman was definately one of the greatest fighters of all time, (not the greatest, but one of them). Ali beat Liston who was feared and a dominate puncher, Liston was not a great fighter and would have lost to Marciano, Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, and a host of other great fighters, so how good was Ali? He was very good at the Liston era, the long layoff took a lot of his prime, Frazier beat him, when he came back, Norton beat him in every fight he fought,(although only getting one decision) Ali was so in active in those fights it was riddiculous, Foreman made him great, he outfoxes a heavy puncher and wore him out, when he was exhausted he beat him. Foreman is the whole deal, without that win he had questionable competition....

Brassangel
01-13-2006, 11:50 AM
Actually, he was agreeing with me, but I guess you can have it.

Your logic is still flawed here, butterfly. You frequently say things like, "Fighter A had this quality, while Fighter B didn't. Fighter A would destroy him!" Your statements are often "sweeping" and lack any evidence. Instead, you seem to assume that by stating something matter-of-factly, there's no room to refute. Everything is different once two guys get into the ring. You have to stop taking such a one-sided view, assuming that the fighters of your choice will always be perfectly prepared, and look at both ends of the spectrum.

As for overrating; I don't think butterfly overrates Ali's opponents. The only time I've seen anything like this happen from him is when he touts Sonny Liston as the guy who would have beaten everybody in history except Ali. Thus, making Ali's upset even bigger. Otherwise, he's just a big Ali fan; not an overrater. I will also second the fact that Ali vs. Foreman was the defining moment of his career. See my earlier post.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:53 AM
Ali was a great champion for many years, does Butterfly overrate him? I"m not sure but my opinion is that Foreman was definately one of the greatest fighters of all time, (not the greatest, but one of them). Ali beat Liston who was feared and a dominate puncher, Liston was not a great fighter and would have lost to Marciano, Louis, Johnson, Dempsey, and a host of other great fighters, so how good was Ali? He was very good at the Liston era, the long layoff took a lot of his prime, Frazier beat him, when he came back, Norton beat him in every fight he fought,(although only getting one decision) Ali was so in active in those fights it was riddiculous, Foreman made him great, he outfoxes a heavy puncher and wore him out, when he was exhausted he beat him. Foreman is the whole deal, without that win he had questionable competition....

haha, liston is not a great fighter but foreman is a great fighter? liston is a way better boxer than foreman, has faster hands, better accuracy, and better defense. and marciano, louis, johnson, and dempsey couldn't hold liston's jock strap. do you actually think these guys could beat liston. just beacause ali did doesn't mean they could.

MaximRecoil
01-13-2006, 12:29 PM
no retard
LOL @ "retard"
that quote doesn't mean anything
What did you type it for then?
ali has boxing skills, marciano has none.
LOL @ "none". You and a fool are alike.
so that plus ali's size advantage would have marciano stopped by the 10th.
During the 1969 "computer fight", an overweight/out of shape 46 year old Marciano floored a 27 year old Ali with a body shot and offered to make it a real fight right then and there, because Ali was showing him disrespect. Ali didn't want any part of that and demanded more money due to the beating he was taking. He also stated that Marciano was a lot harder to hit with a jab than he looked (so much for your "none" foolishness, you know, since part of boxing skills = avoiding punches).
i had never said, nor will i ever said that size is the only determining factor in a matchup.
The only "points" you mentioned in the post I quoted were summaries of Marciano and Ali's height, weight and reach. Then to top off your brilliant display, you claimed that Marciano had a glass chin (lol). You then proclaimed:
the only chance the brockton blockbuster has is if he fought a 1960 ali, who was six-two 183, and about a 79" reach, still lol!
I don't see any mention of "boxing skills" there, or anything else other than your amazing ability to determine; when given two numbers; the bigger of the two.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 12:41 PM
LOL @ "retard"

What did you type it for then?

LOL @ "none". You and a fool are alike.

During the 1969 "computer fight", an overweight/out of shape 46 year old Marciano floored a 27 year old Ali with a body shot and offered to make it a real fight right then and there, because Ali was showing him disrespect. Ali didn't want any part of that and demanded more money due to the beating he was taking. He also stated that Marciano was a lot harder to hit with a jab than he looked (so much for your "none" foolishness, you know, since part of boxing skills = avoiding punches).

The only "points" you mentioned in the post I quoted were summaries of Marciano and Ali's height, weight and reach. Then to top off your brilliant display, you claimed that Marciano had a glass chin (lol). You then proclaimed:

I don't see any mention of "boxing skills" there, or anything else other than your amazing ability to determine; when given two numbers; the bigger of the two.

i assumed that any idiot would know that ali had better boxing skills than marciano so i left that out. i thought that was a given.

and have you ever seen a 27yr. old ali. that ***** was fat as hell! watch "the sweet science: my name is muhammad ali" he balooned to about 235-240. he wasn't in shape for that sparring session, and i don't believe that marciano gave him a bad beating either. all of ali's knockdowns he got up in 4 seconds or less, so how could marciano knock him out? i seen that clip of ali trying to get up. worst acting job i've ever seen! can you imagine ali struggling to get up like that? frazier on his best night couldn't ko a slowed down ali, so what makes you think marciano could ko a prime ali?

MaximRecoil
01-13-2006, 01:16 PM
i assumed that any idiot would know that ali had better boxing skills than marciano so i left that out. i thought that was a given.
What does that have to do with anything? I commented on what you typed. I don't care what you think you might have meant to type now that you think about it. Try to pay attention here, alright?
and have you ever seen a 27yr. old ali. that ***** was fat as hell! watch "the sweet science: my name is muhammad ali" he balooned to about 235-240.So? Marciano was 46 years old, hadn't been in the ring for 14 years and was overweight himself.
he wasn't in shape for that sparring session, and i don't believe that marciano gave him a bad beating either.
You don't believe it why? just 'cause? It was Murray Woroner himself that said "Ali took such a battering that he refused to continue until he was guaranteed an additional two thousand dollars." Since Woroner set the whole thing up and was there, and you did not set the whole thing up, and was not there, then he is right and you are wrong, by default.
all of ali's knockdowns he got up in 4 seconds or less, so how could marciano knock him out?By hitting him, apparently.
i seen that clip of ali trying to get up. worst acting job i've ever seen! can you imagine ali struggling to get up like that?Sorry, but you didn't see anything. Like I said, you were not there. Ali getting floored by the body shot was not on the final cut of the movie. The account is from eye witnesses, including the ring doctor, Ferdie Pacheco. The only thing you have seen was the scripted 13th round KO from Marciano's left to the head.
worst acting job i've ever seen! can you imagine ali struggling to get up like that?It wasn't bad acting, but of course, you are not on the right page in the first place.
frazier on his best night couldn't ko a slowed down ali, so what makes you think marciano could ko a prime ali?
What in the blue hell does Frazier have to do with anything? If Frazier KO'd Ali, it would not prove that Marciano could have, so why would Frazier not being able to KO Ali have any bearing on whether or not Marciano could KO Ali?

I don't know who would have won and neither does anyone else, which is why I take exception to your foolishness.

We all have our opinions on the matter, but you seem to think your opinions = facts.

LOL @ that.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 01:23 PM
What does that have to do with anything? I commented on what you typed. I don't care what you think you might have meant to type now that you think about it. Try to pay attention here, alright?
So? Marciano was 46 years old, hadn't been in the ring for 14 years and was overweight himself.

You don't believe it why? just 'cause? It was Murray Woroner himself that said "Ali took such a battering that he refused to continue until he was guaranteed an additional two thousand dollars." Since Woroner set the whole thing up and was there, and you did not set the whole thing up, and was not there, then he is right and you are wrong, by default.
By hitting him, apparently.
Sorry, but you didn't see anything. Like I said, you were not there. Ali getting floored by the body shot was not on the final cut of the movie. The account is from eye witnesses, including the ring doctor, Ferdie Pacheco. The only thing you have seen was the scripted 13th round KO from Marciano's left to the head.
It wasn't bad acting, but of course, you are not on the right page in the first place.

What in the blue hell does Frazier have to do with anything? If Frazier KO'd Ali, it would not prove that Marciano could have, so why would Frazier not being able to KO Ali have any bearing on whether or not Marciano could KO Ali?

I don't know who would have won and neither does anyone else, which is why I take exception to your foolishness.

We all have our opinions on the matter, but you seem to think your opinions = facts.

LOL @ that.

it's a known fact that the first thing a fighter looses is speed and the last thing they lose is punching power. all ali had was speed and all marciano had was punching power, so without speed, ali would be crap in the ring, so marciano beating a slow ali doesn't mean anything.

Southpaw Stinger
01-13-2006, 03:09 PM
it's a known fact that the first thing a fighter looses is speed and the last thing they lose is punching power. all ali had was speed and all marciano had was punching power, so without speed, ali would be crap in the ring, so marciano beating a slow ali doesn't mean anything.


Very true butterfly. Ali's style is hard to maintain with age but Foremans style is simple. This is a reason why Foreman was still able to fight in his 40's, no speed but still his great punching power that formed the basis of his style.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 03:15 PM
i use these as a criteria for matchups in that order.

1. boxing skills

2. size

3. stamina

4. heart

1. Carnera is much better & hits harder than the mediocre Ramos, who finished his career with a sub 500 record.

2. Carnera was about 50 lbs heavier than was Ramos when he fought Frazier.

3 & 4. Carnera has one of the biggest hearts in Heavyweight history and also had excellant stamina for a man of his size.

Without a doubt, Primo Carnera is a much, much better fighter than was Manuel Ramos and if I can go back to stealing your line of thinking again...

If the mediocre Ramos could buckle Frazier's legs with a right uppercut and VERY nearly put him down in the first round, just imagine what the bigger, stronger and harder hitting Primo Carnera would've done to Joe with that right uppercut of his (Carnera's best punch).

Primo Carnera KO-1 Joe Frazier

moondog0
01-13-2006, 03:16 PM
There's an old saying,"the older I get the better I was". that is the case for Butterfly and Ali. I remember when Holmes told Marciano's brother at a news conference, that Rocky could'nt hold his jock strap, then went out and got beaten, so he never broke Marciano's consecutive win record. The point is, talk is cheap but we will never know what would have happened unless it really happened. I also remember that computer fight, having Marciano beating Ali, that would have been a mix in styles, probably in Ali's favor. You never know......

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 03:17 PM
1. Carnera is much better & hits harder than the mediocre Ramos, who finished his career with a sub 500 record.

2. Carnera was about 50 lbs heavier than was Ramos when he fought Frazier.

3 & 4. Carnera has one of the biggest hearts in Heavyweight history and also had excellant stamina for a man of his size.

Without a doubt, Primo Carnera is a much, much better fighter than was Manuel Ramos and if I can go back to stealing your line of thinking again...

If the mediocre Ramos could buckle Frazier's legs with a right uppercut and VERY nearly put him down in the first round, just imagine what the bigger, stronger and harder hitting Primo Carnera would've done to Joe with that right uppercut of his (Carnera's best punch).

Primo Carnera KO-1 Joe Frazier

let me ask you a question. who do you think is a better fighter? primo carnera or buster mathis? friggin' mathis that's who. look what frazier did to mathis. mathis has way better boxing skills than carnera.

frazier ko 4 carnera.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 03:28 PM
let me ask you a question. who do you think is a better fighter? primo carnera or buster mathis? friggin' mathis that's who. look what frazier did to mathis. mathis has way better boxing skills than carnera.

frazier ko 4 carnera.

Mathis didn't nearly have the uppercut that Carnera did, and as Manuel Ramos proved in the first round of his fight with Frazier, even a less than mediocre fighter could hurt Frazier with the right uppercut.

Here's my play-by-play of this Carnera/Frazier fanatsy fight;

The slow starting Joe Frazier comes out of his corner at the bell & bobs-and-weaves straight into a right uppercut from Primo Carnera, and..."Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!".

Time of the knockout: 0:14 of the very first round for your winner...Primo Carnera! :p

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 06:34 PM
Mathis didn't nearly have the uppercut that Carnera did, and as Manuel Ramos proved in the first round of his fight with Frazier, even a less than mediocre fighter could hurt Frazier with the right uppercut.

Here's my play-by-play of this Carnera/Frazier fanatsy fight;

The slow starting Joe Frazier comes out of his corner at the bell & bobs-and-weaves straight into a right uppercut from Primo Carnera, and..."Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!".

Time of the knockout: 0:14 of the very first round for your winner...Primo Carnera! :p

please, carnera couldn't hurt frazier.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 06:47 PM
Actually, Marciano trained as hard for that fight as if it was a real boxing match.

Rocky did train for that, yes, and lost a large amount of weight getting ready for it. But that was still a fatty fighting Ali (another fatty) on the video, and to me, Marciano looked atleast 40-50 pounds above his best fighting weight...I felt nothing but embarrassment for both of those great fighters after seeing that "fight".

Yogi
01-13-2006, 06:47 PM
please, carnera couldn't hurt frazier.

Oh, but the less than mediocre Manuel Ramos can, is that it? :rolleyes:

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 06:50 PM
Oh, but the less than mediocre Manuel Ramos can, is that it? :rolleyes:

carnera was ****. he was champion only because the mafia controlled boxing. even valeuv would kick his ass.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 06:54 PM
carnera was ****. he was champion only because the mafia controlled boxing.

Primo Carnera > Manuel Ramos, and by a substantial margin.

P.S. The championship winning right uppercut that knocked out Jack Sharkey along the ropes looked legitimate enough to me.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 06:58 PM
Primo Carnera > Manuel Ramos, and by a substantial margin.

P.S. The championship winning right uppercut that knocked out Jack Sharkey along the ropes looked legitimate enough to me.

and who was jack sharkey? was he a great boxer? i don't think so! ;)

Yogi
01-13-2006, 07:08 PM
and who was jack sharkey? was he a great boxer? i don't think so! ;)

No Sharkey is not usually considered an all-time great, but he was a very good boxing talent for the division...good footwork, left jab, right hand, excellant counter left hook, etc. He also beat a good number of the top Heavyweights of his day, as well.

Both the IBRO and The Ring considered Jack Sharkey one of the thirty greatest Heavyweights of all-time.

Dempsey1238
01-13-2006, 07:32 PM
Sharkey was a good boxer, some nights, he fights GREAT(As he did vs Dempsey) and on other nights, bad or decent.

Sharkey may not have the best of chins, as Louis, Dempsey, Carnea and others prove.

But one CAN not denie the guy had talnet. Good foot work, very smooth, when he was ON of couse. fast hands. and decent power. Sharkey could give almost any one a run for there money if he FELT like it. He was very emotion when he fought(Thus the nick name :D )

He is not a great boxer, But a GOOD boxer is a yes.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 07:46 PM
A quick count reveals that Jack Sharkey defeated three members of the IBRO's top thirty, compared to only one by Frazier.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 09:19 PM
A quick count reveals that Jack Sharkey defeated three members of the IBRO's top thirty, compared to only one by Frazier.

frazier beat only one. who?

hellfire508
01-13-2006, 09:24 PM
Sharkey was an excellent fighter. Top 30 heavyweight for sure.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 09:30 PM
frazier beat only one. who?

Take a guess.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 09:35 PM
Take a guess.

he beat alot more than just muhammad ali.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 10:00 PM
he beat alot more than just muhammad ali.

But only Ali was listed amongst the IBRO's top thirty, though.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 10:04 PM
But only Ali was listed amongst the IBRO's top thirty, though.

if jack sharkey was listed in the top 30, then jimmy ellis, jerry quarry, george chuvalo, and floyd patterson should have been too, all of them were beat by frazier.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 10:12 PM
if jack sharkey was listed in the top 30, then jimmy ellis, jerry quarry, george chuvalo, and floyd patterson should have been too, all of them were beat by frazier.

Frazier beat Patterson, did he? :confused:

Interesting, but the answer probably isn't even important since I don't believe even Patterson made the their top thirty.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 10:32 PM
Frazier beat Patterson, did he? :confused:

Interesting, but the answer probably isn't even important since I don't believe even Patterson made the their top thirty.

he didn't? oh, well when i read frazier's auto biography, i thought he said something about fighting floyd patterson, guess i was wrong, my bad.

Yogi
01-13-2006, 10:55 PM
he didn't? oh, well when i read frazier's auto biography, i thought he said something about fighting floyd patterson, guess i was wrong, my bad.

Now that you've crossed Patterson off that list, what makes you think that Quarry and Ellis were better all-time Heavyweights than Jack Sharkey, which is what you seemed to be implying?

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:01 PM
Now that you've crossed Patterson off that list, what makes you think that Quarry and Ellis were better all-time Heavyweights than Jack Sharkey, which is what you seemed to be implying?

do you think sharkey could beat quarry and ellis in a boxing match?

Dempsey1238
01-13-2006, 11:08 PM
yes I belive you are RELLY over rated Ellies and Qurrey.

I think Yogi would say Sharkey would beat em.

Sharkey almost beat Jack Dempsey, Holds a win over Harry Wills, other one of the black crew with George Godfrey, than beat Mike McTigue, in route to loseing to Jack Dempsey.

Sure people may say Wills was shot, but still these 3 are ALL time greats. Thats more than Ellies or Qurrey ever did in there run. Oh yeah I guess if you give em props for loseing to Ali and Fraizer.

Wins over Stribling and Delaney dont hurt Sharkey with compare to Qurrey and Ellies.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:13 PM
yes I belive you are RELLY over rated Ellies and Qurrey.

I think Yogi would say Sharkey would beat em.

Sharkey almost beat Jack Dempsey, Holds a win over Harry Wills, other one of the black crew with George Godfrey, than beat Mike McTigue, in route to loseing to Jack Dempsey.

Sure people may say Wills was shot, but still these 3 are ALL time greats. Thats more than Ellies or Qurrey ever did in there run. Oh yeah I guess if you give em props for loseing to Ali and Fraizer.

Wins over Stribling and Delaney dont hurt Sharkey with compare to Qurrey and Ellies.

i just don't see sharkey beating them. ellis is quick, in fact he was ali's key sparring partner in the 60s, so ellis had to be fast. quarry opened up on the great joe frazier and stunned him, before getting ko'd.

Dempsey1238
01-13-2006, 11:18 PM
Well Sharkey was pretty fast also, Dont judge the bout Louis bout, Sharkey was already pass it. And took a year off before his comeback fights.

Sharkey is HIGHLY underated, he was a fine boxer, and he had ok power. He was able to RELLY Hurt Dempsey in the first round, which shock Dempsey. Dempsey of couse recover, and ko Sharkey in round 7. And I belive Dempsey had a better chin than Fraizer. So I could see Sharkey hurting Fraizer, if he caught him right.

Brassangel
01-13-2006, 11:25 PM
Marciano was still overweight for that bout, even after the training he went through. Realistically, a 46 year old man can't go through the same physical preparations that a 27 year old man can. Rocky spotted Ali 19 years of aging, 14 years of rust, and double the amount of "out-of-shape" pounds than Ali did, and he still smoked him. While it was a simulation, it eludes to the fact that even a bull-rushing, smaller slugger could hang with The Greatest. I still think Ali would have beaten him, but hey...who really knows?

Yogi
01-13-2006, 11:27 PM
I think Yogi would say Sharkey would beat em.

Yes, yes I would and I think addition to be more talented, Sharkey is a bad matchup for Quarry who usually performs at his best when confronted with an aggressive adversary (Quarry would be forced in the not so comfortable, for him, role of aggressor).

Sharkey/Ellis wouldn't likely be the most crowd pleasing contest, but again I think Sharkey's superior talents wins that matchup.

Either way, I doubt either of those two can match up with what Sharkey accomplished during his career, which was at least 14 seperate wins over Heavyweights ranked by The Ring, about a half dozen wins against fighters in the HOF, as well as winning the linear Heavyweight Championship of the World.

Dempsey 1919
01-13-2006, 11:40 PM
Well Sharkey was pretty fast also, Dont judge the bout Louis bout, Sharkey was already pass it. And took a year off before his comeback fights.

Sharkey is HIGHLY underated, he was a fine boxer, and he had ok power. He was able to RELLY Hurt Dempsey in the first round, which shock Dempsey. Dempsey of couse recover, and ko Sharkey in round 7. And I belive Dempsey had a better chin than Fraizer. So I could see Sharkey hurting Fraizer, if he caught him right.

dempsey was done by he time the fought sharkey. you can't base it on that.

Dempsey1238
01-13-2006, 11:45 PM
Dempsey was NOT done, maybe not prime like Willard, but still a able fighter. But the fact remains, Sharkey hurt Dempsey in the first round.

Of couse Firpo had Dempsey out of the ring, and Carp had a similer like hurt Dempsey in round 2.
And Sharkey ko Loughran, which is no easy task for any one when one conisders how good defensive wise Loughran is.

Dempsey 1919
01-14-2006, 02:10 AM
Dempsey was NOT done, maybe not prime like Willard, but still a able fighter. But the fact remains, Sharkey hurt Dempsey in the first round.

Of couse Firpo had Dempsey out of the ring, and Carp had a similer like hurt Dempsey in round 2.
And Sharkey ko Loughran, which is no easy task for any one when one conisders how good defensive wise Loughran is.

all the people you named are bums compared to the people frazier fought. your argument is crap right now. you're basically saying that this guy is good cause he beat a bum, which beat another bum, which beat another bum, and so on, and so on.

Yogi
01-14-2006, 02:11 AM
Dempsey was NOT done, maybe not prime like Willard, but still a able fighter. But the fact remains, Sharkey hurt Dempsey in the first round.

Of couse Firpo had Dempsey out of the ring, and Carp had a similer like hurt Dempsey in round 2.
And Sharkey ko Loughran, which is no easy task for any one when one conisders how good defensive wise Loughran is.

Greek, I just finished watching the first Sharkey/Schmeling fight again and what do you think...Was Sharkey on his way to knockout win in that fight had he not landed the left hand low in the 4th?

That's what it sort of looked like to me, as Sharkey controlled the first two rounds with the jab, his footwork, and some good counter left hooks. But in the third he really started to get the measure of Schmeling and even hurt Max somewhat with a chopping right hand, followed up by a good right uppercut/left hook combination. He also landed some really good right hands in the fourth round on Schmeling and it just looked to me that Jack was in total control of that fight and had all the answers to whatever Schmeling threw at him (some really good counter left hooks, right crosses and a couple of very good uppercuts as soon as Max came within range)...I think he just may have scored that knockout if the fight had continued, and I don't know if it would've taken more than but a couple/few morew rounds.

Yogi
01-14-2006, 02:14 AM
all the people you named are bums compared to the people frazier fought. your argument is crap right now. you're basically saying that this guy is good cause he beat a bum, which beat another bum, which beat another bum, and so on, and so on.

Instead of ignorantly calling a fighter(s) a "bum", wouldn't it be better to actually point out some of the things you view as weaknesses on said fighters?

Dempsey 1919
01-14-2006, 02:19 AM
Instead of ignorantly calling a fighter(s) a "bum", wouldn't it be better to actually point out some of the things you view as weaknesses on said fighters?

ok, then how about they had the title when the mafia controlled boxing? hmmmm....

Yogi
01-14-2006, 02:22 AM
ok, then how about they had the title when the mafia controlled boxing? hmmmm....

Does that make Sonny Liston a "bum" then?

Dempsey 1919
01-14-2006, 02:27 AM
Does that make Sonny Liston a "bum" then?

no, i'm talking about all of boxing was controlled by the mafia in the early and mid 1930s. liston's handlers were suspected of being involved in the mob, but liston legitemately was the best hw at that time.

Yogi
01-14-2006, 02:41 AM
no, i'm talking about all of boxing was controlled by the mafia in the early and mid 1930s.

**** man, there was a lot more mob control during the late 40's to early 60's than there was back in the 30's, and there were certainly a helluva lot more fighters that were known to be involved with or managed by the mob during Liston's time...

Even a guy like Cus D'Amato was known to hang around with mob guys even though he publicly stated that he refused to do business with them;

"The oddbal manager was also a mass of contradictions because, for all his fierce criticisms of the crooks in boxing, it was well known in the fight game that he kept the company of many shady characters, and among his closest confidants were known Mafia bosses and underworld heavies." - page 29 of Mike Tyson's 'Release of Power'

Dempsey1238
01-14-2006, 02:08 PM
Greek, I just finished watching the first Sharkey/Schmeling fight again and what do you think...Was Sharkey on his way to knockout win in that fight had he not landed the left hand low in the 4th?

That's what it sort of looked like to me, as Sharkey controlled the first two rounds with the jab, his footwork, and some good counter left hooks. But in the third he really started to get the measure of Schmeling and even hurt Max somewhat with a chopping right hand, followed up by a good right uppercut/left hook combination. He also landed some really good right hands in the fourth round on Schmeling and it just looked to me that Jack was in total control of that fight and had all the answers to whatever Schmeling threw at him (some really good counter left hooks, right crosses and a couple of very good uppercuts as soon as Max came within range)...I think he just may have scored that knockout if the fight had continued, and I don't know if it would've taken more than but a couple/few morew rounds.


Not sure if Sharkey would get the knockout, but he was winning, and BIG before the 4th round foul.
I would like to belive Schmling would get things togetor by the 6 or so round, and out point Sharkey, LIKE he did in the rematch.

supaduck
01-14-2006, 05:49 PM
Butterfly is just a huge Ali fan, he speaks the truth most of the time.

Dempsey 1919
01-14-2006, 05:51 PM
Butterfly is just a huge Ali fan, he speaks the truth most of the time.

and what is that supposed to mean? :D

Skydog
01-14-2006, 06:18 PM
Well, Buttefly may be an Ali nuthugger, but at least he can back that up with arguments and facts, unlike most Tyson nuthuggers.

And at least he shuts up Tyson nuthuggers, something that desperately needs to be done.

Dempsey 1919
01-14-2006, 06:21 PM
Well, Buttefly may be an Ali nuthugger, but at least he can back that up with arguments and facts, unlike most Tyson nuthuggers.

And at least he shuts up Tyson nuthuggers, something that desperately needs to be done.

yeah, that's the truth.

supaduck
01-15-2006, 04:14 PM
By most of the time I meant that you sometimes say things which are maybe just a little bit of a stretch, i.e Ali is better than Sugar Ray Robinson (it's close and all, but I think SRR is better).

blockhead
01-15-2006, 04:20 PM
i think buttfly is a homo, who over rates the taste of ali's ****.

Dempsey 1919
01-16-2006, 05:09 PM
i think buttfly is a homo, who over rates the taste of ali's ****.

have i done anything to you?

Dempsey 1919
01-16-2006, 05:10 PM
By most of the time I meant that you sometimes say things which are maybe just a little bit of a stretch, i.e Ali is better than Sugar Ray Robinson (it's close and all, but I think SRR is better).

maybe it's kinda close, but 500+ wins doesn't mean that much.

Yaman
01-16-2006, 05:15 PM
i think buttfly is a homo, who over rates the taste of ali's ****.


What the hell is that all about??
Dam you're an *******.

RockyMarcianofan00
01-16-2006, 05:46 PM
he may like ali alot but at least he doesn't only like ali
i know he likes other fighters

he's just good at arguing and has alot of patience can't hate the guy for that
________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Dempsey 1919
01-16-2006, 05:57 PM
he may like ali alot but at least he doesn't only like ali
i know he likes other fighters

he's just good at arguing and has alot of patience can't hate the guy for that

well, thank you. i appreciate that.

Skydog
01-16-2006, 09:37 PM
I know, at least he's not like some people who only know about Tyson and only care about Tyson and say "Tyson can beat anyone in history!"

Butterfly also knows a lot about Patterson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, etc. They may all be Ali's opponents, but it's better than just knowing about Tyson.

Dempsey 1919
01-16-2006, 09:41 PM
I know, at least he's not like some people who only know about Tyson and only care about Tyson and say "Tyson can beat anyone in history!"

Butterfly also knows a lot about Patterson, Liston, Foreman, Frazier, etc. They may all be Ali's opponents, but it's better than just knowing about Tyson.

actually my favorite boxers are in this order: ali, johnson, dempsey, tyson, and i recently took an interest in jersey joe watcott also.

Marvelous63
01-20-2006, 12:30 PM
i think he does

Muhammad Ali has the best resume of any boxer ever

Oasis_Lad
01-20-2006, 12:55 PM
Muhammad Ali has the best resume of any boxer ever

well said!

Southpaw Stinger
01-20-2006, 12:59 PM
Muhammad Ali has the best resume of any boxer ever

Thats somes it all up great!

Yogi
01-20-2006, 01:07 PM
Muhammad Ali has the best resume of any boxer ever

No he doesn't.

Oasis_Lad
01-20-2006, 01:08 PM
who does then

Yogi
01-20-2006, 01:15 PM
who does then

That's a good question and among others, I'd definately take the resumes of Sam Langford & Jimmy McLarnin over that of Ali's.

Dempsey1238
01-20-2006, 01:58 PM
Greb,Walker, Ross, Armstrong, Pep, Saddler, Benny L, Joe Gans, Joe Walcott(The first) and others has a better resume than Ali.

Brockton Lip
01-20-2006, 02:19 PM
Too bad that none of them knocked out a prime Foreman ;).

supaduck
01-20-2006, 04:02 PM
And Sonny Liston.

that post above immediately wins the argument, now accept that Ali has the best resume.

Marvelous63
01-20-2006, 04:06 PM
That's a good question and among others, I'd definately take the resumes of Sam Langford & Jimmy McLarnin over that of Ali's.

if your taking into account not only the quality of the opponenets hes beaten, but also the quality of opponents he lost to, than langfords is no comparison to ali. MaLarnin, in my opinion, is a step below langford as well

Yogi
01-20-2006, 04:19 PM
if your taking into account not only the quality of the opponenets hes beaten, but also the quality of opponents he lost to, than langfords is no comparison to ali.

Langford's total number of fights against HOF'ers > Ali's total number of fights.

Marvelous63
01-20-2006, 06:16 PM
Langford's total number of fights against HOF'ers > Ali's total number of fights.

Langford's number of losses and no contests > Ali's total fights.

hellfire508
01-20-2006, 08:27 PM
I'm not so convinced.

If you take Langford's career at heavyweight - including losses, and put it against Ali's - including losses, I think Ali still wins.

Ali would have - 4 top 10 heavyweights - Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes.

That alone pretty much beats Langford's. He lost to Johnson - who is a top 10 heavyweight. Then you have Mcvea, Wills and Jeanette. I rank Norton and Patterson above them. Who else? The rest are basically nobodies, with the exception of a couple.

Yogi
01-20-2006, 09:28 PM
I'm not so convinced.

If you take Langford's career at heavyweight - including losses, and put it against Ali's - including losses, I think Ali still wins.

Ali would have - 4 top 10 heavyweights - Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes.

That alone pretty much beats Langford's. He lost to Johnson - who is a top 10 heavyweight. Then you have Mcvea, Wills and Jeanette. I rank Norton and Patterson above them. Who else? The rest are basically nobodies, with the exception of a couple.

Why would you only consider Langford's Heavyweight career, though, when the original statement made was "any boxer ever and especially when Langford's prime weight was more around what a Middleweight or Super Middleweight today weighs (when Langford was a Heavyweight in weight, he was basically fat and had gone blind)?

Langford's Heavyweight resume is impressive, but if one was to go the complete opposite direction of you and not included the Heavyweights on Langford's resume, even then it still looks more impressive to me than does Ali's...

- Joe Gans (some consider him the greatest Lightweight of all-times)
- Barbados Joe Walcott (a top five Welterweight)
- Stanley Ketchel (top five Middleweight)
- Tiger Flowers (possible top ten Middleweight)
- Jack Blackburn (top fifteen Lightweight)
- Jack O'Brien (top fifteen Light Heavyweight)
- Kid Norfolk (top twenty Light Heavyweight)
- Dixie Kid, Dave Holly, etc.

And unlike Ali vs. Holmes, you can find sources claiming Langford got the best of each of these guys when they stepped into the ring with him.

Oh, and in a span of just less than two years, Sammy Angott fought Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Ike Williams, Beau Jack and Bob Montgomery...Ali and his "4 top 10 heavyweights" that he fought throughout his whole career doesn't even come close to that quality of opposition. That's three all-time top five/ten p4p fighters that Angott shared the ring with in that short time span, as well as a top five Lightweight in Ike Williams, and two other HOF Lightweights that made The Ring's all-time top ten at 135.

Tha Greatest
01-21-2006, 12:15 AM
Why would you only consider Langford's Heavyweight career, though, when the original statement made was "any boxer ever and especially when Langford's prime weight was more around what a Middleweight or Super Middleweight today weighs (when Langford was a Heavyweight in weight, he was basically fat and had gone blind)?

Langford's Heavyweight resume is impressive, but if one was to go the complete opposite direction of you and not included the Heavyweights on Langford's resume, even then it still looks more impressive to me than does Ali's...

- Joe Gans (some consider him the greatest Lightweight of all-times)
- Barbados Joe Walcott (a top five Welterweight)
- Stanley Ketchel (top five Middleweight)
- Tiger Flowers (possible top ten Middleweight)
- Jack Blackburn (top fifteen Lightweight)
- Jack O'Brien (top fifteen Light Heavyweight)
- Kid Norfolk (top twenty Light Heavyweight)
- Dixie Kid, Dave Holly, etc.

And unlike Ali vs. Holmes, you can find sources claiming Langford got the best of each of these guys when they stepped into the ring with him.

Oh, and in a span of just less than two years, Sammy Angott fought Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Ike Williams, Beau Jack and Bob Montgomery...Ali and his "4 top 10 heavyweights" that he fought throughout his whole career doesn't even come close to that quality of opposition. That's three all-time top five/ten p4p fighters that Angott shared the ring with in that short time span, as well as a top five Lightweight in Ike Williams, and two other HOF Lightweights that made The Ring's all-time top ten at 135.

0wned.

Ali was a great fighter, but the media really overrated him..
If he ever fought Louis, it would be soo one sided IMO.
I think Louis exposes him of his many flaws and takes him out in the early to mid rounds...

Do you really think Carnera would knock out Frazier in the first round though, Yogi?

prtynacan
01-21-2006, 12:44 AM
Carnera is complete garbage. Probably the worst heavyweight champ of the last 100 years. Watch him fight Max Baer - it's laughable. He's so uncoordinated and slow. Modern guys like Frazier or Foreman would absolutely crush him. Carnera was basically a big guy with a pituitary gland problem, not a fighter.

I still say Lennox Lewis could beat nearly any heavyweight, if he's on his game. Granted, he's got a chin of glass, but he's huge, had skills and polish, and could hit like a truck. Maybe Ali's technical and unorthodox genius could get him, but it would be an extremely tough fight for Ali. Lewis would demolish Frazier and Foreman. Look at what Lewis did to Holyfield and Tyson - both of whom I think could beat Smokin Joe.

Oh and Joe Louis beat Ali? No chance - I don't think any champ prior to 1970 could take out Ali. The training and techniques were so much more raw back then. Louis was so much slower, had way less reach, and didn't have a great chin. Ali dances around him and takes him out. Louis lost bad to Max Schmeling and nearly lost to Billy Conn - Ali crushes him.

Yogi
01-21-2006, 02:05 AM
Do you really think Carnera would knock out Frazier in the first round though, Yogi?

LOL!

Of course not, man...All I was trying to do there was illustrate how faulty Butterfly's logic generally is when he types in that "if so-and-so can do it" stuff of his in regards to mythical matchups.

Tha Greatest
01-21-2006, 02:30 AM
LOL!

Of course not, man...All I was trying to do there was illustrate how faulty Butterfly's logic generally is when he types in that "if so-and-so can do it" stuff of his in regards to mythical matchups.
oooo, I thought so...

Do you think Primo Carnera was a good fighter, though?
I don't know much about him, lol...

What I'm trying to figure out is....Butterfly said nobody but Ali could have beaten Liston.....he said Louis even can't...

Funniest thing I've ever hard....

Soliloquy
01-21-2006, 02:33 AM
All of Carnera's fights were fixed anyway.

hellfire508
01-21-2006, 03:36 AM
Why would you only consider Langford's Heavyweight career, though, when the original statement made was "any boxer ever and especially when Langford's prime weight was more around what a Middleweight or Super Middleweight today weighs (when Langford was a Heavyweight in weight, he was basically fat and had gone blind)?

Langford's Heavyweight resume is impressive, but if one was to go the complete opposite direction of you and not included the Heavyweights on Langford's resume, even then it still looks more impressive to me than does Ali's...

- Joe Gans (some consider him the greatest Lightweight of all-times)
- Barbados Joe Walcott (a top five Welterweight)
- Stanley Ketchel (top five Middleweight)
- Tiger Flowers (possible top ten Middleweight)
- Jack Blackburn (top fifteen Lightweight)
- Jack O'Brien (top fifteen Light Heavyweight)
- Kid Norfolk (top twenty Light Heavyweight)
- Dixie Kid, Dave Holly, etc.

And unlike Ali vs. Holmes, you can find sources claiming Langford got the best of each of these guys when they stepped into the ring with him.

Oh, and in a span of just less than two years, Sammy Angott fought Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Ike Williams, Beau Jack and Bob Montgomery...Ali and his "4 top 10 heavyweights" that he fought throughout his whole career doesn't even come close to that quality of opposition. That's three all-time top five/ten p4p fighters that Angott shared the ring with in that short time span, as well as a top five Lightweight in Ike Williams, and two other HOF Lightweights that made The Ring's all-time top ten at 135.

Where did it say "Any fighter". I never saw that. There a plenty of boxers who had better resumes than Ali, but none at heavyweight.

hellfire508
01-21-2006, 03:38 AM
0wned.

Ali was a great fighter, but the media really overrated him..
If he ever fought Louis, it would be soo one sided IMO.
I think Louis exposes him of his many flaws and takes him out in the early to mid rounds...

Do you really think Carnera would knock out Frazier in the first round though, Yogi?

Yessss, "Owned". Well done mate.

See my above post.

And please elaborate on your "would expose his many flaws" argument. It comes up a lot but is never really explained. Or if you will - counter my argument in the Louis vs Ali thread.

Ali TKO late.

Yogi
01-21-2006, 03:52 AM
Muhammad Ali has the best resume of any boxer ever

Hellfire, this statement by Marvelous started the latest conversation in this thread and was the one that I alluded to in my other post there.

Yogi
01-21-2006, 04:10 AM
Do you think Primo Carnera was a good fighter, though?

He was far from being the most talented Heavyweight of all-time, but he was still good enough to win the linear Heavyweight championship in a fight that I saw as being on the up-and-up (i.e. I disagree with Soliloquy's claim that all of his fights were fixed).

Heart, stamina, left jab, right uppercut (lesser extent, right cross from distance), physical strength, inside skills, fairly decent hand & foot speed for a big guy, etc...Just some of the attributes Carnera good count on in the ring depending on the opponent.

Of course he wasn't without his weaknesses either, like his less than stellar chin, off balance/clumsiness at times with the footwork and left hooks, etc.

hellfire508
01-21-2006, 06:36 AM
Hellfire, this statement by Marvelous started the latest conversation in this thread and was the one that I alluded to in my other post there.

A silly statement. There are a handfull of fighters who have better - not just Langford.

Dempsey 1919
01-21-2006, 10:53 AM
oooo, I thought so...

Do you think Primo Carnera was a good fighter, though?
I don't know much about him, lol...

What I'm trying to figure out is....Butterfly said nobody but Ali could have beaten Liston.....he said Louis even can't...

Funniest thing I've ever hard....

please. sonny liston is lightyears ahead of louis. liston is bigger, stronger, and faster than louis. louis would be blown out in about 2 rounds. louis has a glass chin, so certainly he has no chance against liston's punching power.

supaduck
01-21-2006, 05:19 PM
Hm, I think the reason you overrate Sonny so much is to make Ali look even better for beating him :rolleyes:

Dempsey 1919
01-21-2006, 05:45 PM
Hm, I think the reason you overrate Sonny so much is to make Ali look even better for beating him :rolleyes:

watch liston inm his prime and you'll knoe what i'm talking about. louis himself said that liston was better than him.

hellfire508
01-21-2006, 08:01 PM
Louis would TKO Liston IMO.

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 06:09 PM
Louis would TKO Liston IMO.

yeah, laying flat on his back. :D

RockyMarcianofan00
02-23-2006, 06:17 PM
alrite i think i have a pretty good idea of who could beat liston

but you who do you think could beat liston beside ali

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 06:19 PM
alrite i think i have a pretty good idea of who could beat liston

but you who do you think could beat liston beside ali

foreman has a shot, so does holmes, but that's it. but i really don't think they can beat him. the only boxer i would favor over liston would be ali.

Southpaw Stinger
02-23-2006, 06:23 PM
Foreman would beat Liston, Frazier would beat Liston, Dempsey would beat Liston, Louis would beat Liston, Holmes would beat Liston.

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 06:31 PM
Foreman would beat Liston, Frazier would beat Liston, Dempsey would beat Liston, Louis would beat Liston, Holmes would beat Liston.

dempsey would have beaten liston? dempsey would be flattened in one or two rounds by liston. dempsey is a swarmer, and swarmers would always lose to people like foreman or liston. no way louis would have a chance. liston is actually an upgrade of louis. bigger, stronger, more powerful, better chin and a bit faster. louis would be done in three rounds. frazier is also a swarmer, so he would lose too in about 5 rounds. holmes would have the best shot out of all you've mentioned so far. but an old liston hurt and almost ko'd a close to prime cassius clay, and holmes is not as fast as clay/ali, so a prime liston who is much faster than an old one would catch holmes with more shots than an old liston did clay, so holmes would be caught up to in about 11 or 12. holmes doesn't have the chin that ali has either, so i don't see holmes pulling this one off.

Southpaw Stinger
02-23-2006, 06:41 PM
I'm not convinced. Liston beat very few decent greats. Many of his greatest victories are not without rumours of cheating and mob intervention. Liston was great, but you overate him a bit.

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 06:49 PM
I'm not convinced. Liston beat very few decent greats. Many of his greatest victories are not without rumours of cheating and mob intervention. Liston was great, but you overate him a bit.

so i guess the mob forced patterson to go down in the first round, huh? :rolleyes: or forced cleveland williams twice to be pounded into submission. :rolleyes: if williams almost stopped liston in the first round then obviously williams was trying to fight back, don't you think? :rolleyes: the only thing the mob did was put liniment on his gloves when liston probably didn't know until after the fight, and made liston their hitman. that's about it. they didn't fix any of his fights. he ktfo people fair and square. :cool:

Southpaw Stinger
02-23-2006, 06:53 PM
Patterson and Williams were the only decent victoms then and Patterson doesn't have the best chin of all time does he?

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 06:54 PM
Patterson and Williams were the only decent victoms then and Patterson doesn't have the best chin of all time does he?

but that doesn't mean liston couldn't beat better opponents if he fought them.

Southpaw Stinger
02-23-2006, 06:58 PM
Your right but based on everything we know about Liston, it's unfair to claim that only Ali could beat him.

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 06:59 PM
Your right but based on everything we know about Liston, it's unfair to claim that only Ali could beat him.

well, that's my opinion.

Dempsey 1919
02-23-2006, 07:02 PM
0wned.

Ali was a great fighter, but the media really overrated him..
If he ever fought Louis, it would be soo one sided IMO.
I think Louis exposes him of his many flaws and takes him out in the early to mid rounds...

Do you really think Carnera would knock out Frazier in the first round though, Yogi?

i've already proven why ali would destroy louis, so i won't even bother now. :rolleyes:

Southpaw Stinger
02-23-2006, 07:11 PM
Ali would destroy Louis.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-23-2006, 07:54 PM
"During the traditional weigh-in on the morning of the fight, Clay went absolutely crazy. He shouted "I***65533;m ready to rumble!" and "I***65533;m gonna eat you alive!" and it seemed it took Clay***65533;s staff a great effort to prevent their boxer from attacking Liston. The present doctor announced a pulse of 120 bpm and declared Clay "emotionally unbalanced and scared to death" (Th. Hauser, p. 71)."

lol i was gunna post something else not relating to Clay-liston but i thought that you'd get a kick out of this

according to this Ali told Dundee to cut the gloves off and lets go home but dundee pushed him out to the ring before the ref could hear

RockyMarcianofan00
02-23-2006, 08:08 PM
Liston was good fighter but i still think Rocky would win the fight

now reading alittle bit more on him i think it would take rocky around 8 rounds to 9 rounds to beat Lison in his prime

Liston hit hard and was fast but Rocky hit harder and could take a bigger beating

Heckler
02-23-2006, 10:50 PM
Muhammad Ali in my mind is the greatest boxer to set foot in the ring. But he was flawed and could be beaten. Ken norton would trouble him at any time in his career, Holmes, Louis, and a prime frazier. I would give him 2/3 against any of these guys on his best night, but he was far from invincible.

Oasis_Lad
02-23-2006, 11:03 PM
0wned.

Ali was a great fighter, but the media really overrated him..
If he ever fought Louis, it would be soo one sided IMO.
I think Louis exposes him of his many flaws and takes him out in the early to mid rounds...

Do you really think Carnera would knock out Frazier in the first round though, Yogi?

this has to be a contender for the stupidest post ever

TheHoff'sGhost
02-23-2006, 11:08 PM
how the hell can u overrate ali's opponents
he has arguably the best resume of any boxer ever

Dempsey 1919
02-24-2006, 01:06 AM
Liston was good fighter but i still think Rocky would win the fight

now reading alittle bit more on him i think it would take rocky around 8 rounds to 9 rounds to beat Lison in his prime

Liston hit hard and was fast but Rocky hit harder and could take a bigger beating

rocky hits harder in your dreams. it took liston one round to annihliate patterson, the man who obliterated moore, the man who almost knocked out marciano with one punch.

Heckler
02-24-2006, 03:23 AM
Styles make fights butterfly, your logic in this case is not a sensible one.

Yaman
02-24-2006, 08:05 AM
rocky hits harder in your dreams. it took liston one round to annihliate patterson, the man who obliterated moore, the man who almost knocked out marciano with one punch.

Oh yeah he almost knocked an out of balance Marciano out with one punch...is that why he GOT UP AT THE COUNT OF 2??? :rolleyes:

Please, brush your mouth because too much crap is coming out of it.

Dempsey 1919
02-24-2006, 09:28 AM
Oh yeah he almost knocked an out of balance Marciano out with one punch...is that why he GOT UP AT THE COUNT OF 2??? :rolleyes:

Please, brush your mouth because too much crap is coming out of it.

but still, liston is 10x the fighter rocky is.

Da Iceman
02-25-2006, 08:58 PM
but still, liston is 10x the fighter rocky is.
yea ok.........

Heckler
02-25-2006, 09:30 PM
Lets not get ridiculous OK. Liston was not 2x the fighter of Marciano let alone 10. Thats plain ridiculous. Its a tough matchup, end of story.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-25-2006, 09:48 PM
but still, liston is 10x the fighter rocky is.
come on butterfly
liston obliterated patterson, so would rocky
Patterson isn't the best fighter he was good but Rocky would obliterate him too
Moore was never even close to KO'ing rocky and frankly Rocky v Moore should have been stopped in the 7th round when Moore was nearly done, Moore had one more Flurry in the 8th and then nothing

and liston i would say is times anything better then rocky cause he's not better, better boxer yes,taller yes, stronger no, better fighter/brawler by no means

Frazier's 15th round
02-25-2006, 09:59 PM
Yeah, Butterfly is hung up on and tends to overrate every single Ali opponent. I bet his top 20 includes Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Holmes, Patterson, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Terrell, Folley, Williams, and Blin.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-25-2006, 10:04 PM
lol
Frazier and Foreman at least have earned to be up there

the others are at personal discretion

Yogi
02-25-2006, 10:07 PM
Yeah, Butterfly is hung up on and tends to overrate every single Ali opponent. I bet his top 20 includes Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Holmes, Patterson, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Terrell, Folley, Williams, and Blin.

Seeing as how his top five includes Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Liston, and Holmes, I don't think you'd be too far off with those comments.

Da Iceman
02-25-2006, 10:07 PM
patterson and young deserve to be in it, anybody who can whoop a young george is great.

Dempsey 1919
02-25-2006, 11:10 PM
Yeah, Butterfly is hung up on and tends to overrate every single Ali opponent. I bet his top 20 includes Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Holmes, Patterson, Young, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Terrell, Folley, Williams, and Blin.

don't be mad cause ali owned your boy frazier, ok? :rolleyes:

Yogi
02-25-2006, 11:19 PM
don't be mad cause ali owned your boy frazier, ok? :rolleyes:

1st fight: Frazier with a clear win
2nd fight: Toss-up that could've gone either way
3rd fight: Ali with a clear win

Basically I see the Ali/Frazier trilogy as being quite even when all was said and done, with neither of the two being "owned" by the other.

Dempsey 1919
02-25-2006, 11:32 PM
1st fight: Frazier with a clear win
2nd fight: Toss-up that could've gone either way
3rd fight: Ali with a clear win

Basically I see the Ali/Frazier trilogy as being quite even when all was said and done, with neither of the two being "owned" by the other.

wrong! the first fight frazier definetely won, but ali wasn't outright dominated, and frazier was more injured than ali was. the second fight frazier was crushed, utterly! the third fight ali got a clear win on a tko.

Yogi
02-25-2006, 11:49 PM
wrong! the first fight frazier definetely won, but ali wasn't outright dominated, and frazier was more injured than ali was. the second fight frazier was crushed, utterly! the third fight ali got a clear win on a tko.

Ok, you've said Frazier definately won the first fight, which I certainly agree with, although I may have had it by a little bit wider margin than you did (pretty even for the first ten rounds, but Frazier dominated the later rounds, including the big 11th & 15th rounds in his favour...144-139 on my card). I saw a clear win for Frazier with my own eyes.

And the third fight Ali had a pretty commanding points lead on my card when Futch stopped it (like Frazier did in their first fight, Ali had some big rounds late), so a clear win that is in his favour.

But the second fight?

Pfft...there's absolutely no way Ali "utterly crushed" in that fight, Butterfly...Sorry, but with my own eyes I saw that as a very close matchup that could've gone either way at the end of the night. Ali built up a lead in the opening rounds and did have a big round in the second when he hurt Frazier. But from the 4th or 5th round on I thought it was Frazier who was getting the better of the action, and to me that work he did in the mid-rounds was enough to pull him back even with Ali through my eyes, which is a level they stayed at for the rest of the fight.

Nobody was getting "crushed" in that second fight, man!

Dempsey 1919
02-26-2006, 12:10 AM
Ok, you've said Frazier definately won the first fight, which I certainly agree with, although I may have had it by a little bit wider margin than you did (pretty even for the first ten rounds, but Frazier dominated the later rounds, including the big 11th & 15th rounds in his favour...144-139 on my card). I saw a clear win for Frazier with my own eyes.

And the third fight Ali had a pretty commanding points lead on my card when Futch stopped it (like Frazier did in their first fight, Ali had some big rounds late), so a clear win that is in his favour.

But the second fight?

Pfft...there's absolutely no way Ali "utterly crushed" in that fight, Butterfly...Sorry, but with my own eyes I saw that as a very close matchup that could've gone either way at the end of the night. Ali built up a lead in the opening rounds and did have a big round in the second when he hurt Frazier. But from the 4th or 5th round on I thought it was Frazier who was getting the better of the action, and to me that work he did in the mid-rounds was enough to pull him back even with Ali through my eyes, which is a level they stayed at for the rest of the fight.

Nobody was getting "crushed" in that second fight, man!

i thought the second fight was pretty lopsided.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-26-2006, 01:06 AM
i thought the second fight was pretty lopsided.
of course it was because ali lost

Heckler
02-26-2006, 01:55 AM
You do realise that Ali won the second fight right? and Frazier was nearly stopped in the 2nd? Ali won that convincingly.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-26-2006, 01:56 AM
Frazier won the second fight

Heckler
02-26-2006, 01:56 AM
And Ali NEVER owned frazier, ali put up a brilliant fight in FOTC but unfortunately Frazier did more so. He won the second fight and barely won the 3rd. No-one owned anyone.

Heckler
02-26-2006, 01:58 AM
Could you produce some kind of justification marciano instead of a mere 'Frazier won the 2nd fight'. I think Ali won the 2nd fight quite clearly, especially when taking into consideration Frazier was saved from a knockdown in the 2nd.

"Almost 21,000 fans filled the Garden as the pair went into the ring. Ali had learnt from defeat. He knew exactly what Frazier would bring to the contest. Round one went to Ali: Frazier barely touched him. In round two started to get into rhythm but was quickly shattered when Ali landed a withering right. Frazier was stunned by the punch and might have gone down with a follow up. But Ali was denied by the intervention of referee Tony Perez who mistakenly thought the bell had sounded.

Almost 21,000 fans filled the Garden as the pair went into the ring. Ali had learnt from defeat. He knew exactly what Frazier would bring to the contest. Round one went to Ali: Frazier barely touched him. In round two started to get into rhythm but was quickly shattered when Ali landed a withering right. Frazier was stunned by the punch and might have gone down with a follow up. But Ali was denied by the intervention of referee Tony Perez who mistakenly thought the bell had sounded.

Ali continued to dominate the fight throwing more punches than Frazier. When Frazier got close Ali would grab him around the neck and hold him until the referee broke the clinch. Frazier began to make headway in rounds eight and nine, keeping Ali pinned to the ropes with heavy body shots. Then, just as he had with Ken Norton, Ali changed his tactics and began to trafe punches with Frazier, winning some hard exhchanges. As the later rounds came and went, Frazier realised he was done. Ali's superior technique had overcome his rage. The older man won comfortably.

Now Ali would fight again for the Heavyweight Title."

Informed insight from a boxing historian that watched this match closely without bias.

RockyMarcianofan00
02-26-2006, 03:17 AM
Could you produce some kind of justification marciano instead of a mere 'Frazier won the 2nd fight'. I think Ali won the 2nd fight quite clearly, especially when taking into consideration Frazier was saved from a knockdown in the 2nd.

"Almost 21,000 fans filled the Garden as the pair went into the ring. Ali had learnt from defeat. He knew exactly what Frazier would bring to the contest. Round one went to Ali: Frazier barely touched him. In round two started to get into rhythm but was quickly shattered when Ali landed a withering right. Frazier was stunned by the punch and might have gone down with a follow up. But Ali was denied by the intervention of referee Tony Perez who mistakenly thought the bell had sounded.

Almost 21,000 fans filled the Garden as the pair went into the ring. Ali had learnt from defeat. He knew exactly what Frazier would bring to the contest. Round one went to Ali: Frazier barely touched him. In round two started to get into rhythm but was quickly shattered when Ali landed a withering right. Frazier was stunned by the punch and might have gone down with a follow up. But Ali was denied by the intervention of referee Tony Perez who mistakenly thought the bell had sounded.

Ali continued to dominate the fight throwing more punches than Frazier. When Frazier got close Ali would grab him around the neck and hold him until the referee broke the clinch. Frazier began to make headway in rounds eight and nine, keeping Ali pinned to the ropes with heavy body shots. Then, just as he had with Ken Norton, Ali changed his tactics and began to trafe punches with Frazier, winning some hard exhchanges. As the later rounds came and went, Frazier realised he was done. Ali's superior technique had overcome his rage. The older man won comfortably.

Now Ali would fight again for the Heavyweight Title."

Informed insight from a boxing historian that watched this match closely without bias.
hang on now i'm confused beyond belief let me get my thoughts together before i make another post

hellfire508
02-27-2006, 03:47 AM
How could ANYONE think Frazier won the second fight? It was as clear cut, if not MORE so that the first fight for Joe.

Frazier's 15th round
02-27-2006, 04:23 AM
I had the first fight 10-5 for Frazier, the second 7-5 for Ali, and the third 8-6 for Ali at the time it was stopped. I actually have Frazier winning one MORE round in the trilogy, even though he only won one fight.

hellfire508
02-27-2006, 05:11 AM
I had the first fight 10-5 for Frazier, the second 7-5 for Ali, and the third 8-6 for Ali at the time it was stopped. I actually have Frazier winning one MORE round in the trilogy, even though he only won one fight.

I had 9-6, 5-7, 5-9...

That's 22-19 for Ali.

Differs for each person I guess.

Yogi
02-27-2006, 12:16 PM
How could ANYONE think Frazier won the second fight? It was as clear cut, if not MORE so that the first fight for Joe.

Didn't you just say that you scored it 7-5 for Ali, which is just about as close as somebody could have it in his favour (if someone disagrees with you by only one single round, they could've had it a draw)?

Anyways, I watched that second fight again last night and I ended up with a score of 6-5-1 for Ali in rounds...Very close fight, I thought.