Join Date: Dec 2007
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Total Points: 7,569,015,947,611.98
Check this out
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
Originally Posted by knn
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.
Originally Posted by knn
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.