Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Ali was not the greatest

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
    Frazier was several notches below Marciano from a skill standpoint.
    I don't see it. Rocky started boxing relatively late.

    Frazier could actually make punchers miss with his head movement.

    An unskilled fighter wouldn't have been able to beat Ali. A win that by itself ranks higher than all of Marciano's career.

    We're venturing into the realm of opinions so I'll leave it at that. But I do feel the best Frazier beats the best Marciano.

    Comment


    • No one is saying Frazier in unskilled.

      He had a great and quick left hook but very poor from his right side. He did show great head movement as did Marciano. Marciano however could parry, block, slip, as well as bob and weave. So Marciano had the more varied defense thus much harder to time.

      Frazier beat an Ali closest to prime but an Ali only 5-6 months shy of a 4 year layoff. A much more active Ali beat Frazier in both fights 2 and 3 stopping Joe in Manila.

      Comment


      • Rocky won against four top opponents, Louis (37), Walcott (38), moore (39) and charles (33). Every one of these fighters were past their prime and in some cases way past their prime. Don't get me wrong great fighters but in some cases close to being washed up.

        Now look at frazier, his top wins Ali (29), Bonavena (24), Chuvalo (29), Jones (29),Mathis (25), Quarry (25), Foster (31),Ellis (30), Bugner (24). He fought bigger men who were smack **** in their prime for the most part. Ali had that lay off but he fought incredibly in the first fight and it cant be said he was past his prime, he had so many more wins and great performances ahead.

        Frazier's quality off opp was a different level to rockys.

        Id say by Frazier was a better fighter than rocky.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cfang View Post
          Rocky won against four top opponents, Louis (37), Walcott (38), moore (39) and charles (33). Every one of these fighters were past their prime and in some cases way past their prime. Don't get me wrong great fighters but in some cases close to being washed up.

          Now look at frazier, his top wins Ali (29), Bonavena (24), Chuvalo (29), Jones (29),Mathis (25), Quarry (25), Foster (31),Ellis (30), Bugner (24). He fought bigger men who were smack **** in their prime for the most part. Ali had that lay off but he fought incredibly in the first fight and it cant be said he was past his prime, he had so many more wins and great performances ahead.

          Frazier's quality off opp was a different level to rockys.

          Id say by Frazier was a better fighter than rocky.
          Just playing devil's advocate . . . do any of these fighters Bonavena (24), Chuvalo (29), Jones (29),Mathis (25), Quarry (25), Foster (31),Ellis (30), Bugner (24) beat Ezzard Charles (33)?

          Beat him twice, take his best shots, and then KO him cleanly? Marciano did!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
            Just playing devil's advocate . . . do any of these fighters Bonavena (24), Chuvalo (29), Jones (29),Mathis (25), Quarry (25), Foster (31),Ellis (30), Bugner (24) beat Ezzard Charles (33)?

            Beat him twice, take his best shots, and then KO him cleanly? Marciano did!
            Those are all heavyweights except for Foster. Ezzard Charles was a light heavyweight so while he was more skillful then all of them he very well could have lost to all of them.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
              Those are all heavyweights except for Foster. Ezzard Charles was a light heavyweight so while he was more skillful then all of them he very well could have lost to all of them.
              - -Ez had 9-10 hvy defenses.

              Why hang in LH with no title offers when he could clearly rumble with the big boys enough to win a title.

              Comment


              • Calling Charles a light heavyweight with all his success as a heavyweight including becoming heavyweight champion is shortsighted to say the least.

                Comment


                • Ezzard Charles becoming heavyweight champion tells you about the strength (or lack thereof) of the era.

                  It's like when Roy Jones became "heavyweight champion."

                  Comment


                  • No. Huge difference. Jones had contenders posing as a heavyweight champion he could pick and chose in order to gain a paper title.

                    Charles had technical monsters like Walcott to fight and he ducked no one.

                    Comment


                    • https://*************/watch?v=q0cyYjsLtLc

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP