Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ali is Overrated

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Welter_Skelter View Post
    I agree with YOGI... we humans have a way of viewing the PAST with rose coloured glasses.. There is NO doubt Ali was Great Boxer.. He was the one of the best of his ERA.. But HIS ERA was no better than ANY OTHER ERA.. I DARE ANYBODY to compare any top 10 list from any era and to explain to me why its better than any other top 10 list.. I bet you cant .. In fact I know you cant.. So shut up and join the present..
    that is actually perfectly possible, when the levels are ridicolously different. like when comparing the current HWs to the 90s HWs and the 70s HWs.

    I will explain to you how to make the comparison?

    you watch the fights

    and

    notice that

    1) current HWs gas out,
    2) they are on average terribly deficient in the skills compartment (inside fighting, anyone?)
    3) an old fat (and great, luckily) middleweight can make a very goodrun
    4) the number one HW has three stoppage losses in his 20s

    then you watch the 90s or 70s HW and you notice that the current crop made young George Foreman look the reincarnation of Ray Robinson.

    Comment


    • #22
      The easiest two comparisons to make are the workrate, and movement. Today's heavyweights stand almost completely still, willing to trade or induce a punch to find counter-haymaker opportunities. They take almost ten seconds (or more!) in between punches. They hesitate and rarely let their hands go. Today's fighters also train far less often than those of old. Fighters used to stay in shape all the time, as boxing was their life. The current era seems to promote training for the few weeks right before a fight, make your millions, and get lazy and fat once at the top (see: Rahman).

      They are smart, however. There's no way they would be suckered into chasing Ali around the ring, tiring themselves out. At the same time, Ali would win the judges by simply doing more than the sloths out there today. The Klitschko brothers, as well as Lennox Lewis--to name a few recent champions--would probably be good in any era, however. They not only have such size and strength, but solid jabs that punish opponents perpetually. Consider that Lewis, in his prime, was more than 20 pounds heavier than George Foreman in his, and a far more skilled boxer.

      I don't believe that the size really makes the difference, but when that incredible size is added to great skill, I could see how today's fighters would do well against the old. Note, I was only able to name three from recent years, however, one of which is retired, another who just came out of retirement, and the third who may not get to be undisputed champion before his career starts on the downslope.

      My long-winded point is, there isn't a top ten list from today. You get about 4 decent heavyweights in the last decade, comparable to those in other eras, whereas most other eras easily fill up the list to ten.

      Current decade:
      1. Lennox Lewis
      2. Vitali Klitschko
      3. Hasim Rahman (when in shape, he was pretty astounding)
      4.-10. Irrelevant, mostly guys past their prime
      Last edited by Brassangel; 07-17-2007, 11:48 AM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by wmute View Post
        that is actually perfectly possible, when the levels are ridicolously different. like when comparing the current HWs to the 90s HWs and the 70s HWs.

        I will explain to you how to make the comparison?

        you watch the fights

        and

        notice that

        1) current HWs gas out,
        2) they are on average terribly deficient in the skills compartment (inside fighting, anyone?)
        3) an old fat (and great, luckily) middleweight can make a very goodrun
        4) the number one HW has three stoppage losses in his 20s

        then you watch the 90s or 70s HW and you notice that the current crop made young George Foreman look the reincarnation of Ray Robinson.
        Produce the LISTS... Then tell me How Chuck Wepner a top 10 fighter from the glory years of the 70's is any better than Lamon Brewster.. or Sam Peter.. YOU CANT.. I have been watching boxing for 30 years.. NOTHING has changed .. except the Public's acceptance and media coverage..

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Brassangel View Post
          The easiest two comparisons to make are the workrate, and movement. Today's heavyweights stand almost completely still, willing to trade or induce a punch to find counter-haymaker opportunities. They take almost ten seconds (or more!) in between punches. They hesitate and rarely let their hands go. Today's fighters also train far less often than those of old. Fighters used to stay in shape all the time, as boxing was their life. The current era seems to promote training for the few weeks right before a fight, make your millions, and get lazy and fat once at the top (see: Rahman).

          They are smart, however. There's no way they would be suckered into chasing Ali around the ring, tiring themselves out. At the same time, Ali would win the judges by simply doing more than the sloths out there today. The Klitschko brothers, as well as Lennox Lewis--to name a few recent champions--would probably be good in any era, however. They not only have such size and strength, but solid jabs that punish opponents perpetually. Consider that Lewis, in his prime, was more than 20 pounds heavier than George Foreman in his, and a far more skilled boxer.

          I don't believe that the size really makes the difference, but when that incredible size is added to great skill, I could see how today's fighters would do well against the old. Note, I was only able to name three from recent years, however, one of which is retired, another who just came out of retirement, and the third who may not get to be undisputed champion before his career starts on the downslope.

          My long-winded point is, there isn't a top ten list from today. You get about 4 decent heavyweights in the last decade, comparable to those in other eras, whereas most other eras easily fill up the list to ten.

          Current decade:
          1. Lennox Lewis
          2. Vitali Klitschko
          3. Hasim Rahman (when in shape, he was pretty astounding)
          4.-10. Irrelevant, mostly guys past their prime
          Oh yeah Hasim Rahman.. MR lucky punch who has LOST every big fight he has ever been in.. save for the Lucky punch...

          Try Wlad Klitschko who has been KNocking out TOP 15 fighters for 8-9 years now..

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Welter_Skelter View Post
            Produce the LISTS... Then tell me How Chuck Wepner a top 10 fighter from the glory years of the 70's is any better than Lamon Brewster.. or Sam Peter.. YOU CANT.. I have been watching boxing for 30 years.. NOTHING has changed .. except the Public's acceptance and media coverage..
            There is no need to give you a list. Just watch the fights. When was the last time you saw a Holyfield-Bowe? or even a Tua-Ibeabuchi for that matter...

            NOTHING has changed? maybe the number of people practicing it? thank god we have the russians now, otherwise the HW division would be a freak show for big ppl who are too fat to play basket and not fat enough to play football.

            I know from NSB you are a Wlad fan, so I doubt you will never admit it, since it does not fit your "agenda". I am not wasting my time anymore, bye.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by wmute View Post
              There is no need to give you a list. Just watch the fights. When was the last time you saw a Holyfield-Bowe? or even a Tua-Ibeabuchi for that matter...

              NOTHING has changed? maybe the number of people practicing it? thank god we have the russians now, otherwise the HW division would be a freak show for big ppl who are too fat to play basket and not fat enough to play football.

              I know from NSB you are a Wlad fan, so I doubt you will never admit it, since it does not fit your "agenda". I am not wasting my time anymore, bye.
              So Brewster Lyakhovich wasn't as exciting a fight as Bowe Holyfeild??? How does being a Wlad fan change anything??? Do you remember the 80's??? Gonna tell me that was a better era TOO? I am not saying the olden days were bad.. I just refuse to say these days suck.. there are problems.. but the talent level is NOT one of them...

              How does being a Wlad fan give me an agenda???? Are you a paranoid freak or something??? do you cover your head in Foil wrap so the Aliens cant "talk" to you???
              Last edited by Welter_Skelter; 07-17-2007, 02:44 PM.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Welter_Skelter View Post
                So Brewster Lyakhovich wasn't as exciting a fight as Bowe Holyfeild??? How does being a Wlad fan change anything??? Do you remember the 80's??? Gonna tell me that was a better era TOO? I am not saying the olden days were bad.. I just refuse to say these days suck.. there are problems.. but the talent level is NOT one of them...

                How does being a Wlad fan give me an agenda???? Are you a paranoid freak or something??? do you cover your head in Foil wrap so the Aliens cant "talk" to you???
                Brewster-Lyakhovich was exciting in a Gatti-Ward type of way, Bowe-Holy was exciting and with a neat display of skills.

                when did I freaking mention the 80s??? read my first post, "when the difference is huge you can make comparisons"... obviously discussing if it is worse that 200+ lbs people cannot beat Charles or its worse if they cant beat Spinks is a pretty hard argument to make.


                as for the connection being a Wlad fan and saying that comparisons are impossible, you should be able to see the logical connection.

                No I am not paranoid, that's why "agenda" instead of agenda...

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by chabobo66 View Post
                  You my friend are an idiot. If you're a true boxing fan, there's One unspoaken rule is you never disrespect the greatest.

                  Ali was the greatest in and out of the ring. Period. End of discussion
                  Do me a favor for a second and get off Ali's ****. In the ring he was a damn good boxer who spent his career using his name to win fights. Out of the ring ring he was an attention whore, womanizer, draft dodger. If you were a boxing fan you would know there are many fighters better than Ali. Thanks for your time you can get back on his **** now.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    ^^^I agree


                    Hamed>>>Ali

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by bengidaro View Post
                      Do me a favor for a second and get off Ali's ****. In the ring he was a damn good boxer who spent his career using his name to win fights. Out of the ring ring he was an attention whore, womanizer, draft dodger. If you were a boxing fan you would know there are many fighters better than Ali. Thanks for your time you can get back on his **** now.
                      Haha, Ali isn't even my favorite heavyweight anyway. There's a reason why he lit the flames in the 1996 summer games. Sure there are a few(not many) heavyweights better then Ali. My only point is you just don't argue his greatness. That's all I ment plain and simple. If he's the greatest then that's the way it is.
                      Last edited by chabobo66; 07-18-2007, 05:33 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP