ATG's: Best technical pressure fighter of any era?

[boxingbuff]

sort of.
most of Tyson's ability to close the distance(in my opinion) was due to his foward foot speed and hand speed. although he had flashes of brilliance, I didnt particularly think that he was great at effectively cutting off the ring and pressuring in a skill only point of view.
I thought Frazier's constant head movement and variation of his guard were technically superior than Tyson's pressure fighting.

maybe this sounds surprising, but from a technical standpoint, I think that maybe Ken Norton had the best(or at least one of the best) styles of pressure fighting among heavyweights. he was pretty darn hard to keep off when he was coming foward...and he didnt get hit too often at the same time.
also take into account that he fought two of the best HW boxers of all time, both with legendary jabs who used the ring heavily to their advantage...Ali and Larry Holmes. and in both fights, he certainly held his own, arguably beating Holmes and beating Ali twice.

anyone else with me on Norton

I agree with you about Norton,but he never applied the relentless pressure that Joe Frazier put on Ali in there first fight.He never really came close.

The 1st Norton fight with Ali was against a Muhammad Ali who was not near in top condition.The 3rd fight against Ali was against a 34 year Ali who left a piece of himself in the ring a year earliar against Joe Frazier in the Trilla in Manilla,and was never the same.Ali rapidly declined in 1976 getting beat by Jimmy Young,and looking terrible.He lost again later in the year to Norton when he was half washed up.

The 2nd Ali-Norton fight Ali was in very good condition.This was the only fight that Norton fought against Ali that he was in top condition,or Ali was not half washed up. Watch that 2nd Ali-Norton fight,then watch the 1st Ali-Frazier fight.Frazier applied and put relentless pressure on Ali every minute of every round,for 15 rounds.In the 2nd Ali-Norton fight,Norton couldn't pressure Ali near what Joe Frazier could and did.

I'm not putting Norton down,I agree with your assetment(sp) of Norton.I'm just pointing out that Joe Frazier put alot more pressure on Ali than Norton.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

Mac Foster was a more qualified challenger than Bob Foster who flopped anytime he fought a heavyweight of note and that is an absolutely ridiculous argument and it's a cop out argument aswell

Funny thing is, I never made that argument, you just did. What Bob did bring, that Mac couldn't, was a 20 fight win streak over 5 years, the lightheavyweight championship and a lot more interest nation wide than just Fresno. was he more qualified at heavyweight? No. But there are other things to consider.

So now you use the triangle theory,Quarry beat Lyle so it automatically means Frazier beats Lyle despite never fighting him.I already gave you the time frame and you have blatantly ignored it,My original points were Foster and Lyle were regarded as legitimate threats to Frazier during the period of which I mentioned,Frazier wanted nothing to do with them despite of what money and recognition he would have earned from beating them at that time.Quarry was used Frazier's gatekeeper and even when that gate was opened it didn't guarantee a title shot as was the case with Ali

Your time line for Lyle simply blows. I've already pointed out the facts that he didn't turn pro till Frazier had already been champ for 3 years and he lost to Quarry and drew with Peralta the year before Frazier lost his title to Foreman. When should Frazier have given him a title shot?

I said in between 1965-1967 not 1965 specifically and not 1967 specifically,Dumbass.It wasn't that difficult to tell what I meant

In between 1965 and 1967 IS a specific time frame, dumbass. Had you said sometime during the decade of the 60's.....that would not have been specific.

Why would he take a fight with Eddie Machen who was as old as Folley was and who wasn't as highly ranked as Folley was?

A better question is, why do you think he was even obligated to fight Folley as an up and comer? He took on a mix of other up and comers and veterans. as said before, no fighters gets to everybody on their way up. You trying to twist this into a "he ducked him" scenario is unreasonable.

Yes ok,Blatantly ignore the time frame and general perception of the time once again and twist it to fit your own agenda,(There were alot more qoutes trust me)It's very easy to do with history by delusional,insecure fools intent on protecting their Idols rep

Joe Frazier is hardly one of my favorites. But I do acknowledge him as a great fighter with incredible heart. You trying to tear him down is not only an injustice to the man, but laughable, and you have the balls to say I have an agende? Lmao!!

And no reasonable person can ignore somebody blatantly avoiding certain fighters throughout their careers not just a young up and coming fighter,These are not just assumptions either.I have presented my arguments alot better than you who has just backed up into the corner and curled up into a ball clutching your joe frazier picture close to your heart

No REASONABLE person expects a fighter to get to everyone in the first place.

You're getting owned by a troll here son.Your arguments are pathetic and a cop out.I'm not a bad guy however,I shall let you pass with what dignity you have left.This argument ended long ago when you backed off of your original statements and anyone following this conversation will be able to see this

Hey, you got something right!! Yes, you certainly are a troll.

[Dynamite Kid]

sort of.
most of Tyson's ability to close the distance(in my opinion) was due to his foward foot speed and hand speed. although he had flashes of brilliance, I didnt particularly think that he was great at effectively cutting off the ring and pressuring in a skill only point of view.
I thought Frazier's constant head movement and variation of his guard were technically superior than Tyson's pressure fighting.

maybe this sounds surprising, but from a technical standpoint, I think that maybe Ken Norton had the best(or at least one of the best) styles of pressure fighting among heavyweights. he was pretty darn hard to keep off when he was coming foward...and he didnt get hit too often at the same time.
also take into account that he fought two of the best HW boxers of all time, both with legendary jabs who used the ring heavily to their advantage...Ali and Larry Holmes. and in both fights, he certainly held his own, arguably beating Holmes and beating Ali twice.

anyone else with me on Norton

Yeah im with you, great call.

Ive always maintained that Tyson's biggest asset besides his punching power was his footspeed, he was very quick at closing distance and its that what stopped him getting nailed on the way on in, not some spectacular head movement that the Tyson die hards will have you believe, his head movement was obviously a factor to but footspeed was the main asset. When i watch the Lewis fight that is what i see thats declined so much, his feet looked rooted to the canvas and his feet are too slow to get him into position without getting nailed, what you end up with is him becoming tentative about whether to close the distance because he is getting hit and before you know it he is getting picked apart because he is standing out at long range.

I also agree with the Norton anology. Norton had a different way of putting pressure on didn't he. To me most pressure fighters close distance fast and dont like waiting, they like to get off first and drive you around the ring where you expend energy and then they can capitalize when you get a little tired, they also look to make your back hit the ropes (cut the ring down) where they can **** you.

To me Norton did not do that because he was a different type of pressure fighter, Norton would close distance slower but make sure he was safe and thing with Norton is he kept you expending energy with the thought of an attack, he would get you near the ropes and then a fighter would think to themselves "i best get off the ropes because im in a vulnerable position" and they would expend more energy moving away from Norton, meanwhile Norton is not getting hit because he is slipping a lot and he is not having to work as hard and he can capitalize when they get tired from the moving etc.

Adamek does the same kind of thing only he is obviously not as good defensively at slipping, but what he does is he waits and he watches the opponents movements and they expend energy because he is stalking them and threatening to throw, so they feel compelled to keep moving away from him because they dont want to get trapped on the ropes.

[JAB5239]

Every champion in history can be accused of not making certain fights on theie way up. Folley offered no upside. Win and you beat an old man, lose and you lost to an old man. WHY should Frazier have taken that fight?

Still waiting for an answer to this question Piss******. I like how you cut it out of you last reply. Did you think you were being slick, or can you simply not answer the question?

[Steak]

most of the best pressure fighters were actually quite patient. Everyone is saying Duran, and I really dont think you could call him a 'nonstop' pressure fighter. He would put a lot of pressure on you, but in no way was he the kind of guy that would move foward constantly. hell, in most of his bigger wins, he was more of a back and forth type of guy, standing his ground and moving back and forth when needed.

thats why I always liked Norton's style. he didnt have the come foward intensity of Frazier, but imo his style on its own was a little more efficient when it came to pressuring his opponent.
I dont think Norton was as good as Frazier overall...he didnt have the chin, stamina, head movement or punch variety that Frazier had. which showed up drastically when he fought guys that didnt fight on the backfoot. yet he more than held his own the two best heavyweight backfoot boxers of all time. his style alone was excellent at pressuring though.

good responses in here, yall.

[Eric Holder]

most of the best pressure fighters were actually quite patient. Everyone is saying Duran, and I really dont think you could call him a 'nonstop' pressure fighter. He would put a lot of pressure on you, but in no way was he the kind of guy that would move foward constantly. hell, in most of his bigger wins, he was more of a back and forth type of guy, standing his ground and moving back and forth when needed.

thats why I always liked Norton's style. he didnt have the come foward intensity of Frazier, but imo his style on its own was a little more efficient when it came to pressuring his opponent.
I dont think Norton was as good as Frazier overall...he didnt have the chin, stamina, head movement or punch variety that Frazier had. which showed up drastically when he fought guys that didnt fight on the backfoot. yet he more than held his own the two best heavyweight backfoot boxers of all time. his style alone was excellent at pressuring though.

good responses in here, yall.

Agreed, a common misconception that I see alot of people make is to describe all pressure fighters as wild brawlers

[princemanspoper]

Funny thing is, I never made that argument, you just did. What Bob did bring, that Mac couldn't, was a 20 fight win streak over 5 years, the lightheavyweight championship and a lot more interest nation wide than just Fresno. was he more qualified at heavyweight? No. But there are other things to consider.

He also brought a history of losing to every single noteworthy heavyweight he ever faced.Who says's he had more interest nation wide than Mac Foster did? I mentioned Fresno as being where the fight would have drawn huge.It still would have drawn more than a fight with Bob Foster ever would.Mac Foster was a legitimate ranked heavyweight something Bob Foster never was.Mac Foster was expected by much of the media to fight the winner of Frazier-Ellis and yet he never did

Your time line for Lyle simply blows. I've already pointed out the facts that he didn't turn pro till Frazier had already been champ for 3 years and he lost to Quarry and drew with Peralta the year before Frazier lost his title to Foreman. When should Frazier have given him a title shot?

And yet you are listing out Lyle's shortcomings in 1973,A year in which I never even mentioned.Since when has number of years as a pro been a factor in which a fighter recieved a title shot? Tyson recieved a title shot after only just a year a half as a pro as did Fernando Vargas,Lyle was the hottest heavyweight in boxing in 1972 and after his knockout victory over Buster Mathis a heavyweight title fight between Frazier and Lyle seemed inevitable.But guess what happened? As was the case with Foster,Lyle got handed over to personal gatekeeper Jerry Quarry.I never claimed Lyle was in contention for a title shot in 1973,But to argue that he wasn't in 1972 is downright idiotic.

In between 1965 and 1967 IS a specific time frame, dumbass. Had you said sometime during the decade of the 60's.....that would not have been specific.

You named 1965 and 1967 and pointed directly towards those two years,I named in-between those two years for a reason because I am aware of Martin's participation in the heavyweight tournament and his loss to Ellis and Frazier's decline to enter the tournament and because that the year 1966 also happened,Did you know that, Moron.

A better question is, why do you think he was even obligated to fight Folley as an up and comer? He took on a mix of other up and comers and veterans. as said before, no fighters gets to everybody on their way up. You trying to twist this into a "he ducked him" scenario is unreasonable.

You're the one twisting this.I said he avoided fighting Folley and his trainer/manager Yank Durham admitted as much.I said Frazier avoided fighting these particular fighters(which he did)and you turned this around as me saying he out right ducked them which is the most mis-understood term in boxing

Joe Frazier is hardly one of my favorites. But I do acknowledge him as a great fighter with incredible heart. You trying to tear him down is not only an injustice to the man, but laughable, and you have the balls to say I have an agende? Lmao!!

No,of course not.Is that why you turned this around to me saying "Frazier ducked" so and so? Because I never actually said he did.I said he avoided many fighters and you as the insecure fanboy twisted this entire argument around to fit your agenda

No REASONABLE person expects a fighter to get to everyone in the first place.

And like I said,No reasonable person is to ignore that a fighter avoided many fighters and fights that were there to be made

Hey, you got something right!! Yes, you certainly are a troll.

And you have yet to actually correct this particular troll,Not doing a very good job are you? If anything the only one who has been trolling in this debate has been you.You took one thing I said and turned and twisted it into an entirely different topic and used illogical reasoning to try and strengthen your arguments.Infact you were the one who brought out this off topic debate when I never even discussed Joe Frazier but you being the Fanboy and troll that you are looped him into the discussion that I don't even know why is taking place

[JAB5239]

He also brought a history of losing to every single noteworthy heavyweight he ever faced.Who says's he had more interest nation wide than Mac Foster did? I mentioned Fresno as being where the fight would have drawn huge.It still would have drawn more than a fight with Bob Foster ever would.Mac Foster was a legitimate ranked heavyweight something Bob Foster never was.Mac Foster was expected by much of the media to fight the winner of Frazier-Ellis and yet he never did

How do you figure? At time Bob Foster was a dominating force at 175 and putting people to sleep. Mac Foster had just lost to Quarry, who Frazier had already destroyed. sorry, but the Bob Foster fight would have been much more intriguing than a fight with a guy with a recent loss to a guy Frazier already beat. To say it wouldn't is just being an ass.

And yet you are listing out Lyle's shortcomings in 1973,A year in which I never even mentioned.Since when has number of years as a pro been a factor in which a fighter recieved a title shot? Tyson recieved a title shot after only just a year a half as a pro as did Fernando Vargas,Lyle was the hottest heavyweight in boxing in 1972 and after his knockout victory over Buster Mathis a heavyweight title fight between Frazier and Lyle seemed inevitable.But guess what happened? As was the case with Foster,Lyle got handed over to personal gatekeeper Jerry Quarry.I never claimed Lyle was in contention for a title shot in 1973,But to argue that he wasn't in 1972 is downright idiotic.

So what are you saying, that Lyle was a better fighter in 72 than 73?
Lol, it doesn't matter. I find it incredibly funny that you would put Frazier down for not fighting an up and coming, yet green fighter, inbetween bouts with ali and Foreman. I mean, how much more of a hater can you be?

You named 1965 and 1967 and pointed directly towards those two years,I named in-between those two years for a reason because I am aware of Martin's participation in the heavyweight tournament and his loss to Ellis and Frazier's decline to enter the tournament and because that the year 1966 also happened,Did you know that, Moron.

I know all about it.....and only a MORON doesn't put a question mark at the end of a question. You do know the saying about people who live in glass houses, right Piss******?

You're the one twisting this.I said he avoided fighting Folley and his trainer/manager Yank Durham admitted as much.I said Frazier avoided fighting these particular fighters(which he did)and you turned this around as me saying he out right ducked them which is the most mis-understood term in boxing

No,of course not.Is that why you turned this around to me saying "Frazier ducked" so and so? Because I never actually said he did.I said he avoided many fighters and you as the insecure fanboy twisted this entire argument around to fit your agenda

What are you saying than, just explain it? Because to the minds of objective boxing fans, when you say a fighter intentionally avoided another fighter, that is defined as "ducking".

And like I said,No reasonable person is to ignore that a fighter avoided many fighters and fights that were there to be made

As has been said a million times in a million threads, no fighter can fight everybody. Of course a hater wouldn't be able to understand this and will use certain instances (which can be picked apart) to put a fighter down.

And you have yet to actually correct this particular troll,Not doing a very good job are you? If anything the only one who has been trolling in this debate has been you.You took one thing I said and turned and twisted it into an entirely different topic and used illogical reasoning to try and strengthen your arguments.Infact you were the one who brought out this off topic debate when I never even discussed Joe Frazier but you being the Fanboy and troll that you are looped him into the discussion that I don't even know why is taking place

All I just read was "blah, blah, blah, JAB is kicking the snot out of me on this topic".

[GJC]

All I just read was "blah, blah, blah, JAB is kicking the snot out of me on this topic".

I'm still waiting for him to get back to me on the judges joke scoring in the Duran Leonard 2 fight.

[JAB5239]

I'm still waiting for him to get back to me on the judges joke scoring in the Duran Leonard 2 fight.

As I am still waiting for the answer to this question.

Every champion in history can be accused of not making certain fights on theie way up. Folley offered no upside. Win and you beat an old man, lose and you lost to an old man. WHY should Frazier have taken that fight?

If we're smart, neither of us will hold our breath waiting.