Tweet
There is nothing better than above average footwork, head hunting, and the one-two combination.... All while keeping your hands down. 
/SARCASM.
/SARCASM.
-
-
[QUOTE=JAB5239;7619567]Flaming??? you are the ***git posting threads bout me in the dome like a little confused boy.....
Typing error, huh? Heh, heh, heh!
So are you going to answer the question or not? Lets stop flaming and get down to some serious boxing talk.
Let me rephrase the question so you can understand it a little better. Who, at the time Ali fought them, was a better fighter than McLarnin or Canzoneri at the time Ross fought them? Hint. it certainly wasn't an ancient Archie Moore.
Who was a better fighter than McLarnin or Canzoneri at the time Ali fought them??? i would have to say George Foreman, Joe Frazier or Sonny Liston....
Foreman was coming off demolishing victories over Norton and Frazier and amassed a 40-0 streak by the time Ali fought him.....
When Ali fought Liston, Sonny was bouncing off his two most famous victories over Patterson....
McLarnin and Canzoneri rank higher than Liston, Foreman & Frazier on many P4P lists only because P4P lists are in favour of smaller fighters and seem to underrate heavyweight fightersLast edited by Rolling Stone; 02-26-2010, 08:40 PM.Comment
-
No offense to Stone Roses but when you have to pull out a 50 year old Archie Moore in any argument about Muhammad Ali's greatness then you just don't know what you're talking about.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with rating Barney Ross above Muhammad Ali, or doing the opposite, both were great fighters with great resumes. Usually it comes down to which era you feel was better, the great 1930's lightweight/welterweight era or the golden era of heavyweights.
As an advice, take it easier when having a discussion with someone else, we don't want this section of the forum to turn into another NSB. Try to keep it as civil as possible because there's no need to go over the line due to a minor disagreement.Comment
-
[QUOTE=JAB5239;7619697]incorrect, i misread your initial question and i concede the fact the Mclarnin and Canzoneri were better wins for Ross than Ali's win over Moore at the time they fought each other.......i didn't say an old Archie Moore was a better win for Ali....i meant to say Archie Moore was a better name on Ali's resume than McLarnin and CanzoneriComment
-
It's what happens when talking about Ali. People completely disregard the actual skill of other fighters when comparing them to Ali. I don't know why.
When I watch Ali. I see a Heavyweight with footwork and average skill. He is the best of his era but his skill set is equivalent to an really good amateur boxer.Comment
-
[QUOTE=JAB5239;7619802]Incorrect.....George Foreman was a greater opponent than Mclarnin at the time they fought Ali and Ross......Foreman was undefeated and had 2 ATG's on his resume whereas McLarnin had 8 defeats by the time he fought Ross
If they rank higher its because they fought and beat better competition. Its the reason it is debatable about who should rank higher, Ali or Ross.Comment
-
oh and by the way i have the trolls flicker and hank moody on ignore, i don't respond to *******sComment
-
[QUOTE=Rolling Stone;7619824]
Undefeated is not comparable against level of competition. If you only want names Young Corbett III, Benny Leonard and Pancho Villa all probably rank ahead or are close to both Frazier and Norton and Foreman all time. On top of that he had wins over top contenders (the ones I know about) Petrolle, Singer, Mandell, Glick, Kaplan and Bud Taylor. That is much more impressive than Foremans road to Ali8 in my opinion. George was slaughtering guys. But how good were most of them?Comment
Comment