Who Thinks Butterfly Overrates every single oppnent Ali Has Fought.

[Baddest man on da planet]

i think he does

[!! AI-Holmes!!]

Infatuation maybe.....

[Southpaw Stinger]

Not really. He overates people he hasn't fought. - Bruce Lee!?!

[Skydog]

I completely agree with this thread. At least he stops the overrating of Tyson, that's one thing I give him props for (cough cough, starter of this thread).

[LondonRingRules]

Because he's a kid and Ali is a big hero. He's coming around, but being is kid is rough when you got people rubbing your nose in it.

[hellfire508]

He overrates Ali - who he thinks is invincible. I think Ali beats every heavy in history on his best night, but he was beatable.

Ali's opponents - maybe, I dont know.

[butterfly1964]

lol, i overrate every ali opponent? and i guess you mean i rate them high. i could have sworn that i just rate liston, holmes, foreman, and frazier high, unless those four are the only boxers ali ever fought .

everyone with a brain knows joe frazier is a top ten hw. the only people who disagrees either don't know boxing history or just plain rascist. during the period of ali's layoff in 1967-70, frazier was one of the most dominant boxers i've ever seen, he destroyed EVERYBODY at that time, most of his opponents were bigger and taller than him. he has the hardest left hook in history period. he definetely deserves the credit i give him.

george foreman destroyed frazier twice, so common sense would tell you that he ranks higher than frazier, making him a top ten hw as well. he is the hardest hitter period. he also won the title at 45, something no other hw could do at that age.

larry holmes fought ali once, and annihilated him; but ali was 38 and was shot, so that really doesn't count. holmes dominated the late '70s and early '80s. his style would enable him to defeat many all-time great hws.

and liston is one of the most underrated boxers in history period if not the most underrated. the only reason he turned out the way he was in the end were because of ali. he lost to ali twice, which there is no shame in, he lost one fight to marty marshall when he was 22; he was young and inexperienced. however, 2 years later he rematched marshall and crushed him. he lost to leotis martin in 1969 when he was 37 years old. martin was a top contender, and it was not the same liston of old. the combination of liston's strength, speed, punching power, and boxing skills made him and un-stoppable force, and he would dominate even the 70s, if he boxed at that time. no question in my mind that liston had everything you would want to become a great fighter, and he was a great fighter.

baddest man on the planet, you should be the last person to talk about other people kissing up to fighters. to you tyson is god. to you tyson could beat ali, foreman, liston, frazier, and holmes combined. douglass knocked out tyson. can you imagine douglass knocking out ali, liston, holmes, foreman or frazier? i don't think so. so before you jump on me, look at yourself first, cause i have a good reason for thinking ali is the best. most people on the face of the planet think ali is the best as well, so it's not like i'm the only one.

PEACE!

[Brassangel]

I believe that Ali could defeat any fighter in heavyweight history twice if you gave him three shots. Does butterfly overrate him? Maybe. But how can you really overrate someone who's arguably #1? He was beatable, however, even in 1967. It's a boxing ring; any young, primed, top ten fighter would have a shot with great physical and mental conditioning. Even so, Ali, in his prime, would likely beat them 2/3 times.

Tyson is a fighter...no, a subject, that everyone should be careful with. He got beat by Douglas, and Douglas couldn't beat so and so, who lost to so and so, who lost to Ali....blah blah blah. Well, anybody could have beaten Tyson that night, period. And I would take Douglas against almost anybody that same night, period. They were two emotional fighters riding on the polar opposites of their careers and conditioning by that point. Unfortunately for both, niether showed up after that night.

Everybody would agree that stating, "Fighter A couldn't beat Fighters B or C, but Fighter A beat Tyson, so Tyson would lose to Fighters B and C," doesn't work in this sport. It's relative to the crossroads of their respective careers and the styles of the fights. When Ali lost to Leon Spinks, he was the odds-all favorite to win. Was Ali past his prime? Yes. Was he conditioned well? No. Was Leon capable of beating Foreman? Liston? Frazier? Oh my goodness, NO! But the stats will still put an "L" on Ali's record, regardless of the fact that Ali beat guys who could beat Spinks; or the fact that Ali was beyond his years. Same thing goes for Tyson. Was joining King's camp the biggest mistake of his career? Yes. Did he overlook Douglas? Yes. Did he fail to condition properly for almost every fight thereafter? Yes. Doesn't matter though, because everyone will just remember Tyson losing to the largest underdog in heavyweight championship history; regardless of the factors listed above. Your argument is severely flawed here, butterfly.

Nonetheless, I still say Ali is #1. He wasn't perfect, he could be hit, he could be beaten, and he was just a man. But he was the best and would win 2/3 against any heavyweight in history.

[butterfly1964]

I believe that Ali could defeat any fighter in heavyweight history twice if you gave him three shots. Does butterfly overrate him? Maybe. But how can you really overrate someone who's arguably #1? He was beatable, however, even in 1967. It's a boxing ring; any young, primed, top ten fighter would have a shot with great physical and mental conditioning. Even so, Ali, in his prime, would likely beat them 2/3 times.

Tyson is a fighter...no, a subject, that everyone should be careful with. He got beat by Douglas, and Douglas couldn't beat so and so, who lost to so and so, who lost to Ali....blah blah blah. Well, anybody could have beaten Tyson that night, period. And I would take Douglas against almost anybody that same night, period. They were two emotional fighters riding on the polar opposites of their careers and conditioning by that point. Unfortunately for both, niether showed up after that night.

Everybody would agree that stating, "Fighter A couldn't beat Fighters B or C, but Fighter A beat Tyson, so Tyson would lose to Fighters B and C," doesn't work in this sport. It's relative to the crossroads of their respective careers and the styles of the fights. When Ali lost to Leon Spinks, he was the odds-all favorite to win. Was Ali past his prime? Yes. Was he conditioned well? No. Was Leon capable of beating Foreman? Liston? Frazier? Oh my goodness, NO! But the stats will still put an "L" on Ali's record, regardless of the fact that Ali beat guys who could beat Spinks; or the fact that Ali was beyond his years. Same thing goes for Tyson. Was joining King's camp the biggest mistake of his career? Yes. Did he overlook Douglas? Yes. Did he fail to condition properly for almost every fight thereafter? Yes. Doesn't matter though, because everyone will just remember Tyson losing to the largest underdog in heavyweight championship history; regardless of the factors listed above. Your argument is severely flawed here, butterfly.

Nonetheless, I still say Ali is #1. He wasn't perfect, he could be hit, he could be beaten, and he was just a man. But he was the best and would win 2/3 against any heavyweight in history.

name one post where i said ali couldn't be beat. name one. i've never said that. obviosly ali lost fights so he can be beat, nobody can deny that.

and like i said, no way ali, liston, frazier, foreman, or holmes would lost to douglass in their primes, no way. tyson lost to douglass in his prime. he was only 23.

[Brassangel]

You have repeatedly stated that Ali couldn't be hit in 1967. That would imply that he couldn't be beaten. In fact, you said it in the Ali vs. Louis thread. While that's not a career spanning comment, it still states exactly what you are denying.

Secondly, you have also stated repeatedly that fighters who are 22 or 23 years old are still green and not fully developed. Apparently this only applies to fighters who better cement your arguments. Furthermore, everybody and their sister knows that Tyson was not in his prime anymore as soon as he went into King's camp. Prime age? Perhaps. Prime mental and physical conditioning? Definitely not. 5 pounds heavier than normal, standing flat-footed, throwing an average of 16 punches around without working behind the jab, etc. He was as out of sync for this fight as Ali was against Holmes.

Finally, you could notice/comment on the positive statements I throw in your direction from time to time. I have observed that you only point out the few statements that you find negative, and then make quick one liners instead of posting a decent debate. Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I nuts? Even if I'm nuts, I still think that Ali was the best ever.

On a side note: Ali's cornermen said that they never saw Ali fight as prepared, or as serious as he did in 1974 against George Foreman. They said, "I would take that Ali over the one from the 1960's any day. He was a smarter fighter, and he took his opponent seriously. All the speed in the world can't give you what he gave in that fight..." While Muhammad Ali was no longer in his physical prime at that point, it was the defining moment of his greatness.