Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Thinks Butterfly Overrates every single oppnent Ali Has Fought.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by 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.
    just because he didn't show smarts in the 60s doesn't mean he wasn't smart. he was smart all along and if he needed to use it when he was young, then he would have used it. but there was no need to, so he didn't.

    and all tyson had to do was train for the douglass fight and he would have won. he still had the physical ability to be the tyson of old, so he was in his prime. just because you are out of shape, doesn't mean he wasn't in his prime. frazier didn't prepare alot for the foreman fight but he was 29 and could have been in better condition and he still was in his physical prime. ali weighed 214 1/2 against chuvalo in 1966 the first time and 217 1/2 against brian london in 1966, when his weight was 210-212, but does that mean he wasn't in his prime? no, so what makes it any different for tyson. ali in '66 was 24 and frazier in '73 was 29 but tyson was only 23 and he was past his prime? get the heck out of here!

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by butterfly1964
      during the period of ali's layoff in 1967-70, frazier was one of the most dominant boxers i've ever seen
      Butterfly, do you mind if I steal your line of reasoning in regards to mythical matchups?

      I hope not, cause I'm going to do so anyways...

      If the less than mediocre Manuel Ramos could buckle Frazier's knees with a right uppercut and VERY nearly knock him down in the first round, just imagine what the much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting Primo Carnera would've done to Joe...

      Primo Carnera KO-1 Joe Frazier

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Yogi
        Butterfly, do you mind if I steal your line of reasoning in regards to mythical matchups?

        I hope not, cause I'm going to do so anyways...

        If the less than mediocre Manuel Ramos could buckle Frazier's knees with a right uppercut and VERY nearly knock him down in the first round, just imagine what the much bigger, stronger, and harder hitting Primo Carnera would've done to Joe...

        Primo Carnera KO-1 Joe Frazier
        frazier was ten times as fast as carnera. carnera is the worst hw champion in history by far, (or at least one of the worst) and would not bother frazier, period. did you see how max baer manhandled carnera? is baer better than frazier? heck no! so frazier would have literally killed carnera!

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by butterfly1964
          so frazier would have literally killed carnera!
          To steal some more of your logic...

          How would Frazier go about doing that when Carnera is 6'5" and 260 lbs, whereas Frazier's only a mere 5'11" and 205 lbs?

          Comment


          • #15
            ========name one post where i said ali couldn't be beat. name one.========

            ** It's easier to name the posts where you said Ali could be beat.

            Zip.......Zero.........0.........Nada!

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Yogi
              To steal some more of your logic...

              How would Frazier go about doing that when Carnera is 6'5" and 260 lbs, whereas Frazier's only a mere 5'11" and 205 lbs?
              LOL. Sounds like Carnera was "unbeatable", well, only beatable by someone weighing more than 260 pounds and being taller than 6'5" of course. If I had a nickel for everytime someone has used height and weight as a determining factor in "fantasy fights"...

              For example:
              Originally posted by butterfly1964
              ha! that is the biggest piece of crap anybody can think about. marciano is five-ten and 185. ali is six-three and 210 in his prime! rocky has a 67" reach and ali has an 84" reach lol! marciano is a glass chin cruiserweight. ali is a full-fledged heavyweight with arguably the best chin in boxing history! the only chance the brockton blockbuster has is if he fought a 1960 ali, who was six-two 183, and about a 79" reach, still lol!

              Comment


              • #17
                Butterfly you don't know **** about Tyson.
                Tyson could be prime untill he was 37. Its the TRAINING that makes you great. He didn't train for the fight against Douglas. But he did party all night in Tokio with Don King. Did you ever see the fight? No i guess. I watched the whole fight a lot of times, and he was not even half of the Tyson he was a few years back.

                And your comment on the age and prime thing...not being in shape. Ali was not in shape against Frazier1 and he lost. Does that mean he wasn't in his prime???? hah

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by 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.
                  you're not nuts ...Ali In HIS PRIME would have cleaned up the division. As to Ali's fighters being overrated...nonsense.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Yogi
                    To steal some more of your logic...

                    How would Frazier go about doing that when Carnera is 6'5" and 260 lbs, whereas Frazier's only a mere 5'11" and 205 lbs?
                    don't make me laugh. i never use size as the only factor. if i did then why do i have ali beating everyone then? there are lots of guys that were bigger than ali so why don't i rank them higher? frazier is fast, has boxing skills and a piledriver left hook. carnera has a glass chin, ****ty footwork, no handspeed and his power p4p is not even that good. i use skills and size.

                    i use these as a criteria for matchups in that order.

                    1. boxing skills

                    2. size

                    3. stamina

                    4. heart

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by LondonRingRules
                      ========name one post where i said ali couldn't be beat. name one.========

                      ** It's easier to name the posts where you said Ali could be beat.

                      Zip.......Zero.........0.........Nada!
                      like i said name one i didn't ask you to name all, so how is it easier to name one where ali could be beat when i only asked for one. it proves that you can't name one and i am correct.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP