Muhammad Ali was not a great fighter

[BenL]

Ali is the greatest of all times.

[sterling]

knew this was a joke

[StarshipTrooper]

Agreed.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...=74036&page=22
This thread is a perfect example.

Many posters in this forum have a hard time staying objective while analyzing a boxer's resume.

They may praise one fighter for doing something and criticize another for doing the same.

For example, praising Marciano for defeating such greats like Louis, Walcott and Charles but dismissing Ali's accomplishments because the fighters he beat were 'past their prime' (Patterson, Liston, Frazier)...

Just so! It's because they see things only through the prism of their favorite fighters and as such have no use for consistancy or objective analysis. In fact, most would not know objectivity if it bit them on their nutsack and shook it a bit.

In truth, Marcinao fought Walcott and Charles when THEY were past their primes (and in the case of Charles past his ideal weight class), and he fought a Louis who wasn't just past his prime but at the end of his string. And a lot of people had Louis ahead on the cards at the time of the stoppage. The case can me made that Liston and Patterson WHERE past their prime when Ali fought them, but Frazier most definately NOT past his prime when he fought Ali and the irony is it was Ali who past his prime. In fact, the only time Ali fought a past prime Frazier was in Manila and there it was a case of TWO past prime fighters fighting each other.

At the same time, a biased fan-boy can inflate a fighters accomplishments by cherry picking only certain fights to make their boy look good. Tyson KoolAid drinkers do this all the time.

Poet

[Mike Tyson77]

Just so! It's because they see things only through the prism of their favorite fighters and as such have no use for consistancy or objective analysis. In fact, most would not know objectivity if it bit them on their nutsack and shook it a bit.

In truth, Marcinao fought Walcott and Charles when THEY were past their primes (and in the case of Charles past his ideal weight class), and he fought a Louis who wasn't just past his prime but at the end of string. And a lot of people had Louis ahead on the cards at the time of the stoppage. The case can me made that Liston and Patterson WHERE past their prime when Ali fought them, but Frazier most definately NOT past his prime when he fought Ali and the irony is it was Ali who past his prime. In fact, the only time Ali fought a past prime Frazier was in Manila and there it was a case of TWO past prime fighters fighting each other.

At the same time, a biased fan-boy can inflate a fighters accomplishments by cherry picking only certain fights to make their boy look good. Tyson KoolAid drinkers do this all the time.

Poet

And you dont?????????? All you do is focus on Tysons losses.

[StarshipTrooper]

And you dont?????????? All you do is focus on Tysons losses.

That's because KoolAid drinking nuthuggers like you keep coming on here spouting Tyson propaganda. Otherwise the dude wouldn't even be on my radar screen.

Poet

[slicksouthpaw16]

Great article! It reveals a lot about Ali.

People pick apart the record of Marciano and few complain, but when anyone takes an honest look at Ali's resume, then it's like some kind of heresy.

Ali was the most over-hyped, overrated fighter of all time.

Are you kidding me? Ali beat the majority of the guys that are in the top 10 list of greatest heavyweights of all time. Marciano was a great fighter no doubt, but no where near Ali in terms of skill and resume.

The fighters that Marciano beat was his size and past their prime legends like Walcott, Moore, Louis, Charles ect. All past their prime. I always said that if Rocky had stayed a bit longer, then he would have been knocked out early by Mr. Charles Sonny Liston and been out boxed badly by Ali and stopped on cuts. Marciano was fortunate to come around the time that division was weak. Ali owned the best heavyweight era in history. Seems like the 60s/70s era will always be the greatest era since the heavyweight division is currently garbage and there is no sign if it changing in any way.


Ali beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Young, Ellis, Shavers, Spinks, Lyle, Bonavena, Quarry, Terrell, Williams, Folley ect. Thats the best resume that i have ever seen for any fighter. Thats the best and will always be the best era in history. Mentioning Marciano's name with Ali's when it comes to overall greatness is borderline ignorant. Marciano was great but Ali was 10x great.

[LondonRingRules]

Ali beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Young, Ellis, Shavers, Spinks, Lyle, Bonavena, Quarry, Terrell, Williams, Folley ect. Thats the best resume that i have ever seen for any fighter. Thats the best and will always be the best era in history. Mentioning Marciano's name with Ali's when it comes to overall greatness is borderline ignorant. Marciano was great but Ali was 10x great.

** 10x great, eh? Counting on your fingers again it seems.

I have no problems with anyone wanting to rank Rocky over Ali, even if I don't. Both tremendously great fighters. I'll match that first Walcott/Rocky fight with any fight in history for great fights. Ali has the first Frazier fight, one of the greatest fights ever, except that he lost.

Damn, didn't you just damn the name of Ali with little Leon Spinks? If you want to promote Ali, then just shut up. That's just pitiful. Mentioning wins over Young and Norton who he never "really" beat just as bad. He ended up propped up by his fanboys, promoters and entourage in the day which is why he can't even pull on his shorts and socks today without help.

I won't bother to pick apart the rest of the names because it's pointless since Ali truly was a great fighter, but like any great fighter he was also beatable under the right conditions or against the right style, just like the undefeated Rocky was.

Sam Langford had more HOF fights than Ali has victories, and many others greats too numerous you don't even know about can easily match and surpass Ali's record. But, hey, you can count to ten and work a computer, so fairplay and cong****, but please, it's downright painful for me and others to see you drag down the name of Ali with such pitiable praise.

[slicksouthpaw16]

** 10x great, eh? Counting on your fingers again it seems.

I have no problems with anyone wanting to rank Rocky over Ali, even if don't. Both tremendously great fighters. I'll match that first Walcott/Rocky fight with any fight in history for great fights. Ali has the first Frazier fight, one of the greatest fights ever, except that he lost.

You're laughable if you ran Marciano over Ali, plain and simple. Any way you want to look at it, skill, resume, record anything, Ali overcomes Marciano by a long shot. Like i have said before, he was great but not even close to being as great as Ali. He was very tough guy that came around when the division was weak. Do you think that he would last with the Ali/Liston Ali/Frazier era? Please. He would be a fringe contender and nothing more than that. He beat those fighters when they were past their peak. Ali beat most of his when they were in their prime.

Damn, didn't you just damn the name of Ali with little Leon Spinks? If you want to promote Ali, then just shut up. That's just pitiful. Mentioning wins over Young and Norton who he never "really" beat just as bad. He ended up propped up by his fanboys, promoters and entourage in the day which is why he can't even pull on his shorts and socks today without help.

Facts are facts. His record will say that he beat Spinks, Norton, Young, Foreman, Ellis, Tirrel, Frazier, Liston, Patterson, Quary, Bonevena ect. He beat them and convincingly at that. You really show your ignorance in the last few threads that i have seen you in. Lack of ability to judge or make sense.

Ali was past his prime when he fought the gold medalist Spinks, as well as Norton. Unlike Marciano, Ali didn't have to come back from being out boxed and busted up to score late knockouts against these fighters. The experience of a great legend set in and thats what simply got him by when he was past his peak. His skills had deteriorated, stamina ect at the time. Yet you knock him and criticize him. I am a fan of Ali but not a hugger or a biased fan. I am simply telling the truth.

I won't bother to pick apart the rest of the names because it's pointless since Ali truly was a great fighter, but like any great fighter he was also beatable under the right conditions or against the right style, just like the undefeated Rocky was.

Thats because you don't have anything to pick out. You are just babbling for no particular reason at all.

Sam Langford had more HOF fights than Ali has victories, and many others greats too numerous you don't even know about can easily match and surpass Ali's record. But, hey, you can count to ten and work a computer, so fairplay and cong****, but please, it's downright painful for me and others to see you drag down the name of Ali with such pitiable praise.

Name Langford's victories that were better than Ali's if not, then you have exposed yourself.

[Dsalazar35]

the article sounds like its written by some fool who's girlfriend left him for Ali.

[LondonRingRules]

[B]Name Langford's victories that were better than Ali's if not, then you have exposed yourself.

** The vast history of boxing appears to be well beyond your grasp.

58 HOF type bouts Sam fought and won most of those bouts, mostly by KO. You sound ridiculous enough degrading Tyson and Rocky, and now Sam?

Really now, even an impaired Ali can stand on his own merits without you drooling all over him. Get a grip.