Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

if you dont think ali's number one u should be banned

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by butterfly1964
    in terms of accomplishments i have louis at number 2, but in terms of head-to head matchups, i believe 6 hw's could defeat him. that's just my opinion based on what i see on film.
    your delusional, therefore what you see on film cannot be objectively processed by your mind.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by RockyMarcianofan00
      i don't think Ali's number 1, i believe Joe Louis is number one over ali

      he was more rounded an a better defensive artist and all around better

      Ali wasnt' the greatest, proof?

      Ali had bad defense- the only defense you saw from him was later with the rope-a-dope,he only moved his head, he never perry'd blocked with his elbows, etc

      also he was a horrible inside fighter thats why fighters like Joe Frazier gave him trouble. Ali couldn't fight inside and he couldn't fight when people were inside on him. Angelo dundee even said Ali's one flaw is that you can't get inside with him, because his speed was such a key factor, we never developed his defense much or his fighting inside. His strength wasn't the best (not a big deal though) thats why Joe Louis is #1 over ali

      Thats proof that Ali wasn't the greatest?

      Heres proof that Joe Louis wasn't the greatest:

      He had a relatively crap jaw, often wobbled and knocked down. His relatively slow almost lumbering movement and shuffling footwork made it difficult for him to track down fast movers. He never applied the pressure, or had the workrate neccessary to bother mobile boxers like Ali and Holmes. He had a tendancy to drop his left hand which left him open to a straight right.

      ^ see how ridiculous that is, there is never proof its merely opinion.

      After a few beatings Ali developed means of handling fighters on the inside, clinching, using his gloves to deflect alot of what was being thrown, but you're right Ali's defense was far from brilliant. Ali wasn't strong? Ali wasn't a hard hitter, but he was physically a very strong man. I believe Ali to be number one regardless of the fact he wasn't great technically. You think Joe Louis is the greatest, fair enough, but there is no PROOF.
      Last edited by Heckler; 04-02-2006, 08:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        he mightve gotten knocked down but he always got right back up.

        Comment


        • #24
          I have no problem with Louis at number one, he was probably the most dominant and technically profficent HW boxer of all time. However, because i believe Ali had the better competition and would fare better head to head with other greats of the past i put Louis at 2 under Ali.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Heckler
            Thats proof that Ali wasn't the greatest?

            Heres proof that Joe Louis wasn't the greatest:

            He had a relatively crap jaw, often wobbled and knocked down. His relatively slow almost lumbering movement and shuffling footwork made it difficult for him to track down fast movers. He never applied the pressure, or had the workrate neccessary to bother mobile boxers like Ali and Holmes. He had a tendancy to drop his left hand which left him open to a straight right.

            ^ see how ridiculous that is, there is never proof its merely opinion.

            After a few beatings Ali developed means of handling fighters on the inside, clinching, using his gloves to deflect alot of what was being thrown, but you're right Ali's defense was far from brilliant. Ali wasn't strong? Ali wasn't a hard hitter, but he was physically a very strong man. I believe Ali to be number one regardless of the fact he wasn't great technically. You think Joe Louis is the greatest, fair enough, but there is no PROOF.
            Louis never showed an ability to successfully fight going backwards. The two guys that backed Louis up were Marciano and Schmeling and these KO losses get explained away as Louis being too young/old in those two fights. How adaptable would Louis have been if Dempsey/Marciano/Liston/Frazier/Foreman/Tyson would have been able to consistantly back him up and/or force him to the ropes?

            Comment


            • #26
              Good thinking smasher, i missed those. Point is essentially all boxers have/had flaws. Although im not sure if there was anything Joe Gans couldn't do, ive never heard anyone comment on a flaw of his. Sugar Ray Robinson was pretty close to a perfect fighter also, however his defence wasn't perfect.. he often got caught by fighters like Lamotta.

              Comment


              • #27
                louis was washed up in that marciano fight, watch him fight abe simon then watch the marciano fight.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by blockhead
                  your delusional, therefore what you see on film cannot be objectively processed by your mind.
                  i'm not delusional. i believe ali, liston, holmes, foreman, tyson, and maybe even frazier would have beaten louis.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by chosen_one
                    thats what i think if u dont put ali number one i think u should be banned and never logg on ur computer again

                    and if you dont think ali's number one **** YOU

                    butterfly1964, you are one sick dude, its obviously, you. stop jerking off about ali you ******. its rediculous now. everyone knows about ali. your not blowing the lid off some mystery or something man

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      catipillar chosen_one is your alt and you know it!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP