Comments Thread For: Dillian Whyte Stops Alexander Povetkin in Fourth To Get Revenge

[billeau2]

Jimmy Ellis didn't come close to being a great fighter in this life or any other. Come on now. Bonavena and Chuvalo were nothing but bums with the skill level of a cave man. It goes to show how grotesquely that era is overrated when names like those two keep coming up. They make the likes of Chisora look futuristic even well past his best.

How can a Middle weight ever be seen as anybody at the time at Heavy without proving anything? It's pure delusion. You and i both know it. Don't let propaganda make a fool out of you.

Again, no propoganda involved. One simply has to watch the things a fighter does in a ring and list them... I honestly don't know the basis for your judgements, but when I watch film that is part of what I do. Ellis has great footwork, he moved well, had great speed and decent power, fought from all ranges and had a decent (not great) chin... that is an example.

[Sid-Knee]

Again, no propoganda involved. One simply has to watch the things a fighter does in a ring and list them... I honestly don't know the basis for your judgements, but when I watch film that is part of what I do. Ellis has great footwork, he moved well, had great speed and decent power, fought from all ranges and had a decent (not great) chin... that is an example.

You judge how great a fighter is or isn't based on their physical gifts and not their actual achievements? You must think Dirrell, Judah, and Josh Kelly are great too.

That's not how i do it. No one should. Ellis was decent and nothing more. He wasn't even a good world class fighter. He never proved himself to be. But then you must see that Foreman and Frazier are just bums, because they have no talent even when you combine them. Just bar room brawlers you see down the pub with a belly full of whiskey.

Your country does propaganda to make claim everything is great. They did nothing but tell you all the time on ESPN and such how absolutely great they were. You lot have believed it like it's the absolute truth. Of course you do though, it benefits you. But it's all delusional madness. You only have to read forums like this one to see what that insanity does to people's minds. It conditions you. To not see the madness from Americans inside and outside of the ring, shows you're a fully paid up member of the cult otherwise. You need to wake up. And fast.

I don't consider you one of the extremists, you're actually not too bad. But when you have beliefs like this, it lets you down. You should have the sense to see through all the bullshlt.

The others have done the usual and avoided the situation when it gets into the subject matter. It's either avoid, or deflect. It's actually funny when you understand the patterns.

But if you want, we can go over Ali's resume bit by bit and see if we can come to an understanding? Then i'm happy to do Frazier, Foreman and then whoever?

Lets start with the Norton fights...

Do you believe Ali beat him in any of the 3 fights? Norton won all on my card. The second one being the closest which i had to Norton by 1 point. Agree? Disagree?

[billeau2]

You judge how great a fighter is or isn't based on their physical gifts and not their actual achievements? You must think Dirrell, Judah, and Josh Kelly are great too.

That's not how i do it. No one should. Ellis was decent and nothing more. He wasn't even a good world class fighter. He never proved himself to be. But then you must see that Foreman and Frazier are just bums, because they have no talent even when you combine them. Just bar room brawlers you see down the pub with a belly full of whiskey.

Your country does propaganda to make claim everything is great. They did nothing but tell you all the time on ESPN and such how absolutely great they were. You lot have believed it like it's the absolute truth. Of course you do though, it benefits you. But it's all delusional madness. You only have to read forums like this one to see what that insanity does to people's minds. It conditions you. To not see the madness from Americans inside and outside of the ring, shows you're a fully paid up member of the cult otherwise. You need to wake up. And fast.

I don't consider you one of the extremists, you're actually not too bad. But when you have beliefs like this, it lets you down. You should have the sense to see through all the bullshlt.

The others have done the usual and avoided the situation when it gets into the subject matter. It's either avoid, or deflect. It's actually funny when you understand the patterns.

But if you want, we can go over Ali's resume bit by bit and see if we can come to an understanding? Then i'm happy to do Frazier, Foreman and then whoever?

Lets start with the Norton fights...

Do you believe Ali beat him in any of the 3 fights? Norton won all on my card. The second one being the closest which i had to Norton by 1 point. Agree? Disagree?

I don't know what you mean achievement. Your talking about fighters that fought when competition was fierce, and extremely able. Ellis was decent for the time, and would have been much stronger at other times. No, I do not think Foreman and Frazier are bums... Your comments go against virtually all individuals who are boxing experts, yet you present no proof... In fact, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I gave you physical means to look and see "better" and "worse" you came back with strong opinions. Its not any forum, its virtually every boxing expert... It is people who were writing about the sport in England in the late 1800's to present day trainers.

I think Ali won one of the fights, def not all. Norton should have gotten the nod in at least one, probably two. But I also think Norton was a talent... The whole group was talented... And I do not look at judges decisions. I look at the ability of a fighter to compete, or to dominate, an opponent, and then I look at the opponent and the general level of competion (opponents). Ali also never fought at his prime. A lot of what he accomplished in the ring was done before and after we would have seen him at his absolute best.

I do think fighters who have talent are in every group. If you take a pen and paper, and look at 5 fights from Fury and Joshua, both talented fighters... One difference stands out. If you listed all the skills each man displayed, Tyson's list would be astronomical. Having been trained since a youth, Tyson moves lightly on his feet, can use his upper body, can fight off his front, or back leg, can fight inside, counters well, uses his weight (Cunningham fight), use his jab several ways, can throw all punches, etc... Joshua by comparison is limited. Now that does not mean Tyson is automatically better, though it does give some idea about what happens when a fighter has to adapt in the ring.

To me listing these skills is a way to guage the overall level of ability in a boxing period. It is objective, it deals with tangible reality, etc. Without some such measure, Its hard to say what fighters skill level was for any particular period.

[Sid-Knee]

I don't know what you mean achievement. Your talking about fighters that fought when competition was fierce, and extremely able. Ellis was decent for the time, and would have been much stronger at other times. No, I do not think Foreman and Frazier are bums... Your comments go against virtually all individuals who are boxing experts, yet you present no proof... In fact, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I gave you physical means to look and see "better" and "worse" you came back with strong opinions. Its not any forum, its virtually every boxing expert... It is people who were writing about the sport in England in the late 1800's to present day trainers.

I think Ali won one of the fights, def not all. Norton should have gotten the nod in at least one, probably two. But I also think Norton was a talent... The whole group was talented... And I do not look at judges decisions. I look at the ability of a fighter to compete, or to dominate, an opponent, and then I look at the opponent and the general level of competion (opponents). Ali also never fought at his prime. A lot of what he accomplished in the ring was done before and after we would have seen him at his absolute best.

I do think fighters who have talent are in every group. If you take a pen and paper, and look at 5 fights from Fury and Joshua, both talented fighters... One difference stands out. If you listed all the skills each man displayed, Tyson's list would be astronomical. Having been trained since a youth, Tyson moves lightly on his feet, can use his upper body, can fight off his front, or back leg, can fight inside, counters well, uses his weight (Cunningham fight), use his jab several ways, can throw all punches, etc... Joshua by comparison is limited. Now that does not mean Tyson is automatically better, though it does give some idea about what happens when a fighter has to adapt in the ring.

To me listing these skills is a way to guage the overall level of ability in a boxing period. It is objective, it deals with tangible reality, etc. Without some such measure, Its hard to say what fighters skill level was for any particular period.

Sorry for the late reply, i've been a bit busy.

No, you're reading my post wrong. I don't think Foreman or Frazier are bums in the slightest. It's calling them great i have a problem with. They were good fighters, but that's where it stops. You said Ellis was great based on his physical gifts. His skills, which is why i said "You must think the likes of Josh Kelly are great then". I then put to you that you must think Foreman and Frazier are bums because they didn't have much boxing skill. They were come forward brawlers.

I agree Ellis was decent. But you said he was great. That word gets bandied around too much these days and placed upon fighters who don't deserve that accolade. Then you have fighters who are on their way to greatness, but get called "Bums" and "Robots" and such, while fighters like Foreman, who did in fact fight like a robot, have no such claims placed at their door.

Lets not call these people who call them great, "Experts". They are no such thing. These so called "Experts" called a fighter in Marciano who never beat a world level fighter who was a natural at his weight class, a top 5 P4P ATG. That is insane. It's insulting to my intelligence. These same people then claimed Lennox Lewis wasn't top 10 all time, when in fact, he's the true greatest Heavy in history. His resume, his skills, H2H ability, his mentality, clearly show that. But due to being a Brit, like pretty much all our fighters, they're slandered and smeared with actual hate and spite. It's sickening.

As for the Norton comments, which fight of the 3 do you think Ali won?

I also do not accept Ali never fighting in his prime before or after his ban. His was prime with both. People just can't accept he fought bums other than Liston the first time round, then had better fighters in his way when he came back. So they make excuses. You said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Well, what "Proof" do these people have? What proof do you have about Ali being the "Greatest"? What proof do you have that Ali was past it when he came back? Why would a 28 year old be past his best with not taking any damage while away from the ring? What science backs this up? Do you think Fury is past his best? He had it much worse because he became obese and drank and took drugs. He just needed time to regain shape and get back into the swing of things.

[billeau2]

Sorry for the late reply, i've been a bit busy.

No, you're reading my post wrong. I don't think Foreman or Frazier are bums in the slightest. It's calling them great i have a problem with. They were good fighters, but that's where it stops. You said Ellis was great based on his physical gifts. His skills, which is why i said "You must think the likes of Josh Kelly are great then". I then put to you that you must think Foreman and Frazier are bums because they didn't have much boxing skill. They were come forward brawlers.

I agree Ellis was decent. But you said he was great. That word gets bandied around too much these days and placed upon fighters who don't deserve that accolade. Then you have fighters who are on their way to greatness, but get called "Bums" and "Robots" and such, while fighters like Foreman, who did in fact fight like a robot, have no such claims placed at their door.

Lets not call these people who call them great, "Experts". They are no such thing. These so called "Experts" called a fighter in Marciano who never beat a world level fighter who was a natural at his weight class, a top 5 P4P ATG. That is insane. It's insulting to my intelligence. These same people then claimed Lennox Lewis wasn't top 10 all time, when in fact, he's the true greatest Heavy in history. His resume, his skills, H2H ability, his mentality, clearly show that. But due to being a Brit, like pretty much all our fighters, they're slandered and smeared with actual hate and spite. It's sickening.

As for the Norton comments, which fight of the 3 do you think Ali won?

I also do not accept Ali never fighting in his prime before or after his ban. His was prime with both. People just can't accept he fought bums other than Liston the first time round, then had better fighters in his way when he came back. So they make excuses. You said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Well, what "Proof" do these people have? What proof do you have about Ali being the "Greatest"? What proof do you have that Ali was past it when he came back? Why would a 28 year old be past his best with not taking any damage while away from the ring? What science backs this up? Do you think Fury is past his best? He had it much worse because he became obese and drank and took drugs. He just needed time to regain shape and get back into the swing of things.

I don't remember the specific Norton Ali fights, I look at them as one big fight. Some fights are difficult to gage by a judge's decision. Ali fought with a broken jaw which was an incredible feat, but in the end, after 45 rounds of boxing, Norton won at least one, could have won two...Main point being no fighter dominated the fight(s) to a point where one fighter showed mastery over another. I DO think the judges were biased towards Ali, however it was not to the point that the Jimmy Young fight decision was... where Young beat Ali handily.

Ellis was an example of guys who had a lot of skills, Jones was another one from the era, Zora Foiley another... No not great but excellent fighters.

You have some strong opinions. I would say that strong opinions need strong proof. Foreman and Frazier are considered great fighters based on watching and analying their body of work. I would implore you to watch someone you have not mentioned: Forget any forgone conclusions here and watch Sonny Liston. Watch how he sets his shots up, his footwork, his skill in finishing an opponent. Watch all the things his opponents do, how they are able to fight at all ranges, etc. Just watch all the things that are done in the ring. I actually prefer Liston, who mentored Foreman, to Foreman... He may be someone you can look at more objectively since you seem resolute about Foreman and Frazier.


Regarding Ali's prime? Thats physiology. It is what it is, one can accept it, or challenge it by saying things like "a heavyweight can hold prime longer", "If a guy took less punishment he would hold his faculties" but fighters who fought punishing battles back in the day never seemed to lose their ability so much... But it is not an assertion that can be proved, or disproved. Fury could be past his best... what do we have to compare him to, to know either way?

[Sid-Knee]

I don't remember the specific Norton Ali fights, I look at them as one big fight. Some fights are difficult to gage by a judge's decision. Ali fought with a broken jaw which was an incredible feat, but in the end, after 45 rounds of boxing, Norton won at least one, could have won two...Main point being no fighter dominated the fight(s) to a point where one fighter showed mastery over another. I DO think the judges were biased towards Ali, however it was not to the point that the Jimmy Young fight decision was... where Young beat Ali handily.

Ellis was an example of guys who had a lot of skills, Jones was another one from the era, Zora Foiley another... No not great but excellent fighters.

You have some strong opinions. I would say that strong opinions need strong proof. Foreman and Frazier are considered great fighters based on watching and analying their body of work. I would implore you to watch someone you have not mentioned: Forget any forgone conclusions here and watch Sonny Liston. Watch how he sets his shots up, his footwork, his skill in finishing an opponent. Watch all the things his opponents do, how they are able to fight at all ranges, etc. Just watch all the things that are done in the ring. I actually prefer Liston, who mentored Foreman, to Foreman... He may be someone you can look at more objectively since you seem resolute about Foreman and Frazier.


Regarding Ali's prime? Thats physiology. It is what it is, one can accept it, or challenge it by saying things like "a heavyweight can hold prime longer", "If a guy took less punishment he would hold his faculties" but fighters who fought punishing battles back in the day never seemed to lose their ability so much... But it is not an assertion that can be proved, or disproved. Fury could be past his best... what do we have to compare him to, to know either way?

Norton won 1 and 3 clearly. Norton only got the decision in 1. Even Ali agreed Norton won the 3rd fight. It's the second one that was the closest. I had Norton by a point. But a win is a win.

Don't rely on any judges because of so much corruption. Score the fights yourself. You can score a fight and give your opinion can't you?

Why would you have to dominate a fight to win? Ali lost all 3 fights, so he didn't come close to dominating. The only one who did come close was Norton in fight 1 and 3. He won clearly, but i wouldn't go as far as to say he "Dominated".

So you agree Young beat Ali but was ripped off? Then we're in agreement with that one so it needs no further discussion.

So it isn't proof after i watched these fights? But it's considered proof when so called "Experts" watch them? Sorry, but that isn't close to proof. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense. That's like saying over 1 Billion Muslims prove Islam is the true religion. It doesn't. It does prove though how many lunatics there are.

I've watched all their work. Why would you think i haven't?

Nothing Foreman or Frazier did was great. They were good fighters, but not close to great. If that's all you had to do to be considered great, the likes of Douglas, Rahman, McCall, Ruiz, Haye, Jr Jones, Raheem etc etc would also be great. But no one considers them to be. If you put all their quality wins together in a pile, their resumes would look similar. So it makes no sense when people make judgements that are all over the place. You can try it if you like? Put all their quality wins together and judge? Hell, Douglas, Jones, Raheem, Rahman and McCall actually beat legitimate great fighters. Frazier and foreman didn't. Neither did Ali. But there is no disputing wins over Barrera, Morales, Lewis, Tyson because they were great fighters with the resume to support that. Ali, Frazier and foreman do not. You can not be an ATG with such a slim resume or a load of robberies in most of your top fights like Ali. It's impossible.

I've challenged Ali being out of prime. You're the one who should come back with a reasoned rebuttal. But you haven't. Why would a fighter who is 28 years of age in the 70's be out of prime with little damage? On what scientific level? Why do you think he was past it? Because he'd been out for so long? So? He was still in the prime of his life. Being out for 3 years wouldn't harm him. He'd just be rusty at first. But he shed that by having 2 fights before the Frazier fight. He hadn't forgotten how to fight had he?

[billeau2]

Norton won 1 and 3 clearly. Norton only got the decision in 1. Even Ali agreed Norton won the 3rd fight. It's the second one that was the closest. I had Norton by a point. But a win is a win.

Don't rely on any judges because of so much corruption. Score the fights yourself. You can score a fight and give your opinion can't you?

Why would you have to dominate a fight to win? Ali lost all 3 fights, so he didn't come close to dominating. The only one who did come close was Norton in fight 1 and 3. He won clearly, but i wouldn't go as far as to say he "Dominated".

So you agree Young beat Ali but was ripped off? Then we're in agreement with that one so it needs no further discussion.

So it isn't proof after i watched these fights? But it's considered proof when so called "Experts" watch them? Sorry, but that isn't close to proof. In fact, that doesn't even make any sense. That's like saying over 1 Billion Muslims prove Islam is the true religion. It doesn't. It does prove though how many lunatics there are.

I've watched all their work. Why would you think i haven't?

Nothing Foreman or Frazier did was great. They were good fighters, but not close to great. If that's all you had to do to be considered great, the likes of Douglas, Rahman, McCall, Ruiz, Haye, Jr Jones, Raheem etc etc would also be great. But no one considers them to be. If you put all their quality wins together in a pile, their resumes would look similar. So it makes no sense when people make judgements that are all over the place. You can try it if you like? Put all their quality wins together and judge? Hell, Douglas, Jones, Raheem, Rahman and McCall actually beat legitimate great fighters. Frazier and foreman didn't. Neither did Ali. But there is no disputing wins over Barrera, Morales, Lewis, Tyson because they were great fighters with the resume to support that. Ali, Frazier and foreman do not. You can not be an ATG with such a slim resume or a load of robberies in most of your top fights like Ali. It's impossible.

I've challenged Ali being out of prime. You're the one who should come back with a reasoned rebuttal. But you haven't. Why would a fighter who is 28 years of age in the 70's be out of prime with little damage? On what scientific level? Why do you think he was past it? Because he'd been out for so long? So? He was still in the prime of his life. Being out for 3 years wouldn't harm him. He'd just be rusty at first. But he shed that by having 2 fights before the Frazier fight. He hadn't forgotten how to fight had he?

I don't go by the judges but I also do not score fights. Just watch for what I consider obvious displays of sublety and skill. Dominate meaning a fighter who is so able, or a mismatch where a fighter is in a different league... For example, Roy Jones when he was winning. The Ali Norton fights showed that where as one guy may have won a few more rounds per fight, maybe won a few more rounds on a few more punches thrown, both guys were able and equally matched. That is just what I look at, not saying fights should be scored that way. I just find that one can look at a round and "find" things often enough... Its ultimately subjective. Its necessary for the sport, but judges abuse it.

YOung and Spinks both beat Ali. Watching something and looking for certain things are two different things. When someone learns to use a microscope, they see all kinds of things but it looks like a chaotic mess. When they learn what single cell organisms look like, how they are composed, etc, that chaotic mess suddenly makes sense and things can be identified. Its not "you" its the skill of looking at tape and seeing subtlety and strategy, mechanics, etc. Comparing fighters has to be done consistently, resumes are a relative quality and... often heavyweights do not have spectacular fellow ATG's to compare. This is probably because of the law of averages: Most people are small to middle weight sized, hence you will get the most competition, the most fighters in those weight classes. For example, in Thailand the heavyweight champ is not very important, the real best champion is the middle weight champ. I am mentioning this because, you have to consider this fact when talking "resumes" at heavyweight. One is better off looking at general quality of the division.

You seem insistant about Frazier and Foreman. We can agree to disagree. Terms like legitimate great fighters are very subjective. Quantifying the skills that a fighter like Lyle, Shavers had, as compared to Wilder, or Joyce, is objective. regardless of what one thinks of the outcome of such a process. I explained about Ali. A physical prime is biological. It is when our bodies are in peak biological condition and it happens at a specific age. 28 years old is a part of the prime which starts at about 25 26 years old. I never meant to implyn Ali was past it. Just that a chunk of his peak was taken from him. 3 years is at least a 3rd of a career average for most fighters.

You have to think of the whole picture: A heavyweight champ is already in the smallest percentage of fighters related to skills. His fellow athletes are at the top of their game... Any disadvantage will be important at this level. time spent away from fighting, not having fought a few years, etc. When one says it is not a big deal... well, I am sure a great sprinter, who had such a layoff, and then ran against excellent sprinters in college, would not have a big problem... But when competing against the best in fellow countries? Even if the layoff caused a difference that was a fraction of a fraction of a second... this would become a very big deal.

[Sid-Knee]

I don't go by the judges but I also do not score fights. Just watch for what I consider obvious displays of sublety and skill. Dominate meaning a fighter who is so able, or a mismatch where a fighter is in a different league... For example, Roy Jones when he was winning. The Ali Norton fights showed that where as one guy may have won a few more rounds per fight, maybe won a few more rounds on a few more punches thrown, both guys were able and equally matched. That is just what I look at, not saying fights should be scored that way. I just find that one can look at a round and "find" things often enough... Its ultimately subjective. Its necessary for the sport, but judges abuse it.

YOung and Spinks both beat Ali. Watching something and looking for certain things are two different things. When someone learns to use a microscope, they see all kinds of things but it looks like a chaotic mess. When they learn what single cell organisms look like, how they are composed, etc, that chaotic mess suddenly makes sense and things can be identified. Its not "you" its the skill of looking at tape and seeing subtlety and strategy, mechanics, etc. Comparing fighters has to be done consistently, resumes are a relative quality and... often heavyweights do not have spectacular fellow ATG's to compare. This is probably because of the law of averages: Most people are small to middle weight sized, hence you will get the most competition, the most fighters in those weight classes. For example, in Thailand the heavyweight champ is not very important, the real best champion is the middle weight champ. I am mentioning this because, you have to consider this fact when talking "resumes" at heavyweight. One is better off looking at general quality of the division.

You seem insistant about Frazier and Foreman. We can agree to disagree. Terms like legitimate great fighters are very subjective. Quantifying the skills that a fighter like Lyle, Shavers had, as compared to Wilder, or Joyce, is objective. regardless of what one thinks of the outcome of such a process. I explained about Ali. A physical prime is biological. It is when our bodies are in peak biological condition and it happens at a specific age. 28 years old is a part of the prime which starts at about 25 26 years old. I never meant to implyn Ali was past it. Just that a chunk of his peak was taken from him. 3 years is at least a 3rd of a career average for most fighters.

You have to think of the whole picture: A heavyweight champ is already in the smallest percentage of fighters related to skills. His fellow athletes are at the top of their game... Any disadvantage will be important at this level. time spent away from fighting, not having fought a few years, etc. When one says it is not a big deal... well, I am sure a great sprinter, who had such a layoff, and then ran against excellent sprinters in college, would not have a big problem... But when competing against the best in fellow countries? Even if the layoff caused a difference that was a fraction of a fraction of a second... this would become a very big deal.

How in the hell can you claim a fighter to have won or not if you don't score fights? You have to to have reason. Without reason, all you have is madness.

To dominate someone is to win every round in about as clear a way as possible. Calzaghe dominated Lacy and Jones. Hopkins dominated Pavlik and Trinidad. They're examples of domination. But you don't need to win a fight in this manner for you to win a fight. It's preposterous to suggest you have to. Norton won clearly. Yes, Ali won some rounds and was competitive. But not enough for there to be argument against Norton's clear wins in fight number 1 and 3.

Norton wasn't winning his rounds on a few more punches. For you to make suggestion on this, you're going to have to tell me which fight and rounds Norton did this? Otherwise, you have no argument based in rationality. Maybe one or two rounds over the couple of fights, but the rest of the rounds are clear as day. You need facts to make an argument. You're the one who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Well, the proof is with the fight tapes we have. But now you're saying you don't even score fights. But are still making outlandish claims. That's absurd. In order to make a claim against my argument, you're supposed to tell which rounds Ali won and didn't win. Tell me which rounds Norton won or didn't win. By how many punches they both landed in each round. The evidence is on film. But you're not. You're actually using ignorance as a defence for Ali.

Ali and Norton were not equally matched by the fact Norton won all 3 fights. You can only make such a claim if they win 1 fight apiece and have a close 3rd fight that goes one way by a point or two. If Norton wins all 3, then that is not equal.

What are you finding often enough if you're not scoring? What is your criteria? If one isn't dominating then the round can either way? at world level where you're not supposed to dominate every fight in order to win?

Ali was about as subtle in the ring as a peadophile in an orphanage. He was basically a brawler who could move his feet. He just couldn't use his feet to control distance like it's supposed to though, which is why he was hit so often and beaten by most of the brawlers he faced. It was foot movement without reason. A Lennox Lewis or Vitali Klitschko knew how to use footwork with reason. Ali didn't. And you don't need a microscope to see that. It's staring you in the face pretty much nearly every time Ali fought.

You're either a great fighter or you're not. Weight doesn't even come into it. I agree it's not the fault of the fighter if there are fighters not of world class in their era. That's why i have no problem with Joe Louis going to the HOF. He can only beat what is about. But his resume is pretty damn shlt. However, if you're losing to most in your era, you don't have that as an argument. I have the same reasoning when it comes to Wlad. He ducked no one. And his reign came about towards the end. But if you duck like Holmes did and refuse to unify with anyone, then again, you can't have that as an argument. I'm fine with that form of reasoning. But outside of it? It makes no rational sense. Only 3 fighters at Heavyweight satisfied my criteria for being called great. Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Holyfield however is discounted on the fact he's a prolific drug cheat. So that's leaves only Lewis and Tyson. AJ and Fury are quite close as wins against each other will be big point scorers. I give 1 point for a good world class win. 2 points for a very good win. 3 points for a great win. 4 points for an ATG win. Get to 11 points and that's my criteria for entering the hall. Or, as i said, beat everyone in your era and duck no one. You can't go losing left right and centre and getting gifts or cheating. I don't accept this. If there are fighters that prove your worth around, and you duck, then you're a coward who has admitted defeat to them anyway. But in the worse way. Floyd Mayweather is King of this. That's why i have very little respect for him. Same goes for Canelo, but he's much worse than even Floyd was.

Shavers and Lyle had better skills than Wilder. But not Joyce. Joyce actually knows how to use his jab and feet to control distance. His performance against Dubois made clear of this. Sure, he can go on the attack when the opponent poses no real danger. But when they do, his skills are there to be seen. He's not massively skilled, but enough to beat high quality fighters with a good solid ring IQ. Not even Ali had this capability. The only time he really showed us was against Liston. But Liston made Valuev look like a prime Leonard when it came to good footwork. He lead with his left hand like a man looking for the light switch in the dark. Once distance was created against him, he looked lost.

I am insistent with Frazier and foreman. They were both brawlers with little skill. Trying to claim otherwise is an insult to my intelligence. Americans have done this for decades in trying to cast off their copper as gold, and everyone else's gold, as copper. Propaganda and slander is the way. Your society is crawling with it. It goes all the way to the top, and all the way down to the bottom. Every forum has most Americans doing this to the most aggressive and extreme. You can't miss it. Even if you're blind. Just look at the way Lennox was treated. The same thing was done to AJ with Wilder being the copper in which you tried to cast down as gold. The lies and projections were constant. The hypocrisy and contradictions were said in every sentence. Wilder is a true representation of American society. You should study him and the things he says. Then look to see a match in the wider society. It's f3cking scary. Americans have this narcissistic fantasy of who they are, when in fact, that are the complete opposite. They then project all they are onto you and accuse you of the being the guilty one. It's insane. My views of Americans have changed dramatically since the dawn of the internet. I knew about it beforehand, but i didn't know how wide spread and extreme it actually was. I do now though. Oh my goodness, i do now.

You did imply Ali was done when he came back. Not that he lost a part of his prime being away. I agree he lost 3 years of his prime. But i whole heartedly disagree he was past it when he came back. People are just trying to make excuses for his many losses.

Lets move now onto Shavers. I had Shavers winning the fight by 2 points, and was another of Ali's robberies. But what says you? Agree? Disagree?

[billeau2]

How in the hell can you claim a fighter to have won or not if you don't score fights? You have to to have reason. Without reason, all you have is madness.

To dominate someone is to win every round in about as clear a way as possible. Calzaghe dominated Lacy and Jones. Hopkins dominated Pavlik and Trinidad. They're examples of domination. But you don't need to win a fight in this manner for you to win a fight. It's preposterous to suggest you have to. Norton won clearly. Yes, Ali won some rounds and was competitive. But not enough for there to be argument against Norton's clear wins in fight number 1 and 3.

Norton wasn't winning his rounds on a few more punches. For you to make suggestion on this, you're going to have to tell me which fight and rounds Norton did this? Otherwise, you have no argument based in rationality. Maybe one or two rounds over the couple of fights, but the rest of the rounds are clear as day. You need facts to make an argument. You're the one who said extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Well, the proof is with the fight tapes we have. But now you're saying you don't even score fights. But are still making outlandish claims. That's absurd. In order to make a claim against my argument, you're supposed to tell which rounds Ali won and didn't win. Tell me which rounds Norton won or didn't win. By how many punches they both landed in each round. The evidence is on film. But you're not. You're actually using ignorance as a defence for Ali.

Ali and Norton were not equally matched by the fact Norton won all 3 fights. You can only make such a claim if they win 1 fight apiece and have a close 3rd fight that goes one way by a point or two. If Norton wins all 3, then that is not equal.

What are you finding often enough if you're not scoring? What is your criteria? If one isn't dominating then the round can either way? at world level where you're not supposed to dominate every fight in order to win?

Ali was about as subtle in the ring as a peadophile in an orphanage. He was basically a brawler who could move his feet. He just couldn't use his feet to control distance like it's supposed to though, which is why he was hit so often and beaten by most of the brawlers he faced. It was foot movement without reason. A Lennox Lewis or Vitali Klitschko knew how to use footwork with reason. Ali didn't. And you don't need a microscope to see that. It's staring you in the face pretty much nearly every time Ali fought.

You're either a great fighter or you're not. Weight doesn't even come into it. I agree it's not the fault of the fighter if there are fighters not of world class in their era. That's why i have no problem with Joe Louis going to the HOF. He can only beat what is about. But his resume is pretty damn shlt. However, if you're losing to most in your era, you don't have that as an argument. I have the same reasoning when it comes to Wlad. He ducked no one. And his reign came about towards the end. But if you duck like Holmes did and refuse to unify with anyone, then again, you can't have that as an argument. I'm fine with that form of reasoning. But outside of it? It makes no rational sense. Only 3 fighters at Heavyweight satisfied my criteria for being called great. Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Holyfield however is discounted on the fact he's a prolific drug cheat. So that's leaves only Lewis and Tyson. AJ and Fury are quite close as wins against each other will be big point scorers. I give 1 point for a good world class win. 2 points for a very good win. 3 points for a great win. 4 points for an ATG win. Get to 11 points and that's my criteria for entering the hall. Or, as i said, beat everyone in your era and duck no one. You can't go losing left right and centre and getting gifts or cheating. I don't accept this. If there are fighters that prove your worth around, and you duck, then you're a coward who has admitted defeat to them anyway. But in the worse way. Floyd Mayweather is King of this. That's why i have very little respect for him. Same goes for Canelo, but he's much worse than even Floyd was.

Shavers and Lyle had better skills than Wilder. But not Joyce. Joyce actually knows how to use his jab and feet to control distance. His performance against Dubois made clear of this. Sure, he can go on the attack when the opponent poses no real danger. But when they do, his skills are there to be seen. He's not massively skilled, but enough to beat high quality fighters with a good solid ring IQ. Not even Ali had this capability. The only time he really showed us was against Liston. But Liston made Valuev look like a prime Leonard when it came to good footwork. He lead with his left hand like a man looking for the light switch in the dark. Once distance was created against him, he looked lost.

I am insistent with Frazier and foreman. They were both brawlers with little skill. Trying to claim otherwise is an insult to my intelligence. Americans have done this for decades in trying to cast off their copper as gold, and everyone else's gold, as copper. Propaganda and slander is the way. Your society is crawling with it. It goes all the way to the top, and all the way down to the bottom. Every forum has most Americans doing this to the most aggressive and extreme. You can't miss it. Even if you're blind. Just look at the way Lennox was treated. The same thing was done to AJ with Wilder being the copper in which you tried to cast down as gold. The lies and projections were constant. The hypocrisy and contradictions were said in every sentence. Wilder is a true representation of American society. You should study him and the things he says. Then look to see a match in the wider society. It's f3cking scary. Americans have this narcissistic fantasy of who they are, when in fact, that are the complete opposite. They then project all they are onto you and accuse you of the being the guilty one. It's insane. My views of Americans have changed dramatically since the dawn of the internet. I knew about it beforehand, but i didn't know how wide spread and extreme it actually was. I do now though. Oh my goodness, i do now.

You did imply Ali was done when he came back. Not that he lost a part of his prime being away. I agree he lost 3 years of his prime. But i whole heartedly disagree he was past it when he came back. People are just trying to make excuses for his many losses.

Lets move now onto Shavers. I had Shavers winning the fight by 2 points, and was another of Ali's robberies. But what says you? Agree? Disagree?

I didn't say I don't take a positon on who wins fights, I just said I do not score fights. If you show me two Japanese swords I can tell you if one is not sharpened properly, but I also do not sharpen swords. I may look at a round, a few rounds, etc but I do not sit down and score round by round.

There are different ways to judge mastery in a boxing match. There are different ways of winning a match... There are different ways to look at a fight. I did look at the Norton Ali fights at one time, from the perspective of winning the match, points, etc. I just have not looked at that match from that perspective for years, prefering to look at it from the general level of skill, dominance, competition in that group of fighters from that era. It is a different way of evaluating ability...in this case collectivelly. Im not going to watch that trilogy to tell you about rounds Sid Knee lol. My point is that Ali and Norton were fighting at a general level of skill, no one fighter was clearly dominant in those fights, they were competative fights as a series. Its not like when Hollyfield was given the nod over Lewis. My claims are conventional, hardly outlandish. Nobody would say Ali was dominated by Norton in that series. Your claiming that some of the greatest fighters ever were bums, seriously? then calling my claims outlandish Now your being silly.

Ill score rounds for you when you can look and list what skills make any fighter great as compared to skills observed with Frazier and Foreman. To wit you have not listed any such evidence/skills only an opinion. Then you tell me the only way to look at a fight is through scoring rounds? Really? Your losing credability in my eyes... Not saying it matters much, but it does tell me trying to debate you has become futile. I don't fault anyone for having outlandish opinions on their own merits, but if you want to debate and ask me to look at rounds to determine Norton, then you have to look at fights and list attributes that show greatess, bumness. What is crude about Frazier compared to the modern marvels we have today.

When I look at fights, like Ali/Norton I am looking at things like how a fighter is using defense, footwork, punches, head movement. Their ability to take punches, show determination, counter punch, etc. Natural attributes like speed, etc. I really have no desire to go back and watch that trilogy, especially round by round. Its not important enough to try to convince anyone that the fighters were competative with each other. Sorry have better things to do, fights to watch, its nothing personal lol.

Ali moved straight back, indeed his footwork was off... But he was fast and able to get away with it. He had the speed anbd reflexes to be able to move in lines, and the head movement as well. Jones is another one like that. Ali's greatness was his hand speed, upper body movement, foot speed and chin. Have to run

[Sid-Knee]

I didn't say I don't take a positon on who wins fights, I just said I do not score fights. If you show me two Japanese swords I can tell you if one is not sharpened properly, but I also do not sharpen swords. I may look at a round, a few rounds, etc but I do not sit down and score round by round.

There are different ways to judge mastery in a boxing match. There are different ways of winning a match... There are different ways to look at a fight. I did look at the Norton Ali fights at one time, from the perspective of winning the match, points, etc. I just have not looked at that match from that perspective for years, prefering to look at it from the general level of skill, dominance, competition in that group of fighters from that era. It is a different way of evaluating ability...in this case collectivelly. Im not going to watch that trilogy to tell you about rounds Sid Knee lol. My point is that Ali and Norton were fighting at a general level of skill, no one fighter was clearly dominant in those fights, they were competative fights as a series. Its not like when Hollyfield was given the nod over Lewis. My claims are conventional, hardly outlandish. Nobody would say Ali was dominated by Norton in that series. Your claiming that some of the greatest fighters ever were bums, seriously? then calling my claims outlandish Now your being silly.

Ill score rounds for you when you can look and list what skills make any fighter great as compared to skills observed with Frazier and Foreman. To wit you have not listed any such evidence/skills only an opinion. Then you tell me the only way to look at a fight is through scoring rounds? Really? Your losing credability in my eyes... Not saying it matters much, but it does tell me trying to debate you has become futile. I don't fault anyone for having outlandish opinions on their own merits, but if you want to debate and ask me to look at rounds to determine Norton, then you have to look at fights and list attributes that show greatess, bumness. What is crude about Frazier compared to the modern marvels we have today.

When I look at fights, like Ali/Norton I am looking at things like how a fighter is using defense, footwork, punches, head movement. Their ability to take punches, show determination, counter punch, etc. Natural attributes like speed, etc. I really have no desire to go back and watch that trilogy, especially round by round. Its not important enough to try to convince anyone that the fighters were competative with each other. Sorry have better things to do, fights to watch, its nothing personal lol.

Ali moved straight back, indeed his footwork was off... But he was fast and able to get away with it. He had the speed anbd reflexes to be able to move in lines, and the head movement as well. Jones is another one like that. Ali's greatness was his hand speed, upper body movement, foot speed and chin. Have to run

What???? Scoring fights to determine who has won and who hasn't, is different to looking at a fighters capabilities and how useful they are in a ring. They're two completely different criteria's. But you're trying to tell me you look at fighters "Gifts" to determine who has won or not. Sorry, but that's insane and is in no way a criteria used to score fights to determine said winner. If it was, they'd just film them shadow boxing and hitting the heavy bag to come up with a winner. They wouldn't even need to get into a ring and hit each other. This is why you think Ellis is "Great" based on physical gifts. He isn't, he's just decent. How good you are is based on beaten proven opponents. If you can't beat said opponent, even if your physical gifts are far beyond your opponents, then you're not on the same level. Zab Judah, Andre Dirrell, Josh Kelley are nowhere near to a fighter such as Nigel Benn or Carl Froch. They're ATG's because they proved it where it matters. In the ring. Not based on physical gifts.

The sword analogy doesn't even make sense. It's easy to tell whether a sword is sharp or not. But to determine a winner in a boxing match, you're going to have to score it round by round using correct criteria. It's why they have judges. Although i don't know why when it comes to fights in the US because they always rip off away fighters. Vlasov is the latest victim of corruption when he clearly won the fight. But that's what they're supposed to be for.

I never said Ali was dominated by Norton? Why would you think this when i've made it very clear to you repeatedly? How is it possible to confuse my words?

Who called them bums, too??? Are you even reading my posts? It seems you're taking the same route you do with boxing scoring and not actually paying attention. I said they were good world class fighters with limited skills. Not these ATG's with the best boxing ability as they're cast down as. My argument is them not being ATG's. I never said they were bums. Jeez. Now you understand the frustrations when trying to talk honestly and very clearly. It always goes on a mad one. How, i do not know. But it's always the same.

If you don't think Foreman and Frazier are crude, then i don't know what to say. They're as crude as it gets. Only delusion and severe brainwashing would allow it not to be seen. It's as clear as day. It's there before your very eyes. You cannot miss it.

Sorry, but you have no argument if you're not willing to break down who won what rounds. Looking at things such as speed, timing, defence etc etc is a completely DIFFERENT argument altogether. We can get to that after we've debated who won or not. But we need to stick to the one subject and not deflect to different arguments.

Ali's reflexes were so good you could close your eyes and throw a punch in any direction you wanted, but still hit him square in the face. It's the truth. Roy had good reflexes. Ali didn't come close to.

You don't want to continue this? I always knew it was going to happen. Everyone runs when it gets to the meat of the subject. People just can't deal with the truth. And with the truth staring everyone in the face as much as it does, there is not a single argument to be made for them. It doesn't stand under scrutiny. it never did either.