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

[billeau2]

What did Ali do that was great in the ring? His defence was shockingly bad. His control of distance was shockingly bad. He couldn't fight on the front foot.

When it came to shot fighters or bums, Ali could look good. Well, most of the time. Cooper and Jones was a tough couple of fights. But when it came to those more challenging, Ali was getting beatings that a supposed fighter with abnormal gifts shouldn't be getting. Do you think it's because it's all a myth with Ali? His skills, who he beat, etc etc?

Ali did fantastic things in the ring. His chin was amazing, his speed was amazing. He lost his best years and still beat some of the best competition. Actually, if you look at that era, they were all fantastic fighters. Watch things like foot speed, how guys fought at all ranges, the punching combos used, and the ability to fight hard virtually every round. Ali's defence, like a lot of guys in the day, involved the ability to roll with punches. That means using the head and shoulders, independent of the feet. Archie Moore is a master of this movement...if you really want to look and see an example. Mayweather's shoulder roll comes from this type movement. James Toney is another real master of using these techniques.

heres the thing about moving the upper body, finding the angle to set the shoulder (protecting the jaw) and timing the attack to move the head properly: It takes incredible skill. It is like a Pianist using each hand independently to play different notes on the piano. A fighter is moving his feet, readying his punches, all while positioning his shoulder, while moving the head. Thats one example... There are plenty.

[billeau2]

Frazier wasn't an ATG. He beat Ali in the first fight and... Who else? Don't you consider Frazier shot in the second fight after he was destroyed by Foreman? Frazier never beat anyone worth a damn after that. Had a close, gruelling fight with a non world class fighter in Bugner and had his eye closed. If Frazier had been beaten by Bugner and retired, do you think you'd say it was a great win, or that Frazier was shot? What would most on here say? I think you know what they'd say. So do i. But i'm still interested in what you think as it is a debate.

Jimmy Ellis. Great fighter. Watch some of Ellis' fights. Also the general level of competition in the division at the time, like Bonevera, Quarry and Chulavo, all of whom Frazier beat, was exceptional. "A rising tide lifts all boats." Its not who anybody beat, so much as how good fighters were given the state of the division.

[Sid-Knee]

Ali did fantastic things in the ring. His chin was amazing, his speed was amazing. He lost his best years and still beat some of the best competition. Actually, if you look at that era, they were all fantastic fighters. Watch things like foot speed, how guys fought at all ranges, the punching combos used, and the ability to fight hard virtually every round. Ali's defence, like a lot of guys in the day, involved the ability to roll with punches. That means using the head and shoulders, independent of the feet. Archie Moore is a master of this movement...if you really want to look and see an example. Mayweather's shoulder roll comes from this type movement. James Toney is another real master of using these techniques.

heres the thing about moving the upper body, finding the angle to set the shoulder (protecting the jaw) and timing the attack to move the head properly: It takes incredible skill. It is like a Pianist using each hand independently to play different notes on the piano. A fighter is moving his feet, readying his punches, all while positioning his shoulder, while moving the head. Thats one example... There are plenty.

Ali didn't roll with the punches though. He got hit clean with most shots. His opponents weren't even skilled. They were mostly bar room brawlers. I'll give you chin and heart, but that still doesn't make him the fighter he's cast down as. Nowhere near. His problems in later life where due to getting hit far too much. Same goes for Toney who slur's his words and mumbles. He's another one who lost a lot of fights against even journeymen and had a load of robberies. In fact, he has more than Ali himself.

Gatti had a lot of exciting wars where he showed heart and passion. Doesn't make him a great though. Ali's resume is actually really bad when you know what you're looking at. Louis' is even worse. But at least he didn't lose a lot of fights and get robberies. Ali did. Louis was more skilled too and got hit nowhere near to what Ali did.

[Sid-Knee]

Sid, your shyt is so pathetic that nobody really wants to engage with you, I'm just pointing it out.
But go ahead, wallow in your foolishness, every court does need it's jester.

Maybe next time you should make a bold statement that makes half a lick of sense, then you might get the attention you so doggedly grasp for.

You mean they don't like the truth put to them so deflect all the time? Yeah, i know. Don't worry. Try if you want to dispute things. Or, just bore me with meaningless drivel. It's up to you.

[Sid-Knee]

Jimmy Ellis. Great fighter. Watch some of Ellis' fights. Also the general level of competition in the division at the time, like Bonevera, Quarry and Chulavo, all of whom Frazier beat, was exceptional. "A rising tide lifts all boats." Its not who anybody beat, so much as how good fighters were given the state of the division.

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.

[Sid-Knee]

Joe Frazier was good, nothing more? Stick to soccer. Your boxing acumen is little to zero! As for Ali's resume: Liston, Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, Ellis, Mathis, Patterson, Bugner, Lyle, Young, Shavers! Nothing insecure about that resume!

Haver you finished this debate because the truth is something you can't deny? You gave up that quickly just as we were getting to the meat and potato's of the subject?

Don't tell me, i'm too ****** so you want to run away? That's the one. It wouldn't be because you can't defend the greatest lie in all of sports or anything. The truth is staring you in the face. Funny how all these fighters who are not great, are pretty much North American. Strange that isn't it?

[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.