Is Ali a bit overrated ?

[WladIsTheChamp]

Yeah compare Wlad's opponents with handicapped Frazier (blind on left eye), cruiser Quarry (197 lbs) or cruiser Patterson (188 lbs).

Never ever mention these handicaps and cruisers again when you compare Wlad's opponents to Ali's opponents.

And 6'0'' Liston was mainly a bum-beater.

Half of Wlad's opponents would rule the 70ies. Tony Thomson, Sam Peter, Calvin Brock, Eddie Chambers etc etc.. I have seen NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the 70ies that would impress me more than nowadays heavies.


Woooow! The mythical lineage that descends from King Arthur has been torn! The end is neigh!

Dominating every round for years is better than beating some former champion.


Dream on. Being a unified champ is approx. 20x more worth nowadays than it was in Ali's times as I wrote at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...98#post5528498


Hmm, how about you give us the link to a correct definition instead of giving us your own definition that suits you the most?

Wait, let _me_ give you the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_championship

"Another boxer can only win the lineal championship by defeating the reigning lineal champion in the ring."

What a nonsense. By your logic we were really lucky that Butterbean didn't become lineal champion by beating Larry Holmes.

Thanks, I was about to respond in the same fashion. Obviously the definition of "linear" has changed over the years and it first it did not exist when only one belt was around. Now "linear" is meant to be one of three things: 1)to have the same lineage from the time of only one belt 2) or from beating a unified champ at a particular time 3) or from unifying all of the major belts. You have to look at how the crazy dude who claims that Ali needed help from god to beat a one-legged intestine-missing kidney-less Cleveland Williams (while at the same time that is still one of Ali's best wins) meant it. The crazy dude meant "linear" as "unified" because he mentioned that Ali was a "three-time linear" champion. Since there was no such thing as "linear" when Ali first won the belt (because there was only one belt), I rightly took it to mean "unified". Hence my response was in reference to unified champs; that is much harder to be a "unified" champ today than it was back in Ali's time because you have to pick up at least 4 belts today (maybe even 5 if you count the IBO), which means dealing with the politics of boxing (trying to get cowards like Haye in the ring, dealing with corrupt killers like Don King, sanctioning fees/bribes to all of the different organizations) and also having to defend each one of your belts against mandatories in the mean time until get all of the belts. I think Torlou's lack of reading comprehension and logic reasoning, along with his lack of boxing knowledge, has been EXPOSED!!!

[knn]

I didn't want to get to this, but you're a total ******

You CLAYtons are so predictable with your insults.

there is no doubt George Foreman and Shavers were WAY bigger punchers than Vitali

Of course there is doubt. Prime Foreman was 6'3.5'' and 210+ lbs. Of course Vitali has more power than Foreman, who scored only 3 KOs in world championship fights.

if you fight bums, you will get a higher ko ratio, so the opposition faced has to count too

Exactly. That's why Foreman's KOratio is so high. He has a very bum'ed up record.

the lesser puncher Vitali who has never beat anyone of note = KO% 90.48

You are a hater.

to call Williams and Frazier featherfisted... wow, I doubt you will get much support, this is so ******ed

I call Frazier featherfisted because he has a lower heavyweight KOratio than Byrd who is generally considered a featherfist. I don't care about Frazier's KOratio against cruiser bums like Chuck Leslie (177lbs, 22-23).

Moreover I answered this already at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=76

Thus let me repeat:

• Frazier was not only a featherfist
• He was also blind on his left eye
• He was put by Foreman where he OBJECTIVELY belongs
• Frazier is the proof HOW BAD Ali was, not how good Ali was

CLAYtons should come up with new arguments instead of clinching to some childhood delusions ("Wow, Frazier is strooong").

dividing the men who were under 200 lbs of the men who 200 lbs and more is uttelry ******ed because the CW division didn't exist in that era if you fought above 175 lbs, you were a HW, period

I have answered this so often already. The TERM "cruiserweight" didn't exist. But 177 is 177 now and then, whether you call it "heavyweight" or "supadupakillaweight". It's completely irrelevant how you call it.

You know exactly that the Klitschko's KOratio would rise to 99% would they line up such cruiser bums like Frazier's aforementioned Leslie or Ali's Jimmy Robinson (177lbs, 7-25). Never ever again compare Ali's cruiser fights like Patterson (188) to any of Wlad's opponents.

If you HONESTLY want to compare diferrent era's then compare Ali's cruiserweight performance to David Haye's.

Just look at this picture. I mean JUST LOOK AT IT:


This is *cough* heavyweight Ali in his THIRD PROFESSIONAL YEAR.

If you claim that this guy has any chance WHATSOEVER against WLAD (or any modern heavyweight whatsoever) then you need some severe reality adjustment. Keep the cruiser wins in the cruiser record and the heavyweight wins in the heavyweight record.

[Vadrigar.]

Thanks, I was about to respond in the same fashion. Obviously the definition of "linear" has changed over the years and it first it did not exist when only one belt was around. Now "linear" is meant to be one of three things: 1)to have the same lineage from the time of only one belt 2) or from beating a unified champ at a particular time 3) or from unifying all of the major belts. You have to look at how the crazy dude who claims that Ali needed help from god to beat a one-legged intestine-missing kidney-less Cleveland Williams (while at the same time that is still one of Ali's best wins) meant it. The crazy dude meant "linear" as "unified" because he mentioned that Ali was a "three-time linear" champion. Since there was no such thing as "linear" when Ali first won the belt (because there was only one belt), I rightly took it to mean "unified". Hence my response was in reference to unified champs; that is much harder to be a "unified" champ today than it was back in Ali's time because you have to pick up at least 4 belts today (maybe even 5 if you count the IBO), which means dealing with the politics of boxing (trying to get cowards like Haye in the ring, dealing with corrupt killers like Don King, sanctioning fees/bribes to all of the different organizations) and also having to defend each one of your belts against mandatories in the mean time until get all of the belts. I think Torlou's lack of reading comprehension and logic reasoning, along with his lack of boxing knowledge, has been EXPOSED!!!

ALi was the three time linear heavyweight champion of the world, there is no dispute in that. It is a much greater achievement than unifying the BS title's today.

"You have to look at how the crazy dude who claims that Ali needed help from god to beat a one-legged intestine-missing kidney-less Cleveland Williams" - I never wrote that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

[WladIsTheChamp]

[QUOTE=MmuhammadM;8527737]"How hard is to beat a gimp with one leg and no stomach?" Cleveland williams was not a gimp with one leg and no stomach.

"How hard is it to look spectacular while doing it? Williams might have been someone dangerous before getting shot but after he got shot he had an atrophied leg, 10 feet of intestine taken out, failed kidney, and he was off for a year... Yeah, you can claim this as some great victory for Ali but to anyone sane, you look crazy doing it..." - Well he fought a perfect fight that night. Prabably ne of the greatest dominances of all time. Not everyone can look spectacular doing it. ALi showed a perfect combination of footwork timing and
accuracy in that fight. He even knocked williams down going backwards. That was something ray Robinson did. To be honest, words can't really describe how great Ali was that night. Just take a look at this video with a clear mind:

Is there some circuitry missing in your brain, but what part of the Wikipedia information did you not understand:
"Williams had been inactive the entire year of 1965 while recovering from gunshot wounds he suffered at the hands of a police officer arising out of traffic stop. Williams was shot with a .357 Magnum in the abdomen, barely survived, and suffered permanent kidney damage, a loss of over ten feet of his small intestine, and nerve damage from the bullet which affected his left leg above the knee, causing it to atrophy as a result. In this greatly diminished physical condition Williams fought for the heavyweight championship against Muhammad Ali on November 14, 1966 and was stopped in the third round." How hard is it to look good against a guy with all of these physical problems? Are you telling me that a human being can have the same strength, speed, power, and skill after experiencing all of these complications? HIS LEG WAS ATROPHIED, HE WAS MISSING TEN FEET OF HIS INTESTINE, HE HAD NERVE DAMAGE, HE HAD FAILED KIDNEYS!!! Oh and HE WAS OFF FOR A YEAR!!!! You can post another video of him if you would like, but it's not going to change that you said that "Ali needed help from god" to beat one-legged gimp with no stomach and kidneys.

[WladIsTheChamp]

ALi was the three time linear heavyweight champion of the world, there is no dispute in that. It is a much greater achievement than unifying the BS title's today.

"You have to look at how the crazy dude who claims that Ali needed help from god to beat a one-legged intestine-missing kidney-less Cleveland Williams" - I never wrote that. Stop putting words into my mouth.

You didn't say that Ali had god with him the day he beat Williams, don't make look that post up, man up to it...

[Vadrigar.]

[QUOTE=WladIsTheChamp;8528329]

"How hard is to beat a gimp with one leg and no stomach?" Cleveland williams was not a gimp with one leg and no stomach.

"How hard is it to look spectacular while doing it? Williams might have been someone dangerous before getting shot but after he got shot he had an atrophied leg, 10 feet of intestine taken out, failed kidney, and he was off for a year... Yeah, you can claim this as some great victory for Ali but to anyone sane, you look crazy doing it..." - Well he fought a perfect fight that night. Prabably ne of the greatest dominances of all time. Not everyone can look spectacular doing it. ALi showed a perfect combination of footwork timing and
accuracy in that fight. He even knocked williams down going backwards. That was something ray Robinson did. To be honest, words can't really describe how great Ali was that night. Just take a look at this video with a clear mind:

Is there some circuitry missing in your brain, but what part of the Wikipedia information did you not understand:
"Williams had been inactive the entire year of 1965 while recovering from gunshot wounds he suffered at the hands of a police officer arising out of traffic stop. Williams was shot with a .357 Magnum in the abdomen, barely survived, and suffered permanent kidney damage, a loss of over ten feet of his small intestine, and nerve damage from the bullet which affected his left leg above the knee, causing it to atrophy as a result. In this greatly diminished physical condition Williams fought for the heavyweight championship against Muhammad Ali on November 14, 1966 and was stopped in the third round." How hard is it to look good against a guy with all of these physical problems? Are you telling me that a human being can have the same strength, speed, power, and skill after experiencing all of these complications? HIS LEG WAS ATROPHIED, HE WAS MISSING TEN FEET OF HIS INTESTINE, HE HAD NERVE DAMAGE, HE HAD FAILED KIDNEYS!!! Oh and HE WAS OFF FOR A YEAR!!!! You can post another video of him if you would like, but it's not going to change that you said that "Ali needed help from god" to beat one-legged gimp with no stomach and kidneys.

"HE HAD FAILED KIDNEYS!!! Oh and HE WAS OFF FOR A YEAR!!!! You can post another video of him if you would like, but it's not going to change that you said that "Ali needed help from god" to beat one-legged gimp with no stomach and kidneys." - I never said that, again stop putting words into my mouth.

[Vadrigar.]

You didn't say that Ali had god with him the day he beat Williams, don't make look that post up, man up to it...

You sound confused.........

Try posting something that makes sense.

[knn]

the lineal championship is what it is, like it or not

A LOT OF time had passed since Holmes lost the lineal title at the hands of Spinks when he faced Eric Esch, aka butterbean, so it is just another irrelevant fantasy of yours

Oh, so now Butterbean would NOT have been lineal champion had he beaten Holmes? Just because "a lot of time" has passed?

Your screwing with definitions gets more and more obvious.

Sorry, I'd rather trust Wikipedia than your what-suits-my-agenda-best-definitions.

Lets face it : you're a Klit ****sucker

Let's face it: You insulted me again. You are hereby officialy declared "A typical CLAYton".

Please also read the steps of CLAYton-delusion:
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...58#post5440358

You show nearly all signs.

[WladIsTheChamp]

You sound confused.........

Try posting something that makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WladIsTheChamp
Ali is undoubtedly an ATG and his accomplishments against his opposition at that time, was great. But he is seriously overrated by posters especially when being compared in H2H matches against current heavies. Tyson would have destroyed him, so would Lewis, so would both Klitschkos. He is being brought up as some mythical figure by some posters here, as if he was possessed some supernatural talent but you look at the fact that he was the physical specimen for his time and then look at the records of his opponents, all of a sudden he is not the Zeus some claim that he was.

No way tyson would destroy him. Ali would give tyson a nervous breakdown and then mentally destroy him in the ring. The physical part would be easy.

LOL at lewis destroying him. Come on? there is no way that was possible.

No one can beat Ali in h2h matches. Only larry holmes has the greatest chance, but even then Ali would win a split decision.

All I am saying is: WATCH the Cleveland Williams fight. The protection of god was around him in that fight.
FOUND IT, post #69, LOL!!!! What exactly did you mean by that? You are a loon, face it...

[sweetpea87]

I did think Norton won all three bouts but I still don't think he is overrated. I think in his case he's not overrated just overly talked about. Non boxing fans will tell you Ali is the greatest fighter ever in history because they hear that everywhere you go, when really almost all boxing experts would tell you Ray Robinson is and have Ali in their top 2-10 but not #1.