Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt intimidated by him,or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Certain styles exist for certain fighters
But every one of those styles have a flaw
Unless your fast as hell,dont try the one hand up Mexican style
If you arent short for your weight and have really good footspeed,do not try either Fraziers or Tysons style
And dont do anything Ali did,period
Ali could do that,and you arent Ali
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread ::**
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him ::** ::**
Do you know him personally?
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
I hardly watch any.
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt
Uhh your talking nonsense Tyson style is not *easy* to beat, and even though Holmes was past his prime. His jab was hardly effective against Tyson's style.
or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, James Tillis, all 3 of these names had good movement and Tyson beat all 3 convincing.
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread
Nope i just give the you the facts on his fights and opposition, your the one that gets angry. Over my comments thats why you keep replying to them :)
I only reply when i see biased fans saying Ali is greatest of all time, greatest this, greatest that. etc
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him
Totally wrong and untrue i respect Ali, but i don't like him. I think he had great movement, Great jab, Great chin, Great heart, Great at frustrating his opponent, and Great tactics even though i don't always agree with them.
Do you know him personally?
Nope but neither do you.
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Its my choice if i dislike someone or not, i don't need someone to try and keep convincing me because it won't work. If i dislike someone its my choice and you won't change my mind end of.
Tillis and Tucker both gave Tyson problems also Holmes jab was very effective against Tyson but the age difference and Holmes rustiness combined with Tyson's intensity meant the oldman got knocked-out but his jab had certainly been working.
You can't have seen these fight's?
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt intimidated by him,or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Certain styles exist for certain fighters
But every one of those styles have a flaw
Unless your fast as hell,dont try the one hand up Mexican style
If you arent short for your weight and have really good footspeed,do not try either Fraziers or Tysons style
And dont do anything Ali did,period
Ali could do that,and you arent Ali
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread ::**
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him ::** ::**
Do you know him personally?
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
I hardly watch any.
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt
Uhh your talking nonsense Tyson style is not *easy* to beat, and even though Holmes was past his prime. His jab was hardly effective against Tyson's style.
or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, James Tillis, all 3 of these names had good movement and Tyson beat all 3 convincing.
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread
Nope i just give the you the facts on his fights and opposition, your the one that gets angry. Over my comments thats why you keep replying to them :)
I only reply when i see biased fans saying Ali is greatest of all time, greatest this, greatest that. etc
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him
Totally wrong and untrue i respect Ali, but i don't like him. I think he had great movement, Great jab, Great chin, Great heart, Great at frustrating his opponent, and Great tactics even though i don't always agree with them.
Do you know him personally?
Nope but neither do you.
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Its my choice if i dislike someone or not, i don't need someone to try and keep convincing me because it won't work. If i dislike someone its my choice and you won't change my mind end of.
Tillis and Tucker both gave Tyson problems also Holmes jab was very effective against Tyson but the age difference and Holmes rustiness combined with Tyson's intensity meant the oldman got knocked-out but his jab had certainly been working.
You can't have seen these fight's?
Holmes jab was effective ?? no it wasn't except for when he danced for about 15 seconds in the 4th round, and landed a few solid jabs other than that, it wasn't effective at all. He would hold the left hand out and get out of harms way.
Tucker gave Tyson few problem's in the early going with the uppercut and right hand. But overall he was beaten convincely, Tyson took Tucker's uppercut in the 1st round very well.
Tillis did give Tyson quite a few problems, but lets remember when Tyson fought Tillis he had only been a pro for 1 year and 3 months.
You can't have seen these fight's?
I have seen almost every single Mike Tyson fight.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt intimidated by him,or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Certain styles exist for certain fighters
But every one of those styles have a flaw
Unless your fast as hell,dont try the one hand up Mexican style
If you arent short for your weight and have really good footspeed,do not try either Fraziers or Tysons style
And dont do anything Ali did,period
Ali could do that,and you arent Ali
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread ::**
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him ::** ::**
Do you know him personally?
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
I hardly watch any.
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt
Uhh your talking nonsense Tyson style is not *easy* to beat, and even though Holmes was past his prime. His jab was hardly effective against Tyson's style.
or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, James Tillis, all 3 of these names had good movement and Tyson beat all 3 convincing.
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread
Nope i just give the you the facts on his fights and opposition, your the one that gets angry. Over my comments thats why you keep replying to them :)
I only reply when i see biased fans saying Ali is greatest of all time, greatest this, greatest that. etc
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him
Totally wrong and untrue i respect Ali, but i don't like him. I think he had great movement, Great jab, Great chin, Great heart, Great at frustrating his opponent, and Great tactics even though i don't always agree with them.
Do you know him personally?
Nope but neither do you.
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Its my choice if i dislike someone or not, i don't need someone to try and keep convincing me because it won't work. If i dislike someone its my choice and you won't change my mind end of.
Tillis and Tucker both gave Tyson problems also Holmes jab was very effective against Tyson but the age difference and Holmes rustiness combined with Tyson's intensity meant the oldman got knocked-out but his jab had certainly been working.
You can't have seen these fight's?
Holmes jab was effective ?? no it wasn't except for when he danced for about 15 seconds in the 4th round, and landed a few solid jabs other than that, it wasn't effective at all. He would hold the left hand out and get out of harms way.
Tucker gave Tyson few problem's in the early going with the uppercut and right hand. But overall he was beaten convincely, Tyson took Tucker's uppercut in the 1st round very well.
Tillis did give Tyson quite a few problems, but lets remember when Tyson fought Tillis he had only been a pro for 1 year and 3 months.
You can't have seen these fight's?
I have seen almost every single Mike Tyson fight.
Let's play fair Ice wasn't it you that claimed Tucker was winning after 4 rounds but then damaged his right hand? So if his hand didn't get damaged then he might not have lost convincingly.
My personal take is that Tucker often has excuses and it was a frustrating night for Mike as his opponent became very negative.
I've no problem with Tyson's win over Tillis and glad to see your now not claiming it was an easy night for Tyson as you had earlier.
As for Holmes he showed with that jab what he would have been able to do in his prime - Holmes was coming off a layoff after 2 loses to Michael Spinks and was certainly alot slower than he had been in his prime. Even Carl Williams outboxed the fading Holmes though didn't get the verdict.
Buster Douglas gave Tyson all the movement and jabs he could handle - unfortunately for Tyson he couldn't handle it. Tyson had problems that is true but he often had problems and won fights.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt intimidated by him,or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Certain styles exist for certain fighters
But every one of those styles have a flaw
Unless your fast as hell,dont try the one hand up Mexican style
If you arent short for your weight and have really good footspeed,do not try either Fraziers or Tysons style
And dont do anything Ali did,period
Ali could do that,and you arent Ali
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread ::**
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him ::** ::**
Do you know him personally?
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Or maybe you watch way too many documetaries
I hardly watch any.
Face it Tysons style is easy to beat,ever notice against somebody with a decent jab who wasnt
Uhh your talking nonsense Tyson style is not *easy* to beat, and even though Holmes was past his prime. His jab was hardly effective against Tyson's style.
or with good lateral movement,Tyson got eaten up and frustrated
Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, James Tillis, all 3 of these names had good movement and Tyson beat all 3 convincing.
And as far as drama,your the one who angrily posts on every Ali thread
Nope i just give the you the facts on his fights and opposition, your the one that gets angry. Over my comments thats why you keep replying to them :)
I only reply when i see biased fans saying Ali is greatest of all time, greatest this, greatest that. etc
And refuses to acknowledge anything good about him
Totally wrong and untrue i respect Ali, but i don't like him. I think he had great movement, Great jab, Great chin, Great heart, Great at frustrating his opponent, and Great tactics even though i don't always agree with them.
Do you know him personally?
Nope but neither do you.
Do you know anything,at all about the times you judge him in the context of?
Its my choice if i dislike someone or not, i don't need someone to try and keep convincing me because it won't work. If i dislike someone its my choice and you won't change my mind end of.
Tillis and Tucker both gave Tyson problems also Holmes jab was very effective against Tyson but the age difference and Holmes rustiness combined with Tyson's intensity meant the oldman got knocked-out but his jab had certainly been working.
You can't have seen these fight's?
Holmes jab was effective ?? no it wasn't except for when he danced for about 15 seconds in the 4th round, and landed a few solid jabs other than that, it wasn't effective at all. He would hold the left hand out and get out of harms way.
Tucker gave Tyson few problem's in the early going with the uppercut and right hand. But overall he was beaten convincely, Tyson took Tucker's uppercut in the 1st round very well.
Tillis did give Tyson quite a few problems, but lets remember when Tyson fought Tillis he had only been a pro for 1 year and 3 months.
You can't have seen these fight's?
I have seen almost every single Mike Tyson fight.
Let's play fair Ice wasn't it you that claimed Tucker was winning after 4 rounds but then damaged his right hand? So if his hand didn't get damaged then he might not have lost convincingly.
My personal take is that Tucker often has excuses and it was a frustrating night for Mike as his opponent became very negative.
I've no problem with Tyson's win over Tillis and glad to see your now not claiming it was an easy night for Tyson as you had earlier.
As for Holmes he showed with that jab what he would have been able to do in his prime - Holmes was coming off a layoff after 2 loses to Michael Spinks and was certainly alot slower than he had been in his prime. Even Carl Williams outboxed the fading Holmes though didn't get the verdict.
Buster Douglas gave Tyson all the movement and jabs he could handle - unfortunately for Tyson he couldn't handle it. Tyson had problems that is true but he often had problems and won fights.
Agreed with everything you said Rob.
As for Holmes he showed with that jab what he would have been able to do in his prime - Holmes was coming off a layoff after 2 loses to Michael Spinks and was certainly alot slower than he had been in his prime. Even Carl Williams outboxed the fading Holmes though didn't get the verdict.
Im big Holmes fan i think prime Holmes would have beaten prime Tyson IMO. Holmes had been fading for awhile his last great performance was against Cooney IMO. I had Holmes just winning Williams fight by 1 point because he won last 4 rounds, i think had Williams 3 rounds ahead at one point. But if i remember right Holmes come on strong later in the fight and punished Williams with body shots.
Williams was always a good boxer with a good jab, but he suffered from a weak chin.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
As much as I loved Mike Tyson I know that he couldn't have beaten Ali. He had THE 2 things that caused Tyson the most problems; great movement and the ability to get under an opponents skin.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
the reason y i believe ali can beat any other great---60's ali is the focus here---is because he was damned near almost impossible just 2 hit. most times when it looked like he was hit --he actually wasnt--he snaps his head back right b4 the puch can land--and it looks like he got hit--but look closely cuz he never does.
point how can all the other greats beat him if they wouldnt b able 2 touch him?
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
the reason y i believe ali can beat any other great---60's ali is the focus here---is because he was damned near almost impossible just 2 hit. most times when it looked like he was hit --he actually wasnt--he snaps his head back right b4 the puch can land--and it looks like he got hit--but look closely cuz he never does.
point how can all the other greats beat him if they wouldnt b able 2 touch him?
point how can all the other greats beat him if they wouldnt b able 2 touch him?
Well there has been about 11 pages of debating why the other great Heavyweight's could beat him. Why don't you try reading it instead of coming out with random comments.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
prime clay on his best night beats most HW's. although i think he would have massive problems with tyson and lewis!
homles would have a shot to, but what a boring fight that would have been.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
.....Ali isn't the best in my opinion, and honestly anyone who considers him THE BEST ALONE needs to really look at the accomplishments of Louis and Marciano....25 successful title defenses and going undefeated in 49 fights are accomplishments that mean something, they can be measured against other fighters and they have stood the test of time.
I feel I have good reasoning to put Ali 3rd, and it's not like he's waaaaaaay down the list but choosing ONE GUY to be #1 it's more difficult if you truly factor in the accomplishments of all the fighters rather than just being some mindless zombie and saying "ALI IS THE GREATEST, HE HAS MOVIES MADE ABOUT HIM, HE DIDN'T GO TO VIETNAM, HE IS THE BEST EVER WITHOUT QUESTION, EVEN ALI SAYS HE'S THE GREATEST IT'S PART OF HIS NICKNAME, ALI HAS NO EQUALS"....Ali does indeed have equals......but Mike Tyson ain't one of them.
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
.....Ali isn't the best in my opinion, and honestly anyone who considers him THE BEST ALONE needs to really look at the accomplishments of Louis and Marciano....25 successful title defenses and going undefeated in 49 fights are accomplishments that mean something, they can be measured against other fighters and they have stood the test of time.
I feel I have good reasoning to put Ali 3rd, and it's not like he's waaaaaaay down the list but choosing ONE GUY to be #1 it's more difficult if you truly factor in the accomplishments of all the fighters rather than just being some mindless zombie and saying "ALI IS THE GREATEST, HE HAS MOVIES MADE ABOUT HIM, HE DIDN'T GO TO VIETNAM, HE IS THE BEST EVER WITHOUT QUESTION, EVEN ALI SAYS HE'S THE GREATEST IT'S PART OF HIS NICKNAME, ALI HAS NO EQUALS"....Ali does indeed have equals......but Mike Tyson ain't one of them.
Neither is Marciano, sorry ;D
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
....Marciano never lost.....you can't tell me he has no claim to being "The Greatest of All-Time"......he's THE ONLY HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION TO GO UNDEFEATED AND RETIRE UNDEFEATED WITH THE TITLE....Ali didn't do that and he wouldn't have done it had he not been suspended either.
If you don't consider how difficult winning 49 fights in a row without even a draw when you decide on who the greatest heavyweight of all time is, then I am sorry smashcrush, you're not looking at the whole picture....I'm not talking STYLES or SIZES of fighters I'm talking GREATNESS and Rocky Marciano and Joe Louis are statistically better fighters than Ali
Joe Louis 69 (55 KO)-3-0
Rocky Marciano 49 (43 KO)-0-0
Muhammed Ali 56 (37 KO)-5-1
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
....Marciano never lost.....you can't tell me he has no claim to being "The Greatest of All-Time"......he's THE ONLY HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION TO GO UNDEFEATED AND RETIRE UNDEFEATED WITH THE TITLE....Ali didn't do that and he wouldn't have done it had he not been suspended either.
If you don't consider how difficult winning 49 fights in a row without even a draw when you decide on who the greatest heavyweight of all time is, then I am sorry smashcrush, you're not looking at the whole picture....I'm not talking STYLES or SIZES of fighters I'm talking GREATNESS and Rocky Marciano and Joe Louis are statistically better fighters than Ali
Joe Louis 69 (55 KO)-3-0
Rocky Marciano 49 (43 KO)-0-0
Muhammed Ali 56 (37 KO)-5-1
I'm talking about greatness too ;D, and the majority of boxing historians (who've spent more time on the subject than you and I combined) agree that Ali is the greatest heavyweight of all time. The mere fact that Marciano is in fact the only heavyweight to retire undefeated and someone else is more widely recognized as being the greatest is a testament to how laughable Rocky's competition (and entire era) actually was. And putting Joe Louis into your argument doesn't do much to help your case either, considering the term 'bum' as far as boxing related was coined due to his choice of opposition, hence, the 'bum of the month club.'
Ali is the greatest, deal with it ;D
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Well I disagree with you and anyone else who thinks that......I have my own opinion and I stand by it.
Joe Louis had his "bum of the month club" but he fought AND WON 7 times in one year....he took his lack of competition and made up for it with shear quantities of heavyweight fighters....he ducked no one!
If Ali was so great why did he end up losing 5 times then and he didn't lose to many guys in the top 10 of the All-Time greats either....Frazier and Holmes and that is it
You can pick any crappy division of all-time and you would still find fighters that lost...espceially if they didn't fight everyone out there.
Ali is not the greatest, he talked the most but he wasn't the greatest.....he's A GREAT but not THE GREATEST
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Well I disagree with you and anyone else who thinks that......I have my own opinion and I stand by it.
Joe Louis had his "bum of the month club" but he fought AND WON 7 times in one year....he took his lack of competition and made up for it with shear quantities of heavyweight fighters....he ducked no one!
If Ali was so great why did he end up losing 5 times then and he didn't lose to many guys in the top 10 of the All-Time greats either....Frazier and Holmes and that is it
You can pick any crappy division of all-time and you would still find fighters that lost...espceially if they didn't fight everyone out there.
Ali is not the greatest, he talked the most but he wasn't the greatest.....he's A GREAT but not THE GREATEST
Why did Sugar Ray Leonard end up losing 3 times and most guys he lost to aren't top 10 all time greatest? You're digging yourself into an even bigger hole by even continuing this argument ;D
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashcrusher
Why did Sugar Ray Leonard end up losing 3 times and most guys he lost to aren't top 10 all time greatest? You're digging yourself into an even bigger hole by even continuing this argument ;D
I don't give a crap....Ali isn't the best and you have no evidence other than "look who he competed against"....it's not Louis' or Marciano's fault that they didn't have the competition that Ali had HOWEVER they set records and Ali didn't break them....and even had Ali not been suspended he wouldn't have broken them.
Joe Louis held the title from 1937 to 1950.....ONE CONTINUOUS TITLE REIGN
Rocky Marciano won every fight he had from 1947-1955
