Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7dB_4yXPv4
just incase you haven't seen Pacquiao on the heavybag, I don't think because of his coaching or whatever it would seem when he first started boxing that Manny never came even close to reaching the potential his physicality and mentality would generate, which is scary considering how much more he has accomplished than Mike Tyson in his career.
great vid. never seen it before. but you know the sad part is that if this video was in ask the trainer and the average nobody posted it looking for feedback, everyone would find 10 things wrong with his technique.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
ali boxing ability was over rated.
words of larry holmes
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Ray Lewis? bigger, stronger, faster, and meaner then Jim Brown
Shaq if he had the mentality?
Or Wilt Chamberlain?
Michael Vick? They could all box IMO if they wanted to.
Also Muhammad Ali IMO wasn't as good of an athlete as Roy JOnes Jr, same with Ray Robinson they had more heart and a better chin, but Roy had better handspeed than either, better balance, and body control.
It's all relative i guess. Roy certainly has to be considered one of the best pure athletes in the sport. But Ali's speed and footwork for a heavyweight (actually, ANY weight) was mind boggling. At his prime (late 20's up to right before he stopped fighting because of the draft)...Ali was a thing of beauty to behold. But Roy Jones certainly will always be near the top of the list for pure athleticism. Tyson was a monster too. Obviously his incredible strength and speed...but he actually was a solid technical fighter (solid defense, cordination and accuracy as well) under Cus d'amato. We sometimes forget that because of what a soap opera his life and later career became.
Oh Tyson was beauty of a beast,Ali was just Ali. You cant even use his fight tapes for training purposes, its pointless. He's still called the greatest,because he was the greatest. They dont call it the Jerry Quarry Shuffle
The greatest don't struggle against Doug Jones, Henry Cooper. And the greatest should have 10 losses on his record.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
I'm not going to go into the whole "is ali the greatest" debate. It's all personal opinion. Bottom line...Ali's politics and outside of the ring personality will always make him unpopular with certain people. As far as a fighter with 10 losses should not be considered the greatest...that is pure bs to me. Ali, like almost every great champion (ray robinson included), fought WAY past his prime. So there will simply be more losses on his record...even against fighters he shouldn't have lost to. Which leads me to the Larry Holmes comment. So Larry fought a shot Ali and wins...and questions his skills:rolleyes: Ali would have danced circles around Larry Holmes in his prime.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Jones Jr. springs to mind.
Muhammad Ali is certainly there.
Pernell Whittaker
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
I'm not going to go into the whole "is ali the greatest" debate. It's all personal opinion. Bottom line...Ali's politics and outside of the ring personality will always make him unpopular with certain people. As far as a fighter with 10 losses should not be considered the greatest...that is pure bs to me. Ali, like almost every great champion (ray robinson included), fought WAY past his prime. So there will simply be more losses on his record...even against fighters he shouldn't have lost to. Which leads me to the Larry Holmes comment. So Larry fought a shot Ali and wins...and questions his skills:rolleyes: Ali would have tortured Larry Holmes in his prime.
But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.
So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.
He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.
And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?
As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bookkeeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Trainer Monkey
Ali,Ali,and Ali
He had out of nowhere power,footwork that was so good you shouldnt try it, speed to beat the band, and longevity Tyson could have only hoped for.
They call him the greatest for a reason
I don't think Ali hit as hard as Tyson did, the speed is very very close along with agility, as far as longevity that's because Tyson was mentally ill and hopeless. Not many people who ever lived that were labeled ' baddest man on the planet " and your only 5'10. The guy was a monster
The speed between the 2 at their peaks was favorible towards Ali with no question...The man was fast as a LW...Tyson may have hit harder but do not mistake Ali's power...Many people tend to overlook that portion of his skillset...
37 KO's in 56 wins...
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
I'm not going to go into the whole "is ali the greatest" debate. It's all personal opinion. Bottom line...Ali's politics and outside of the ring personality will always make him unpopular with certain people. As far as a fighter with 10 losses should not be considered the greatest...that is pure bs to me. Ali, like almost every great champion (ray robinson included), fought WAY past his prime. So there will simply be more losses on his record...even against fighters he shouldn't have lost to. Which leads me to the Larry Holmes comment. So Larry fought a shot Ali and wins...and questions his skills:rolleyes: Ali would have tortured Larry Holmes in his prime.
But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.
So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.
He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.
And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?
As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.
These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
I'm not going to go into the whole "is ali the greatest" debate. It's all personal opinion. Bottom line...Ali's politics and outside of the ring personality will always make him unpopular with certain people. As far as a fighter with 10 losses should not be considered the greatest...that is pure bs to me. Ali, like almost every great champion (ray robinson included), fought WAY past his prime. So there will simply be more losses on his record...even against fighters he shouldn't have lost to. Which leads me to the Larry Holmes comment. So Larry fought a shot Ali and wins...and questions his skills:rolleyes: Ali would have tortured Larry Holmes in his prime.
But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.
So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.
He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.
And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?
As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.
These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.
What I always find amazing is the fact everyone who detracts from Ali always seems to disreguard the fact he had not yet hit his best in the Cooper/Jones fights but if it was any other fighter they would bring that up first off...and the fact Ali is not the only fighter to have contraversial wins...
why is it Cooper is always brought up?....Even if Cooper did get the win that day fact is when all was said and done he still was not better then Ali overall
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.
So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.
He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.
And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?
As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.
These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.
What I always find amazing is the fact everyone who detracts from Ali always seems to disreguard the fact he had not yet hit his best in the Cooper/Jones fights but if it was any other fighter they would bring that up first off...and the fact Ali is not the only fighter to have contraversial wins...
why is it Cooper is always brought up?....Even if Cooper did get the win that day fact is when all was said and done he still was not better then Ali overall
Exactly. I think for a lot of people it comes down to the fact that they simply don't like Ali as a person or what he stood for. Again...to each their own. But when you are such an iconic figure like Ali...people will always pick you apart.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.
So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.
He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.
And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?
As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.
These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.
What I always find amazing is the fact everyone who detracts from Ali always seems to disreguard the fact he had not yet hit his best in the Cooper/Jones fights but if it was any other fighter they would bring that up first off...and the fact Ali is not the only fighter to have contraversial wins...
why is it Cooper is always brought up?....Even if Cooper did get the win that day fact is when all was said and done he still was not better then Ali overall
Rules are rules Daxx if Smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time, why should Muhammad Ali and his trainer's be allowed the break rules ? that should of been DQ loss.
And he wasn't that far from his prime i believe he fought Doug Jones/Henry Cooper in 1963, he then fought and beat Sonny Liston in one of his best performances in 1964.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
I'm not going to go into the whole "is ali the greatest" debate. It's all personal opinion. Bottom line...Ali's politics and outside of the ring personality will always make him unpopular with certain people. As far as a fighter with 10 losses should not be considered the greatest...that is pure bs to me. Ali, like almost every great champion (ray robinson included), fought WAY past his prime. So there will simply be more losses on his record...even against fighters he shouldn't have lost to. Which leads me to the Larry Holmes comment. So Larry fought a shot Ali and wins...and questions his skills:rolleyes: Ali would have tortured Larry Holmes in his prime.
But thats different SRR had over 200 fights, so 10+ losses on his record is still an amazing record. Muhammad Ali didn't even have a quarter of the amount of fights SRR did.
So of course if the decision's hadn't gone Muhammad Ali's way he would nowhere be considered the greatest. He should of lost to Henry Cooper by DQ because smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time.
He should have atleast lost 2 out of 3 with Ken Norton, although you could make an argument he lost all 3. He got a draw against Doug Jones although it very easily could of gone Doug Jones's way. And the 2 fights with Henry Cooper/Doug Jones, Muhammad Ali wasn't that far from his peak, considering he won the title off Sonny Liston not long after these 2 fights, in arguably one of his best performances.
And he for certain lost to Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers. Your telling me if Muhammad Ali hadn't got all of these gift decision's, you would still consider him the greatest ?
As for your last comment thats ridiculous, Larry Holmes could compete with any version of Muhammad Ali. He is a better technical fighter than Muhammad Ali, he had a better jab. And he is pretty equal with Muhammad Ali in most attributes.
These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.
It doesn't matter if he was old or not in good shape against Earnie Shavers/Jimmy Young, the fact is these were two gift decisions. That Muhammad Ali clearly lost in alot of peoples eyes, and had he lost both of these fights it would of for certain took away some of his greatness.
And he would of been ranked lower in the all time rankings. If i think he lost the fights i mentioned then i have the right to call him overrated. And rank him lower in the all time rankings, because like you said its our opinions and IMO Muhammad Ali is overrated.
Its just like when RJJ lost when he was past his prime, to Tarver/Johnson it hurt his legacy even though he was clearly past his prime. Had he retired after the John Ruiz fight, he would of probably been top 10 fighter of all time, but because he carried on too long. He is probably just outside the top 20 now possibly.
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zhubin
These are all your opinions. Others, myself included, will disagree with you on some of them. It's true...the Jones and Cooper fights where close and controversial. Ali was a young a fighter then and didn't exactly put on his best performances. As far as his fights against Young and Shavers...please! He was clearly past his best by then. He went into those fights not only past his prime, but also not well conditioned at all. I personally think the Shavers fight was a draw...and the fact that it was that close when Ali was so past his prime...is an attribute to Ali's great heart. And it's true...Holmes was technically a great fighter. But Ali in his prime was so much faster, such a great athlete...he would have beaten Holmes IMO. Again, we all have are opinions. And we aren't always going to agree.
What I always find amazing is the fact everyone who detracts from Ali always seems to disreguard the fact he had not yet hit his best in the Cooper/Jones fights but if it was any other fighter they would bring that up first off...and the fact Ali is not the only fighter to have contraversial wins...
why is it Cooper is always brought up?....Even if Cooper did get the win that day fact is when all was said and done he still was not better then Ali overall
Rules are rules Daxx if Smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time, why should Muhammad Ali and his trainer's be allowed the break rules ? that should of been DQ loss.
And he wasn't that far from his prime i believe he fought Doug Jones/Henry Cooper in 1963, he then fought and beat Sonny Liston in one of his best performances in 1964.
Again though why is it those are the only 2 things you can come up with to detract him....You have the same complaint everytime Ali is brought up...You still did not answer the one statement though...
Do you think Either was a better fighter then Ali
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Neitther was a better fighter IMO
Re: Was there any boxer in history more athletic than Mike Tyson?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
leftylee number 1 groupie
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DaxxKahn
What I always find amazing is the fact everyone who detracts from Ali always seems to disreguard the fact he had not yet hit his best in the Cooper/Jones fights but if it was any other fighter they would bring that up first off...and the fact Ali is not the only fighter to have contraversial wins...
why is it Cooper is always brought up?....Even if Cooper did get the win that day fact is when all was said and done he still was not better then Ali overall
Rules are rules Daxx if Smelling salts wern't allowed in the UK at that time, why should Muhammad Ali and his trainer's be allowed the break rules ? that should of been DQ loss.
And he wasn't that far from his prime i believe he fought Doug Jones/Henry Cooper in 1963, he then fought and beat Sonny Liston in one of his best performances in 1964.
Again though why is it those are the only 2 things you can come up with to detract him....You have the same complaint everytime Ali is brought up...You still did not answer the one statement though...
Do you think Either was a better fighter then Ali
But they are big things Daxx if i think Muhammad Ali should have atleast 10 losses on his record. That is a big complaint isn't it ? and i have every right to call him overrated, plus he had alot of struggles with lesser fighters.
Muhammad Ali was a great fighter im not doubting that, but he was very beatable even in his so called "Unbeatable Prime". Where as fighter's like Pernell Whitaker/Roy Jones Jr rarely lost a round let alone look beatable in there prime.
As for your last question no obviously there not as great as Muhammad Ali, but what has that got to do with anything ? is Antonio Tarver/Glen Johnson as great as Roy Jones Jr ? no but they still beat him. And it still doesn't change the fact Henry Cooper technically should of won by DQ, and Doug Jones IMO deserved a draw against Muhammad Ali.
