-
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
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Floyd Mayweather 39-0
Sugar Ray Leonard 36-3-1
Take a seat, you've been dismissed ;D ;D ;D
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
#1 hw is a toss up between louis and ali.........
i really cant decide though i am leaning towards ali due to way better competition even though louis reigned for so long.
they are both great champs but i probably see it like this.............top 5
#1...ALI
#2...LOUIS
#3...TYSON
#4...LEWIS
#5...FRAZIER,JOHNSON,LISTON,FOREMAN,HOLMES....TIED , cause i cant make up my mind on #5
but i wouldnt put marciano in top #5 just cause he fought shit opposition .
....and every one of these fighters i mentioned would beat him PRIME 4 PRIME
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
#1 hw is a toss up between louis and ali.........
i really cant decide though i am leaning towards ali due to way better competition even though louis reigned for so long.
they are both great champs but i probably see it like this.............top 5
#1...ALI
#2...LOUIS
#3...TYSON
#4...LEWIS
#5...FRAZIER,JOHNSON,LISTON,FOREMAN,HOLMES....TIED , cause i cant make up my mind on #5
but i wouldnt put marciano in top #5 just cause he fought S*** opposition .
....and every one of these fighters i mentioned would beat him PRIME 4 PRIME
Tyson at number 3 ?? you have to be kidding me. I know your Tyson fan but come on be realistic no way is Tyson top 3. He isn't even top 5 let alone top 3.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashcrusher
Floyd Mayweather 39-0
Sugar Ray Leonard 36-3-1
Take a seat, you've been dismissed ;D ;D ;D
What are you trying to prove by this, that Floyd is greater than Ray or that eventhough Ray lost he's still greater than Floyd???
Our argument is that Ali isn't the greatest of all time....and I stick by my top 3.
#1 Joe Louis
#2 Rocky Marciano
#3 Muhammed Ali
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashcrusher
Floyd Mayweather 39-0
Sugar Ray Leonard 36-3-1
Take a seat, you've been dismissed ;D ;D ;D
So thats your logic huh ?? well Marciano had 49-0, so using your logic Marciano is greater than both of them. Talk about walking right into it :lolhaha:
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Well SRl lost to Duran who is in the top10 greatest of all time and pound for pound list and SRL won more and his draw was later in his career and his losses were when he was 35 and 41 so losses do not matter as much as people think if PBF fought till he was 41 and lost would you count it against him no i do not think you would. records are not always the best thing to go off of so do not buy to much into them.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Well SRl lost to Duran who is in the top10 greatest of all time and pound for pound list and SRL won more and his draw was later in his career and his losses were when he was 35 and 41 so losses do not matter as much as people think if PBF fought till he was 41 and lost would you count it against him no i do not think you would. records are not always the best thing to go off of so do not buy to much into them.
precisely mate your spot on....ok so ray lost 3 fights. Only ONE in reality becuase the Camacho and Norris fights where a shadow of what SRL was at his best. People say Hagler beat him....not IMO leonard edged that one but it was close....oh yeah and he gotta BS draw against hearns, but win/lose/draw that fight it really made no difference to either of there legacys becuase it wasnt them at there best anymore. Remember aswell the fact Leonard had to retire because of a detached retina...who knows how many fights he could of racked up in that time...for all we know he could of fought hearns again and beaten him again!
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Well SRl lost to Duran who is in the top10 greatest of all time and pound for pound list and SRL won more and his draw was later in his career and his losses were when he was 35 and 41 so losses do not matter as much as people think if PBF fought till he was 41 and lost would you count it against him no i do not think you would. records are not always the best thing to go off of so do not buy to much into them.
precisely mate your spot on....ok so ray lost 3 fights. Only ONE in reality becuase the Camacho and Norris fights where a shadow of what SRL was at his best. People say Hagler beat him....not IMO leonard edged that one but it was close....oh yeah and he gotta BS draw against hearns, but win/lose/draw that fight it really made no difference to either of there legacys becuase it wasnt them at there best anymore. Remember aswell the fact Leonard had to retire because of a detached retina...who knows how many fights he could of racked up in that time...for all we know he could of fought hearns again and beaten him again!
I always thought that Leonard is better than Hearns over 15 rounds, and Hearns is better than Leonard over 12 rounds.
-
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 cockey cockney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Well SRl lost to Duran who is in the top10 greatest of all time and pound for pound list and SRL won more and his draw was later in his career and his losses were when he was 35 and 41 so losses do not matter as much as people think if PBF fought till he was 41 and lost would you count it against him no i do not think you would. records are not always the best thing to go off of so do not buy to much into them.
precisely mate your spot on....ok so ray lost 3 fights. Only ONE in reality becuase the Camacho and Norris fights where a shadow of what SRL was at his best. People say Hagler beat him....not IMO leonard edged that one but it was close....oh yeah and he gotta BS draw against hearns, but win/lose/draw that fight it really made no difference to either of there legacys becuase it wasnt them at there best anymore. Remember aswell the fact Leonard had to retire because of a detached retina...who knows how many fights he could of racked up in that time...for all we know he could of fought hearns again and beaten him again!
I always thought that Leonard is better than Hearns over 15 rounds, and Hearns is better than Leonard over 12 rounds.
But who you take as the better boxer ICB??
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
i luagh my ass off when people say joe louis a legendary fighter but way too small, hed lose to some super middles today, roy jones junior would murder joe louis and hes a small man be realistic
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacdog
i luagh my a** off when people say joe louis a legendary fighter but way too small, hed lose to some super middles today, roy jones junior would murder joe louis and hes a small man be realistic
I laugh my ass off when people dont realise Louis was 6'2"
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacdog
i luagh my ass off when people say joe louis a legendary fighter but way too small, hed lose to some super middles today, roy jones junior would murder joe louis and hes a small man be realistic
Joe Louis was plenty big and he could have KO'd Roy Jones Jr. along with a lot of other fighters
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashcrusher
Floyd Mayweather 39-0
Sugar Ray Leonard 36-3-1
Take a seat, you've been dismissed ;D ;D ;D
You cannot always go by a fighter's record. Leonard fought in a much tougher era and beat much better competition than Floyd.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
#1 hw is a toss up between louis and ali.........
i really cant decide though i am leaning towards ali due to way better competition even though louis reigned for so long.
they are both great champs but i probably see it like this.............top 5
#1...ALI
#2...LOUIS
#3...TYSON
#4...LEWIS
#5...FRAZIER,JOHNSON,LISTON,FOREMAN,HOLMES....TIED , cause i cant make up my mind on #5
but i wouldnt put marciano in top #5 just cause he fought S*** opposition .
....and every one of these fighters i mentioned would beat him PRIME 4 PRIME
i agree with ali as #1 --but louis opposition was the same quality as marcianos-even some of the same --walcott ,charles-i think if people put down marciano 4 his opposition, they need 2 put down louis as well. but your top 5 is a good list overall.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
The ali from '66 beats anybody. At that point in his career his speed and movement were at their absolute peak. And he had a chin so it's not a matter of catching him with a lucky punch, it's a matter of consistantly connecting and nobody throughout the history of the heavyweight division had the necessary package of speed (both with punches and ring movement), skill, or stamina (many had any two of the three but never all three) to keep enough pressure on him to beat him.
I got a dvd for christmas which lists the top 10 heavyweights of all time according to burt sugar (a very good espn ringside dvd with old fight footage for dempsey and even jack johnson). Holmes was 10th which made me an instant fan of the dvd. He gave louis the nod over ali and when confronted with larry's (who was present so they could tell him he was number 10 ;D) view point of louis would never catch ali, burt said that head to head matchups were not part of his criteria. And he put 25 title defenses (22 by ko) ahead of ali's resume. He also admitted he may have had a bias seeing as louis was his hero growing up.
So if you're comparing in a head-to-head mtach up to determine hypothetical greatness, ali has to be the favorite but if you want to compare greatness on the scale of just what each guy did in his era, there's room for debate there.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
The ali from '66 beats anybody. At that point in his career his speed and movement were at their absolute peak. And he had a chin so it's not a matter of catching him with a lucky punch, it's a matter of consistantly connecting and nobody throughout the history of the heavyweight division had the necessary package of speed (both with punches and ring movement), skill, or stamina (many had any two of the three but never all three) to keep enough pressure on him to beat him.
I got a dvd for christmas which lists the top 10 heavyweights of all time according to burt sugar (a very good espn ringside dvd with old fight footage for dempsey and even jack johnson). Holmes was 10th which made me an instant fan of the dvd. He gave louis the nod over ali and when confronted with larry's (who was present so they could tell him he was number 10 ;D) view point of louis would never catch ali, burt said that head to head matchups were not part of his criteria. And he put 25 title defenses (22 by ko) ahead of ali's resume. He also admitted he may have had a bias seeing as louis was his hero growing up.
So if you're comparing in a head-to-head mtach up to determine hypothetical greatness, ali has to be the favorite but if you want to compare greatness on the scale of just what each guy did in his era, there's room for debate there.
Bert Sugar had Holmes at number 10 or did i misread that ?? if he did then that is very disappointing :(
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
I think Tyson in his prime would have had a chance against Ali and any other heavyweight in history. Its either because of his speed, ability to offload combinations, raw power and good defensive skills (for which he was underappreciated), or because I was about 18 when he won the title and he made me feel the same way as I imagine Ali made boxing fans feel in the 60s. Also, I think Gary Mason would have given Ali a right battle.
-
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 Troy McClure
#1 hw is a toss up between louis and ali.........
i really cant decide though i am leaning towards ali due to way better competition even though louis reigned for so long.
they are both great champs but i probably see it like this.............top 5
#1...ALI
#2...LOUIS
#3...TYSON
#4...LEWIS
#5...FRAZIER,JOHNSON,LISTON,FOREMAN,HOLMES....TIED , cause i cant make up my mind on #5
but i wouldnt put marciano in top #5 just cause he fought S*** opposition .
....and every one of these fighters i mentioned would beat him PRIME 4 PRIME
Tyson at number 3 ?? you have to be kidding me. I know your Tyson fan but come on be realistic no way is Tyson top 3. He isn't even top 5 let alone top 3.
hey long time no see :) ok maybe i was being a bit generous there. but i defo have tyson in top #5 just based on his accomplishments early in his carrer.
youngest HW champ
fist to unify all 3 belts
most exciting fighter of all time
uhh .......awsome defense, best combination puncher i have ever seen at HW.
just think if he had retired after spinks everyone would rate him in top #5 even #1 or#2. so thats how i rate him, pre-douglas, kevin rooney trained....... the closest any one has come to being unbeatable 8)
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
#1 hw is a toss up between louis and ali.........
i really cant decide though i am leaning towards ali due to way better competition even though louis reigned for so long.
they are both great champs but i probably see it like this.............top 5
#1...ALI
#2...LOUIS
#3...TYSON
#4...LEWIS
#5...FRAZIER,JOHNSON,LISTON,FOREMAN,HOLMES....TIED , cause i cant make up my mind on #5
but i wouldnt put marciano in top #5 just cause he fought S*** opposition .
....and every one of these fighters i mentioned would beat him PRIME 4 PRIME
i agree with ali as #1 --but louis opposition was the same quality as marcianos-even some of the same --walcott ,charles-i think if people put down marciano 4 his opposition, they need 2 put down louis as well. but your top 5 is a good list overall.
yes but at least louis fought these men in there prime or close to it. i have now doubt that if marciano faught on for a little longer he would have lost. walcott was almost 40 when they fought and he was outpointing marciano easy in there fist match, he even knocked rocky down in the first rd........ prime louis would beat marciano, and so would ali but men like lennox lewis and mike tyson would kill marciano.
peace 8)
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
He was known as "the greatest" for a reason...
Lewis - Never liked him, too boring and didnt like getting hit - fought passed prime fighters i.e tyson, holyfield. Tyson would have whooped him in his prime. (lewis not ali)
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
You can't underestimate Lewis though. His size alone makes him an imposing proposition for any fighter. Add to that his skills, well oiled jab and uppercut and I feel Tyson at any age was in trouble.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
You can't underestimate Lewis though. His size alone makes him an imposing proposition for any fighter. Add to that his skills, well oiled jab and uppercut and I feel Tyson at any age was in trouble.
im not knocking lewis cause he is an ATG, but in the tyson fight mike had no head movement what so ever he only threw like 13 punches a round.
compare that to the tyson of old who threw 70 punches a round. lots of head movement,awsome combinations.... just relentless attack
put them together in the ring and i think it would be one of the most competitve, exciting fights of all time
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
You can't underestimate Lewis though. His size alone makes him an imposing proposition for any fighter. Add to that his skills, well oiled jab and uppercut and I feel Tyson at any age was in trouble.
im not knocking lewis cause he is an ATG, but in the tyson fight mike had no head movement what so ever he only threw like 13 punches a round.
compare that to the tyson of old who threw 70 punches a round. lots of head movement,awsome combinations.... just relentless attack
put them together in the ring and i think it would be one of the most competitve, exciting fights of all time
I'm agreeing.
Following the death of d'Amato i feel head movement was abandoned in training. It remained for a while as Tyson had it drilled into him so hard in the beginning at Catskills. However, it faded quickly as the trainers were too in awe of his power to concentrate on speed and tactics.
Tyson could have been even greater had he had a triner like Futch later in his career (From 1987 on.) It was at that stage he most desperately neede the guidnace and tutelage that only Cus could offer him. (Although Eddi Futch would have been a perfectly acceptable alternative.)
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Well SRl lost to Duran who is in the top10 greatest of all time and pound for pound list and SRL won more and his draw was later in his career and his losses were when he was 35 and 41 so losses do not matter as much as people think if PBF fought till he was 41 and lost would you count it against him no i do not think you would. records are not always the best thing to go off of so do not buy to much into them.
Joe Louis has losses on his record to some pretty damned good fighters too
Rocky Marciano fought everyone he could possibly fight and never lost...there HAS to be some respect for that achievement.
I never doubted the greatness of Ali I just don't believe he's greater than Louis and Marciano
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
think about it--no1 could--frazier, louis, dempesy , marciano, holmes, foreman,holyfield ,tyson, and yes norton. the 60's ali was the REAL ali-FLABSLAB. no1 1 could have beaten the 60's ali
Are you high? :alcoholic: :lol: Ali sucked ass.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Well SRl lost to Duran who is in the top10 greatest of all time and pound for pound list and SRL won more and his draw was later in his career and his losses were when he was 35 and 41 so losses do not matter as much as people think if PBF fought till he was 41 and lost would you count it against him no i do not think you would. records are not always the best thing to go off of so do not buy to much into them.
Joe Louis has losses on his record to some pretty damned good fighters too
Rocky Marciano fought everyone he could possibly fight and never lost...there HAS to be some respect for that achievement.
I never doubted the greatness of Ali I just don't believe he's greater than Louis and Marciano
There is some respect for Marciano. In reality though, people look in awe of great athletes mainly because they are able to do what seemingly not many else can do. Not many could have scored 81 points like Kobe did. No one else could run the table in the modern era like the Patriots did. No one else could take out a prime Joe Frazier in 2 rounds like Foreman did. When you look at Marciano's resume of opponents, the consensus is probably well over a dozen heavyweight champions would have gone 49-0 as well with that opposition. Not many heavyweights could take a prime Foreman's punishment then knock him out. A junior college team in football can go 14-0, and would have done so playing everyone on their schedule, not ducking anyone. Unfortunately that doesn't mean as much when you think of the fact that none of the players would even be starting on a D-I team. This is why Ali is the most widely regarded as the greatest Heavyweight Champion of all time.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Then why has no heavyweight since then gone undefeated and broken Marciano's record?
Nicolay Valuev couldn't do it and his opposition was absolute SHIT!
Larry Holmes couldn't do it and he fought and got beat by a LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT!
Mike Tyson couldn't even come close!
By your rational we should have a heavyweight fighting RIGHT NOW who has beaten Marciano's record and it hasn't happened not yet and not in the forseeable future
And Rocky didn't just beat 49 fighters....he KO'd 43 of them!
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Then why has no heavyweight since then gone undefeated and broken Marciano's record?
Nicolay Valuev couldn't do it and his opposition was absolute S***!
Larry Holmes couldn't do it and he fought and got beat by a LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT!
Mike Tyson couldn't even come close!
By your rational we should have a heavyweight fighting RIGHT NOW who has beaten Marciano's record and it hasn't happened not yet and not in the forseeable future
And Rocky didn't just beat 49 fighters....he KO'd 43 of them!
You basically just wrote that post as if you didn't read a single word I just wrote. Did you read the post you responded to? I said Marciano's opposition, not Holmes opposition (and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Marciano retire at the age of 32, and Holmes lost his first fight at the age of 36?). And please don't tell me you believe Valuev to be one of the dozen or so heavyweights that I'm talking about.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Then why has no heavyweight since then gone undefeated and broken Marciano's record?
Nicolay Valuev couldn't do it and his opposition was absolute S***!
Larry Holmes couldn't do it and he fought and got beat by a LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT!
Mike Tyson couldn't even come close!
By your rational we should have a heavyweight fighting RIGHT NOW who has beaten Marciano's record and it hasn't happened not yet and not in the forseeable future
And Rocky didn't just beat 49 fighters....he KO'd 43 of them!
Lyle, Rocky Marciano fought 11 guys that weighed over 200 pounds. Gimme a f@ckin' break ::**
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
Quote:
Originally Posted by undefeated
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
#1 hw is a toss up between louis and ali.........
i really cant decide though i am leaning towards ali due to way better competition even though louis reigned for so long.
they are both great champs but i probably see it like this.............top 5
#1...ALI
#2...LOUIS
#3...TYSON
#4...LEWIS
#5...FRAZIER,JOHNSON,LISTON,FOREMAN,HOLMES....TIED , cause i cant make up my mind on #5
but i wouldnt put marciano in top #5 just cause he fought S*** opposition .
....and every one of these fighters i mentioned would beat him PRIME 4 PRIME
i agree with ali as #1 --but louis opposition was the same quality as marcianos-even some of the same --walcott ,charles-i think if people put down marciano 4 his opposition, they need 2 put down louis as well. but your top 5 is a good list overall.
yes but
at least louis fought these men in there prime or close to it. i have now doubt that if marciano faught on for a little longer he would have lost.
walcott was almost 40 when they fought and he was outpointing marciano easy in there fist match, he even knocked rocky down in the first rd........ prime louis would beat marciano, and so would ali but men like lennox lewis and mike tyson would kill marciano.
peace 8)
yes a prime 2ton tony and billy conn. --and braddock was 37 when louis beat him so thats almost 40 as well-and braddock knocked down louis in the second round. i think tyson would beat marciano-but i think tyson and lewis would kill louis as well. a prime louis could prob beat marciano--that ones a toss up 2 me--i think rocky could beat a prime louis if he gets in a few of his right hands in--but i dont think a prime louis would allow that
-
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 Punisher136
The ali from '66 beats anybody. At that point in his career his speed and movement were at their absolute peak. And he had a chin so it's not a matter of catching him with a lucky punch, it's a matter of consistantly connecting and nobody throughout the history of the heavyweight division had the necessary package of speed (both with punches and ring movement), skill, or stamina (many had any two of the three but never all three) to keep enough pressure on him to beat him.
I got a dvd for christmas which lists the top 10 heavyweights of all time according to burt sugar (a very good espn ringside dvd with old fight footage for dempsey and even jack johnson). Holmes was 10th which made me an instant fan of the dvd. He gave louis the nod over ali and when confronted with larry's (who was present so they could tell him he was number 10 ;D) view point of louis would never catch ali, burt said that head to head matchups were not part of his criteria. And he put 25 title defenses (22 by ko) ahead of ali's resume. He also admitted he may have had a bias seeing as louis was his hero growing up.
So if you're comparing in a head-to-head mtach up to determine hypothetical greatness, ali has to be the favorite but if you want to compare greatness on the scale of just what each guy did in his era, there's room for debate there.
Bert Sugar had Holmes at number 10 or did i misread that ?? if he did then that is very disappointing :(
ues holmes was 10th. ali was second and i believe ezzard charles was in the top 5
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cold Boxing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
The ali from '66 beats anybody. At that point in his career his speed and movement were at their absolute peak. And he had a chin so it's not a matter of catching him with a lucky punch, it's a matter of consistantly connecting and nobody throughout the history of the heavyweight division had the necessary package of speed (both with punches and ring movement), skill, or stamina (many had any two of the three but never all three) to keep enough pressure on him to beat him.
I got a dvd for christmas which lists the top 10 heavyweights of all time according to burt sugar (a very good espn ringside dvd with old fight footage for dempsey and even jack johnson). Holmes was 10th which made me an instant fan of the dvd. He gave louis the nod over ali and when confronted with larry's (who was present so they could tell him he was number 10 ;D) view point of louis would never catch ali, burt said that head to head matchups were not part of his criteria. And he put 25 title defenses (22 by ko) ahead of ali's resume. He also admitted he may have had a bias seeing as louis was his hero growing up.
So if you're comparing in a head-to-head mtach up to determine hypothetical greatness, ali has to be the favorite but if you want to compare greatness on the scale of just what each guy did in his era, there's room for debate there.
Bert Sugar had Holmes at number 10 or did i misread that ?? if he did then that is very disappointing :(
ues holmes was 10th. ali was second and i believe ezzard charles was in the top 5
i saw that--i believe charles was 8--holmes def 10--holmes wasnt 2 happy about that
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
I can not belive how low some people rate Holmes he is at teh top with Ali and Louis man he gets no respect some times.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Holmes is indeed at top ten with Ali.
However, I feel the reason the general boxing public fails to fully acknowledge his achievements is because he just couldn't achieve the popularity that the likes of Ali, Louis and Marciano did. In their era's each guy transcended boxing and reached the fans on a personal level. Although he was a nice guy Larry lacked the charisma that Ali had, the (racially motivated) pride in Louis or the All American love Marciano enjoyed.
But similarly to another post I made today (on PBF) Homes deserves to be remembered for his talent in the ring, his skills and abilities and his fighting courage rather than his personality and life outside the ring.
The sport is Boxing, let's remeber the Boxing he did.
-
Re: 60's ALI: there is no HW great that could have beaten him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
Holmes is indeed at top ten with Ali.
However, I feel the reason the general boxing public fails to fully acknowledge his achievements is because he just couldn't achieve the popularity that the likes of Ali, Louis and Marciano did. In their era's each guy transcended boxing and reached the fans on a personal level. Although he was a nice guy Larry lacked the charisma that Ali had, the (racially motivated) pride in Louis or the All American love Marciano enjoyed.
But similarly to another post I made today (on PBF) Homes deserves to be remembered for his talent in the ring, his skills and abilities and his fighting courage rather than his personality and life outside the ring.
The sport is Boxing, let's remeber the Boxing he did.
Larry unfortunatly was a combination of wrong fighter at the wrongt time,and a victim of passive racism
First off he comes in right at the end of an era when every fighter was a fighter+,Foreman preached,Norton acted,Frazier sang,Ali was well Ali
Holmes just hit people
But on top of it,it wasnt the Ali fight nobody forgave Holmes for,it was him whipping the great white hype Cooney nobody forgave him for. When he beat 7 kinds of hell out of Tex Cobb,all Sports Illustrated could talk about was how valiant Tex was for taking the punishment
