View Single Post
Old 12-06-2012, 05:27 AM   #84
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 41,960
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Is Roberto Duran a top-10 All Time Great?

Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
Ali-Frazier 2 only served to prove which of the two had been less a "has been".
I think you'll find it also crowned the world's #2 ranked contender, so it was significanly more important than you yourself see it.

Ali-Frazier 3 being "arguably the most beloved HW title fight in history" is the hype.
It's also "the truth".

It was a horrible fight to watch.
I loved it. Many more people see it my way than yours.

Being a major force in 1979 heavyweight division? Wow, that means a lot! I suppose you picked up an early 1974 article, ie between Ali 2 and Foreman?
I picked up numerous articles, and was sure to date them so you know that. I also picked up one calling him a good but not a great fighter in the very year you falsely claimed he was being seen as a "poor boxer", which is the worst kind of nonsense.

Ali's words about Norton being the best (better than Moore, Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman) are pure BS, that can't be taken seriously.
I take it very seriously, not in terms of literal meaning, of course, but in terms of the general regard that Ali held Norton. Given that Norton arguably caused him more problems than literally any fighter he met, he's obviously going to see him as good.

Look up what Ali was saying about Ken before Norton I, between Norton I and Norton II and for a while after Norton II.
Why don't you look it up, and share it with us instead of asking me to do it? How about I hold up my side of the argument and you try to hold up yours? How about you explain why when Ali says something that supports my position it's BS, but when he says something that (allegedly) supports yours it is God's own truth?

As I said before in this thread, Norton is somewhere in between the mediocre and the good, depending how you look at it. Being called one of the worst title holders in heavyweight history certainly doesn't show much respect for him as a boxer, and not just for him as a titlist.
Given that the champion is by very general definition one of the best fighters in the world I think he is closer to my definition of him as a good fighter than yours of him as a "poor boxer".

Regardless, Ali's legacy hardly rests upon his two victories over Ken Norton.

I don't know what else you can call Glen Johnson. A boxer, who is doing the best that his abilities allow him, but due to being limited, being very inconsistent and only being able to outwork (not outbox) either shot great fighters or second-tier contenders.
Again, this is a very limited and unhelpful definition. The flipside of the coin (which you blatantly ignore) is that he is a former champion of the world who beat fellow titlist Clinton Woods, Montel GriffnAntonio Tarver and Roy Jones, some of the premier light-heavies of his era. This is not a journeyman. If this is how you definie journeyman, you are coming from an extremely lonely place. Almost no boxing fans would so define him.

What? I said 1970s, notice the 's'. Meaning any period of the 1970's, including after the Holmes bout. Anybody back then who would make a claim that Norton would be inducted in a boxing hall of fame (where ATG boxers are supposed to be) would be laughed at at best. That modern historians, or some of them voted him in, only shows that the whole Ali hype has worked very well, and now nearly every fighter that Ali faced is seen as a better fighter than they really were. Norton was inducted in 1992. Ahead of plenty of more deserving fighters. Was Ken Norton better/mode deserving than, say, Joey Giardello, Joe Brown or Nicolino Loche?
I have literally no interest in discussing the Hall of Fame and what merits or doesn't merit his inclusion. It's bull**** and has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

I didn't say otherwise. To me, that was a robbery. I had Young taking 10 rounds and Norton 4, with last round even.
Again, you are coming from an extremely lonely place. Either a personal prejudice informs your opinion or your bizarre point of view informs your opinion. Either way, it is becoming clear why your view of Norton is so far from the true mark.

it's been a long time since I watched these last time, but look up the rounds where Ali started to move around the ring, rather than plod around. Norton was clueless in those rounds. He was clueless vs Young. He was clueless was punchers. He lacked cleverness and ability to adjust.
Yeah, he was utterly clueless and beat Muhammad Ali, Young, Quarry went life-and-death with a primed Holmes but he was utterly clueless, a "poor boxer" without smarts.

He must be the most gifted physical athlete to ever have boxed, in this case, because his record and reputation speak of a completely different fighter to the one you are pitifully trying to paint here.

Head to head Ali was better than Leonard and Gans?
Unquestionably in my opinion. Because i'm not interested in magical spells that make fighters the same size, I'm interested in how these men would perform against a field of ATG's from their weight division throughout boxnig history. Leonard's last performance v a great - 1923 - would arguably be on the cusp of the fulfilment of boxing technique and he may have a better case than the admittedly ahead-of-his times Gans, but I would expect both men to lose to guys like Buchanan, Duran, Armstrong and most especially Whitaker who may epitomise evolution in boxing pre-Jones. Ali was Whitaker. There may be literally no fighter in HW history whom I would make a favourite to beat him, though I perhaps lean slighly to Frazier.

Furthermore, if you are comparing them skill for skill and in terms fo physical attributes, Ali looks better to me than Leoanrd (hard to say with the footage of Gans).

That being the case, I rate Ali above Gans and Leonard h2h.
This is the end of our conversation. Adieu!
What is outrageous about any of the above? I think that your cliam that a magically shrunk Ali would lose to Leoanrd is far more preposterous (if this is what you are proposing). It's an impossible notion to take seriously.

If you care to debate any matters technical relating to any of these fighters and my reasons for seeing Ali as their superior, I'll be very happy to debate them.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote