Originally Posted by Senya13
You are missing the point. A fighter can take on all that is available to him, but still have a poor level of opposition.
I'm afraid it's you who misses the point here, Senya. If a fighter fights the 10 best opponents of his era and 40 'tomato cans' as you call them, then of his 50 fights, most were tomato cans. That doesn't alter the fact that he fought the best of his era. When you take on all that is available and prevail, it means youy are the best of the era. to say otherwise, shifts the blame to the era, and says: there were no good fighters in that era. Now the decade from 64-75 was one of the richer eras ever in the heavywt division. And Ali was , by a good measure, the best of that period, both by resume, and head-to head.
European heavyweights at that time were extremely poor, so having all those titles meant absolutely nothing at world level. Look up some European ratings in the Ring for that time, they are laughable.
Irrelevant point. The best European had to be given a shot, or Ali could have been accused of ducking.
Patterson had problems with his back prior to the fight, and whatever Ali wanted to prove by punishing him, doesn't make that win any more credible. Patterson wasn't just shot, he was not ready phisically for the fight.
He was the very best pure boxer in the division at the time. And Ali toyed with him. I have seen nothing that suggests a bad back prior vto his fight .
Great chin doesn't make a fighter good opponent.
Actually, it does. By definition. That's one of the measures we judge opponents by. Not the only one, but a very significant one.
There have been many tough fighters, who were poor boxers, and a win over which meant little at world level.
Whatever didn't bother Terrell prior to the fight is irrelevant, when he was fighting one-eyed for 14 rounds,
No, it's VERY relevant. What was the source of Ernies' vision problem? Could it have been that Ali fractured a bone under his left eye and damaged his retina?
By your reasoning, Vitali had the disadvantage of fighting Lewis with a badly cut eyelid, and should therefore be excused his loss.
Ali totally outclassed Ernie, danced rings around him and punished him for his refusal to accept Ali's new name.
Williams was on a winning streak against four tomato cans.
No,. He was on a twenty -plus fight winning streak with the sole exception of Terrell, with whom he split a pair. He had four consecutive wins AFTER his gunshot incident, which played little , if any, role in his career. You toss around the term 'tomato can'. You have NO IDEA what that term means.
He was knocked down by Mel Turnbow, that's how bad it had been.
So what ? Now I see the extent of your historical boxing scholarship, It appears that it all derives from Boxrec.com.
He was knocked down but he won a unanimous decision. How many times has Tito been KD'd and went on to win the fight? Was Peter's KD of Wlad (three times) significant to their fight's outcome?
Mac Foster had a carefully padded record for his undefeatedness. He achieved nothing in his career for a win over him to have any significance for Quarry. Quarry fits the definition of journeyman perfectly.
Tripe. Mac Foster was undefeated, whether or not you chose to denigrate his opposition, and Jerry Quary was a serious contender, who KO'd Foster.
Get your facts correct about Bonavena with your 10-fights w/o a loss claim.
What's bothering you here? The fact that he had a DQ on his previous 10.
Now you're grasping. I considered Roy undefeated, prior th his bout with Tarver. Same idea.
Norton did not face a single fighter rated in Top 10 t the time of the fight, before he met Ali.
However past his prime Ali was, that doesn't cancel out the fact that Frazier was shot, and more so than Ali himself, based on their performances at the time.
This rivals your George Foreman and Roy Jones claims in terms of pure unadulterated horseshit. I know English is not your mother tongue, so I'm not correcting your grammar or style, but I DO have to correct your definitions. the word SHOT does not in any way, shape or form apply to Frazier in New York or Manilla. Slightly past prime, perhaps, but FAR from shot. Ali-Frazier 3 was one of the greatest fights at any weight ever televised.
Foreman faced two ranked fighter prior to beating Frazier, 2 and 3 years prior to their fight, despite having the record you gave him. Lou Savarese also had a similar record when he met Foreman of the 2nd coming (who didn't beat a single ranked fighter to get a shot at the title or after winning the title).
Ali should have never lost his title to someone as bad as Leon Spinks, in the first place. That wasn't an achievement, that was a disgrace that luckly got corrected.
What is a disgrace is the analysis in your post.
Ali was finished after the thrilla. ANYTHING he did after that was icing on the cake. He stayed on too long (addicted to the limelight) and so most observers don't count his resume much after Frazier 3.
Similarly, I don't put much stock in Roy's post Ruiz fights. He should have retired after capturing a slice of the heavywt title. It doesn't hurt his legacy in my eyes that things went sour shortly after that.
Was Jones' KO loss to Tarver (at 34, not 36) a disgrace ?