View Single Post
Old 09-29-2007, 05:32 AM   #51
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,991
vCash: 1210
Default Re: Legacy of Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones

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.

Exactly what I have said. And when we are evaluating fighter's achievements, we compare him to achievements of other best fighters in history.

Now the decade from 64-75 was one of the richer eras ever in the heavywt division.

According to whom? How about posting some quotes from contemporary sources that claim it was that good?

Irrelevant point. The best European had to be given a shot, or Ali could have been accused of ducking.
Best Latin American, best Australian, best Asian, best African? What would that do to a fighter's career, if the quality opposition was all in USA at the time? Cooper was not ranked in Top10 by the Ring at the time of the fight.

He was the very best pure boxer in the division at the time.
We have different understanding of what a pure boxer type is. Patterson's best years were in the 1950's. His style requires young fighter, to have the right coordination and balance, it doesn't age well.

Actually, it does. By definition. That's one of the measures we judge opponents by. Not the only one, but a very significant one.
Where did you see such definition, that a chin alone makes a fighter a good one? It requires other qualities and/or achievements. Chuvalo was a mediocre boxer with no really significant achivements in his career, other than upset win over the same Quarry.

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?
Yes it was that. It wasn't anybody's fault that it happened, but it did have major effect on the course of the fight. When you can't see properly with left eye, you have no defense against right hands and you can't use left jab effectively, because you lose 3-D orientation, you can't measure the distance right anymore. Try closing your left eye and extending your arm to touch something in front of you, you won't be able to measure the distance that is left for your hand to go before it touches the object. With both eyes open you will be able to estimate the distance between your fingertips and the object without much problem.

By your reasoning, Vitali had the disadvantage of fighting Lewis with a badly cut eyelid, and should therefore be excused his loss.
For the result - yes. For not going all out in the last round - no.

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.
What had been prior to the incident doesn't mean anything. Williams was a criple, he was out of the ring, he wasn't even a shell of his former self, he was a nobody as a fighter by this point. After the gunshot he had no serious achievements whatsoever.

He was knocked down but he won a unanimous decision.
He was knocked down twice (in the 2nd and 3rd rounds) by a tomato can who was never known for having a punch. That's how low he was as a fighter at that point.

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.
When the best wins of a fighter are over crippled Cleveland Williams, that speaks for itself. Foster didn't face a single ranked fighter prior to meeting Quarry (yet somehow he climbed up to #1 in the Ring rankings, I don't know what they were thinking, really).

What's bothering you here? The fact that he had a DQ on his previous 10.
This is called getting your facts straight. Bonavena lost on a low blow, that's a fact. Jones wasn't undefeated prior to Tarver either.

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.
A great fight, but Frazier was shot by that point. Frazier was at his prime in 1971, he was slightly past his prime for Foreman, past his prime for Ali rematch and was shot (far past his prime) for Ali rubber and Foreman rematch.

What is a disgrace is the ****ysis 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.
Ali's choice of Spinks for a defense was bad enough, but his loss was a disgrace. As you already have said Ali "was able to dig deep one last time", he should have done so in the first fight, or not come out to the ring at all. A loss of a world champion title to a newbie (who only fought as a pro for 1 year) was a disgrace. Tarver wasn't a newbie, but was 2nd best light heavyweight in the world at that point.

Last edited by Bo Bo Olson; 07-10-2006 at 05:39 AM.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote