Muhammad Ali, who did he actually fight?

Nobody is answering it because its a stupid ****ing question, just like all of your other "questions" lately. I literally find myself wondering if youve had a stroke and half of your brain is now dead because once upon a time you were an intelligent, thoughtful poster. Now your posts are consistently not just awful but completely ignorant which in my opinion is worse.

 

Refused to even say his name and got pissed when other people even tried to bring him up!

 

Has anyone a clear breakdown of LPR vs Q rules used on Sullivan's record? My understanding is the rules were lax and agreed to, often some kind of mix. LPRR with gloves, Queensberry with long counts, that sort of thing.

 

Sure .. bare knuckles, holds , throws and spiked shoes for kicking .. a completely different sport from M of G .. it's like comparing MMA and Boxing today which is precisely my point from minute one .. two different sports.

 

Considering you are the one that went straight to personal attacks, you can't really call anyone venomous.


Given that Sullivan's most known bareknuckle fights were against opponents that got massive advantage from the bareknuckle ruleset, and that bareknuckle boxing was seen as the more real prestigious form when Sullivan was in his prime. Plus as Naseem would say, "you're either good at boxing or you're not", why exactly is it worth ignoring his bareknuckle record?


Anyway here's a few notable wins if it'll stop your nonsense

Joe Goss
George Rooke
Steve Taylor
James Dalton
Jimmy Elliot
Tug Wilson
Charlie Mitchell
Dominick McCaffery
Frank Herald
Alf Greenfield
William Samuels
John Laflin ("hybrid rules")

Janitor or someone will have some more I'm sure

Here's some responces to the drivel I expect in responce:
But what about [fighter x], he didn't fight him!!!!
Peter Jackson was a genuine blemish, but even that was when he was when Sullivan was coming to his end, the others really weren't some level above what he'd fought, certainly the ones I've seen brought up anyway
But muh boxrec records!
My responce: Everyone knows they are incomplete, especially from this period, hell they only recently added a Sugar Ray Robinson fight. Plus it doesn't include bareknuckle fights (though I imagine you'll pretend they somehow don't give an indication of how good they are, with zero justification)
They were bareknuckle fighters!!!
It was just different rulesets for the same sport back then. Again, please actually justify why bareknuckle fights, reputation etc., shouldn't be used when looking at how good his opponents were. Instead pretending that information doesn't exist, and then pretending that we know everything we know about them too, and then concluding, through utter potato logic, that his opponents were just some guy, even though there's pretty clear evidence they weren't.
*Just flat out ingoring it and keeping saying the same things*
My responce: ctrl c + ctrl v

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say to me. I don't need a crash course on what LPRR or Queensberry is I'm asking how many fights did John fight that were straight Queensberry, how many were mixed rules, and how many were straight London Prize Ring rules.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I do feel like I was pretty clear and do not understand how you think that's a response, i'm just a bit bewildered.

As far as LPRR being boxing and Queensberry being boxing, the rules don't change the training lineage, fight sales lineage, or any other tradition in boxing. They are the same sport, a sport is more than it's rule. It is the same martial art invented by the spartans used in military combat to rid themselves the use of helmets that was changed into a political sport used to put down wars between rival states then is became a military martial art in medieval Russia then made into an English sport during the industrial revolution as a form of political propaganda sured to spread English culture before it was adopted by America and turned into a successful business model.

There is far more to a sport then rules. LPRR is far more relative to Queensberry than MMA. Boxing theory, culture, and history to name three.

I might agree with the idea that John L didn't fight many good Queensberry fights if I went though and lined up who fought when under what rules. I'm fully aware of his ducking Godfrey, what I don't know is did he duck Godfrey un LPRR, Queensberry, or both. I know who was good at the time, I'm aware of key players and background characters, but everyone to my knowledge was mixing the rules quite a lot and I'm not 100% clear what fights were under what rules or how closely those rule were adhered to. I know the colored champs were using gloves more often than the honks but I'm not absolutely sure they were using Queensberry, LPRR, or some mix.

 

Yeah they just went straight to modern boxing gloves. They never used early boxing gloves that are clearly stated with weights like 2 or 4 ozs, or hard gloves, both of which are much closer to bareknuckle fighting in terms of defensive techniques etc. And they just went from grapping constantly to not at all, there's not lots of clear records of boxer from this time using LPR style grappling, that technically illegal, but not no enforced. No. They just enforced like a modern ref would for some reason. And of course the spiked shoes were something they gave bareknuckle boxers with to kick the **** out of each other, but as soon as the same fighters put gloves on they turned into gentlemen, and wouldn't do such a thing, and even if they did I'm sure the ref, would clamp down on it like a modern ref would. It's not like we have records of rampant fouling years after. No.Yup two different sports, which is why none of the fighters, well except for pretty much all of them, in areas/times where both were common fought under both rule sets.

 

If you are allowed to spike, wrestle and throw a man down to you it is the same sport ? I'm confused. How is that the same. It is either the same or it is not.

 

You actually responded by going back to the same list I criticized as being terrible opposition under M of Q rules, men with next to n M of Q experience and much smaller guys with next to no M of Q experience .. you have to be kidding ?

 

Can't say the same about you except again no response.

 

Great reading comprehension bro

Yeah, and I can also criticize Ali's opposition as being terrible. Meaningless.

Why would anyone take the unbacked up opinions of 1800's boxers from someone that just showed everyone that they can't really read?

 

Bareknuckle boxing isn't boxing, you can hurt your hands if your not careful. Old school bare knuckle was more like stand up MMA until a guy hits the floor with above the waist only attacks.

Jess Willard, interviewed for the famous Murray Woroner fantasy radio tournament had Jess Willard comment on the fighters. Sullivan was in it, and had the easy draw meeting Jimmy Braddock in round one. Willard said boxing was a different sport back in Sullivan's time, and he could hardly make a prediction, as the rules changes greatly.

But to define the value of these wins, what were the ages and estimated height and weights of these men?

 

Yeah, forget the chins, it could have been more about the shins and ability to take a fall. A weak shin back then must have been tough, unable to take a spiked shoe blow.

Vastly different sports, and good stand up guys today in the MMA with boxing skills are pretty rare at the top.

 

What's a better win?
A 40 year old 6' 2 1/2" and 220Ibs
Or
B 28 year old 6' 7" and 256Ibs

What if fighter A is Holyfield, and B is Gary Cornish?

If you want to learn about these fighters do some research.