Which 1970 s Heavyweight Is Far Too Overrated, IYO?

So you admit he has no standout names but still think he has a great resume? Don't you see the problem here? If your era is weak doesn't matter how many wins you have it doesn't make you better then someone who might not have as much wins but beat much better competition like Lennox or Holmes did

 

Like a lot of people, you have yet to develope an appreciation for the level of discipline & greatness it takes to steadily clean out a division over more than ten years. There is a very, very good reason Louis has no Foreman, Liston or Frazier on his ledger, but is still considered to have a better résumé than Ali by a sizeable minority, & a comparably great one by a sizeable majority.

 

I'm talking more 1970s Ali. 1966-1967 Ali looked great but it was also against smaller limited fighters.

 

I understand that but Holmes and Wlad had a comparable reign against, what I would argue, is better competition yet you wouldn't consider them as good?

 

I see that that post was posted in the middle when I was writing it by mistake.

But, no, if you dominate your era thourogly over a a very long time that's enough for greatness. As I wrote previously. Louis's numbers for defences and ranked opponents beaten shits all over Lewis's and Holmes's. It's not even close. Ali's case over Louis is that his numbers in this aspect more or less matches up with Louis's plus that he has wins over Liston, Frazier and Foreman. But even then it's not set in stone.

And Lewis and especially Holmes didn't even beat that many really good opponents. Holmes best is probably an ageing Norton, whom he just edged or a Cooney that feasted on has beens. After that? An ageing Shavers? A Weaver that wasn't considered much more than a journeyman at the time? A 17 fight Witherspoon? Holmes's record is thinner than Louis's in this regard.

Lewis has Vitaly and that's a hell of a win. But Tyson was pretty far past his best as was Holyfield. Lewis wasn't very convincing even against a Holy that would go and lose to Ruiz.

So all you have to stand on is the hypothetical "their opponents would have beaten Louis's opponents". Maybe. Louis's era was before PEDs and at a time when a big part of the population had grown up without proper nutrition and health care, and I also think that boxing as a sport has improved just because later generations have had the shoulders of giants like Louis to stand on.

But apart for the hypothetical element (and when thinking of the success Holmes and Foreman has in the 90's even the hypothetical case gets weaker), advances that would come in the future don't subtract from a fighters greatness for me. You can only beat those that are in your own era, not those who aren't even born yet.

 

Liston, Terrell and Chuvalo were around the same size as anyone he beat in the 70's. Patterson was about the same size as Quarry and arguably got the better of him over two fight even though he was past his best. And Quarry would of course beat Shavers and Lyle. Even an ancient Cooper would beat Bugner according to most. So, no, I don't think that case holds up.

 

Holmes relied on skills, fundamentals, and technique his entire career. He didn't come along in the 60s like Ali. 60s Ali was bigger, stronger, and faster than the other 60s heavyweights. Ali could stand on one foot with his eyes closed and beat most of them. Holmes fought in the 70s when boxers were starting to get bigger and more athletic. He didn't have the luxury of fighting Patterson, Cooper size guys that he could play with, or a tall guy like Terrell who had fought most of his career under 200 pounds, or a physically diminished fighter like Cleveland Williams... In the 70s, Holmes had to use his fundamentals, and skills to win. Much of his competition was equal to him physically.

Ali never dominated the 70s fighters either, there were a lot of them his size and they could move too. By the 80s the fighters were even bigger and athletic, and they have continued to get bigger and stronger while maintaining their athletic ability. There was a big history of boxing before Ali, guys his size were rare and the ones that boxed were mostly slow and awkward. Ali was bigger than any champion before him except Willard and Carnera. Suddenly the big guy was faster than the small ones. Doubt it was evolution, something happened (PEDs?) and then suddenly there were numerous fighters Ali's size who were athletic, and then they got even bigger until today we have guys the size of Willard and Carnera who are athletic and fast. Ali was a well schooled boxer and an Olympic champion who got away from fundamental boxing because his competition was so weak in the 60s. He didn't need it. Holmes had to concentrate on his boxing fundamentals his entire career. That is why Holmes had the fundamentals to fall back on when the physical talent was diminishing.

 

Would 1981 Ali do better against the Jones he faced in 1963 than he did against Berbick you think?

 

That's why you should stick to trolling and hero worshipping Usyk, because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about which is evident from this comment. And you're other ridiculous comment in another thread about Usyk dominating 70s Heavyweight era.

So let me educate you....

Joe Louis beat 31 ranked fighters, 9 fighters who were ranked number 1 contenders, and beat atleast 8 fighters who are in the hall of fame......

Seriously stick to trolling.

 

due to size, perhaps training level, it's likely. Wlad Klitschko hit like 3* Cooper which shocked Ali. He was bigger, stronger, better trained, with biological support and care launched into space. Generally, it's a level higher, but... it's the context that counts. Moreover, modern boxing such as Wlad, Fury, AJ, Wilder is based on individual actions, taking advantage of conditions, there is little of the fight itself, it is a difficult comparison. Another thing is that the best ones don't fight among themselves. In the 1970s, we would have had two Fury-Usyk fights, three Fury-AJ fights, and fighters such as Hrgović or Bakole would have tried their hand at being the best a long time ago and would not grow old fighting rivals such as Mark De Mori.

 

Holmes was also the beneficiary of good luck in terms of how well he held up physically over time, while Ali was cursed by horrible luck. Either way, you can’t really compare how they did as they aged because in terms of health, Holmes aged so much better than Ali. Had Ali been even beneficiary of the same health outcomes, he might have had a far slower decline, still be around today.

 

Putting aside for a minute that Holmes’ reign was barely half as long as Louis’, I’d be stunned to see anyone argue either he or Klitschko beat better title opposition.

 

Yes. We got see how tough a fight a past his best Norton was for prime Holmes. Now imagine that being Holmes in his 30's doing that x 3 with a younger Norton, mixed in with three fights with 71-75 Frazier. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Holmes doesn't age as well under those circumstances.

 

It's also worth nothing Ali was fighting much stronger opposition than Holmes i mean Ali fought Liston, Patterson, Foreman, Younger Norton, Frazier, etc. Where does Holmes have anywhere close to that level of opposition ?

Holmes went life and death with a slightly faded Norton who Ali had to fight 3 times once while considerably past his prime. Just imagine Holmes had to fight a younger fresher Norton 3 times, Frazier 3 times, prime Foreman, i wonder if Holmes would've aged as well if he was in wars like that consistently.

I like Holmes alot but you cannot compare Ali's aging to Holmes.

 

Joe Frazier was one of the shortest, blindest men to ever hold the title. Patterson is known for being chinny and peaking earlier than everybody else in the division. Liston is known for being ancient and taking dives. Younger Norton? But he was clearly never besting Norton and Holmes did that with a serious injury to boot. An injury that wasn't actually caused by Norton punching him in the face. I'm sorry but historically, Ali will always just be Larry Holmes' sparring partner.