Which 1970 s Heavyweight Is Far Too Overrated, IYO?

No one is perfect just because Ali looked good against smaller heavyweights doesn't mean he's unbeatable or would be able to look as good against bigger more skilled heavyweights especially those with a good jab and good left hook. Again I'm not talking about their resumé which i acknowledge Ali has a better one just their skill set and fundamentals

 

Patterson turned pro at a younger age than Holmes and didn't retire for 10 years like Foreman did. Obviously wear and tear impacts how well you age. Bonavena and Quarry probably rate higher in the 1970s than Moorer does in the 1990s.

 

A peak Norton fought a post peak Ali three times and each time he was further from his peak. A peak Holmes fought a faded Norton. All four fights were close. Others can provide context.

 

Why he wasn't as impressive in the 70s compared to the 60s instead of admitting that he was still at his peak and the reason he looked worse was because he was fighting better fighters. It also and gives a convenient reason to explain his losses instead of just admitting he wasn't invincible and Norton and Frazier would have given any version of Ali a tough fight because they exploited the flaws that he always had.

Because people can't admit that size does matter especially in the heavyweights and its more impressive beating larger fighters then it is smaller ones. There's a reason Ali was so dominant because he was larger then almost all his opponents and knew how to use his size. He wouldn't be able to do so against opponents who were the same size or larger.

He wasn't that much worse and Holmes clearly beat him Ali never clearly beat Norton.

Now that's not true Liston was old as hell by the time he fought Ali and injured, beating up an old injuried fighter is not more impressive then beating two top ten heavyweights. Imo his victory against Patterson was more impressive then Liston because Patterson actually proved he was a top contender and came to fight whereas Liston looked awful in the fights, took a dive in the second one, and afterwards looked awful.

My argument is that while he won he didn't look impressive in a several of those victories I still consider him the best heavyweight I just think people overestimate how good he really was and how competitive he would be with modern heavyweights based on a flawed sample size

The only good to great fighters he made look bad was Liston (and I explained why that wasn't super impressive) and Patterson the rest he either had tough fights with that he won by outlasting them or they were small and any good modern sized heavyweight would have done the same.

Yeah I never disputed that

 

Lyle.
I mean, the man was an OK fringe contender; but in this forum you can find posts where Lyle is kinda elevated to "The unknown ATG" status ... what gives?

 

Ron "tyre-iron" Lyle was an old school alley brawler

 

George Foreman is not overrated. He's at least a pickem against any fighter that ever lived

 

So, again:

1. Ali did not look as good in the 70's against opponents he also faced in the 60's. They, Chuvalo and Patterson, also say 60's Ali was better themselves. It's very visible on film, but if you need confirmation, there it is. Should be all you need, but this isn't about facts for you, though.
2. So Quarry didn't easily beat Lyle and Shavers because he wasn't big enough? Old Cooper didn't really beat Bugner in most people's eyes because he was small? (The same Bugner who, when old, beat Page, whom Holmes had ducked earlier.) Are you rewriting reality here? Don't understand how you're thinking, if you actually are.
3. Ali, before his best, beat Liston coming off his two best performances. And looked damned good doing so. And that Liston was much, much better than anyone Holmes beat. Those are the facts. And ok, you think Frazier and Foreman were better than Liston, fine. Do you really mean to say that the 32 and 33-year old Ali that beat them was prime, better than he was in the 60's'? Surely you don't, and there your whole argument, or what you should call it, falls. Or, let me guess, those wins don't really count either.
4. Ok. You disagree with me and the judhges on how close Holmes-Norton was. Nothing much we can do about that. But just to be nuisance, let me repeat: 1973 Norton beats that Holmes.
5. Patterson was good, not far from great, Terrell was good, Quarry was good, Ali made them all look bad. Foreman was great according to most and even a past his best Ali made him look bad. Not an easy night for Ali, but he sure made look George look bad in there. But of course, cue you saying how these doesn't really mean anything because excuses.
6. If the 80's were so much better, how did the ghost of Ali do so relatively well against Berbick? 1963 Jones would do a job on that Ali imorgon, as would 1963 Cooper

We're really only going in circles here. You know you're wrong and out in deep water but will go on for another two dozen pages refusing to admit it, so enough time wasted on you. Bye.

 

Not terribly. Sometimes Ron Lyle and Earnie Shavers get more support in fantasy fights than they should but that’s about it

 

1. Yeah its harder to look good against better opponents more news on 11. You're the one ignoring basic facts to keep the myth that Ali was invincible going and would destroy any heavyweight with one hand tied behind his back. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but he was a great but flawed fighter and it showed when he stepped up in competition. Plus he was 28-29 when he came back which is still a person prime he fought Chuvalo and Patterson in his 30s not **** by then his athleticism would start to get worse since he did a bad job of being disciplined. But that doesn't mean he was invincible in his prime he had the same flaws back then
2. Quarry wasn't that much smaller then those two lol and still tiny compared to most modern heavyweights. Bugner is just bad I wouldn't take too much of that. I feel like you just can't acknowledge that size is a factor in fights even though every empirical evidence that we look at says otherwise. Someone beating a person bigger then them isn't the norm its the exception which is why when fighters are able to do so they're considered VERY good.
3. I would disagree he was much better then anyone Holmes beat you're presupposing that he was good because Ali beat him which is what a lot of people do oh Ali beat him therefore he was a great fighter that could beat any modern heavyweight I'm sorry but that's not how facts work maybe try to be more objective in the future might help
4. Judges are stupid more news at 11. Sure you can think that doesn't mean you're correct
4. Patterson was a good fighter just small, Terrell was awful, Quarry was good for the era but also small. Two of those wouldn't be heavyweights today and the other would lost to any modern heavyweight not really some insane fighters that would be competitive in any era. Foreman is great I agree but I wouldn't say he looked bad he gave Ali trouble in the early rounds he just blew his load and Ali won because of his toughness. Idk why you people can critically examine and critique any modern fighter but when the same is done to your golden goose suddenly you get offended maybe try to be more objective instead of getting triggered about anyone questioning your idols.
Sorry that I debunked all your arguments and showed you have no idea what you're talking about see you later.

 

Is toughness not a great attribute for any competitor , especially a competitor in combat sports?

 

Foreman is a great fighter because he clowned another consensus top ten fighter, not once but twice.

 

Not saying its not but its not something a good outboxer should be relying on to win. For example Floyd is tough but he doesn't rely on it to win he relies on his technical skills for that

 

Ali was your quintessential reflex fighter. He looked a lot better than most reflex fighters when his reflexes were gone.

 

Cause most of them aren't as tough as Ali