Which Heavyweight Is Possibly Overrated Because Of Nostalgia?

Interestingly the UPI had the fight Norton fight for Ali 6-4-2!

 

Yeah, Bud Schuyler ( AP) who covered boxing matches and is in the IBHOF for his writing scored the second fight for Norton and the third fight for Ali. It shows how knowledgeable people can see fights very differently. Schuyer went back and scored it again in 2010 and came to the same conclusion. The cool thing is he met a young Sugar Ray Leonard at Yankee Stadium coming off his Olympic Gold performance.

 

Fbi didn't find any conclusive evidence for the first fight and closed the case so why even bring it up to dismiss Alis record only to not follow through with their conclusion ?

 

George Foreman.

His resume is very thin and overhyped.

In the 70's he demolished Frazier and Norton, as they were perfect for him style-wise. History also showed it's not that hard to KO Norton if you're a big puncher. He had a life and death with Lyle, who wasn't anything special. Also lost to Jimmy Young who soundly outboxed and retired him.

He was mosly forgotten after that. He was rated 21st best heavyweight of all time by The Ring Magazine in 1987.

His comeback is also overrated. Mostly hype based on his "funny fat old guy" persona. Didn't beat anyone of significance until Moorer, who for some reason decided to stand in front of him after outboxing him for 9 rounds. After that he lost to Schulz but somehow got the decision. Didn't beat anyone of note after that.

Only 10 title fights (counting his lineal reign) with a record of 7-3. Only 8 Top 10 HWs beaten.

Resume consisting of Frazier 2x, Norton, Lyle and Moorer, being the oldest HW champion of the world probably grants him a Top 10 spot, but you really have old heads saying he's the second best HW of all time for some reason.

Foreman's historical standing is mostly based on his public persona and the love he got for it in the 90's.

 

All my friend Mac proved is (all) fighters get gifts, and one man's gift is a close decision that could have gone either way. That's the danger of close fights.

 

Some of them could make light heavyweight

 

After George shocked the world, his first title defense was against the lightly regarded Axel Schulz. Schulz would have had to beat him badly to get the nod. That's how boxing works.

 

It isn't though, champions are not immune to losing their titles in close fights and even if that somehow were the case, it being 'tradition' or 'how boxing works' would not justify it.

 

I did nothing different than I did when I assess other fights. You're just hurt cause my assessment does not align with yours.

I did no such thing. They were good / decent in your opinion, not in mine. Throwing tappy taps that mostly land in Shavers's guard is not something I would classify as a good round.

My opinion of Ali does not change how I rate fights. There were plenty of fights of his I watched that I scored in his favour.

No it doesn't go. It's not like I think they're a coin toss which any of them could have won. I mostly either give the nod to Shavers or if I'm being generous towards Ali, I'll score them as a draw. I never score them for Ali. Thus my narrative is valid.

I can more than score a fight objectively. You just think I don't cause you don't like my scoring.

I repeat, it's good or decent in your view, not in mine.

 

This is what Shavers himself has said in interview, not my opinion, so there's nothing to agree / disagree with.

This is possible. But like I said, I am simply reiterating what the man said.

Ali admitted himself that he was hurt. So IMO if Shavers had pounced on him, he'd have had a very good chance to finish him.

I think I counted 3 or 4 good power punches that he landed clean.

They would have done the trick if Shavers actually was as big off a puncher as some claim he was. I don't think he actually was.
Plus, it's not only the power behind a punch that matters, but also exactly where it lands, on what part of an opponent's face, and how prepared the opponent is for that punch, did he see it coming and braced for impact, or did he not see it coming.

I agree. For me, number of punches thrown is completely meaningless. What I look for is how many actually land and what damage they inflict. That's why I completely disregard tappy taps, like I said.

This is a very good example you picked. If it's of any use to you, for me Hagler won that fight.

 

My point is that the commentary might influence you.

 

Hurt about what ? your ridiculous scorecard from a fight that happened 50 odd years ago ? i don't think so.

Ali won the fight on all 3 judges scorecards and according to the majority of the ringside scorers.

I don't have to prove anything Ali officially won the fight and that's the majority opinion.

The issue isn't that your scorecard doesn't "align" with mine it's the fact it doesn't "align" with anyone's scorecard.

All you've done as i said is score any good or decent round Ali had as even so you can have the widest possible scorecard for Shavers.

Anyone can do that with an agenda.

Of course you didn't "sarcasm"

You just happen to score every good or decent round Ali had as an even round yeah sure buddy Ali only won 3 rounds that's objective.

Well clearly it does when you haven't scored this fight objectively.

It's not the fact that you think Shavers won that i have an issue with as it was a close fight.

My issue is you've conjured up a bizarre scorecard where Ali has only won 3 rounds. And you've shown a clear sign of bias and agenda by scoring every good or decent round Ali had as even.

That's not being objective by any stretch of the imagination.

You're not making any sense what so ever.

An even round is when you can't split the two fighters in a hotly debated round.

Why you would score numerous even rounds if you thought Shavers won them or because you're being generous to Ali ? that's ridiculous.

And you haven't been generous to Ali at all infact you've been very ungenerous despite you dishonestly claiming otherwise.

The fight was a very slow paced fight for 9 rounds then it picked up in last 5 rounds with Ali winning his fair share of rounds in the last 5 rounds.

You scored 1 round for Ali in the final 5 rounds and didn't even list the 15th round as a possible round for Ali. When he almost TKO'ed Shavers in the last 30 seconds in what many deem a pivotal round that Ali won in a close fight.

So no do not try and pull the wool over my eyes that you're being objective here because you clearly aren't.

 

Thank you for that 21st best heavyweight bit. Posters here get flustered bc I have him mid teens.

 

Using Shavers claim that a hurt opponent is more dangerous in order to explain why Earnie didn’t go in for the kill after he wobbled Ali can actually be disagreed with.

Ali was hurt but there are degrees of hurt, especially when it came to Ali. Shavers simply didn’t know how hurt Ali was.

Also, in all fights otherwise, when Shavers had his man hurt and was aware of same, he pretty much went for broke even if he did hold the belief that a hurt opponent could be more dangerous.

Finally, on this particular point, in more recent years, Ali hadn’t displayed or promised anything in the way of sudden, turn around danger.

Though only into round 2, Shavers had already sampled some punches landed by Ali. If he believed those punches to be so innocuous he wouldn’t have perceived any necessary danger.

Punches thrown are one thing but I’m talking punches landed and their perceived quality - but again, that returns us to what pundits might fundamentally disagree upon based on their own perceptions.

Of course we can’t measure with such precision but say fighter A lands a flush 10/10 wobbler. Fighter B then returns fire with two flush 5/10 shots. Would than even things back up and, if not, how many flush 5/10 shots would it take for fighter B to get back on par?

I’ll also add that rating a punch as 10/10 already includes the factoring of the apparent hurt that it yields since reaction often does comprise the impression of a punch power.

I agree, though a tremendous puncher and without taking away from that core fact, I also think Earnie’s one punch power is a bit overrated.

I also think that Earnie’s perceived raw power is a bit overrated with not enough credit given to his delivery technique and hand speed.

The punch he wobbled Ali with in round 2 for example was a beautiful shot in its own right. It was very well timed, flush on the jaw, in fact a very fast punch and it certainly caught Ali by completely by surprise.

 

Rather than continue on with a pointless debate, I will say some nice things about Holmes.

1) He wrapped up the 70s well, beating Norton, LeonSpinks, Shavers and returning Ali
2) He probably beat the best of the 80s alphabet soup champs in Witherspoon and Berbick. I give our pal Dubblechin full credit on pointing out to me just how good Berbick's record was.
3) He gave everyone the fight they wanted in Cooney.
4) As a number, he had an impressive 20 defenses.
5) Everyone loves the comeback.