Which Heavyweight Is Possibly Overrated Because Of Nostalgia?

If Louis had lost the decisionon to Walcott, it wouldn't make any difterence to my ranking of him.

And Lous probably had more left at 34 than Ali did.

Ali was in his mid 30's, had had some of the toughest fights in boxing history and quite likely was in the early stages of Parkinson's. And it's very clear to the eye that he was far from the fighter he had been in his prime. Close decision losses to world level fighters for someone at that stage makes no difference to me.

I mean, most of us rank Charles near the absolute top p4p and his record had started to become very spotty at that stage, but you don't see those results come up in every thread about his standing. In fact, they hardly ever do.

But for Ali, a few decisions (one of which isn't even controversial for most) about ten years after what's typically seen as the end of his prime are always brought up, without a fail. Not much nostalgia there.

 

I mean all that is fair, and yeah, I said that Usyk was going to revert back to his days of giving away rounds, which is one of his few but real weaknesses. And it seems that leading up to the fight he was more concerned about training Joshua than getting himslef in shape.

It's just a combination of things, really. I actually think he is done. I don't see the Wilder fight happening, and Wilder's camp has said they have not been contacted. I think our days of debating Usyk anywhere other than the classic forum are over.

 

TBH I'd rather Usyk just retire and I know this sounds harsh but he's almost 40 and he's not that active anymore.

I kind of want the division to move on to a new era now so we get younger more active champions.

I'm hoping that will be Itauma but we'll see.

 

Truth.

It really feels like the entire boxing community has moved on, not only from Usyk, but from the Fury-Joshua fight. For the first time, I feel as if NO ONE cares. Usyk, Fury, Joshua and Wilder now suddenly feel like they are as much that past as Lewis and Holmes.

Conversely, the community is uber-excited over Itauma-Hrgovic, and most are looking forward to Dubois-Wardley II, except those those who think it is too quick. And the people want to know who Kabayel is going to fight.

The old guard should just stand down entirely. It was a good run in a weird era in which a lot of guys owned a piece.

 

This isn’t a good take my good man.

You’re way off of the mark here.


All knowledgeable fans know of Dempsey and Johnson.


Ali lost the FOTC, but he gave a great account of himself and then rematched Joe twice.

How was he handed the Liston fights?

Of course the Holmes and Spinks fights are dismissed. Especially the Holmes fight. That fight is a stain on the history of the sport. It was horrific in every way. And it would never have been sanctioned in the modern era. Ali would never have passed the medicals. It doesn’t matter when the Parkinson’s was officially diagnosed. If you’re knowledgeable of his career, you’d know that there was a huge difference in his speech etc. He was very visibly a completely different man. It was awful.

Ali faced 3 prime ATG’s. Frazier, Foreman and Holmes.


Things weighed in Ali’s favour?

The 3 year hiatus cost both him and us his absolute prime years.

His Parkinson’s had a terrible affect on his life, both inside and outside of the ring, and for many years.


Foreman did him a huge favour?

How?


He fought Norton and Frazier 3 times each.

And because Foreman easily destroyed those guys, people literally feared for his life.


Foreman destroying those guys just made what he did all the more impressive.

He did a complete psyche job on Foreman. He literally leant back and called him a sissy, saying that he hit like a woman etc, in order to make him mad and to empty his tank. One of the bravest, most stupidest things anyone’s ever done. And on the fly too. That win was crazy.


What do you mean the stars aligned perfectly?

That’s crazy.


Again, he fought Frazier 3 times in brutal fights.

He fought Norton 3 times, once with a broken jaw.

Was robbed of his prime.

Fought a prime killer.

Fought one of the greatest boxers ever, when he shouldn’t have been allowed to have fought.


The only thing in his favour, was some favourable judging in some fights.

But the stars didn’t align for him to have any huge advantages.


The man literally put his life on the line in order to prove that he was the best.

Never ducked anybody.


Nobody did what he did.

 

To me, it’s outrageous that the fight ever took place.

Just awful in every way.

 

I was going to write his biographer, Nick Tosches, to inquire about Sonny as a recreational cig smoker but saw where Tosches has passed (in his obit pic he's got a cigarette!). So I'll try Shaun Assael e.g., The Murder of Sonny Liston.

 

I'd never seen / heard anything about Larry being less than 100% for Norton. In any case needless to say he fought like he was 200%!

 

his

Thanks. I'm so impressed with the depth of knowledge and good character of the guys on this thread. And the design of the site is ideal.

 

He loved being Ali and he felt most like Ali when he was in the ring.

 

Yeah.

He shouldn’t have been licensed though.

 

Sure but a lot of Listons fights were complete blowouts in which he received virtually no damage whatsoever. Due to his much higher level of opposition Usyk typically takes far more punishment in a fight by fight basis.
Also I would rate his opponents as far more dangerous on a H2H basis.

As far as Federer etc goes it seems many players today keep playing well past their best while in the past it was more common to retire on top. When Sampras retired he was still close to his prime and had just won a major title. He was physically still capable of playing on and potentially winning more titles but didn't want to.

 

Sampras didn't retire anywhere near on top and he was well past his best. He was actually seeded 17th in the final US Open he won, a win against all the odds and trends for him. He'd lost in the 4th round of thew Australian Open, was beaten in the 1st round of the French while exhibiting lots of frustration and discontent.

He'd lost in the 2nd round of Wimbledon to the worlds #145 ranked player. During the lead in to the US Open he was beaten by world rated #70 in a second round and in the 1st round at Long Island vs a guy ranked #85. It was well known he'd lost a step and a half of pace.

In 2001 he lost in the 4rd round of the Australian, the 4th round at Wimbledon, was beaten easily in straight sets in the US Open and didn't win a single title for the first time in 12 years, dropping his ranking to #10.

He was struggling bigtime, with form, motivation and physicality. He'd also picked up some injuries late in his career. Needless to say he didn't retire on top despite a recent US Open win.

 

Hi Buddy.
I'm about halfway through the book, firstly the print is very small, as I see you are 70 you will need to up the strength of your glasses, as to the content, it's quite a heavy read, lots of names and characters you have never heard of before, not a lot of Sonny's fights are covered, the main ones of course, but no career build up, already I get the feeling the book does not know who " killed " Liston, so it will not be a conclusive ending, so far as to say, its not read I would recommend up till now.
stay safe Fitz76, chat soon.
Mike.

 

My friend, don't get me wrong—I still consider Ali the #1 or #2 heavyweight of all time, so I rate him much higher than *The Ring* did back in 1975

Liston before the Ali fight was a bit like Usyk before the Rico fight. Many accounts suggest that after winning the title, he started squandering his form on casinos and partying. It’s a classic scenario—the same thing happened to Leon Spinks, the same happened to Mike Tyson, and years earlier, to Jack Johnson. Ali faced Liston at the peak of his fame, but not at the peak of his form.

If he hadn't had that three-year hiatus, who would he have beaten? Thug Spencer? Joe Frazier was already ready in 1968–69; Ali wouldn't have been as fresh, but even if he had beaten Joe, it wouldn't have been the same media sensation as beating him in 1974–75—when Frazier was already a legend but past his prime. In 1971, both were closer to their peak form than in 1974–75. How close did Joe come to winning in Manila? It was effectively a victory and a defeat for both of them.

Foreman was a magnificent boxer, and before Kinshasa, he was on the best run of his career—though even on the forum, I read people saying he wasn't *that* great. How many rounds had he actually fought before Ali? Foreman's energy-intensive style was absolute crap in the tropics, and mentally, George simply cracked—something he admitted himself. He had no game plan, did everything wrong, and none of us can imagine the pressure he felt and failed to handle.

I’m not saying the Holmes vs. Ali fight was a good idea. I’m just saying Holmes was the best opponent of Ali’s career—perhaps with the exception of Joe Frazier in 1971.