Larry Holmes decisions Cassius Clay.

I'd hardly call Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, and Ernie Terrell "inferior opposition."

Perhaps a little bit to Frazier and Foreman but that's about it.

 

I do. Sorry but Terrell doesn´t deserve to be mentioned next to the other four. Patterson was also an opponent of Ali in the 70s and did about as well as in the 60s, and Liston is a good win on paper but when I watch those two fights ... they just don´t live up to that. And overall his 70s opposition is just suprior, I don´t think there is much to argue about.

 

Terrell was unbeaten for 5 years prior to his bout with Ali (since his loss on cuts to Williams, which he avenged). Going into the fight he was coming off of wins over Doug Jones, George Chuvalo, and Eddie Machen and had also racked up wins over the likes of Zora Folley, Bob Foster, and Cleveland Williams.

In all honesty his set of wins is better than Nortons by a long shot. He also beat a certain Jose Luis Garcia in one of Terrells last fights (Garcia stopped Norton). Ernie was a very good win for Ali and as good as anyone he beat in the 70's outside of a select few.

 

A 1964 Cassius Clay,who fought Liston may have dropped a very close decision to Larry Holmes. I'll always maintain,though,that the Muhammad Ali of 1965-1974 would beat a prime Holmes.

 

Well, Terrell is his best win of the 60s outside of Liston and Patterson. But alone that says enough about his quality of opposition in the 60s.

 

I just love when you've painted yourself in a corner and tries to get out.

London and Williams were poor, and Chuvalo, Cooper and Mildenberger were only average. But Liston, Patterson and Terrell are better names than most have in their win column. Neither Holmes or Tyson has three wins of such quality. It's doubtful Louis or Marciano has. And he dominated them.

Yes, his opposition in the 70's was better, but that says more about how strong that opposition was.

 

If Ali had n't have had his title and livelihood unjustly taken from him,he'd have beaten Frazier,Ellis and Quarry in the 60's too.

 

:good

 

As you state, Terrell had more or less cleaned out the division. This was really a meeting between the absolute top guys since the demise of Liston. I think this is forgotten about, since it was such a dominating win by Ali. Terrell's work in the division was actually quite clearly better than for example Spink's before he met Tyson.

 

It's obvious you're not changing your mind but Terrel is probably better than anybody Tyson, Holmes, and Lewis ever beat. It's a top notch win.

 

You can´t rate fighters on what they perhaps would have done.

The problem is, you don´t get my point. I´m not argueing 60s Ali is not great or that his 60s reing isn´t any good. What I argue is that his 60s´opposition isn´t as good as his 70s. So, I´m in no corner and you actually agree with me and not with Muchmoore. :hey

I agree with Holmes and Tyson. I don´t rate either one nearly as high as Ali though.

I disagree with Marciano. Walcott, Charles and Moore are better.
I also disagree with Louis. Walcott, Schmeling and Baer are also better.

 

I disagree with that. He may have been in the Top3 of Tyson and Holmes though. I don´t rate him that high and neither do I the mid to late 60s hw division - or the 80s one.

 

Umm, no :huh

I'm not saying that his 60's opposition is as good as the best he fought in the 70's but they were still damn good fighters and you seem to disregard them.

 

No, I don´t. I don´t rate the mid/late 60s hw era very high though. But it was never my point to diregard them. They were just inferior to the 70s fighters on average. That was my point, nothing more, nothing less.