Does SRR have any wins better than Ali vs Liston, Foreman, and Frazier?

Purely out of interest , who are the 5/6 fighters you have above SRR , no agenda buddy . keep well.

 

Hi mate, thanks for asking, for me it's Greb, Ali, Duran, Langford, Armstrong and then Robinson (although it changes constantly as I do more research, there's so much information out there). I understand why Robinson is number 1 for most people. How about you?

 

Yea mate mine are :
1/ Langford
2/ Greb
3/ Pep
4/ Armstrong
5/ Ali
with SRR a close 6th.
As we agree, its very much a personal choice.
keep well buddy.

 

It is fine to prefer another fighter to Ali, but you are betraying a lot of bias.
This has made you unpopular in a short time.
Maybe reform, repent, unlike so many other ego-bound emotional powers who do not fare well here.

1) Instead of giving credit to Ali for winning a gold medal in Rome, you slag him off for doing so.
What is the evidence that he had any "need" to go there to delay his pro debut?
Would it not be much more fair & reasonable to say he wanted the superb opportunity for this career glory?
Especially since he was only 19 years old, it is absurd to fault him instead of the opposite.

2) Shavers was 54-5-1 when he fought Ali, knocking almost everyone he beat out. Fighting through the golden age of HW boxers.
Ducking no-one. Sure you want to call him a "journeyman" then?
And Ali won. Your description of their fight cherry-picks the reality of what happened.

3) You use a post prime Ali who likely was as already suffering some damage from boxing & Parkinson's disease when he fought Shavers to demean him. Even though he won.

Are you aware of how the great Ezzard Charles ended up in life?
And that out of his last 29 fights, he only won 12?
Would it be right to use those fights & the KOs he suffered as insults or evidence agains his greatness?

You have to try & be fair & provide context if you want respect & good relations here.

 

I'll refer you to the footage. Ali is a phenomenal athlete, and very skilled for a Hw by the measure of his day. But Charles in P4P one of the finest fighters ever.

Seriously he beat Moore THREE times. Three! No, I don't think Moore had really hit his peak, but he was already leagues better than Shavers, Foreman and Frazier.

Charles bravado against Marciano will bring tears to your eyes. The BeeGees even wrote a song about it "Staying Alive". Massive hit.

 

You ostentatiously ignored ALL of my carefully enumerated points!
I will first address what you wrote-modeling apporpriate debate-then cut & paste everything you skipped over.

I never would contest Charles' greatness.
But Ali was very skilled for any boxer in any day.

You believe that Moore-even before his peak-was "leagues better" than Foreman & Frazier?!?
Even saying he was ever better would be a stretch-certainly head to head, but at least you could argue it in their respective divisions, certainly pound for pound.
Start a thread & see how many people believe Moore was ever way better than those two-I predict nobody but you will agree.
Nobody is "leagues better" than another ATG. Nobody.

I will assume you are joking about the BeeGees. Anyway his greatness is not in dispute.
But this time if you choose to reply, please do not IGNORE the points I took some time & trouble to enumerate.
Please follow The Golden Rule & go one by one & either debate them substantively, or admit you were wrong. I wrote:


It is fine to prefer another fighter to Ali, but you are betraying a lot of bias.
This has made you unpopular in a short time.
Maybe reform, repent, unlike so many other ego-bound emotional powers who do not fare well here.

1) Instead of giving credit to Ali for winning a gold medal in Rome, you slag him off for doing so.
What is the evidence that he had any "need" to go there to delay his pro debut?
Would it not be much more fair & reasonable to say he wanted the superb opportunity for this career glory?
Especially since he was only 19 years old, it is absurd to fault him instead of the opposite.

2) Shavers was 54-5-1 when he fought Ali, knocking almost everyone he beat out. Fighting through the golden age of HW boxers.
Ducking no-one. Sure you want to call him a "journeyman" then?
And Ali won. Your description of their fight cherry-picks the reality of what happened.

3) You use a post prime Ali who likely was as already suffering some damage from boxing & Parkinson's disease when he fought Shavers to demean him. Even though he won.

Are you aware of how the great Ezzard Charles ended up in life?
And that out of his last 29 fights, he only won 12?
Would it be right to use those fights & the KOs he suffered as insults or evidence agains his greatness?

You have to try & be fair & provide context if you want respect & good relations here.

 

And to think I get picked on for being Indian.

yes or no, Moore was known as the Old Mongoose? What monikers did Frazier, Foreman and Shavers have?

This content is protected

This content is protected

too bad Shavers wasn't around in those days to teach Moore a thing or two about the finers points of Boxing, or how to fight back against adversity.

 

Ali struggled with Doug Jones. Charles beat the inimitable Charley Burley TWICE.

 

What are you talking about? You ignored a few quite detailed arguments by me-yet again.
You cannot defend that the World Class (for all his flaws) was a "journeyman" when he faced Ali. Nobody can.
You cannot defend the outrageous statement that a near peak (or any) Moore was miles better than Foreman & Frazier.
As much as I admire him as a fighter & a man, that is an insane statement.
Almost nobody even rates Moore as high as either of them as a HW-I have never heard it done.

You cannot argue that Charles due to ALS had a long, precipitous decline-& it is hypocritical of you to slag Ali for his (way shorter with many many fewer losses) for his few post prime losses-or even like with Shavers when he won.

Now instead of being able to handle any rational, polite dialogue-you talk about who has a better nickname?! *facepalm, gimme a double*.

Lastly, what do you mean you get picked on for being Indian? Who is doing that, & how does it relate to anything either of us said?

No the final point I hope you have the cojones not to entirely avoid: are you just a previously banned Troll?
You have few posts.
You started fighting with a few people & being aggressive if not demeaning almost immediately.

Were you previously posting under one or many identities, so "Raj Patel" is one of the infamous "alts" littering this website?

 

Beating peak Moore at LHW in a series (without a loss) is certainly a more impressive accomplishement than beating Foreman. I don't see how people can think otherwise.

Boxing fans have too high view on HWs in general.

 

Maybe it is, although the ring circumstances, size mainly, made it very tough.
However this is not at all what he claimed.
He said that Moore was may better than Foreman & Frazier, which is ridiculous.

But we should have a thread about Moore.
The documentary I saw made clear he was a class, intelligent/studied, charitable individual.
How can someone go 186-23-10 with a record 132 KOs from 1935-1963?!?

The longest running LHW champion of all tme-& he did not even get a well-deserved shot at the title for a long time!
Maybe more amazing is that his late career run was astonishing-he was not even losing at a greater rate than during his whole superb career.
How does that happen?

He actually retired young due to stomach ulcers, but not for long.
He did not start as a pro as young as some, such as Ali & Charles, but like Foreman was almost 50 when he retired.
This is an extremely tough man.

Actor, trainer, humanitarian. One of a kind.