Who is the most overrated heavyweight, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Tyson Fury, or others?

His opposition was superior to Holmes'. In fact, he beat the guy who beat Holmes, beat the guy who Holmes avoided, and beat a guy named Holmes.

 

Your point being what? How is that relevant in the slightest? But since you mention him, Holmes is a prime example of what I'm talking about. A washed, out of retirement, barely trained and ring rusted 38 year old, that took the exact wrong approach to fighting Tyson i.e trying to keep him at bay and allowing him to pursue. He should have and could have simply done what Bonehugger Smith did.

 

Smith lost too immediately after mopping the floor with Witherspoon. You dont have a point.

 

Smith lost to* is that what you meant to say? Can't take you seriously mate. "Grug says da man beat dis man do dis man must be better" lmao do better.

 

What I said was grammatically correct, other than skipping the comma. You aren't making sense again.

 

Are you mentally well? The past two of your replies have made zero sense, now you're gonna project. Just state what your problem is. You don't like what I said about Tyson?

 

You don't even know how to reply to posters, bro.

 

Sorry I didn't realize you'd made one.

 

I tried to look up something about liston age in 1950 and all i found was liston saying he was 20 when he went to prison in 1950. There is no way he was something like 41 because in the 30 census he isn't even listed amongst his siblings implying he was still in the womb. Another reason is that he nor his mother gave an age that would imply he was born in ~1923ish that i'm aware of.*

Ali didn't have a big size advantage over patterson in the first bout, compared to other fighters Patterson Beat like Chuvalo (208) and Bonavena (206) and still toyed with him. Safe to say it wasn't size primarily that won it for Ali.

Exactly, this has always been the case in boxing, thus no need to discount the win on the basis of that, unless you discount many others.

He was legally blind in that eye from the get go. I've already responded to this.

If a boxer throws a punch it is thrown with the intent of landing, it is up to his opponent to make it miss, if it doesn't it doesn't, otherwise any punch that lands is "lucky". What would be your standard of a non-lucky punch? Regardless in that fight foreman was clearly setting up that punch.

Foreman KOed a "Good Boxer" in a HW titlist according to you, glad you agree, that record still stands.

Your resume is the only way to conclusivley prove that you are good. Otherwise you could name anybody as being better than anybody based on what is esentially a highlight reel. Plenty of fighters look good crushing cans. Clearing out the division multiple times and beating some of the best HWs to do it is much better evidence than the eye test.

How do you prove that?

All things Ali was good at?

Yes, a good performance against possibly the GOAT HW who transended the sport the most of possibly any boxer is going to put you on the map a little, why is that strange?

Ali, Also much older did even better by KOing him in the 7th.

*In one of my other posts I said he was listed as 10 in '30, But It was the 40 census, typo on my part.

 

If it weren't for Babe Ruth then Jack Dempsey would've been the most famous athlete of the 1920's. I actually have the opposite opinion on Jack as some posters in that I think that Jack has actually become quite underrated over time. Jack was athletic, had excellent movement, was fast , had explosive power and could box. Estimated that Jack had at least couple hundred winner take all hobo fights just so he could eat and have money for room for the night. Jack's movement and technique was so good that the influence is still here today. Jack had great lateral movement, his "roll and drop step" as well as other techniques that he not only used but broke down and explained in his book heavily influenced Mike Tyson fighting style. In fact, was such a big influence that Mike Tyson also got the same haircut Jack had. Jack advanced boxing immensely.

I recommend Jack Dempsey book, its revealing and honest. Book about fighting technique is excellent as well. Jack also wrote Coast Guard Manual "Fight Tough" and was a hand to hand combat instructor in his time as a Lieutenant in U.S. Coast Guard. Jack was into wrestling and heavily into Judo throughout his life. Loved teaching the rear naked choke.

Jack was humble after his career and didn't brag. When asked about other fighters Jack would often extol how good they were and that they were better than him. Some folks took this as an "admission" that he couldn't beat them but he was just being nice. There was also that side of Jack that some fighters have to work on or put on a show of and that's brutality. Jack was brutal and ferocious as a fighter. Even in his 70's couple thugs tried to beat him up and he smashed them. After smashing them just stood over them till NYPD arrived.

Of course the argument about his size in regard to today's heavyweights is legitimate because Jack fought from 183-188 so but it's in perspective as well. Jack was 6'1 and had big dimensions. Probably start as a cruiserweight today and with the training and nutrition available would fill out to 210-215. Would've crushed it at cruiserweight and I think also becomes Champion at heavyweight. Heck, with all his martial arts training maybe Jack would have career in UFC if he were around today.

Unfortunate there's not that much film on fighters from that time and the one everyone is familiar with is the Toledo Dempsey that punishes Jess Willard but his skill and greatness does come though even in those few films that there is.

This content is protected

 

What Liston said is irrelevant. He was illiterate and had no idea when he was born. He simply used a fake birthdate causeit suited his boxing career.
His mother's statements were contradictory and unreliable..
Most of those who were close to him attest to him being much older. He certainly looked around 40+ when he fought Ali.

 

I'm pretty sure she would have mentioned him on the census if he was born, but anyways a HW champion who avenged his only loss twice over and destroyed Patterson twice, amongst other good wins Liston had, is still a good win for Ali.

 

Of course it wasn't just size that won it for Ali. But a 3 inch height advantage and 9 inch reach advantage is still pretty significant

He wasn't legally blind from the get go, that happened in his final years as a pro. And he had to hide it, otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to fight.

I repeat, that was down to pure luck and Moorer's arrogance. My point is Foreman was handily outboxed by that point.

No, it's not proof of skill.
Until the Fury fights, Wilder's KO percentage was incredible. But he wasn't winning cause he was skilled, but cause he hits like a ****ing truck, probably the hardest hitter in history.
Same with Ali, it wasn't skill that won him fights, it was speed, reflexes and intelligence.

By looking at the available footage.

Nope. He did not have an orthodox style and never learned the rudiments of classical boxing. He had many weaknesses and made many tactical errors in the rings: he did not know how to properly hold his hands, or how to duck (he pulled back or sidestepped), nor did he know how to parry or to block a jab.
Technically, Ali wasn't a very good fighter, it was due to his physical gifts (speed, reflexes, and chin) that he was able to get away with things that would have gotten most fighters beaten up.
In an 1969 Sports Illustrated article, Ali demonstrated how he avoided a jab. He relied on judging the distance and leaning away. If you look at Ali on film, he held his right hand out to the side and did not have it in position to block a jab. That is why Ali had problems with boxers like Jones and Norton. Ken Norton’s trainer Eddie Futch said “The jab was a big reason Muhammad Ali never figured out why he had so much trouble with Ken Norton in their three fights.” Norton consistently hit Ali with his jab because Ali didn't keep his right hand up to parry Norton’s counter jab.
Ali threw a right uppercut from the outside and dropped his right hand every time before he threw it. This is precisely why Ali was vulnerable to the left hook throughout his career.
A thorough study of film reveals these flaws in Ali's style. These poor habits caused him trouble with quick handed boxers who had solid left jabs and hooks. Joe Frazier nearly knocked him out in the 11th round of their first fight as Ali exposed himself in the corner with his hands down.
So many Ali worshipers are under the impression that Ali was "unhittable" in his prime. This is a myth. George Chuvalo, a limited fighter had success at times against a prime Ali with a body attack. Chuvalo who lacked both speed and hitting accuracy managed to catch Ali flush on the chin with a solid right cross in the 13th round. In both fights with Henry Cooper Ali was hit cleanly by a very average fighter. Even in their second fight Cooper managed to land a fair number of left jabs and hooks as Ali leaned away from punches before Cooper was badly cut.

 

"Honest effort and sterling character backed by solid instruction will carry a man a good way, but unearned natural ability has a lot to be said for it."

 

Patterson has fought similarly diementioned fighters before Ali, had good defence, and always fought with a crouched stance. Doubt it was the big factor in beating Patterson. Also is everyone with a span/height advantage have their wins struck too or just Ali? And no one here would deny the differences.

*7 in wingspan difference.

It was in 1965 that injury happened, so yes after about his first 4 fights he was legally blind in that eye.

Repeat all you wish but it clearly wasn't luck foreman was setting up that punch before he landed it. Strange how such a fan of the eye rest who's observations are so astute as to be able to dismiss the HW GOAT would miss that. As for Moorer' arrogance are you going strike off fights from every other record because the other fighter didn't fight as well they hypothetically could've? Every single fight is missing things that both the winner and loser could've done better. On that basis you may as well never declare a winner.

That's exactly what i'm talking about. The moment he stepped up he got knocked down. Step up to good competition, beat good competition, you prove you're better than good. Ali did that to a degree that pretty much no other HW has.

If that is all there was to him how come other fighters who have those qualities don't do as well as him? The quick-handed fighters that Ali Beat? Also are you saying ring smarts isn't an important boxing skill? And how do you explain his post prime career?

As per your attempted Wilder example doesn't work.

Orthodoxy=/=Better, If you watch boxing it is obviously not required to have and orthodox style to win fights, witch is what matters in boxing, not what you personally thinks looks good.

Being able to judge, which implies it was more than just reflexes mind you, and lean back to reliably counter, often pull countering by the way (one of your criteria), sounds like a pretty good skill to have to me. Unless of course you think the only way to dodge a jab is pure reflexes.

And Monzon is another fighter that employed leaning for example.

Beating a host of HoFs, champions, solid contenders, clearing out the division multiple times, and breaking records, proving why he is a near consensus HW GOAT, earning the career that all other HWs are compared to...

...But go on and somehow try to get away with over exaggerating his advantages and weaknesses at the same time to try to demote him because you just sorta think he looks bad, and ignore the things he actually accomplished.

Pre and post prime respectively and again he won the 2nd bout fair, despite having his advantages the writes off all of his other wins.

He didn't in that fight or in all the other 41 rounds of fighting they both fought, despite Joe Frazier beat many other fighter not sharing the horrible flaws Ali had, despite the fact Ali beat him 2-1.

Use the eye test to go back to his pre exile fights and actually count the number of times he is actually hit, most people who own the films and do so count very few.

A man he beat twice with no controversy "At times" had some success with a body attack, and landed "A solid right cross". That's your best foot foreward.

Another contender he beat twice. He had some bad moments here and there and overcame them.

Are you under the impression that Ali is highly rated because (almost) everyone here and may other knowledgeables of the sport thought he was litterally invincible? You're starting to grasp at straws. "This legendary/well respected fighter landed a punch on Ali", "He toyed with a HoF, that beat and trained to fight people about his size, but he was 4% taller", "I don't like where he keep his hands, so i'll just throw out this legendary career".