2 questions (not Statements) about Muhammad Ali.

This content is protected

What's the beef with you and the Caps Lock, Turin? No capital letters in your alias, signature, or any of your posts. What's the beef?

 

He is underrated by quite a few due to the "P4P" bull****. Duran is consistently placed above him, sometimes even pushing him out of th top ten. Duran was in no way superior to Ali. Record and theoretical 'head to head' match up included. If they were same size I'd back Ali to have the style to beat Duran. A lot of people just penalise boxers who didn't happen to be born midgets in "P4P".

 

if you'd have asked the great tommy farr if he beat louis he'd have told you NO.louis didn't lose to godoy either, walcott is another matter

 

Definitely not overrated. Anyone who knows and has studied his era will know this. I can't think of anyone who'd have him any lower than number 2 in an all time list.

 

who me ?? i'm turpinr not a ****in shroud

 

My bad.

Turpinr. You and Caps lock, why the animosity?

 

On a sidenote, I finally got myself to watch Ali-Norton III carefully, and found it quite enjoyable. It is a bit annnoying that Ali threw away rounds doing the rope-a-dope, but I suppose he did it because he felt he needed a rest. Otherwise, I think both showed some great skill and tactical nous.

As for the scoring, I had Norton winning it by a round with 3-4 very close rounds all in all. Saying it was a robbery is certainly stretching it in my opinion, though.

 

there's no animosity mate.i was trying to be humerous and failing.dunno about the caps lock, maybe i'm just thick.

 

Joe Frazier would always be a tough opponent for Muhammad. The unique thing with Ali is that,as Bokaj pointed out,is that he's the only heavy whose legacy is judged on some of his post prime fights. I reckon the reason for this is,that in a way he had two primes. His first one was his physical athletic prime,which was 1966/67. After the lay off,he would still have been,at the very least,an extemely tough opponent for any peak heavyweight between 1970/75,and his second peak was within that window which was 1972-74. During '74,for example,he'd got back a lot,though obviously not all,of that phenomenal speed,plus he'd become second to none with ring generalship. And he'd prove that his chin was cast iron.

 

:good

 

Quite right. A close,questionable decision,but hardly controversial.

 

You said it the best.

Everybody is so used to watching Ali, they forget how magical his skills were

 

Amen. Bottom line is, it could have gone either way, but, yes, the fact that Ali was the champion seems to lead to the conclusion that boxing justice was served that night at Yankee Stadium.

Norton didn't best Ali the way Larry Holmes bested him two years later, to rightfully take his crown.

As for the thread:

a) By and large, opinion on Ali as a puncher is about right: he was above average, but not a heavy hitter.

Perhaps he rarely supported punches with full body torque, as Marciano did, but his great ally was timing. He worked in split seconds in the ring, hovering for the right instant to throw on his advancing foe, and he had the speed and accuracy to hit the bull's eye. Such an offense of blindsiding missiles will "fuzz up" anyone.

b) Ali is overrated by those who look at him as a saint who walked on water, but, in my view is also underrated by those who limit his accomplishments to the heavyweight division, automatically elevating smaller greats over him on a pound-for-pound scale. I think he should fit into the top 10.

 

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl