Ali in the 70's

He is overrated, but he is at least the most important HW there ever was.
He made the HW championship bigger than life, and it was until Riddick and the Alphabets decided to reduce it to a couple of belts.

People always talk about his Frazier trilogy, and how Frazier was robbed of one of the wins. While the big "victim" that time actually was Norton, who certainly should have been victorious in 2 of the 3 meetings, and some even say all 3 times.

 

He was amazing in the 70's opens decade from layoff beating Bonavena and Quarry

loses 15 rounds to Frazier, goes on a run beats Frazier, goes distance with broken jaw losing to Norton who he then beats, then KO's Foreman in a classic, defends and beats Young in a very good showing gets the late TKO, then beats Frazier in an all out war where he out lasts his foe to win, and enough of this bull**** about Ali wanting to quit in Manila or not being able to continue watch the last minute of the 14th, Beats Young in a close fight when out of shape vs a guy afraid to mix it up when Ali does punch he hurts him bad, Ali I think lost Norton 3, blew out Coopman and Dunne, beat Bugner convincingly, Split with Spinks.

All in all I think Ali showed a lot of genius in these fights and skills not seen pre exile

he won toe to toe, showed his chin his heart his guts

the 70's made Ali the legend he is today

 

He's overated in the sense that he really WASN"T DOMINANT in the 70's. All of those guys....NOrton, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, Young....were all VERY competitive against Ali, and yes, with a little less favoritism and luck, Ali would have a few more losses on his record. I shudder when people say that Ali was the best heavyweight of the 70's. I think he had the best chin, a very strong will, and a psychological advantage. But he wasn't all that fast anymore, other guys were stronger, hit harder, and were less shop-worn. THe ENTIRE REASON THE 70's WERE SO EXCITING, IS BECAUSE IT WAS SO CLOSE AND COMPETITIVE.

 

So who was the best in the 70s?

 

Does there have to be a best?

But I would pick Lawrence Holmes over the others. He would've beaten them all, had he been given a shot sooner, but he had to wait while the others sorted things out.

 

Its boxing, the last man standing has to be the best.

Lawrence was indeed a great fighter but imagine him fighting a younger fitter Norton, possibly Norton could have landed earlier and worn Holmes down late on?

Foreman was always dangerous although i think Holmes beats him, I still do not rule out the possibility of Foreman Knocking him out.

70s Ali could have still edged it passed Holmes, its 50/50

 

Isn't that the point of boxing? The reason guys get in there and fight, to prove who the best is?

Holmes was the best Heavyweight post-Ali but he obviously wasn't the best of the 70's. If you "shudder" at Ali being called the best of the 70's, who would you suggest is worthy of that accolade?

 

Ali is overrated, but still the GREATEST of ALL TIME....thats how great a fighter the man was.

 

This content is protected

 

You can take shots at anyones resume and try to make it look worse than it is and this thread proves that.

Would anyone care to name a Heavyweight with a better one?

 

Wait, what? Do you think the Rock has a better resume than Ali?

 

Ive heard it all now Manny is now the greatest of all time here and Ali is overratted atsch Some boxing fans really do this sport a great dis service by talking ..