Biggest myth in Boxing

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by fg2227, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    114,664
    Likes Received:
    51,470

    But the bottom line is in 67 he looked absolutley magical and destroyed Terrell and beat up Folley, whilst in 71 he got battered by Frazier and won three others. The experience he piled up between Folley and Frazier was two fights, I think.
     
  2. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    12,737
    Likes Received:
    3,588
    It was not just the 0 that made Marciano great. Its his fights with Walcott, Moore, and Ezzard Charles as champion that made him great imo. These fights will never beforgoting, and were pretty action pack fights that are still talk about today.

    Comeing back to ko Walcott to win the title after the first round knockdown, Also fighting 4 rounds blind.

    His 2 blood baths with Ezzard Charles. And his victory over Archie Moore who was rampageing though the heavyweight ranks at the time. Thats what made him great as a fighter imo. Brain Nelson or some prospect can be 48-0 ete. But if they have not relly been in some real drag out war, We wont know how great they are. Nelson couldnt get by a old Holmes(Yeah I know Nelson got the victory, BAD scoreing) But this fights are the meat and grain of his greatness imo.
     
  3. Doppleganger

    Doppleganger Southside Slugger Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,920
    Likes Received:
    372
    Yeah, this isn't a myth IMO, '67 Ali was better. The '71 version sacrificed speed and relied more on his exceptional durability to eek out results.
     
  4. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,046
    Likes Received:
    49,100
    Totally agree with you and Master McGrain. The Ali who went into exile was the greatest version IMO. 3 years without fighting at all when he was peaking or even peak certain didn't progress his career any. I don't think he lacked the power or strength of latter heavier days either, and he sure didn't need as much strength given his movement and general elusiveness of 67. He could still put the hurt on too. Basically he had lost some speed, sharpness and stamina and once he had to stand flat footed a bit more he came back to the pack a little. He could have used some extra elusiveness and stamina against Joe and there's no way IMO Norton beats the 67 Ali.
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    114,664
    Likes Received:
    51,470

    If ONLY you could change your name on this site...
     
  6. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    12,737
    Likes Received:
    3,588
    how can we know for SURE that exile Ali was the best. Maybe he lose something in the 3 years and lose. Maybe the break did Ali good?? He sure was hitting HARDER post exile than he ever was in the 1960's. I dont think light hitting Ali would ever had busted up Joe Fraizer's face the way he did it in the 70's. Both Ali's have there strenghts and weakness.
     
  7. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,046
    Likes Received:
    49,100
    I thought you'd like it :lol:
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    114,664
    Likes Received:
    51,470
    Of course, it's possible that that is not the case. But it's certainly my opinion and I would always maintain that there was less than enough evidence to call that opinon a myth.
     
  9. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,046
    Likes Received:
    49,100
    I think the whole Ali hit so much harder post exile thing has turned a bit mythical. Do you realise Ali was a mere 2, 2 1/2 pounds heavier than the Ali that hammered Terrell and Williams? The difference was that Ali had to mix it up a lot more due to diminishing speed and stamina. He had to stand and fight a guy like Frazier (not to mention Norton) more than he would have had to and in doing so dished out more punishment whilst taking more on board himself. Ali post Foreman was a shell of what he had been. Even in the Foreman fight it was more guts, chin and tactical brilliance and adaption that got him the money more so than peak quotient. It's extraordinary Ali could still hold the title 14 years after tying Sonny Liston in knots given he'd been sliding and struggling on and off for years. Frazier's run was a mere 5 years comparatively, Holmes seemed to reign forever but it was still only 7 years. Tyson had a mere 4 years, Holyfield had about a decade, Lewis too had a decade and Loius had a brilliant 11 odd years.
     
  10. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    254
    I thought Ali's reflexes were the main part of his attributes he lost the most after exile. It was his ability to make an opponent miss, then make him pay which made him so special in his prime. Speed also plays a part in having the ability to defend and get off with punches. Ali's terrific upperbody movement was never quite the same after his exile either. His speed was still lightning, but not as consistent. He was always very quick his his prime during the 60's, with that type of speed only shown in flashes during the early 70's.

    I really liked his finish against Lyle in 1975. Ali was not as bad a hooker as people make him out to be. Those left hooks were thrown in rapid succession when he had Lyle on the ropes after driving him back with a right hand from the centre of the ring.

    Ive always been an Ali fan, but much prefer watching Holmes.
     
  11. Street Lethal

    Street Lethal Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    31
    This is true. I remember reading an article from the New York Times somebody forwarded me about a fighter long before Robinson was who was described as the best "pound for pound." I think it was middleweight Freddie Steele, but I may be wrong about that. I know for sure that it was well before Robinson.
     
  12. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    12,737
    Likes Received:
    3,588
    Fitz in his hay day was describe as a pound for pound great. They even used the words "Pound for Pound to describe Fitz.

    And that was a good 40 years before Robinson.
     
  13. mochabuzz

    mochabuzz Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    589
    Likes Received:
    85
    :happy
    Alright... someone else agrees with me... kind of.
    I feel validated:cool:
     
  14. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    98,408
    Likes Received:
    30,204
    George Chuvalo said he noticed the difference,,said Ali had lost a step or two and that his punches didnt come so precisely or often.
     
  15. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,046
    Likes Received:
    49,100
    Exactly mate, i labeled this "sharpness" in my original post.