p4p who is better?

As if Ali wasn't managed carefully along of his career. Title defenses after winning from Liston are especially laughable, together with many "defenses" against bums in the 1970s.

 

No odds whether he was managed carefully or left to his own devices, bottom line same guy, better than RJJ, yeh big time.....

 

All the guys defended against in the 60's was ranked, maybe with the exception of London. It's in another thread on this forum. Williams, Terrell and Folley, for example, was the three highest ranked contenders when Ali took them on. Liston was the number one contender when Ali defended against him and Patterson was the first or second contender when they met. Mildenberger, Cooper and Chuvalo was around top 5 all of them.

He did take on some bums during his second reign, but he also took on tough challengers like Frazier, Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner and Young. Between his championship reigns he took on top 10 guys like Quarry, Bonavena, Frazier, MacFoster, Lewis and Norton as well as Patterson, Mathis and Chuvalo. And let's not forget Foreman. All in all this is pretty impressive. There's really not one big name of the time missing from his record.

 

I suspect (hope?) that this is Rooster's bait and the Senyas of the site are happily biting. To begin with a dismissal of Ali's resume and wins and then proclaim the glory of Jones' silly win over a glorified clubfighter like Paz is nonsensical. That fight was more interesting to me because it was a cartoonish battle between a larger roided up fighter and a smaller roided up fighter.

And that last statement that dares to even mention Robinson's legacy borders on blasphemy.

 

Ali.

 

good question.

I think Roy Jones was better

Ali's legacy is greater but i don't think he was as good as Roy

 

Hey, Stonehands...

Jones' feat was something special...after all it was only 7 years previous and about 5 weight classes difference that p4p great Greg Haugen managed to beat Paz too.

(and no offence to Haugen who was a good fighter with a lot of grit)

 

I hear you bro...I think the best way to put it is....Roy Jones was the better athlete..and Ali was the better craftsman/fighter/technician etc.Even with the showboating,Muhammad Ali was a cut above when he put it together...Especially if youa look at the weight disparity between the two.Some of the things Ali could do.fi..at nearly 230 pounds when he fought Liston the first time,was groundbreaking IMO.

Jones...while I say he's the best physically gifted fighter ever....relied much more on that than pure ring smarts.And this is where Ali had an edge.

And,of course...there's Ali's unbelievable resume'.Very few in the history of this game come much better.

Ineresting thread.Hope you guys keep it going.

 

I mean its hard to say how good Roy really was because he was not really tested as thoroughly as Ali

 

Tell me about it. This is one of those Roy Jones butt-licking threads that make me berserk. There are so many posts out here that are goofy, I don't know where to start.

Ali was, along with Louis, the greatest heavyweight who ever lived. He was lucky enough to have monsters to challenge and never avoided them and never blinked. The same can absolutely not be said about Roy Jones Jr. and anyone who debates that can do so without me, because I'm not going validate a nonsense position.

When it comes to in-the-ring performance, posters out here are displaying their fetish for athleticism and forget that in boxing ...that...ain't...all...there...is. Once you get the stars out of your eyes, you will see that Jones still can't compare to Ali and for that matter, Ali cannot compare to Robinson and other nonpareils.

Let's demonstrate this. In-the-ring greatness can be quickly broken down into three categories:

1. Technical Prowess
2. Athleticism
3. Stugots (nee lion-heart)

Firstly, neither were technicians.

Ali had serious athleticism that allowed him to incorporate bees and butterflies into what was essentially a savant style. But he was also very adaptable and strategic. The Foreman fight proved the hell out of that. For a non-technician, Ali was a genius.

Jones had a combination of speed and power that I don't see anywhere else in modern fighters with the exception of Tyson. But he was absolutely not adaptable and was absolutely not strategic anywhere near Ali's level. He relied on speed and power and that allowed him to flout technique, yes, but he was doing the same well into his 30s when he lost a step. Aside from being even more reluctant than he naturally was to take risks, he fought the same at 23 as he did at 39. That ain't the mark of greatness for any athlete. Greatness adapts with age and has more to call upon once the powers of youth dissipate. Roy took steriods once that started happening. I'm convinced. Ali, truly great, did what great does: he called on different/latent assets and went from "youth and speed" to "age and guile". His controlling jab, speed, and mobility gave way to cunning combined with will and heart.

The third category sends Ali into the stratosphere and leaves Roy reluctant. Roy had fear and it was that fear that kept him from truly testing those fast twitch fibers that looked so magnificient ...against historical second-raters. Ali was as brave as a man can get and was facing frightful punchers like Shavers ~15 years after turning pro when his reflexes were shot.

Ali had stugots like cannonballs. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't steriods shrivel up a man's testicles?

There is just no comparison.

 

Stonehands, i was under the impression that you were a semi-fan of Pazienza's.


By the way, i disagree on your assessment of adaptation at higher age needed for greatness. Joe Frazier, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong or Joe Louis never adapted their games but i'd say they're still great.

 

Paz (he has since legally changed his name to "Paz". I'm not surprised. Pazienza means patience in Italian. Haha. Anyway, he's lives close to me, and I appreciate his devotion and fanaticism to the sport, but I'm under no illusions about his skills or his legacy. He's a character that I miss, and he was great by New England standards, of course. I'm a fan of Joe Grim too.

Adaptation at a higher age (or at a higher weight) may not be necessary if what worked is still working. Armstrong had a few years where he was near unbeatable, but like any swarmer his was a style with a limited shelf-life. It's his accomplishments in a relatively brief time that really launch him. Greb was a phenomenon who died young at 31 but who's style was working well for him to that point anyway. Do you see him being as effective at 36 with that style? I don't.

Joe Louis did not rely on speed and mobility and fast-twitch fibers more than he relied -at Blackburn's insistence- on technique and systematic destruction. His style had a long shelf-life because it was more conservative.

Frazier is great based on one fight.

Meldrick Taylor is an example that is more akin to Ali and Jones... and it's clear what happened there.

 

Thanks for a great set of points there...

I don't have a problem with people telling me Roy was a great fighter but I do have a problem with people telling me he's a top 50 p4p fighter or top 10 at 175, or 160... Then the Jones apologists favourite (just like Tyson's) the head-to-head match up in which Jones and Tyson get exagerrated beyond the imagination of a top notch Sci-Fi writer...

You appraise a skill set and an ability set when you see it up against the very best and you see it truly put to the test.

 

Good points, Stonehands, even if I think you maybe are a little hard on RJJ. But your point comes across, though.

What do you think Ali lacked to compare him to "Robinson and other non-pareils"? Is it a question of style, because there's not many who accomplished more?