THE fight of Ali's you would point to....

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by KuRuPT, Jul 5, 2012.


  1. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    127
    Aug 13, 2009
    Terrell is a good one too. Terrell was actually a damn good HW, Ali looked untouchable and indeed, very mean spirited.
     
  2. Senor Pepe'

    Senor Pepe' Boxing Junkie banned

    9,408
    45
    Mar 14, 2012
    The 'only' reason Cleveland Williams got the 'Title Fight' with Muhammad Ali, was because Muhammad was trying to help out Cleveland 'financially'.

    Based upon his 1966 fights, Cleveland did not 'technically deserve' a fight for the Heavyweight Championship.
     
  3. heerko koois

    heerko koois Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,966
    17,378
    Apr 26, 2006
    Spinks 2 ...second choice Ruud Lubbers
     
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,423
    26,895
    Feb 15, 2006
    I have never agreed with those who point to the Williams fight as his best performence.

    Why do you need to pick a fight where the opponent was in that state, when he had so many good performences against live opponents around that time?
     
  5. The Funny Man 7

    The Funny Man 7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,867
    2,042
    Apr 1, 2005
    His win over Folley is mesmerizing to watch.
     
  6. ETM

    ETM I thought I did enough to win. Full Member

    13,174
    11,474
    Mar 19, 2012
    There was actually a time after his layoff and defeat by Frazier that Ali got really sharp again. He was fighting regular and he was getting back close to his old form.


    I think the night he beat Quarry the second time was about as good as Ive ever seen him. He was so..fast that night. Ali`s hands were a blur. Check the films.

    Quarry might not have been the toughest opponent he faced but he was much better than a shot Cleveland Williams or a Mildenberger.:tong
     
  7. Stevie G

    Stevie G Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,054
    8,415
    Jul 17, 2009
    :lol: Muhammad beat Lubbers with one hand,really. Reg Gutteridge was interviewing Ali between rounds.
     
  8. Senor Pepe'

    Senor Pepe' Boxing Junkie banned

    9,408
    45
    Mar 14, 2012
    Easily,,,,,,,,

    November 1971

    Versus,,,,,,,,Buster Mathis

    Absolutely pathetic,,,,,,,,,a total embarrassment for boxing.

    It would be like Sandy Koufax coming out to pitch a Nationally Televised Baseball game, and pitching under-handed.
     
  9. manbearpig

    manbearpig A Scottish Noob Full Member

    3,255
    133
    Feb 6, 2009
    Dempsey against Willard falls into the same category.
     
  10. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    27,967
    12,808
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yep.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,551
    47,091
    Mar 21, 2007
    I agree, though Willard was in better nick than Williams you can apply some of the same criticisms.
     
  12. apollack

    apollack Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,210
    1,569
    Sep 13, 2006
    I thought Ali looked blazing fast in the Brian London fight.
     
  13. heerko koois

    heerko koois Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,966
    17,378
    Apr 26, 2006
    i know ..just joking . my real vote goes to Frazier 3 :smoke
     
  14. round15

    round15 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,370
    45
    Nov 27, 2007
    Norton III for politics. Too much by too many people invested themselves into Alis affairs to have him lose that fight to Norton. He's was already putting fear into the sport's hierchy with the retirement talk.

    He looked untouchable against Terrell and Zora Folley.
     
  15. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,423
    26,895
    Feb 15, 2006
    The comparison is beyond preposterous.

    Willard had been inactive, but he was still verry much a live challenger. He might have beaten anybody around except Dempsey that day.

    Also, if somebody uses completely unrelated threads to launch attacks on a given fighter, it is usualy a sign that they are not particularly objective.