Top 3 P4p Boxers In History

Who says Liston wasn´t that great? He was but he also wast past it when he fought Ali. That´s there to be seen. Also i think would he have faced somebody who his style wasn´t as suited as Patterson´s he wouldn´t have looked as good winning.

We disagree on the movement thing.

Right. :good

 

Well, we just disagree I guess. He wasn't past it, just as Tyson wasn't past it when he faced Douglas. They were just overconfident and insufficiently prepared, expecting an easy payday but instead running in to someone who had their number. Douglas had Tyson's number that particular night, Ali would always have Liston's number.

 

I too think Ali would always beat Liston but when they met in reality Liston was past it - we really have to disagree here.
the Tyson of ´88 would have beaten the Douglas of the Tyson fight. I´m pretty sure of that.

 

I've never disputed the man's greatness my friend, I only seek to provide enough context for balance because no fighter is perfect -and the HWs as a division can boast less than the other divisions.

Ali was faster than most Lightweights? This is an overstatement to say the least.

Well, I see that you are among Ali's biggest fans.

 

Defeating Liston was an incredible feat. Upon closer examination it is still impressive, but if you would compare that version of Sonny to even the one who faced Patterson I, you are indulging in delusion. Sonny barely trained. He was out of shape and stupidly believed that he would knock the kid out inside 2 rounds. He committed a cardinal sin and deserved what he got, but he was also 5 years past his peak and there to be taken. An impressive win, but let's be straight about it.

These are facts, not "hindsight BS".

This is his best win. But did you believe that Foreman was King Frickin Kong in 1973? I don't. Many insiders saw that beneath his enormous power, he was a .........crude and one-dimensional slugger! We will always have writers and analysts who jump on jocks and engage in juvenile hyperbole. Foreman can crush buildings with one swipe of his thunderous fist! He is unstoppable! Ali was so fast he can turn off the light switch in his hotel room and be in bed before the room was dark! Max Kellerman, otherwise not bad, has been guilty of this today and I'm still waiting for his apology to Robinson for boosting Jones Jr. right beside him ten years ago.

Fair enough, but you should also be open to fair criticisms of Ali, then and now. Not everyone believed him to be an insurmountable god that many of his fans do today.

I don't believe that he was the beneficiary of outright robberies, but be honest, he got some nicely wrapped gifts and was indulged by referees in the 70s. Most observers I know gave him 1 out of 3 with Norton.

Criticisms of his technique were and are valid. Only an apologist would wring their hands and gnash their teeth at that. Are you an apologist?

Funny, no mention of Frazier being past his prime or damaged goods after the Foreman beat down. No mention of the indulgent referees in II and III that allowed Ali to continuously clinch and hold behind the neck. And your dismissal of the Futch factor is unfortunate.

The fastest fighter ever? Don't believe the hype. Again, let's be reasonable here. A fighter who is 6-3 and over 200 lbs just will not be faster than his fast counterparts among WWs or LWs or the lower weights. 2-1 against Frazier while past his prime? Look more closely or read above. Oh, and Moore was Methusalah by the time Ali faced him.

These are overstatements. And the fact is that Ali doesn't need overstatements. And another fact is that Ali's career should be looked at no less critically than his idol, Sugar Ray Robinson's or his progeny, Ray Leonard.

There was a goofy DC comic that came out in 1978 called "Superman vs. Muhammad Ali". Hell, even Superman knew to call Ali the greatest Heavyweight ever and that was before he got whipped under a red sun.

Let's get two things straight: Ali wasn't the greatest boxer who ever lived (I know you've conceded this Bokaj, but you got friends who haven't) and two, Ali ain't whipping Superman -at least under a yellow sun.

 

I don't think Ali's technique should be overly critisized. Mainly because it worked for him remarkably well during his prime. Ok, he held his hands low, pulled out of range with his hands down, and generally never had the fundementals down to a fine art. However, what he did have down to a fine art was his own style and technique.

Not many fine teachers of the game like Futch and Arcel or todays top trainers would build a fighter from scratch and teach him to fight in a similar manner to Ali. Why? Because it isn't the basics. And the basics are easier to teach. It's easier for a fighter to have his hands up, punch, then have them back in position again to defend himself. When going downstairs with your left hand, make sure your right hand is tucked tightly beside your chin, and so on. As we all know, Ali's style was unorthodox, uncommon, and it depended heavily on speed and reflexes. But I would rather praise his technique rather than critisize it, for obvious reasons. Sure it caught up with him post exile. Fighters got through on him at an alarming rate at times. Many fighters out there would rather face a textbook fighter than someone as unorthodox as Ali.

IMO Ali's biggest strength was also his biggest weakness in the long run. His inability to fight inside, or learn to fight inside, effectively wasn't something he felt he needed to do during his prime. He controlled everything so well at long range behind his jab, moved well, and tied people up then pushed them off to work at arms length again. He got his own way for too long with his boxing ability at long range. When it came to slowing down during the early-mid 70's he was found wanting inside.

 

Futch and Arcel wouldn't be caught dead teaching their charges to fight like Ali because it would be totally irresponsible of them. It would not be because "the basics are easier to teach."

Frankly the basics are harder to teach. All new guys naturally want to lean back, leave their chin exposed, and drop their hands.

Teaching a young fighter to lean into shots instead of obeying the natural instincts of moving away from the shot is harder, not easier! It is harder to teach a fighter to keep his hands up because it is natural to want to keep them at rest by one's side. It is harder to teach a fighter to not drop the right after throwing the left because it is natural to do so.

They all tend to go for the easier way, the natural way, like Ali did. Ali was successful despite his technical flaws -not because of them.

So if you'd "praise" his technique, then why shouldn't we train kids to fight with the hands down and lean back from shots?

This is unclear. First you want to praise his technique but then you concede that his praiseworthy technique caught up with him post-exile.

Was it that his biggest strength was his biggest weakness? Or is it simply that he was an athlete who's disregard of fundamentals cost him when his athleticism diminished and he most needed to rely on fundamentals?

 

Yes, it's because it's common. The basics are just that. It's safer for a fighter to be taut to fight in an orthodox fashion. The basics are easier to become successful with for a fighter, well certainly easier to get away with. Trainers teach the basics because they know more about them. It may well be harder for a trainer to correct flaws, and drum them into a fighter. But try doing it this way, the trainer going along with the fighters natural instincts. Lets say he says to the fighter. "Ok, your getting caught pulling out of range with your hands down, your not covering up and trying to block at all. Lets go along with this" He's not going to do that, because it's simply harder to do and win doing it.

The basics harder to teach. That may well be true. But IMO what Ali done was harder to do than keep your hands up. A trainer will instruct a fighter to keep his hands up, obviously because it's more risky keeping his hands down leaving his head exposed. So if a fighter can adopt a hands down aproach and rely on speed and reflexes and make a successful career out of it I'd rather praise than critisize.

Sorry Stonehands. But fighters will be able to become more successful when being taught how to fight like Lopez than Ali. Do you think the way Ali fought is easy? I know what your saying about natural instincts. And why does a trainer teach a fighter not to drop his right after throwing a left? Because he fears his fighter is open to a counter, etc. So if someone with the physical gifts of Ali can get away with it using his own technique, then why should be be critisized?

His technical flaws worked for him, obviously because of his athleticism and speed. If Ali never had much speed from the get-go in his career he'd never have faced Liston as he would have been wiped out during the early 60's.

I'm simply praising his technique because it was rare and successful. Thats part of the very reason I'm praising his technique, because kids aren't taught to fight like him. He done it differently from the standard procedure.

Mainly his inability to fight inside I concede caught up with him. He could have combined that style better with what he had. What I mean by his biggest strength being his biggest weakness was that he choose to fight on the outside too much as he controlled opponents there the majority of the time. Obviously when he slowed down opponents closed the distance, got inside, and that wasn't a place where he learned his trade enough when things were going smoothly in his prime.

 

Could offer a different answer on this one every day - too tough to call.

In no particular order its Sugar Ray Robinson, Carlos Zarate & Roberto Duran.

Zarate doesn't get a mention too often these days but consider this:

Carlos Zarate's career record of 70 matches for 66(63) wins and 4(2) losses has to rank him amongst the very best P4P.

Zarate started his career winning his first 23 bouts by KOs. He had a points win in his 24th bout, and then a further 28 wins by KO. So after 52 matches he was 52 wins, 51 by KO!

Zarate retired with only two losses. Came back (when he probably shouldn't have - like many before him). Strung some wins together, and then lost his last two bouts.

So at one point he reached 66 wins from 68 matches, with 63 by KO!

 

Yes, he was past his absolute best, but no one then thought he was there to be taken. Saying that is very much hindsight, indeed.

At the time I would think that few saw Foreman being beaten anytime soon. He was probably seen more or less as invincible as Tyson was believed to be in 1988.

I think you maybe have got hung up on this bit. No one here thinks Ali a god in any sense. That kind of hype doesn't really infest this forum, IMO.

That's more or less what I said.

Again, did you really read my post? I pointed out flaws in Ali's technique. I just feel people go overboard.

I think Frazier was slightly past his very best (which was FOTC), but not very much and certainly not damaged goods. And Padilla was actually better at not letting Ali hold in Manilla than Mercante was in FOTC. There wasn't much holding in Manilla.

And once again, I didn't dismiss the Futch factor. He certainly saw things that Frazier and Norton exploited, especially in their first meetings with Ali. I'm just saying that he couldn't make just any decent contender beat Ali. Both Frazier and Norton were hell on anyone who didn't carry a real big punch. A past his prime Norton gave a prime Holmes one of his toughest fights without having Futch in his corner. Shortly before that he beat Young, the slickest HW of that period.

I said fastest P4P. Quite a difference.

Moore was very old but still ranked when Ali met him. But sure, remove his name from the list if you want. I'm just saying that even Ali's second tier of opponents was quite impressive, and I believe you would agree on that.

:yep Good one!

 

.

 

What you are praising is Ali's exceptional speed and reflexes, you are not praising his "technique" because it's bad technique. Ali flaunted his gifts, that's great, but you don't teach his "technique" to new boxers because it isn't "technique" -it's athleticism. If you teach the average novice to pull straight back and fight with his hands down you are encouraging him to invite brain damage.

Again, you are confusing athleticism with technique. Ali was not implementing some futuristic, more highly evolved version of technical skill, he was demonstrating his natural gifts flauting orthodoxy and getting away with it (until he aged).

Robbi, Ali's style of fighting was easy for him. It wouldn't be easy for most because most weren't as physically blessed, not because his "technique was harder". Ali was a rebel against fundamentals, not the originator of some new brand of fundamentals, because it could not be generalized.

His style worked for him because of his athleticism and speed, despite those technical flaws. His technical flaws did not "work" for him!

Ali was a speed demon and a master of rythym and timing. I do not understand why you would praise his technique. His technique was very flawed. His style was both beautiful and effective despite flawed technique.

You can see plenty of flaws in his out-fighting as well in the 70s.

 

You are placing undue emphasis on "hindsight". History often gives perspective as the complete context is slow to be revealed. This is why U.S. Presidential scholars will not seriously rank outgoing Presidents until about 20 years after their tenure is over. You can see clearer.

Just because people called Liston and Foreman invincible doesn't make it so. And those of us who know better are not falling victim to some arrogance of hindsight.

A couple of posts on this thread alone suggest otherwise.

You wrote this:
"But he was not as inept at for example in-fighting and bobypunching as some like to claim, rather he didn't have that much use for them since he was at his best on the outside."

--I found that to be a bit apologetic. It's akin to Ali himself saying that he's the greatest at golf, but just hadn't golfed yet.

Frazier beat Ali when both were nearest prime. It's the fight that matters most. Ali lost the fight that matters most. Frazier was damaged goods after Jamaica, 1973.

I disagree that Padilla was more of an enforcer with the holding than Mercante.

Fair enough. Some Ali critics believe that Frazier and Norton are only considered formidable because they have wins over Ali. I'm not one of them.

Fastest P4P makes no sense to me. What does it mean? How do you draw such a conclusion?

I agree whole heartedely!

 

Stonehands. Yes, but when it comes to Ali it was all about speed and athleticism comined with his flawed technique. That worked for him. As I stated in my last post that particular technique combined with slower speed all-round would have been a disaster. That goes for any fighter, not just Ali. I guess I'm prasing his flawed technique partly because he possessed brilliant speed of hand and foot. When were talking about Ali you can't have one without the other.

I'm sure you'll agree with this. If Ali implemented some orthodox moves at times he would have been even more effective, especially when he slowed down post exile. Whitaker IMO was orthodox and textbook at times, then other times he was extremely unorthdox and flawed. Whitaker dodged a flurry of punches from De La Hoya at the end of the 4th round. He pulled back with his hands down moving his head and upperbody to avoid the punches coming his way. Yet in other instances Whitaker held his hands up to blocked punches within range. IMO Whitaker combined unorthdox moves which relied on athleticism with orthdodox moves when he blocked and held his hands up and was in good positions to counter. He was more varied technically than Ali.

 

You are essentially arguing that flawed technique was among his assets. We have an elemental disagreement on that. You are also asserting that Ali could not have brilliant speed without flawed technique. I don't see how that could be.

Whitaker was an excellent technician. His unorthodoxy and slick moves do not contradict his well-schooled fundamentals, only affirm his speedy style. At time he would expound upon fundamentals because he was a stylist, but his foundation was the same as Evander Holyfield's. Ali doesn't have that foundation. He was a pure athletic innovator.