Top 3 P4p Boxers In History

Yeah, that's an interesting angle, Vockerman.

 

I do not believe Ali to be "terribly flawed". I do believe that Ali based his style on athleticism and not on tried and true fundamentals.

Some of Ali's deficiencies can be summarized as follows:
1. Inside fighting was wanting
2. left hooks were more often slaps
3. the habit of dropping his right hand when he jabbed. Repeatedly until he learned by fire when he was in his 10th year as a pro.
4. pulling back from shots in straight lines.
5. uppercuts were thrown from undefended positions and/or from the outside.

-those are off the top of my head. I could go and review the tapes from the 60s and the 70s and get exhaustive, but I don't want to get into a debate about the obvious.

I think that you are distorting my argument. Obviously, Ali understood how to climb into a boxing ring, put on gloves, and properly stand and throw basic shots. And if you would use Ali or Jones or Hamed as a standard of fundamentals for novices, then I'd question your judgment.

Ali was not a gymnast who happened to box. Nor was he a dancer who happened to box. He understood that you have to stand upright and turn your punches and he moved very well. But he did not have the foundation you see in Whitaker. Whitaker could fight inside comfortably and for long stretches, he could weave and counter, slip on angles, as well as expound on that.

Again, Ali's game slipped when he got into his mid 30s. He relied on jabbing, durability, and holding, and you just don't see the technical foundation coming through as you did for say Moore or Duran.

This applies to music (and Picasso) more than it does Ali. Ali's style was all his own -and thus the greater complement for him may come from me.

I couldn't disagree more. You are doing precisely what my opponents do in this debate: you give one or two examples of what Ali did right and think it's enough to overcome my position that he had basic fundamental flaws -flaws that Futch and others saw and attested to.

To beat Foreman Ali relied on psychology and the rope-a-dope which is about as simple as it gets. He laid back, talked trash, and took shots until Foreman wore himself out. That isn't exactly a harvest of technical genious.

Ali is an athletic genious who was able to disregard many, if not most of the basic fundamentals due to that genious. He practiced a style that is not repeatable and all is own.

 

1. Robinson
2. Ali
3. Louis

 

The funny thing is, Stonehands, that I nod in agreement half the time and cringe half the time when I read your posts on Ali. In short, while you're right to a degree about Ali's lack of fundamentals, I think you exaggerate them, and, more importantly, I think you dismiss what was thorougly learned techniques of his own innovation for "athleticism" and "durability".

1. About his left hooks: I think you reverse it actually. You can see lots of fights where he threw really good left hooks. He was especially adept on using them when countering while going backwards (not easy). I watched his fight with Folley and his rematch with Norton and saw plenty of examples of those. Of course, there's more examples, but how many must be mentioned? Watch Ali vs Williams, Ali vs. Quarry II, Ali vs Frazier I and II to name a couple.

Yes, he slapped at times as well, but this mostly happened when his feets weren't planted and towards the end of his career. Watch the left hook he lands on Norton in rd 4 (rematch). He feints, and then lands a left hook that moves Norton. It's beautiful.

2. I hate it when people just diminish his perfomance against Foreman to durability and rings smarts. Those were very much in evidence, but the way he always keeps his stance and balance, the economy and precision of his punches, his tight guard... For me it's a fantastic exhibition of technique. Just try and fight anyone from the ropes and it's clear that speed and toughness only takes you that far.

For me the rematch against Quarry is one of the greatest exhibitions I've seen in overall skill and technique at HW. His athleticism is at it's very peak against Williams, but in the second fight against Quarry I think he shows the most of his register. There isn't much lacking in that fight.

 

I exaggerate his athleticism? I exaggerate his technical deficiencies?

I'm in good company:

Arcel on using Ali as a teaching tool for novices: ""No trainer in his right mind would dare."

Dundee: "Muhammad was a great natural talent, and he would have been a great champion without me. I'll be the first to say it wasn't me."

Futch: "He almost never punched to the body, which I considered to be a fault, and except for the tactics of pulling his opponent's head down which is against the rules, he wasn't much of an inside fighter... people remember how good hard Louis punched; what they don't remember is what a good boxer Louis was. I always thought Joe would have seen the flaws in ALi's style..."

Jose Torres': "You can't explain Ali in the conventional way because Ali consistently did the wrong thing in the ring. He didn't bend down. He didn't go to the body. He punched going backwards. He held his hands low. He pulled straight back from punches. He didn't even throw combinations -he threw punches in flurries. And then he would win for two reasons -speed and magic.

I did not read these and formulate my arguments on their coattails. My arguments have been long standing and are based on what I've seen. The point is that you don't want to lend my views much credence but perhaps you will consider the more impressive sources above...

And you'll notice that .....not one praises Ali's "mastery of the fundamentals". You may take exception to that because you somehow believe that it is tearing him down off his pedestal. But it only adds to his greatness if you think about it... and it's simply true.

You have the right to your opinion. My opinion is that you're forcing it. Apparently, sound technique is in the eye of the beholder, because I just got done watching Quarry II and in Ali makes several cardinal technical errors in round 1! He throws out his jab and brings it back to his hip. The hooks are slaps. He pulls straight back constantly. When Quarry comes in, he grabs him and shoves him over and over again. He simply will not fight at any range but one and sometimes two for a short spurt, then he's gone. At the opening of round 2 he got nailed at the onset of round 2 with a left hook (because his right was low). Even while hurt, Quarry is able to land left hooks.

You're belief that Quarry II is one of the great exhibitions in overall skill and technique is really our line of demarcation. I simply do not think it even close. In terms of skill and technique, Louis, Walcott, Liston, Holyfield, even Tyson, show a wider array of skill and sounder technique in any number of bouts compared to Ali in that one. Were they necessarily more impressive? God no -especially compared to Ali in the Williams fight, which I count as his peak bout.

As to the Foreman bout... I count it as his greatest victory and a true mark of the intelligence of Ali. But a study in skill? No! It was a study in strategy and psychology; he did not prove himself to be a technician in that bout!

You bring up isolated examples of Ali throwing a proper left hook -like round 4 of Norton II. I just reviewed the tape and saw Ali on his toes jabbing and moving -most of the hooks that I saw were arm punches or thrown when he wasn't planted. When he was on the ropes, any hook he threw that was half-decent missed. Maybe I missed it -but either way, if you want to keep score, Ali threw far more technically unsound hooks than sound ones! Futch said it best, "His left hook wasn't the best in the world, but it was servicable."

I don't think it's reasonable to try to prove Ali was some kind of a technician by using limited samples that demonstrate what you are looking for. It's not compelling. It's akin to Kinsey taking a sample from San Fransisco and "proving" that 10% of the male population is homosexual.

You believe Ali to be a "technician". I don't.

However, we both can completely agree that he was the Greatest of the HWs.

 

Eddie Futch really resented Ali for beating his fighters, you can sense that in his comments. I don't think most Boxing experts would give Louis the nod over Prime Ali in a H2H matchup.

 

Ali was anything but a textbook fighter. He learned the rules and then forgot 'em, because they didn't agree with the vision that he had of himself in that ring. He fought so much with his head, that if he were to confine himself to the textbook style he would have been frozen. If he wasn't able to dance with his hands low, bring his jabs back to his hip and lay on the ropes round after round when that's what his instinct told him he had to do, he wouldn't have been a special fighter. He transcended textbook style.

 

I disagree. Futch himself acknowledges that his preference for Louis in a H2H may be due to "prejudice" because he "came along with Louis". He also says "Ali was great -no doubt about it" and ranks him with Johnson and Louis as the three greatest HWs of all time.

 

I've never praised Ali's mastery of the fundamentals, far from it, nor that he was a technician (even though that's closer to the truth in some ways). I just think that some of his flaws get exaggerated (but not all of them) and that many of his technical proficiencies gets forgotten because you don't see them in a textbook. The fight against Foreman is a case in point IMO. You and I won't agree on that, though, that's obvious.

Mainly I feel the difference between us is that you focus on the flaws and I focus more on what I feel he does right. Against Quarry he does most things right. He moves well foward on the attack, and he moves well backwards when Quarry presses. He uses his jab to great advantage, from just about all angles, and follows up with very precise straight crosses. He counters Quarry with short, sharp hooks and uppercuts when he tries to get in close. And he finishes off Quarry very well (even though he already is quite finished at that point).

He also holds his guard up when Quarry is within punching range. Yes, he pulls his head back to avoid punches, like always. But wasn't this textbook technique for the old timers? And he doesn't do it as beginners do by reflex: turning the chin upwards and exposing it and at the same time taking their eyes off of their opponent.

He even stands and trades at close quarters with Quarry on occasion. Granted this is when Quarry is nearing the end, but he still shows the sharpnes of his punches against someone who was very at home countering at that distance. And Quarry does counter, and even connects once or twice, but Ali takes the sting off of those punches by rolling with them. Something he was very good at doing and which is a big reason as to why he never was KO:d.

When comparing this to other fighter's perfomances I see more versatility than many others showed. Tyson definitly fought textbook, but he could only fight one way, and couldn't fight going backwards to save his life. Now, that is a big technical flaw. Even Louis wasn't at his best going backwards. Ali displays defensive movement, counter punching, stalking and finishing within one and the same fight. He dominates Quarry in every space. I think this a great exhibition.

I should tone down stuff like "one of the greatest ever". That was more to make a point, but such bold statements aren't really necessary, since they are precarious to make and doesn't really offer much.

Suffice it to say, I think that fight shows off the most aspect of Ali's game, even though his physical gifts had diminished somewhat, and shows that there was plenty to that game.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to watch those fights again, even if we come to different conclusions.

 

I tend to focus hard on the discussion at hand. There are many other threads where I argue for Ali. Funny enough, I truly believe that he himself would take my side in this argument, not yours!

No, great ring-athletes are effective. Ali was, in some ways, more efficient than most technicians. And about the textbook technique for old-timers... I argue against the clan of posters who tout the "transferability" of 1900 style into a 1975 ring. There is much to learn from the pioneers, but it is they who would have trouble coping with the modern, not vice versa. But that debate has just exhausted itself on another thread (check out the Fitzsimmons-Duran thread if you haven't already...).

Well, we just have to be careful with overstatement as it leaves an opening from those we are debating with... otherwise, it's no big deal.

Fair enough!

I'm glad you take it as a complement. And you should! I wouldn't waste my time reviewing tapes for someone who's intelligence I didn't respect.

It's been fun reviewing Ali's style with you.

 

I agree with you, actually. Just hoped to trap you there. You slipped that one textbook enough, for sure.

Right back at you. Always a pleasure Stonehands.

(Acually, I would like to ask Ali why he tended to slap at times. Because, I feel he put all that to the side when he really wanted do damage (the opening 5 of FOTC is one example). Then his punches were sharp and properly leveraged. But, yes, he would indulge at times in slapping arm punches. Was there a thought behind it or just laziness? I would really like to know that.)

 

Thanks.

In other words, you would have liked to see him trading; we know this was anathema to Ali, who always above all endeavored to protect that "pretty" face.

 

Well, if he does it right it's one-way traffic. But you're right, he really preferred the outside and I think this is an important reason as to why he didn't utilise these techniques more. But he would have been even harder to predict if he varied his game with slipping and ducking while staying in the pocket.

He slipped and countered beautifully when he KD'd Folley the first time, though.

 

Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly that 2, 3 and 5 were deficiencies, that, maddeningly enough, he sometimes corrected all of a sudden, by the way. 1 was his paramount preference, though, again, he fought, and I mean fought, Frazier on the inside in Manila. And 4 was his privilege as the Flash he was: I never cease to be amazed at his pulling straight back safely from Williams' powerful left jab in Round 3.

I am concluding Ali's two basic flaws were keeping his right hand too low and pulling straight back from the left hook, two true ingrained blunders that could have been deadly for him against a Louis, Dempsey or Tyson.

I never mentioned Jones or Hamed, nor did I say Ali was a standard of fundamentals for novices. I said if all other boxing footage were sucked up into a black hole, a newbie could learn a lot of proper basic stuff by watching Ali, with the above caveats, because Ali did a lot of very basic things you do in the ring fundamentally right.

Yes, Whitaker was a master of exploiting geometry, and Moore and Duran were punchers with a technical foundation that served them extremely well throughout. Ali was simply different. He never intended to brawl, mix it up toe-to-toe; thus, when his athleticism waned, he switched to rope-a-doping, jabbing and holding, and flurrying in spurts to win fights. But by then he was the old lion lazily fending off young lions' charges on top of the hill. This was a deliberate switch in tactics a Moore or Duran never dreamed of attempting; they soldiered on basically in their same prime styles. But I think it's apples and oranges.

I simply mean a gold-medal winner with over 100 amateur fights who becomes world champion has forgotten more about boxing than you and I together can ever hope to learn in the rest of our days. Ali knew the basics of boxing, theoretically, and in the school of hard knocks against the top fighters in the world. He used this knowledge to suit his goals and he did it to amazing success. This is why I will always watch Ali the champion with respect, because he proved, in deeds, he is, as he said, a scholar of boxing and to me he is one of the top 3 P4P fighters of all time.

Futch saw what we have all seen. Agreed.

Ali relied on psychology, the rope-a-dope and accurate, killer (Bomaye) punching to do in Foreman, no small feat. Only a true boxing expert could pull off what Ali did against the monster Foreman, or the beast Liston. If Ali had not mastered the fundamentals of judging distance, proper punching, timing your punches, rolling with punches, wearing a man down in the ring, counterpunching, seizing on lulls, slipping, lateral movement, all basic survival tools in a prize fight, he would not have prevailed. Sans the rope-a-dope, the same can be said of his challenge of Liston, with crisp, true combinations to boot.

Your final sentence above says it all. :good

 

That knockdown of Folley shows the very reason why Ali had no need to stay in any pockets. "Hit and not be hit." Ali himself at his peak clearly said, "I'm not in there to prove whether or not I can take a punch."

But he did remain for a few precious seconds up close against Foreman himself a few times, most memorably near the close of that great Round 5, ducking under a roundhouse left hook.

Regarding your question about why Ali sometimes slapped and seemingly held back, I would venture the theory that the guy truly had very few killer intentions in the ring, mostly content to box to victory on points or disorienting his foe enough for a light stoppage. His was not the mindset of a killer.