Who do you consider the best heavyweight of all-time?

That video would be a testimony to Ali's speed of hand and foot, timing, and reflexes. Ali was anything but a technician. He was adaptable -in the 60s it was all speed and grace and timing, in the 70s he relied on heart, will, and durability... and clinching.

Ali, like Jones, like Hamed, like Klitschko, like 70s Foreman, and to a lesser degree Lennox Lewis, are not devoid of skill, but they are absolutely not technicans. They rely on physical gifts -be they speed and hand-eye coordination or great size and strength or power.

Technicians are guys like McCallum, Moore, Ortiz, Jofre, Barrera, Duran, Marquez, Chavez, McGirt, McGuigan.

 

Yes I do, but I think that Louis's reflexes might have bailed him out earlier and made the fight look more elegant up to that point.

 

Ali was graceful and moved like a pretty dancer. That's style. Most of time you see those graceful gams, he's out of range. How many times have you seen Ali throw a three shot combination in close, slip, counter, and then angle off with a pivot? You don't see it.

Watch the tapes closely, McGrain, you have an analyst's eyes: once you can get past the flash and the speed, you see that his style was actually pretty simple, and he had more than a few deficient fundamentals.

Nope! Louis' offensive repertoire made Ali's look like a large tool box with 3 tools.

Ali wasn't a technician, but he was a psycologist in there. His feints were excellent, but I'd count them more as athleticism than anything technical: It's easy to teach what a feint looks like, but how to teach a fighter when to use it? It comes naturally to some guys.

Too funny!

A note: Infighting, in my way of thinking really is what separates the good from the basic -the men from the boys in terms of boxing sophistication.

You show me a technician who cannot fight inside, and I'll show you the Loch Ness Monster.

Ahhhh... I think I see something different. Ali would back straight up and lure guys in to pop them -but it was all speed and timing... not technique.

This is not exhaustive, of course, but here are some areas where the two can be matched very closely overall. Muhammad has the better athleticism for delivering his skills but he proved in his second career that he had a close to unparalleled set of skills in my view. Close, close, close.[/quote]
We are usually in the same corner, but I don't see it as close at all. I don't believe that Ali was anything but an instinctive athlete with a lion's heart. He relied on things that no trainer in their right mind would teach an aspiring fighter. His style flicked its nose at fundamentals and really cannot be emulated.... that tells much.

See, that is not the mark of a technician but the mark of a savant.

Futch said this:
"Technically, Ali was more limited than a lot of fighters on the scene. For me, his style was simple... he did the same thing over and over again. He did it very well but..."

...and so his guys Joe and Kenny both beat Ali.

I would strenuously argue that Futch saw the same technical flaws in Jones, another excellent athlete, and you saw what he was able to do through the very limited Montell Griffin in the first fight.

 

We are usually in the same corner, but I don't see it as close at all. I don't believe that Ali was anything but an instinctive athlete with a lion's heart. He relied on things that no trainer in their right mind would teach an aspiring fighter. His style flicked its nose at fundamentals and really cannot be emulated.... that tells much.

See, that is not the mark of a technician but the mark of a savant.

Futch said this:
"Technically, Ali was more limited than a lot of fighters on the scene. For me, his style was simple... he did the same thing over and over again. He did it very well but..."

...and so his guys Joe and Kenny both beat Ali.

I would strenuously argue that Futch saw the same technical flaws in Jones, another excellent athlete, and you saw what he was able to do through the very limited Montell Griffin in the first fight
[/QUOTE]

Ali went 2-1 against two of Futch's fighters, I believe. :huh

 

....

What was the most important bout between Ali and Frazier? The FIRST! EASILY!!!

After that bout at the Garden, two factors came into play that tipped the scales. One is Foreman shattered Frazier. The second is Ali was allowed to clinch with impunity in II and III... in I, Mercante wasn't having that. Do not underestimate that. It made a difference. A big difference. I also do not discount Ali's superb adaptability and ability to learn from his mistakes... but Joe beat Muhammad when it mattered most. When both were closest to prime and both were undefeated.

Norton...? Norton had no business EVER beating Ali. He is not great. And yet he did. Why? Futch.
......................................................
May Futch forgive you.

May the Futch be with you.

This content is protected

Don't Futch with me again.

----------------------------------------

 

You got that right.

Ali's greatest nemesis wasn Joe Frazier or Ken Norton it was Eddie Futch.

If I had to prepare Brian London for a rematch with Ali and I would be shot if he lost the first thing I would do is beg Futch to help me.

 

"If I had to prepare Brian London for a rematch with Ali and I would be shot if he lost the first thing I would do is beg Futch to help me."

Better make certain your life insurance is paid up and try to purchase a bullet-proof vest. Futch might be a genius, but even he can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

Haha!

HOWEVER.... Norton beat Ali. Griffin officially defeated Jones. They weren't sow's ears, but they were close to the pen!

 

You leave a lot out I would say. Ali had excellent positioning, for one thing. He was always in the position to counter, or move in if someone presented an opening. As sportswriter Mike Katz put it:

"And he always seemed to be in control of exactly of where he was and which angle he was presenting. It was as though, if you freeze-framed any particular moment, he was there for a reason." That I see as technique or skill, or whatever you want to call it.

He could punch from unexpected angles and positions as well, which Zora Folley testified to for one. He could of course also punch off his movements, both going backwards and forwards, which is very rare. Read McGrain's analysis of the first round of Ali-Foreman for an in depth description of Ali's movement and positioning. This I put down to technique/skill.

His punching was also over all much better than I think you give it credit for. He was one of very few HW:s who could land triple hooks for one thing. He was also very accurate with his punches and could very effectively combine short and long punches, double up on punches and punch from different angles, which made him a really good finisher. He nearly always finished his man when he had him in trouble, without being a true puncher. It doesn't get much better than his finishing off of London, Williams, Foreman and Lyle, to name a couple.

As I said before, one should watch his fight with Foreman and his second fight with Quarry to get a feel for what he brought to the table. While not being one of the great inside fighters (hard to be with his dimensions) he showed some good ability even in this department in his third fight with Frazier, perhaps the best in-fighter of all HWs.

I repeat, Ali's skills was not text book, but they were still great. Sure, Futch saw some deficiensis in Ali's game, but Schmeling (and Johnsion) saw some in Louis's as well. Even if Ali didn't avenge his defeat quite as emphatically, I think it's ludicrous to just dismiss his two wins against Frazier. After all he was further removed from his prime on all three occasions than Frazier was. Frazier was also a great fighter, who only lost to Foreman besides Ali and who was a stylistical nightmare for Ali.

Especially in Manilla he was able to beat Frazier because he adapted his style. He was more careful with his guard than in FOTC (where he fought as he still had the legs he had in 66-67) and didn't throw as many uppercuts, since Frazier liked to counter them with his left hook.

 

I was dubious about the value of this thread when it was started, but I have to admit it has been a blody good tear up (in a civilised way) which everybody seems to have enjoyed.

 

....

You and a few others out here are really confusing skill with what is more accurately called athleticism!

Quickly moving in and out of range is athleticism. Throwing three hooks in a row is athleticism. And if you believe for a moment that Ali threw textbook hooks, you're way off. His hooks were by and large slaps with no leverage! He threw uppercuts from the outside. He threw varying one-twos over and over with feints. His hands were at his waste. He leaned back from punches. His infighting was virtually nonexistent. His defense relied almost exclusively on reflexes or basic blocking.

---Great skills? Humbug!

 

It has. And I never mind disagreeing with guys like you, Stonehands, Fogey etc, that are extremely knowledgable and make your points very well. It only makes for a really good discussion.

 

If never said anything about moving quickly, because that is atheticism. But it takes skill to use movement well. Put a NFL running back in a boxing ring and he will be caught against the ropes in no time and taken out. To be able to punch off of movement and always be in proper balance and in the right position takes skill. No one, no matter how fast, master this when they start to train boxing. These are things that you have to train hard to master and no HW has ever done it quite like Ali.

And once again you revert to that Ali wasn't text book. No one has argued that he was. He could throw text book left hooks and did so against Bonavena, for one. He also caught Frazier with some nice text book hooks early in FOTC. But over all his style and technique was his own, something he invented to get the most out of his physical assets.

But even when these assets started to diminish he was able to make necessary adaptions, and this is what made him truly great.

 

Well, hell, I like the way you present your case and make your points -and your fairly new! I zealously disagree here but always appreciate a good duel.