Originally posted by knn
View Post
Yeah, and the judges had Ali winning vs Norton, too. It has been a long theory of mine that in those days they valued "chin" more than "fists". Until this day this is how US fans see it, I think. That's why they cry out "robbery" as soon as the fight takes place outside of the US. Because Europeans don't fall for this "fists < chin" nonsense. However, don't reply since my statements are a bit offtopic here.
Thank you for mentioning
Unbelievable. CLAYtons really think that THESE FIGHTS ARE MORE MEANINGFUL THAN ALL OF KLITSCHKO'S KOS!
- Bonavena (whom Ali didn't manage to KO within 12 rounds. Don't even compare such KO to nowadays KOs.)
- bum-beater Liston (terribly bum'ed up record)
- featherfist Folley
- featherfisted half-blind dwarf Frazier (yes, he was blind on one eye)
- cruiser Quarry (198)
- cruiser Ellis (189)
- cruiser Patterson (188 lbs)
Unbelievable. CLAYtons really think that THESE FIGHTS ARE MORE MEANINGFUL THAN ALL OF KLITSCHKO'S KOS!
Cruisers Eddie Chambers & past prime Chris Byrd
Half-blind Lamon Brewster & Ruslan Chagaev
Washed up Rahman & Mercer
If you think Liston's record was supposedly "bum'd" up, I advise you to take a look at the records of Klitschko opponents. You won't see too many, if any top 10 ranked opponents.
It underlines exactly my point: Such fights only impress CLAYtons who loooove to retreat into some delusional past. Wlad would walk through all these opponents you listed.
2:30
Wladimir had trouble getting past a motivated Peter so I wouldn't be too certain of him walking through Ali's opposition.
And can you even imagine the outcry if Wlad would fight
(I am talking about Joe Frazier here)?
- someone who is smaller than Chris Byrd
- and is a featherfist like Byrd
- and has shorter arms than Byrd
- and is less experienced than Byrd
- and is lighter than Byrd
- and is blind on one eye
- and who knocks down Wlad
(I am talking about Joe Frazier here)?
Frazier would have been Wladimir's best opponent by far and you know it.
This would be the final proof of how the division sucks. Yet in the eyes of CLAYtons it's the proof of how great Ali was.
That you list these guys as the heavyweight cream of the 70ies just shows you how crappy the "golden" age was.
Yes, this is true. Your best argument.
But let me repeat a previous post of mine: Sanders was Wlad's 43rd heavyweight fight. Ali doesn't even have so many heavyweight fights (Lennox doesn't have so many, too). If you count only real heavyweight fights (both fighters 200+ lbs) then Ali has a record of 28-4. You shouldn't bring up the Sanders fight as a prove for anything regarding Ali.
But let me repeat a previous post of mine: Sanders was Wlad's 43rd heavyweight fight. Ali doesn't even have so many heavyweight fights (Lennox doesn't have so many, too). If you count only real heavyweight fights (both fighters 200+ lbs) then Ali has a record of 28-4. You shouldn't bring up the Sanders fight as a prove for anything regarding Ali.
There is no rule that states that a less than 200 lb fighter can't compete in the heavyweight division. See Roy Jones, a recent heavyweight titlist.
Many of those "cruiserweight-sized" men were proven against 200+ lb fighters and were more skilled than today's heavyweights. Byrd and Chambers, two cruiserweights, being Wladimir's best opponents is proof of this. Roy Jones and James Toney, two former middleweights, were competitive in today's division.
It is fairly obvious that you spend more time studying boxrec.com than you do watching the actual fights. Your interest doesn't seem to be boxing, but mathematics.
Originally posted by boxingking500
View Post
Comment