Glorious subject to warm any enthusiasts cockles.
Everyone has favourites
Everyone checks the stats and compares
I get the most enjoyment out of making a selection
by imagining the guys in their hey days.
Think about their styles and strengths
Think about how certain fighters fought against
different styles.
Try very hard to rule out the late career matches only granted because the men were broke, too proud to give up or were pushed into it by greedy promoters.
Style one for me is the relentless powerful hunter stalking and smashing.
Style two is the scientific mover who dances and stings.
It's brilliant when one or other have a few of the skills of the other style.
Ali was the best I've ever seen. He simply had more speed more finesse and a grossly underestimated ability to take a punch - especially to the body. Angelo Dundee taught him so much and kept him straight for ages. Later when the showmanship, ego and Don King got the better of him he slacked off.
Only ego lost Ali the first Frazier fight, after that you could see he was never quite the same... being unbeaten meant everything to him. Getting kicked around the legs in a karate exhibition bout also did him much harm.. he couldn't do his ten miles a day routine for weeks after that.
For me I'd love to see Ali fight the winner of Marciano v Joe Louis
all in their hey days and in a corruption free environment with no mafia, no nazi's and no Don Kings in the wings, No trickery and no cheating. Heck I'd love any fight like that.
I'd say in his day Ali would cut em up and take em out.. he was hit hard by the best and stood the test.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI never said he was WC when he fought Ali. For both boxers I listed the boxers they fought who held the title of WC at some time in their career.
btw Norton was not a world champ when he fought Ali 3 times.when he won the first time it was for the north american boxing federation title. (1973). Norton was a world "champ" for 6 mos. (W B C ) after being awarded it when Leon Spinks refused to fight him.(1978) His first "defense" was a loss to larry holmes
Originally posted by shortcircuitThats like comparing Ayrton Senna to Lewis Hamilton - impossible to say who would have been best in both their primes!
I believe Holfield was better in his prime than was Lewis, but that point will be debatable since Lewis didn't catch him until late in his career.
Originally posted by surtismHello? This entire thread is the same thing. How do you compare fighters from different eras? It is an opinion.
Thats like comparing Ayrton Senna to Lewis Hamilton - impossible to say who would have been best in both their primes!
And, Micheal Schumacher was better than both of your choices. 😉
Originally posted by shortcircuitI understand what you're saying,but they are really not differnt era's when your your comparing fighters 20 to 30 yrs apart. Joe Louis maybe being the exception. Comparing say Corbett to Holyfield ,John L Sullivan to Tyson sounds ludicrous.But, matching up a fantasy fight between Marciano,Ali is plausable.Or,Ali Tyson. The formers would win in both of these examples.But then again Joe Louis (50-60 yrs ago I know) in his prime could handle most any one of them. His power was devastating with either hand. a master at keeping his cool,etc. Iwould like to note to he was a dignified champion and defended his title nearly once a month for a couple of years there. The fighters in his time were a much much tougher breed of cat than now as well
Hello? This entire thread is the same thing. How do you compare fighters from different eras? It is an opinion.
And, Micheal Schumacher was better than both of your choices. 😉
Originally posted by Tirau DanI allso admired ALI, but when you talk about cheating etc , what about when Henry cooper floored him and his corner men delibertly sliced his glove to buy him more time ?
Glorious subject to warm any enthusiasts cockles.
Everyone has favourites
Everyone checks the stats and compares
I get the most enjoyment out of making a selection
by imagining the guys in their hey days.
Think about their styles and strengths
Think about how certain fighters fought against
different styles.
Try very hard to rule out the late care ...[text shortened]... day Ali would cut em up and take em out.. he was hit hard by the best and stood the test.
Originally posted by phil3000Thats exactly the incident I was thinking of when I mentioned it. Was in England at the time watched it live and spewed about it the rest of my life.. Henry won the fight at least in my eyes.
I allso admired ALI, but when you talk about cheating etc , what about when Henry cooper floored him and his corner men delibertly sliced his glove to buy him more time ?
Originally posted by phil3000yes i agree.The cooper incident,the loosing of the ropes in Zaire,and the constant grabbing behind the neck and pulling his opponents head down,the holding too !Any one else would have points deducted or a DQ
I allso admired ALI, but when you talk about cheating etc , what about when Henry cooper floored him and his corner men delibertly sliced his glove to buy him more time ?
Originally posted by utherpendragonSavouring era match ups is something real boxing fans treasure and have made a hobby of for several generations. It's mostly a male thing and most enjoyed by guys who grew up reading comics and boys own annuals which inspired imagination in later life.
I understand what you're saying,but they are really not differnt era's when your your comparing fighters 20 to 30 yrs apart. Joe Louis maybe being the exception. Comparing say Corbett to Holyfield ,John L Sullivan to Tyson sounds ludicrous.But, matching up a fantasy fight between Marciano,Ali is plausable.Or,Ali Tyson. The formers would win in both o ...[text shortened]... f years there. The fighters in his time were a much much tougher breed of cat than now as well
One has to disregard the late career fights of the greats. Those matches were pocket money for the promoters to bring on new meat as they dumped the old. The Mafia used to run and fix fights, who owns the promoters today, we don't know but the fans get a raw deal. 3 or 4 crowns and split titles and no one wants to fight.
When you look at the post 1980 fighters and you examine how the promoters spent so much time avoiding fights and avoiding opponents, then still turn out their charges in poor condition and swear they'll win the rematch you have to throw in the towel.
There are thousands of very informed forum threads to this subject and nearly all agree that the promoters ruined boxing in the 80s.
Given the right trainers and the right promotion I'm sure the Tysons and Lennox-Lewis's from the later era would have been allowed to show their worth.
Tyson was the most fearsome thing I ever saw get in the ring. Foreman had the kind of persona of Primo Carnera without the killer air about him, but I'm sure Tyson's management played the bad boy image and took it to ludicrous lengths with the biting etc. It simply wasn't good for their pockets when no one wanted to get in the ring with him. Had he continued to win in the manner he did opponents would have dried up completely. We'll never know just how mental Tyson was or whether it was fixed as in: "If you wanna stay outa jail boy bite the bastd"
In Marciano's era the promotors would have always found big guys willing to get in their and slug it out. It would work for business today as they stage cage fighting and slug fests. The boxing fans are not getting value and neither are the boxers.
Three times Olympic Champ, Felix Savon of Cuba stayed amateur until he retired in his early 30s, one wonders if he wasn't right. Cuba as a nation loves boxing; they hated the pro scene's cheats.