Greatest boxer ever?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brunow
  • Start date Start date
spinks.jpg


1135178886_9280.jpg



never really here leon spinks name thrown around on any kind of forums,seriously how does one go from making all that money to blowing it and living under the poverty line
 
There are alot of a good boxers. But the best is Rocky Marciano hands down.

Why? he fought mostly washed up old men, nearly losing many of them, and only defended his title a few times.

What I respect is the number of quality wins AFTER a fighter has reached the elite level

Marciano only had 7 title fights, and two of those were rematches. Heck, Floyd's undefeated record is far more impressive.
 
Prime jones, beat the best in his generation and made fools of them at the same time goat imo.
 
My favorite Muhammad Ali/Joe Louis moment.

I saw a tv interview where the Louisville Lip Muhammad Ali lost the verbal battle, a real rarity.
The Great Joe Louis was the man who shut him down.

Ali basically told Louis that Louis fought a bunch of bums when he went on that "Bum-of-the-Month" tour.

Joe Louis:
"You would've been on that tour."

Ali:
"You callin' me a bum?"

Joe Louis:
"No...but you would've been on that tour."



Louis says it so deadpan; it was hilarious !

Ali's falling out with Joe Louis happened over Ali's stance on the Vietnam war and his refusal to be inducted into the armed forces.

Joe believed America had given Ali so much, and that Ali ought to support his country.
 
Prime jones, beat the best in his generation and made fools of them at the same time goat imo.

the only problem with jones is that he didn't have any great rivalries to help define his legacy. also, he never really had to dig down and battle back from adversity to win (which is a career-defining attribute). you could argue that's because he was so much better & dominant, but you'll find that the guys who are widely considered the best (robinson, pep, armstrong, greb, louis, ali etc.) have proven they can deal with adversity time and time again.
 
the only problem with jones is that he didn't have any great rivalries to help define his legacy. also, he never really had to dig down and battle back from adversity to win (which is a career-defining attribute). you could argue that's because he was so much better & dominant, but you'll find that the guys who are widely considered the best (robinson, pep, armstrong, greb, louis, ali etc.) have proven they can deal with adversity time and time again.

yeah, but i'd agree with what you said he never dug deep, but that goes with the way he fought but in his prime as you said he never had to, in any era i have never seen such precision, power and speed at his best he was the perfect boxer, that is the problem with him though he won't get new coaches because he doesn't want to take orders from inferiors, and he doesn't want to put the effort in as much as he feels he has no need, such a shame the fallen hero.
 
My favorite Muhammad Ali/Joe Louis moment.

I saw a tv interview where the Louisville Lip Muhammad Ali lost the verbal battle, a real rarity.
The Great Joe Louis was the man who shut him down.

Ali basically told Louis that Louis fought a bunch of bums when he went on that "Bum-of-the-Month" tour.

Joe Louis:
"You would've been on that tour."

Ali:
"You callin' me a bum?"

Joe Louis:
"No...but you would've been on that tour."



Louis says it so deadpan; it was hilarious !

Ali's falling out with Joe Louis happened over Ali's stance on the Vietnam war and his refusal to be inducted into the armed forces.

Joe believed America had given Ali so much, and that Ali ought to support his country.


over the war huh? well I can believe that after all "We're gonna win 'cause we're on God's side".



that is a great rebuttal what year was this in? and do you have a link to the interview
 
yeah, but i'd agree with what you said he never dug deep, but that goes with the way he fought but in his prime as you said he never had to, in any era i have never seen such precision, power and speed at his best he was the perfect boxer, that is the problem with him though he won't get new coaches because he doesn't want to take orders from inferiors, and he doesn't want to put the effort in as much as he feels he has no need, such a shame the fallen hero.

it's true. he had an over-abundace of gifts that made him inspiring & dazzling to watch. the tragedy about roy is we will never know just how good he really was because he was never really tested. the closest we have is when he was D-Q'ed in his first fight with montell griffin. he was in a rough fight, and was actually looking good right before the disqualification. he had to put on a bunch of muscle (for the ruiz fight) and then lose it (for the tarver fights) for us to see the human side of jones. i seriously believe cutting that muscle, putting his body through that torture, helped prematurely age him and destroy his speed and reflexes.

i was very happy with him in his recent loss to calzaghe, because it was the first time he really took a sustained beating while bleeding to a ridiculous degree, only to keep fighting through it. if anything, that fight showed how he could have possibly reacted had this happened 10 years ago, but, alas, we will never know...
 
I have seen different sources that range from 6 seconds to 6 minutes,the british magazine boxing news conducted an investigation into how much time was actually recieved by reviewing old tapes and old radio broadcasts and it was concluded that ali recieved no more time than any other would a minute and a bit is more than enough time to fix a tear


http://www.saddoboxing.com/3416-boxing-history-cassius-clay-vs-henry-cooper.html


The Time Tunnel: Remembering Cassius Clay- Henry Cooper


both men befited from it ali was allowed to regain compusure i will admit that,coopers cut man was allowed to fix coopers cut

however the alleged time is ridiculous,and yes video footage can be editing but it can also be editing to benefit both cooper and ali

close doesnt mean B.S decisions

the second norton fight was about as close as the first both close fights with both clear winners


now you are clearly being biased the second frazier fight was not at all close it was a clear win for ali,frazier won maybe 2 rounds bad example

shavers was a close fight but again ali won it fairly shavers could have finished ali but he backed off after hurting ali in the second round he has even stated this himself he backed off because he assumed that ali was fegning an injury

by round 12 ali was up 8-4

ernie had a good round 13 and 14 and if he had done well in round 15 he may very well of won that fight but he didnt


please explain me how there was no way ali won the third fight? norton didnt dominate the entire fight

after 8 rounds i would say he was comfortably ahead by 6-2 but after round 8 he stopped fighting,the fight doesnt end after 8 rounds after the 8th round norton won only one round
ali dominated the entire second half

now if norton had kept to his original game plan he would have won easily and even if he had won round 15 he well could have won


if the judges had given norton the win or it had been ruled a draw then i thought that would have been a fair decisionjust as i felt ali did more than enough to win that fight

now maybe the UNANIMOUS decision was B.S but the decision itself wasnt anytime you have a very close fight it's not bullshit


jimmy young i have yet to see that fight although from what i gather ali was horrible so fair enough you got that one

I looked at a bit of the first article you posted, and all I'm seeing is something based on the same video you and I have seen, which again, is something I'm not sure I trust due to the fact that it may have been editted. Who knows?

What I don't understand is why would both Dundee and Ali state in their bios that there was extra time (i.e. "minute(s)") if there was "in fact" only a few extra seconds. Doesn't make sense for them to due so if there was only a few seconds.

I didn't call Frazier II, Norton II, or Shavers "B.S. decisions", although I did view those as being close enough to where I wouldn't argue if they had gone the other way. In fact, when I did score the Ali-Norton rematch I thought Norton edged it by a 6-5-1 margin in rounds, with Ali doing some good work over the first four or five, and Norton doing some really good work over the last half of the fight (checking my old scorecard I had the 7th as a "big" round for Norton for whatever happened in it). Giving Ali a close decision in that one isn't too bad of a deal certainly, although that fight definately wasn't as "clear" as the first fight they had when Norton had won the fight very clearly by at least a four round margin in my eyes (I had it 8-3-1).

Frazier won maybe two rounds? Maybe? Come on, man. Maybe he didn't do quite enough to win the fight, but he did some good work in that one from about the fourth to the tenth or so, and he certainly did win at least three rounds very clearly enough (he rocked Ali on seperate occasions/rounds during the mid portion of the fight), and could have been credit for some more of the 'either way' variety.

Ali-Shavers was very close. Could have gone either way or been scored a draw.

Norton-Ali III (rightful winner listed first) wasn't that close in my eyes, though, as I had it, when all said and done, 145 to 140 for Norton. Like you say, he had a clear advantage in the first half of the fight in winning at least six of those rounds, but unlike yourself, I thought the last half of it was fairly evenly fought with them splitting the rounds about equally. The 12th was a pretty big round for Norton as he hurt Ali in that round...Is that the only one you gave to him or something?

In referring to that fight; "Yeah, I lost. I got beat" - so said Muhammad Ali in the postfight and seen on that video entitled 'Muhammad Ali: The Whole Story', I believe it was.

Like I said, Norton III and the Young fight were the two that I thought were "B.S. decisions".
 
I looked at a bit of the first article you posted, and all I'm seeing is something based on the same video you and I have seen, which again, is something I'm not sure I trust due to the fact that it may have been editted. Who knows?

What I don't understand is why would both Dundee and Ali state in their bios that there was extra time (i.e. "minute(s)") if there was "in fact" only a few extra seconds. Doesn't make sense for them to due so if there was only a few seconds.

I didn't call Frazier II, Norton II, or Shavers "B.S. decisions", although I did view those as being close enough to where I wouldn't argue if they had gone the other way. In fact, when I did score the Ali-Norton rematch I thought Norton edged it by a 6-5-1 margin in rounds, with Ali doing some good work over the first four or five, and Norton doing some really good work over the last half of the fight (checking my old scorecard I had the 7th as a "big" round for Norton for whatever happened in it). Giving Ali a close decision in that one isn't too bad of a deal certainly, although that fight definately wasn't as "clear" as the first fight they had when Norton had won the fight very clearly by at least a four round margin in my eyes (I had it 8-3-1).

Frazier won maybe two rounds? Maybe? Come on, man. Maybe he didn't do quite enough to win the fight, but he did some good work in that one from about the fourth to the tenth or so, and he certainly did win at least three rounds very clearly enough (he rocked Ali on seperate occasions/rounds during the mid portion of the fight), and could have been credit for some more of the 'either way' variety.

Ali-Shavers was very close. Could have gone either way or been scored a draw.

Norton-Ali III (rightful winner listed first) wasn't that close in my eyes, though, as I had it, when all said and done, 145 to 140 for Norton. Like you say, he had a clear advantage in the first half of the fight in winning at least six of those rounds, but unlike yourself, I thought the last half of it was fairly evenly fought with them splitting the rounds about equally. The 12th was a pretty big round for Norton as he hurt Ali in that round...Is that the only one you gave to him or something?

In referring to that fight; "Yeah, I lost. I got beat" - so said Muhammad Ali in the postfight and seen on that video entitled 'Muhammad Ali: The Whole Story', I believe it was.

Like I said, Norton III and the Young fight were the two that I thought were "B.S. decisions".



you're entitled to you're opinion as am I,I will still maintain that ali did enough to win the third norton fight

Interview with Ken Norton: Norton Speaks On Fights With Ali


Frank: In your third fight, which was for Ali
 
I'm not sure why you posted this from Norton, although that was one round that I agreed with the judges on who won it, as Norton's late rally in the round wasn't quite enough to take the round in my eyes after Ali controlled the first two-thirds of it. It was the other fourteen rounds and the final outcome that I disagreed with when it came to the judging of that fight.

Was that supposed to be an admittance from Norton that he lost or something?

"I was crushed. It was the only time that I've cried since I've been over about eight years old. It was just crushing to me. I knew I had won the fight. He knew I won the fight. The judges knew I won the fight. But yet, they gave it to him." - Norton's comments on the third fight and his views as to who should've won ('Facing Ali', page 179)


not an admittance i am sure he still felt he won but it was just to go with what i said earlier about him slowing down after the 8th round,that his corner had told him too not to avoid being hurt or suffer a cut or something like that even though like he said he felt great
 
not an admittance i am sure he still felt he won but it was just to go with what i said earlier about him slowing down after the 8th round,that his corner had told him too not to avoid being hurt or suffer a cut or something like that even though like he said he felt great

That's only something that illustrates what was said in the corner going into the last round, and really has nothing to do with him "slowing down after the 8th round". Shoot, even in the 15th it was Norton who was the one pressing forward throughout the round while Ali was on his toes moving backwards and around, all the while flicking the jab in Norton's face. Until the last 30 seconds or so when he cornered Ali and let his hands go effectively with some good shots, Norton wasn't landing anything of note, but he was still the one pushing the action in the last round.

Just checking my scorecard for that fight, I had Norton winning the three rounds previous to that last round, with Ali's best work in my eyes coming between the 7th and the 11th when I gave him credit for three of the five rounds fought during that portion (I gave him the 1st, 7th, 9th, 11th, and 15th overall...two "swing" rounds I have marked were split at one each).

Rather than Norton slowing down much, when I last saw it I thought that Ali finally started to put in an effort into winning the fight during the last half of it (Ali did next to nothing for the first six rounds), but it still wasn't nearly enough, and whatever action there was during the last half, I saw Norton giving about as good as he got during those rounds.
 
You mean you haven't heard enough of Armstrong being mentioned over the last week or so?

i'm never sick of hearing about someone who held titles in 3 different weight classes at the same time. it's unheard of. guys like him, greb, langford, pep and a ton of other all-time greats go largely unnoticed most of the time. it's good that generations later, people still remember and respect their impact.
 
Back
Top