Ali the most overrated champ
Matthew Kowalski
Every time I hear some sportscaster talking about Muhammad Ali
like he was some sort of god or something, I want to laugh. Ali
was certainly the BEST-MARKETED champ ever, and he was the most
popular among NON-BOXING fans, but no way can he really be considerd
"The Greatest". Foreman should probably rank ahead of him historically,
regardless of the "Rumble in the Jungle". Consider this:
- Liston quit in the 1964 fight without any bad injury or punishment.
Why? Some say he was not in shape etc, didn't expect the fight to
last that long.....some say he threw the fight. In any case, the
reason he was defending against 19-0 Clay was that there were no
really good fighters on the scene then. ALi's defenses from 1964-
1967 were mostly against has-beens or no names like Brian London.
- The second Liston fight was probably fixed. I know it will
never be settled for sure, but Liston has admitted he could have got
up. It's in Sports Illustrated.
- The first time Ali fought a good champ in his prime (Frazier
1971) Ali got beat! His rematches with Frazier were after Joe had
lost his confidence and interest in Jamaica 1973, Jan.22
- ALi never won a solid victory over Ken Norton. The last fight
was especially a ripoff. Norton lasted 2 rounds with Foreman, one
round with Shavers and Cooney. Nuff said?
- The 1978 fight with Leon Spinks were a farce. Spinks was unranked,
with 7 pro fights, would be KOby 1 Gerrie Coetzee, KOby 3 Holmes. Ali
had 2 close fights. At least the WBC called a joke a joke.
I could go on some more...but you get my point. I don't deny that
Ali was a good boxer, a fierce competitor etc. But his success was
mostly due to wise management - fighting the right opponent at the right time.
When ALi beat Foreman - probably his biggest win - Foreman's handlers were
incompetant - they could have tightened the ropes butthey didn't. Foreman
was not mentally prepared and his inexperience sank him. Ali fought a
smart fight, and then was smart enuf to NEVER give George a rematch.
AT age 38, Ali was washed up, Holmes carried him to round 11 out of pure
mercy. If Ali were fighting at age 46 like George is, and WINNING, we
would have whole newspapers full of stories singing his praises.
Darren Hellmut Lebisch
I need a good laugh,
Darren.
Undergraduate
>From: phys...@waikato.ac.nz (Geoff Foster)
>Subject: Re: Ali the most overrated champ
>Date: 27 Mar 1995 02:23:14 GMT
>In article <3l064g$n...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mkow...@prairienet.org (Matthew Kowalski) writes:
>>
>> Every time I hear some sportscaster talking about Muhammad Ali
>> like he was some sort of god or something, I want to laugh. Ali
>> was certainly the BEST-MARKETED champ ever, and he was the most
>> popular among NON-BOXING fans, but no way can he really be considerd
>> "The Greatest".
>Its not April 1 yet.
>Geoff.
Its quite obvious that you sir have no knowledge of the sport .
Joe Beaton
ever. He may have been a good heavyweight but he was no where
near the best. Hell, everyone knew that Sonny Liston won and
lost fights whenever he was told. Sonny Liston was one of the
toughest/meanest heavyweights ever (even Howard Cosell said he was
the only man that he was afraid to interview). Ray Arcell and a
couple of other trainers said that the Ali-Foreman fight was not legit.
Ali threw the fight to Spinks just so he could win it back (remember
how quickly they signed for a rematch - it was all planned). Hell,
Ali was the 1st heavyweight to regain the title 3 times...SO WHAT.
Joe Louis could have lost and won it back 10 times but he chose
to hang on to it for (I believe) 10 years! Remember the fight with
Ken Norton? Norton got robbed...
Ali was a good heavyweight who was good for boxing (except for such
infrequent fighting) but he was nowhere near the best.
jeff g.
: Every time I hear some sportscaster talking about Muhammad Ali
: like he was some sort of god or something, I want to laugh. Ali
: was certainly the BEST-MARKETED champ ever, and he was the most
: popular among NON-BOXING fans, but no way can he really be considerd
: "The Greatest". Foreman should probably rank ahead of him historically,
: regardless of the "Rumble in the Jungle". Consider this:
Indeed, consider the usual revisioinist claptrap.
Let's consider Sports llustrated, your own source. In it, Norton
described, in the article covering the falling out with his son the
linebacker, how Ali was his least favorite fighter to face , "because he
hit me so many times."
Consider that jack Johnson, Buster Douglas, and a few others over the
years have said "I coulda gotten up." Fine, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY?
Brian London? What about Cleveland Wiliams? Ernie Terrell? Quarry was
quite highly regarded until Ali took him apart. Ali was quick , he could
step into an opponent at the same time he was unloading a right. He had
great defense, and a variety of defensive tactics to choose from.
Even Big George says now he had a million excuses after their fight.
Poisoned food, exhaustion, conspiracies, on and on. Fact is, he was
outsmarted.
You'll never look too clever taking shots at boxing's, as well as all of
sports', favorite icon. Definitely NOT overrated. It sounds more like
you are repeating somebody else's nonsense, rather than having done your
own homework. My video collection of Ali fights, especially those
v=covering the sixties, indicate he was GREAT. I pull them out and watch
them whenever I need inspiration.
jeff g.
James Foster
: You're a joke. I'd love to hear some of your opinions on other topics.
: I need a good laugh,
: Darren.
True that I don't agree with the original poster, but if you read it
carefully you'll see that there was some thought behind his post
(unlike yours??). Personally I find it interesting when someone comes
along and challenges the status quo (that ali was a bad mother fucker)
with some intelligent arguments.
--
___
/ 0 0 \
========oo0=(_)=0oo===========
|\--------------------------/|
|| Chad Foster ||
|| jcf...@silver.sdsmt.edu ||
|| (605) 394-2775 ||
|/------.ooo0---------------\|
========( )=0ooo.===========
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
David James Algranati
Joe Beaton <bea...@rl.af.mil> wrote:
>You've got to be kidding! Ali IS the most overrated heavyweight
>ever. He may have been a good heavyweight but he was no where
>near the best. Hell, everyone knew that Sonny Liston won and
>lost fights whenever he was told. Sonny Liston was one of the
>toughest/meanest heavyweights ever (even Howard Cosell said he was
>Ali threw the fight to Spinks just so he could win it back (remember
>how quickly they signed for a rematch - it was all planned). Hell,
>Ali was the 1st heavyweight to regain the title 3 times...SO WHAT.
>
>infrequent fighting) but he was nowhere near the best.
>
>
>
Joe, what the hell are you talking about. You just managed to say that
all 3 of Ali's title victories were fixed. You supplied much evidence
for this, such as "Ray Arcell said" , "everybody knows" and the quickness
of the Ali-Spinks rematch. You neglected to explain the injuries
suffered by Liston. You also neglected to explain why Foreman would be
content making peanuts as an ex-champ instead of the current champ. Did
Ali guarentee Foreman a percentage of his earnings? Or did Foreman know
that he would regain the title twenty years later, so it was okay to lose
it to Ali? Also, you failed to realize that for Spinks, Ali was the only
big money fight. Spinks knew that he was limited (hell, he drew with
LeDoux), and he had a better chance to beat Ali than Norton or anybody else.
Joe, please try to think about what your saying before you post it.
Either that or support your claim better.
David
Matador
kor...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (David James Algranati) wrote:
>
>Joe, please try to think about what your saying before you post it.
>Either that or support your claim better.
>
>David
You forgot to mention that Joe Louis' reign included several years during the
war where he didn't fight. He also had several questionable title defenses.
( )______( )
\________/
(o )(o )
--UUUU-UUUU--
___/\_________ / \ \
___ \______ / \ M \
| / \ A \
___ O\ | / \ T \
| / \ D \
___ \ | / \ O \
\_|\_o| / \ R \
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew Kowalski
Tho the discussion about how great was so-and-so etc is always a
subjective one, I HAVE done my my homework, and have studied boxing
for close to 22 years now. And the worst thing about the ALi-Foreman
fight is probably that Don King stood to make more money if Ali won it,
so Ali won it. I did NOT say the fight was fixed. Foreman did lose
legit, in my opinion. But the circumstances make all the diff. Foreman's
management was incompetant to put him in that fight at that point in
his career - George had fought only 3 fights against top-notch guys:
Chuvalo, Frazier, and Norton. He won all 3 quickly and was not tested
much. His handlers did not tighten the ropes or prepare for a defensive
fighter like Ali. Look at the films - George moves like a robot.
Somebody told him to just go out and knock Ali out quick, something he
COULD NOT DO with Greg Peralta. Foreman won't say this stuff publicly -
it would sound like sour grapes. That's why I am saying it!
Matthew Kowalski
Yes, it is true that the question "WHo was the best?" is pretty
much subjective and can never be answered for sure. That's why it's
so fun to debate.
But there are still other questions about the second ALi-Liston
fight. Ali reacted with surprise when Liston went down. Photos of
Liston don't show him as "out cold" tho I know this doesn't proove
that much. And Liston's own explanation was more intended to prove
that he didn't throw the fight...not to prove that he was really
knocked out.
Taurus
>By the third round, every time Foreman caught Ali in a corner, he was flinching
>and closing his eyes, ready for the punches he knew were too fast for him to
>stop.
>
>I gave Ali every round. In fact, I watched the tape for the first time
>expecting to see Ali take some absolutely brutal punishment, which is what
>everyone including Foreman and Ali said.
I saw George at an interview, not too long ago. He said, Ali had the
hardest punhes of anyone he ever fought.
And, if you have tapes, slow them down, Ali was not throwing single
punches or jabs very often. I think he was one of the best, ever.
And, I believe Tyson is too. But, Mike has too many screws loose.
King will get him money, but he may not ever be the champ he could have been.
Herm
Matador
phys...@waikato.ac.nz (Geoff Foster) wrote:
>In article <3lfvof$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, mkow...@prairienet.org (Matthew
Kowalski) writes:
>Foreman had some of the best management in the business. He was incredibly
well
>trained to fight Ali. Look at the way he cuts off the ring in the first few
rounds,
>he was there to save energy, wear Ali down, and knock him. But no, Ali figures
it
>out and changes his strategy, have a look at how Dundee acts in Ali's corner,
even
>he couldn't figure out what Ali was doing! Ali new he couldn't go twelve
rounds on
>his feet anymore, and win a fight against someone as good as Foreman. So he
takes
>the tough route, he changes tactics and takes Foremans best punches, he roles
as
>much with the punches as he can, tries slipping them,
Maybe I just don't know what I am talking about, but I have heard this
description before, and I just don't agree with it. I have the tape "The Rumble
in the Jungle", and all I saw was a tentative Foreman walking straight in with
his hands clumsily out in front of him, cornering a retreating Ali, and getting
the hell beat out of him when he finally caught him.
By the third round, every time Foreman caught Ali in a corner, he was flinching
and closing his eyes, ready for the punches he knew were too fast for him to
stop.
I gave Ali every round. In fact, I watched the tape for the first time
expecting to see Ali take some absolutely brutal punishment, which is what
everyone including Foreman and Ali said.
Anybody else got an opinion (he said innocently).
Geoff Foster
Foreman had some of the best management in the business. He was incredibly well
trained to fight Ali. Look at the way he cuts off the ring in the first few rounds,
he was there to save energy, wear Ali down, and knock him. But no, Ali figures it
out and changes his strategy, have a look at how Dundee acts in Ali's corner, even
he couldn't figure out what Ali was doing! Ali new he couldn't go twelve rounds on
his feet anymore, and win a fight against someone as good as Foreman. So he takes
the tough route, he changes tactics and takes Foremans best punches, he roles as
much with the punches as he can, tries slipping them, but he's there to make Foreman
punch himself out. In the process he takes a real beating, but he keeps talking to
Foreman, working on breaking down his less experienced oponent. Ali went into that
fight (any fight) mentally prepared to take whatever he had to to win, Foreman
displayed that in his last fight against Moorer. He went into that fight ready to
take whatever he had for the possibility that he would get one chance. If Ali
didn't prove how much guts he had losing to Norton in there first fight, or for
getting backup after getting knocked down by a textbook left hook in the 15th
round losing against Frazier, he certainly proved it in this fight.
Now how many more years of preparation would have Foreman needed to beat Ali? Just
because Ali was good looking, had a nice smile, was friendly, was a "runner", doesn't
mean that he wasn't one of the toughest fighters around, because he was.
Geoff.
Lee M. Tokuda
>
> Tho the discussion about how great was so-and-so etc is always a
>subjective one, I HAVE done my my homework, and have studied boxing
>for close to 22 years now. And the worst thing about the ALi-Foreman
>fight is probably that Don King stood to make more money if Ali won it,
>so Ali won it. I did NOT say the fight was fixed. Foreman did lose
>legit, in my opinion. But the circumstances make all the diff. Foreman's
>management was incompetant to put him in that fight at that point in
>his career - George had fought only 3 fights against top-notch guys:
>Chuvalo, Frazier, and Norton. He won all 3 quickly and was not tested
>much. His handlers did not tighten the ropes or prepare for a defensive
>fighter like Ali. Look at the films - George moves like a robot.
>Somebody told him to just go out and knock Ali out quick, something he
>COULD NOT DO with Greg Peralta. Foreman won't say this stuff publicly -
>it would sound like sour grapes. That's why I am saying it!
Well, you seem to be correct with the facts but I'm not so sure about
your conclusions. Statements like "cicumstances make all the difference"
seems to imply that "history would have been different if . . . " but
ultimately doesn't tell us anything. I haven't seen one boxing match
in my life where circumstances didn't make a difference. Yeah,
it's easy to call Foreman's management incompetent now because he
lost. But everyone has 20-20 hindsight. Foreman wasn't tested by
the top notch contenders you mentioned because he was simply too good
for them (and two of then had already beaten Ali). So why shouldn't
Foreman and his camp have been confident about his chances? Besides,
I think if you proclaim yourself to be the "baddest man on the planet",
you should be prepared to take on all commers. "You're too good for
me now, but I'll fight you later" just doesn't endear fans to boxers
(just ask Pernell Whitaker). As for the ropes, I'm not sure what
point you're trying to make. You make it sound like the ropes could
have been tightened more? As far as I know, the ropes were designed
to be used for a larger ring. They were tightened as much as possible
before the fight but the ropes were still loose. I believe that Angelo
Dundee even complained about how loose the ropes were so he, in this
case, was just as "incompetent" as Foreman's managers. As for
the fight itself, it went just the way Foreman had wanted it.
He was able to cut off the ring an Ali and keep him stationary against
the ropes or in the corner. What Foreman didn't know, and what no one
knew at the time, was that Ali could take everything Foreman had to
offer, both to the head and to the body. Foreman had Ali just where
he wanted him and still lost.
Lee
Joe Beaton
are opinions and I've stated my opinion - I think Ali was very over rated.
How come Ali couldn't do that rope-a-dope crap against anyone else? C'mon, big George
never hit him cleanly while Ali leaned back against the ropes - hell, I could have hit
Ali. How come no one else has been able to do this? Remember when fighters tried that
type of stradegy against Marciano? Cripe - he killed them and George could hit harder than
the Rock (in my opinion). No way could Ali beat Sonny Liston, no way. Liston was a
killer fighter who unfortunately, was in with the wrong crowd.
Again, it is my opinion that Ali was very overrated. He was good for boxing but he wasn't
close to being 'the greatest'...
Dean Cashen
>
>Maybe I just don't know what I am talking about, but I have heard this
>description before, and I just don't agree with it. I have the tape
>"The Rumble in the Jungle", and all I saw was a tentative Foreman
>a retreating Ali, and getting the hell beat out of him when he
>finally caught him.
>
>By the third round, every time Foreman caught Ali in a corner, he
>was flinching and closing his eyes, ready for the punches he knew
>were too fast for him to stop.
>
>I gave Ali every round. In fact, I watched the tape for the first time
>expecting to see Ali take some absolutely brutal punishment, which is what
>everyone including Foreman and Ali said.
>
>Anybody else got an opinion (he said innocently).
I, mostly, agree. I'd seen the fight a few times over the years,
catching it on TV, and eventually bought the "Rumble" tape myself.
I was surprised that now, as I sat and watched it closely, I didn't
see what I had always thought I saw before: Ali getting the
heck beat out of him, and only countering "by chance," managing
at the end to spin off the ropes and hit Foreman with a few
"lucky" punches to win the fight. Watching it now, I too
gave Ali most (not all) of the rounds, and to me he clearly
controlled the fight from early on. I could see Foreman
lose confidence and composure as the fight progressed into
the 3rd and 4th rounds. His lack of experience showed in
his fatigue and his inability to change his singular strategy,
"knock him out with one punch." This strategy worked for him
up to this fight, and he didn't seem to have anything to fall
back on.
I was glad I took a closer look at this fight, Ali's always been
one of my favorites, and I was astonished just how *good* he was
to beat Foreman so convincingly. I was especially glad because
I'd never really watched the fight closely before and so believed
Ali had more-or-less won by chance. I hadn't given him the credit
he deserved.
r...@waikato.ac.nz
I think it only fair to advise you that, with your claim that
Ali's fights were fixed, you are making a fool of yourself across
the world. Take up something else.
Best wishes,
Raymond
Matthew Kowalski
I have never denied that Ali was a good, smart boxer. My original
point was that ALi should not be ranked as the demi-god he seems to
have become nowdays. If he beat Foreman so easily, why did he never
give George a rematch? All of Ali's other "big-money" opponents
got second or third fights, except Foreman.
I claim that Ali ducked Foreman because he knew the Jungle fight
was a fluke that he could not duplicate. When Foreman KO'd Lyle
and Frazier in 1976 he was the #1 contender, and clearly the best
around. That's why Ring mag gave him fighter of the year for
1976. When George lost to Jimmy Young a year later, he had
lost interest in the sport, because he knew by then that Ali
would never fight him again.
I also forgot to mention that Young pretty much outboxed Ali
in 1976, but was robbed of the decision because he was such
a relative unknown.
David James Algranati
Matthew Kowalski <mkow...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>
> I have never denied that Ali was a good, smart boxer. My original
>point was that ALi should not be ranked as the demi-god he seems to
>have become nowdays. If he beat Foreman so easily, why did he never
>give George a rematch? All of Ali's other "big-money" opponents
>got second or third fights, except Foreman.
From what I understand, the Foreman-Ali II bout was slated, and all
Foreman had to do was beat Jimmy Young.
> I claim that Ali ducked Foreman because he knew the Jungle fight
>was a fluke that he could not duplicate. When Foreman KO'd Lyle
>and Frazier in 1976 he was the #1 contender, and clearly the best
>around. That's why Ring mag gave him fighter of the year for
>1976. When George lost to Jimmy Young a year later, he had
>lost interest in the sport, because he knew by then that Ali
>would never fight him again.
This would be against my point above. I was about a year old for
Young-Foreman, but I read a book on Jimmy Young (it was a children's book
about young {I'M NOT KIDDING!}), and in it was mention of Ali-Foreman II,
after the Foreman-Young bout. George lost, then retired, and didn't get
the fight.
David
Geoff Foster
> Matthew Kowalski <mkow...@prairienet.org> wrote:
> >
> > I have never denied that Ali was a good, smart boxer. My original
> >point was that ALi should not be ranked as the demi-god he seems to
> >have become nowdays. If he beat Foreman so easily, why did he never
> >give George a rematch? All of Ali's other "big-money" opponents
> >got second or third fights, except Foreman.
> >was a fluke that he could not duplicate. When Foreman KO'd Lyle
> >and Frazier in 1976 he was the #1 contender, and clearly the best
> >around. That's why Ring mag gave him fighter of the year for
> >1976. When George lost to Jimmy Young a year later, he had
> >lost interest in the sport, because he knew by then that Ali
> >would never fight him again.
has enough sense not to... Few other athletes can match the accomplishments
of Ali, he was in the top scene from about 63-78. Thats 15 years at the top.
He isn't just a demi-god now, he was then. When he fought the Fraziers, Nortons,
Formans, he was well past his prime, but he still won. For goodness stakes get
a video of his pre enforced layoff and look at the skills the man had, they were
phenomenal. You'll never see a guy that big look that good. Liston was made for
Clay/Ali, Liston was a big guy (maybe not by Riddick Bowe standards) who wasn't
terribly fast, but very strong.
Geoff
Lee M. Tokuda
>
> I have never denied that Ali was a good, smart boxer. My original
>point was that ALi should not be ranked as the demi-god he seems to
>have become nowdays. If he beat Foreman so easily, why did he never
>give George a rematch? All of Ali's other "big-money" opponents
>got second or third fights, except Foreman.
> I claim that Ali ducked Foreman because he knew the Jungle fight
>was a fluke that he could not duplicate. When Foreman KO'd Lyle
>and Frazier in 1976 he was the #1 contender, and clearly the best
>around. That's why Ring mag gave him fighter of the year for
>1976. When George lost to Jimmy Young a year later, he had
>lost interest in the sport, because he knew by then that Ali
>would never fight him again.
>in 1976, but was robbed of the decision because he was such
>a relative unknown.
In 1976, Ali was about 34 and had been in pro boxing for about 16
years. If you define a boxers career by who they lose to (or in
this case, who you feel they should/would have lost to) in their
mid-thirties, then you can trash just about any boxing legend you
want to. Remember that Ali's prime years were in the 60's. The
70's were icing on the cake.
Lee
Joe Beaton
Like I said before, it is my 'opinion' that the Ali-Foreman fight
was not legit and well as the Ali-Liston. No way could Ali beat
Liston or Foreman...
Taurus
.
>He was able to cut off the ring an Ali and keep him stationary against
>the ropes or in the corner. What Foreman didn't know, and what no one
>knew at the time, was that Ali could take everything Foreman had to
>offer, both to the head and to the body. Foreman had Ali just where
>he wanted him and still lost.
Er... I disagree. You say Foreman had Ali just where he wanted him, and
still lost. Not the way I saw it, to me, Ali had Foreman where he wanted
him. And won the fight because of it. Ali could take a punch, many of
them. And he did. Foreman was not used to going any distance. Ali
had him baffled. By the way, George has said that Ali had the hardest
punch of anyone he ever fought. He said this not too long ago.
I think Ali in his prime, against Tyson in his prime would be an
excellent fight. I would give the edge, a slight one, to Ali, because
I think he had the greater skills, and was the better boxer. But I
wouldn't put money on it. Mike is no slouch.
Taurus
>
>How come Ali couldn't do that rope-a-dope crap against anyone else? C'mon, big George
>never hit him cleanly while Ali leaned back against the ropes - hell, I could have hit
>Ali. How come no one else has been able to do this? Remember when fighters tried that
>type of stradegy against Marciano? Cripe - he killed them and George could hit harder than
>the Rock (in my opinion). No way could Ali beat Sonny Liston, no way. Liston was a
>killer fighter who unfortunately, was in with the wrong crowd.
Sure, anyone could hit Ali, that he wanted to be hit by. Liston? And what
have you ever heard about him since?
Rob Wiese
>From: s90...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Jason Lu)
>Subject: Re: Ali the most overrated champ
>bea...@rl.af.mil (Joe Beaton) writes:
>>I totally agree with you Matt, Ali is way overrated.
>>Like I said before, it is my 'opinion' that the Ali-Foreman fight
>>was not legit and well as the Ali-Liston. No way could Ali beat
>>Liston or Foreman...
>Technically speaking, that's balderdash.
> Clay knocked Liston out in the first round of their rematch. As
>for Foreman, he punched himself out trying to bash through Ali's arms
>instead of picking the gaps.
Foreman said as much in the interview before the Moorer fight. Said
explicitly that he fought Ali 'stupidly'.
And another thing. It pisses me off that you (beaton, et al) want to
smear Ali, Foreman, Liston et al. Your 'surface speculation' about what
occoured then ('everyone *knows* liston was dirty') disgust me. I loved
when John (or who ever) pointed out that Foreman lost then quit the game
before Forman-Ali II could happen, rather than your speculation that Ali was
avoiding the fight.
Great, say what you think, but Have Some Real Evidence When Youre Smearing
Someones Name! Or get some guts and tell it to them directly. Either
approach I can respect.
Otherwise I can spend some time in a bar and get similar theories from the
drunk two stools down.
Rob
Jason Lu
>I totally agree with you Matt, Ali is way overrated.
>Like I said before, it is my 'opinion' that the Ali-Foreman fight
>was not legit and well as the Ali-Liston. No way could Ali beat
>Liston or Foreman...
Technically speaking, that's balderdash.
Clay knocked Liston out in the first round of their rematch. As
for Foreman, he punched himself out trying to bash through Ali's arms
instead of picking the gaps.
--
o__ o_ _o o_
<| Jason L <|__ /> email: ja...@rmit.edu.au <|__\ !crack!
/> ------- u | /| comeherecomeherecomeherecomeheregoaway \ /
Lee M. Tokuda
>In article <3lkks9$a...@ns1.nba.TRW.COM>, tok...@etdesg.trw.com says...
>.
>>He was able to cut off the ring an Ali and keep him stationary against
>>the ropes or in the corner. What Foreman didn't know, and what no one
>>knew at the time, was that Ali could take everything Foreman had to
>>offer, both to the head and to the body. Foreman had Ali just where
>>he wanted him and still lost.
>
>
>Er... I disagree. You say Foreman had Ali just where he wanted him, and
>still lost. Not the way I saw it, to me, Ali had Foreman where he wanted
>him. And won the fight because of it. Ali could take a punch, many of
>them. And he did. Foreman was not used to going any distance. Ali
>had him baffled. By the way, George has said that Ali had the hardest
>punch of anyone he ever fought. He said this not too long ago.
I agree with your point about Ali. But there was a distinct difference
between what each fighters' goal was going into the fight and the goals
they had as fight progressed. Before the fight, Foreman goal was to
cut off the ring and trap Ali against the ropes. He did that. Ali's
goal was to box and move. He couldn't do that. Thus, Ali changed his
goal to doing the rope-a-dope. Ali found that he was much more
successful using the rope-a-dope so you're right, Ali now had Foreman
where he wanted him. At the same time, however, George had Ali where
he wanted him, stuck against the ropes. Its like a dog chasing a rabbit,
cornering it, and having the rabbit turn around and beat the hell out of
the dog.
Its very possible for two figthers to each be in the position they want
to be with one fighter getting the better of it. I think this is the
case with Ali-Foreman.
Looking back, Foreman says he had the wrong attitude (goal) that night.
Instead of comming in and trying to pummel Ali into submission, he thinks
he should have stepped back and forced Ali to try to take the title away
from him (ala Holyfield-Holmes). 20 years ago, Foreman had Ali where
he wanted him; But in retrospect, Foreman realizes that he shouldn't have
wanted what he had.
Lee
taursu
>Looking back, Foreman says he had the wrong attitude (goal) that night.
>Instead of comming in and trying to pummel Ali into submission, he thinks
>he should have stepped back and forced Ali to try to take the title away
>from him (ala Holyfield-Holmes). 20 years ago, Foreman had Ali where
>he wanted him; But in retrospect, Foreman realizes that he shouldn't have
>wanted what he had.
Ok, I can go along with this.
This is one of the reasons Ali was so good. He was not tied to one plan.
He had the ability to change. George was good enough to force Ali to take
it away.
Ali was always quick to see an opportunity, and take it.
Herm
sirmo...@gmail.com
stonethe...@gmail.com
Tony
> .
>
I would say without a shadow of a doubt Joe Calzaghe was the most
overrated champ probably of all time. Undefeated but fought mostly no
one and had he fought Roy Jones Junior when he was in his prime would
have not seen the fourth round. Hopkins was also aged at the time. He
basically fought no one except Roy Jones whose reflexes were shot and
should have retired and an aged Hopkins.
Emanuel Berg
> I would say without a shadow of a doubt Joe Calzaghe
> was the most overrated champ probably of all time.
> Undefeated but fought mostly no one and had he
> fought Roy Jones Junior when he was in his prime
> would have not seen the fourth round.
But obviously Roy Jones Jr. was amazing in every
way...
> Hopkins was also aged at the time. He basically
> fought no one except Roy Jones whose reflexes were
> shot and should have retired and an aged Hopkins.
a good, ugly fight what I remember. Calzaghe landed
virtually nothing to Hopkins' unmarked head, something
Hopkins did not fail to mention. Also, Calzaghe was
down in one of the early rounds.
I think beating (defeating) those guys is pretty
damn impressive.
But I don't know - what does it mean to be
"overrated"? Is that in the eyes of Joe Six Pack or in
terms of boxing? Or both?
In terms of boxing I think everyone mentioned deserve
his reputation.
Also, remember that there are many "champs", some of
which not even boxing fans have heard of - does that
mean they are overrated (as champs) or underrated (as
unknown fighters)?
--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Juan Anonly
> But I don't know - what does it mean to be
> "overrated"? Is that in the eyes of Joe Six Pack or in
> terms of boxing? Or both?
chocolate or a "pretty" day is.
tempe...@gmail.com
> You're a joke. I'd love to hear some of your opinions on other topics.
>
> I need a good laugh,
>
>
> Darren.
what at a honest accessment of Cassius clay's true lack of fight finness?