Holyfield gets lost in the shuffle, but he deserves to be discussed in the same light as Holmes, Foreman and Lewis. Shoot, come to think of it, Holmes doesn’t get his due either.
No disrespect to the Easton Assassin, but Holmes took over at a time when the division was weak. Same for Michael Spinks. Tyson cleaned it up and the boxers who turned pro from 1984 to 1988 reinvigorated the division again. I’d easily put Riddick Bowe over Holmes, and if he had shown more discipline and had the sport not descended into chaos in the 1990s, Bowe might have been a legend. IIRC I think he only lost a fight - a rematch to Holyfield, which he would avenge with a KO. He never fought Lewis, which means that neither Lewis nor Bowe will ever know who was the supreme fighter. Lewis claims Bowe was ducking him. I’d put Lewis over both Holyfield and Tyson, but Lewis was simply a bigger, rangier fighter. Holyfield is not a true heavyweight, so that he could stand in there and mix it up with Lewis was an accomplishment in and of itself. My point about Holyfield is this: if he had bounced back and forth between light heavy and cruiserweight, he would have retired undefeated. He probably then could have picked his fights in the heavyweight division and retired undefeated there as well. Holyfield was one of the most impressive ever, even if not the most impressive heavyweight ever.
Did he?
My impression is, when he went up against Joe Frazier in the Fight Of The Century, his game plan was “backpedal away, counting on my speed and reach advantages while throwing quick little jab after quick little jab as the bob-and-weave specialist tries to close the distance and clock me with big left hooks.”
The fight then played out exactly as Ali had planned – except that was the wrong plan, because it meant, yeah, Ali would win the first couple of rounds by keeping his distance and pelting Frazier with interruptions; but then Frazier would start winning rounds by getting in close and landing big punches. So, a strategy where you don’t knock down the champ, but the champ knocks you down.
He learned from that loss, and changed tactics in the rematch – but near as I can tell, his whole plan in their first match was “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee; it’s worked before!” (Sure, he pretty much said that before the Foreman fight, and then did the opposite; but he said it before the Frazier fight, and then did it.)
W
.
Don’t see a debate over his status as the best postwar HW. The points set forth in the OP are somewhat biscuit-arsed, and don’t provide a serious framework for contesting that status (with the greatest of respect to my learned friend Fotheringay-Phipps).
Greatest of All Time? Couldn’t say - you need to be a bit of a boxing historian to really have a feel for how the old timers stacked up. Given that it was the zenith of the sport 100 years ago, their achievements should carry a lot of weight in any GOAT discussion, IMO.
You have to recognise, though, that many of Ali’s fights in the 70s that captured the imagination of the general public, were when he was past his prime [he was done by Frazier III in 1975]. He lost three years of his absolute peak, so to achieve what he did is an amazing legacy.
I recently read a commentary about this … basically saying it doesn’t matter if he was the greatest … he said he was and all of us wanted to believe him.
I think that’s really well put.
Regards,
Shodan
There have been persistent rumors that Sonny Liston took a dive and lost to Ali. No way to prove or disprove it. But lets be real. His manager was Don King. One of the most crooked promoters ever.
The rope a dope trick Ali used to defeat Foreman was infuriating to watch. Afterward Ali cashed in with easy fights and refused to fight Foreman again.
I grew up watching this guy. A lot of people cheered when Ken Norton broke his jaw.
I never was that impressed with the guy’s skills as a boxer. Yeah, he was one hell of a loudmouth and showman.
Ali gained a lot of respect after he left boxing. The years he spent fighting Parkinson’s disease. Showed a lot of character.
But, as a boxer? He was overrated. There just wasn’t a lot of talent in the heavyweight division at that time to test him. Joe Frazier and Foreman were the main competition he faced.
That whole fight was strange. There’s not much question that Ali made contact. You can see Liston’s head react. But for a 14-count (or whatever it was)? I dunno. And with a punch taught to him by. . . Stepin Fetchit? OK. Jersey Joe Walcott was a great fighter, and usually a decent referee–but he was way off his game in this one, not picking up the count from the timekeeper. Then Nat Fleischer–who had absolutely no authority over the match–shouts thru the ropes to Walcott saying that the count had reached 10 (Liston and Ali hand actually resumed fighting), and Walcott calls a halt. It put Lewiston, Maine, on the sports history map, though.
I’m not sure how anyone could watch that and not think it was a dive.
Ali’s greatness depends on more than his performance in the ring. No one else with close to his ability promoted himself as well, or was so prominent in social issues.
I also tend to judge him against the caliber of his competitors - which was extremely high.
As far as his pure skills were concerned, physically, no other heavyweight could compare with his footwork, and he was able to slip punches unlike anyone else I’ve ever seen. Amazing economy of motion. Intellectually and emotionally, he excelled at getting into his opponents’ heads.
This sort of reminds me of a discussion I’ve often had with golfers, as to whether or not Tiger is the best golfer ever. I tend to say that during portions of his career, Tiger was more dominant than any other golfer, but he did not put together an entire career to exceed Jack’s.
As far as dominant boxers - has there ever been a boxer as dominant as Iron Mike during his first 37 fights?
Or how many great boxers, past and present, would’ve beaten Tyson during this period at the height of their careers? I’m fairly certainly Ali wouldn’t have.
Well, my personal opinion is that yeah, Liston was looking for an early out, and the punch made it easy. But that’s just my opinion, and it’s both widely believed and disputed.
Similarly, I also wonder if Jersey Joe was looking for an early out in his second fight with Marciano. No question he got tagged with a good one, but he looked like he was just sitting on the canvas. And Walcott’s manager, as Bert Sugar would say, ‘was no stranger to the rap sheet.’
Ali had speed, cumulative power, incredible footwork and reflexes. He took on the best that boxing had to offer at the time and dominated. He was a master strategist and showman who used that to his best advantage inside the ring.
No, he was not overrated as a boxer - though perhaps as a poet.
It is unfair to compare Tyson to Ali because the game was different. Boxing in the 90’s was not the same as boxing in the 70’s. Advancements in sports science as well as the evolution of the sport render that type of comparison apples to oranges.
I will say that Ali could match and likely exceed Tyson in terms of speed and was ahead of him in most other areas except raw power. I’m not saying Ali would fustigate him but it wouldn’t have been a cakewalk for Tyson.
Your post is a fitting tribute to Ali’s legacy, aceplace57. His exploits captured the imagination of people who know nothing about boxing.
That’s pretty bloody arrogant man.
Lots of people who do know boxing consider Ali one of the greatest ever.
Do you have anything substantive to say or do you just dislike Ali?
Prior to his suspension, hadn’t Ali pretty much beaten all the top contenders?
What would he have done during those 3 years if he continued to fight? Just box the same contenders again?
And why is being a 3 time champion such a big deal? A 3 time champion means a boxer LOST the title twice and had to get it back. I know this isn’t easy, but remaining champion and not losing the title at all seems to be so much better an accomplishment. (I’m not just talking about Ali here. So often I hear a lot of praise about a boxer that is a 2 or 3 time champion. I just don’t get it.)
I think this is a very significant point.
Years ago I went to a bar with a bunch of young guys from work and the TV, with the sound off, was showing an old fight - Ali vs Norton. While we were watching I regaled them with the benefits of my knowledge, explaining that Norton was easily dealing with Ali only because Ali’s jaw was broken early in the fight. I was horrified when the fight ended with a decision to Ali. It was the third fight from 20 years prior.
I’m sure in 1973 and 1976 I was comfortable with the thought that Ali had won but having looked at these two fights since I think he should have lost both decisions. As Shodan says, at the time, I was watching Ali and confirmation bias convinced me he was winning.
I had forgotten about Leon Spinks. Had an overall record of 26 wins, 17 losses and three draws as a professional, with 14 of those wins by knockout.
He beat Ali in a 15-round split decision in Las Vegas, early 1978. Spinks is the only boxer that beat Ali for the belt. But then later that year Ali beat Spinks in a rematch.
Ali was a very good fighter. But there have been other more dominating heavyweights.