Who was the more techically skilled fighter?

I'd like to hear your takes on this. Ali naturally the greater fighter yet their styles made for close fights.

Which one of these do you see as the more technically skilled. Ali, who "made so many errors tha you could write a book" yet made his style work with his amazing physical abilities, or Joe, who had great punching technique and slipped shots well. Which guy had the better technique?

 

Frazier had more IMPARTIBLE technique, for sure. And if you took the motor patterns he had laid down and somehow downloaded them into another fighters brain & body they would almost certainly serve him better than if he had Ali's....if that makes sense. But of course Ali had the 1 in a million speed and reflex' that Joe just didn't have - and had developed a style or technique particular to taking advantage of them. But for the sake of conversation Id say Frazier, since if the question means anything you gotta factor that out or all you're asking is 'who was better'.

 

:dunno:

One dimensional "left hook" Frazier vs the elusive dancing master with one of the best jabs in history, solid right cross and decent offensive repertoire.

Hmm.....tough one!

 

Im growing increasingly convinced that 95% of folk on the internet haven't seen any Frazier fights beyond Thrilla in Manilla and the first Foreman fight.......

 

I'm growing increasingly convinced that you're confusing Joe Frazier with Joe Louis.....

 

Joe Frazier beating Ali in 1971 is a testament to how much Ali had SLIPPED during the forced layoff than anything else. Ali of 1964-1967 would have beaten him handily.

Frazier got by on stamina and left hook, took advantage of vulnerable guys like Foster and Ellis and beat limited tough men like Quarry and Bonavena (who dropped him twice in the first fight)...but the first time he met a slugger that was bigger and more powerful than himself I didn't see those "technical skills" helping him...I saw him des-fucking-troyed in 2 one sided rounds.

Frazier is perhaps the most overrated heavyweight champion in history...

 

From the quoted post?? Interesting...

 

you'll never get it. you have no appreciation for offensive genius. the only thing you can appreciate is handspeed.

 

For years I've shown appreiction for Felix Trinidad's offensive genius. Tito isn't known for his handspeed. I'm a Bernard Hopkins fan...he's not known for his handspeed.

You know not of what you speak..

 

Calling Frazier one dimensional is ridiculous, Sly. He was a squat, heavily-built short fighter who HAD to constantly bob and weave in order to get in.

Unorthodox, yes. One dimensional, no.

In addition to that left hook, he had very good defensive ability, excellent head movement, and a swarming body attack---all of which he needed to fight the taller men. He also had a very good right hand which was seldom thrown straight. It usually had an arc to it as opposed to going straight out.

Ali was very graceful, but he took advantage of his speed to lean away from punches even when on the ropes. Also, Ali's left hook to the head or body was more of a slap because he was usually much more interested in flicking the jab and setting up that beautiful straight right or cross.

 

Yeah yeah...I heard the same thing about Marciano...underrated defense, technical brilliance etc.

Frazier was as one dimensional as a fighter can be. Left hook to the body big left hook to the head, duck and weave.

Ali was BY FAR...BY FAR the more technically skilled..and that's the point of the thread.

 

Ali did not fight close at all, he never hit the body did several things that could be called mistakes by technical standards. What I am asking here is do people see him as technical master or 'merely' superb athlete compared to a guy who had good basic techniques

 

Frazier had hardly a jab since his left arm couldn't straighten outright. Frazier's right cross was virtually non existent and his overhand right didn't exist. Right uppercut was weak. Ali's offensive repertoire was FAR MORE technically sound. Ali lacked a punch to the body...this is true...but in terms of head hunting his offense was superb.

 

Similar to Roy Jones, it Appears that Ali has Become IMPRISONED by his Athletic Talent...CONTRARY to Popular Belief, a Fighter CAN B Athletically GIFTED, yet Possess TECHNICAL PROWESS, Simultaneously...

The Belief that Roy Jones & Ali were ONLY Good Because of their Speed & Reflexes is BULLSHIT...


REED:shit:

 

Yep...

Frazier's Defense was SUAR, but Someone will Quote this Post of REED Saying "He had GOOD Defense for an Aggressive Fighter"...Sorry, but Poor Defense is POOR Defense...That's like Saying, "Ali was a GOOD Body Puncher for a Guy that NEVER Went to the Body"....

Tooooo OFTEN, Unorthodoxy is Counted AGAINST a Fighter...NO WAY was Joe Frazier More Technically Sound than Ali...



REED:nono:

 

Ali dropped his hands, crossed his arms, fought in spurts, pulled back from left hooks and straight rights.... rarely went to the body, threw a sloppy jab to the body when he did....make no mistake about it, he made "technical" errors.

 

Exactly, and still people see Ali as a great technician.

For the record, I voted for Ali and IMHO it is not even close. So the question really is, what is good boxing technique since the best of them committed so many "errors".

 

:dunno:

Should a fighter who never throws punches, say Derreck Gainer, or more recently Joshua Clottey, be applauded for his defense?

Isn't it true that the easiest way to not get hit is to not try to hit your opponent? And if so, how can you make the ridiculous comparison to Ali's body punching?

 

Exactly.

 

uh, there's no question but that Ali and RJJ, in so far as they made a lot of mistakes (even though they got away with many of them), showed a lack of skill.

 

Making Technical Errors DOES NOT Mean U LACK Technical Prowess ALTOGETHER...Shit, Getting HIT is a Technical ERROR...Ali Did that LESS than Frazier Did...

Ali JABBED BETTER than Frazier Did...Ali's FOOTWORK & BALANCE was More TECHNICALLY PRECISE...His Right Hand was BETTER, etc...

REED:kidcool:

 

They Should B Lauded MORE than Joe Frazier Should B, in that Regard...Frazier WAS NOT a Good Defensive Fighter...& B 4 U Even Attempt it, SPARE REED your PSUEDO Keen Eye, "Subtle Science" BULLSHIT...

Again, Joe Frazier WAS NOT a Good Defensive Fighter...



REED:shit:

 

Yes. And Ali was able to remain at top of the Heavyweight division even during the 70's when he wasn't as physically gifted as he was prior to his involuntary layoff. Fighters who rely only on their natural abilities tend to slip dramatically once those abilities start to fade. Just because Ali chose to clown around more than Bozo at times doesn't mean he totally lacked fundamentals.

Although Jones on the other hand, was much less successful than Ali when it came to adjusting when he couldn't just overwhelm his opponents with his speed.

 

Riiiight...

& Catching Punches w/YOUR FACE is an INDICATOR of SKILL...



REED:shit:

 

I would judge the effectiveness of a fighter's defense by the ratio of shots he takes to the shots he lands. Otherwise running is good 'defense', which it clearly isnt since you'd never win a single boxing match. How much you have to take to get X amount of offensive work done? Against MOST opponents Frazier's defence (like Chavez') was sound, and it was sound despite having what I would judge as pretty poor reflex'.

 

Soon we'll be hearing that Frazier was a defensive wizard and master boxer.

Look at Ali-Frazier 1..when Joe was at his best as Ali was on just his third fight after a 3 year layoff. Who got hit more? Ali wasn't even moving his legs or upperbody the way he used to in the 60s yet he was still hit less. Look at Joe's face? Frazier won that fight not because he hit ali more but because he hit harder (and the KD helped too). Frazier was in hospital much longer than Ali. Frazier is no defensive wiz.

 

What U're Doing is INSERTING YOUR Stylistic PREFERENCE Into the Mix, Hut..."Defense" ISN'T Complicated...If Fighter A Gets Hit MORE than Fighter B, then Fighter B CLEARLY has BETTER Defense...

U Can't HATE on the METHOD...

For Instance, Even Though he won EVERY Round in the Process, Manny Pac PRAISED Clottey's DEFENSE After their Bout...



REED:hammert:

 

The name of the game is to hit and not get hit. Following that strict interpretation, Vitali Klitschko is the most technically perfect fighter of all time. Naseem Hamed, at times, didnt get hit...at all. But we both know that both of these fighters do/did things which break every rule in the book.

 

I agree with Hut here. You have to consider whether or not the fighter is winning the fight to judge his defense correctly.

If a fighter runs around the ring, turning his back to his opponent and never once trying to punch and losing every round, I would not call his defense good. Morrade Hakkar didn't exhibit good defense in his fight against Bernard Hopkins even though Hopkins hardly landed in the first round.

If a fighter wins rounds and does not get hit, then he does have a good defense despite how he does it. Let it be a technician such as Whitaker or Toney, speedster like Jones or Ali or guy effective with distance such as Vitali, it is good defense.

Furthermore, I could say also Mike Tyson had a good defense even though he got hit. This is because he got hit little compared to his style. Meaning, he got close where both fighters are going to get hit. Tyson was hit, but he was usually hit less than his opponent and much less than several other fighters would be hit in that situation. Thus, he had a good defense.

So a good defense has nothing to do with style. However, defense, as well as offense, is only good if it leads to victories

 

Not against tall rivals he aint,.. Lewis wasn't as active as Vitali,.. but he popped the White-hope's skull at will, you know that :crafty: you know that,.. his defence is badly, badly flawed against height and reach rivals.

However if you want to admire a good offense with a good defense, check out Arabham's superior, Dmitry Pirog,.. awesome prospect,.. should do well.. even though 'Dmitry's' are usually weak.. this rough red-head is an exception to the rule.