Napoles had a more complete skillset, that's undeniable. I would argue that Ali's intangibles push him over as "better." Not that Napoles was fragile, or not that Napoles lacked heart, but Ali's unbelievable will and granite jaw COMBINED with his talent puts him above Mantequilla, imo.
I agree with both of the above posts. In my mind, Napoles is by far the more complete package as a fighter but Ali never let away from the ring bad habits cost him fights.
I tend to agree that Napoles is a more complete fighter who's skills are probably a bit better, whereas Ali was more talented and tougher; plenty of intangibles as well. I'd go with Ali myself, as well. I think how much more Ali achieved plays a bit of a factor too, it's hard to go against him in things like this. Sometimes a fighter is so great you forget how great they are.
Ali was a one off. Another fighter could have tried what he did, the way he did it and failed. In fact, plenty did. Napoles was not that once in a generation idiosyncratic talent but was a more obviously complete fighter technically. He put everything together so well and was silky smooth with it. His only obvious weakness was his skin. Ali did things wrong technically but got away with them because he was quicker than any other heavyweight in his prime and he was tougher than most. Hard to call.
IMO, this is a case of one fighter being more well-rounded (Napoles) vs. another who is superior in particular areas (Ali) - neither of which inherently makes one fighter better than the other IMO. Ultimately, I'd say Ali is better because he proved his talents could succeed against a higher level of opposition and overcome more adversity.
It basically seals the deal that Ali has much bigger wins. Cokes and shot Griffith can't fuck with prime Foreman, and only slightly faded Liston.
Do you think? In my mind, Lewis and Cokes were both better fighters than young George. He was big and strong but I don't find the levels of skill to be comparable at all.
I cannot co-sign that at all. Curtis Cokes and Lewis were not a forces of nature like 74 George. And Liston had more in the tank than Griffith had.
Curtis Cokes was a helluva fighter. Like a better version of Vernon Forrest. But yeah, we're talking a guy with a strong argument as THE wrecking ball in boxing history. For what its worth.... I prefer watching Napoles-Cokes 1 over any Ali fight. Well, maybe except for Ali-Williams.
I think Foreman was extremely underrated in the skills department too. Obviously he isn't a reincarnation of Archie Moore, but he had an excellent jab and a great uppercut. He was a monster on the inside both in terms of strength and grappling know-how. His sort of low, parrying mummy guard and the way he used massive, wild, looping shots to manoeuvre guys onto shorter ones is really quite an underrated skillset IMO. Obviously when you think George Foreman though, you think of boxing's Incredible Hulk. To me, Napoles two best wins are possibly Perkins and Hernandez. Cokes and Griffith are top fighters as well, but I think if were to rate them as fighters, I'd have Cokes at the bottom of the four and Griffith (while I'd have him number one), was clearly past his best. Still quality, mind you.
Honestly, I think that you guys are way over rating young George. He was very inexperienced, both in terms of years boxing and in number of rounds fought, and he was very carefully matched to compensate. Sure, he fought Frazier but there were a couple factors there: First, everyone knew that he would walk straight into George. Second, they were betting that the FOTC took a lot out of him. That happens when a fighter puts on the superlative fight of his life and they guessed right. They made the same bet on Ali. After the Peralta fights they avoided mobile fighters; there is no way on earth that they would have fought Ali if they thought he could move. But they saw a less mobile Ali after his exile and figured that the FOTC had sapped whatever he had left. Now, if you are the trainer/manager of, or if you are big George himself, Ali going to the ropes and laying there is the stuff of wet dreams. You couldn't script it better. Except that Ali was a little too smooth to hit as clean as you would like, and he was tough enough to take it. And George was too naive, ring-wise, to know how to vary his rhythm and velocity and direction. He wasn't smart enough to beat a guy that knew how to fight. I will bet you my life savings that, at some point between losing to Jimmy Young and deciding to return to boxing, George Foreman came to the same realization and that it shaped every move he made thereafter. There is absolutely no way to equate the boxing skills and knowledge of 1974 Foreman to that of Cokes, Lewis. What was different was the sensational hype that surrounded a big, strong heavyweight that had a lot of knockouts but didn't know how to fight and, of course, Ali. Well schooled, well educated welterweights that have never made 7UP commercials don't get that.
No one would deny that young Foreman was a flawed fighter, but that doesn't automatically make him worse than fighters who don't share those flaws. If skills and experience alone determined whether a fighter was better, he would never have blasted out Norton, or even Frazier for that matter. Cokes had a big edge in skill and experience over Kitten Hayward too, but those assets came to nothing against Hayward's brute strength and power:
Shocking to think there was only a 3-4 pound discrepancy between the two. Hayward looked like a LHW compared to Cokes.
The problem here imo is comparing Heavyweight to any other division. It's awkward. The scenarios, the problems, are different for the heavyweight scene, and therefore the adaptions, what flys and what is favoured, are different. It's like a slightly different sport, as what makes a great Heavyweight may not make a great at any other division.
I don't think someone with the stamina of George Foreman would be an all-time great at any other weight.
That is very true. I don't believe that it would be possible, in any other division, to have your first amateur fight in January of 1967 and win gold by the end of 1968, with a total something like 57 or 58 rounds. But I want to be clear about my opinion of early George Foreman...he was big and strong but he didn't know how to fight. He was carefully matched to conceal his lack of education. He was successful because he was a heavyweight and who did he beat? Boone Kirkman? Kenny Norton? Joe 'King' Roman? The first guy that he fought that knew how to fight beat him pretty easy. At this point, young George is easily the most overrated fighter ever.
I don't think that Norton was all that good, even though he was my favorite heavyweight in the 1970s.
