Rating the Heavyweights of the 1960s

[raylawpc]

Is the challenge I can't name ten athletes who dominated their sport fresh out of high school or college?

Don't just say you can do it, do it . . .

Wilt Chamberlain

Gayle Sayers

Dick "Night Train" Lane

Michael Jordan

Shaquille O'Neal

Tony Esposito

Magic Johnson

Lew AlCindor

Joe DiMaggio

Frank Robinson

Would you like ten more?

In five of those cases the athletes are cited were just so much more physically gifted than their peers.

As A.J. Liebling so famously said ""Honest effort and sterling character backed by solid instruction will carry a man a good way, but unearned natural ability has a lot to be said for it."

Thank you. I notice that all those athletes competed in team sports. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[raylawpc]

The whole point is that a fighter starting out hasn’t developed the necessary maturity to deal with what’s happening in the ring. They may have the physical gifts but think about how many questions would be going through a young Clay’s head? He’s going to be in totally new territory. First pro fight alone is something. Going past 3 rounds for the first time. Going past 10 rounds etc… what happens when Ingo lands a decent shot? Ali was a physical specimen but as ever the mental side of the sport is being totally overlooked. It’s completely short-sighted and derogatory to think that world class professionals can be beaten so “easily” by opponents with talent and no experience.

Basketball and football and all those other sports are essentially the same at all levels. The difference between amateur boxing and pro boxing is huge.

I actually think this has become a bit of a silly thread which is a shame because Mr E started it with a good observation.

As is typical with your posts, Ezzard, you have hit the nail on the head. A 1961 Cassius Clay may look good for two or three rounds against a 1961 Johansson. Then young Clay is going to run out of ideas, and Johansson's experience and greater firepower will take over, and he will prevail. Question for ThatOne: Does Jack Johnson v. Joe Choynski ring any bells?

[raylawpc]

Also, when has anyone taken the 'I could never have beaten that guy ever' as meaning anything? When Joe Louis said he could never have beaten Marciano, is it the truth? When Jeffries lost to Johnson and said he couldnt beat him or touched him in 1,000 years was that a fact? I think a prime Moore could have beaten the 4-0-0 Ali too.

By the way, there is some doubt as to whether Jeffries ever made that statement. . .

[Ezzard]

Ezzard-

I never hijacked the thread. I said Ali beats or beat everybody on that list and embarrasses a 1967 Ingo. Somehow it was changed to how a raw Ali would do. I think he would be competitive.

I was then asked to supply a list of great, raw , young, athletes who dominated their sport and I did.

Respectfully, your point about there being no or little difference between baseball, basketball, and football at the pro level as opposed to lower is incorrect. The winnowing out process is huge. There are about 3,000 athletes playing in the NBA, NFL, and MLB. There were probably an infinitely greater amount playing those sports at the collegiate and high school level who weren't good enough to take the next step.

To be fair to you TO I re-read the posts and you do say ‘be competitive’ rather than ‘win easily’.

I still think you’re overselling a great fighter when there is no need to. This then ends up feeling like a put down to a former champion.

On the topic of the other sports… I understand that I don’t know the US sports systems too well, but with what little knowledge I do have I’ll try and address your point.

Basketball, NFL, etc… are the same games at college level and pro level. The games aren’t shorter in duration. The fields are the same size. The equipment is at the very least comparable. This is not the case in boxing.

If you want to make this comparison (if it’s worth anything) then you need to think of how a QB straight out of college would fair if his receivers, linemen and running backs were all rookies too and then in their first game at pro-level they played the winners of the Super Bowl.

[Ezzard]

The whole point is that a fighter starting out hasn’t developed the necessary maturity to deal with what’s happening in the ring. They may have the physical gifts but think about how many questions would be going through a young Clay’s head? He’s going to be in totally new territory. First pro fight alone is something. Going past 3 rounds for the first time. Going past 10 rounds etc… what happens when Ingo lands a decent shot? Ali was a physical specimen but as ever the mental side of the sport is being totally overlooked. It’s completely short-sighted and derogatory to think that world class professionals can be beaten so “easily” by opponents with talent and no experience.

Basketball and football and all those other sports are essentially the same at all levels. The difference between amateur boxing and pro boxing is huge.

I actually think this has become a bit of a silly thread which is a shame because Mr E started it with a good observation.

As is typical with your posts, Ezzard, you have hit the nail on the head. A 1961 Cassius Clay may look good for two or three rounds against a 1961 Johansson. Then young Clay is going to run out of ideas, and Johansson's experience and greater firepower will take over, and he will prevail. Question for ThatOne: Does Jack Johnson v. Joe Choynski ring any bells?

You're too kind, Ray. Johnson v Choynski is a great comparison.

[HomicideHenry]

Okay, the furthest I can imagine and be willing to talk about is the possibility that Ali at 4-0-0 could be competitive, at least for a while, with Johansson. Let's say we'll go for broke and make this a 15 rounder. Many questions to ask here. How long can a four round fighter dance in a 15 round fight? How will a 4-0-0 fighter be able to effectively keep off a world champion fighter who was equally impressive as an amateur?

IMO, we can say judging from the sparring session, which is all done with kid gloves, that Ali could survive at least two rounds, and for generousity sake we'll double that and say he could dodge Johansson's charges for four rounds. BUT....I say take a look at :30 of the video where Ali misses Johansson, and if you watch the video, Ali does get in close with Johansson and gets tagged by Ingo.

If Ali can get tagged in sparring, certainly in a real fight, Ingo's going to land more and often [mind you this was decade before Ali was allowing sparring partners to beat on is body to perfect the rope a dope, he danced in sparring in is early career]. This was just kids gloves, and Ali at 4-0-0 was missing, throwing wild hooks at points, was getting too close to Johansson, had head gear on and the gloves looked pretty thick. In a real fight scenario....Johansson might do this to a young Clay coming in too close

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezLbrjlyTuQ

See how fast that right hand snuck up on Eddie Machen? And Machen was a guy who went the distance with a hard puncher like Sonny Liston, and he had years of experience with all types of fighters. This wasnt the Ali who befuddled Liston, made guys look bad who were considered monsters and great contenders---this was a kid coming out of the Olympics beating up on third tier journeymen. Machen was undefeated, should have gotten a shot at Patterson, but all it took was one mistake, and one quick hand from Johansson. People forget how fast Johansson was not just with his hands but with backing away from an opponent.

ThatOne, I'm glad you at least admitted a prime Moore could beat the 4-0-0 Ali. But you still persist to hold on to the notion that Ali at that stage would be COMPETITIVE against Johansson. I again urge you to look at this post, and the Machen-Johansson video. I dont have the time or the patience, I suppose, as you dont have the time, to dive deep into Johansson's career and his abilities, any more than you can try and restore faith in the Ali religion that a 4-0-0 Ali could have been competitive with a man a month or two removed from his title reign.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. Shame, was hoping to get at least one debate resolved before Christmas.

[Controversial]

So its IMPOSSIBLE for Johansson to have kayoed the 1961 version of Ali?

This isnt the Ali who fought Frazier and Foreman and Shavers, this is a kid who had yet to be downed by Sonny Banks who nobody remembers ffs....I dont see how you can say an ATG puncher like Johansson couldnt knock out Ali at that time in his life.

No I never said that. If you read my post I said the ONLY chance Ingo would have was to ko Clay. In my opinion that wouldn't happen. You seriously don't think Ingo would have outboxed Clay do you?

Ingo wasn't champ in 1961 or even when Clay turned pro. Ingo only had one fight in 1961 which he lost by ko. For arguments sake if Clay fought Ingo in his pro debut it would have been a 4 rounder. I can quite easily see Clay dancing away from Ingos right for 4 rounds and outpointing him, That scenario is more likely than Ingo knocking Clay out. Yes of course if Clay fought a 15 round world title fight in his pro debut he would struggle because of the length of the fight and his inexperience.

Boxers aren't like computer games where their stats get better the more they fight. Their fighting style, speed and power are not a million miles off what they would be after a few years and several fights. All you get by fighting more and more is ring experience, how to pace yourself, more confidence and your general fighting fitness and stamina will improve as you box longer fights e.g 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 rounders. Your chin doesn't get better so just because Clay is inexperienced doesn't mean his chin was any worse than it was 10 years later.

What version of Tyson would have had more success against Buster Douglas, the raw, fast, bobbing and weaving 18 year old Tyson or the one that turned up in Tokyo? Yes maybe the 18 year old version would have punched himself out but I can see the 18 year old Tyson knocking out Douglas as well.

I stand by point. In 1961 a young Clay would have boxed circles around Ingo. Ingos only chance would be to land his right, which I don't think he would. Yes its possible but unlikely.

On what grounds are you basing your argument that Ingo would ko Clay, and that Clay would be mincemeat for Ingo in 1961?

[hhaehre]

On what grounds are you basing your argument that Ingo would ko Clay, and that Clay would be mincemeat for Ingo in 1961?

Isn't that obvious? Clay was not yet the fighter that won the hw title, he was a rookie pro not yet developed into the atg fighter he would become. You seem to confuse the 1961 version of Clay with the 1967 prime version of Ali. Check some of his early fights, he gets hit by far lesser fighters than Ingo. Check out his fight with Billy Daniels, it's no dancing box-clinic at all.

[HomicideHenry]

#1- What basis do I have that Ingo would kayo Clay? HE WASNT THE CLAY THAT FOUGHT COOPER, LISTON, CHUVALO, FRAZIER, NORTON, FOREMAN FFS! He was downed by Sonny Banks, was hurt with body blows by Charlie Powell, he was able to be hurt. He had yet to face true, genuine adversity. He had yet to face genuine power. In that sparring video, it seems it all was with kid gloves---in a real bout, Johansson would have had his A game, and certainly Clay would have been easier to beat at 4-0-0 than undefeated Machen or Patterson. IMHO, fighters are not born tough, they are made tough through tests of endurance and character. Clay had yet to do so. Just because Ali was never stopped in his career, doesnt mean at 19 years old he wouldnt be by a grown man who was the most feared puncher on the planet at that time.

#2- Johansson is often dismissed; the best fighter ever to come out of Sweden, one of the best European champions in history, one of few Europeans to become an undisputed champion, an all time great puncher---he wasnt just a one trick pony with a right hand, he wasnt a mistake, his championship was no accident---his combinations were dangerous, he darted in and out of range---he was also a very talented amateur capping off a Silver medal in the Olympics---his achievements were grand. Ali, yes was an Olympic Gold medal winner, but he had only beaten third tier journeymen up until that point. Johansson was kayoing hard, tough, skilled fighters long before Ali began as an amateur---fact of business, whatever skill Clay had, Johansson had in aces over him in experience.

#3- Could Johansson have hit Clay? In the sparring video, it showed he could. It also showed that Ali could miss hitting Johansson too. Maybe Johansson should have taken up the $100,000 challenge and shut him up, but if you remember, nobody considered Ali, then at least, capable of being world champion---he carried his hands too low, fought going backwards instead of slipping punches, he was cocky and arrogant, etc---that was still almost four years away.

#4- You mention Tyson at 18 beating Douglas. IMHO, if Douglas lost, it would be because Douglas would have allowed himself to lose. Douglas never had the best track record, he was kicking Tucker's ass, but quit on his stool, etc. IMO, the best Tyson was the same who kayoed Berbick, the skill and talent was all there intact---afterward it was all down hill. The 18 year old Tyson had yet to struggle with James Tillis, gone rounds with 'Irish' Mike Jameson, went the distance with Mitch Green, struggle with Jose Ribalta, etc. I think you gave a bad example here. A young Mike Tyson, strong as he was, still was green and had confidence issues, the only way he'd win is by a knockout, nothing more.

#5- What makes you so sure that Johansson would be so befuddled by the 19 year old Ali? In the sparring video, he seemed more relaxed and calm than he was when he fought Machen or Patterson. There was no element of danger, no lack of confidence, there simply was no issue here. It was a grown man, a former worlds champion, playing ring around the rosie with a kid. Sure, Ali could out run, duck and dodge the third tier journeymen, sure he could jab their heads off---but if your recall, Tunney Hunsaker was also a full-time cop, these weren't exactly world class participants in the ring with him, and am sure alot of them didnt even have an amateur background, Lamar Clark sure as hell didnt---Johansson was a TRUE pro, one of few champions up until that time who had Olympic credentials as well as a proven pro record.

[Controversial]

On what grounds are you basing your argument that Ingo would ko Clay, and that Clay would be mincemeat for Ingo in 1961?

Isn't that obvious? Clay was not yet the fighter that won the hw title, he was a rookie pro not yet developed into the atg fighter he would become. You seem to confuse the 1961 version of Clay with the 1967 prime version of Ali. Check some of his early fights, he gets hit by far lesser fighters than Ingo. Check out his fight with Billy Daniels, it's no dancing box-clinic at all.

Yes a rookie but that doesn't mean he couldn't fight. His style, speed, jab, boxing ability etc.. were still as good when he turned pro as they were when he beat Liston. All that changed was he was more experienced and he had rounds under his belt. Daniels style is completely different to Ingo and remember only 5 fights later Clay would bet Liston.

You seriously cannot see Clay outboxing Ingo over a 4 round fight? Put it another way at what stage of Clays career do you see him beating Ingo? After 10 fights, 15 fights, 20 fights, 25 fights?

[HomicideHenry]

On what grounds are you basing your argument that Ingo would ko Clay, and that Clay would be mincemeat for Ingo in 1961?

Isn't that obvious? Clay was not yet the fighter that won the hw title, he was a rookie pro not yet developed into the atg fighter he would become. You seem to confuse the 1961 version of Clay with the 1967 prime version of Ali. Check some of his early fights, he gets hit by far lesser fighters than Ingo. Check out his fight with Billy Daniels, it's no dancing box-clinic at all.

Yes a rookie but that doesn't mean he couldn't fight. His style, speed, jab, boxing ability etc.. were still as good when he turned pro as they were when he beat Liston. All that changed was he was more experienced and he had rounds under his belt. Daniels style is completely different to Ingo and remember only 5 fights later Clay would bet Liston.

You seriously cannot see Clay outboxing Ingo over a 4 round fight? Put it another way at what stage of Clays career do you see him beating Ingo? After 10 fights, 15 fights, 20 fights, 25 fights?

Why would a man used to fighting 15 rounds, go backwards and fight a four rounder? It would have to be scheduled for at least 10 rounds to be considered worthwhile for Johansson to do so. Four rounds Clay may have made, but 10 with Ingo? No. At what point in his career could he have beaten the 1961 Ingo? I'd say when he rose off the canvas to beat Cooper on cuts...however, I dont think he would have clowned as much with a guy like Ingo, as he did with Cooper.

[Controversial]

#1- What basis do I have that Ingo would kayo Clay? HE WASNT THE CLAY THAT FOUGHT COOPER, LISTON, CHUVALO, FRAZIER, NORTON, FOREMAN FFS! He was downed by Sonny Banks, was hurt with body blows by Charlie Powell, he was able to be hurt. He had yet to face true, genuine adversity. He had yet to face genuine power. In that sparring video, it seems it all was with kid gloves---in a real bout, Johansson would have had his A game, and certainly Clay would have been easier to beat at 4-0-0 than undefeated Machen or Patterson. IMHO, fighters are not born tough, they are made tough through tests of endurance and character. Clay had yet to do so. Just because Ali was never stopped in his career, doesnt mean at 19 years old he wouldnt be by a grown man who was the most feared puncher on the planet at that time.

#2- Johansson is often dismissed; the best fighter ever to come out of Sweden, one of the best European champions in history, one of few Europeans to become an undisputed champion, an all time great puncher---he wasnt just a one trick pony with a right hand, he wasnt a mistake, his championship was no accident---his combinations were dangerous, he darted in and out of range---he was also a very talented amateur capping off a Silver medal in the Olympics---his achievements were grand. Ali, yes was an Olympic Gold medal winner, but he had only beaten third tier journeymen up until that point. Johansson was kayoing hard, tough, skilled fighters long before Ali began as an amateur---fact of business, whatever skill Clay had, Johansson had in aces over him in experience.

#3- Could Johansson have hit Clay? In the sparring video, it showed he could. It also showed that Ali could miss hitting Johansson too. Maybe Johansson should have taken up the $100,000 challenge and shut him up, but if you remember, nobody considered Ali, then at least, capable of being world champion---he carried his hands too low, fought going backwards instead of slipping punches, he was cocky and arrogant, etc---that was still almost four years away.

#4- You mention Tyson at 18 beating Douglas. IMHO, if Douglas lost, it would be because Douglas would have allowed himself to lose. Douglas never had the best track record, he was kicking Tucker's ass, but quit on his stool, etc. IMO, the best Tyson was the same who kayoed Berbick, the skill and talent was all there intact---afterward it was all down hill. The 18 year old Tyson had yet to struggle with James Tillis, gone rounds with 'Irish' Mike Jameson, went the distance with Mitch Green, struggle with Jose Ribalta, etc. I think you gave a bad example here. A young Mike Tyson, strong as he was, still was green and had confidence issues, the only way he'd win is by a knockout, nothing more.

#5- What makes you so sure that Johansson would be so befuddled by the 19 year old Ali? In the sparring video, he seemed more relaxed and calm than he was when he fought Machen or Patterson. There was no element of danger, no lack of confidence, there simply was no issue here. It was a grown man, a former worlds champion, playing ring around the rosie with a kid. Sure, Ali could out run, duck and dodge the third tier journeymen, sure he could jab their heads off---but if your recall, Tunney Hunsaker was also a full-time cop, these weren't exactly world class participants in the ring with him, and am sure alot of them didnt even have an amateur background, Lamar Clark sure as hell didnt---Johansson was a TRUE pro, one of few champions up until that time who had Olympic credentials as well as a proven pro record.

So you cannot see Clay outboxing Ingo over a 4 round fight? Im not using the sparring video as evidence, sparring means nothing i know that. What Im saying is Clay was too fast and a much better boxer than Ingo. Ingos only chance was to ko Clay, I don't think he would have.

Your making the mistake of picking instances in Alis career where he struggled and using that as reason for Ingo beating him. I don't underrate Ingo at all. He was a good puncher but that was it really, he wasn't a particularly great boxer and he was a notoriously bad trainer.

My point with Tyson was just to prove that just because your inexperienced doesn't mean you cannot be competitive. IMO the 18 year old Tyson would have given Buster Douglas a harder fight than the 37-0 version of Tyson that turned up in Tokyo.

[The Great John L]

IMO the 18 year old Tyson would have given Buster Douglas a harder fight than the 37-0 version of Tyson that turned up in Tokyo.

Do you mean the 18yo Tyson that lost to Tillman? Hmmmm....

[Controversial]

Why would a man used to fighting 15 rounds, go backwards and fight a four rounder? It would have to be scheduled for at least 10 rounds to be considered worthwhile for Johansson to do so. Four rounds Clay may have made, but 10 with Ingo? No. At what point in his career could he have beaten the 1961 Ingo? I'd say when he rose off the canvas to beat Cooper on cuts...however, I dont think he would have clowned as much with a guy like Ingo, as he did with Cooper.

We are talking hypothetical circumstances here. Clays trainers would not throw him into a 15 round fight in his debut. If he WERE to fight Ingo in 1961 they would have made it over 4 rounds. Clay wins all day long. Yes over a 15 round title fight things may be different, only because Clay wouldn't be physically prepared to go those distances and his inexperience, not because he wasn't able to outbox Ingo

[Controversial]

IMO the 18 year old Tyson would have given Buster Douglas a harder fight than the 37-0 version of Tyson that turned up in Tokyo.

Do you mean the 18yo Tyson that lost to Tillman? Hmmmm....

So you think the Tyson in Tokyo was a better fighter than the 18 year old version? Hmmmmm.....

[HomicideHenry]

Clay at 5-0-0 beat guys with a combined record of 61 wins, 29 losses, 4 draws. Those were against Hunsaker (6 round fight), Herb Siler (4 rounds; Siler was 1-1-0), Tony Esperti (3 rounds), Jimmy Robinson (1-2-0; went 1 round) and Donnie Fleeman (went 7 rounds; Fleeman was 35-11-1; scheduled for 8 rounds).

Johansson, before the rubber match with Patterson, was 22-1-0 with 14 kayos. Among the victims were Henry Cooper (KO 5th), Eddie Machen (KO 1st), Joe Erskine (KO 13th), Heinz Neuhaus (KO 4th), Floyd Patterson (KO 3rd). In the rubber match with Patterson, he would knock down Floyd twice in the 1st round. Mind you, he knocked down Patterson 7 times in the third round of their first bout.

How much more deeper can someone really dig, to show you, that this was a match virtually impossible for Cassius Clay to win? 1961, in truth, Dundee and Ali took an opprotunity on television, ran around the ring, talked a bunch of crap, made a silly offer, just to make press. Simple as that.

[HomicideHenry]

IMO the 18 year old Tyson would have given Buster Douglas a harder fight than the 37-0 version of Tyson that turned up in Tokyo.

Do you mean the 18yo Tyson that lost to Tillman? Hmmmm....

So you think the Tyson in Tokyo was a better fighter than the 18 year old version? Hmmmmm.....

Umm...yeah? Tyson kayoed Tillman in one round after losing to Buster Douglas. In the amateurs, the 18 year old Tyson got SPANKED by Tillman over three rounds.

[hhaehre]

Yes a rookie but that doesn't mean he couldn't fight. His style, speed, jab, boxing ability etc.. were still as good when he turned pro as they were when he beat Liston. All that changed was he was more experienced and he had rounds under his belt.

No no no, this is so wrong, Clay was better at everything when he fought Liston. He was stronger, much bigger (15-20 lbs), moved better, punched harder, had much improved technique, was overall much tougher and of course mentally mature enough to handle the best.

Early on many felt Clay was not championship material, he looked frail, was not disciplined in the ring, had a sloppy technique, a careless defense and displayed little power. The critics were not all blind, they spotted very real weaknesses in Clay, weaknesses that were eliminated by the time he fought Liston.

[Controversial]

Clay at 5-0-0 beat guys with a combined record of 61 wins, 29 losses, 4 draws. Those were against Hunsaker (6 round fight), Herb Siler (4 rounds; Siler was 1-1-0), Tony Esperti (3 rounds), Jimmy Robinson (1-2-0; went 1 round) and Donnie Fleeman (went 7 rounds; Fleeman was 35-11-1; scheduled for 8 rounds).

Johansson, before the rubber match with Patterson, was 22-1-0 with 14 kayos. Among the victims were Henry Cooper (KO 5th), Eddie Machen (KO 1st), Joe Erskine (KO 13th), Heinz Neuhaus (KO 4th), Floyd Patterson (KO 3rd). In the rubber match with Patterson, he would knock down Floyd twice in the 1st round. Mind you, he knocked down Patterson 7 times in the third round of their first bout.

How much more deeper can someone really dig, to show you, that this was a match virtually impossible for Cassius Clay to win? 1961, in truth, Dundee and Ali took an opprotunity on television, ran around the ring, talked a bunch of crap, made a silly offer, just to make press. Simple as that.

It doesn't matter who Ingo beat before the fact is Clay was a better fighter than all of them. Over a short fight Clay would outbox Ingo. If you think Ingo would outbox Clay then we might as well give up. His only chance was to KO Clay. I don't think he would.

Just because your inexperienced it doesn't mean you cannot be competitive. Look at Holyfield, he was 11-0 when he fought Qawi for the world title. Holyfield had boxed a total of 44 rounds, had never been past 8 rounds and hadn't really fought anyone of note. Yet he went 15 rounds with Qawi and beat him. Qawi was no mug and one of the toughest fighters to step into the ring. He beat him because he was the better boxer, yes Holyfield was inexperienced but he was the better fighter.

Same with Clay. He was far superior to Ingo, all Ingo has on Clay is he was a ko puncher with his right. Everything else was in Clays favour.

[Controversial]

[

Umm...yeah? Tyson kayoed Tillman in one round after losing to Buster Douglas. In the amateurs, the 18 year old Tyson got SPANKED by Tillman over three rounds.

Oh dear you are showing yourself up here mate. Amateur boxing is completely different to pro boxing. Lots of successful amateurs are crap pros (Audley Harrison) and crap amateurs make great pros (Marciano, Holmes)

I wouldn't bother going down this route if I were you.

If you think the out of shape, one punch at a time, no head movement Tyson in Tokyo was a better fighter than the 18 year od version then you are sadly mistaken.

[HomicideHenry]

Clay was fast, yes. But even into the mid 1960's he had not developed into a complete fighter. That's why I perfer the 1970's Ali over the 1960's Clay. He learned to adapt as he grew slower, and as he MATURED not only as a man but as a fighter. His weaknesses were attacked upon when Eddie Futch trained Joe Frazier and when he trained Norton. He knew Ali could be countered with a left hook after Ali threw the upper cut, and he knew Ali could be countered with a jab---something Joe Louis seen years ago when Ali was too fast for anyone to be able to catch, and was dismissed as being jealous of Clay.

I've admitted before that Ali could possibly go four rounds with Johansson. But that is a what if, and a big one, imho, considering his lack of experience. Johansson in a fight just scheduled for four rounds, may lose on points. I'll agree with THAT much. But I also think Clay, at that time, would have been easier to hit than at any other point in is career (save the Holmes fight). Johansson would have waited for Clay to make that one mistake, to of come in too close and throw one jab or hook too many---then he would have uncorked rights and lefts and Ali would have had his first true taste of pain and fear.

What would the 19 year old kid from Kentucky do at such a time when it came? No one had ever hurt him yet, he faced bums, he was green in all manners of life its self. How would he have reacted? What would his game plan have been? And with a guy like Ingo, you dont have much time to think up such a thing.

[ThatOne]

I am going into the "lurker" mode.

At what point in his career do you gentleman think a serious and motivated Muhammad Ali could no longer beat a prime Ingo?

1974? 1975? 1976? 1977? 1978? 1979? (he was "retired" and largely inactive except for exhibitions) 1980? 1981? > 1981?

I would say which one and it would be controversial but I have work to do.

[Controversial]

Johansson in a fight just scheduled for four rounds, may lose on points. I'll agree with THAT much.

Well at least you agree with me finally.

[Controversial]

I am going into the "lurker" mode.

At what point in his career do you gentleman think a serious and motivated Muhammad Ali could no longer beat a prime Ingo?

1974? 1975? 1976? 1977? 1978? 1979? (he was "retired" and largely inactive except for exhibitions) 1980? 1981? > 1981?

I would say which one and it would be controversial but I have work to do.

I reckon the 2008 version

[HomicideHenry]

[

Umm...yeah? Tyson kayoed Tillman in one round after losing to Buster Douglas. In the amateurs, the 18 year old Tyson got SPANKED by Tillman over three rounds.

Oh dear you are showing yourself up here mate. Amateur boxing is completely different to pro boxing. Lots of successful amateurs are crap pros (Audley Harrison) and crap amateurs make great pros (Marciano, Holmes)

I wouldn't bother going down this route if I were you.

If you think the out of shape, one punch at a time, no head movement Tyson in Tokyo was a better fighter than the 18 year od version then you are sadly mistaken.

Btw, Marciano could have made it to the Olympics had he not busted his hand.

I can agree to an extent. Cus D'Amato always said he seen much better fighters among the amateurs than in the pros, for they were more tactical and more masterful at defense. However, there is a world of difference between the amateurs and the pros. You can knock a man down and earn 3 points, but if that guy lands 3 jabs on you, guess what? You're back to being even again. Its not the same as in the professional ranks. I dont know why we are even having this discussion.

I'm sure alot of world class amateurs could last 3-4 rounds with a pro, if thats all there was to the round duration. Ali attempted to do so with Cuban based Stevenson in the late 1970's. He even went as far as to say Stevenson would get a draw against him in a 15 round fight. Three, four rounds he might have made, but simply put---why are we arguing about this? This is more or less saying under different rules and figures that any guy could beat any guy.

IMO, Jeffries in a 45 round contest could beat any HW that ever lived, including Ali. But what difference does that make in a 10, 12, 15 round fight? It doesnt, not one bit. In four rounds, sure I'm certain Ali could run away from Johansson and not get touched---but how about this?

How many rounds would it take for Johansson to beat Ali? 6? 8? 10? 12? 15? Exactly how long would it take for 'one trick pony' Johansson to beat the 5-0-0 Cassius Clay? Answer me THAT.