Rating the Heavyweights of the 1960s

[hhaehre]

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'd say 77/78. When Ingo was in shape (and that was not always the case) he had better stamina than Shavers and he was a better boxer. Shaver was very concerned with his stamina when he fought Ali and he let the fight slip away because of it. Ali didn't have much left at this point and had Shavers forced the fight more and kept up a decent output he would have won. I think Ingo would have been able to keep a better pace and beaten Ali that night in 1977.

[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.

That last bit I'd like an answer to, if ThatOne will do so.

[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.

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.

I never bought the amateurs into the debate, I just gave a suitable reply to a silly response someone else made.

Again we are talking hypothetical matchups here. If Clay was able to keep away from Ingo, circle and jab him I could see him beating him over 10, 12 or 15 rounds. However the chances are Clays general lack of experience would mean he would eventually get drawn into a fight in the later rounds and may get clocked by a right hand or two. Thats when Ingos experience would come into play and maybe Clays lack of fitness over the longer rounds.

Who knows? What I do know is over a short fight as long as Clay wasn't ko'ed early then Clay beats Ingo

[ThatOne]

"That last bit I'd like an answer to, if ThatOne will do so."

-homocidehenry


I'm just lurking. I am curious as to what point in his career you gentlemen think Ali was no longer capable of beating a Prime Ingo.

[HomicideHenry]

What stuff and nonsense....

Well, I reckon if I answer your question, you might just give me the common courtesy of answering my question. Here's your early Christmas present: I'd say following 1976, Muhammad Ali would not be able to defeat a prime Ingemar Johansson.

[ThatOne]

There is the possibility as the fight goes longer that Ingo gets frustrated because he can't catch Ali. And Ali who sees this strategy is effective keeps doing it.

[HomicideHenry]

..............I shoulda known you'd say something like that

[hhaehre]

There is the possibility as the fight goes longer that Ingo gets frustrated because he can't catch Ali. And Ali who sees this strategy is effective keeps doing it.

Or he could do what he did in all of his fights against credible opposition post Frazier III which was take punishment and trust in the kindness of the judges.

[Controversial]

..............I shoulda known you'd say something like that

You have conceded that novice Clay could outbox and outpoint Ingo over 4 rounds. For arguments sake what if it were a 10 round fight and Ingo doesn't land a decent punch and Clay keeps him at arms length for 10 rounds?

[ThatOne]

There is the possibility as the fight goes longer that Ingo gets frustrated because he can't catch Ali. And Ali who sees this strategy is effective keeps doing it.

Or he could do what he did in all of his fights against credible opposition post Frazier III which was take punishment and trust in the kindness of the judges.

1961 Cassius Clay weighed thirty to forty pounds less than the post Manilla Ali. I don't know if he was built to withstand that kind of punishment. It's hard to envision the 189 pound Cassius Clay letting Shavers beat on him or standing in the middle of the ring and trading. The old Ali was a tank. The 1961 Clay was a Ferrari.. He would have stayed on his bicycle

[HomicideHenry]

But who's to say that would be the case?

Either way, it would be Ingo who'd try and make a fight out of it, and not a sprinting contest.

[Controversial]

But who's to say that would be the case?

Either way, it would be Ingo who'd try and make a fight out of it, and not a sprinting contest.

Well I could use the same argument your using. You say Ingo would ko Clay. If he doesn't land a punch he can't ko him. In that case Ingo losses on points even in a longer fight.

[ThatOne]

This conversation reminds me of the line by Michael Corleone in Godfather lll. "Every time I try to leave they pull me back in."

I think the Ali of the second Spinks fight who was shot but still game could have beat any version of Ingo. He would have used what little skills he had left and smothered him whenever he got close.

He was in the best shape of his life for that fight but he was almost totally bereft of reflexes and speed.

[HomicideHenry]

For the sake of argument, lets say Ingo couldnt hurt Clay enough to knock him out. Clay never went 10 rounds with a quality fighter, let alone a world class one at that. Let's say 4 rounds, Clay cruises but then gets into trouble with Ingo---rounds five through ten are give and take, Clay kisses canvas at least once [if Banks could do it, why couldnt Ingo?]---the fight goes to a 10 round split decision. Ingo's the aggressor, the judges like that, he tried to make a fight of it after all, he's awarded the decision.

Might be that the only way Clay could win is to cut Ingo bad enough to garner a TKO.

[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....

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

Ummm, yes. I think the Tyson from Tokyo stops the amatuer version of Henry Tillman pretty quickly and I'm pretty confident that there are few people who would contest that. Did you actually see Tyson fight as an amatuer?

[Controversial]

For the sake of argument, lets say Ingo couldnt hurt Clay enough to knock him out. Clay never went 10 rounds with a quality fighter, let alone a world class one at that. Let's say 4 rounds, Clay cruises but then gets into trouble with Ingo---rounds five through ten are give and take, Clay kisses canvas at least once [if Banks could do it, why couldnt Ingo?]---the fight goes to a 10 round split decision. Ingo's the aggressor, the judges like that, he tried to make a fight of it after all, he's awarded the decision.

Might be that the only way Clay could win is to cut Ingo bad enough to garner a TKO.

You have changed your tune.

You've gone from Clay being cannon fodder for Ingo. Then you admitted Clay could beat him over 4 rounds. Now Ingo wins a split decision over 10 rounds or Ingo loses on cuts !!!

The way I see it Ingo only has one way to win, and thats by stopping Clay. Thats the only way he can beat him. From what we know of Clay (Ali) that result is unlikely, possible, but unlikely. If you take the unlikely ending out of the equation the result will always be a win for Clay.

[ThatOne]

How about Prime Ingo versus the Ali Of Spinks ll.

I think an in shape though past it Ali can stick, move, and hold to a unanimous decision.

[HomicideHenry]

For the sake of argument, lets say Ingo couldnt hurt Clay enough to knock him out. Clay never went 10 rounds with a quality fighter, let alone a world class one at that. Let's say 4 rounds, Clay cruises but then gets into trouble with Ingo---rounds five through ten are give and take, Clay kisses canvas at least once [if Banks could do it, why couldnt Ingo?]---the fight goes to a 10 round split decision. Ingo's the aggressor, the judges like that, he tried to make a fight of it after all, he's awarded the decision.

Might be that the only way Clay could win is to cut Ingo bad enough to garner a TKO.

You have changed your tune.

You've gone from Clay being cannon fodder for Ingo. Then you admitted Clay could beat him over 4 rounds. Now Ingo wins a split decision over 10 rounds or Ingo loses on cuts !!!

The way I see it Ingo only has one way to win, and thats by stopping Clay. Thats the only way he can beat him. From what we know of Clay (Ali) that result is unlikely, possible, but unlikely. If you take the unlikely ending out of the equation the result will always be a win for Clay.

Haven't hanged my tune, just speaking hypothetically. IMO, Ali is fodder for Ingo, due to his lack of experience. All I did was just give the idea some more breathing room, even if I gave Ali at 5-0-0 more credit than I have before, I still think Ingo beats him over 10 rounds on points. Being generous, and changing my tune, are two different things.

[hhaehre]

You've gone from Clay being cannon fodder for Ingo. Then you admitted Clay could beat him over 4 rounds. Now Ingo wins a split decision over 10 rounds or Ingo loses on cuts !!!

Dude, he was countering your claim that Ingo could not win a decision by offering up a scenario where Ingo won a decision.

[Controversial]

Ummm, yes. I think the Tyson from Tokyo stops the amatuer version of Henry Tillman pretty quickly and I'm pretty confident that there are few people who would contest that. Did you actually see Tyson fight as an amatuer?

Don't you realise there is a HUGE difference between amateur boxing and pro boxing? You talking chalk and cheese, the two results are not comparable. So are you suggesting if Tillman fought Tyson in his debut he would have beaten him?

As stated before amateur results means NOTHING. Amateur boxing is about point scoring, big gloves, headgear, short rounds and over eager refs who stop the action when a big punch is landed. Amateur boxing is far more suited to technically sound boxers, not sluggers or knockout artists.

Lots of great pros had awful amateur careers, and lots of great amateurs had awful pro careers. Your argument is totally flawed.

[Controversial]

You've gone from Clay being cannon fodder for Ingo. Then you admitted Clay could beat him over 4 rounds. Now Ingo wins a split decision over 10 rounds or Ingo loses on cuts !!!

Dude, he was countering your claim that Ingo could not win a decision by offering up a scenario where Ingo won a decision.

To justify Ingo winning the decision would mean you think Ingo was the better boxer and capable of outboxing Clay. He wasn't the better boxer and he wouldn't outbox him either. His one and only chance of beating Clay would be to stop him. If he doesn't stop him then he losses.

[HomicideHenry]

At 5-0-0, no 19 year old kid, no matter his amateur credentials is going to be a better fighter than a worlds champion. Ingemar could pressure the fight enough to win a decision; think Mayweather-De La Hoya for a moment, and there was a good deal of people who believed De La Hoya could have won it because he made a fight of it, had the higher power punch rate, etc.

[hhaehre]

There is the possibility as the fight goes longer that Ingo gets frustrated because he can't catch Ali. And Ali who sees this strategy is effective keeps doing it.

Or he could do what he did in all of his fights against credible opposition post Frazier III which was take punishment and trust in the kindness of the judges.

1961 Cassius Clay weighed thirty to forty pounds less than the post Manilla Ali. I don't know if he was built to withstand that kind of punishment. It's hard to envision the 189 pound Cassius Clay letting Shavers beat on him or standing in the middle of the ring and trading. The old Ali was a tank. The 1961 Clay was a Ferrari.. He would have stayed on his bicycle

Oh, we are back in 1961, I thought you were commenting on 1977 Alis strategy for beating a prime Ingo. If we are talking 1961 I guess Clay would have to move and box. My problem with that strategy is that Ali was never able to dance for 10 rounds let alone 15 rounds, he always had spells where he would be flat footed and accessible. Could he stand toe to toe with a world class fighter and power puncher like Johansson as early as 1961? I think not.

[hhaehre]

To justify Ingo winning the decision would mean you think Ingo was the better boxer and capable of outboxing Clay. He wasn't the better boxer and he wouldn't outbox him either. His one and only chance of beating Clay would be to stop him. If he doesn't stop him then he losses.

Jeez, by that logic Marciano was a better boxer than Charles as he did gain a decision over him.

[HomicideHenry]

To justify Ingo winning the decision would mean you think Ingo was the better boxer and capable of outboxing Clay. He wasn't the better boxer and he wouldn't outbox him either. His one and only chance of beating Clay would be to stop him. If he doesn't stop him then he losses.

Jeez, by that logic Marciano was a better boxer than Charles as he did gain a decision over him.

PWNED!!!!!