ALI VS WALCOTT - WHO WINS????? I THINK WALCOTT WOULD GIVE ALI FITS DURING THE BOUT AND MIGHT KNOCK HIM DOWN WITH A LEFT HOOK. I CAN SEE ALI COMING BACK WITH THE SCORE VERY CLOSE AND STOPPING WALCOTT LATE IN LIKE THE 14TH.
FRAZIER VS CHARLES- I THINK FRAZIER WOULD GET TO CHARLES WITH HIS ELFT HOOK BUT CHARLES WOULD BE TOUGH AND OUTBOX FRAZIER AND DISPLAY FINE COUNTERPUNCHING. I SEE FRAZIER BY KO in 11. charles was sucseptible to a left hook.
ali vs walcott frazier vs charles???????????
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Ali breezes by Walcott...10 rounds to 5 easy...Walcott couldn't keep up with a dancing Ali (very few could, Walcott wouldn't be one of them)..
Frazier was too big and too talented for Charles...Frazier's body attack would do Charles in...Charles would look good for a while...but he would never withstand Frazier's relentless body attack over 15...Frazier would outweigh him by 25 pounds or more...that's a lot of weight to give up to a guy who never stops coming...most guys were taller and heavier than Joe and still had trouble...
Frazier was too big and too talented for Charles...Frazier's body attack would do Charles in...Charles would look good for a while...but he would never withstand Frazier's relentless body attack over 15...Frazier would outweigh him by 25 pounds or more...that's a lot of weight to give up to a guy who never stops coming...most guys were taller and heavier than Joe and still had trouble...
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
joe frazier first of all was not more talented than ezzard charles and jaclem can agree with me on that. charles was one of the if not the most talented heavyweight of all time. he only lacked a knockout punch. he was a great master boxer, and good at countering, also very good jab, good setups, had good hand speed. frazier didnt have the skills as ezzard. he had the strenttgh, power, and body punching over ezzard. i still think frazier would win, but ezzard would outbox him before it happens.
sweet scientist, i think walcott could give ali some problems. with walcotts left hook he could floor ali. he could also trouble ali much like norton did, though ali was past his prime against norton
sweet scientist, i think walcott could give ali some problems. with walcotts left hook he could floor ali. he could also trouble ali much like norton did, though ali was past his prime against norton
I agree on all accounts.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:joe frazier first of all was not more talented than ezzard charles and jaclem can agree with me on that. charles was one of the if not the most talented heavyweight of all time. he only lacked a knockout punch. he was a great master boxer, and good at countering, also very good jab, good setups, had good hand speed. frazier didnt have the skills as ezzard. he had the strenttgh, power, and body punching over ezzard. i still think frazier would win, but ezzard would outbox him before it happens.
sweet scientist, i think walcott could give ali some problems. with walcotts left hook he could floor ali. he could also trouble ali much like norton did, though ali was past his prime against norton
Charles was a great boxer, adn the greatest light heavyweight of all-time.
He could box, was fast, had great relfexes, and great ring generalship (check all of his fights). But Frazier was bigger, thicker, and hit alot harder. He also had a wicked left hook and body attack (all of which you have stated). I agree that was the recipe to beat Ezzard.
As for Ali-Walcott...Ali had about 25 pounds on Walcott, but Walcott had the better punch. Walcott was a clever cat, who could move and had great agility. He could outbox plenty of good heavyweights, but Ali was not one of them. Ali was not going to loose by getting outboxed him his prime. But it would be a close tilt. Walcott on his 'A' game rarely went out without a fight.
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
...the king of the one liners...kind of like Butterbean was the king of the 4 rounders...Tantum wrote:That's about the funniest shit I've heard.Sweet Scientist wrote:Ali breezes by Walcott...10 rounds to 5 easy...Walcott couldn't keep up with a dancing Ali (very few could, Walcott wouldn't be one of them)..
I didn't say Ali couldn't beat Walcott.
If Ali were to beat Walcott, it wouldn't have been by dancing... You act as if Ali was so fast on his feet no one could catch him... There is no Ali fight (against an actual contender) that proves this theory true.
If Ali were to beat Walcott, he'd have to beat him with a superior punch output, not by running away jabbing. And it sure as hell wouldn't have been a breeze.
If Ali were to beat Walcott, it wouldn't have been by dancing... You act as if Ali was so fast on his feet no one could catch him... There is no Ali fight (against an actual contender) that proves this theory true.
If Ali were to beat Walcott, he'd have to beat him with a superior punch output, not by running away jabbing. And it sure as hell wouldn't have been a breeze.
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
You must have never seen the first Liston fight...oh yeah..you saw it but you think it was fixed, right...Tantum wrote:Right... What round of what fight did Ali show that he's so fast no one could touch him?
And when you say 'touch him'...it would be more appropriate if you said 'touch him HARD...
...and back to your original sarcastic thought...prime Ali would try to get Walcott to chase him, he could successfully fight Walcott a number of ways, but I say he'd try to get Walcott to chase him...utilizing his jab and countering if/when Walcott went for the head...
...in the end, it's all theory since they can't actually fight...
...I'm not totally impressed with all of yours, either...