Babe Ruth vs Ali

[hhaehre]

I live in the real world and respect anyone who does... I respect anyone with a brain who uses it... But some haters and baiters disrespect anyone who doesn't wallow in traditional myths, legends, tales, fables, inventions, and hype -- and they only respond with childish inanities.

How many pro fights did you have? What was your record?

[keithmoonhangover]

myths, legends, tales, fables, inventions, and hype -- and they only respond with childish inanities.

How tall was Babe Ruth?

[Caractacus]

myths, legends, tales, fables, inventions, and hype -- and they only respond with childish inanities.

How tall was Babe Ruth?

six foot and one inches tall.

[keithmoonhangover]

myths, legends, tales, fables, inventions, and hype -- and they only respond with childish inanities.

How tall was Babe Ruth?

six foot and one inches tall.

Surely not. Kalan said he was, "a short, fat, tub-of-lard" Kalan is never wrong.

[keithmoonhangover]

How tall was Babe Ruth?

six foot and one inches tall.

Surely not. Kalan said he was, "a short, fat, tub-of-lard" Kalan is never wrong.

Kalan........ Were you wrong on this one?

[gp.]

six foot and one inches tall.

Surely not. Kalan said he was, "a short, fat, tub-of-lard" Kalan is never wrong.

Kalan........ Were you wrong on this one?

Kalan measures everything relative to Wilt Chamberlain, around whom the entire universe revolves. Babe Ruth was shorter than Wilt Chamberlain; therefore he was short.

[Kalan]

If you look at the Top-10 Heavyweights ranked by Boxrec.com the heights are as follows: 6'9" ... 6'6" ... 6'2" ... 6'6" ... 6'7" ... 6'5" ... 6'4" ... 6'4" ... 6'4.5" ... and 6'4" Nobody is as short as 6'1" so if Babe Ruth wanted to be a Heavyweight today he'd be super short... However there's a huge slice of the world that is producing professional Heavyweights today were pro boxing didn't even exist 30 years ago -- so we have bigger athletic specimens.

I don't think we'll see a 7'1" Heavyweight Champion very soon. Men who are 7'1" are rarely great athletes.. There's thousands of 7-footers on the planet, but they're usually lumbering oafs like Fury... There's only been a handful of super coordinated men who were that tall in the history of the planet... Chamberlain, Jabbar, and I wouldn't particularly say Shaq was that phenomenal... Look at his numbers compared to Wilt.. Shaq would get WAY fat and out of shape... Not as fat and flabby as Babe Ruth however... Look how slow, weak, flabby, and poorly conditioned Tyson Fury is, and he's the Lineal Heavyweight Champion of the World. However he's 3 inches taller than everybody else in the Top-10 with an 85" reach.. The clod is still going down when he faces AJ.

[keithmoonhangover]

if Babe Ruth wanted to be a Heavyweight today he'd be super short...

As he's dead I think that's unlikely.

The fact is Mr Kalan, that the average male in the USA is 5' 9" and was less back in Mr Ruth's day. So Babe wasn't short. You were wrong, but you're not man enough to admit it.

[Kalan]

He's short for a Heavyweight Boxer Ding Bat... 6'1" is short for a basketball player and short for a Heavyweight Boxer who happens to be facing Ali... Frazier was a shorty who beat Ali because he took 3 light hits to land one harder one... Smokin's height didn't work for him against a much taller and bigger hitter from what I heard.. I think Joe lasted 5 minutes, and got bounced off the canvas 6 times in total.. Some size and strength would have helped.

6'1" is not particularly short if you're hustling around picking up delicious, curvaceous girls who are 5'8" to 5'11". You still might be able to handle it if you're good looking, well dressed, can converse well, and you're only 6'1" ..Different strokes for different activities.. However Ruth was ugly and had a problem on entry because that big pot belly kept getting in the way.. So he often had to get his wallet out and fork over the cash.

However back to the subject.. Larry Holmes was the right height, 6'3" which matched Ali... and he overmatched Ali in every single skill and nuance of the science... So It might work out better if you have the appropriate height and reach to matchup well with Ali... Ruth was a tad lacking.

[keithmoonhangover]

He's short for a Heavyweight Boxer Ding Bat... 6'1" is short for a basketball player and short for a Heavyweight Boxer

In your original statement you just said he was short, which he wasn't. You were wrong.

[Caractacus]

Both heavyweight champions Jack Dempsey and Max Schmeling were 6 ft 1".
(Gene Tunney and Jack Sharkey were 6 ft 0").

[BoxBuzz]

However back to the subject.. Larry Holmes was the right height, 6'3" which matched Ali... and he overmatched Ali in every single skill and nuance of the science... .

Well this is just plain wrong.....not that I can't respect the idea that Holmes could beat Ali surely that's plausible...though I do disagree and would place my bet elsewhere.

But what your errantly stating here, is that Holmes would have the advantage on every skill and nuance.....and that's a load of bilge.

Not even a quality load, just a typical load.

Fact is, Holmes would have a harder time than Norton did against Ali. He was not as naturally suited an opponent. And you know what Kalel? I think you know full well that I'm on solid terra firma when I say this. Now that doesn't mean your going to out and out admit this out loud, anytime soon, on this forum....but your going to think about what I'm saying, and quietly your going to say to yourself. "You know....that BuzzBox character is right about that"

AT least Holmes is a genuine champion boxer, and highly skilled, and a proven force. So it's not your wildest yammerings to date. It's just your latest yammerings in the wild.

[Kalan]

Both heavyweight champions Jack Dempsey and Max Schmeling were 6 ft 1".
(Gene Tunney and Jack Sharkey were 6 ft 0").

Well GEE WHIZ... Marciano and Frazier were both 5'11 inches... and Tommy Burns was rumored to be much shorter... of course Burns never won a minute of any round when he fought Jack Johnson, but Burns could have gone on defending his title versus riffraff forever... Frazier met his George Foreman "there you go shorty. now I'll bash you another one." Marciano never met his George Foreman ... and that makes a difference.

[Kalan]

However back to the subject.. Larry Holmes was the right height, 6'3" which matched Ali... and he overmatched Ali in every single skill and nuance of the science... .

Well this is just plain wrong.....not that I can't respect the idea that Holmes could beat Ali surely that's plausible...though I do disagree and would place my bet elsewhere.

But what your errantly stating here, is that Holmes would have the advantage on every skill and nuance.....and that's a load of bilge.

Not even a quality load, just a typical load.

Fact is, Holmes would have a harder time than Norton did against Ali. He was not as naturally suited an opponent. And you know what Kalel? I think you know full well that I'm on solid terra firma when I say this. Now that doesn't mean your going to out and out admit this out loud, anytime soon, on this forum....but your going to think about what I'm saying, and quietly your going to say to yourself. "You know....that BuzzBox character is right about that"

AT least Holmes is a genuine champion boxer, and highly skilled, and a proven force. So it's not your wildest yammerings to date. It's just your latest yammerings in the wild.

BuzzBox you can't use your head for thinking... It's there for a hat rack...

Ali had a very poor body attack and couldn't get anything done with Norton except get his jaw busted and the living crap beaten out of him... Holmes had a badly torn left biceps (well documented) and was forced to fight Norton's fight after easily winning the first few rounds with his jab... but Holmes still beat Norton by a much wider margin than the judges held...and he controlled the ring easily... Ali ran like a thief against Norton and didn't land a telling blow... and Holmes beat Ali by 10 million miles doofus... Years earlier Ali ducked Holmes in favor of fighting unranked Leon Spinks -- so you know the ONLY reason Ali was fighting Holmes was because he was dead broke... But I expect your next post to be nothing but crapola because you haven't had a clear thought yet.

[Caractacus]

Both heavyweight champions Jack Dempsey and Max Schmeling were 6 ft 1".
(Gene Tunney and Jack Sharkey were 6 ft 0").

Well GEE WHIZ... Marciano and Frazier were both 5'11 inches... and Tommy Burns was rumored to be much shorter... of course Burns never won a minute of any round when he fought Jack Johnson, but Burns could have gone on defending his title versus riffraff forever... Frazier met his George Foreman "there you go shorty. now I'll bash you another one." Marciano never met his George Foreman ... and that makes a difference.

actually Rocky Marciano was only 5 ft 10 and one-quarter inch tall (in his socks)
and look what he accomplished !

[Kalan]

And against who!!!

[Tomasino]

And against who!!!

Better fighters than you, shithead

[Caractacus]

And against who!!!

against more then one future Boxing Hall of Famers !

[BoxBuzz]

However back to the subject.. Larry Holmes was the right height, 6'3" which matched Ali... and he overmatched Ali in every single skill and nuance of the science... .

Well this is just plain wrong.....not that I can't respect the idea that Holmes could beat Ali surely that's plausible...though I do disagree and would place my bet elsewhere.

But what your errantly stating here, is that Holmes would have the advantage on every skill and nuance.....and that's a load of bilge.

Not even a quality load, just a typical load.

Fact is, Holmes would have a harder time than Norton did against Ali. He was not as naturally suited an opponent. And you know what Kalel? I think you know full well that I'm on solid terra firma when I say this. Now that doesn't mean your going to out and out admit this out loud, anytime soon, on this forum....but your going to think about what I'm saying, and quietly your going to say to yourself. "You know....that BuzzBox character is right about that"

AT least Holmes is a genuine champion boxer, and highly skilled, and a proven force. So it's not your wildest yammerings to date. It's just your latest yammerings in the wild.

BuzzBox you can't use your head for thinking... It's there for a hat rack...

Ali had a very poor body attack and couldn't get anything done with Norton except get his jaw busted and the living crap beaten out of him... Holmes had a badly torn left biceps (well documented) and was forced to fight Norton's fight after easily winning the first few rounds with his jab... but Holmes still beat Norton by a much wider margin than the judges held...and he controlled the ring easily... Ali ran like a thief against Norton and didn't land a telling blow... and Holmes beat Ali by 10 million miles doofus... Years earlier Ali ducked Holmes in favor of fighting unranked Leon Spinks -- so you know the ONLY reason Ali was fighting Holmes was because he was dead broke... But I expect your next post to be nothing but crapola because you haven't had a clear thought yet.

Yes, yes, I have quite a collection of hats, and no you can't borrow one. Stop being envious and petty.

You and your apples and oranges nonsense. IF you are being "literal" and speaking in "real time" and being "cute" I'll grant you that in the real time of things.....as Ali was aging out, and Holmes was growing in dominance, every word you type has some basis in meaning. But when you do this, you are practicing the art of Obfuscation. Which is probably exactly what you want to do.
But I will ask better of you. The readers deserve better from you.

In my humble opinion you have demonstrated on occasion that your IQ is above room temperature. So I always attempt to see where you are finding your logic base. So if "Time" is the context...then yes we can agree. At the "Time" that these two greats met, Holmes was better in every nuance and skill.

Now stop being cute, and get real....since "sober as a judge" is the persona you prefer.....you should at least give a feeble attempt to live up to it.

These two fighters at their "MUTUAL PEAK"....or what we often refer to in this forum as their "MUTUAL PRIME"........does not fit your rather thoughtless, vacuous, and bias descriptors.

Now does it? I'll answer for you.....just to keep you honest.

Your informed answer would be "NO".

And perhaps an apology to those of us who look to you for clear and concise information, (in this case for your lowful todying and sloppy assessment) would be in order as well.

[Kalan]

They seem short to me... You won't find many guys that height playing in the NBA... Where are the 7 footers??? Or even guys 6'6" topping the leader board???

[Kalan]

Woods is 6 foot... I just checked, and I'm skeptical because I've met him... Jack Nicholas, who has the best all time stats to date was 5'10"

[keithmoonhangover]

They seem short to me... You won't find many guys that height playing in the NBA... Where are the 7 footers??? Or even guys 6'6" topping the leader board???

How tall are you Kalan?

[Kalan]

A little over 6'4"

[hhaehre]

A little over 6'4"

What's your professional boxing record?

[BoxBuzz]

I think you meant, a little under 6'5"