Ali's size

tagjohnson · Post by **tagjohnson** » 21 May 2006, 16:29

My previous post about fighter's size reminded me that Muhammad Ali often had a considerable size advantage over his opponents and I think that that was an overlooked adavantage he had. If you will look at his opponents (especially before his exile) he usually had at the height advantage and often weight as well. Looking over his record I really can't find anybody with a marked size advantage. Many of his top opponents were actually shorter; Liston, Ellis, Folley, Shavers, at 6"1". Quarry and Chuvalo 6'0" Cooper 6'2". Frazier was only 5'11". Lyle matched Ali's 6'3" and Foreman was only an inch taller. Ernie Terrell was 6'6" but thin and Mathis 6'3" was much heavier but quite frankly fat. So I would have to say I think Ali's size was probably his biggest advantage. Yes, he was fast but would he have been the fighter he was if he had been a six footer? I don't think so, what do you guys think?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 21 May 2006, 18:06

mercman wrote:People do tend to forget how big Ali was. Especially in the 1960s he was very often a lot bigger than his opponents. However, to say his size was his biggest advantage is to overlook the many other skills and qualities that Ali had. I would see Ali's bravery, durability, speed, footwork and loads and loads of other things as far more important than his size.

And I'd have to agree with you, sir.

To say his size was his most important asset is, quite frankly, clutching at straws and ignores what a superb all-round fighting machine he was.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 May 2006, 18:17

tagjohnson wrote:My previous post about fighter's size reminded me that Muhammad Ali often had a considerable size advantage over his opponents and I think that that was an overlooked adavantage he had. If you will look at his opponents (especially before his exile) he usually had at the height advantage and often weight as well. Looking over his record I really can't find anybody with a marked size advantage. Many of his top opponents were actually shorter; Liston, Ellis, Folley, Shavers, at 6"1". Quarry and Chuvalo 6'0" Cooper 6'2". Frazier was only 5'11". Lyle matched Ali's 6'3" and Foreman was only an inch taller. Ernie Terrell was 6'6" but thin and Mathis 6'3" was much heavier but quite frankly fat. So I would have to say I think Ali's size was probably his biggest advantage. Yes, he was fast but would he have been the fighter he was if he had been a six footer? I don't think so, what do you guys think?

Well if you look through his record you'll see that Ali fought a lot of guys bigger than him... and generally had the most trouble with smaller faster fighters... so if anything Ali's size was a disadvantage to him and the fact that he was so successful and so fast is even more impressive when taking that into account...

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 21 May 2006, 20:11

Ali's size... Hmmm

I'd have to go with short and skinny.

Like one of those baby carrots.

rufus payne · Post by **rufus payne** » 21 May 2006, 20:15

Ali could have been any weight class and been champ. The Greatest Fighter of all time.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 May 2006, 23:41

just go watch ali vs liston........u will find ali looks bigger than liston

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 22 May 2006, 00:31

rufus payne wrote:Ali could have been any weight class and been champ. The Greatest Fighter of all time.

Oh man, that is too funny.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 22 May 2006, 00:42

Ali did have a size advantage over a number of opponents but to say it was his biggest advantage is wrong. His reflexes and speed were his big advantages, not his size. Really, 2 inches in boxing is nothing to write home about, as is 10 lbs of weight.

Liston had longer arms than Clay plus at 6'1 215 had a much thicker build than Clay. Clay on film is taller than Sonny but not 'bigger'.

Frazier's 5'11 height actually helped him vs Ali. Bobbing and weaving at 6'3 would've only made Joe easier to hit.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 May 2006, 07:30

Tantum wrote:
rufus payne wrote:Ali could have been any weight class and been champ. The Greatest Fighter of all time.
Oh man, that is too funny.

Why is that funny?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 22 May 2006, 08:09

I rate Ali the greatest HW of all time. Having said that, any unbiased fight fan would understand that Ali’s size was clearly a great help in many of his fights. Of course, I can’t imagine a prime Ali even working up a sweat against the top giant HWs of today, but clearly the fact that he was taller and heavier than most of his opponents was an advantage. His greatest advantage? That’s a pretty silly statement.

rufus payne · Post by **rufus payne** » 22 May 2006, 10:58

Tantum wrote:
rufus payne wrote:Ali could have been any weight class and been champ. The Greatest Fighter of all time.
Oh man, that is too funny.

no not funny...but a fact

tagjohnson · Post by **tagjohnson** » 22 May 2006, 11:16

I would have to say I still think Ali's size was his biggest advantage. Even though I respect his many gifts (particularly speed and ring smarts) and I rate him as my alltime top heavyweight, I just can't see him doing what he did if he had been say the size of most pre-Liston heavyweights 6'0"/6'1" under 200 lbs. That said, I of course respect the differing opinions of you my brothers here at boxrec.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 22 May 2006, 11:34

tagjohnson wrote:I would have to say I still think Ali's size was his biggest advantage. Even though I respect his many gifts (particularly speed and ring smarts) and I rate him as my alltime top heavyweight, I just can't see him doing what he did if he had been say the size of most pre-Liston heavyweights 6'0"/6'1" under 200 lbs. That said, I of course respect the differing opinions of you my brothers here at boxrec.

Tag,

I do think you've got a point. I like it when someone takes on one of the sports biggest names and looks at them in a new way.

IMO Ali's chin and durability were his greatest advantage. The size difference was very noticable in the 3rd Frazier fight and that is the one often cited as testament to his superiority over the men from his era.

Ericang · Post by **Ericang** » 22 May 2006, 16:18

Nobody chooses his body, it is given to us by genetics, the merit consists on using it in the best possible way. Every athlete, or person in general, should use natural advantages, so the main question isn't if it is size, chin or durability, but the whole package, the combination of strength and weaknesses and the way they are used or surpassed. Ali as a whole was superb, period. If you consider him, or anyone, "in pieces" your are nor looking at an individual / fighter, you're looking at a non personalized fantasy, furthermore Ali wasn't only tall, he was also fast, intelligent, courageous and powerful.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 23 May 2006, 01:45

rufus payne wrote:
Tantum wrote:
rufus payne wrote:Ali could have been any weight class and been champ. The Greatest Fighter of all time.
Oh man, that is too funny.
no not funny...but a fact

It is also a fact that you have a micro penis.

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 23 May 2006, 11:46

Tantum wrote:
rufus payne wrote:
Tantum wrote: Oh man, that is too funny.
no not funny...but a fact
It is also a fact that you have a micro penis.

Given the title of this thread, I'd say that was inevitable. I'm off to check out the 'size matters' discussion.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 23 May 2006, 11:58

bigzab wrote:
Tantum wrote:
rufus payne wrote: no not funny...but a fact
It is also a fact that you have a micro penis.
Given the title of this thread, I'd say that was inevitable. I'm off to check out the 'size matters' discussion.

Ali's size

Ali's size

Re: Ali's size