Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post Reply

Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

#1
49
64%
#2-5
20
26%
#6-8
3
4%
#9-10
1
1%
# 11 and under
3
4%
 
Total votes: 76

Tony1244
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 24641
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 21:31

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Tony1244 »

I think Ali may have won in 1968 before Frazier truly peaked.

As great as Ali was, Frazier and Norton really had perfect styles to beat Ali. Speed and Power.
DrDuke
Lightweight
Posts: 13873
Joined: 29 Nov 2017, 09:15

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by DrDuke »

Tony1244 wrote: 18 Jun 2020, 15:09 I think Ali may have won in 1968 before Frazier truly peaked.

As great as Ali was, Frazier and Norton really had perfect styles to beat Ali. Speed and Power.
From what it's possible to see, I'd say, Frazier peaked by the Chuvalo fight. If he fought Ali instead of Chuvalo that night or in the next bout right after Chuvalo, he would have won Ali.
fanman
Super Middleweight
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 Jun 2013, 19:56

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by fanman »

Ali would have toyed with all the plodding b-raters.
Wilder is sloppy, would probably have lost, but has a punchers chance against anyone.
Joshua, his style could be a problem. He probably would gas and lose to Ali, but would be close based on aj's physique.
Fury. Would probably be a chess match. Would be close. Fury would have some tools to win, so would Ali. Would have to give Ali the edge based on his legacy.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15114
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Tony1244 wrote: 18 Jun 2020, 15:09 I think Ali may have won in 1968 before Frazier truly peaked.

As great as Ali was, Frazier and Norton really had perfect styles to beat Ali. Speed and Power.
Yet past his prime Ali beat them.
Always thought Norton gets underrated these days. For the past several years, people think he just happened to give Ali trouble or the glass jaw nonsense. He was really good.
DrDuke
Lightweight
Posts: 13873
Joined: 29 Nov 2017, 09:15

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by DrDuke »

In reality Norton won the Ali trilogy 2-1, the 3rd bout was a robbery.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45213
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

fanman wrote: 18 Jun 2020, 15:17 Ali would have toyed with all the plodding b-raters.
Wilder is sloppy, would probably have lost, but has a punchers chance against anyone.
Joshua, his style could be a problem. He probably would gas and lose to Ali, but would be close based on aj's physique.
Fury. Would probably be a chess match. Would be close. Fury would have some tools to win, so would Ali. Would have to give Ali the edge based on his legacy.
AJ would have been totally outclassed, he would have looked incredibly slow and cumbersome next to Ali, and Alis workrate would have had him gasping for air very quickly indeed. His physique wouldn't have been much help, big muscles are just for show.
Winter king
Lightweight
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 19:33

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Winter king »

Tony1244 wrote: 18 Jun 2020, 08:33
Winter king wrote: 18 Jun 2020, 07:51

I did watch boxing matches from the 20th century and i still think Ali is not unbeatable by todays heavies. He was very skilled but or etc Ken Norton figuered him out in his prime. Do you really have such a low opinion about todays heavies that nobody reaches the level of Ken Norton? And the thing is size does play a bigger part today because yes there were 6'6 guys before but none of them were this skilled. Also Ali couldnt use his signiture style at 90% of the matches because he would have to fight like the much smaller and shorter guy.
Norton vs Fury would be a tough call. Norton or Frazier would beat AJ easily IMO.
Yeah but I think Frazier would exploit the total lack of high level infighters in the heavyweight division far better than Ali would use his skillset.
Bandog
Featherweight
Posts: 2471
Joined: 27 Jul 2019, 08:02

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Bandog »

Tony1244 wrote: 17 Jun 2020, 13:42 I could see Fury's size and style giving Ali a bit of trouble but eventually Ali would figure him out.

Ali beating AJ and Wilder is a no brainer.
Lets not forget how horrible Fury looked vs Wallin fairly recently. We all know Wilder is not a great boxer, and to beat him you avoid a big shot. Fury would have been slightly above average in other eras in my opinion.
fanman
Super Middleweight
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 Jun 2013, 19:56

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by fanman »

jamesmcdonnell wrote: 19 Jun 2020, 10:50
fanman wrote: 18 Jun 2020, 15:17 Ali would have toyed with all the plodding b-raters.
Wilder is sloppy, would probably have lost, but has a punchers chance against anyone.
Joshua, his style could be a problem. He probably would gas and lose to Ali, but would be close based on aj's physique.
Fury. Would probably be a chess match. Would be close. Fury would have some tools to win, so would Ali. Would have to give Ali the edge based on his legacy.
AJ would have been totally outclassed, he would have looked incredibly slow and cumbersome next to Ali, and Alis workrate would have had him gasping for air very quickly indeed. His physique wouldn't have been much help, big muscles are just for show.
Maybe. But even Ron Lyle won a lot of rounds. I think Lewis/Klitschko types would be hard for Ali/Holmes types. Hard to get past a bigger man with a jab and who is much more powerful. I'd like to think Ali would dance rings around them though.
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by oogiebe »

fanman wrote: 20 Jun 2020, 17:54
jamesmcdonnell wrote: 19 Jun 2020, 10:50

AJ would have been totally outclassed, he would have looked incredibly slow and cumbersome next to Ali, and Alis workrate would have had him gasping for air very quickly indeed. His physique wouldn't have been much help, big muscles are just for show.
Maybe. But even Ron Lyle won a lot of rounds. I think Lewis/Klitschko types would be hard for Ali/Holmes types. Hard to get past a bigger man with a jab and who is much more powerful. I'd like to think Ali would dance rings around them though.
Vs Ron Lyle? C'mon, that Ali was hardly the best Ali.
margaret thatcher
Featherweight
Posts: 39230
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by margaret thatcher »

People love to go with the extremes in fantasy matches with the name fighters. There are so many fights even for the greats where they hardly 100 percent dominant or humilate the opponent, but like 90 percent of fantasy fights get picked for these types of outcomes.

Every loser is getting totally embarassed or outclassed , isn't landing a punch, is getting destroyed, etc
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by oogiebe »

margaret thatcher wrote: 20 Jun 2020, 18:16 People love to go with the extremes in fantasy matches with the name fighters. There are so many fights even for the greats where they hardly 100 percent dominant or humilate the opponent, but like 90 percent of fantasy fights get picked for these types of outcomes.

Every loser is getting totally embarassed or outclassed , isn't landing a punch, is getting destroyed, etc
It's ridiculous. But equally ridiculous to use a less than stellar and past it fight as your comp. But I get ya.
Onetimeonly
Super Featherweight
Posts: 11584
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 06:28

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Onetimeonly »

margaret thatcher wrote: 20 Jun 2020, 18:16 People love to go with the extremes in fantasy matches with the name fighters. There are so many fights even for the greats where they hardly 100 percent dominant or humilate the opponent, but like 90 percent of fantasy fights get picked for these types of outcomes.

Every loser is getting totally embarassed or outclassed , isn't landing a punch, is getting destroyed, etc
This is true, everyone is guilty of it. When we're all wrong week by week on some fights. It's harder to see the other side with completed careers.

Me personally, when I said fury wouldn't lay a glove on Ali that was tongue in cheek. His output is just so low it's hard to imagine that working on Ali.
tigermoth87
Welterweight
Posts: 1794
Joined: 21 Feb 2016, 11:23

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by tigermoth87 »

Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
lazboy
Super Lightweight
Posts: 5563
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 21:00

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by lazboy »

tigermoth87 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18 Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
Terrible, terrible post.
Duran1970
Lightweight
Posts: 934
Joined: 03 Jan 2018, 14:20

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Duran1970 »

lazboy wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:39
tigermoth87 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18 Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
Terrible, terrible post.
X2
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9432
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by tiny_acres »

Duran1970 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:42
lazboy wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:39

Terrible, terrible post.
X2
X3
That post was borderline insane
Tony1244
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 24641
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 21:31

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Tony1244 »

tigermoth87 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18 Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
If you're not a boxing fan there is no sense in pretending to be one. You'll make more friends being a football fan anyway.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45213
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

tigermoth87 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18 Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
You need to go do some reading, in fact the main reason for the improvements in athletic performance are twofold.

1) The increasing professionalism of sport, means a wider talent pool (actually the reverse is true in boxing, there is a smaller talent pool now than there was in the 1920-1970s as there were far more active fighters in those decades)
2) Technological advances - track and field shows this all too well, starting blocks, rubberised and sprung tracks, and training shoe technologies have all had a large impact on times.
jenko21
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 125
Joined: 27 Feb 2012, 12:32

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by jenko21 »

tiny_acres wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 10:22
Duran1970 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:42

X2
X3
That post was borderline insane
X4

That's just ridiculous , you should hang your head in shame
SteveO
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1381
Joined: 31 Dec 2001, 20:00

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by SteveO »

lazboy wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:39
tigermoth87 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18 Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
Terrible, terrible post.
Congratulations Tigermoth87 that is probably the most ridiculous post ever made on BoxRec
oogiebe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 32990
Joined: 01 Jul 2012, 19:35

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by oogiebe »

tiny_acres wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 10:22
Duran1970 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:42

X2
X3
That post was borderline insane
X4
Obvious troll.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46295
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by gilgamesh »

SteveO wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 14:24
lazboy wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 09:39

Terrible, terrible post.
Congratulations Tigermoth87 that is probably the most ridiculous post ever made on BoxRec
Ain't original either. We've had Ali haters on here before who expressed similarly ridiculous opinions about him.

I assume guys like this like to go around the internet attacking the giants of all Athletics.

Maybe he hops onto a Basketball forum to sh*t on Michael Jordan, or he logs onto a Baseball forum to sh*t on Babe Ruth.

Some people just like to get that "ooh look at me, and my controversial opinion" attention.

Trolls
margaret thatcher
Featherweight
Posts: 39230
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by margaret thatcher »

I still love you bruh, f@ck the haterz, they just jealous
Tevfik1907
Featherweight
Posts: 243
Joined: 08 Mar 2020, 17:53

Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?

Post by Tevfik1907 »

tigermoth87 wrote: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18 Athletes in all sports get better with every generation. It's why sporting records are always broken.

Ali would be around the Chisora/Joseph Parker level today. His fan boys greatly exagerrate Ali's legacy. He has some great wins, but most of the time he feasted on bums who either wouldn't crack the top 40 today or wouldn't even be fighting in the heavyweight division.

Look at some of the bums he fought. Jimmy Young, Evangelista, Chuck Wepner, jerry Quarry. He has a long list of bums and midgets.
Then Foreman shouldn't be able to win the heavyweight championship in his 45 :lol:
Post Reply