Page 5 of 13
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 18 Jun 2020, 15:09
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 18 Jun 2020, 15:16
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 18 Jun 2020, 15:17
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 19 Jun 2020, 08:06
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 19 Jun 2020, 08:27
by DrDuke
In reality Norton won the Ali trilogy 2-1, the 3rd bout was a robbery.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 19 Jun 2020, 10:50
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 19 Jun 2020, 11:29
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 19 Jun 2020, 19:36
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 20 Jun 2020, 17:54
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 20 Jun 2020, 18:03
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 20 Jun 2020, 18:16
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
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 20 Jun 2020, 18:31
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 20 Jun 2020, 18:41
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 08:18
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 09:39
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 09:42
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
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 10:22
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
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 10:46
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 11:27
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.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 11:41
by jenko21
tiny_acres wrote: ↑22 Jun 2020, 10:22
X3
That post was borderline insane
X4
That's just ridiculous , you should hang your head in shame
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 14:24
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
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 16:36
by oogiebe
tiny_acres wrote: ↑22 Jun 2020, 10:22
X3
That post was borderline insane
X4
Obvious troll.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 22 Jun 2020, 17:03
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
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 23 Jun 2020, 20:41
by margaret thatcher
I still love you bruh, f@ck the haterz, they just jealous
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Posted: 24 Jun 2020, 11:09
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
