Ali dominated Terrell, who had good skills and was bigger, but those skills obviously aren't comparable with Fury's one. You and Alpy boy can laugh as much as you want at the one of the first pro-fights of Fury. That didn't affect Fury's further growth, dethroning the two champs with the prolonged reigns and either that won't affect anything in Fury-Joshua bout. Joshua will be outclassed.Bandog wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 07:44I didn't say Terrell was equal, I was just giving an example of Ali dominating someone with good skill that is much bigger than he was. Truth be told I don't think Fury would be a problem for someone as slick as Ali was. I am probably one of the few that thinks AJ will KO Fury with an uppercut. Fury stunned himself with his own uppercut a few years back.![]()
Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
When it comes to Tyson, I'd say you were a bit biased. That's ok. Good to be a fan.DrDuke wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 08:06Ali dominated Terrell, who had good skills and was bigger, but those skills obviously aren't comparable with Fury's one. You and Alpy boy can laugh as much as you want at the one of the first pro-fights of Fury. That didn't affect Fury's further growth, dethroning the two champs with the prolonged reigns and either that won't affect anything in Fury-Joshua bout. Joshua will be outclassed.Bandog wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 07:44
I didn't say Terrell was equal, I was just giving an example of Ali dominating someone with good skill that is much bigger than he was. Truth be told I don't think Fury would be a problem for someone as slick as Ali was. I am probably one of the few that thinks AJ will KO Fury with an uppercut. Fury stunned himself with his own uppercut a few years back.![]()
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15109
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
It's OK to be a fan of someone. Everyone does. Sometimes though, people go way overboard with it and rate their favorites way higher than they should. and/or rate guys they don't like much lower than they should.
We are supposed look at the "incredible growth" from his early fights. Just a year and half ago he got decked twice and had a draw against the great Wilder.
Since then he beat a couple of stiffs and then beat Wilder. for that, we are supposed to consider him a legend.
We are supposed look at the "incredible growth" from his early fights. Just a year and half ago he got decked twice and had a draw against the great Wilder.
Since then he beat a couple of stiffs and then beat Wilder. for that, we are supposed to consider him a legend.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Recency.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 10:55 It's OK to be a fan of someone. Everyone does. Sometimes though, people go way overboard with it and rate their favorites way higher than they should. and/or rate guys they don't like much lower than they should.
We are supposed look at the "incredible growth" from his early fights. Just a year and half ago he got decked twice and had a draw against the great Wilder.
Since then he beat a couple of stiffs and then beat Wilder. for that, we are supposed to consider him a legend.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
I suspect his last few fights could be impressive, if he continues to sit down on his shots more, and actually use that size of his offensively, rather than shucking, jiving and picking and poking, he might turn out to be better than we all thought.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 10:55 It's OK to be a fan of someone. Everyone does. Sometimes though, people go way overboard with it and rate their favorites way higher than they should. and/or rate guys they don't like much lower than they should.
We are supposed look at the "incredible growth" from his early fights. Just a year and half ago he got decked twice and had a draw against the great Wilder.
Since then he beat a couple of stiffs and then beat Wilder. for that, we are supposed to consider him a legend.
It's all an if at this stage mind, and right now, he's done nothing to be considered a legend.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
I guess the next thing I will read here is that Henry Cooper hit harder than for example Joseph Parker of todays heavyweights...
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15109
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Of course not. He didn't weigh as much. That's all that counts.
Obviously we should base Ali's career on a three-second knockdown in the 19th fight of his career. Forget that he won the fight and dominated it before the knockdown and after. Forget that he whipped Cooper three years later. Forget all the fights later.
Forget the footage of Ali in his prime. It's all an illusion. It's in black and white. That doesn't count.
We are in the Joseph Parker era. One great heavyweight fight after another.
Obviously we should base Ali's career on a three-second knockdown in the 19th fight of his career. Forget that he won the fight and dominated it before the knockdown and after. Forget that he whipped Cooper three years later. Forget all the fights later.
Forget the footage of Ali in his prime. It's all an illusion. It's in black and white. That doesn't count.
We are in the Joseph Parker era. One great heavyweight fight after another.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
According to boxrec, Cooper beat a lot of guys that outweighed him by 20 pounds. Guess those must be misprints.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 11:22 Of course not. He didn't weigh as much. That's all that counts.
Obviously we should base Ali's career on a three-second knockdown in the 19th fight of his career. Forget that he won the fight and dominated it before the knockdown and after. Forget that he whipped Cooper three years later. Forget all the fights later.
Forget the footage of Ali in his prime. It's all an illusion. It's in black and white. That doesn't count.
We are in the Joseph Parker era. One great heavyweight fight after another.
Also, Parker should be fighting at 20 pounds less than he is, like he did in the beginning of his career.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
If getting knocked down by a smaller man is such an important criterian, isn't Fury "DQd" for being knocked down by Cunningham?
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Maybe I'm biased, but still I had to tell "Told ya so" after both Wilder fights. If Fury loses to Joshua, I'll say "OK, I was wrong", but up to the date I see Fury as the current clearly best heavyweight with a solid all-time ranking potential.oogiebe wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 10:41When it comes to Tyson, I'd say you were a bit biased. That's ok. Good to be a fan.DrDuke wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 08:06
Ali dominated Terrell, who had good skills and was bigger, but those skills obviously aren't comparable with Fury's one. You and Alpy boy can laugh as much as you want at the one of the first pro-fights of Fury. That didn't affect Fury's further growth, dethroning the two champs with the prolonged reigns and either that won't affect anything in Fury-Joshua bout. Joshua will be outclassed.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
He is clearly number one now, but let's wait until he retires to classify him as an ATG.
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
To use a (hopefully) better football analogy than earlier in this thread: Do you guys also think that Pele would be the worlds best footballer if he was timewarped at his best level to 2020?
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Quit while your ahead..
Can't compare others sports to boxing.
Can't compare others sports to boxing.
-
Thomastearns
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: 26 Feb 2017, 11:11
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Remember far more people play football today than back in 1962. Far fewer people box in the US than in 1962. So generally football standards in the main may have risen whilst boxing ones may have not.
In any case talent follows its own rules and I'm pretty sure that players such as Garrincha, Pele, Best, Cruyff, Muller, Maradona etc would all standout in this or any other generation.
No amount of improvements in fitness or conditioning would ever nullify those levels of skill.
And this is despite before taking into account all of the changes in the game from boots, pitches and the actual footballs used.
Heck, many of today's players would just cry off the pitch demanding referee protection if faced with the conditions of yesteryear.
Neymar would presumably roll off.
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9007
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Depends how you're pitching your timewarp analogy.
If Pele appeared today with 1950s/1960s diets and training methods etc, then probably not, but give him 21st century training, diets, medical care, boot technology and lightweight balls, he almost certainly would be.
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39227
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
People have perpetually underrated Fury actually, he was the underdog at least 4 times in his career but never lost. It's not just some recency thing, people keep getting it wrong with him for nearly a decade now, and of course he beat Wlad 5 years ago now so it's not like he only just got his first notable win
Wouldn't be surprised if people eventually talk themselves into favouring Wilder in a 3rd fight, it's always been fashionable to seriously underestimate Fury
Wouldn't be surprised if people eventually talk themselves into favouring Wilder in a 3rd fight, it's always been fashionable to seriously underestimate Fury
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Seems to me that he was an underdog with Wlad and the first Wilder fight. The rematch ended up more as a pick 'em if I'm not mistaken. So perpetually? Nah.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 17:09 People have perpetually underrated Fury actually, he was the underdog at least 4 times in his career but never lost. It's not just some recency thing, people keep getting it wrong with him for nearly a decade now, and of course he beat Wlad 5 years ago now so it's not like he only just got his first notable win
Wouldn't be surprised if people eventually talk themselves into favouring Wilder in a 3rd fight, it's always been fashionable to seriously underestimate Fury
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15109
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
He has had two real fights. One win and one draw. He looked like crap against an ancient Klitschko. doesn't make him a legend.
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15109
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
-
margaret thatcher
- Featherweight
- Posts: 39227
- Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Yep, he was underdog for the first Chisora fight, Wlad, and both Wilder fights. Wilder was defo the favourite both times---and I know we were both going Wilder ktfo, Fury didn't have any route to victory did he, even Wilder's inside game would be too muchoogiebe wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 17:36Seems to me that he was an underdog with Wlad and the first Wilder fight. The rematch ended up more as a pick 'em if I'm not mistaken. So perpetually? Nah.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 17:09 People have perpetually underrated Fury actually, he was the underdog at least 4 times in his career but never lost. It's not just some recency thing, people keep getting it wrong with him for nearly a decade now, and of course he beat Wlad 5 years ago now so it's not like he only just got his first notable win
Wouldn't be surprised if people eventually talk themselves into favouring Wilder in a 3rd fight, it's always been fashionable to seriously underestimate Fury
Been underdog officially 4 times, never lost, people have underestimated him for years. Maybe it's the silly impression that his opponents just don't ever try when they fight him for some reason....oh, but this guy will etc
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
Re: Muhammad Ali (1967) vs. current HWs ?
I know you're just trying to be obnoxious, but I never said his inside game would be too much. I merely mentioned that he did have an uppercut. My opinion didn't affect the odds. Didn't know he was the underdog for Chis.margaret thatcher wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 17:41Yep, he was underdog for the first Chisora fight, Wlad, and both Wilder fights. Wilder was defo the favourite both times---and I know we were both going Wilder ktfo, Fury didn't have any route to victory did he, even Wilder's inside game would be too much. Some good odds you coulda gotten if you were a betting man. .
Been underdog officially 4 times, never lost, people have underestimated him for years. Maybe it's the silly impression that his opponents just don't ever try when they fight him for some reason....oh, but this guy will etc