BoxRec

We all have our opinions myself I have a hard time imagining Ali fighting a man like Klitschko... and I also happen to believe Carnera was better (considering he was a lineal champion, not some alphabet pretender) than most, therefore he is a top twenty man. I'd wager he would beat, out muscle, etc. most of the men you think are better than he is. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are--- who knows. All I know is Carnera was better, tougher, than people believe him to be.

Yes we all have our opinions, but with all your blustering sometimes it's hard to figure out what you are even saying.

You have trouble imagine Ali fighting Klitschko? Imagine, this he is way too good and way too fast and stops glassjaw in a few rounds with a barrage of punches.
If Ali fought either brother 5 times, he wins 5 times. 10 times, he beats them 10 times. He was simply way, way better than them.

Carnera would probably win one out of 3 vs the Kltischkos.

Carnera is one of the top 20 because he was a lineal champion? So all lineal champions are automatically better than anyone else?

Even if you believe that, there have been more than 20 lineal champions, so Carnera does not automatically qualify as being in the top 20.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how Eddie Chambers, Chris Byrd and David Haye compare to Muhammad Ali.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes we all have our opinions, but with all your blustering sometimes it's hard to figure out what you are even saying.

You have trouble imagine Ali fighting Klitschko? Imagine, this he is way too good and way too fast and stops glassjaw in a few rounds with a barrage of punches.
If Ali fought either brother 5 times, he wins 5 times. 10 times, he beats them 10 times. He was simply way, way better than them.

Carnera would probably win one out of 3 vs the Kltischkos.

Carnera is one of the top 20 because he was a lineal champion? So all lineal champions are automatically better than anyone else?

Even if you believe that, there have been more than 20 lineal champions, so Carnera does not automatically qualify as being in the top 20.

I would say that lineal champions are superior to alphabet champions, yes (by and large) unless you have an alphabet titlist who won several alphabet belts (like Tim Witherspoon). There is exceptions to the rule, sometimes, but that's the key word: exception. I would say that Carnera, has a solid chance of beating men like Hart, Burns, Willard, and some alphabet title holders like Valuev, Ruiz, etc. so all in all--- I would venture to say that he is a top 20 heavyweight. Maybe #20 out of 20, but still in the top 20 regardless.

Tuan_Jim wrote:I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how Eddie Chambers, Chris Byrd and David Haye compare to Muhammad Ali.

Basically for two reasons:

All three of those men fit the exact height and weight and reach of Muhammad Ali.
All three of those men were known for their speed and elusiveness, like Ali was.

Byrd had the most skills of the three, Haye had the most speed, Chambers had the best result against Vladimir out of the three men, because he was willing to take the risks. Even so, you combine all three of those men's best abilities, which in essence would be Aliesque, I still have a terrific time seeing him getting in enough times, to score the points necessary to beat Klitschko convincingly (unaminous, wide, majority, etc).

Well of course on average a lineal champion would be better. However, Carnera is one of the bottom tier lineal champions.

Here are 23 lineal champions that were clearly superior to Carnera:
Ali, Louis, Foreman,Johnson,Frazier, Holmes,Holyfield,Holyfield,Lewis,Marciano,Dempsey,Liston,Jeffries,Tyson, Charles, Walcott, Fitzsimmons,Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Tunney,Bowe and Patterson.

No he probably would not go 0-23 against them; he would probably sneak in a couple of wins. He would not win 2 out of 3 against any of them. And if he would also lose many fights to fighters we aren't even mentioning.

Lanfgord, Wills,Jeanette, McVey, weren't lineal champions (never got a chance) but were clearly superior to Carnera (or Klitschko for that matter.) Jimmy Ellis and Ken Norton were clearly better. Dozens of other guys were better.

I know you have always been obsessed with Ali, but this is beyond ridiculous, even for you.
Chambers, Haye and Byrd were not even remotely as fast as Ali during his prime. Nor were they anywhere near as elusive. To call them "Aliesque" is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen on this forum.

Not to mention they did not have anything close to Ali's chin, his accuracy or his heart.

No way in the world Klitschko is going to be competitive with a prime Ali. Doubtful he gets past the middle rounds. Ali would not have the slightest trouble getting and scoring points. He was much faster, threw great combinations, and was very accurate. If Kltischko somehow goes the distance, he would be very lucky to win three rounds.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well of course on average a lineal champion would be better. However, Carnera is one of the bottom tier lineal champions.

Here are 23 lineal champions that were clearly superior to Carnera:
Ali, Louis, Foreman,Johnson,Frazier, Holmes,Holyfield,Holyfield,Lewis,Marciano,Dempsey,Liston,Jeffries,Tyson, Charles, Walcott, Fitzsimmons,Schmeling,Sharkey,Baer,Tunney,Bowe and Patterson.

No he probably would not go 0-23 against them; he would probably sneak in a couple of wins. He would not win 2 out of 3 against any of them. And if he would also lose many fights to fighters we aren't even mentioning.

Lanfgord, Wills,Jeanette, McVey, weren't lineal champions (never got a chance) but were clearly superior to Carnera (or Klitschko for that matter.) Jimmy Ellis and Ken Norton were clearly better. Dozens of other guys were better.

I know you have always been obsessed with Ali, but this is beyond ridiculous, even for you.
Chambers, Haye and Byrd were not even remotely as fast as Ali during his prime. Nor were they anywhere near as elusive. To call them "Aliesque" is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen on this forum.

Not to mention they did not have anything close to Ali's chin, his accuracy or his heart.

No way in the world Klitschko is going to be competitive with a prime Ali. Doubtful he gets past the middle rounds. Ali would not have the slightest trouble getting and scoring points. He was much faster, threw great combinations, and was very accurate. If Kltischko somehow goes the distance, he would be very lucky to win three rounds.

Yeah, but, you can't throw in the likes of Ellis, Wills, Langford, McVey, etc. in there into such an argument because they never did become champion for this reason or for that reason--- and let's be honest here, even the great Langford lost to a few men who were Carnera-like (and who were less than Carnera) like Fred Fulton. And again, its very hard to gauge such matches when most of those men you listed never fought a man with such height, weight, reach, strength, etc.

Yes, I agree skillwise, talent wise, etc. they were superior to Carnera--- but so was Tommy Loughran. So was Jack Sharkey. So was alot of guys. But most of them lost decisions or lost on knockout to Carnera. I can agree, the Ambling Alp pretty much resembled his nickname--- but pointing out these things, and matching him against men, are two different things. Again, as I said before, Loughran, Uzcudun, Sharkey, Levinsky, etc. and many others were far more talented boxers than he was, but they couldn't beat him. And it wasn't just size alone that did it. It was everything else too.


If you read what I wrote, I said if you combined ALL THREE of those men, you would get a fighter that is Aliesque. I didn't say they were Aliesque individually--- though all three of them have the same style and qualities that Ali had. And I aint taking anything away from Ali--- you think I'm doing a disservice, when I am not. Hell, these passed few weeks I've said alot of rather complimentary things on Ali, and boldly of all is that Ali would beat Jack Johnson easily and widely.

Umm, yes you can throw in the likes of Ellis, Wills, Langford, McVey etc. Just because they were not lineal champions does not mean they were not better than Carnera. They clearly were.

If Carnera never got a title shot, he would have won the title, would he?

Yes Lanford lost to Fulton. When he was 34 and had well over 200 fights. He was way, past his prime by then.
Yes, Carnera did beat Loughran, Uzcudun and Kingfish Levinsky. Solid wins, does not make you one of the top 20. He did beat Sharkey, but also lost to him.
Everyone in the top 20 has better wins and did not lose in their primes to the similar opponents that Carnera lost to.
Carnera lost to Larry Gains, and legends like Stanley Poreda, LeRoy Haynes, and Albert Dimeglio.

I noticed you did not challenge my assertion that there were 23 lineal champions clearly better than Carnera. So even with your own stupid criteria, Carnera can't be in the top 20. I like Carnera, and think some people underrate him. However to think he was anywhere the top 20 is just absurd.

You can take the best of Byrd, Chambers, and Haye, roll them into one, and compared to Ali they are a joke.

wladimir is of course way above carnera in any soberly
constructed heavy weight list. maybe people haven't
realized yet that he has one of the longest runs as a
champion in hw history.

several things seem remarkable in this thread. i for
one have read for the very first time that somebody
compares chris byrd to muhammad ali. given, not
equating, but still …

secondly, indicating that wlad and primo rank in
ATG ratings somewhat similar because most of their
bouts where against people who will be forgotten …
wow, that is amazing.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Umm, yes you can throw in the likes of Ellis, Wills, Langford, McVey etc. Just because they were not lineal champions does not mean they were not better than Carnera. They clearly were.

If Carnera never got a title shot, he would have won the title, would he?

Yes Lanford lost to Fulton. When he was 34 and had well over 200 fights. He was way, past his prime by then.
Yes, Carnera did beat Loughran, Uzcudun and Kingfish Levinsky. Solid wins, does not make you one of the top 20. He did beat Sharkey, but also lost to him.
Everyone in the top 20 has better wins and did not lose in their primes to the similar opponents that Carnera lost to.
Carnera lost to Larry Gains, and legends like Stanley Poreda, LeRoy Haynes, and Albert Dimeglio.

I noticed you did not challenge my assertion that there were 23 lineal champions clearly better than Carnera. So even with your own stupid criteria, Carnera can't be in the top 20. I like Carnera, and think some people underrate him. However to think he was anywhere the top 20 is just absurd.

You can take the best of Byrd, Chambers, and Haye, roll them into one, and compared to Ali they are a joke.

Well.... if Jack Dempsey is an all-time great, why did he (in his prime years) lose to an ex-ex-title challenger who was passed it by the name of Jim Flynn in one round? Why did Dempsey (also in his prime years) have a highly controversial draw against John Henry Johnson? Why couldn't Jack Dempsey (also in his prime years) couldn't do a damn thing with Willie Meehan?

I can make the same case for virtually every title holder in history--- there are instances, there are matches, there are cases, in which the greats in their prime years lost fights to men they shouldn't have. Hell Max Schmeling in his prime was KNOCKED OUT COLD by a light heavyweight named Gipsy Daniels (1928), just 2 years before winning the title. I can go on and on and on with examples. So don't give that excuse--- and its ironic you mention Schmeling as one of the top 23 men above Carnera, when for the life of me I don't recall anyone outside of Louis and Baer actually stopping Carnera in his prime.

As for Langford, its easy to write him off as being "passed his prime" and essentially done (you make him sound like he was a complete nobody by that time) at the age of 34 (Fulton)... yet... AFTER THE FACT he would beat the likes of George Godfrey, Sam McVey, Bill Tate, Fireman Jim Flynn, etc. When he lost to Fulton that was in 1917, and would still be a horror of the division for some time after. He may of been "passed his prime", but even Dempsey wanted none and he knocked Fulton dead in 15 seconds.


And last but not least...


I think you make Ali into Superman, as per usual. He is the measuring stick by which all other heavyweights are compared, but holy shit--- with ur logic, even Charles-Walcott combined wouldn't of compared either. You need to really re-focus your view a bit, because I'm sorry--- but even at his best, Ali was vulnerable. In his best years, his problem was he didn't fight a Frazier to really test him. He was, in essence, unproven--- because of a lack of real opposition. Not to knock Chuvalo and others, but they were many rungs below a Frazier. Even the best ones, Liston and Patterson, do not compare to a Frazier. In his comeback after three years in exile--- wasnt the same, wasnt the best he could be, etc. and had to adapt in order to have success. But that success, in my view, was short lived. Following 1975 he got by on gift decisions, mismatches (by and large). The one man who pushed him to the brink, and it was his inexperience against really good fighters and his low ring IQ that cost him the match, was Shavers. I'm sure you will say now my perception is off--- and you have a right to say so--- but holy hell, I take one of the best Cruiserweights of all time (Haye) and two of the better heavyweight contenders (Byrd/Chambers) of the passed decade and roll them into one, and you say that Ali is still far and away better? I'm sorry, but he wasn't. He may of been somewhat better, but not to what extent you believe. After all I said ALIESQUE, which means like Ali, I didn't say all three combined would BE Ali. So settle down a bit.

man wrote:wladimir is of course way above carnera in any soberly
constructed heavy weight list. maybe people haven't
realized yet that he has one of the longest runs as a
champion in hw history.

several things seem remarkable in this thread. i for
one have read for the very first time that somebody
compares chris byrd to muhammad ali. given, not
equating, but still …

secondly, indicating that wlad and primo rank in
ATG ratings somewhat similar because most of their
bouts where against people who will be forgotten …
wow, that is amazing.

The comparison was in both size and style, more or less. Byrd was very fast and very elusive. As was Haye and Chambers. All those men are in the 6'3" 215 pound size, as Ali was. All those men have the same attributes--- though nowhere near as fast as Ali, or as tough as Ali proved himself to be. So I feel the comparisons are apt to make--- because, as stated prior (and its a fact) Ali never fought a man with all the size, skill, strength, athleticism, conditioning, ability, power, etc. as Klitschko. So to get an idea of how Ali would of faired--- one must look at films of those three men and how they did.

Simply turn up the dial a bit in speed--- and you get a notion of where to gauge Ali. But besides the speed advantage and taking a punch better--- I still have a hard time seeing Ali doing far and away better than they did. He would of done better, of course, but by how much? That's where being objective comes into play. And I think, Alp (smart, educated man that he is) has some issues when it comes to doing that with Ali and Klitschko. For one, he's always been biased against Vladimir for one reason or another, and second he's always magnified Ali's abilities.

The truth lies between two extremes--- and my job as a poster is to remain a realist. Ali could be tied up, Ali could be out muscled, and as Ken Norton showed--- he could be out boxed with the jab and counter right hand. And with those things being Klitschko's primary strengths.... it's hard for me to see Ali being able to outbox, outsmart, etc. him when Klitschko is a cautionary fighter to begin with. You can't win rounds from the outside when you're the smaller man--- regardless of how fast you are.

In all these Ali related discussions I think you have to look at him as two fighters - the pre and post exile ones.

I can see the Ali of the mid 70s having a pretty close fight with WK but still coming out on top by landing more, by virtue of his much much faster hands and by generally outsmarting wk. He'd take some shots though and WK would have a lot of success too expecially when Ali would loaf about resting.

The Ali of the mid 60s is a completely different matter entirely. This was before he pretty much lost his legs. That Ali would win comfortably against WK as WK wouldn't be able to land. He's spent his career fighting big, slow and limited heavys and wouldn't have a chance against a prime Ali in my view. That Ali could dance for 15 rounds.

In terms of the Carnera argument. I just cannot see that Primo is in the same league as WK. Not at all. Primo was a poor heavy champ and lucky to win the title against a very inconsistant title holder. He was hammered in his first real test post title. I cannot see Max Baer doing to WK what he did to Primo. Carnera for me would be lucky to make a top 40 heavys list. WK is defo in the top 20. Ali however, is like 1/2!

One wonders if Primo Carnera had used some of his wrestling manuevers
that he would learn over the next 25 years and had put some
in use that night.
Which wrestling manuevers (that would be legal and applicatable inside the ring)could he had used to at least slow down
Joe Louis and make him so tired so that he would not have been
to land so many bombs on Carnera?
I think leaning down on The Brown Bombers neck with a lot of his weight would have been helpful.

Henry is just an embarrassment. David Haye also has the same proportions as Evander Holyfield. Does that make him Evander Holyfield? Does it make him 'Holyfieldesque' (whatever that means)? David Haye could never slug with Riddick Bowe, grind down Mike Tyson, or last 24 rounds with Lennox Lewis, so I guess neither could Evander Holyfield. David Tua has the same proportions as Joe Frazier. He's even a puncher! I guess he would have blitzed through 15 torrid rounds in the FOTC too! I can't even begin to list the number of middleweights who have the same measurements of, say, Sugar Ray Robinson, or welterweights with Sugar Ray Leonard's. If they can move and punch, are they 'Sugaresque'?

Henry, somehow you have to look beyond the physical and consider the abstract. The tale of the tape is not what makes a fighter great.

'Muhammad Ali couldn't beat Wladimir Klitschko because Eddie Chambers couldn't'. . . . God how that remark is going to haunt you for as long as you post here.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Henry is just an embarrassment. David Haye also has the same proportions as Evander Holyfield. Does that make him Evander Holyfield? Does it make him 'Holyfieldesque' (whatever that means)? David Haye could never slug with Riddick Bowe, grind down Mike Tyson, or last 24 rounds with Lennox Lewis, so I guess neither could Evander Holyfield. David Tua has the same proportions as Joe Frazier. He's even a puncher! I guess he would have blitzed through 15 torrid rounds in the FOTC too! I can't even begin to list the number of middleweights who have the same measurements of, say, Sugar Ray Robinson, or welterweights with Sugar Ray Leonard's. If they can move and punch, are they 'Sugaresque'?

Henry, somehow you have to look beyond the physical and consider the abstract. The tale of the tape is not what makes a fighter great.

'Muhammad Ali couldn't beat Wladimir Klitschko because Eddie Chambers couldn't'. . . . God how that remark is going to haunt you for as long as you post here.

I NEVER SAID THAT.... What I said was I have a hard time seeing a man comparable in size and style (Ali) to those three men, being able to convincingly win against Klitschko. No matter how fast a man is, or how elusive he is--- he's still giving up so much in size. You talk as though Klitschko is nothing more than an immobile robot who is just going to let someone like Ali tag him repeatedly non-stop. You're wrong. Ali's weakness was the jab--- Norton showed that. He could be jabbed and countered. What Joe Louis predicted many years before, became realized when Norton fought him. Say what you want of Klitschko but his jab is laser precisioned--- and with a reach of 85"--- and is piston fast, and hits like a battering ram--- I have a hard time imagining Ali being able to get passed it effectively to mount any real offense. The moment he gets in close, over 50 pounds more weight than he is, is gonna start leaning on his body and clinching him down.

You tell me.... how is Ali going to out boxed, out point, a man as athletic or as strong or as large as Klitschko? It forces Ali into fighting in close--- and we know Ali was NOT a good infighter. Frazier proved that. What you are relying on is the HOPE that Ali gets in close, and can land on Klitschko's chin, and possibly knocking him out. Ali never had much power to begin with--- his punches hurt because it was an accumulation of shots. Seldom did he land singular blows that hurt men, and dropped them, let alone knocked them out. I'm sorry--- but you tell me how Ali is going to do it, cus I can't see him mounting the kind of offense necessary to win convincingly.

If Ali wins, its by the narrowest of margins--- majority decision, split decision--- regardless which version you want to put out there. You're talking about a man who is modern day Cruiserweight in size--- with no real power--- whose best assets were speed and cunning and the ability (in later years) to take punishment. Klitschko isn't some dumb schmuck who is gonna punch himself out---- his style is about getting the job done. I don't think Ali could ever goad him into getting mad, angry, upset, and throw himself off in there. And one thing about Klitschko, too, is when he does get tagged--- he wakes up and turns up the dial. He fights harder, faster, stronger than before.

Just stop it henry. You are embarrassing yourself.

The Carnera is top 15-20 nonsense was bad enough.

How would Ali get to Klitschko? First, Klitschko has a 81 inch reach, not 85. Klitschko had a shorter reach than Liston and Ali had no problem getting to him.
Yes a smaller man can win from the outside. Ali was light years faster. He would have no problems landing combinations.
Ali had enough power to stop Klitschko. No, he did not have great one-punch power. Most stoppages are not from one punch. Ali he hurt fighters with very good chins from an accumulation blows. He stopped Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Bonavena etc. but stopping glassjaw Klitschko is out of the question?

Ali was untested before fighting Frazier? What in the world are you talking about? He beat Liston, Patterson, Folley, Terrell, Bonavena and Quarry among others before fighting Frazier. No they weren't as good as Frazier, but who in the world did Klistchko ever beat that makes him tested? Oh thats right, frikkin Chambers, Haye and Byrd. Please.

Love seeing Klitschkos attributes. Conditioning? Seriously? He has serious stamina problems. Athletic? Compared to what, his brother? Skilled? You think Ali would be worried about his skill?


I don't if you are drunk or what, but these rambling posts that go on and on are just ridiculous.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Just stop it henry. You are embarrassing yourself.

The Carnera is top 15-20 nonsense was bad enough.

How would Ali get to Klitschko? First, Klitschko has a 81 inch reach, not 85. Klitschko had a shorter reach than Liston and Ali had no problem getting to him.
Yes a smaller man can win from the outside. Ali was light years faster. He would have no problems landing combinations.
Ali had enough power to stop Klitschko. No, he did not have great one-punch power. Most stoppages are not from one punch. Ali he hurt fighters with very good chins from an accumulation blows. He stopped Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Bonavena etc. but stopping glassjaw Klitschko is out of the question?

Ali was untested before fighting Frazier? What in the world are you talking about? He beat Liston, Patterson, Folley, Terrell, Bonavena and Quarry among others before fighting Frazier. No they weren't as good as Frazier, but who in the world did Klistchko ever beat that makes him tested? Oh thats right, frikkin Chambers, Haye and Byrd. Please.

Love seeing Klitschkos attributes. Conditioning? Seriously? He has serious stamina problems. Athletic? Compared to what, his brother? Skilled? You think Ali would be worried about his skill?


I don't if you are drunk or what, but these rambling posts that go on and on are just ridiculous.

#1- You cite Ali "stopped" Foreman, Liston, Frazier..... correction.... Foreman gassed his own self out... Liston quit both times... and Frazier was forced to quit... so that logic you just gave goes out the window... as for Bonavena, it took fifteen rounds to do it. It also took fifteen rounds to put away Chuck Wepner, who was an open target. He never was able to stop Chuvalo. Etc etc etc. So quit ENLARGING Ali's punching abilities. His power was average at best. As for the question "So knocking out glass jawed Klitschko is out of the question?"... that is provided IF Ali can land and land often. You're forgetting, again, how easy it is for Klitschko to tie up men in excess of 240 pounds, or how easy it is for him to keep men at bay with his jab, power, etc.

#2- Ali, yes, in essence wasn't tested--- not to the extent that he was in the 1970's--- and if we are honest, it wasn't even close. Liston didn't take Ali seriously, was getting old, slow, etc. (This is the 60's Ali mind you we're talking here). Chuvalo and Patterson may of been the best of the bunch he fought in that time--- and much as I love George, and respect Patterson--- Chuvalo wasn't the most consistant guy out there, and his abilities have been magnified in time.

He was a damn tough and durable and had good skills--- but he wasn't (in my view, and I am sure many others) a top ten all-time Ali opponent. Patterson was better, yes, after losing the title than he ever was as champion--- but let's face it, prior to facing Ali that first time one can argue the only legitimate opponent he faced was old Archie and Sonny. He ducked Machen until Machen was no longer a real threat, and sure he fought Chuvalo, but come on. Floyd, imo, wouldnt hit his best until 1968 when he was robbed against Ellis (which would of made him a 3x champion) because by that time Floyd faced the likes of Quarry, Cooper, etc. he was battle tested and proven by then against prime, serious, contenders. Prior to that, it was hit and miss.

#3- So what you believe is Klitschko has no conditioning and stamina? Really. Why is it then that he's gone the distance seven times, and winning on wide margins? Why is it then that his fights (as champion) are often 7, 8, 10, rounds in duration? So you believe he has no athletic ability? Really. For a man 6'6" 245 pounds, solid muscle, he seems far more the measure of physical fitness than anyone I can name in the 120+ years of boxing.

For a man of that size, in training camp, he does some rather remarkable things. He's well balanced, powerful, has good speed, etc. I can't believe you would even remotely (and embarassingly post out in the open) that Klitschko isn't athletic. As for skills---- I admit Ali fought better skilled men that Klitschko--- but the problem with Ali is he never fought a man who was a combination of so many things all at once, like a Klitschko. He fought men almost as tall--- fought men almost as heavy--- fought men just as skilled or better--- fought men just as strong if not stronger--- but never one who was all those things.

#4- THE ONE CRITICISM THAT YOU HAVE SAID THAT DOES HOLD WATER... is the fact that Klitschko has never fought a man anywhere near as good as the men Ali faced... this is true... however, there are alot of champions out there that (more or less) the same criticism can be thrown their way, but there's alot of contention or belief that those people would of either given Ali a run for his money, or could have potentially of beaten him. Larry Holmes is one of them. Sure he fought Norton, but Norton was old. The only man who he fought who was "live" was Shavers--- and he beat him twice. Outside of that, none of the men that Holmes fought, Gerry Cooney included, matched up with any of the guys Ali beaten. But there's alot of people who think Holmes could of beaten Ali, or stood the best chance of doing so.

Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey are two others who fought in eras where the opposition doesn't compare to the 70's that Ali dominated--- but there is alot of people out there who say that The Rock and The Manassa Mauler was better than Frazier, and therefore would of done better against Ali than Joe did. Evander Holyfield is one of those men whose chances I always thought were solid against Ali--- even though he never fought men who were exactly the quality of the men Ali defeated. His wins, as champion, was against a fat Buster Douglas, an old Larry Holmes and George Foreman--- and in regaining the belts--- defeated a less than dedicated Mike Tyson, traded wins with Michael Moorer and had that series with Bowe. But style wise, conditioning wise, work rate wise, etc. I think Holyfield had what it took to beat an Ali.

So, in my view and opinion, it's not really fair to criticize Klitschko (its not his fault) his era is weak in comparison to others. But that being said, his success and longevity and how he wins--- complete dominance performances whether he's bombing people away or decisioning them wide--- speaks volumes. Probably the most dominate heavyweight of all-time Joe Louis racked up 25 title defenses and never fought men that Ali did either--- but there's a solid chance regardless, that a Louis could of beaten a motely crue of title holders, including Klitschko and even Muhammad Ali.

Hey HH.....I think the word "stopped" in this case...is a bit like the words "undefeated" were in the complaint I had about Joe Louis being announced with that status in his fight with Charles.


I suppose it's semantics. But in each of the cases you cited...those opponents "went no further". And that is one definition of "stopped".

Henry, you're embarrassing yourself. Your posts are just too long and pointless to contend with. The first line of your last point blames Foreman's KO loss on Foreman and not on Ali for one. Where to begin?

Who was the guy who finagled a way into Foreman's maximum power range and beat him to the punch, again and again, with dazzling speed unseen among heavyweights, without taking a clean shot back, and doing so until Foreman was a discombobulated, sagging, weakened and ready to be taken? Yes there was a rope-a-dope, but there was also countless clean punches, KOing a man a prime Shannon Briggs couldn't hurt at 50. I just don't care enough about responding to all your points because you have a long history of embarrassing, glaring factual inaccuracies in all of your posts, and your reasoning, once again, is painfully infantile and short sighted. You're simply not worth reading. The be all and end all with you is a 6'6' 250lb powerhouse who gasses when dragged into a brawl, who has been down when hit on the chin 15 times, and who - fittingly - has been able to easily dominate the detritus of the modern division, which has plumbed new depths of ineptitude (but with that precious increased mass you admire). If you think everyone in heavyweight history is as hopeless as Tony Thompson and Kubrat Pulev, or anyone with the same frame as Eddie Chambers shares the same IQ, fitness and talent then quite frankly you're in the retard class and we can only sigh when you dribble your dunce posts. Pat on the head, well done Henry for typing a sentence, a medal for participating - but taking the content of your posts seriously? Of course not.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Henry, you're embarrassing yourself. Your posts are just too long and pointless to contend with. The first line of your last point blames Foreman's KO loss on Foreman and not on Ali for one. Where to begin?

Who was the guy who finagled a way into Foreman's maximum power range and beat him to the punch, again and again, with dazzling speed unseen among heavyweights, without taking a clean shot back, and doing so until Foreman was a discombobulated, sagging, weakened and ready to be taken? Yes there was a rope-a-dope, but there was also countless clean punches, KOing a man a prime Shannon Briggs couldn't hurt at 50. I just don't care enough about responding to all your points because you have a long history of embarrassing, glaring factual inaccuracies in all of your posts, and your reasoning, once again, is painfully infantile and short sighted. You're simply not worth reading. The be all and end all with you is a 6'6' 250lb powerhouse who gasses when dragged into a brawl, who has been down when hit on the chin 15 times, and who - fittingly - has been able to easily dominate the detritus of the modern division, which has plumbed new depths of ineptitude (but with that precious increased mass you admire). If you think everyone in heavyweight history is as hopeless as Tony Thompson and Kubrat Pulev, or anyone with the same frame as Eddie Chambers shares the same IQ, fitness and talent then quite frankly you're in the retard class and we can only sigh when you dribble your dunce posts. Pat on the head, well done Henry for typing a sentence, a medal for participating - but taking the content of your posts seriously? Of course not.

Ali landed alot of clean shots, yes, while employing the "Rope-a-Dope" but in my view George Foreman BEAT George Foreman in Zaire just as much (if not more so) than Ali beat George Foreman in the Rumble in The Jungle. Could you imagine, if Foreman had the ring IQ he did in his comeback in the 80's and 90's, when he was in his prime? Holy shit, Ali wouldn't of stood a snow ball's chance in hell against that. Of course we will never know for sure.

As for the condemnations, as to my reasonings as to why Klitschko would be difficult for Ali, well we agree to disagree. There's alot of men, who style-wise (and other factors) in heavyweight history I think would of given Ali problems, more than most would believe. Take Max Baer, for example. When he brought his A game--- his rough and tumble style, ferocity, power--- would of given Ali problems. Mind you, I didn't say Baer would win (so dont twist words around here), I said give Ali problems. And Baer isn't considered a top ten man by any means. Yet, I would argue time and again, the man who kayoed Schemling, Galento, made Carnera quit, and killed Frankie Campbell would of been a helluva hoss for Ali to of handled.

I just happen to believe, because Klitschko would of been the tallest, heaviest, physically most imposing, almost as powerful as any opponent Ali faced, almost as skilled as any opponent Ali faced, and is a modern day athlete--- despite his frame and bulk he is quite agile--- that Ali would of had problems, more than people realize, with a guy like that. Sure, Klitschko has never fought no one who compares to the opponents Ali has in worth--- but then again, how many have? Dempsey didn't. Louis didn't. Marciano didn't. So that kind of argument doesn't really hold water, in my view. By that logic, then, Foreman and Frazier and Norton and Liston (and a few others like Lyle, Shavers, Quarry) could of beaten any heavyweight in history and the majority of the time in a series--- just because they fought Ali, or was in that era. I don't believe that is the case.

I've seen Klitschko decision guys that he very easily could of kayoed in a matter of one, two, three, four, five rounds. And I've also seen Klitschko knockout guys that people thought would take him the distance in one, two, three, four, five rounds. With him, I guess it all depends on the mode his opponent is in. If they take it easy--- then he does. If they turn it up a notch--- he flattens them. That may make him a "lazy" fighter, or even a "boring" fighter to watch. But I don't use that kind of methodology against him. I think if he fought an Ali--- he'd bring his A game, he wouldn't snooze on the guy like he did with some people from the past.

HomicideHenry wrote:The comparison was in both size and style, more or less. Byrd was very fast and very elusive.

we are talking chris byrd and muhammad ali here.
apart from both being heavy weights i find it hard
to see much similarity, especially in style. common,
slipping some punches does not make you muhammad
ali. no need to elaborate on this. you simply got carried
away with an idea ...

So now if Max Baer would bring his "A" game he would give Ali a lot of trouble. Wow. I mean wow.

I will answer you long winded comments.

1. Yes I can say Ali stopped Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Bonavena. You make excuses all you want, the fact is that they did not go the distance. Ali stopped them. They go down as KOs in the record book. Yes Wepner made it to the 15th. Wepner had a very good chin, unlike glass jaw Klitschko. He did not stop Chuvalo. Do you seriously want to compare Chuvalo and Klitschko's chins ?

Ross Purrity, Corries Sanders, and Lamon Brewster all stopped Klitschko. Samuel Peter almost did. Yes you can't imagine that Ali could pull it off?

2. Still saying Ali was not tested? Yes, he fought some better opponents in the 1970s. That is irrelevant to what we are talking about. He beat a lot of good fighters in the 1960s, so in essence he was tested. His opponents in the 1960s were much better than Klitschko's. That is relevant.
Patterson would not hit best his best until 1968? Are you out of your mind?

3. Yes I question his stamina. He was very tired in two of his losses, one of which did not even go 5 rounds. After that he has had to fight at a very slow pace. Against weak competition, he doesn't have to fight a fast pace. Against good competition, he is going to increase his workrate. If he tries to do that, he would get tired.

4. You rambling comments about Holmes, which really is not that relevant. Norton had a lot left when he fought Holmes. Try watching the fight, and you will see that.

Stop it with the long winded BS. Stop going off on irrelevant tangents. Start talking about things that you have a clue about.

HomicideHenry wrote:Ali landed alot of clean shots, yes, while employing the "Rope-a-Dope" but in my view George Foreman BEAT George Foreman in Zaire just as much (if not more so) than Ali beat George Foreman in the Rumble in The Jungle. Could you imagine, if Foreman had the ring IQ he did in his comeback in the 80's and 90's, when he was in his prime? Holy poo, Ali wouldn't of stood a snow ball's chance in hell against that.

foreman looked like a strong but relatively normal fighter
after the ali bout. his second coming was more impressive
because of his age rather than his achievements. i do not
want to take away that he regained the title fair and square,
but he never came even close to how he was perceived pre-ali.

i think he was bully who got exposed and - as happens often -
bullies are not spectacular without the bullying factor. the
real riddle is how on earth he could blow away frazier and
norton.

man wrote: we are talking chris byrd and muhammad ali here.
apart from both being heavy weights i find it hard
to see much similarity, especially in style. common,
slipping some punches does not make you muhammad
ali. no need to elaborate on this. you simply got carried
away with an idea ...

Byrd seldom ever got caught with punches--- which is why he comes to mind, in comparisons. Tua couldn't really land on him, neither could McCline and other larger, stronger men. He made alot of big men look like crap. True, he didn't fight anyone who was above average in the grand scheme of things--- nothing comparable to Ali in that sense--- but he's one of those men who impressed me. Maybe a better, more apt comparison would be that Byrd reminds me of Jimmy Young in style, more so than Ali. So I will concede, and stand corrected on that.

man wrote: foreman looked like a strong but relatively normal fighter
after the ali bout. his second coming was more impressive
because of his age rather than his achievements. i do not
want to take away that he regained the title fair and square,
but he never came even close to how he was perceived pre-ali.

i think he was bully who got exposed and - as happens often -
bullies are not spectacular without the bullying factor. the
real riddle is how on earth he could blow away frazier and
norton.

I don't know if I would go that far @ "looked like a strong but relatively normal fighter after the ali bout." After Zaire, Foreman put on a rather impressive string of victories in a relatively short amount of time. Lyle was the most memorable, but he also kayoed LeDoux, Denis, Frazier (again), etc. He missed his 'chance' at getting a rematch, but even at that--- I'd rather of seen Foreman get the shot than Wepner, Dunne, etc. And I agree, in the 90's he proved to be a "better" fighter in terms of style, patience, stamina, etc. and that he never did quite regain the aura that he had in the 1970s--- but its one of those magical "What if?" moments that crosses my mind, now and then. Could you imagine Foreman having that maturity in the 1970s, and how far he could of gone had he been the smarter fighter that he was in the 1990s? Right now we would probably be talking about how Foreman was the greatest of all time. But then again, who knows. Ali was great at making upsets.

Ambling Alp II wrote:So now if Max Baer would bring his "A" game he would give Ali a lot of trouble. Wow. I mean wow.

I will answer you long winded comments.

1. Yes I can say Ali stopped Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Bonavena. You make excuses all you want, the fact is that they did not go the distance. Ali stopped them. They go down as KOs in the record book. Yes Wepner made it to the 15th. Wepner had a very good chin, unlike glass jaw Klitschko. He did not stop Chuvalo. Do you seriously want to compare Chuvalo and Klitschko's chins ?

Ross Purrity, Corries Sanders, and Lamon Brewster all stopped Klitschko. Samuel Peter almost did. Yes you can't imagine that Ali could pull it off?

2. Still saying Ali was not tested? Yes, he fought some better opponents in the 1970s. That is irrelevant to what we are talking about. He beat a lot of good fighters in the 1960s, so in essence he was tested. His opponents in the 1960s were much better than Klitschko's. That is relevant.
Patterson would not hit best his best until 1968? Are you out of your mind?

3. Yes I question his stamina. He was very tired in two of his losses, one of which did not even go 5 rounds. After that he has had to fight at a very slow pace. Against weak competition, he doesn't have to fight a fast pace. Against good competition, he is going to increase his workrate. If he tries to do that, he would get tired.

4. You rambling comments about Holmes, which really is not that relevant. Norton had a lot left when he fought Holmes. Try watching the fight, and you will see that.

Stop it with the long winded BS. Stop going off on irrelevant tangents. Start talking about things that you have a clue about.

#1- I'm not the only one who ever thought Baer (on style alone) would of given Ali problems (first off), in the 1980s in the early days of HBO they had the "All-Time" tournaments, where the viewers could vote on who would of beaten who, and Larry Merchant, when discussing the heavyweights of the past, said that Baer would of given Ali problems. That doesn't mean Baer would of won by any means--- so I think (again) you are exaggerating things I say by taking major offense to statements. Nobody said ANYTHING about winning against Ali. Not even when I brought up Klitschko-Ali, never did I say that Klitschko would win--- just said its very hard for me to see Ali winning widely, unaminously, etc.

#2- The 1960's era, while better than the 1950's era, was simply not the 1970's era. It was a few rungs below the 1970's in terms of quality--- that doesn't mean the guys from the 1960's weren't good or great--- it just means that I can see Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers, etc. beating the top men rather easily (Johnson, Folley, Martin, Terrell, etc). It's like the argument I have made before about the top twenty in any weight division--- even at the top twenty, the difference between the top ten and them is down to the hairs and atoms. The 1960s was a good era, but it certainly posed no real danger (overall) to Ali. It would of been interesting, though, to of seen Ali never be exiled and of faced Frazier in (say) 1969 when Frazier was knocking out Mathis, Ellis, etc.

#3- Yeah BUT those losses you keep bringing up happened over TEN years ago. Hell the Purrity loss was like FIFTEEN years ago. Your logic and reasoning for holding the man's losses from his "formative" years against him now that he has been THE reigning champion for almost a decade, is about as illogical (in my mind at least) as holding Joe Louis's loss to Max Schmeling against him, despite avenging the loss in brutal fashion three years later, and becoming arguably the greatest champion in history. Whatever stamina or chin issues he may of had then--- certainly no one in almost ten years has been able to reach his chin (after all this is the art of hitting without getting hit, right?) and he's gone the scheduled distance several times since then, etc. so I don't see your evidence or proof that shows he is still the same guy he was when Sanders knocked him out when he was 27 years old (he's almost 40 now).

#4- I've saw the fight many times, and yes, it's one of the best fights in heavyweight history--- however, if one looks at the before and after--- Norton was never the same man again. So one must wonder, really, how much did he in fact have left when Holmes fought him in 1978? Look at the record (after Holmes) and you tell me where I am off base in thinking that MAYBE Norton was on the way out anyways: Stephens (W), Shavers (L KO1st), LeDoux (D), Cobb (SD W), Cooney (L KO1st). Not exactly stuff to write home to mom about.

1. Larry Merchant? Thats your expert? Stylewise Baer would cause problems. He did not have fast handspeed or nor was he fast on his feet. He telegraphed his punches. He doesn't have a good defense. Yet he is going to give a prime Ali trouble? What in the world are you thinking?

2. For the umpteenth time, I am not saying the 1960s were better than the 1970s. I am saying Ali himself was better in the 1960s; and that the 1960s were a lot better than the wretched last 15 years.

3. Yes I'm sure you would find it illogical to count Louis' loss to Schmeling against him. Of course you should count it. It happened. You balance it against all of Louis' great performances, but you should count it.
Klitschkos losses were in formative years? Well he had been a pro for 7 years and had 41 fights before the Sanders disaster. He was even more experienced in the Brewster disaster. Even for the Purrity loss he had 25 previous fights; he wasn't exactly a novice.
Going the distance does automatically mean you have great stamina. You have to be able to have a high workrate and go the distance to prove you have great stamina. Klitschko knows he doesn't have great stamina. After the Brewster fight, he has has fought at a much slower pace. He knows he can clutch and grab his way to victory against the pathetic competition he faces. He plays it safe, looks for the opening and throws the bomb without taking many chances. His opponents don't pressure him at all. That's fine if you fighting the stiffs that he has been fighting the last several years, but that doesn't cut it against quality opposition.

4. Why you keep bringing up Ken Norton is beyond me. Another one your tangents.
The fights you keep bringing are after the Holmes fight. A fighter is going to start to decline at some time For Norton, it was after the Holmes fight. He had one last great effort left him and he used it against Holmes.

Look at his fights prior to Holmes. Great fight against Young, blew out Bobick, the Ali fight, dominated Quarry etc.

Look I know you hate Ali and are obsessed with him. However, you have to get past that. I can't stand Monzon, but I don't make posts saying Monzon would struggle with Jermaine Taylor. If I did not like Archie Moore, I would not say he would struggle with Virgil Hill.

Henry you have been unbelievable lately. No logic at all. Constantly going off on tangents. Saying one ridiculous thing after another. What is the deal with you?