BoxRec

Badhusker wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:i just want to make a point clear. they have been threads made about wilder beating ali or other stuff like this. i just want to point something out. the heavyweight division changed drasticly of the last 100 years +.

here you can see the #1 heavyweight in the world, considered at that time, how tall he was and how much he weighed. my point is, that it is no disrespect when someone would say deonthay or josh would beat muhammad ali, just for the simple fact because it is a difference like night and day, like heavyweight and super heavyweight division, which doesnt exist, but still it would be like a welterweight boxing a light heavyweight, a ~30 pounds weight difference and a good 3+ inches difference between height. if a light heavyweight would beat a welterweight nobody would got crazy, same as joshua would beat muhammad ali, to much difference in physic. thats why p4p, or ability is so important, because now we can say, who had the best ability, the better footwork, the better technic, the overall better skills, where surely ali > joshua. thats why to me p4p the best heavyweight ever are prime tyson and prime clay. they were much smaller and weight less to big guys like holmes, bruno, liston, foreman, but still could destroy them the way they did. tyson standing 5′ 10″ and clay only weighing around 210-220

timeline

1880 john l sullivan 5′ 10½″ 190

1939 joe louis 6′ 2″ 200

1974 muhammad ali 6′ 3″ 216½

1999 lennox lewis 6′ 5″ 242

2016 anthony joshua 6′ 6″ 244

Have you ever heard of Primo Carnera or Jess Willard? Big studs about the same size as Joshua, Wilder, Wlad, Fury. Not exactly the same height, as I believe one was about 6'7" and the other 6'6". I'm guessing both had 80-85" reach. Big strong guys, weighing in the 250 range.

Guess what...Willard was KO'd by a guy 50 or 60 lbs lighter, and much, much, shorter (Dempsey). Carnera was KO'd by Max Baer, who also was much smaller.

Sometimes, size doesn't matter. There has always been giants around, but a guy quite a bit smaller that has far more skill will win most times.

carnera was an unathletic circus freak show. am i taling to an non expert? 3 things that bring punching power, speed, weight, athletiscm. carnera had only 1, weight. he was slow and unathletic.

joshua, wilder are fast, weigh a lot and are very athletic. they punch 10 times harder than carnera.

punchoutsb wrote:

scallum2015 wrote:Much , much more to boxing thank size and Strength. Those bigger guys are nowhere near as Athletic or Fast as Ali was.

Yes an no; you are correct that size is only a piece of the puzzle.

Athleticism entails a lot more than just hand speed though. I'd imagine Wlad, Joshua, and Wilder are all more athletic than Ali, though none possess his speed or boxing ability.

None of them have the fluid movement of Ali nor the timing. That timing and speed difference would make those guys look closer to ordinary vs Guys like Ali imo

There is a kid by the name of Darmani Rock 6 ft 250 who has that Type of Ali Speed and Timing. He just signed with Roc Nation and is a Amateur World Champion. If the kids can work hard he could amount to something

scallum2015 wrote:There is a kid by the name of Darmani Rock 6 ft 250 who has that Type of Ali Speed and Timing. He just signed with Roc Nation and is a Amateur World Champion. If the kids can work hard he could amount to something

6 feet tall, 250 pounds, with Ali like Speed? I find that very hard to believe.

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:Here's what folks forget about when supposing all these modern super heavies would kill the older ones.

The heavyweight division is based on the premise that any man 200 lb or more hits you right, it is nite-nite time.

The real difference is speed. That's why Ali beats the big ones today

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

I don't think koolkc107 is insinuating that speed alone produces power, more that all (I would disagree and say most) 200lb + men have power enough to knock all but the most iron-chinned heavyweights out and that once you go past 200lb, speed is more important than size - that I would agree with.

There's a reason why the heavyweight divisions starts at 200lb and used to start at 190lb and that's because throughout history there have always been smaller heavyweights who have been competitive with and often beaten the best big men. I agree that weight is a bigger factor than height when it comes to punching power, but it seems that any advantage from extra weight stops somewhere around the 220lb mark - additional size and weight beyond here may increase strength in clinches, but generally not punching power, and it comes with a penalty of decreased speed and stamina. Look at the weight of some of biggest punchers in heavyweight history - Foreman, Shavers and Tyson - all were under 220lb in their prime (Foreman sometimes under sometimes over).

Oh and Ali hardly struggled with Foreman - he was rightfully ahead on points before the (questionable) KO. He definitely struggled with Norton but that was due to Norton's style and boxing ability, not his size and strength - Ali generally struggled more against smaller, faster heavyweights and had more success against bigger, slower ones. I would favour a prime Ali to beat any of today's giants.

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:Here's what folks forget about when supposing all these modern super heavies would kill the older ones.

The heavyweight division is based on the premise that any man 200 lb or more hits you right, it is nite-nite time.

The real difference is speed. That's why Ali beats the big ones today

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

I don't think koolkc107 is insinuating that speed alone produces power, more that all (I would disagree and say most) 200lb + men have power enough to knock all but the most iron-chinned heavyweights out and that once you go past 200lb, speed is more important than size - that I would agree with.

There's a reason why the heavyweight divisions starts at 200lb and used to start at 190lb and that's because throughout history there have always been smaller heavyweights who have been competitive with and often beaten the best big men. I agree that weight is a bigger factor than height when it comes to punching power, but it seems that any advantage from extra weight stops somewhere around the 220lb mark - additional size and weight beyond here may increase strength in clinches, but generally not punching power, and it comes with a penalty of decreased speed and stamina. Look at the weight of some of biggest punchers in heavyweight history - Foreman, Shavers and Tyson - all were under 220lb in their prime (Foreman sometimes under sometimes over).

Oh and Ali hardly struggled with Foreman - he was rightfully ahead on points before the (questionable) KO. He definitely struggled with Norton but that was due to Norton's style and boxing ability, not his size and strength - Ali generally struggled more against smaller, faster heavyweights and had more success against bigger, slower ones. I would favour a prime Ali to beat any of today's giants.

okay. you sound a bit german. germans are very bullish.

ali is a better boxer than any heavyweight now.

ali would not beat those giants.

ali struggled and couldnt do much against foreman but rope a dope. he was mostly on the ropes and george hammering body punches all over the place, winning round after round. foreman weighed 220, with an elite punching power, but poor footwork and poor athletiscm and poor speed.

ortiz is a 6'4, 84 reach technical boxing machine, weighing around 242, who on top of being a very strong puncher and big frame has very good footwork. he could box ali from outside, he could bang it inside. he could even handle alis technical side, cause ortiz is technical and variation puncher himself.

many experts said, ali lost all fight to norton. joshua and wilder are much more athletic, much more bigger than norton, they would probably ko ali, or ali would run all day or try to rope a dope.

but lets be clear, the top 3 heavyweights of today beat ali. to much difference in physic.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

I don't think koolkc107 is insinuating that speed alone produces power, more that all (I would disagree and say most) 200lb + men have power enough to knock all but the most iron-chinned heavyweights out and that once you go past 200lb, speed is more important than size - that I would agree with.

There's a reason why the heavyweight divisions starts at 200lb and used to start at 190lb and that's because throughout history there have always been smaller heavyweights who have been competitive with and often beaten the best big men. I agree that weight is a bigger factor than height when it comes to punching power, but it seems that any advantage from extra weight stops somewhere around the 220lb mark - additional size and weight beyond here may increase strength in clinches, but generally not punching power, and it comes with a penalty of decreased speed and stamina. Look at the weight of some of biggest punchers in heavyweight history - Foreman, Shavers and Tyson - all were under 220lb in their prime (Foreman sometimes under sometimes over).

Oh and Ali hardly struggled with Foreman - he was rightfully ahead on points before the (questionable) KO. He definitely struggled with Norton but that was due to Norton's style and boxing ability, not his size and strength - Ali generally struggled more against smaller, faster heavyweights and had more success against bigger, slower ones. I would favour a prime Ali to beat any of today's giants.

okay. you sound a bit german. germans are very bullish.

ali is a better boxer than any heavyweight now.

ali would not beat those giants.

ali struggled and couldnt do much against foreman but rope a dope. he was mostly on the ropes and george hammering body punches all over the place, winning round after round. foreman weighed 220, with an elite punching power, but poor footwork and poor athletiscm and poor speed.

ortiz is a 6'4, 84 reach technical boxing machine, weighing around 242, who on top of being a very strong puncher and big frame has very good footwork. he could box ali from outside, he could bang it inside. he could even handle alis technical side, cause ortiz is technical and variation puncher himself.

many experts said, ali lost all fight to norton. joshua and wilder are much more athletic, much more bigger than norton, they would probably ko ali, or ali would run all day or try to rope a dope.

but lets be clear, the top 3 heavyweights of today beat ali. to much difference in physic.

I have no idea what you're on about with the German comment, but I'm not offended - Germans are, in general, lovely people.

I suggest you rewatch Ali-Foreman - you seem to be repeating the often told narrartive, but the reality of the fight was quite different. Ali was countering regularly and winning rounds - he was ahead on all three scorecards and rightfully so. Also keep in mind this was a post prime Ali who could no longer dance for 15 rounds - if he still had the legs he had in the 60s that would have been another card up his sleeve.

Not sure why you bring up Norton - I don't disagree that he could be given all three fights, although I had Ali narrowly winning their second fight. Again, Ali struggled with Norton's boxing ability, not his size and strength. I disagree that Joshua and Wilder are more athletic than Norton and they definitely don't have Norton's boxing skills - Wilder especially.

As usual, I think you're putting too much emphasis on physical gifts and too little on boxing skills. Remember how the obese, blown up middleweight James Toney was competitive with big, natural heavyweights like (old) Holyfield, Peter and Rahman? Skills count for a lot.

i dont put into to much into physical gifts.

i am just being realistic. ortiz is better technicly than norton, joshua skills are better than nortons. wilder only has athltiscm and power.

the reason why i talked about norton, is because i wanted to show you what kind of problems ali had with big stong athletic guys.

i am watching foreman ali right and all i see is ali at the rope since rd 2. yes ali lands some. you can see how poor big george condition is, he seems exhauxted even in round 4 you can say what you want about wilder, having a poor technic, but his stamina wouldnt go away around rounds 4-6

ali vs the big guys from today would be, like a welterweight boxing a super middleweight, to much difference, that simple.

and i am not dissing ali, i said he is technicly, footwork etc the best heavyweight ever, along a young tyson. but cant compare this to the giants of today. so p4p ali better than those guys, but in a real fights, they simple to much for him.

and you should not have brought up toney as an example, it works against you. because toney was sh&/(t at heavyweight. holyfied was totaly past it, losing against anybody (donald, byrd, imbragimov etc), peter totaly battered toney, yeah had a win against an also totaly past prime rahman.

always when he fought a good boxer in shape toney lost. like lebedev, 2 times against peter and browne.

hey you.....

psst

hey you....

yeah, you...c'mon over here....

let me tell you something....

sssh...

.....just shuttup a second and let me tell you something.....





Joshua and Wilder aren't the heavyweight champ !!!!!!!!

keep it shtoom

scallum2015 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

scallum2015 wrote:Much , much more to boxing thank size and Strength. Those bigger guys are nowhere near as Athletic or Fast as Ali was.

Yes an no; you are correct that size is only a piece of the puzzle.

Athleticism entails a lot more than just hand speed though. I'd imagine Wlad, Joshua, and Wilder are all more athletic than Ali, though none possess his speed or boxing ability.

None of them have the fluid movement of Ali nor the timing. That timing and speed difference would make those guys look closer to ordinary vs Guys like Ali imo

Yes, Ali had movement and timing over them, but I wasn't arguing boxing ability or skill. I said Ali was (in all likelihood) not as athletic as any of those three.

Chepppaaa wrote:i dont put into to much into physical gifts.

i am just being realistic. ortiz is better technicly than norton, joshua skills are better than nortons. wilder only has athltiscm and power.

the reason why i talked about norton, is because i wanted to show you what kind of problems ali had with big stong athletic guys.

i am watching foreman ali right and all i see is ali at the rope since rd 2. yes ali lands some. you can see how poor big george condition is, he seems exhauxted even in round 4 you can say what you want about wilder, having a poor technic, but his stamina wouldnt go away around rounds 4-6

ali vs the big guys from today would be, like a welterweight boxing a super middleweight, to much difference, that simple.

and i am not dissing ali, i said he is technicly, footwork etc the best heavyweight ever, along a young tyson. but cant compare this to the giants of today. so p4p ali better than those guys, but in a real fights, they simple to much for him.

and you should not have brought up toney as an example, it works against you. because toney was sh&/(t at heavyweight. holyfied was totaly past it, losing against anybody (donald, byrd, imbragimov etc), peter totaly battered toney, yeah had a win against an also totaly past prime rahman.

always when he fought a good boxer in shape toney lost. like lebedev, 2 times against peter and browne.

Joshua's skills are better than Nortons!! Sorry, what actual real-life evidence are you basing this on precisely?

punchoutsb wrote:

scallum2015 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Yes an no; you are correct that size is only a piece of the puzzle.

Athleticism entails a lot more than just hand speed though. I'd imagine Wlad, Joshua, and Wilder are all more athletic than Ali, though none possess his speed or boxing ability.

None of them have the fluid movement of Ali nor the timing. That timing and speed difference would make those guys look closer to ordinary vs Guys like Ali imo

Yes, Ali had movement and timing over them, but I wasn't arguing boxing ability or skill. I said Ali was (in all likelihood) not as athletic as any of those three.

Not as athletic - Ali in his prime was able to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds, show me a single modern heavyweight that can do that.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

scallum2015 wrote: None of them have the fluid movement of Ali nor the timing. That timing and speed difference would make those guys look closer to ordinary vs Guys like Ali imo

Yes, Ali had movement and timing over them, but I wasn't arguing boxing ability or skill. I said Ali was (in all likelihood) not as athletic as any of those three.

Not as athletic - Ali in his prime was able to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds, show me a single modern heavyweight that can do that.

Athleticism =/= boxing only.

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
Yes, Ali had movement and timing over them, but I wasn't arguing boxing ability or skill. I said Ali was (in all likelihood) not as athletic as any of those three.

Not as athletic - Ali in his prime was able to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds, show me a single modern heavyweight that can do that.

Athleticism =/= boxing only.

Sorry, what is that equation above supposed to signify exactly.

Anyone with even a single brain cell, can see that a guy who can fight at pace for 15 rounds, is clearly not only an athlete, but an athlete perfectly suited to the sport in which he participates.

Joshua has flattened a few tomato cans, in impressive fashion admittedly, but he's yet to do anything to suggest he's even remotely as gifted as Ali genetically or otherwise. To content otherwise is fatuous.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Sorry, what is that equation above supposed to signify exactly.

Anyone with even a single brain cell, can see that a guy who can fight at pace for 15 rounds, is clearly not only an athlete, but an athlete perfectly suited to the sport in which he participates.

Joshua has flattened a few tomato cans, in impressive fashion admittedly, but he's yet to do anything to suggest he's even remotely as gifted as Ali genetically or otherwise. To content otherwise is fatuous.

No need to be insulting mate. I promise you I have more than a single brain cell, and I am very well qualified to speak on athleticism

Athleticism is FAR more than the stamina needed to box 15 round of fast hands. It includes full body power, speed, strength, etc. Therefore athleticism does not equal boxing only. Do you think Ali possessed the strength of of Joshua, Wlad, or Wilder? Nope. Explosive power? Nope. Could he swim? How was his jumping ability? I never argued that any of those three were better in the ring than Ali. To say Ali was more athletic because of his fluidity or ability to fight 15 shows a severe lack of understanding of what athleticism is.

punchoutsb wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Sorry, what is that equation above supposed to signify exactly.

Anyone with even a single brain cell, can see that a guy who can fight at pace for 15 rounds, is clearly not only an athlete, but an athlete perfectly suited to the sport in which he participates.

Joshua has flattened a few tomato cans, in impressive fashion admittedly, but he's yet to do anything to suggest he's even remotely as gifted as Ali genetically or otherwise. To content otherwise is fatuous.

No need to be insulting mate. I promise you I have more than a single brain cell, and I am very well qualified to speak on athleticism

Athleticism is FAR more than the stamina needed to box 15 round of fast hands. It includes full body power, speed, strength, etc. Therefore athleticism does not equal boxing only. Do you think Ali possessed the strength of of Joshua, Wlad, or Wilder? Nope. Explosive power? Nope. Could he swim? How was his jumping ability? I never argued that any of those three were better in the ring than Ali. To say Ali was more athletic because of his fluidity or ability to fight 15 shows a severe lack of understanding of what athleticism is.

What do you know of either Ali's or Joshua's performances outside of the ring. Are you in Joshua's training camp? No you aren't.

Being able to swim doesn't make you athletic, it means you've learned to swim, I'm unaware whether Ali swam or not, but it's not really relevant.

The only measure of athleticism that really counts for shite, is that which is exhibited in the actual ring. Joshua might be able to Bench 250 KG, but it doesn't really have much impact on his ability to win fights. Of all of the components that make a fighter a powerful puncher, upper body strength is probably the least, timing, ligament and tendon thickness, transfer of momentum, correct punch technique all have far more bearing on how hard a fighter is able to hit and hurt opponents.

In terms of Cardiovascular performance, I'd wager Ali would have outperformed Joshua, I've yet to see a fighter with overdeveloped muscles like Joshua, display good endurance, big oxygen demanding muscles deplete stores of glycogen very quickly, and long term stamina tends to suffer. There's a reason you don't see top flight middle and long distance runners build like brick shitehouses.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:What do you know of either Ali's or Joshua's performances outside of the ring. Are you in Joshua's training camp? No you aren't.

You got me there. And how do you know whether anyone today could box 15 rounds since they don't train for it? We're both making assumptions.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Being able to swim doesn't make you athletic, it means you've learned to swim, I'm unaware whether Ali swam or not, but it's not really relevant.

Being able to box doesn't make you athletic either, it means you've learned to box. Athleticism is physical abilities across strength, speed, power, explosiveness.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The only measure of athleticism that really counts for shite, is that which is exhibited in the actual ring. Joshua might be able to Bench 250 KG, but it doesn't really have much impact on his ability to win fights. Of all of the components that make a fighter a powerful puncher, upper body strength is probably the least, timing, ligament and tendon thickness, transfer of momentum, correct punch technique all have far more bearing on how hard a fighter is able to hit and hurt opponents.

Ability to win fights has nothing to do with raw athleticism. I highly doubt Michael Phelps could beat Chauncy Welliver in a boxing match. Which one is more athletic? Joshua clearly has punching power, and I'm fully aware it doesn't come from his muscular upper body. But he is also clearly a very strong man which is a piece of the athleticism puzzle.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:In terms of Cardiovascular performance, I'd wager Ali would have outperformed Joshua, I've yet to see a fighter with overdeveloped muscles like Joshua, display good endurance, big oxygen demanding muscles deplete stores of glycogen very quickly, and long term stamina tends to suffer. There's a reason you don't see top flight middle and long distance runners build like brick shitehouses.

Long range stamina is one piece of cardiovascular performance; all one needs to do is look at Rich Froning to make that distinction. Of course Rich Froning couldn't fight a 15 rounder either.

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:Here's what folks forget about when supposing all these modern super heavies would kill the older ones.

The heavyweight division is based on the premise that any man 200 lb or more hits you right, it is nite-nite time.

The real difference is speed. That's why Ali beats the big ones today

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

I don't think he struggled very much with Foreman. And Norton was just one of those cases
I categorize as "everyone has his own personal kryptonite" Norton was just that guy for Ali,
almost tailor-made as a counter to all the things Ali got away with against most others.

I think Ali's speed and power destroys those bigger guys. Easier fights for "The Greatest" than some
of the wars against smaller quicker guys. Mike Tyson's speed also makes him a smaller guy that would
have success against the behemoths. The whirling dervish, the bobbing weaving demon that destroyed
Michael Spinks would be a nightmare for the giants. The big boys beat the Mike that came out of jail
but not the one a few years before he went in.

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:Here's what folks forget about when supposing all these modern super heavies would kill the older ones.

The heavyweight division is based on the premise that any man 200 lb or more hits you right, it is nite-nite time.

The real difference is speed. That's why Ali beats the big ones today

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

I don't think koolkc107 is insinuating that speed alone produces power, more that all (I would disagree and say most) 200lb + men have power enough to knock all but the most iron-chinned heavyweights out and that once you go past 200lb, speed is more important than size - that I would agree with.

There's a reason why the heavyweight divisions starts at 200lb and used to start at 190lb and that's because throughout history there have always been smaller heavyweights who have been competitive with and often beaten the best big men. I agree that weight is a bigger factor than height when it comes to punching power, but it seems that any advantage from extra weight stops somewhere around the 220lb mark - additional size and weight beyond here may increase strength in clinches, but generally not punching power, and it comes with a penalty of decreased speed and stamina. Look at the weight of some of biggest punchers in heavyweight history - Foreman, Shavers and Tyson - all were under 220lb in their prime (Foreman sometimes under sometimes over).

Oh and Ali hardly struggled with Foreman - he was rightfully ahead on points before the (questionable) KO. He definitely struggled with Norton but that was due to Norton's style and boxing ability, not his size and strength - Ali generally struggled more against smaller, faster heavyweights and had more success against bigger, slower ones. I would favour a prime Ali to beat any of today's giants.

Thanks, Jezzamundo.

At least one person got it.

They are heavyweights. A decent, well-timed blow from even
the lightest punching guy over 200 lbs is potential trouble for
any man of any weight. Once you get that size, physics takes
over.

Ali was no powder puncher either. He always had legit power. What the hell
do you think they meant by "Sting like a bee"? Couple that legit power with the
speed of a middleweight and he is a bad, bad dream for anyone, nevermind
a 250 lb guy who is a lumbering hulk in comparison, athletic or no.

Ali plays with them for 7 or 8 rounds then takes them out. Death by a thousand cuts.

koolkc107 wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

I don't think koolkc107 is insinuating that speed alone produces power, more that all (I would disagree and say most) 200lb + men have power enough to knock all but the most iron-chinned heavyweights out and that once you go past 200lb, speed is more important than size - that I would agree with.

There's a reason why the heavyweight divisions starts at 200lb and used to start at 190lb and that's because throughout history there have always been smaller heavyweights who have been competitive with and often beaten the best big men. I agree that weight is a bigger factor than height when it comes to punching power, but it seems that any advantage from extra weight stops somewhere around the 220lb mark - additional size and weight beyond here may increase strength in clinches, but generally not punching power, and it comes with a penalty of decreased speed and stamina. Look at the weight of some of biggest punchers in heavyweight history - Foreman, Shavers and Tyson - all were under 220lb in their prime (Foreman sometimes under sometimes over).

Oh and Ali hardly struggled with Foreman - he was rightfully ahead on points before the (questionable) KO. He definitely struggled with Norton but that was due to Norton's style and boxing ability, not his size and strength - Ali generally struggled more against smaller, faster heavyweights and had more success against bigger, slower ones. I would favour a prime Ali to beat any of today's giants.

Thanks, Jezzamundo.

At least one person got it.

They are heavyweights. A decent, well-timed blow from even
the lightest punching guy over 200 lbs is potential trouble for
any man of any weight. Once you get that size, physics takes
over.

Ali was no powder puncher either. He always had legit power. What the hell
do you think they meant by "Sting like a bee"? Couple that legit power with the
speed of a middleweight and he is a bad, bad dream for anyone, nevermind
a 250 lb guy who is a lumbering hulk in comparison, athletic or no.

Ali plays with them for 7 or 8 rounds then takes them out. Death by a thousand cuts.

he struggled against big guys, guys who would be considered small compared to wilder and josh.

you dont seem to get the point. i doubt you even fully read what i wrote down, cause you making no commments about it. but thats no problem, i work with non experts who are frozen on their mindset and dont want to evolve.

Jaywheel wrote:
Considering this, it's safe to say that the next HW to rule the division for years is:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703794

L-E-W-A-N-D-O-W-S-K-I. Damn right. That's 11 letters bitches. Record of 9-0. You read it here first.

Guy's got a total padded record mate,
His last 2 opponents only had 5 and 6 letters respectively.

I'll get on the hype train when he faces a fringe contender like Washington or Dimitrenko, someone with a good solid 10 letter to take him rounds

Chepppaaa wrote:i dont put into to much into physical gifts.

i am just being realistic. ortiz is better technicly than norton, joshua skills are better than nortons. wilder only has athltiscm and power.

the reason why i talked about norton, is because i wanted to show you what kind of problems ali had with big stong athletic guys.

i am watching foreman ali right and all i see is ali at the rope since rd 2. yes ali lands some. you can see how poor big george condition is, he seems exhauxted even in round 4 you can say what you want about wilder, having a poor technic, but his stamina wouldnt go away around rounds 4-6

ali vs the big guys from today would be, like a welterweight boxing a super middleweight, to much difference, that simple.

and i am not dissing ali, i said he is technicly, footwork etc the best heavyweight ever, along a young tyson. but cant compare this to the giants of today. so p4p ali better than those guys, but in a real fights, they simple to much for him.

and you should not have brought up toney as an example, it works against you. because toney was sh&/(t at heavyweight. holyfied was totaly past it, losing against anybody (donald, byrd, imbragimov etc), peter totaly battered toney, yeah had a win against an also totaly past prime rahman.

always when he fought a good boxer in shape toney lost. like lebedev, 2 times against peter and browne.

Again, you're completely wrong about the Ali-Norton matchup - the reason Ali struggled with him is because Norton was a highly skilled guy whose style gave Ali fits. Norton's strength and athleticism played a part, but were far less of a factor than the Norton's skills and the strategy he employed. Keep in mind that Norton was roughly the same size as Ali (identical height, 2 inches longer reach) and he was lighter than him for all three of their fights. I was impressed by Ortiz against Jennings, but I think it's a close call as to who the more skilled fighter is and Norton was definitely more athletic than Ortiz. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Joshua is more skilled than Norton either - just bigger, stronger and more powerful.

Toney is an excellent example of how a naturally smaller guy without great athleticism but with great skills can have success against much larger fighters - Toney was a legit top 10 heavyweight for a while, probably peaking around the time of the Holyfield fight. By the time he fought Browne and Lebedev he was completely shot. The first Peter fight was a split decision - it was the rematch where Peter battered him, which probably contributed a lot to his demise. I'm not saying that Toney would beat Joshua or Ortiz - he wouldn't - but the fact that he was able to be competitive with much bigger, stronger guys, despite being out of shape and not a great athlete himself, show how much of a difference boxing skills can make.

Chepppaaa wrote:

koolkc107 wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
I don't think koolkc107 is insinuating that speed alone produces power, more that all (I would disagree and say most) 200lb + men have power enough to knock all but the most iron-chinned heavyweights out and that once you go past 200lb, speed is more important than size - that I would agree with.

There's a reason why the heavyweight divisions starts at 200lb and used to start at 190lb and that's because throughout history there have always been smaller heavyweights who have been competitive with and often beaten the best big men. I agree that weight is a bigger factor than height when it comes to punching power, but it seems that any advantage from extra weight stops somewhere around the 220lb mark - additional size and weight beyond here may increase strength in clinches, but generally not punching power, and it comes with a penalty of decreased speed and stamina. Look at the weight of some of biggest punchers in heavyweight history - Foreman, Shavers and Tyson - all were under 220lb in their prime (Foreman sometimes under sometimes over).

Oh and Ali hardly struggled with Foreman - he was rightfully ahead on points before the (questionable) KO. He definitely struggled with Norton but that was due to Norton's style and boxing ability, not his size and strength - Ali generally struggled more against smaller, faster heavyweights and had more success against bigger, slower ones. I would favour a prime Ali to beat any of today's giants.

Thanks, Jezzamundo.

At least one person got it.

They are heavyweights. A decent, well-timed blow from even
the lightest punching guy over 200 lbs is potential trouble for
any man of any weight. Once you get that size, physics takes
over.

Ali was no powder puncher either. He always had legit power. What the hell
do you think they meant by "Sting like a bee"? Couple that legit power with the
speed of a middleweight and he is a bad, bad dream for anyone, nevermind
a 250 lb guy who is a lumbering hulk in comparison, athletic or no.

Ali plays with them for 7 or 8 rounds then takes them out. Death by a thousand cuts.

he struggled against big guys, guys who would be considered small compared to wilder and josh.

you dont seem to get the point. i doubt you even fully read what i wrote down, cause you making no commments about it. but thats no problem, i work with non experts who are frozen on their mindset and dont want to evolve.

Again, Ali didn't struggle against big guys - he had far more difficulty with small, fast, highly skilled heavyweights. He excelled against bigger, slower men.

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:i dont put into to much into physical gifts.

i am just being realistic. ortiz is better technicly than norton, joshua skills are better than nortons. wilder only has athltiscm and power.

the reason why i talked about norton, is because i wanted to show you what kind of problems ali had with big stong athletic guys.

i am watching foreman ali right and all i see is ali at the rope since rd 2. yes ali lands some. you can see how poor big george condition is, he seems exhauxted even in round 4 you can say what you want about wilder, having a poor technic, but his stamina wouldnt go away around rounds 4-6

ali vs the big guys from today would be, like a welterweight boxing a super middleweight, to much difference, that simple.

and i am not dissing ali, i said he is technicly, footwork etc the best heavyweight ever, along a young tyson. but cant compare this to the giants of today. so p4p ali better than those guys, but in a real fights, they simple to much for him.

and you should not have brought up toney as an example, it works against you. because toney was sh&/(t at heavyweight. holyfied was totaly past it, losing against anybody (donald, byrd, imbragimov etc), peter totaly battered toney, yeah had a win against an also totaly past prime rahman.

always when he fought a good boxer in shape toney lost. like lebedev, 2 times against peter and browne.

Again, you're completely wrong about the Ali-Norton matchup - the reason Ali struggled with him is because Norton was a highly skilled guy whose style gave Ali fits. Norton's strength and athleticism played a part, but were far less of a factor than the Norton's skills and the strategy he employed. I was impressed by Ortiz against Jennings, but I think it's a close call as to who the more skilled fighter is and Norton was definitely more athletic than Ortiz. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Joshua is more skilled than Norton either - just bigger, stronger and more powerful.

Toney is an excellent example of how a naturally smaller guy without great athleticism but with great skills can have success against much larger fighters - Toney was a legit top 10 heavyweight for a while, probably peaking around the time of the Holyfield fight. By the time he fought Browne and Lebedev he was completely shot. The first Peter fight was a split decision - it was the rematch where Peter battered him, which probably contributed a lot to his demise. I'm not saying that Toney would beat Joshua or Ortiz - he wouldn't - but the fact that he was able to be competitive with much bigger, stronger guys, despite being out of shape and not a great athlete himself, show how much of a difference boxing skills can make.

correct skills will always play a big role, no doubt about that.

but the final point is. size does matter. weight and height do matter. i say it again, comparing ali to josh or wilder, is like comparing a welterweight to an super middleweight. its like thurman boxing degale. just to much difference at the end. whatever skilllevel you may have, it is to much. as much better floyds skill level would be compared to badou jack o george groves, they still would break floyd. they would have reach advantages, power advantages etc.

you simply dont want to accept that fact. to you it destroys ali being the goat. which isnt true, cause in a p4p he is part of the group who could be called goat.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:i dont put into to much into physical gifts.

i am just being realistic. ortiz is better technicly than norton, joshua skills are better than nortons. wilder only has athltiscm and power.

the reason why i talked about norton, is because i wanted to show you what kind of problems ali had with big stong athletic guys.

i am watching foreman ali right and all i see is ali at the rope since rd 2. yes ali lands some. you can see how poor big george condition is, he seems exhauxted even in round 4 you can say what you want about wilder, having a poor technic, but his stamina wouldnt go away around rounds 4-6

ali vs the big guys from today would be, like a welterweight boxing a super middleweight, to much difference, that simple.

and i am not dissing ali, i said he is technicly, footwork etc the best heavyweight ever, along a young tyson. but cant compare this to the giants of today. so p4p ali better than those guys, but in a real fights, they simple to much for him.

and you should not have brought up toney as an example, it works against you. because toney was sh&/(t at heavyweight. holyfied was totaly past it, losing against anybody (donald, byrd, imbragimov etc), peter totaly battered toney, yeah had a win against an also totaly past prime rahman.

always when he fought a good boxer in shape toney lost. like lebedev, 2 times against peter and browne.

Again, you're completely wrong about the Ali-Norton matchup - the reason Ali struggled with him is because Norton was a highly skilled guy whose style gave Ali fits. Norton's strength and athleticism played a part, but were far less of a factor than the Norton's skills and the strategy he employed. I was impressed by Ortiz against Jennings, but I think it's a close call as to who the more skilled fighter is and Norton was definitely more athletic than Ortiz. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Joshua is more skilled than Norton either - just bigger, stronger and more powerful.

Toney is an excellent example of how a naturally smaller guy without great athleticism but with great skills can have success against much larger fighters - Toney was a legit top 10 heavyweight for a while, probably peaking around the time of the Holyfield fight. By the time he fought Browne and Lebedev he was completely shot. The first Peter fight was a split decision - it was the rematch where Peter battered him, which probably contributed a lot to his demise. I'm not saying that Toney would beat Joshua or Ortiz - he wouldn't - but the fact that he was able to be competitive with much bigger, stronger guys, despite being out of shape and not a great athlete himself, show how much of a difference boxing skills can make.

correct skills will always play a big role, no doubt about that.

but the final point is. size does matter. weight and height do matter. i say it again, comparing ali to josh or wilder, is like comparing a welterweight to an super middleweight. its like thurman boxing degale. just to much difference at the end. whatever skilllevel you may have, it is to much. as much better floyds skill level would be compared to badou jack o george groves, they still would break floyd. they would have reach advantages, power advantages etc.

you simply dont want to accept that fact. to you it destroys ali being the goat. which isnt true, cause in a p4p he is part of the group who could be called goat.

I agree that a top welterweight fighting a top super middleweight is too big a gap to breach, I disagree that the same applies when comparing a 212lb heavyweight to a 245lb heavyweight. Mathematically it may be the same, but it doesn't work out that way in real life. Take the following example:

Holyfield was a naturally smaller guy than Ali (he said himself that he could have comfortably boxed his whole career at 190lb) yet he was able to go to war with Riddick Bowe and beat him in their second fight. A post-prime Holyfield was also competitive with a prime Lennox Lewis in their rematch. Bowe and Lewis were roughly Joshua's size, highly skilled and athletic for big men, yet a blown-up cruiserweight was able to hang with them. Ali's chin was on the same level as Evander's yet he had far better handspeed, footspeed and stamina.