BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 20:28 I just think many on the forum, who have lived in the 60s & 70s, are guilty of rose colored glasses because that time period was their youth--- they view it (that era) as something of vitality, truth, etc. Therefore they're all supermen, incapable of losing or wrongdoing.

Ali had flaws. Eddie Futch figured Ali out in two distinct, different ways. He could be counter punched to death--- and he wasn't a good infighter. If he was considered the most athletic of his time, then one must assume athleticism has caught up with Ali by now. He only appears great (in comparison) because the man started off as an amateur light heavyweight and would be considered today a cruiserweight. Those men in those weight classes appear more graceful, athletic, etc than heavyweights--- especially ones from today, but even someone like Mike Tyson recognizes that he probably wouldn't able to beat guys like the Klitschko's.

I was born well after Ali's heyday. Ali is better than Tyson Fury or anyone else today.

"Better" is subjective--- besides many a "better" man lost to a physically superior man who had ability. Ali may have been "better" but that doesn't equate to him being successful in an era as ours.

If he was around today, starting from 0-0-0 (0) I'd argue he'd develop more wear and tear than he did facing men his own size in the 60s & 70s because you're constantly fighting larger, more powerful, etc men. By the time he'd of gotten 20, 25, 30 fights he probably would have gotten burnt out by all the uphill combat. It's easy to out maneuver, out perform people your own size or smaller--- it's a whole other kettle of fish out pacing, out scoring, etc larger athletic individuals.

Dude you're saying Mike Weaver couldn't knock out fury, wilder or Joshua? That's preposterous. They could all beat him too, I'd favor Josh and wilder to get him early, but this size thing is a clown act. Tyson fury 'schooled' wilder to folks like you throwing half the punches that holy field and now landed on each other. You think 12 jabs and 3 right hands would trouble Ali? Ridiculous.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 21:29 Dude you're saying Mike Weaver couldn't knock out fury, wilder or Joshua? That's preposterous. They could all beat him too, I'd favor Josh and wilder to get him early, but this size thing is a clown act. Tyson fury 'schooled' wilder to folks like you throwing half the punches that holy field and now landed on each other. You think 12 jabs and 3 right hands would trouble Ali? Ridiculous.

Is it?

Outside of the 15th round against Bonavena Ali looked incredibly inactive. Ali also looked like crap against Lyle, Young, Jones, etc. Or are you only interested in when he looked great?

A man can get "schooled" by looking absolutely preposterous. Boxing is about hitting without getting hit. Fury didn't have to do much to make the usually high punch rate Wilder look completely inept. That's what boxing is really all about--- doing the least amount of effort, and still coming out on top. Not some war or toughman contest.

If Fury is to be criticized for moving around, showboating, jabbing more than mixing it up, etc--- then so too should Muhammad Ali be penalized for such tactics, because that's "not fighting like a man" as John L. Sullivan would say.

Trouble Ali? I should think so. Prior to fighting Ali Ken Norton was seen as a glorified journeyman (Ali was a 5-1 favorite). Prior to fighting Ali Cooper was seen just as some gallant loser. Etc, etc, etc--- it wasn't all just great performances against great men in there. It was men who had his number, or damn near did, because their styles made Ali look vulnerable. People forget about context and only look back retrospectively.

I don't doubt you could see a great fighter about Ali's size beat Tyson Fury today. I wouldn't be shocked if Usyk beat Fury for instance. He ain't gonna outmove or outskill Usyk, and his power ain't exactly devastating in spite of his size.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 22:31 Is it?

Outside of the 15th round against Bonavena Ali looked incredibly inactive. Ali also looked like crap against Lyle, Young, Jones, etc. Or are you only interested in when he looked great?

A man can get "schooled" by looking absolutely preposterous. Boxing is about hitting without getting hit. Fury didn't have to do much to make the usually high punch rate Wilder look completely inept. That's what boxing is really all about--- doing the least amount of effort, and still coming out on top. Not some war or toughman contest.

If Fury is to be criticized for moving around, showboating, jabbing more than mixing it up, etc--- then so too should Muhammad Ali be penalized for such tactics, because that's "not fighting like a man" as John L. Sullivan would say.

Trouble Ali? I should think so. Prior to fighting Ali Ken Norton was seen as a glorified journeyman (Ali was a 5-1 favorite). Prior to fighting Ali Cooper was seen just as some gallant loser. Etc, etc, etc--- it wasn't all just great performances against great men in there. It was men who had his number, or damn near did, because their styles made Ali look vulnerable. People forget about context and only look back retrospectively.

I'm sorry but every time you talk on this subject you sound half insane and the other half retarded
Normally I can at least see your logic in your opinion. On this you are just nuts

...... Why not just say Ali is the greatest of the entire universe and cannot ever be beaten, etc etc etc.... The hero worship of this man is beyond sickening... Joe Frazier demonstrated this man near his prime was only human and could get his ass royally kicked.

I'm done with this cultish thread. Brainwashed every single one of you. Next you'll be saying Kareem Abdul Jabar could beat LeBron James. Next you'll be saying Jesse Owens could beat Usain Bolt. Etc etc etc.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 22:50 ...... Why not just say Ali is the greatest of the entire universe and cannot ever be beaten, etc etc etc.... The hero worship of this man is beyond sickening... Joe Frazier demonstrated this man near his prime was only human and could get his ass royally kicked.

I'm done with this cultish thread. Brainwashed every single one of you. Next you'll be saying Kareem Abdul Jabar could beat LeBron James. Next you'll be saying Jesse Owens could beat Usain Bolt. Etc etc etc.

I'm not saying not have I read that Ali could not be beat.
What the question states is would Ali be successful today.
With his boxing ability, 6'3" frame athleticism and boxing IQ. You would have to be the biggest hater in the world to argue against being at least competitive with today's fighters.

I'm another note I do think rose colored glasses are worn far to often in this forum.
Numerous fighters today could compete with the popular supposed p4p boxers of yester year

I didn't say he wouldn't be competitive. If men like Toney, Chambers, Haye, etc could get among the top tier then so could he--- I'm just not certain he could overcome that final hurdle and gap between contender and undisputed champion in today's world. He could pick up a belt or two, but I'm not certain he could be the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 22:50 ...... Why not just say Ali is the greatest of the entire universe and cannot ever be beaten, etc etc etc.... The hero worship of this man is beyond sickening... Joe Frazier demonstrated this man near his prime was only human and could get his ass royally kicked.

I'm done with this cultish thread. Brainwashed every single one of you. Next you'll be saying Kareem Abdul Jabar could beat LeBron James. Next you'll be saying Jesse Owens could beat Usain Bolt. Etc etc etc.

Styles make fights. There are quite a few guys I can see beating Ali. Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder and Anthony Joshua aren't among them. I think Holyfield, Larry Holmes or Lennox Lewis would be hell for him, and I'm sure there are other guys who would trouble him. It's just certain styles that would give him fits. I don't doubt Tommy Morrison could've given him fits for a few rounds, I don't think he'd have beaten Ali, but he could've made it fun. Physical strength with a combination of solid hand speed seemed to be effective against Ali. None of the current upper echelon are especially fast compared to guys he bested. Joshua would give him the most trouble I think.

Hell Povetkin would be a pretty tough night for Ali I think. Again I think Ali wins, but that would be one where he would have his troubles, and I wouldn't be shocked if he got knocked down. Povetkin would have to be aggressive, and not give him too much respect, but if he did that I could see him giving him problems.

Point is. No Ali's not unbeatable. That don't mean Fury could beat him. Nor even do well against him. There's nothing Fury brings to the table that troubles Ali. To Ali he'd just be a big irish oaf who can't punch to smack around a while. Fury has surprisingly good movement, and makes his opponents attack him. Ali wouldn't do that. He might catch him with a few flurries now and again to get his attention, and then he'd be on his bicycle pumping the jab, and hitting Fury as he came forward. Or if Fury chose not to engage and stink the joint out then Ali would stay out of range, and beat him to the punch in the few exchanges of the bout, and win that way. Either way Ali wins.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 23:07 I didn't say he wouldn't be competitive. If men like Toney, Chambers, Haye, etc could get among the top tier then so could he--- I'm just not certain he could overcome that final hurdle and gap between contender and undisputed champion in today's world. He could pick up a belt or two, but I'm not certain he could be the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

I'm not certain anybody can be undisputed champion in today's world. Promotional issues, and what not.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 23:11 I'm not certain anybody can be undisputed champion in today's world. Promotional issues, and what not.

Klitschko & Fury basically were as is Joshua. Just because one belt is missing doesn't quite mean you're not "the man". I'm not certain Ali could be "the man" in today's world. In his era there was just one title (later two) so it was easier to accomplish it. You just had to beat the man who beat the man. These days, it's about the most toys more than not. Klitschko amassed the toys and became the man. Fury beat Klitschko to become the man, then retired. Joshua's amassed the most toys to become the man. One can argue until Fury vs Joshua happens--- there is no undisputed champion. However, yes, politics is a problem--- and because of that I don't think Ali would have been anywhere near the star he was in his era.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 23:18 Klitschko & Fury basically were as is Joshua. Just because one belt is missing doesn't quite mean you're not "the man". I'm not certain Ali could be "the man" in today's world. In his era there was just one title (later two) so it was easier to accomplish it. You just had to beat the man who beat the man. These days, it's about the most toys more than not. Klitschko amassed the toys and became the man. Fury beat Klitschko to become the man, then retired. Joshua's amassed the most toys to become the man. One can argue until Fury vs Joshua happens--- there is no undisputed champion. However, yes, politics is a problem--- and because of that I don't think Ali would have been anywhere near the star he was in his era.

There's so much that plays into Ali becoming the cultural phenomenon he did that only could've happened in the time he lived in. That's life. Everybody has their time, and they live in it. We're talking about fighters though, and in the ring Ali is more skilled than these guys. Tough enough to take their best shots, and hang in there too. Not saying he'd never be hurt or dropped, but I don't think they'd stop him, and ultimately he'd break 'em down, and fatigue them enough that the pop has come off of those shots, and they're increasingly becoming more and more open as they huff and puff. Being a big man ain't always a benefit ya know.

I agree you don't have to win all the belts to be seen as "The Man". For instance I don't think anybody would argue that Lomachenko isn't the man to beat at Lightweight even though he doesn't have all the belts. The guy that is generally seen as #1 belt or no belt is the guy to beat. You get to #1 for a reason.

One thing I'll give Ali is he was humble enough on at least one occasion to say (paraphrasing here), "I believe I could have beaten them all. I may be wrong. But I never said I'd win easily against any of them." That was from the Howard Cosell interview discussing his chances against the various heavyweights.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 23:26 One thing I'll give Ali is he was humble enough on at least one occasion to say (paraphrasing here), "I believe I could have beaten them all. I may be wrong. But I never said I'd win easily against any of them." That was from the Howard Cosell interview discussing his chances against the various heavyweights.

He'd win easy against some of 'em. Just depends on who. I don't figure he'd have struggled too much with 'ol Ingemar Johansson for instance. Or Jess Willard. Or Tommy Burns. Or Max Baer.

The best of the best like Dempsey, Marciano and Louis are gonna be a handful for anybody though, and there were other great guys that would've troubled him I'm sure.

There's the clip I referred to.

Oh for sure some he would have beaten easier than others--- Burns was just too small (though imho hes underrated), Johansson was too much of a one trick pony, Willard was too ponderous & relied on just the uppercut, etc.

I do think, though, a Max Baer who was 100% bringing it all--- no clowning, no messing, just business--- would have been problematic because he was such a swarmer & so unorthodox in that ring. Ali most likely would have won but I don't think it'd of been easy pickings.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 23:38 Oh for sure some he would have beaten easier than others--- Burns was just too small (though imho hes underrated), Johansson was too much of a one trick pony, Willard was too ponderous & relied on just the uppercut, etc.

I do think, though, a Max Baer who was 100% bringing it all--- no clowning, no messing, just business--- would have been problematic because he was such a swarmer & so unorthodox in that ring. Ali most likely would have won but I don't think it'd of been easy pickings.

Baer would be tougher than the other guys in that mix definitely as at his best he fought with more fire, and had a more potent punch, but I don't see him winning more than 3 rounds. Baer got away with a lot of shady tactics that wouldn't be allowed in the modern era too, like for instance watch his fights with Primo Carnera or Max Schmeling, he backhands the sh*t out of those guys several times

Not that it's not entertaining, and hell it may have been legal at the time, but it wouldn't be allowed in the modern era, and wasn't in Ali's time either.

DrDuke wrote: ↑11 Apr 2019, 23:09 Today's heavies definitely still have something to prove, but Lewis certainly was in Ali class, I'd say. For me Lewis is the best HW ever.

That's your opinion and I respect that. But, I couldn't picture a Muhammad Ali losing to guys like Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, even in the 70s era where Ali was not at his very best like in the 60s.

To me, Lennox Lewis wasn't all that. Ali was super awesome and incredible.

Controversial wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 04:05 He would find it tougher, sheer size and weight does make a difference if your opponent is world class. Ali would lean out of the way a lot, not so easy when your fighting someone bigger. Even Wilder said he would come in at 245lbs against Fury if they fought again, there's a reason he said that, and even though Wilder isn't heavy he makes up for it in height, reach and power.

Those guys are not in the great Muhammad Ali's class. Please, stop it. Please!

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 22:50 ...... Why not just say Ali is the greatest of the entire universe and cannot ever be beaten, etc etc etc.... The hero worship of this man is beyond sickening... Joe Frazier demonstrated this man near his prime was only human and could get his ass royally kicked.

I'm done with this cultish thread. Brainwashed every single one of you. Next you'll be saying Kareem Abdul Jabar could beat LeBron James. Next you'll be saying Jesse Owens could beat Usain Bolt. Etc etc etc.

Frazier would massacre fury. But good for you, be done with the thread....

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 20:28 I just think many on the forum, who have lived in the 60s & 70s, are guilty of rose colored glasses because that time period was their youth--- they view it (that era) as something of vitality, truth, etc. Therefore they're all supermen, incapable of losing or wrongdoing.

Ali had flaws. Eddie Futch figured Ali out in two distinct, different ways. He could be counter punched to death--- and he wasn't a good infighter. If he was considered the most athletic of his time, then one must assume athleticism has caught up with Ali by now. He only appears great (in comparison) because the man started off as an amateur light heavyweight and would be considered today a cruiserweight. Those men in those weight classes appear more graceful, athletic, etc than heavyweights--- especially ones from today, but even someone like Mike Tyson recognizes that he probably wouldn't able to beat guys like the Klitschko's.

Muhammad Ali would have not lost to someone like Corrie Sanders or Chris Byrd or Oliver McCall. Three goofy-goofy guys that Ali would have beaten them 10 out of 10.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑12 Apr 2019, 23:45 That's your opinion and I respect that. But, I couldn't picture a Muhammad Ali losing to guys like Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, even in the 70s era where Ali was not at his very best like in the 60s.

To me, Lennox Lewis wasn't all that. Ali was super awesome and incredible.

Lewis' main weakness was a lack of discipline. Yeah, it's just an excuse, but we know, what Lewis did to McCall and Rahman, when he was prepared. And Ali had his not losses, but lowlights and controversial moments even in the 60s. That's ok actually. There was no perfect boxer.

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Apr 2019, 00:05 Lewis' main weakness was a lack of discipline. Yeah, it's just an excuse, but we know, what Lewis did to McCall and Rahman, when he was prepared. And Ali had his not losses, but lowlights and controversial moments even in the 60s. That's ok actually. There was no perfect boxer.

McCall nor Rahman beat a half prepared Ali. They probably beat the Ali after the Thrilla in Manila. I could see that. But between 1964 and 1974, Ali would have not lose to guys like that even in half shape.