BoxRec

Throughout Muhammad Ali's professional boxing career, he dominated over his opponents. However? ------------


1. Had Muhammad fought anywhere's from 1900 till 1959, do you think that Ali would have been as dominant? If not, which particular decade from 1900 till 1959 do you think that Muhammad would not have been as dominant?


Please explain.





2. Had Ali fought anywhere's from 1983 till now, do you think that Muhammad would have been as dominant? If not, which particular decade from 1983 till now do you think that Ali would not have been as dominant?



Please explain.

He would have been dominant in the 50's because he would have trash-talked his way into a title shot by early 1954 with an easy win over Marciano... He could have easily beaten Patterson -- and probably could have avoided Liston until he was an old man like Patterson did.

A younger, fresher Frazier beats him in the late 1960's... He hit the 70's at the right age as he was maturing physically and mentally and was tougher... He never had a great defense such as Holmes, Tunney, or Johnson -- they never got ripped with left hooks... A younger Ali may not have survived the 70's. Bad decades for Ali would have been the 1910's, Johnson... 1920's, Dempsey... 1930's Louis... 1980's Holmes and Tyson... 1990's Lewis and Tyson... 2000's Lewis and Klitschko's... Worst decade is the 2010's Klitschko's and Joshua. He would have gotten murdered.

I love diversity of opinion. And Kalan....you put the "D" in Diversity.

However....I believe that one should shoot for A's or at least B's.

Boxers get bigger and better, but if you're great, you're great.

Ali would have had some trouble with Jack Johnson and Joe Louis but I think he would have won. I think he would have had smooth sailing with virtually everyone else up till that point.

I think Ali would have had trouble with Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos but I think he would have won utilizing hand and foot speed in particular.


Looking forward to people calling each other morons and imbeciles on all sides of the arguments. That always amuses me when an argument can never be proven.

The above is what I "think," I don't know.

Ali pre the draft is possibly the best heavyweight in history and would be favourite in every other era for me. He was never as good after the enforced break, Zaire aside, so the early 70s Ali would be competitive but vulnerable. Anything after Zaire is an accident waiting to happen.

Tony1244 wrote:Boxers get bigger and better, but if you're great, you're great.

Ali would have had some trouble with Jack Johnson and Joe Louis but I think he would have won. I think he would have had smooth sailing with virtually everyone else up till that point.

I think Ali would have had trouble with Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos but I think he would have won utilizing hand and foot speed in particular.


Looking forward to people calling each other morons and imbeciles on all sides of the arguments. That always amuses me when an argument can never be proven.

The above is what I "think," I don't know.

"Some trouble?" ... Ali was wide open and Johnson and Louis could bang harder and defended a lot better.. They had better fundamentals.

"Trouble" with Lewis and the Klitschko's you say??? Ali never fought anyone remotely the size of Lewis or the Klitschko's who could box and punch.. The only fellow who matched Ali in size and height who was a really tremendously skilled boxer on the scale of a Wladimir Klitschko was Larry Holmes... Holmes lacked the punching power, but nobody needs to remind you how that match-up went down.

Then you had the spectacle of much smaller, little short dudes like the super hittable, non-athletes: Frazier, Norton, and Spinks punching the Hell of out Ali.. Norton would have had a look on his face similar to the fright he displayed in the Foreman and Cooney weigh-ins -- if he every saw Lewis, Wladimir, or Vitali standing there for the face-offs.. Ali always put on a brave face and facade when he faced tough opponents and kept his mouth going 100 miles an hour to con everybody.. But that cold blooded stare Larry Holmes fixed him with said it all.. "Your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower."

Also you have to take Ali's entire career into consideration... not just the super soft 60's... Vitali Klitschko had to take 4 years off and come back at the age of 37 for instance... Nobody broke out the crying towels for him because he easily won all the rest of the fights in his career to age 41.

Kalan wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:Boxers get bigger and better, but if you're great, you're great.

Ali would have had some trouble with Jack Johnson and Joe Louis but I think he would have won. I think he would have had smooth sailing with virtually everyone else up till that point.

I think Ali would have had trouble with Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos but I think he would have won utilizing hand and foot speed in particular.


Looking forward to people calling each other morons and imbeciles on all sides of the arguments. That always amuses me when an argument can never be proven.

The above is what I "think," I don't know.

"Some trouble?" ... Ali was wide open and Johnson and Louis could bang harder and defended a lot better.. They had better fundamentals.

"Trouble" with Lewis and the Klitschko's you say??? Ali never fought anyone remotely the size of Lewis or the Klitschko's who could box and punch.. The only fellow who matched Ali in size and height who was a really tremendously skilled boxer on the scale of a Wladimir Klitschko was Larry Holmes... Holmes lacked the punching power, but nobody needs to remind you how that match-up went down.

Then you had the spectacle of much smaller, little short dudes like the super hittable, non-athletes: Frazier, Norton, and Spinks punching the Hell of out Ali.. Norton would have had a look on his face similar to the fright he displayed in the Foreman and Cooney weigh-ins -- if he every saw Lewis, Wladimir, or Vitali standing there for the face-offs.. Ali always put on a brave face and facade when he faced tough opponents and kept his mouth going 100 miles an hour to con everybody.. But that cold blooded stare Larry Holmes gave him said it all.. "Your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower."

Somebody needs to remind you that Ali was 100% washed-up and sick when he fought Holmes. The question, of course, measures everyone at their best. 1964-1967 for Ali. Also 1974-76 he was pretty good too. Ahh, the close Young fight. Jimmy was quite good for for about 3 years and Holmes had a close fight with Witherspoon.

Whitherspoon was good...DAMNED good.. If he kept improving at the rate he did up to the point he fought Holmes he would have taken over Boxing.

And as far as Ali is concerned...there're many excuses out there for his bad showings... Didn't getting punched a lot have anything to do with his problems?

Kalan wrote:Whitherspoon was good...DAMNED good.. If he kept improving at the rate he did up to the point he fought Holmes he would have taken over Boxing.

And as far as Ali is concerned...there're many excuses out there for his bad showings... Didn't getting punched a lot have anything to do with his problems?

Yes the punches he took from Frazier in The Thrilla In Manilla took the greatness out of him. Jimmy Young, as I've mentioned was top notch for a couple years that explains Ali-Young. I think he was playing some with Lyle and Wepner. I think if Ali (1967) vs Holmes (1978) had fought, Ali would have won 10-5 rounds, something like that, and so would most boxing people.

Ali had tremendous charisma and box office appeal and was able to market himself exceptionally well by running his mouth non-stop and reciting poetry.. Most people are rating Ali so highly because they were captivated by his personality more than anything.. I remember a poll our teacher did in the 50's when I was in 7th grade.. Some of the questions were, "Who's the best actor in the world... best actress... best athlete... funniest comedian etc."

Elvis Presley had done only a couple movies to that point, with shoddy scripts. The movies were slapped together to exploit Elvis's huge fan base and were done strictly for money. Elvis won for best actor because so many girls voted for him and some of the guys did. The teacher thought the choice was dumb to say the least and some of the kids laughed when it was announced.

Liston was the best Heavyweight of the '50's.. Ali was the best Heavyweight of the 60's until Frazier came along, but I didn't think either of them were real good and it was a weak decade, though not as weak as the 1950's or 40's. Frazier was passed his peak by 1971 when he fought Ali, and was definitely not Smokin' for their rematch and rubber match. He took too many shots in all his fights. Holmes was definitely the best Heavyweight between Louis and Tyson.

Tony1244 wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:Boxers get bigger and better, but if you're great, you're great.

Ali would have had some trouble with Jack Johnson and Joe Louis but I think he would have won. I think he would have had smooth sailing with virtually everyone else up till that point.

I think Ali would have had trouble with Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos but I think he would have won utilizing hand and foot speed in particular.


Looking forward to people calling each other morons and imbeciles on all sides of the arguments. That always amuses me when an argument can never be proven.

The above is what I "think," I don't know.

"Some trouble?" ... Ali was wide open and Johnson and Louis could bang harder and defended a lot better.. They had better fundamentals.

"Trouble" with Lewis and the Klitschko's you say??? Ali never fought anyone remotely the size of Lewis or the Klitschko's who could box and punch.. The only fellow who matched Ali in size and height who was a really tremendously skilled boxer on the scale of a Wladimir Klitschko was Larry Holmes... Holmes lacked the punching power, but nobody needs to remind you how that match-up went down.

Then you had the spectacle of much smaller, little short dudes like the super hittable, non-athletes: Frazier, Norton, and Spinks punching the Hell of out Ali.. Norton would have had a look on his face similar to the fright he displayed in the Foreman and Cooney weigh-ins -- if he every saw Lewis, Wladimir, or Vitali standing there for the face-offs.. Ali always put on a brave face and facade when he faced tough opponents and kept his mouth going 100 miles an hour to con everybody.. But that cold blooded stare Larry Holmes gave him said it all.. "Your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower."

Somebody needs to remind you that Ali was 100% washed-up and sick when he fought Holmes. The question, of course, measures everyone at their best. 1964-1967 for Ali. Also 1974-76 he was pretty good too. Ahh, the close Young fight. Jimmy was quite good for for about 3 years and Holmes had a close fight with Witherspoon.

That's the fundamental flaw in all Kalan's Ali related arguments. He always measures Ali at his worst against every other fighter at their best.

NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

Kalan wrote:NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

Why do you refer to Frazier v Foreman and Ali v Frazier for comparison but never refer to Ali v Foreman?

And I also think you have misjudged Ali's peak. He was on the comeback trail in 1970 and rusty after years of inactivity, I'd say he never reached his peak again after his layoff . I'd say his peak years were 64 to 67. Zaire was the exception.

ewenhay wrote:

Kalan wrote:NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

Why do you refer to Frazier v Foreman and Ali v Frazier for comparison but never refer to Ali v Foreman?

My guess is he's Wilt Chamberlain's nephew and Ali insulted Wilt when Kalan was a kid.

Ali wouldn't be the same fighter in another era, factors such as medicine, nutrition, society, technology, trends, politics and countless others would mean Ali could only be Ali in his own era so these discussions become pointless (although he did go by 2 names if you're being picky !)

ewenhay wrote:

Kalan wrote:NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

Why do you refer to Frazier v Foreman and Ali v Frazier for comparison but never refer to Ali v Foreman?

I do... It was evident something was wrong with Foreman in that fight other than normal fatigue. He said he was drugged. He was struggling by the 3rd round. He said his arms felt like they weighed 100 pounds each. I think he was just in miserable condition. He looked really soft and came into camp weighing 280. He seemed to have a Tyson Fury/Buster Douglas penchant for slacking between fights after he won the title. If you have a few months between fights, trainers tell you not to put on more than 15 pounds -- so you're not struggling to get back in shape. A lot of fighters seem to hear 50 pounds -- and think 65 pounds is okay.

In the amateurs you're fighting sometimes every week and training all the time, so conditioning is automatic.. Even in the pros, if you're fighting every 2 or 3 weeks like Louis, Patterson and Tyson did starting out---and even Foreman did at times when he started pro, you're in the gym every day.. That's a real busy schedule.. It's after they make a few hundred thousand or maybe a few million dollars -- and they're on their own for weeks or months at a time because a fight hasn't been scheduled -- that's when some guys pack it on.

Kalan is right that Ali's weakness was left hooks, though Lennox and vitali threw a combined two in their careers. He's also right about Frazier being post prime in 71. I also think pre exike Ali gets stopped from that assault. The toughest era was the one he was in, the next toughest was the holy,Lewis,bowe era. He'd lose a couple along the way there. Obviously Louis and he is for all the marbles and he could struggle with Charles or Walcott. He'd be incredibly dominant now.

Kalan wrote:

ewenhay wrote:

Kalan wrote:NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

Why do you refer to Frazier v Foreman and Ali v Frazier for comparison but never refer to Ali v Foreman?

I do... It was evident something was wrong with Foreman in that fight other than normal fatigue. He said he was drugged. He was struggling by the 3rd round. He said his arms felt like they weighed 100 pounds each. I think he was just in miserable condition. He looked really soft and came into camp weighing 280. He seemed to have a Tyson Fury/Buster Douglas penchant for slacking between fights after he won the title. If you have a few months between fights, trainers tell you not to put on more than 15 pounds -- so you're not struggling to get back in shape. A lot of fighters seem to hear 50 pounds -- and think 65 pounds is okay.

In the amateurs you're fighting sometimes every week and training all the time, so conditioning is automatic.. Even in the pros, if you're fighting every 2 or 3 weeks like Louis, Patterson and Tyson did starting out---and even Foreman did at times when he started pro, you're in the gym every day.. That's a real busy schedule.. It's after they make a few hundred thousand or maybe a few million dollars -- and they're on their own for weeks or months at a time because a fight hasn't been scheduled -- that's when some guys pack it on.

So the only way Ali beat Foreman was due to Foreman being unprepared even though the fight was delayed giving him plenty of time to get in shape or he was drugged. Aye ok then. Clearly your dislike of Ali means you find it impossible to be objective in any way.

Kalan wrote:NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

... 'cause that's when you first saw it on youtube.

wouter wrote:

Kalan wrote:NO I don't... I rate Ali at his best, which I believe were the Quarry and Bonavena fights... He was a little fat for his loss to Joe Frazier. He looked a little soft and he weighed 215.. I believe if he were in the same condition he was in for his previous 2 fights he might have won...

Frazier had the hex on Ali at that time.. Frazier had a quick left hook at his best, and Ali knew he's have problems with it.. Ali was big and strong enough to absorb the smaller Frazier's punches, but maybe he was afraid the hook was going to knock him out because he didn't box real well. Foreman had no fear and countered Frazier beautifully with sharp right uppercuts. That's how you beat a short man's left hook.. Foreman was in perfect condition for Frazier and Ali wasn't for whatever reason.. He threw sloppy rights for the most part with not enough juice on them. He did beat the wide open Frazier up just from being able to hit him 100's of times.. I remember that fight like it was yesterday. It was his first loss. I can't see why it couldn't be scored 8-7 for Ali, but everyone seemed to know with the knockdown that Frazier had it. Ali fans were downcast even before the decision.

... 'cause that's when you first saw it on youtube.

I first saw it LIVE on March of 1971 A-hole... I saw ALL of Ali's Title Fights live... YOU saw them on Youtube because you're still wet behind the ears.

You should be happy we see through your bullshit. If you're an actual 70-80 year old man like you claim you're one of the saddest motherfuckers the world has ever known.

No, I'm extremely happy and healthy in mind and body and lived a great life... Unlike the demented and diseased jerk-off you happen to be.

Kalan wrote:No, I'm extremely happy and healthy in mind and body and lived a great life... Unlike the demented and diseased jerk-off you happen to be.

How old are you, Kalan?

I think that you're jiving when you said that you saw the Tony Zale vs Rocky Graziano I and II fights on film on a movie theater. You said that you were about 6 or 7 years old then. Well, you must be 77 or 78 now, right? Or you're just bullshiting us here?