Wlad vs. Ali

[Sardu]

Oh yeah, I would pick Ali by a UD in the 60's and by majority decision in the 1970's. Wlad would have been more difficult for Ali to figure out and deal with later on.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Kenny Norton never faced a prime muhammad ali. get that through your skull.

And Norton's style differs pretty much from Wlad's as well.

[Bummy Davis]

Thing with the top heavy's today like Ibragamov, Povetkin,Chagaev, the Klitschko's is they had the olympic experience of Patterson,Ali,Foreman and Frazier and more fights as an amateur and equal success. This new Heavyweight comes to the professional ranks having already proven themselves and fought many different types of fighters because of the doors opening internationally. I lived through the 60's and 70's and was very aware of the fight game. Most Olympic finalist got there because of talent but the Russians were not included until now in the pros. They have there weakness but even the most die hard Ali fan would have to say Vlad was far superior than Terrell in every way and that Ibragimov was far better than Mildenburger, in fact the new group is better than any of Ali's or Foremans opponents excluding Olympian gold medalist Joe Frazier. I always watch the amateurs and we have a great batch of heavy and super -heavys coming from the east, too bad Cammerelli is not turning pro, I think he would make a good pro.

Fact is take away Foreman and Frazier from Ali's resume and do the same to Foreman and Frazier and the rest of the list is not so thick. Norton had a great Rhythm breaking style but dragging the back foot and his chin spelled disaster vs a puncher.

My opinion is that any champ of any era would be a formidable opponent for any Champ of any era. The cream rises to the top and I do not consider, Tony Tubbs, Bruce Seldon, and all the fake title guys as champions but the real Champs were champs for a reason. Even today.

[itrymariti]

Originally Posted by Bummy Davis

Thing with the top heavy's today like Ibragamov, Povetkin,Chagaev, the Klitschko's is they had the olympic experience of Patterson,Ali,Foreman and Frazier and more fights as an amateur and equal success. This new Heavyweight comes to the professional ranks having already proven themselves and fought many different types of fighters because of the doors opening internationally. I lived through the 60's and 70's and was very aware of the fight game. Most Olympic finalist got there because of talent but the Russians were not included until now in the pros. They have there weakness but even the most die hard Ali fan would have to say Vlad was far superior than Terrell in every way and that Ibragimov was far better than Mildenburger, in fact the new group is better than any of Ali's or Foremans opponents excluding Olympian gold medalist Joe Frazier. I always watch the amateurs and we have a great batch of heavy and super -heavys coming from the east, too bad Cammerelli is not turning pro, I think he would make a good pro.

Fact is take away Foreman and Frazier from Ali's resume and do the same to Foreman and Frazier and the rest of the list is not so thick. Norton had a great Rhythm breaking style but dragging the back foot and his chin spelled disaster vs a puncher.

My opinion is that any champ of any era would be a formidable opponent for any Champ of any era. The cream rises to the top and I do not consider, Tony Tubbs, Bruce Seldon, and all the fake title guys as champions but the real Champs were champs for a reason. Even today.

So you think that Norton, Lyle, Quarry, Patterson (?), Terrell etc. were clearly worse than Chagaev, Byrd, Peter, Chambers etc.?

[Ali_]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Well yeah, look. Earnie is taller.

As long as we are allowing photographic evidence involving sixty year old men, here is ernie terrell towering over the six foot three Ken Norton

Ken Norton is 6'4. Look at Ernie standing over him...

Yet after this post dumbasses still doubt that Ernie is 6'6....


and damn Frankie, this is in 2010 and you were getting your ass handed to you in argument and proofs..Now its 2012 and you still haven't stepped your game up. Lol...

[Boxed Ears]

I think Volo is a great athlete and you can certainly say that Ali didn't face a man as good who was his size. That's fair enough. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pick against my choice for GOAT H2H heavyweight when I figure Klitschko's best win is actually slower, shorter, clearly less skilled, mobile and powerful than Ali by a long shot, and do so with some sort of size justification.

And a fighter, who while very good, I'd consider clearly an inferior force to any of at least Ali's top five opponents. Oh, sure, you never really know about the upsets lurking, but I simply see no reason other than reaching for devil's advocate speculations to pick Klitschko. But Ali might eat a few giant bombs, like he has legendarily survived in the past, of course. And he might have a very hard night, like he did many times...in his winning efforts against other great fighters...which is a burden of proof of greatness which Volo has never had to meet...but, basically, even with Parkinson's, I've got to figure Muhammad's got this one in the bag with a Nortonesque gift decision. It's weird the IBF would order this mandatory though. Edit: Wait, this thread is old...end edit.

Originally Posted by Ali_

Ken Norton is 6'4. Look at Ernie standing over him...

Yet after this post dumbasses still doubt that Ernie is 6'6....


and damn Frankie, this is in 2010 and you were getting your ass handed to you in argument and proofs..Now its 2012 and you still haven't stepped your game up. Lol...

If Ken Norton is 6'4, even he doesn't know about it. He's said himself his peak height was 6'2.75.

[PetethePrince]

Wlad is physically and stylistically problematic for Ali. It's difficult to admit, and I say this as an Ali fan. I'm not saying Ali loses, just that's it's a real tough fight. I would expect a pretty close decision either way. Obviously I'd have to give the edge to Ali as a favorite.

I think Ali shows he's capable of getting into range well against taller fighters contrary to itrymariti's position. However, the issues have to do with Wlad's incredibly jab. It's the best jab in boxing and he has a pretty decent right hand behind it. His ability to control range is best asset, and that would mean an awful lot against Ali who is fast but not known for pushing forward to get in range to land his own shots. A ref is always important in a Wlad fight. If he's going to try to jab and then just lean and hold on Ali then his chances dramatically improve.

[johnmaff36]

Originally Posted by Sardu

Oh yeah, I would pick Ali by a UD in the 60's and by majority decision in the 1970's. Wlad would have been more difficult for Ali to figure out and deal with later on.

you mean Wlad would be more difficult for Ali when he was past prime

All things being equal, Wlad on his best night and Ali on his, theres only 1 winner. The man fights gunshy for christs sake

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by itrymariti

Well, I'm struggling to see how Ali would work with the size deficit. He's not really a counter-puncher or a pressure fighter and isn't really good at getting inside a guy's arms. He's running uphill stylistically as an outside fighter taking on a guy with physcial advantages from the outside. The historical record is bulging with examples supporting that. Thus I am puzzled.

and this is what almost no1 understands and what i've been claiming 4 years .
Yet this person picked Joe Louis 2 stop David Tua nonetheless . I guess he'd have had his vCash balanced at about 800 supposing he had d eggz 2 bet .

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by Ali_

Ken Norton is 6'4. Look at Ernie standing over him...

Yet after this post dumbasses still doubt that Ernie is 6'6....


and damn Frankie, this is in 2010 and you were getting your ass handed to you in argument and proofs..Now its 2012 and you still haven't stepped your game up. Lol...

that inbred imbecile ended resorting 2 emoticons like he always does . If that was getting my s handed 2 me then i m still feeling good about it . bottom line is that my vcash surpasses both of yours combined , still leaves change , and d only man who visited here and his vcash surpasses mine by far is in d same opinion as my own . vcash really separates d fucking inbred imbeciles from d real Xperts .
i wonder what knockout artist's opinion on d subject would b . in my defense , unlike him and Haggis , i do not even really follow d sport . yet i manage 2 win much more than lose in vbets .

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by lefthook89

this pretty much sums up what mendoza and company would say in the future lol.

Ali had problems with good jabbers at many stages of his career. See Doug Jones, Kenny Norton, Jimmy Young, and Ron Lyle. I'll omit Holmes. If you disagree, check the films.

Wlad not only has a great jab, he has an all time right hand, and fantastic clinching skills when needed to complement his towering size and ring smarts.


Anyway, if Norton who had less power and an even more suspect chin could beat Ali at least twice on a fair score card, it is certainly plausible that Wlad could do the same.


So who wins? If both guys were under 30, I go with Ali via decision. If both guys are 30-36, it would be Wlad. Fair enough?

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Kenny Norton never faced a prime muhammad ali. get that through your skull.

Well, Norton whipped Ali's butt, and hurt him badly....before Ali beat Frazier or Foreman. If Ali wasn't in good working condition, he would not avenge a loss to Frazier or beat Foreman.


So Saying Norton never beat a prime Ali doesn't hold water...unless you think Ali was out of his prime past 1968 when he was in his 20's!

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Well, Norton whipped Ali's butt, and hurt him badly....before Ali beat Frazier or Foreman. If Ali wasn't in good working condition, he would not avenge a loss to Frazier or beat Foreman.


So Saying Norton never beat a prime Ali doesn't hold water...unless you think Ali was out of his prime past 1968 when he was in his 20's!

Not going to get into who wins, [its a no brainer as far as I'm concerned], I know which one I would pay to watch,and it isn't that tentative robot I saw the other day.I would pay NOT to watch him.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Not going to get into who wins, [its a no brainer as far as I'm concerned], I know which one I would pay to watch,and it isn't that tentative robot I saw the other day.I would pay NOT to watch him.

Ali in some cases fought worse opposition in title fights. In some fights Ali clinched even more than Wlad did. The irony here is Ali seldom gets criticized. The good news is your don't have to pay to watch Wlad as long as you have the Internet.


Not all Wlad fights are great to watch. That is because he is in control, and chooses to fight smart, giving his opponent the least amount of chance to win. In many cases boxing is the art of hitting without getting hit. His opponents strategy and false bravado goes out the window as soon as Wlad lands something serious.


Most people don't watch full fights years after they happen. They watch the highlights. You won't see many right hands better than the one Wlad crushed Thompson with in the 5th round.

[Ali_]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

that inbred imbecile ended resorting 2 emoticons like he always does . If that was getting my s handed 2 me then i m still feeling good about it . bottom line is that my vcash surpasses both of yours combined , still leaves change , and d only man who visited here and his vcash surpasses mine by far is in d same opinion as my own . vcash really separates d fucking inbred imbeciles from d real Xperts .
i wonder what knockout artist's opinion on d subject would b . in my defense , unlike him and Haggis , i do not even really follow d sport . yet i manage 2 win much more than lose in vbets .

Your tears taste like autism.