1967 Muhammad Ali vs. 2007 Wladimir Klitschko

Tyson says never says a bad word. He means someone was there yesterday and today like Bert Sugar or Herb Goldman.

Because these champions say otherwise..

Lennox Lewis "I beat Vitali at my worst"
James Toney "Klitschko ducking me"
Larry Holmes "They(current era) would be sparring partners"

 

What's with all of this Clay business?

We're having a debate regarding a 25 year old peak Ali.

Haye is not better than Ali, and you're now just taking the ****.

Ali didn't have a great resume in the 60's, but he beat Frazier and Foreman etc past his best in the 70's.

Frazier and Foreman would be extremely dangerous opponents for any HW today.

Your analysis of Haye's opponents is a joke.

There's really nothing much to add here, so 'll move on and try and respond to your other posts.

 

glover,

It wasn't Ali's prime when he faced George. It was 7 years after the initial ban. Ali aged very quickly. He was only 32 against George, but he was an old 32, with a lot of miles on the clock. If he'd have faced George earlier in the late 60's, he would definitely have adopted different tactics. If you watch the first few rounds of "the Jungle" when Ali's constantly moving, he looked great and was hitting George at will. But again, he knew he couldn't sustain it in 74, so went to the ropes and let George tire himself out. In my honest opinion, a fight in 67 would have been an extended version of the 2 rounds that we saw in 74.

He certainly wouldn't have laid on the ropes and took a horrible pounding like he HAD to do in 74, and again, he wouldn't have been stupid enough to trade with George. So I think he'd have beaten George on points, using his great footwork.

Size isn't everything you're right.

It can be both an advantage and a disadvantage depending on the CIRCUMSTANCES involved.

But styles make fights.

It's an old saying, and it's true.

Those guys you've mentioned would win some fights and lose some fights against today's guys, apart from Ali in my opinion. On his best day I think he'd beat anyone.

I think Frazier with his style could beat and cause problems for a lot of today's heavies.

What ENORMOUS advantages would Wlad have?


He'd have a reach advantage.

A 3 inch Height advantage.

An advantage in power.

An advantage in Strength.

But despite what you say, he wasn't more skilled than Ali.

He doesn't have a better chin.

He isn't as fast.

He doesn't have the reflexes that Ali had.

He doesn't have the hand speed.

He doesn't have the footwork.

He doesn't have the combinations that Ali possessed.


So all in all, Wlad doesn't hold ENORMOUS advantages over an Ali.


Now you've said somewhere, that a motivated Mike Tyson trained by Rooney, fighting to his full capabilities could have been the greatest ever.

I agree entirely.

He could have.

So put his stats up against Wlad's, and you'll see that Wlad would have had ENORMOUS physical advantages over him.

But although size can play a significant part, it won't determine the outcome of a fight, unless there's exceptional circumstances.

You're saying that Wlad is far too big and skilled for ANY of the fighters of the past, and they'd have no chance of beating him.

But Wlad's been stopped three times, been life and death with Peter, and his best win according to you is Haye.

So what you need to do, is to re word your post.

You need to type, that in your opinion, it would be UNLIKELY for the fighters of the past to beat Wlad at his best.

That's fine.

But what you can't do, is say that no fighter of the past would have had a chance of beating him.

Because that's ridiculous.

So what?

How many times was Mike Tyson the bigger man?

How in your opinion could a little 5'10 Mike Tyson have been the greatest ever??

It would obviously have been based on his all-around abilities.

Here you are again being ridiculous.

He couldn't knock out Haye while confident, at his peak, and with a point to prove, yet he WOULD DEFINITELY have knocked out Ali??

The strategy would have been footwork.

His tactics would have been to constantly move, so it would have been extremely difficult for Wlad to land clean.

The key to beating a big guy is movement, unless there's exceptional circumstances involved like "The Jungle"

If you can't see how a 6'3, 220 guy, with fantastic footwork could trouble Wlad, then you don't know anything about this sport.

 

glover,

He was a formidable opponent to a young 22 year old Clay, and I'm sure he'd have caused a few problems for some of today's guys.

You're calling him a bum, but Wlad's been stopped by Brewster, Sanders, Puritty and nearly by Peter in his mid 20's.

Some of these are just too daft to respond to.

Tyson 30%?

Yeah, just like Sanders, Puritty and Brewster.

How elite were they?

Oh wait, he was a young and he'd been poisoned etc?

 

The "Rope a dope" tactic wouldn't have needed to have been implemented on ANYONE is 67. We're talking about a 25 year old Muhammad Ali.

How often do the Klitchko's lose a round? Against WHO?

Your stats don't mean ANYTHING!

Which fights have you been watching exactly?

He barely survived and struggled???

We're talking about a 67 version.

 

Exactly how I see it.

I also agree that prime Vitali would have had a much better chance of victory than his brother.

 

I think the 67 verison of ali might lose to forman, just cause he would not use ropes, he would move around an have nothing to brace himself with when he gets hit......an he was smaller in the 60's, an he fought smaller people....

I think the older version of ali would have a better chance against wlad...

You think cause ali is fast he can't get hit, look at tarver an jones, the gap between them in speed is much more vast then wlad an ali (wlad I would consider to have great speed).

Not only does wlad not lose rounds but had many where he was not even hit, against who? top heavyweight contenders, look at hayes fight you could argue wlad won every round, never was he outlanded in a round, he had hayes in retreat mode every round..... Not saying hayes wins or loses against ali, but you can bet he doesn't lose every round an runs for 12 rounds....

 

Tyson and Ali salute the Klitschko dominance? So they're talking about how this is one of or the best era, right? Can you quote the exact phrase where they make this claim? And how about clearing upvthose asterisks so we can actually find the link?

So analysts and book makers are have the only opinions that count, huh? Show me a single bookmaker who puts odds on fantasy h2h fights and I'll show you a guy taking no action on that fight. And how analyzes boxing more than trainers and historians of the sport? Not one claims this is the best era ever as you have. So that makes you the only fool here son.

Quit playing yourself kid, you just keep coming off as more and more of an idiot fanboy of Wlad and a hater of Ali than an actual fan of the sport.

 

Lmao! That blog is the most biased and ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Its stats are meaningless because it doesn't take skill or heart into the equation. Only an idiot would source that as credible information.

 

p4pBute,

I fully respect your opinion, but I don't see it that way.

He needed the ropes to brace himself in Zaire, because he made an unbelievably brave decision to get pounded on. A 67 version would have been up on his toes for every round, and in my honest opinion Big George wouldn't have landed clean. I honestly believe that Ali would have stayed out of harms way and won a decision.

Again I respect your opinion, but I don't see how that could be possible. Ali's footwork would have been the key to beating Wlad, constantly circling him, darting in and out of range, keeping him off balance and making him miss with feints etc. If he was static and stood in front of him, that would make it a lot easier for Wlad to utilize his own skills.

Roy was never the same after he'd come back from heavy in my opinion. Tarver was fast. Ali was significantly faster than Wlad.

What top contenders though?

Today's HW isn't that strong. Haye lost a clear decision to Wlad, but his movement caused Wlad trouble and frustrated him. Wlad wanted to knock him out because of the bad blood, and he couldn't hit him clean, even when he was trapped against the ropes. So if Haye's movement caused him trouble even when on the ropes, how would he have coped with Ali's footwork in the centre of the ring? Ali would have been constantly moving, for the full 15 if need be. He would never have been stationary, he would have been on his toes, and Wlad would have had a nightmare trying to land something of significance.

 

Ha!

I'm still waiting for an answer on how a small 5'10, 220 pound Mike Tyson was so dominant.

 

:huh

 

Good luck with that. He'll avoid or twist things that suit his agenda. How did Brewster beat Wlad? How did Byrd not get knocked out by Vote before forcing the quittage? Louis beating Simon, Baer and Carnera? Dempsey over Willard? Langford over almost everyone he fought? The list is endless really. Bottom line is skills have always trumped size. Glover can say what he pleases, but the truth is the heavyweight division has regressed in terms of skill and its very evident to see on film.

 

I agree entirely.

Size alone won't determine the outcome of a fight.

Have you been on the thread titled "Let's be realistic, Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing" ?

There's a guy on there, who's absolutely adamant that boxing has improved, and older fighters wouldn't even be able to compete with modern fighters, on the basis that sprinting and swimming records have been broken.

Check it out, if you've got the time. :good

 

I've been in plenty of those debates. What they don't consider are PED's, rubber tracks and starting blocks compared to running on dirt, engineered veils conditions, lighter equipment etc. There are no new skills to be learned in boxing, only forgotten or not used. I could go on and on, but people would rather remain blind to the facts in order to appease their agenda. Its baffling quite honestly.