Thanks Loudon, as you said, we're never going to agree, but I've come to respect you and appreciate debating with you over the years too.
Stating Joshua beats Ali based on a past it Kevin Johnson, Gary Cornish, a half fit Dillian Whyte that had him on quear street, and Mr Martin: the worst belt holder in 20 years, is not sound.
apart from minutes ago when you tried to claim he didn't disagree with you. now u gone back on that yeah? comedian, like I said.
so you've written a long word again... does that mean u are ready to reply or not? u cant change a vote. keep up the comedy mate.
As usual, your fails at logic and basic reading comprehension cloud your ability to make coherent posts. I said I didn't disagree with what he actually wrote in his earlier post, which is correct. Our overall beliefs on boxers are different. Try using perspective, I know that requires a level of mental dexterity that eludes, you, but just try.
andrewa1, From a psychological standpoint, how would a fighter who couldn't come to grips with Fury's size and movement, have been favoured over a peak version of Muhammad? When you say "his size" it's as though you're talking about a really small guy. Ali wasn't small. He was 6'3. That was a good size. It's not always a huge advantage being really big and tall. Ali had good height, good reach, with exceptional speed of hand and foot, with great reflexes. He had a perfect blend that would have caused today's guys havoc. Just in the same way that a 5'10 Mike Tyson would have. Ali's supreme confidence would have had him out of sorts, as well as his incredible movement. Tenderise him with his jab? How? Why couldn't he tenderise Fury or Haye with his jab, when they were always right in front of him, without possessing even half of the movement that Muhammad possessed? Broken down? He couldn't break Haye down who was trapped up against the ropes. He fell for Fury's feints. So how would he have broken down Muhammad, who would have been on his toes in the centre of the ring, circling, feinting, jumping in and out of range whilst taunting him? http://youtu.be/jkhpZoPOfZI You've got to be kidding me? Likewise mate, it's always great fun. :good
Andrew, Just out of curiosity, which of today's HW's do you think would have beaten Muhammad at his peak? Who would you have heavily favoured over him? Also, why don't you get your a$$ in gear and try and build us a time machine?
He was 6''2. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/29/77/97/2977977bc02cf69c12d2fa50a06a731a.jpg http://www.champsuk.com/products/images/860.jpg http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/83/96283-004-7F5C8782.jpg http://m1.wholesite.com/2011/2/27/a...8fcea4/GeorgeChuvaloandCassiusClay2A_crop.jpg
:good It doesn't make a difference. He wasn't a small guy, and with his great attributes, he would have been an extremely hard nights work for any HW in history.
Hturd's favorite game? Try substance at first, get totally owned, then never make another substantive argument, instead arguing the guy he's arguing with didn't answer his question. Rinse and repeat. If you just open the last page, and aren't familiar with Hturd's track record, you may even be fooled into thinking he's made some kind of point earlier. I'd urge everyone to look back at the old posts to see just how badly he got owned. In fact, at one point, he cited a bunch of stats that backed up my points.
Haye was just as confident, and a lot better fighter on top of it. Wlad was getting older and had a **** night. Using the Fury fight is a poor reference, though. Better stick with Haye. So yeah, Wlad would struggle with Ali's footwork and upper body movement. But if he was game on the evening, he would keep at it, and Ali doesn't have Hayes power. I'm not saying Wlad would win, but I think he would have a good chance. It would be Wlad's range, power and overall skill and talent against Ali's genious.