People who think Ali would be able to compete with the tall-superheavyweights

the concept of maximum ebbs and flows too, but people dont look at the wider picture, and dont see it.

The concept and definition of being "fastest" over distances has changed dramatically over history. Absolutes were appraised very differently at different times in history.

 

because its a skill game.


All skill games have ebbed and flowed as time passes, as their game evolves to meet new criteria, or as their popularity has changed, or rules have changed, for instance.

 

I'm sorry, how's that?

They're smaller, but carry the same attributes, but carry no disadvantages?

That doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong.

 

They wont carry the same disadvantages is what you should have read.

I am wondering why you read it as "no disadvantages"

 

I was also referring to today's elite SHW's.

I would have fancied him over Joshua until I see more of him.

I would have put huge money on him beating Wilder.


They could look at changing the limits for CW and HW, but I couldn't stomach an 18th division with another 6/7 belts from 4 orgs.

 

Yeah, of course there would be disadvantages, with stamina being the main culprit. But in no way would all other attributes be equal.

 

Yeah, that's one way to go, shuffling other weight limits. I'd probably be all for that.

 

I was being scientific. Like 4 like, in order to yield the truth more accurately.

Here, the SHW possibly has more height, definitely has more weight, but we match everything else between the two to be compared.

 

No, it's really an anomaly.

I've been watching boxing a long time now.


This is what I know for certain:

1. There's boxers of today who could beat some guys of the past.

2. There's boxers of the past who could beat some guys of today.

3. Boxing does not gradually progress.


Boxing stands alone.


There has been no gradual progression due to the following factors:

Sports science, nutrition and technology, doesn't aid fighters as much as it aids athletes in other sports.

Boxing isn't a race against the clock.

No new techniques have been invented.

Certain skills have actually been lost over time.

The majority of the great trainers of the past are sadly no longer with us, and boxing is an art, where many facets of the game have to be perfected.

Fighters today don't fight as often as they once did.

Fighters today don't spend as long in the gym honing their skills.

Fighters today don't encounter every style to gain experience on their way up.


You can give a fighter of today a nutritionist, a strength and conditioning coach, a chef, a masseuse, a state of the art gym, and a $200 pair of running shoes to do his roadwork in. It won't automatically mean that he has better footwork and timing than a fighter from 1950.

Boxing will always ebb and flow.

Sometimes the MW division will be hot, sometimes it will be weak.

Sometimes the CW division will be weak, sometimes it will be hot.


Ray Robinson's peak was 70 years ago. Yet to this day, he's still regarded as the G.O.A.T. And that's not because people are biased with nostalgia, it's because he was a perfect fighter, both in offense and defence.


Sprinters today have different blocks.

They run on different surfaces.

They run in better footwear.

None of that applies to boxing.


Swimmers have become faster and more powerful.

That doesn't apply to boxing.

Boxers who are bigger and more powerful than there predecessors, aren't always as skilled on top of that.


Boxing has to be one of the only sports where you'd genuinely put large amounts of money on some guys of the past being able to beat some of today's fighters.

I'd put big money on the likes of Ali and Tyson to beat the likes of Wilder and Parker.


Keep watching those classic fights of the greats of the past.

 

In a controlled test it would probably be changing the size and weight, while keeping all other external factors the same, and then measuring what advantages and disadvantages the size and weight has. So, in essence we would be measuring things like strength and speed, not keeping them the same. That would defeat the purpose of the test.

 

Interesting points. I'm not saying you're wrong, I think it is difficult to prove either way though.

I remember Mike Tyson was asked the question on whether he could beat the Klitschkos, he reckoned there is a progression in boxing where fighters get better, not worse. Although granted, Mike would probably give you a different answer depending on what time of the day it is.

This content is protected

 

I respect what Mike says, but he's no longer a fighter.

He's no longer in fight mode.

He's a 51 year old man who fell out of love with the game an awful long time ago.

He was being gracious.

If the K's had been around in the 80's, Mike would obviously have given a very different answer.

We also have to note than Wlad was iced by non great fighters in Mike's era when he was in his 20's.


Regarding my previous points, the mere fact that it's difficult to prove and you have to give it serious thought, proves that boxing stands alone.


I'm not questioning your knowledge on the sport, but I would think that every knowledgeable fan would predict mixed results from a huge tournament between modern fighters and guys from the past.

 

It depends on which tall fighter Ali fought.....................Ali would knock Wilder out for sure!

 

Many SHWs are slow lumbering hulks which would be easily hittable by a prime Ali. That would include Vlad. If Fury gave Vlad fits because he was mobile imagine a prime Ali getting in his shots and moving away only to suddenly dart in and land several more.

 

there have been 6.5' boxers around for decades, they didnt all of a sudden get better, they just couldnt compete in fights that lasted a full hour. hell even today, these slow paced behemoths are usually completely gassed by the 10th rd. bring back 15 rd fights and in 10 years the top ten will be smaller than they are today. form and function will never be independent of each other in the ring.