Ali vs A.J.

Skill is subjective. What would be more skilled staying in the pocket counter punching able to defeat an opponent faster or moving out of range more and having to work harder BC you are out of range to do damage yourself or have less power BC you can't put full body behind the punch and are relying on a lot of footwork ?

Slick looking may look great but in the end its the results that count. Its by far harder to be aggressive and get hit less than elusive and out point.

 

this question was asked of mike tyson when he was in his prime and ktfo out everyone.

at the time the writers said no fighter in history could mix it with him .

hindsight is needed when you do matchups like this with any sense of creedence.

 

Yeah that's kind of my point. I actually agree with you. People take slick looking as higher skilled. When its not always the case.

The original point I was trying to make was the guys of the 80,s backwards especially the heavyweights we,re far more skilled in all aspects of the game. The guys nowadays spend too long on game plans to win a fight in their training their neglecting their skillset. Its effective but its only effective cause theres few out there with the skillset of say twenty years ago to exploit it. I m saying take the current three heavyweight champions and list all the stuff the can do well. Then go back and do it with buster Douglas. I guarantee buster can do a lot more better than any of the three. And douglas was really just a contender who won a belt. Even go down the top ten of Tyson's era. Again they can do things a lot better than the best of today. Theres actually a massive difference in the skillsets. I still say they,d embarrass todays fighters even with size disadvantages.

Furys a bit more versatile than the usual guys. At his best he,d beat all three of them. And yet he' spent half of his life not taking it seriously...depressed. Weight yo yoing etc. Can be described as anything but disciplined. He' not even a master at most of the different skills but because he can do a lot more than them in a ring he,d have beaten all three of them. Now stick in guys that we,re better at doing the different things. I say they,d embarrass them.

 

Sports where it's purely based on physical excellence I'd say that's true, but sports involving a high skill component it's debatable as it's near impossible to quantify.

In boxing the better pure athlete doesn't always win, otherwise Wlad would of beaten Fury.

And if fighters from previous generations were so bad how did Foreman past prime beat Moorer and give Evander difficulty?

 

Pretty sure all sports require a high skill element.....

 

Douglas jab was better than Joshua's, that's about it. The others? You could say he was more well balanced but is he more effective to get the win over the other champions?

One things for certain a Joshua wasn't around then. He wasn't around then BC you didn't have a 6'5 plus power puncher with refined skills to add weighing 250 . The closest thing was Tucker in that era and he wasn't as strong weighing 20 pounds less and certainly not as skilled.

Joshua is also an in close fighter, he doesn't need or rely keeping guys on the outside, no fighter in the 80's or any era prior to that fought like that. They were all outside fighters, with the exception of Jack Johnson who held and hit when it was legal, a little bit of Liston too who roughed guys up on the inside off the top of my head.

Fury beat all 3? Well look at the Mike Tyson vs Holmes fight.

You won't beat Joshua without power, he's too skilled at counter punching himself and he's fast. He's the least hit aggressive fighter at HW making him the second least hit HW even including Fury.

The Fury match itself favors Joshua. Just like it favored him against Klitchko BC Wlad is not a close range fighter. Joshua is 6'6 250 punching machine with ring IQ and is a trained combination puncher with great accuracy which is why he does major damage with minimal punch counts..that's a reality.

You also have to look at the fight count. Joshua is only 20 fights in and with a full camp , I except him to put Parker out within 5 rounds. Parker may not even win one round....Takam didn't.

The 90' fighters would put up a far better fight against today's fighters. Most of the top guys today aren't in their prime yet including Joshua.

Holmes, Tucker, Douglas , Foreman, Cooney, Ruddock, Bruno and Tyson are the ones who would be relevant today as far as winning a possible title.

Tyson is the only one I rate over Joshua...for NOW.

 

It's insulting to see a comparison like this. Insulting! And I'm being dead serious! No jokes.

 

Douglas could do everything better than Joshua. Much better movement for a start. Had a much better variety of punches. His jab was much better. He could fight going every which way. On the backfoot as well as the front foot. His lateral movement was much better. His angles we,re much better. He could read an incoming attack much better than Joshua. His footwork so much better He actually done everything better than Joshua. Theirs not an aspect of skill than Joshua done better than Douglas.

Joshuas getting wins against other novices outwith klitchko who was 42 years old. Most of the guys on his ledger are part time fighters at best. Hardly keep themselves in shape. Its allright being 250 pounds but if your twenty pounds overweight what's the point. How much of an advantage is it really. Molina was a teacher not long ago. The Scottish guy was actually part time. Whyte had a two year ban for drugs and admitted himself he definitely didn't live the life. There's only about 5 heavyweights in the world right now you can take seriously in terms of professionalism. Joshuas one of them but its like taking candy from a baby fighting most of these guys. People criticize mike Tyson but the guys mike was fighting we,re skilled operators. Even guys like Mitch green were skilled operators.

Compare Molina with Mitch green. In terms of what they do well in a ring.

Joshua is not a good infighter. He hits guys from the outside before going on the inside to hit guys that have already been affected by his outside work. The guys are clueless on the outside cause they dont have any kind of serious skillset. The first guy that got him exchanging on the inside almost took him out in dillan whyte in what was Joshua's worst performance by a mile. He was all over the place regardless of whyte rocking him.

Tucker was definitely more skilled than Joshua.

You won't need massive power to beat Joshua. Whyte almost got the job done. Klitchko shut him down for about four rounds with one punch. He's been put over in sparring a lot by all accounts. Power wont be necessary.

Agree no one today will counter punch Joshua unless they have the length advantages over him. Without that to beat him you get inside and push him back. I m telling you Joshua can't infight. He can get you on the outside then step in. But you move in from the outside on him and push him back...you,ll beat him. The secret to beating him is putting him on that backfoot. Whyte done it and almost did beat him. The problem is they can't get inside because most of them are clueless they don't have any tools. No angles. No lateral movement. Can't throw punches on the move. No jab to set anything up. Poor footwork. Can't put punches together. Its no wonder he's going through them all with relative ease. Some of them are,nt even fit.

Now go and watch some of the guys Tyson fought....what's known as the cocaine years. Most of them could all do that list above.

 

I understand youse have never had a champion, but this level of delusion is just hard to take seriously.

The idea that all sports are progressive, coming from a **** who never talks about history of anykind let alone sporting or boxing history.

The idea that there is no optimal and provided skills are equal bigger is always better, from some closet homosexual who never discusses anatomy or kinesiology but is tote an expert on 6'6 250.

 

Its the same people doing these comaprisons. Just like when BJS beat the Great David Lemiux, all of a sudden BJS is being comaored to SRR, and Hagler LOL... Just like GGG was going to KO Canelo, and then he doesn't we get all these "excuses" hahaha....

Bandwagon jumpers in this forum are loud.

 

BJS can fight doe. I need him to beat steady stiff competition for me to judge him more but I like him.

 

I agree. Really enjoyed how he embarrassed David Lemieux, but I'm not going to compare him to Hgler or SRR based on that performance. Once he beats an elite fighter perhaps we can start comparing him to the current elites, past elites like Hopkins, and then if he manages to be the best in his division we can play with the idea of matching him with the legends, for fun.

 

I don't even consider the talk.

 

A lot of cases of older guys I'd pick the new men to win, because sport evolves blah blah. Size whatever.

But Ali is a bad matchup for AJ, given AJ's absolute shite gas tank. He'd hit air all night and fall over from fatigue.

 

Agreed about Savon.

I wouldn't call Foreman fleet footed or with fast hands but he caught a slightly past prime Ali with shots and in the first round too . The attributes you mentioned that Ali had he didnt use in the Foreman fight. Fast hands and movement were non existent until the last combo . I don't think the rope a dope would work with AJ.

That being said a prime Ali would probably beat AJ at this stage of AJs career.