Is there anyone who could school 67 Ali?

Sugar Ray Leonard started his career in the 70's. That's five decades ago. Is it your contention he couldn't even be competitive with Terrence Crawford?

 

"Are you suggesting the judges"

No, I'm stating that KD's can obscure the competitiveness of the boxing. Hypothetically a fighter could land 100 punches in a round but if he got knocked down by a single punch at the end of the round, it's a two point round to the guy who landed 1.

It's important to keep that in mind when we're hypothesising about fights with iron-chinned opponents with superior engines and skills that Ali would not score KD's against. Give Mildenberger an iron chin and it's already considerably more competitive and it was one of Ali's toughest fights as it was, by his own admission.

It's all hypothetical at the end of the day and I've already suggested fighters as they existed who could school Ali so why can't I also conceive of a southpaw version of Ken Norton as my fantasy choice? Same crouch, same cross arm guard but leftie rather than rightie. And a Norton who started boxing at 12 (as Ali did) or 15 rather than 20/21, though he still schooled Ali on 8 years experience since his first amateur bout. That sounds like an awful matchup for Ali.

 

Wasn't he in his prime about 15 years after Ali was apparently in his? Not apples to apples.

I don't know, I'm a much bigger fan of 175+, especially 200+, than the lower weights so I don't feel qualified to give any strong opinion.

I also didn't say that a fighter (I was talking about HW) from the distant past couldn't be competitive, only that we couldn't reasonably expect them to be. It partly depends on the stylistic matchup though: big puncher vs weak chin would always have a non-minimal chance of an upset.

 

Definitely?

OK...

 

I was taking you literally or at the worst taking the point you were trying to make.

Sugar Ray Leonard won the welterweight title in 1979, a scant year after Muhammad Ali recaptured his title That's forty four years ago. Granted it's not fifty. You reckon he wouldn't even be competitive with Tim Bradley?

 

I would take that with a grain of salt. Alfredo Evangelista who faced a faded Ali and a prime Holmes said the former had better defense, a better jab, and better footwork. I'll supply a citation if you desire.

 

Risible argument (Ali and SRL's primes were 15 years apart) and I've already said that I don't care about lower weight boxing, or have any strong opinions about it.

 

So now you're making up some rationale for Usyk? Just give it up will you. And what's with the obsession with Wilder?

Bellew wasn't winning rounds by Usyk doing nothing. He was landing clean. Good shots. Personally I'd rather take four glancing jabs than one clean power punch, no matter how that makes compubox look.

And if you can't see with the naked eye that Mildenberger was a fair bit leaner, not surprising since he also was some ten years younger, I don't know what to tell you.

Anyhow, we're just going over already covered ground here, so I'll leave you to continue on your own.

 

I heavily scrutinise what boxers say about former opponents, they regularly talk a lot of nonsense.

 

The arguments I've made were all pretty easy to follow imo, if you can't understand then I can't help you.

Bellew was winning rounds by doing marginally more than nothing, while Usyk was making him work hard for minimal success. Perhaps he started slowly in order to bamboozle team Joshua down the road. In any case, Usyk took minimal damage and sparked the much bigger (than Mildenberger) Bellew in 8, whereas Ali went 154-144 in landed punches and was taken 12. Compared to Usyk-Bellew it was a war, with Ali getting his head rocked back a lot, which is why Ali regarded it as one of his toughest ever fights.

Anyone who watches Ali-Mildenberger knows that Ali merely a champion boxer from 50-60 years ago who would be totally out of his depth against some of the best fighters since, rather than The Flash from DC Comics.

 

Sugar Ray Leonard won the welterweight title from Wilfred Benitez in 1979. That's 44 years ago. Granted it's not fifty. What was the revolutionary change in those six years? Reggie Jackson, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Paul Warfield, O.J. Simpson, and Walter Payton are athletes who competed in the 70s. Would you expect them to not "even be competitive with the best today"?

 

Could anyone school a 1967 Ali? NO. Definitely not. Could anyone beat him? Even the greatest boxers can lose on a given night,even a prime Ali but it would be a very close contest. These guys are human,not machines. In a league table scenario of the all time great heavies,Muhammad would have the odd 'L' on his record but he would be the League champion at the end of the season.

 

This is a cracking post John, and as a complete aside from the primary point you're making (which you're making effectively), people who cite "slick movers" doing well against Louis because Conn (who was dominated in a one-sided KO during their rematch) had success before being KO'd, fail to release Conn wasn't a slick mover vs Louis, he took the fight to an out of sorts Joe and crowded him. The style he employed couldn't gave been further from that of a slick, mover type.

 

I love this answer.

 

Sounds like someone in this very thread.