Would Ali go Undefeated Vs Lennox Lewis Competition

Skills, styles, tactics, durability, speed... ...none of that matters when you have a size advantage (Everybody knows that.. ... ... ...)

 

Here are highlights of Ruddock against Page the year Lewis fought him (92). Here is Ali against Cooper (63). Ruddock was 239 pounds here, Cooper was 185.

Ruddock would've been a far more dangerous fighter to a still maturing Clay than Cooper or Doug Jones that year. And Ali didn't have an easy time with either of them as it was.

It's not a fixation on size, it's an admission that 40+ pounds tends to play a huge factor in fights ... instead of ignoring it entirely.

If you can't see it ... then I'm not going to write another thousand words trying to explain it.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Discounting size, do you think Henry Cooper had more skills, durability, speed and power than Razor Ruddock?

Speaking of styles, do you think Cooper was a tougher opponent "stylistically" for 1963 Ali than 1992 Razor Ruddock would've been?

If so, I disagree. Ali struggled with Doug Jones and Henry Cooper that year. If you replace 1992 Ruddock with either of them, you think Ali is having an easier night?

Hell, no.

 

You do realize Ruddock would've been facing the Ali of the first Liston fight and not the Cooper fight? I understand math isn't your strong suit (Which you've demonstrated by laughably not knowing the difference between a year and a half and three years), but surely you're not this stupid?

 

Well, I was responding to the fixation on weight, being the determinant factor in a fight, rather than the attributes and unique dynamics created between two fighters. Styles play a big part in defining these dynamics, as do tactics, so long as the skills are present to deploy them. But, either way, tactics can vary widely and completely change the dimensions of a bout.

The fundamental flaw in your position is with the implication that Ruddock would replicate Cooper's 'moment' against Ali and, one presumes, with the weight difference and his vaunted "

This content is protected

", [] would leave the ring a victor against Ali. However, the assumption that an Ali/Ruddock fight would look anything like an Ali/Cooper bout is a real stretch, and this is no less the case than if someone else were to believe Ali would get the stoppage win against Ruddock on cuts.

By the way, if we are "

This content is protected

", it is a pound-for-pound comparison between Cooper and Ruddock that you're asking for. In which case, I have no trouble in categorically stating that I think Cooper was better, pound-for-pound.

And, yes, Ali would outbox Ruddock, despite you seeming to think this would be difficult to achieve and, more to the point, because you think Ruddock "

This content is protected

" But when you remember that Ruddock didn't beat a single Ring-rated opponent in his entire career, and that Cooper beat several, as well as give a young Bugner all he could handle, in his very last bout, at almost 37 years old, it isn't hard to make the shout.

The bottom line, however, is that a comparison between Cooper and Ruddock is academic here. Ali was light years ahead of them both in terms of natural talent and ability. Period.

 

He could go 2 of 3 against either Holyfield or Klitschko.

I think he beats Tyson close but secure, each time.

 

No, that's not the bottom line. We're not talking pound-for-pound, or how great Ali "would eventually" become.

We're talking about how Ali would do against Lennox Lewis' opponents at the same point in their careers.

While Ali would "eventually" be "light years" ahead of most heavyweights, in 1963, HE WAS NOT.

In fact, many thought Doug Jones beat him and Henry Cooper laid him out.

So if THAT 1963 version was facing the Razor Ruddock of 1992, I don't think Cassius Clay (at 21) was "light years" ahead of Razor Ruddock (when Razor was the top #1 contender in 1992) AT ALL.

In fact, I think Cassius Clay in 1963 would have a pretty miserable time trying to get around that 230-pound bomber who just kept coming and just kept firing left hooks and uppercuts.

There's no point in doing mythical matchups if you just say someone was better overall, so they win. The better overall guy doesn't win in boxing all the time.

And with careers like Ali's, how he fought varied WILDLY from his early years, to his championship years in the 1960s, to his comeback in the early 1970s, to how he looked in his second reign, and, finally, how he finished up.

You could argue there were five different fighting versions of the man.

How well the late 60s and early 70s versions of Ali would do against some fighters may be totally different than how the late 70s or early 60s versions of the fighter would do against the same people.

So, in mythical matchups like these, the "fun" part is trying to find places where things may not go as expected.

Early Ali/Cassius Clay, wasn't unbeatable. He got floored repeatedly. He struggled to win on points. And he wasn't fighting the best around while that was happening. Same with the later versions of him, where some fans felt he lost multiple decisions.

 

Right.

Gary Mason would be problem for 1962 Ali. Ruddock would be a problem for 1963 Ali. Holyfield would be a problem for 1970 Ali. Tua would be a problem for 1971 Ali. Tyson would be a problem for the Ali who lost to Norton. Vitali would be a problem for 1974 Ali (Vitali didn't bore in with his head down like Joe or swing wildly like George).

Plus, there's no telling how Ali would've actually performed in fights while he was out of the ring. All we've got are some sparring footage and the Ali-Marciano computer fight, where a fat Ali fights more like the 1976 version of himself.

Any number of places to trip up. Ali wasn't unbeatable. And he didn't always fight his best.

 

As far as Ali being light years ahead of Cooper and Ruddock? Yeah, it is.

We are, when you pose a question which discounts size.

Ali beat Liston in his very next fight. An argument along the lines of Ali not being the finished article or being unable to rise to the occasion is fairly moot.

No, we're not. We are talking about a comparison between Ruddock and Cooper - discounting weight as a factor.

There's no point in doing mythical matchups if you just say someone was bigger (and had a cool nickname for his left-hook - it being the only punch in their arsenal), so they win.

True, but such instances are called 'upsets' for a reason.

Which does read a lot like one trying to imagine an outcome, based on the least likely of occurrences; or, in this case, just making stuff up, based on a size difference and a cool nickname for a left-hook.

And yet, Ali didn't actually lose, until after his years of exile.

 

You seem to want to post a lot of snarky comments and start a pissing contest, yet you didn't answer the poll.

Do you think Ali beats all of Lennox Lewis's opponents? If so, why? If not, who does he lose to?

And be REALLY REALLY specific, and break it down succinctly, and don't make any mistakes about years or dates or skillsets or weights, or size ... since "cool nicknames" don't suffice ... so we can all pick the **** out of you, too.

Jesus.

I'm sure you guys must be great fun at parties.

 

Coming from you, that^ is absolutely priceless!

Did I ask you to respond to my first post in reply to another poster? No.

Did you even mention the OP's query, when you responded to my first post? No.

Instead, you wanted thoughts on a comparison between Henry Cooper and Razor Ruddock, "Discounting size".

I provided you with some thoughts on that comparison, which you decided to either flatly ignore or re-frame for your own purposes.

It's not my fault you can't stay on point (a point that you yourself established) and string a reasonable and coherent response to answers you actually asked for (and then seemingly forgot that you had asked for them)!

It's not my fault that the extent of your analysis of Ruddock (in place of Cooper), goes like this:

I mean, it's a nice piece of hyperbole... ...but, really?

Key points of my response to the comparison between Cooper and Ruddock, that you specifically asked for:

- It is effectively made a pound-for-pound comparison, when you discount size.
- Either way, it is flawed to think the complexion of an Ali/Ruddock fight would mirror the Ali/Cooper fight.
- To do so and expect the same 'Cooper moment' to occur for Ruddock is wishful thinking.
- Cooper had beaten a better level of competition by the time he met Ali than had Ruddock before he met Lewis.
- In fact, Ruddock never beat a Ring-rated opponent
- Ali was light years ahead of both Ruddock and Cooper (yes, even then, whilst on the cusp of conquering Liston)

Your response, to some fairly straightforward rationale was **** poor. More hyperbole and irrelevancies. Bringing Doug Jones up, who was a Ring-Rated Top-3 contender and goes further back in Ali's record, makes your so-called year-by-year comparison, look a little inconsistent and, therefore, in itself quite questionable.

If you don't want short shrift answers to your shallow exaggerations and otherwise useless responses, then do better or just don't respond.

Have a good evening.

 

Do you think Muhammad Ali beats all of Lennox Lewis's opponents? If so, why? If not, who does he lose to and why?

That's what we're discussing.

Be specific. So I can be very clear when I tear you a new one.

 

Who had Henry Cooper faced or beaten prior to the 1963 Ali fight ... who comprised this "better level of competition?" Who were all the guys Cooper faced who were better than Ruddock facing Mike Tyson (twice), Michael Dokes, Greg Page, Bonecrusher Smith and Mike Weaver?

Be specific. Name names.

And Michael Dokes was the Ring-rated #3 contender when Ruddock signed to fight him at Madison Square Garden in 90. And Dokes' fight with Holyfield the previous year had just been named by Ring as the heavyweight fight of the decade. And Ruddock nearly killed him.

Have a good evening.

 

Death, taxes and Dubs stirring up trouble and badwill in Classic while somehow thinking it's everyone else

 

Yeah - almost as predictable as Ruddock, really.