Zhang vs. Muhammad Ali

After Ali couldn't move? Absolutely. Some of those guys you listed are overrated, like Norton and Shavers. He beat Liston when he was like 22 years old. Also, none of those guys were Southpaws, which does matter here.

Like I said, I'll take young Ali over young/prime Zhang. I'll take old Zhang over old Ali, probably anywhere from 34 years old and onwards. How old was Ali when he lost to Leon Spinks? You think any version of Zhang we've seen so far loses to Spinks? I think Zhang would KO Spinks in the first round and I'm not even joking.

 

FFS, Ali was gone by the time he fought Spinks. He only won the return bout because he eeked out the last bit of guile and talent from his brain and body. But he was spent.

If you put that Ali up against any of the top 5 heavyweights today he gets beaten. But that ain't Muhammad Ali and it is disingenuous to use that as a measuring point.

 

I already said I'd take prime Ali over Zhang, three times now. And I'm assuming we are taking Zhang in his prime as well, whenever that was.

But the thread says Muhammed Ali Vs Zhang, it doesn't say when. Ali was faded in his early 30s and shot but his mid 30s. That version loses to Zhang. And it's not disingenuous to use that time. You are talking about a very specific time frame if you are saying prime for prime but Ali had plenty of fights in his 30s as well. He beat Foreman in his 30s.

Would you take every version of Ali to beat Zhang?

 

A lot of the guys Holyfield was beating were flabby with a much higher percentage of body fat. They were not necessarily bigger in terms of muscle mass. So it doesn't seem like great example of a smaller man beating bigger quality opponents. Lewis was a quality opponent significantly bigger than Holyfield in terms of muscle mass not blubber but Holyfield didn't beat him.

 

Because Usyk is a much better boxer than Ali.

Compare their skillsets on youtube. Ali was a big man bullying small men. Usyk is a small man bullying big men. See a difference here?

 

Every version of any fighter rarely beats the best version of any decent fighter. It's a silly question.

You are forgetting that by the time Ali got to Spinks he had been in a whole heap of wars. 34 year old Ali is not anything like a 40 year old Zhang who has been in very few wars and still has his faculties. 34 year old Ali was already mentally and physically gone.

It's an outrightly unfair comparison.

 

Well moorer was noticeably smaller then foreman and would today compete as a Cw, foreman has always been a turning point in Boxing, cause he really set a new standart for how big a HW can be.
The other thing is that foremans second career was mostly unsuccessful, yes he won that moorer fight but lost to holy, morrison, briggs and was on the receiving end of gift decisions against Schulz etc.

 

Again no, usyk is much bigger then ali. They weight the same but Usyks has probably 10~12% less body fat then Ali. Ali was a chub and you could even see that with the round face he had

 

Yeah sure buddy

 

marciano is a middle weight by todays standart, usyk is much bigger and rather the size of foreman then the guys you pointed out. Haye is noticeably faster then Ali, you can literally see it

 

Mostly unsuccessful? What in the hell are you talking about?

In his "second career" Foreman went 31-3 (26 KO's) and won the WBA and IBF heavyweight titles.

By any measure that is an overwhelming success and that record alone would make him a better than average heavyweight champion. Given his first career, his age and his long period out of the game it is almost certainly the greatest comeback in the history of professional sport.

Also, Moorer was 222 when he fought Foreman. He was not by any standard a cruiserweight.

 

Who here has even been nostalgic?

The definition of being nostalgic, is being biased of the older guys, where no credit is given to the newer fighters.

Yet that hasn’t even happened here.

Me and a number of posters have said on numerous occasions that we don’t believe that the older guys would all have beaten every modern fighter, only that the greats of the past would have had mixed success, depending on who they’d have fought.

Now that is as unbiased and objective as one could ever be.

It’s you and Decker etc, who have claimed that we’re biased, before ludicrously claiming that Ali couldn’t even have been competitive today.

It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.

Fights will ALWAYS be determined on how the guys match up on the night stylistically. And any GREAT fighter would be able to have success in ANY era.


Now why don’t you familiarise yourself with today’s top 10-15 HW’s.

Some are great, some are very good and some are average.

It’s not the greatest era, but it’s not the weakest either.

So why would you believe that the greats of Ali’s era couldn’t even compete?

Where’s the logic in a statement like that?


Using Usyk as an example is completely relevant in response to what you and Decker have both laid out.

You said that Ali was too small and couldn’t compete today.

Yet like Ali, Usyk has the same height, the same reach, and he’s near enough the same weight. And like Ali, he uses his skills and his speed to defeat bigger guys, instead of size and power.

Therefore he’s the perfect example to use.


Chris Byrd is also another example.

Byrd wasn’t quite as tall as Ali, and he didn’t quite possess Ali’s reach, but he weighed around the same weight. And like Ali and Usyk, he also defeated larger guys based upon his speed and his skills.

So you have been given two modern day examples for your consideration.

 

Nobody cares about these claims.

All you are to us, is an ignorant stranger.

Instead of making claims to someone you don’t know, why don’t you come and answer the points that have been put to you.

 

It happens every time someone has a decent win. Zhang is being overrated but in reality all that we really know from his latest performance is that he's better than Joyce.