Knew it! Ali would have owned Tyson Fury! Modern day giant argument nonsense

I've never believed that today's bigger heavys would automatically beat smaller heavys from the past, or present.

Stick a ' little' George Foreman or a 'tiny' Mike Tyson, both in full primes, in today's mix and I think they could make some noise...

 

Size absolutely matters at HW but truly great fighters can overcome that obstacle.

 

No he is not. You are comparing prime Ali who was what 25-26 that year to 37,5 years old Usyk. Compare 37 years Ali who lost to Spinks(actually he was even 36 years old), and see how that goes?

Maybe go look at Usyk speed against Gassiev. No one is even close to prime Usyk in terms of his footwork and his speed was insane.
He is like 50% of what he was nowadays.

 

I understand that it's a topic that requires more nuance and case-by-case examples. My point is that there's this consensus that forum posters and even the big-name talking heads in the boxing media parrot, that yesteryear's heavyweights were way smaller and that today's are so much bigger and athletic, therefore they all lose to Lennox Lewis and Tyson Fury.

The point of this post is to make the argument, that Usyk systematically DESTROYED that consensus by proving that ultimately skills pay the bills, and that it is MORE than possible to beat a 6'7, 277 pound oaf if you're that much faster and better skilled than he is.

 

I am comparing the heavyweight version of Usyk to the heavyweight version of Ali. The reason why this is an accurate comparison is not to put down Usyk but rather to show that if Usyk's speed and workrate as a 35-37 year old can cause nightmares for big heavies, than a 25 year old Ali's speed will cause even bigger nightmares.

I have seen prime Usyk at cruiser. Technically his footwork was better than prime Ali but i would still say Muhammad was faster.

 

Not necessarily. Prime Ali leaned back a lot to avoid punches and didn't walk guys down like Usyk. They fight nothing alike. One fighter handling size doesn't mean all will

 

Well, Usyk himself is very large by old-timey standards. 6-3, 225 with a 78" reach are the same measurables as prime George Foreman. Secondly, Fury is a fat, old lush whose best days were burned by booger sugar and eating too many Wilder right hands. I didn't see prime Fury last night. I saw an easily distracted (what was with all the rubbing of the nose?) guy who couldn't focus long enough to realize he was destroying Usyk to the body and gave away the fight by resuming clowning and headhunting. Also, his punch resistance seems gone. So, a lot of variables at play.

All that said, to suggest a 6-3, 225 with 78" reach can't win is ludicrous. Size is great if you can use it. Fury was able to use it on Wilder, but Usyk was far too slippery and skilled. Not that Fury realized this. No, he kept trying the same tactics that didn't work while forgetting the ones that worked exceptionally well (beating that body).

 

Curious fact about Ali: He had the weight advantage in a great majority of his fights, but in all the fights he lost, he was the "bigger man".

 

I wanted to vote 'no' as I never thought he was too small anyway. I always knew he would do well as a heavyweight, and seeing him against Joshua just confirmed my belief. Never mind those who kept saying 'oh but Fury is different, Joshua is a stiff bodybuilder robot.' No, from Usyk's point of view, Fury wasn't any different at all. He beat him all the same, hurt him even more than he ever hurt Joshua, and didn't allow Fury to win more rounds against him than Joshua did. Usyk is just something else.

However, that's Usyk for you. It's his incredible and rare talent that makes size irrelevant to him. But I don't think his success automatically applies to other smaller fighters. In essence, the adage "a good big one beats a good little one" is not necessarily unfounded. It's just that Usyk is not just any 'little one' but a once-in-a-lifetime generational talent and an all-time great. So, I guess I can't vote because my views haven't changed—but that only applies to Usyk, not to all smaller fighters.

 

I love the sport science brigade.

“Today’s athletes are superior”

They’re fitter, faster and stronger”

It’s utterly hilarious when you then remind them that Fury has always had rolls of fat, and that an obese, snickers bar eating Ruiz steamrollered the poster boy for sports science, in AJ.

 

It’s case by case.

Byrd would do well today.

Mike Tyson would decimate most of the division.

 

Just to add, it can’t be the consensus.

However, I know that there’s a fair few people that believe this. But like I’ve already said, they’re just ignorant.

A prime Mike Tyson would decimate most of today’s division.

 

Ali didn`t use Usyk`s come forward style, he wouldn`t have been able to get inside Fury`s jab, he would have taken his punches though, Ali had an incredible chin on average.

 

Ali beat guys who ere 6'6 like Ernie Terrell.

But since 2010 David Haye, Andy Ruiz, Alexander Povetkin, Joseph Parker, Ruslan Chagaev, Bermaine Stiverne were all between 5'11 and 6'3. The only people who act like being 6'5 plus makes you are super heavyweight are casuals who just watch EPSN and think that makes them sports experts. Or other goofy people who watch a YouTube video created by a person who watches EPSN.

In the 1970's there were literally 100's of guys who were 6'5 up to 6'91/2 ( James J Beattie was 6'9 1/2). and nobody ever referred to them as super heavyweights. In the 1990's there were tons of gguys 6'5 plus and tons of guys who were 6'7 plus and I never heard anybody say these guys were super heavyweights and pretended since they were over 6'5 a 6'2 1/2 guy like Ali couldn't beat them.

Hell I never heard anybody mention that Mike Tyson was too short to beat 6'5 guys because he did it. I seen Tommy Morrison beat 6'6 guys and nobody seemed shocked or cared. I seen Morrison knock out a 6'11 inch guy before. Even when the 6'3 Corrie Sanders was knocking out the 6'5 or so Wladimir Klitschko nobody acted like the 6'3 Corrie Sanders was too short.

George Foreman beat the 6'5 Chuck Wepner, the 6'5 Georry Cooney, the 6'6 Jack O'Halloran and the 6''7 250 pound Bob Renfrow and nobody cared.

Even if you want to look at Muhammad Ali's weight. When Ali weighed 230 against Jimmy Young he was called fat. That is why boxers back then came in the ring much lighter. You were expected to be in great shape just in case a bout went 15 rounds.

 

Usyk did not change my mind about how much size matters. It does matter it is generally an advantage. A smaller fighter has to be better to overcome a larger fighter.

You want to compare Ali and Lennox Lewis they are both great and Lennox is bigger. Ali would need to be extremely greater to beat fellow great Lennox. Maybe he was? Maybe not? Its a fair debate.
You want to compare Ali and Mariusz Wach, well Ali was great and Wach was not. Ali probably beats Wach without anyone thinking otherwise.

So size is a factor, but of course its not the only factor. I knew that before yesterday, and I know it today.