Yeah, it’s funny when “certain” posters can’t actually refute the points within your post, they conveniently deem you to have written “walls of text”, a tactic also known as a “cop out”.... You got me though JT. I plagiarise most of my stuff from MAD magazine. Just a few minor tweaks here and there to make it boxing relevant and somehow it absolutely works! At any rate, I’m flattered that you at least were able to extract some positives from my latest wall of voodoo. Shameless cue for a great song: - This content is protected
I feel like we might be circling back to the same arguments without fully addressing some of the points I’ve brought up. I’d like to revisit a couple of points for clarification. Firstly, while I agree that Usyk’s ability to exploit larger opponents’ size disadvantages is more prominent at HW, my point is that the tools he uses to exploit size—like his stamina, adaptability, and ability to capitalize on opponents tiring—are general tools that work across all opponent types. We’ve seen him deploy these strategies effectively against smaller, more agile opponents at CW, like Briedis and Hunter. Do you disagree that these traits would be equally useful against comparably sized HWs? Secondly, you’ve mentioned that Usyk’s mobility has declined and that he’s taken hard punches at HW I would say he overall takes less punches at Heavyweight then he did at Cruiserweight. I don’t deny that age and weight have played a role, but I’d argue his defensive skills have improved to compensate. For instance, his head movement and overall ringcraft at HW seem sharper than at CW, where he relied more on his high guard. Do you think this defensive evolution offsets the mobility decline you’re referencing? Additionally, I’d argue that overall, Usyk’s fights at HW have been more challenging compared to CW. At HW, fights like Chisora, the rematch with Joshua, and his first fight with Fury were all challenging and competitive fights in different ways, whereas at CW, the only fight that pushed him to the limit was Briedis. Would you agree that this reflects a higher level of difficulty in navigating the HW division, given the size and power disparity he’s constantly facing? Finally, I agree that no fighter is perfect, and Usyk has used his strengths to mitigate his weaknesses admirably. But given his track record against skilled CWs and top-tier SHWs, I’d like to hear more about why you think a comparably sized and skilled opponent would present a unique challenge he hasn’t already faced in one way or another. What specific vulnerabilities do you think such a matchup would expose?
I think I have reasonably addressed all your points. Due respect but there’s a contradiction in your logic which I highlighted in my previous post. If we accept that there are certain disadvantages (cons) inherently held by opponents of greater size, then it’s obvious that those disadvantages don’t exist for smaller opponents to the same degree, if at all - therefore they can’t be exploited to the same extent. So yes, I would naturally disagree that, in general, they would be equally useful against comparably sized HWs. You said yourself that exploitation of said disadvantages is more prominent at HW - so you basically agreed but then turned back in on your agreement. I did say that Usyk had more difficult/tougher fights in general at CW - against more comparably sized opponents. You’ve just said that you believe that Usyk got hit more often whilst competing as a CW - that actually supports my position - being hit more often sees greater points scored against you which obviously then sees closer, more difficult fights. Again, as a CW, we’re talking a younger, prime or closer to prime version of Usyk - and his comparably sized opposition enjoyed greater successes than did his later, larger opposition - larger opposition who faced a less mobile/agile version of Usyk - and that comes back to the points that while Usyk has declined he has enjoyed greater successes in the very areas that his larger opposition aren’t so strong in. Of course Usyk is facing greater power vs SHWs and larger opposition to move around but that opposition is also less skilled, less energised and slower than the opposition he engaged at CW. I don’t think that it’s a case of Usyk inexplicably becoming more defensively adept well into his later 30s. - rather, an even lesser version of CW Usyk is being less put upon by oversized HWs. I think in overall terms, my position illustrates exactly why Usyk would become that much more vulnerable against comparably sized opposition - particularly when talking comparably sized ATGs - fighters clearly superior to those that Usyk did engage at CW. Usyk did still get hit often enough at CW - entering the HW realm, not so much but since competing at HW, I do think he has become more hittable due to his own decline. Also remember, his top 2 HW opponents weren’t/aren’t necessarily spring chickens themselves. Anyway, I think we’ve exhausted these discussion points for the time being. Cheers.
I don’t think you’ve directly addressed the points I’ve made. While I agree that larger fighters have certain inherent disadvantages, you seem to overlook that Usyk uses the same tactics to exploit opponents of all sizes, and this has been effective not just against larger opponents, but also against smaller ones, as seen in his fights with Hunter and Briedis. It seems like you’re focusing solely on his matches against bigger fighters and not accounting for how he applied the same skills successfully against those of similar or smaller size. You mentioned Usyk had tougher fights at cruiserweight, but you haven’t provided clear examples to support this. In contrast, we both agree that his fights at heavyweight, such as the second Joshua fight, the first Fury fight, and the Chisora fight, were more challenging. Thus, objectively, it seems Usyk has faced harder competition at heavyweight than at cruiserweight where his only real hard fight was Briedis. In terms of getting hit, it’s clear that Usyk takes harder punches at heavyweight because of the natural power and size advantage of his larger opponents. While at cruiserweight he could afford to take more hits without the same consequence, this is more about the physical difference in the weight class than the quality of his opposition it doesn't show that his fights at cruiserweight were harder because as I've said he only had 1 hard fight at that weight. As for Usyk’s defensive evolution, many fighters improve technically as they age to compensate for natural physical decline. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Usyk to have refined his defense to stay competitive against stronger, bigger opponents as he needed to do to win fights against bigger stronger men. You haven’t fully addressed why Usyk would struggle against similarly sized opponents. You've mentioned that he had more difficult fights at cruiserweight, but you haven’t pointed to concrete examples that directly support this argument. On the other hand, I’ve pointed out specific challenging fights at heavyweight. I agree that fighting ATGs from any era would be tough fight, but Usyk has shown adaptability and intelligence that would allow him to navigate those difficulties. He’s demonstrated time and again that he can adjust to different styles and opponents, and I believe that would apply even against similarly sized or highly skilled opponents. If you’d like to end the discussion here, that’s fine, but I feel like some of the points I’ve raised haven’t been fully addressed, and we’ve been circling around the same arguments without new supporting evidence. I would appreciate it if you could directly engage with my points so we can have a more focused discussion.
I have addressed all your points, as I have already said. You’re actually circling back on your own positions and trying to tweak them after they have been answered/refuted. You’re also still missing the fundamental logic that the inherent cons of larger opposition simply don’t exist in similarly sized opposition. On one hand you agree with said inherent cons and their more prominent exploitation at HW against considerably large opposition but, on the other hand, you claim that Usyk can and has equally exploited same against smaller opposition. Illogical and therefore incorrect. You’ve also placed yourself into admitting to Usyk being hit less often at HW but have circled back, applying one of the tweaks I mentioned by trying to suggest that Usyk could afford to be hit more often at CW??? No, Usyk was a clever boxer, lauded for same, who always strived to hit and not be hit. You can never afford to be hit. Getting hit more by your opponents brings the fight closer in scoring. Several of his best CW comp. were simply better equipped than his HW comp. to reach Usyk and not fall prey to gassing so badly. And again, that CW comp. engaged a younger and better version of Usyk - not the slower, less mobile version, aged in his mid to late 30s. Your claim that Usyk has improved as a fighter, even into his late 30s, is a position that has not been supported. Rather, there is better support for the conclusion that Usyk has suffered depreciations over the last several years. I didn’t agree that his fights vs AJ, Chisora and Fury were all necessarily more challenging due to the larger comp. engaged??? I did note however that both AJ and Fury are no spring chickens themselves, and that has to also be factored into the dynamic that Usyk has enjoyed against them. I also haven’t provided zero examples - Briedis for one is still arguably Usyk’s most difficult fight - again, a fight when Usyk was prime or much closer to same against a considerably smaller opponent (as compared to the later SHWs Usyk engaged). For another, there is also Bellew - Bellew leading after 7 rounds on 2 judges scorecards but KO’d in the following round. You’ve also tried to dismiss the relative ease in which Usyk disposed of Dubois (a larger opponent) by attributing it to inexperience on Daniel’s part. So, if it doesn’t suit your argument, it seems you are willing to throw Dubois under the bus and reduce Usyk’s HW resume even more, in terms of material proofs of Usyk’s ability to prevail over larger, quality opposition. At any rate, per the scoring, Bellew did better than Dubois at the least when comparing CW to HW resumes. Finally, there are number of my own points that I believe you yourself have not properly addressed but I’m not interested in repeatedly re-raising those points or having to continually point to the obvious flaws and self contradictions in your positions otherwise.
I don’t think you’ve genuinely addressed my counterpoints, as much of what you’re saying simply repeats your earlier arguments without engaging with the evidence I’ve provided. While you claim I’m being contradictory, I believe it’s your argument that lacks consistency and fails to substantiate its claims. You keep insisting that Usyk’s ability to exploit larger opponents’ inherent disadvantages is somehow exclusive to heavyweight, but I’ve already pointed out that he has used the same tactics effectively against smaller or similarly sized opponents, such as Briedis and Hunter. You haven’t explained why this isn’t the case, nor have you shown how his tactics are less effective against smaller opponents. Instead, you simply reiterate that larger opponents have certain disadvantages without addressing the fact that Usyk’s style works universally on both large opponents and smaller ones. You continue to assert that Usyk had harder fights at cruiserweight, yet you rely heavily on Briedis as your main example. While I acknowledge Briedis was a tough opponent, that remains the only cruiserweight fight that could objectively be classified as "hard." You also mention Bellew as an example when pressed, but this doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Despite being behind on the scorecards early, Usyk was consistently pressuring Bellew throughout the fight, wearing him down with his relentless pace and superior stamina. Usyk has always been a fighter who starts cautiously to read his opponents before systematically breaking them down, and the Bellew fight was no exception. By the 8th round, Usyk’s pressure paid off, and he secured a knockout. This doesn’t qualify as a genuinely “hard fight” when Usyk was clearly in control of the overall trajectory. In contrast, his challenges at heavyweight, such as the second Joshua fight, the first Fury fight, and the Chisora fight, were far more grueling. These bouts required Usyk to adjust to sustained pressure, raw power, and size disadvantages over multiple rounds. Objectively, Usyk has faced tougher competition at heavyweight, where his durability, stamina, and adaptability have been tested more thoroughly than at cruiserweight. Your insistence that Usyk’s cruiserweight fights were harder lacks supporting evidence, especially when you include Bellew, which, if anything, highlights Usyk’s ability to dominate and execute his game plan with precision rather than showing any sustained difficulty. You argue that Usyk hasn’t improved defensively and that his opponents at heavyweight are simply less skilled. However, as I pointed out, it’s common for aging fighters to refine their technical skills to compensate for physical decline. You’ve provided no evidence to counter this well-established trend in boxing, and your argument relies on dismissing Usyk’s technical improvements without any real basis. You accuse me of being contradictory, yet I’ve been consistent in arguing that cruiserweight and heavyweight present different challenges. I’ve acknowledged that cruiserweight opponents had certain advantages, but at heavyweight, the power and size of opponents make the fights physically tougher. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s recognizing the unique challenges of each weight class. Meanwhile, your claim that Usyk has regressed defensively while also being hit less at heavyweight seems to contradict itself, as you’ve not explained how he would suddenly become harder to hit without some improvement or adjustment in his style. Dismissing Dubois as a weaker opponent doesn’t “reduce” Usyk’s heavyweight resume it’s simply an acknowledgment of context. Similarly, your attempt to equate Bellew’s performance to that of Dubois seems like a reach, given the very different dynamics of those fights. You’re repeating your initial claims without fully engaging with the evidence I’ve presented. I’ve consistently backed up my points with specific examples, whereas your argument relies more on assertions without evidence. If you believe there are flaws in my reasoning, I’d appreciate if you could address my points directly rather than restating your position without adding anything new. Otherwise, it feels like we’re going in circles, and the discussion isn’t moving forward.
Bellew isn’t a reach at all - and I directly ran it alongside the Dubois fight - a comparison that appears not to have suited so you then tried to offset that comparison by calling in Dubois’ “inexperience”. Your position in that regard does reduce the quality and perception of Usyk’s achievement in that fight against a larger opponent. Quite simply, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. On another day in a another discussion, IF I said the Dubois fight was only easy for Usyk due to Daniel’s inexperience, and that Dubois could overcome Usyk with more fights under his belt and accrued experience, I suspect you would argue against inexperience being a key factor in Usyk’s win/Dubois’ loss. I made the clear point that, SINCE entering the HW division, Usyk has seen deteriorations and has become more hittable - and I included the AJ rematch to attest to that fact. So, no contradictions whatsoever there - that’s your own twist in the tale - and it is a waste of time having to continually correct you on same. It seems I can’t help you anymore on the obvious contradiction in terms you’ve set yourself up for re your claim that, Usyk equally exploited the inherent size related cons of his larger opposition against his previous, NON larger opposition. If I was to say that Usyk was able to take greater advantage and better exploit fighters of lesser skill, slower hand/feet and limited gas tanks it would not make any sense for me to then say he could or did enjoy the same degree of exploitation against his better skilled, more fleet footed/faster handed opponents who weren’t nearly as prone to gassing. So, I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws and contradictions in a number of your positions as and when applicable. Your failure to acknowledge same doesn’t alter the facts of my direct address of all points and refutations as and when applicable. After I have properly addressed and refuted your points, I only see you circling back to your own positions in an attempt to tweak them. That’s WHY the discussion hasn’t moved forward and shows no promise of doing so and specific subjects can be over-flogged at any rate - and this one has been.
It seems that much of your response repeats earlier points without directly addressing the counterarguments I’ve raised. While you accuse me of being repetitive or contradictory, it’s clear that your arguments are not only inconsistent but also fail to engage with the evidence I’ve presented. Let me address your claims in detail: You argue that the Dubois fight being easier than the Bellew fight somehow indicates that heavyweight is easier than cruiserweight. However, this cherry-picks individual examples rather than looking at the broader picture. Usyk’s overall resume at heavyweight features more challenging fights, such as AJ 2, Fury 1, and Chisora, which pushed him harder than most of his cruiserweight fights. These were bouts where Usyk had to contend with sustained pressure, size disadvantages, and power disparities over 12 rounds. Bellew, while skilled, was systematically broken down and knocked out by Usyk. Despite being ahead on the scorecards early, the fight was never truly out of Usyk’s control. This is consistent with Usyk’s style of starting cautiously and breaking opponents down over time. Dubois, by contrast, was clearly outclassed by Usyk. However, singling out this one fight doesn’t negate the overall difficulty of Usyk’s heavyweight run, which features a higher proportion of hard fights compared to cruiserweight. Your reliance on individual examples like Bellew and Dubois, rather than assessing the entirety of Usyk’s challenges at both weight classes, weakens your argument. The bigger picture clearly shows that heavyweight has presented more difficult fights for Usyk. You claim Usyk is more hittable at heavyweight, citing the AJ rematch as evidence. This directly contradicts your earlier assertion where you stated that Usyk is hit less at heavyweight. You can’t argue that Usyk is both more hittable and less hittable at heavyweight, it’s inconsistent. If you’re suggesting he’s more hittable now due to age, this still doesn’t negate my point that heavyweight punches are significantly harder and more damaging, making those fights tougher overall. My position remains consistent: Usyk’s defensive adjustments and adaptability at heavyweight have been crucial in dealing with stronger, harder-hitting opponents. If you believe Usyk has regressed defensively, you need to explain how he’s still able to take fewer clean shots against larger, stronger fighters. You repeatedly claim that there’s a contradiction in my argument that Usyk’s tactics work against both larger and smaller opponents. Yet you’ve failed to provide evidence to disprove this. I’ve provided concrete examples, like his fights against Briedis and Hunter at cruiserweight, to demonstrate that Usyk’s movement, stamina, and adaptability are universally effective. You haven’t addressed these examples or explained why his tactics would be less effective against smaller opponents. Your insistence that Usyk’s tactics rely solely on exploiting size-related disadvantages ignores the fact that his style is built on superior skill, strategy, and conditioning, which transcend weight classes. Your argument here is repetitive and unsubstantiated. If you want to prove that Usyk struggles more with smaller opponents, you need to provide specific examples of fights where his tactics were ineffective against smaller opponents, which you haven’t done. You accuse me of “tweaking” my arguments or circling back to previous positions, but this accusation feels more applicable to your own responses. For instance You initially stated Usyk is hit less at heavyweight, then contradicted yourself by saying he’s more hittable. You continue to rely on Bellew as an example of a “hard fight” despite my detailed explanation of why that fight doesn’t qualify as such. You’ve repeatedly dismissed my examples (e.g., AJ 2, Fury 1) as harder heavyweight fights without providing evidence to support your claim that cruiserweight was tougher overall. Instead of engaging with these points, you restate your earlier claims without adding new substance. This creates the impression that you’re deflecting rather than addressing my counterarguments directly. At this stage, it feels like we’re going in circles because you’re not engaging with my evidence-based points and instead continue to repeat your original arguments. If you believe there are flaws in my reasoning, I’d appreciate it if you could address my specific examples and counterarguments directly, rather than accusing me of inconsistency or repetition without basis. Otherwise, it seems this discussion is unlikely to move forward in any meaningful way.
You really need to re-read what I have written more carefully. By way of continually reading me wrong and/or deliberately trying to twist what I have said, you’ve weaved your own illogical web. For one thing, I said less hit at HW but, since entering the division, he has become more hittable due to his own, obvious deteriorations. That observation is clearly within the frame of his HW career. Again, it’s a waste of time for me having to continually correct you. First it was alleged over accent on Briedis. Now Dubois is a cherry picked example?? Out of just 7 fights at HW, against just 5 different opponents in that division, Dubois is somehow a cherry pick?? As far as different opponents go, Daniel represents 20% of Usyk’s HW resume. As far as broadening the picture goes, Briedis was arguably a harder fight than both AJ 1 & 2 and Fury 1 and 2 - And remember, for all intents and purposes, Usyk stopped Fury in fight 1 - he also had AJ on very wobbly legs in the final round of their first fight. Usyk did not stop or hint at stopping Briedis. You also need to re-read your own posts. They are extremely repetitive, repeating false overviews to the discussion thus far. All that you claim hasn’t been addressed and refuted- has already, in fact, been throughly dealt with by me. That you reject taking it on is your issue, not mine. Stick a fork in it, this discussion is done. Too much time wasted already.
Most of what you’ve said is either deflecting from the points I’ve raised or repeating previous arguments without engaging with the evidence I’ve provided as you seem to be doing in every response. While you claim I’m twisting your words, I’ve simply addressed your statements as they stand and pointed out the inconsistencies within them. You say Usyk gets hit less at heavyweight but has become “more hittable” due to deterioration. This seems contradictory. If he’s genuinely more hittable, how do you reconcile that with your claim that he takes fewer punches at heavyweight? Are you suggesting his opponents are simply less skilled at landing shots, despite being heavier hitters? If so, where is the evidence? I’ve consistently argued that Usyk’s adaptability and defensive evolution have allowed him to mitigate the challenges of heavyweight, and your assertion of deterioration doesn’t align with his actual performance. My point about cherry-picking wasn’t about Dubois being an irrelevant opponent but about using a single fight to generalize Usyk’s heavyweight run. Dubois represents one fight, and while he’s 20% of Usyk’s HW record in numbers, that doesn’t mean his performance in that fight defines the overall difficulty Usyk has faced at heavyweight. Usyk has had multiple hard fights at heavyweight (AJ 2, Fury 1, Chisora), and Dubois is an outlier in terms of ease. Your argument focuses disproportionately on Dubois while ignoring all the other challenges Usyk has faced at heavyweight. Similarly, the reliance on Briedis at cruiserweight highlights the lack of comparable difficulty across Usyk’s other cruiserweight fights. Even if you argue Briedis was harder than some of Usyk’s heavyweight bouts, one fight doesn’t define an entire division especially a fight he clearly won. You claim Briedis was a tougher opponent for Usyk than AJ (1 and 2) or Fury (1 and 2), but where is the evidence for this? While Usyk did knock Fury down in their first fight and won the second AJ fight convincingly, these were grueling, physical contests that required Usyk to dig deep and overcome significant challenges. Notably, Fury is the only opponent to decisively win multiple rounds against Usyk over 12 rounds. Even when other fighters won rounds, they were often close and competitive, not as clear-cut as Fury’s. In contrast, Briedis gave Usyk trouble early, but Usyk adapted, asserted control, and won a competitive yet clear decision. While the Briedis fight was challenging, it wasn’t on par with the sustained physicality, power, and tactical adjustments required to prevail against elite heavyweight opposition like AJ and Fury. Your argument leans heavily on Briedis as a singular example while ignoring the broader trend: heavyweight has consistently posed tougher, more physically demanding fights for Usyk than cruiserweight. You accuse me of repetition, but I’ve responded to your points directly with evidence and reasoning. In contrast, you’ve repeatedly claimed to have addressed my points without providing new evidence or engaging with my counterarguments. For example: You say I’m twisting your words, but I’ve only quoted or paraphrased what you’ve written. You claim I’m ignoring your responses, yet you haven’t addressed my broader argument that heavyweight, overall, has been more challenging for Usyk than cruiserweight. If you believe this discussion is “done,” that’s fine, but leaving it unresolved doesn’t validate your points. I’ve engaged with your arguments in good faith, backed up my claims with examples, and demonstrated why your reasoning is inconsistent.
My points, counter points, absolute refutations and overviews re the discussion have been duly supported and stand. Again, I stress that you read more carefully. I have been perfectly consistent and logical. I have directly addressed all your points and made my own points (which actually haven’t all been properly addressed), leaving absolutely nothing unresolved from my end. Done.
If your points and counterpoints were as solid as you claim, you wouldn’t need to keep dismissing my arguments without directly engaging with them. You insist everything has been resolved on your end, but you’ve repeatedly avoided addressing key counterpoints I’ve raised, such as the pattern of tougher, more decisive challenges Usyk faced at heavyweight or the fact that Fury is the only fighter to clearly win multiple decisive rounds against him. Simply claiming you’ve “refuted everything” without providing evidence or addressing the inconsistencies in your logic doesn’t make it true. If you feel the discussion is done, that’s fine, but don’t confuse dismissiveness with conclusiveness.
Since this discussion seems to have run its course, let me summarize the debate, and if I’ve misunderstood anything, feel free to correct me: You argue that Usyk faced tougher opposition at cruiserweight, with Briedis being the hardest fight, and that his success at heavyweight is largely due to exploiting size-related disadvantages. You’ve characterized his fights at heavyweight as “easier” overall, suggesting that Usyk would face more challenges against similar or smaller-sized opponents than against super heavyweights (SHWs). You’ve also claimed that Usyk has deteriorated at heavyweight, becoming more hittable. My position is that while Briedis was a tough opponent, he stands out as the only genuinely hard fight at cruiserweight. In contrast, heavyweight has presented multiple grueling challenges, such as Joshua 2, Fury 1, and Chisora, where Usyk’s stamina, durability, and adaptability have been tested far more thoroughly. Fury, in particular, won three decisive rounds against Usyk and I would say had the most consistent success against Usyk then any other opponent. I’ve also pointed out that while SHWs might be more susceptible to Usyk’s pressure-based style due to their lower gas tanks, Usyk has consistently shown that his style is equally effective against similar-sized and smaller opponents, as demonstrated in fights against Briedis, Hunter, and even Bellew. This undermines the claim that his success is primarily tied to exploiting size-related disadvantages. Additionally, while I agree that Usyk may have physically declined at heavyweight, this is a natural progression for many fighters as they age. However, as is often the case with experienced fighters, Usyk’s technical ability has improved to compensate for his physical decline. This refinement has allowed him to remain competitive at the highest level against younger, stronger opponents. Throughout this debate, I’ve supported my arguments with evidence from specific fights and broader patterns. Meanwhile, your arguments heavily rely on asserting Briedis as a harder challenge without adequately addressing how he surpasses the physical and strategic challenges posed by opponents like Fury or Joshua. Ultimately, it seems we differ on what constitutes a “harder” fight. However, I believe I’ve presented a stronger case for heavyweight being the more challenging division for Usyk. If you still disagree, that’s fine, but I think we’re now repeating ourselves, and it’s clear we won’t reach a consensus.
Yeah, I like a good debate as you obviously do also Loud. There’s no bailing here. I have addressed all points and, as and when necessary, I have disagreed with supporting facts in tow. Anyone can keep repeating back to you that you haven’t done so, even though it flies in the face of all previous exchanges which are there for anyone else to read, if they’re even inclined to do so. The other party can also repeatedly twist what you’ve actually said - either deliberately or due to poor comprehension - then you’re stuck correcting them, over and over and over… What then? It never ends, lol, so there is a time to pull the plug which I was often not wise enough to do in the past. Usyk is one of my favourites fighters but to defend/elevate him beyond fact and reason is ironic when the same person pumping Olek up also believes that fans have been guilty of aggrandising Ali