Wlad Klitschko has the worst style for Ali

Wlad knocked him out twice in non-competitive fights. Don't be ridiculous.

 

Well if people are going to mention Muhammad Ali's last two fights as some kind of detriment to him, then I will play the same game LOL.

Tyson Fury, who moves well for his size but certainly is no Ali, fainted and moved on Klitschko so badly that Wladimir could barely even throw a punch let alone Land one. Can you imagine what The Greatest would do to him?

They were both Masters of grabbing their opponents, but Ali was much much faster. I see him beating Klitschko to the clutch, time and again.

 

I have him at 4 and I should probably have him at 3. You are magnifying 1 fight in 69. A fight that saw Ross Puritty take more of a beating than Ray Mercer did when he fought Wlad, but he was "getting slapped across the ring...". Wlad blew his load and it's on him, but ultimately if he would have fought at a more controlled pace he would have won. You can say "coulda, woulda, shoulda", but that is what actually happened. The top fighters in the division at the time didn't want to fight Wlad. That's why he was the #1 contender for 2 straight years.

 

Tyson Fury is certainly a difficult opponent for anyone in boxing history let alone someone who was 39. Holmes would have been an easier opponent given the style. What would Larry do to Wlad? Wlad was never outboxed before Fury and Fury did enough to play spoiler. There's a reason he ducked the rematch. Wlad probably would have mauled Berbick for what it's worth.

 

By your logic, if a boxer struggles and narrowly overcomes an opponent, he’s greater than the boxer who dominates that same opponent effortlessly. This disqualifies all-time greats like Roy Jones Jr., Floyd Mayweather, and Pernell Whitaker, who were so technically superior they rarely faced adversity.You’re essentially penalizing Wlad for being too good to let his fights become wars.

So by your logic if Louis had knocked both out without any issues he wouldn't be considered as good as if here struggled and then beat them? See the issue here?

So you praise Joe Louis for reinventing himself after the Schmeling KO, yet you dismiss Wlad for doing the exact same thing? After three losses, when the entire world wrote him off, Wlad rebuilt his style and became one of the most dominant champions in history. Why is it greatness and overcoming adversity for Louis but not for Wlad? Seems like a textbook double standard to me.

How many elite southpaws or 250lb+ Super Heavyweights did Louis or Ali have to dismantle? Most people have Larry Holmes in their Top 5, yet Wlad was objectively more dominant against a wider variety of styles and sizes. He shut out the same level of fighters that Holmes struggled with and had several close fights that he arguably lost. Imo totally dominanting someone shows a way higher level of mastery than winning 15-round wars of attrition.

Proving my point lol. You keep mentioning magic and slaughtering opponents, but you still haven't provided a single technical breakdown. Saying Ali made Liston look like an amateur isn't an analysis it's nothing more then a highlight reel summary from a fanboy. Until you can explain the mechanics of how Ali gets past a 6'6" sniper with a 4-inch reach advantage who is bigger and stronger you're just proving my point because all you’re doing is arguing from a place of vibes and that is exactly why I’m calling you a casual.

 

Thompson hit him a fair bit and had him blowing too. Thompson was nearly 37 Wlad was in his prime.
But Wlad is faster than Ali according to this thread..

 

Thompson outlanded wk in all 3 punch categories. Wk was clinching the whole time due to tigers slickness .
Wk was so frustrated he grabbed tony and flung him onto the canvas.
Wk turned the contest into an uncivilised street fight wrestling match in order to win.

https://media.gettyimages.com/id/81...=9xnRZz4yoPxe4ZydUNoxW-hy_XUxGBj9zeyb7yaFV68=

https://quadro.burda-forward.de/ctf...3144af279c513348b1b3094d3551b0ce84857360c7cb0

 

A ranking of 3, is absolutely laughable.

 

But another poster on this thread had him around 20th and it's likely a few others here do as well so it balances it out.

 

I agree that 20-25 is way too low, but stop with the longest reign crap. Holding a then worthless WBO strap is by no means the same as being the champion. Wlad was actually never undisputed, but many would still call him lineal from Chagaev, but that doesn't come close to Louis's 12 year reign.

 

So, I have zero problems with someone going with Wlad here. Perfectly reasonable, I think. He was the much bigger man and great at controlling distance and pace. Then of course he never did it against anyone nearly as good as Ali, but that is always the issue with this hypthetic match-ups between ATGs.

What annoys me is that the same crappy arguments always are brought out. Because 21-year old Ali had tough fights with Cooper and Jones, he'd pretty much lose against anyone bigger than them, no matter style and other assets than size.

This despite that he fact that he was young and would do substantially better against both later on (an exhibiition against a fading Jones, true, but it is night and day compared to their fight) - and even more so the fact that he beat dozens of bigger fighters, several of them ATGs.

So evidently being bigger than Doug Jones wasn't nearly enought to beat Ali. And this is hardly rocket science, but still those two fights (both wins) are obesssively brought up by Ali detractors. Or that Ali got the benefit of some close decisions when way past his prime. If we're talking the best Ali, it's the 66-67 version. And he actually faced both Cooper in Jones in '66, so it's not like we are robbed of that reference.

 

I agree with this point on the whole, but of course you should discount how Ali did against Holmes and Berbick to how prime Ali would do against Wlad. He was so far gone at that point that it gives us virtually no information about him in his prime.

The poster who asked you that question isn't to be taking seriously.

I don't think you have to be a bad poster to go with Wlad here, but for some reason only the worst posters on the board do so.

Every post I've seen for Wlad in this thread has pretty much been an embarrassement. And that's funny, because you can certainly make a case for him.

 

Tempted to make a thread asking were people rate Wlad all time after this

 

Do people lack reading comprehension or something? The whole point of my question was that this person was using Wlad against Fury when he was past his best to show why Ali would beat him. My point was that its as stupid as using Ali's later fights to show why Wlad would beat him. Why is that hard for people to understand?

 

So winning every round against a large tricky southpaw and knocking him out isn't impressive now? Bet money that version of Thompson would have given Holmes, or Lewis or Ali way more trouble (since people are stupid and I have to spell things out here I'm not saying he would win just that Thompson probably would have won more rounds against them then he did against Wlad.)