OK, so this unbeatable force that is "prime Muhammad Ali" is when exactly? '64-67 is it? Weighing anywhere from 206-214 pounds. Beat: Sonny Liston X2 Floyd Patterson Zora Folley Cleveland Williams Ernie Terrell Karl Mildenberger Henry Cooper George Chuvalo Brian London I don't know if I'd pick a single guy to beat Clay from that time, but the guys he beat were hardly of the caliber of the ATG's being discussed. I have no problems with anyone who picks one or a few of the guys on or not on the poll (as Louis is missing from the poll). But lets not act like he beat any ATG's like Frazier or Foreman in that span time span of his "prime." When he did beat those guys he was not prime and had lost/struggled with Frazier and Norton. And if you say "well he beat those guys post-prime so I have to consider that" than why not consider the losses/struggles in that time as well as him struggling like mad against Doug Jones the year before he beat Liston? Basically, ESB is a little crazy when so many people find it MAD CRAZINESS to pick certain fighters to beat others.
I do. Edit: I didn't see "prime" there. But, right now, I do. Edit: I didn't mean that I do, as in that I have a habit of doing it. I've absolutely never beaten Muhammad Ali. I do not beat people in that position. What I mean is that right now, non-prime for non-prime, I would beat him. Edit: I mean I would if we had some kind of argument of some kind or some such sort of thing. Edit: I meant if I were provoked to do so. Not out of the blue just "kapow", you know. I mean I would provokedly beat him. Edit: I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a good guy. I'm not saying he would provoke me to beat him. I don't know why we'd be arguing, really. Edit: What do you mean would I beat a sick man who couldn't defend himself? **** you, he's provoked me in this scenario. Why am I the bad guy? I wasn't looking for any trouble. Why even start this thread, ya *******? Stop asking people about this. It's a sick question.
who wasn't but yeah i admitted to that earlier actually. However, there are no drugs to refine your technique and that is what im pointing out is clearly superior now.
if technique was cleary superior, then foreman wouldnt have been able to compete with these roided up fighters with better technique. I agree most sports, the quality gets better over time. However i feel with boxing, the standards have slipped, due to there not being the competition there once was.
You're right. I think Ali his clinches are a bit worse with Ali just pushing someones head down/hanging on the neck. Though no excuses for Wlad, he clinches also far too much. I don't enjoy Wladimir fights. The hws you listed all but Marciano had weight advantages most of the time. Louis 70% of the time besides being tall Frazier 60+% Tyson little above 60% up until the Spinks fight (rest was past prime Tyson) Dempsey not sure Lewis 70% of the time And reach/length isn't an advantage when you don't fight as a tall fighter.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctKAGKVpCUU[/url] rewatch the fight. he clearly wasn't as sharp or fast as prime tyson.
I think you need to study Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson again because they're completely different fighters. Frazier was the greatest pressure fighter and swarmer in heavyweight history awesome on the inside, Tyson was none of that. All of Tyson's best work was from mid range, Ali would tie him in knots on the inside Tyson simply wasn't a good inside fighter. I do believe however that Tyson has a shot simply because of his great hand speed he could certainly give Ali problems especially early on.
The younger pre-jail Ali wasn't really one to hold and tie up like he did in the Norton and Frazier rematches. That isn't really the version I imagine when putting him against other great Heavyweights.