I never said reach isn't a factor you're putting words in my mouth. All i said was Ali didn't purely rely ON his reach. He moved around the ring with quick feet and threw feints to mess up his opponent and used his blinding fast hands to catch opponents and his quick thinking and coordination helped him. You keep thinking of Fury as a god, like the next step in human evolution. You're talking about these hypotheticals of Ali having a tiny reach like pacquiao but he doesn't. That would be an abnormally small reach. Lol You think Usyk would beat Ali ? Based on what ? Him having a difficult fight against Chisora ? And Mike Tyson would destroy Aj. Didn't fat Andy Ruiz beat Aj ? Andy Ruiz went the distance with Alexander dimtrenko, but beat Aj. it doesn't make sense does it. Styles make fights. Mike Tysons Style is ALL WRONG for Aj. The speed, the pressure, the head movement. All wrong. Listen i know you like Fury even though he outpointed a gunshy Wladimir Klitschko and beat up overrated technically limited Wilder. But he's not some Gypsy god. Tell me this. What would you say if Aj beat him by knockout ?
No fighter purely relies on his reach but if you have a reach/height/weight deficit, you need to compensate for it and the greater the physical differences the harder it is to compensate for, especially when your opponent is a highly skilled elite athlete. The Pacquiao reach hypothetical is meant to show that speed and co-ordination can't compensate for enormous physical differences. It's almost certain that there will be highly skilled super-heavyweight athletes in the future who make Fury look small and while Fury may have more speed and co-ordination than these giants, his advantages wouldn't compensate for them being 7'1, 340 pounds with a 92 inch reach. But I have no doubt that nostalgic fans will still be saying things like "Ali would have been too slick for him" or "Tyson would have killed him stone dead". Ali had difficult fights and a number of losses against the effective cruiserweights of his era, in a time where nutrition and training methods were in the dark ages. Boxing would be an extreme anomaly with every other sport if the athletes hadn't improved dramatically in the last 60 years. Usyk's amateur record: 335-15, Ali's: 100-5. As a pro, Usyk has fought every difficult or world championship fight away from home and almost all of them in the opponent's backyard and still won every fight against the most stacked cruiserweight division of all time. He's the No.1 cruiser of all time and I believe Holyfield would have gone life and death with Ali. If a 5'11, 205 pound Joe Frazier gives Ali all he can handle and more, it's no stretch to imagine that a fit, motivated 6'1.5, 255 pound Derek Chisora fighting at home with the protection of the referee would give Ali a torrid time, at least for a few rounds as was the case with Usyk. I don't know where you get the idea that Ruiz went the distance with Dimitrenko: Ruiz beat him up and make him quit in 5 rounds. Prime Tyson had a few good rounds in him (where he got the vast majority of his KO's) and after that he had to fight in bursts, his style was too explosive to be sustainable over the course of a fight. If AJ kept Tyson at a distance with his height, reach and movement and tied him up and leaned on him whenever he got close, Tyson would have found it very difficult and probably got taken out late. Journeymen/fringe contenders in James Tillis, Mitch Green and Jose Ribalta all took prime Tyson 10 rounds, weak champions Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker took him 12 and most of these guys were considerably taller with much longer reaches, similar in size (albeit smaller, less athletic and less skilled) than AJ. Tyson's fans will say he was over the hill when he was KO'd by a for-once motivated Buster Douglas in 1990 but how many 23 year olds are even slightly over the hill, let alone far past their primes? AJ is a good fighter and no one is invincible. If he KO'd Fury I would give him credit and I wouldn't be making excuses about inactivity because Fury should train hard for it and AJ's only done 9 rounds with a shot 39 year old Pulev since he fought Ruiz and Fury fought Wilder. It would either mean that Fury had an off night, that AJ had the wrong style for him or that the difference in ability between them is far smaller than I believe it to be. In fairness to AJ's fans, I believe that most of them won't make any excuses if Fury KO's him either.
But the hypothetical you bring up isn't the case. Reach matters but only to an extent. Ali's boxing skills didn't have much to do with his reach. Thats why everyone who had a longer reach than him lost to him. Stop bringing up hypotheticals to prove Fury beats him when Alis reach was 78 inches. It wasn't 74 or 71. Klitschko was somebody who relied mostly on his size and reach, although he had power as well, not Ali he used his handspeed, angles, fast footwork, high ring iq, elite level head movement to beat his opponents. Any reach advantage that he had wasn't a big part of the equation. And LOL look at Nikolai Valuev vs David Haye then come back to me. Im wondering, did you actually live through boxing of the 70s and 80s ? Nutrition improvemed but training methods ? Debatable. You want to see chisora vs Ali ? Look up Ali vs Buster Mathis. I belive Buster Mathis was actually taller and heavier than chisora and has faster hands. Thats exactly how the fight would go. Whats next you think because Pulev schooled chisora he'd beat Ali too ? Chisoras head movement and agression is nowhere near as effective as Fraziers. The fact is you've already been proven wrong. Lennox Lewis would be a modern day superheavyweight. He went life and death with Ray Mercer. Then 40 year old Larry Holmes schooled Mercer. The same Larry Holmes that was the same size as Ali in his prime. My bad i meant Ruiz went the distance with Raphael Zumbano Love LOL. But he beat Joshua. Doesn't make any since now does it. You seem to believe that AJ would be able to keep Tyson at Distance. Mike Tyson is NOT Andy Ruiz. Mike Tysons footwork and foot speed is dimensions beyond Ruiz's. Mike Tyson has BEATEN Super Heavy Weights. You're argument just doesn't make any sense. And he got beaten by Douglas because Styles make fights. But Joshua got beaten by Ruiz and Ruiz's best win was Kevin Johnson before that fight so hey it happens lmao.
Ali lost all three fights to Ken Norton, who had an 80 inch reach. A boxer who's 6'8 with an 85 inch reach can afford to be slower and less co-ordinated than a boxer who's 6'3 with a 78 inch reach because he can keep him on the end of his jab at a distance where he's safe from danger. Ali would be getting hit well out of range, tied up and leaned on by a giant 60 pounds heavier than himself whenever he was close. The main difference between Valuev-Haye and Fury-Ali is that Valuev is not a skilled or athletic super-heavyweight (and Haye's victory was far from convincing anyway). 6'6 heavyweights back in the day had limited skill and athleticism so smaller heavyweights could box circles around them. Carnera was the inferior analogue to Valuev 60 years before. But modern super-heavyweights like Fury are bigger than Carnera and vastly more skilled and athletic. What is unique about boxing which would make training methods not improve after 60 years of advances in technology and knowledge of sports science? Why did boxing training improve so much until the 60's but then magically stop? The only reason why people make these absurd arguments, in all sports, is because people want to preserve this idea that the greats of the past are mythical heroes who are better than the bigger, stronger, fitter, more durable, harder hitting and more skilled men of today. And the heavyweights of tomorrow will be better again. Lewis having a close fight with Mercer in the best performance of his life proves very little. Anyone can have an off night, especially against a determined opponent that is tough for you and Holmes was active again at 40, a highly skilled heavyweight champion and only 2 inches shorter than Lewis. Matthis looks vastly worse than Chisora from the footage; terrible co-ordination, much slower and horribly unfit. You're looking at it through rose tinted glasses. Just as Pele was playing against bums in defence, Ali was fighting bums by today's standards. It's not hard to look good against such a low level of opposition. And the best guys Ali fought gave him very tough fights and beat him more than his record would suggest. Ruiz is an extremely limited heavyweight who can be given serious problems by a journeyman who can move a bit but he looks a million dollars if anyone decides to trade with him up close, as AJ suicidally did. I made the point that Mike Tyson beat super-heavyweights but he went the distance with them and the manner of victory was unconvincing. He went 10 and 12 rounds with five journeymen, fringe contenders and weak champions in his prime because if he didn't get his opponents out of there in a few rounds he gassed out. AJ is bigger and worlds better than the guys Tyson went the distance with so with the correct gameplan, I believe he would have done a lot better. These matchups are hypothetical but the trend ever since the division was established is for ever taller, rangier and heavier men and it will continue, with the size threshold for faster, more co-ordinated smaller heavyweights to be competitive increasing over time.
Ken norton fights nothing like Fury. He pressured Ali and stayed low. Fury would be trying to fight On the backfoot and then he'd realize Ali would outslick him, then he'd be the agressor but he doesn't have the inside fighting that Norton Had. Ali would be dancing around Fury and slipping most of his jabs, then Fury would start to come forward. But his front foot game is sloppy as shown in Wilder 2 and Wallin and Cunningham. I agree with the fact that Fury is more skilled and more athletic that early 1900s superheavyweights but thats the early 1900s. Tell me what improved besides nutrition ? Conditioning maybe ? Again Foreman and Holmes proved that the difference isn't that significant. Boxing has evolved significantly from the early 1900s But from the 60s onwards not so much. its a gradual evolution. Explain please. What makes boxing nowadays so much better than boxing from the 70s. Fury would give Ali problems but it's clear from the cunningham fight He struggles with small slick heavyweights. He's improved a lot since then but he still hasn't fought a small slick heavyweight since then. Lol Lewis did not have an off night. excuses excuses. Holmes was WELL past his prime. He went life and death with an older Ken Norton While Ali performed the same feat after his prison time. Prime Ali from the 60s is better than Prime Holmes. Styles make fights. Foreman destroyed Norton and Fraizer but got KOd by Ali. And wait a minute isn't Ruiz horribly unfit ? Mathis had quicker hands than Chisora. Watch his highlights. And that is very true. Ruiz is limited. Mine Tyson not so much. Mike Tyson was excellent at cutting off the ring, he did it with Holmes and other world class fighters. Aj can use that jab but Mike Tyson would be bobbing and weaving on the inside and would be cutting off the ring quickly. You still dont understand the concept of Styles make fights. Aj struggles with shorter fighters. Look up Aj vs 40 year old Povetkin. Povetkin is the closest thing to Mike Tyson Aj has ever fought. Povetkin isn't as skilled as prime Mike Tyson and isnt as fast or as elusive but he still gave Aj problems due to his short height and quick counters and slickness.
He speaks truth. I would put my money for modern athletes if I would have to bet my money on it. Of course depending on pairing but general I would see modern day champ being more likely winer
I don't think Ali would be able to get to Fury fighting on the back foot because of his enormous physical disadvantages, far larger than any opponent he faced, plus the stamina, mental strength, skill and athleticism of Fury. If Ali could be beaten comprehensively by the likes of Ken Norton, Joe Frazier and Jimmy Young and go the distance or have very tough fights with many opponents a level or two below that, such as Henry Cooper and Doug Jones (men no larger than big light heavyweights today) then I don't believe he'd have a good chance against Fury, who has far more to his game than any of those men. Fury has been a backfoot fighter for most of his career, it's only recently that he started to work seriously on his front foot game and even take nutrition seriously. Fury also overperforms in the biggest fights and has often lost concentration against weaker opponents in nondescript fights. What will you say if Fury beats AJ on the front foot and puts a severe beating on him or KO's him? Aside from Mercer, Holmes didn't beat anyone of any description in his comeback and Foreman never traded on his conditioning or boxing skill: he was a juggernaut with a granite chin and an enormous punch, so he depreciated less severely than most other heavyweights. The 10 year break also put far fewer miles on the clock than having even 5 years of hard fights but he still got schooled by the likes of Tommy Morrison boxing on the backfoot. In 60 years there is a greater understanding of how the body works and thus how to optimise speed, agility, strength and stamina, and more effective steroids. There are technical improvements and 60 years of footage to learn from. High-level textbooks on boxing must be far more detailed and complex than they were in the 60's, I would be willing to bet that these old books are prehistorically out of date with modern boxing. I'm neither an expert on boxing or football but it's said that soccer changes considerably even in the course of a decade, so tactics which were effective a decade ago are not so effective today and ways to counter them have been devised. Why would boxing be any different? Of course styles make fights and it goes a long way to explain why Foreman could destroy guys who beat Ali and not beat Ali himself but great fighters have the ability to adapt their style to suit their opponent and to beat men even with problematic styles due to the sheer gulf in ability. I believe this is true of a fully fit, motivated Tyson Fury. I watched some of Mathis's highlights and he makes Derek Chisora look like a world class fighter, your eyes are lying to you. Andy Ruiz is a very limited fighter but his short stature and arms, weight, counter-punching, fast hands and granite chin make him devastating against anyone on the inside and he carries his fat well, like a sumo wrestler. Ruiz is a naturally fat athlete of 250 pounds when he trains, it's not a conditioning problem. AJ had a lot more success with Povetkin after the first couple of rounds because he kept Povetkin at a distance (and Povetkin has 4 inches on Tyson in height and reach) and Povetkin started to gas, as Tyson typically did. If Tyson was as good as you say he was, he wouldn't have been taken 10-12 rounds in his prime by (generally) big men who were journeymen, fringe contenders and weak champions. He would have cut off the ring, bobbed and weaved on the inside and delivered flurries of power punches to take these guys out in 1-3 rounds. But Tyson couldn't do that and went the distance with big fighters who were somewhat smaller than AJ and levels below him in athleticism and skill. We're repeating variations of the theme at this point so this will be my final reply on these issues. On the main question of how good Fury is at his best we'll get a good idea of that from the AJ fight and hopefully an Usyk fight after that.
Ali would fight off the backfoot but your qcting like Ali would be stationary. Im questioning your knowledge on this. Ali wouldn't stand around like klitschko, he'd be moving around the ring, around Fury, he'd make Fury come to him not the other way around, he wouldn't be head hunting either. Fury himself had trouble with the slickness of cunningham despite being a backfoot fighter and he presssed the action. The same would be for Ali. Ali >>>>>>>> Cunningham. Yes Fury has improved since then but he has yet to fight a small slick heavyweight since. Styles make fights. Again Fury fights NOTHING LIKE FRAZIER OR NORTON. They pressured Ali constantly and had the short height and inside game to do so. You should voice your opinions in the world boxing forum. Also if Fury does that credit to him but realistically thats not going to happen. Fury's front foot game is incredibly sloppy. Holmes still beat Ray Mercer why are you trying to press aside the Mercer win ? He accomplished it well past his prime so it doesn't matter. He gave Holyfield and Mccall good fights. And Foreman was still a world champion in the 90s. It doesn't matter what he was he still did it despite getting beaten by Ali and Young in his prime. And yeah he got schooled by morrison but Mercer destroyed Morrison am i correct ? In 60 years the difference in boxing wont exactly change despite maybe some rules and new weight classes ? From your logic boxers will always be better despite the fact that boxing trainer Cus D'Amato worked with Mike Tyson and floyd patterson who both were generations apart. You can see styles like Ali are still used in modern times Ali (Fury), kronk (Fury, Wladimir Klitschko). It goes against your argument. Heavyweight crops that are 6'5+ happened in the 90s. So even if we Say Ali is too small you still have the likes of Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe and a host of other skilled coordinated heavyweights who fit superheavyweight standards. And Lewis would destroy Fury. Books on boxing today are more varied in info but not much more indepth about the fundamentals. Yeah more like Chisora make Mathis look world class This content is protected This content is protected Buster mathis is clearly faster and more sound with his boxing. Your eyes are deceiving you. And Povetkin is taller but you fail to realize he doesn't have the Head movement and front foot game of Mike Tyson. Ruiz is skilled but nowhere near as good as Mike Tyson. Ruiz's best win was Kevin Johnson before he fought Joshua and went the distance with lots of bums before then as well, 10 if i can remember. Mike Tyson went the distance 4 times before his fight with michael spinks. One against Undefeated Tony Tucker and 3 times against decent fringe contenders
"Credit to him" is very faint praise indeed seeing as he would be doing what you say he categorically cannot do lol. If he beats AJ going forward as I believe he will, you will have to admit that Fury is way above where you currently think he is in the pantheon of heavyweight champions. Alex Ferguson coached Manchester United from 1986-2013 but the game changed enormously in those 27 years and he had to adapt to it or he would have been left behind. Coaches like Wenger and Mourinho were left behind which is why their success diminished. Giggs was playing at 40 and was still better than many decent younger men but he wasn't a top player anymore and the best modern United players like Rooney and Ronaldo were well above him even in his prime. Saying "they still use the Kronk style" is like saying "they still play 4-4-2/4-3-3".
Are you seriously trying to use this theory to argue that all sportsmen evolve over time? That is a blinding fallacy. Wayne Rooney may be the highest scorer in Man Utd history, but he was not leagues above Giggs in his prime. More importantly, it is ironic that it is without doubt that a player like Giggs would be better today, than in the era in which he competed. He competed in an era where we was basically forced to play on the wing (the vast majority of the time) to feed to 2 strikers. Imagine him in this era where he would play as part of a forward 3. He could do it all and was far more well-rounded than Rooney. For a start, his professionalism would allow him to play such a role, because he was always in great shape. Rooney never was, as soon as his early youth departed, so did his stamina. Giggs could anticipate, put the ball on a 10 pence piece, cross, head the ball, dribble, had great vision, score and in this era and as part of such a formation, force plenty of fouls inside the box. He also had great synergy with other team mates. There are many tens of world records in track and field that are over 20 and even 30 years old. However, certain sports change over time as forged by their environment. The real question should be how would X adapt or develop to achieve in this era, given the chance.
I looked up world records in men's track and field: 22 records in the last 10 years (15 of which were in the last 5 years) 7 between 2000 and 2010 17 between 1990 and 1999 2 before 1990 If anything, this strongly supports my argument that sportsmen are getting better over time. It also says a lot that practically no records stand before 1990 (the steroids in the SU must have been way ahead of their time for discus and hammer-throwing). No doubt that records will continue to fall at a pace in the 2020's. The general trend in all sports is toward improvement and I see no reason why boxing would be an exception, remaining static (no doubt forever) since the 60's "golden era". I'll admit the positional inconsistencies between Giggs and Rooney muddy the water so they aren't the best examples. Stats wise, Giggs scored 109 goals and assisted 162 in 632 games, Rooney scored 208 and assisted 103 in 491. In much of Rooney's later career he occupied a deeper role in midfield with an extremely high workrate, adept in defence, a playmaker and a goalscorer. His professionalism was definitely an issue but in his prime he could score 30+ goals a season and assist another 10. Ronaldo would be a more like-for-like comparison with Giggs but for much of his time at United he played as part of a front 3, so he had an inherent advantage as far as scoring (though not assisting) goals. The question of who would win between eras is not, for me at least, a question of talent. A great chess player from the past like Bobby Fischer may or may not be more talented than Magnus Carlsen but a prime Fischer would lose regardless because he didn't have the benefit of chess computers or modern chess theory (nutrition wasn't an issue). To try to work out who's the most talented becomes very abstract and hypothetical, like P4P.
Billy Bonds played in the 60s, 70s and 80s for West Ham, he'd cut it with today's lot too, just thought I'd chime in on the football chat, 6ft 2, eyes of blue, Billy Bonds is after you.....
