Is there anyone who could school 67 Ali?

Oops

 

Maybe Chok’s not so bad after all.

 

Ali was sixteen years old.

 

Mildenberger's weak chin should be factored into the equation when considering hypothetical H2H matchups against iron-chinned opponents.

Take Parker-Chisora 1 and its immediate rematch: in the first fight Chisora didn't get dropped and most had him winning 6 rounds with a KD. In the rematch Chisora was more shopworn and he got dropped three times but the fight was still a war, with Chisora winning 4. The KD's had the effect of obscuring the actual competitiveness of the boxing.

 

I knew a Senor Pepe from boxrec. Different guy. That guy sounds like Il Duce. Ali was 16 years old when Green beat him.

 

He said he held his hands too low, had no stamina, and poor footwork. The guy is a veritable Emmanuel Steward.

 

1-Didn't mention them because they were irrelevant to the conversation.

2-No, it simply shows that Foreman and Tyson weren't immune to schooling. It has no bearing on whether or not Ali could be schooled. As I mentioned 3-4x, Wladmir and Hoylfield weren't in their primes.

3-The fighters you are bringing up such as Usyk never fought anyone remotely resembling Ali either. What is your point?

4-Holyfield won via accumulation of headbutts against Rahman. Wasn't exactly a convincing performance and Rahman was never that great to begin with. This doesn't remotely prove Hoylfield wasn't past his prime lol.

5-you just said you don't care about polls or how the majority feels, then you attempt to criticize my comparison of old Wladmir to Hoylfield of the Byrd fight because nobody agreed with me in that thread? If you don't care about how the majority feels, why would I? This isn't even a logical point at all. I stand by what I said, the Wladmir Fury beat was ancient, gunshy, and not that great. Even people who disagree with me comparing him to Hoylfield agree he was far past his athletic prime either way.

6-if you think a 40 year old fighter is "far better" than his 20 year old self, in particular the version of a fighter who LOST his title in one of the worst performances in championship history, then you need to stop smoking beer and log out. I'm not even going to continue this conversation if that's what you think.

 

Wow, there are 126 posts on this thread when one post with a simple "No" would have sufficed.

 

Maybe a forty year old athlete is wiser than a twenty year old one but the laws of physiology are immutable and the forty year old athlete is greatly diminished from a physiological standpoint than a twenty yest old one.

 

How about Kent Green? He knocked out Ali when he was sixteen and weighed 157 pounds?

 

1. Yet you mentioned Holyfield and Wlad, who I mentioned alongside Tyson and Foreman. The only reason that Tyson and Foreman "weren't relevant" to you is that you couldn't make age-related excuses to explain why they got schooled.

2. No fighter is immune from being schooled, they are just human beings at the end of the day. We also need some parameters for what a schooling is (the Holmes "fight" was more analogous to working a heavy bag). If losing say 9-3 is a schooling then many would argue that 31 year old Ali got schooled by Norton.

3. Undefeated Hunter was far closer in ability to Ali than Mildenberger was to Usyk. Usyk has fought and sparred countless opponents influenced by Ali (whose style was obscure at the time) and studied him extensively, whereas Ali would be at enormous disadvantages in these same respects.

4. Neither of us can prove "prime" because as I've already established it's a vague concept. But if Holyfield could find a way to win against Rahman at 39 after 60 punishing rounds against Lewis and Ruiz, then the vastly fresher 36 year old Holyfield who Lewis schooled was likely close to "prime" (he did vastly better against Moorer at 35 than he did at 31). Perhaps he had a bad camp or a bad night on Lewis's best night or bad tactics or whatever but he still got schooled.

5. You were the one who brought polls and majorities into it, I said that I don't care and if you care about majorities (which you raising the poll point suggests) then your own position on the Byrd Holyfield being on par with the Fury Wlad is invalid. Steward and post-Steward Wlad was always a defensive fighter so "gunshy" is nonsense, he couldn't hit Fury because Fury was too good defensively, just as Chisora and Whyte couldn't lay a meaningful glove on Fury. Before the fight the consensus that Wlad was either better than ever, as good as ever or only just past his best, he was a 4/1 favourite against Fury, not a 2/1 underdog as Holyfield was against Byrd and Fury was seen as relatively green, in his world title debut, only having gone 12 rounds twice, with his best opponents being Chisora and Cunningham. These narratives (which you also peddle for Wilder 2, saying that "there was something off about Wilder" or whatever) are contrived, post-facto rationalisations in order to discredit Fury.

6. Depending on the month, 20 year old Wlad either hadn't made his pro debut yet or was a 5-0 prospect coming off a 6 round DQ win over 8-2 Carlos Monroe. He was about 2 years removed from losing in his first 12 rounder: a step up fight at home against 24-13-1 Puritty. Yes I believe the 39 year old P4P No.2 Ring champion Wlad coming off a 9-3/11-1 in America over Jennings and a 5th round KO over Pulev was far better than a complete professional novice who after 2 years of development in the pros would lose to Ross Puritty.

Is it me or is this slightly incongruous?

 

If you feel it's such a big knock on Ali that he only was one round ahead on two cards if dismissing the KD rds (which is absolutely hilarious "logic", btw) by the time of stoppage, how irredeemable do you then feel it was that Usyk actually was behind on two cards when stopping Bellew?

 

"which is absolutely hilarious "logic", btw"

It's apparently not "hideous logic" when people are criticising Wilder and unlike Ali he's a KO artist!

Official scorecards are one metric for competitiveness, another (very important) is punches landed as I mentioned before:

154-144 Ali vs Mildenberger, 12th round KO

112-61 Usyk vs Bellew, 8th round KO

Speed of KO is another metric for judging dominance. There can be tactical reasons for giving up rounds, like minimising risk/wear or setting up the opponent.

Bellew was also bigger than Mildenberger, a more accomplished amateur, a world titlist as a pro and almost certainly more powerful.

 

Don't know what people you're talking about, but most don't need to do some crazy deduction of KD rounds to think that his draw against Fury were very poor cards on the whole.

There weren't that many belts to give away in Mildenberger's time. He was ranked third by the Ring and don't know if he was that much smaller than Bellew, who was a former LHW, in lean weight. And Bellew landed hard shots, which is why he won rounds. Winning more rounds can win you the fight, punch stats can't. And Bellew won more rounds than Mildenberger did in a shorter fight.