Ali was def a better HW than Usyk. No doubt about that. Not even close. 6'1 230lbs Jerry Forrest drew with and arguably beat Zhang despite being knocked down 3 times and dropping Zhang himself but he would beat Muhammad Ali lmaooo I really thought Usyk ended the HW size myth for good but looks like we still have some low IQ takes.
These size idiots need only go and have a look at what Jai Opetaia did to that undefeated British monster on the weekend. Or Evander Holyfield's entire heavyweight career for that matter. Or Mike Tyson's.
What's interesting as well is that you'll often see it said that "fighters have evolved so much", but you'll NEVER see the people that say this actually list any concrete examples of skills that have evolved. They'll just say that fighters have evolved, and then when you ask HOW, they'll just default to some vague nonsense about "modern training and nutrition", which is not only irrelevant to the question "how have fighters evolved", but even in its irrelevance they can't even name what's changed about modern training and nutrition! Lmao. Zhang suffered from kidney failure because his dumbass trainers had him eliminate food and water from his diet and you wanna tell me about modern training and nutrition "Modern Training and Nutrition" is just a dog whistle for "Performance Enhancing Drugs". I complain all the time about how martial artists nutrition and training methods suck and are outdated compared to other sports, but in this instance it actually helps prove my point about how it's not changed much at all since the 60's relative to itself. A sport like basketball for example was invented about 120 years ago and has only had it's modern ruleset for about 55, so to this day it's evolving rapidly in regards to skills and tactics. Younger things grow faster in general. Basketball practices now quite frankly embarrasses basketball practices from literally 10 years ago. So when people poo poo old basketball from a skills perspective (though it's usually exaggerated) it's easy to point out what's changed and there are some valid points to be made. Boxing however has existed for thousands of years and has existed under it's current ruleset for about 160! In other words, basketball RIGHT NOW is LESS developed as a sport than boxing was during World War 2! The growth curve for boxing has slowed down massively compared to other sports due to how long it's been around. Consequently, boxing as a sport hasn't changed all that much, in either in ring abilities or training methods. But people don't think about this though and so think they can get away with just going "uhhh, I can't actually tell you why I think Joe Louis and SRR are less evolved than AJ and Canelo, but other sports evolve, so boxing obviously has too, shut up boomer". That, and people confusing H2H ability with ATG rankings have people saying dumb **** like "Jack Dempsey wouldn't beat Deontay Wilder in a fight, stop overrating old timers!!!"
Looking at other sports in the exact same way is inherently flawed due to the fact basketball/football etc are team sports. Combat sports such as wrestling, UFC, and boxing are not only individualized, at any moment even a guy ranked #34 in the world has a slim chance of pulling an upset because fighting has an element of chaos other sports don't have. Hence, the "puncher's chance". A freak cut, a broken hand or rib, all kind's of things can happen allowing virtually any guy who laces them up to manage to beat a "better" athlete. They look at "stats" such as 40 yard dash, improvements in vertical jumps, average bench presses, or newer athletes breaking scoring records. That's all well and good, but literally none of those things matter in a boxing match if you don't have the proper training. You still need timing, accuracy, defense, the stamina to go 12, the heart to keep fighting when hurt, the ability string combinations together, etc. You can be as strong as Shaq and as fast as Usain Bolt, but if you lack these things you will QUICKLY be exposed even at the amateur level. The ONLY way to improve combat x factors (timing, defense, etc) is to train in the gym and it's 100% based on the individual. It doesn't matter if a guy is in 1923, 1973, or 2023, his x factors can be world class if he puts in the work. That's why people are still amazed at Willie Pep's defense over 70 years later. Still amazed by Joe Louis' blistering combinations landing with amazing accuracy. Robinson's amazing well rounded sweet science. Duran's inside fighting ability. Or the guy in the thread title: Ali's footwork and dazzling hand speed. I have seen several posters in this thread such as Dynamicpuncher and Loudon begging people to cite specific examples of HOW modern fighters have "evolved" and proven to be better than Ali. I have never seen anyone give any valid breakdowns in these threads, which proves they are either trolls or ignorant asshats who argue just to argue their agenda without any in-depth knowledge. They literally just look at a fighter's birthday and weight to determine a winner. I don't think we've had a single HW boxer in the last 20 years who has agility/coordination somewhat close to Ali other than Haye!
Usyk has a much higher boxing IQ than Ali. Watch Ali vs Norton and compare it with Usyk vs Joshua. or Usyk vs Bellew or Breidis. Watch for feints and planning in the attacks, take it in slow motion. Ali was exposed against Norton as a natural gifted big guy for his era, not a masterclass skilled performer. Also if you dont want to do that, just search for techique breakdowns from Ali's fights. compare that with breakdowns of Usyk and his fights.
? Were you meant to send this reply to me? It has nothing to do with anything I said. Unless you think that a single all time great having a higher Boxing IQ than another single all time great is evidence of modern boxers as a whole being more evolved than their older counterparts?
No more like morons thinking "bigger is better" and everything in "modern era is better". I already rebutted all your points earlier in this thread as did @Loudon and i asked you to give examples of what you were claiming. And all you had to say is "can't be bothered" which pretty much says it all really. Again i'm not a fan of Ali nor have i said he would dominate in this era, i think i've stated this a dozen times and i'm tired of people that apparently can't read or just want to be ignorant and spout anything. But to claim Ali would not compete at all is utterly ridiculous, but then you have morons in thread like @SmackDaBum who thinks Hughie Fury is a better version of Muhammad Ali. And another moron in this thread who got banned so that speaks for itself doesn't it ?
Why do you keep repeating this notion that Ali was only successful because he picked on smaller opponents with his size and athleticism? He beat all of the bigger guys of his era: -6'3 206 Dunn -6'3 208 Lavorante -6'3 215 Norton -6'3 220 Lyle -6'3 223 Lewis -6'3 256 Mathis -6'4 214 Powell -6'4 220 Bugner -6'4 225 Foreman -6'5 225 Wepner -6'6 212 Terrel Ali's record was 12-1 (7 KOs) against the biggest guys of his era. The only big guy he lost to was Norton. How on earth can you look at that record and then come to the conclusion Norton "exposed" him proving he was mainly successful because he picked on smaller opponents? Do you think before you post?
I must say i never heared any credible person who questioned ali,s extraordinary performance in any kind . Most say he was the greatest boxer that ever lived . With all respect to zhang or usyk - what are you talking about ?