Prime Muhammad Ali vs Michael Hunter (Boxing Evolution Theory)

Also, what the **** is up with the xenophobia?

 

There was, prior to Usyk, the growing belief that the best HW was always the biggest, or close to it. Since the Ukrainian has proven that wrong (in absolute terms) it's most ardent supporters must now give lip service to the theory by saying Usyk is this one-in-a-billion anomaly.

And look what's happened now. Many actually favour Usyk over Lennox Lewis in a hypothetical.

True or not, when you get to around 6'5", your stamina starts to suffer. Lewis could never jab n' glide like Ali or Holmes. Nor was he as durable. Exceptional, medium-sized heavies are less common, but Usyk has made a fine argument that they're the ideal size - a fighter not quite in the realm of greatness as a Louis or Ali.

 

Perhaps the part about Usain is off base, but the rest is right.

 

What is xenophobic about my statement? What I said is factual about Jessie Owens and the conditions he ran. As far as Usain goes, my statement was more about propping up Jessie than putting down Usain, although I see how it can be considered a slight at Usain.

 

Muhammad Ali obliterates Hunter because of his heart and the fact that he was willing to die in the ring. This means he would've done whatever it takes to win. Nobody knows whether Hunter has retired or not because he is so inactive; they're two different worlds entirely. A man who stopped a prime George Foreman and Frazier, and has an Olympic gold medal, would have no problems against a fringe contender from one of the worst eras in HW history.

 

The Jamaican sugar cane cutter comment was just weird to me.

 

To make Jamacian rum, they need sugar cane.

 

What does Hunter do better than Ali?

He is not as fast as Ali. He is not as good a combination puncher. He does not absorb body punches as well as Ali. He does not have a track record of stopping super durable fighters like Ali did.