1967 Muhammad Ali vs. 2007 Wladimir Klitschko

Great post!

He just can't accept that there's huge differences between athletics and boxing.

 

Ali could overcome the younger Wlad, no doubt there, the mature champion version of Wlad is much tougher. He has to drag Klitschko into a war to have any chance of a win, much the same problem Haye had and failed to do. Wlad is a very smart, clever champion who knows his limitations and strengths. 80% KO's, 23 championship fights. Younger Ali had that supreme confidence and athleticism that you can never discount, but he'd need every ounce of it to win here. 50-50 fight.

 

:good

Thankyou, timing an wlad's speed is going to catch ali time an time again, an I think the heavyier ali will take the punches better. It has been a while sence I saw ali/forman, but I think I gave George one round, I thought that was great boxing by ali, 67 you saw great speed, but really no one a threat like a forman in front of him, or a hayes.... 70's I thought had more skilled boxer on his resume.

Either way, these LADS, seem to no never seen a clay fight in the 60's, cause he did get hit, an flush it was just not a power house landing that shot, or with boxing an speed to keep doing so....

 

zaire was impressive, but it was great boxing, countering, an absorbing punches from a boxer who I say beat ali if they fought in the 60's, just cause of his fighting skills, his power, ablity to come at you an time you, an the weight ali did not have on him to take such big punches


I agree with you on tarver, that he had a weaker verison of roy, but in there first fight jones no question still had it at times, an he was still tagged, an yes pre-heavy's would of never been beat by tarver, but I think he still would of been tagged...


Hayes did not school wlad in any way or fashion, first wlad landed well an flush several times, keep in mind wlad kept the distance much better then hayed did, hence the **** load of jabs that landed on haye, over a 100. Hayes was good at being hit, an running, being hit an running that was his style an that would be 67 ali style except, wlad would need distance from ali cause he knows to close, an he will eat a combo, were wlad needed distance from hayes, were to close an he would eat a "hayemaker", I think ali combos would be much less of a threat of ending the fight, he did take some nice flush shots from hayes, later in the fight, but if you remember in the 12th, one round were he did not invade wlad, but came at him, but the end of the round he was invading again, know why, cause wlad caught him flush an hurt him, were for a second it looked as he waited to catch wlad an he had wlad in trouble with his speed an skills, were wlad BOXING SKILLS an speed caught hayes an had him on the run AGAIN....

Keep in mind, to me on the run an timing is about any boxer can do to wlad, but a 74 verison ali, could work inside much better, with the weight he had on him verse the 67, an think his speed more of a threat from not coming so far outside IMO...

To me a 67 ali would never here the bell, it would be a easier fight then people expect for wlad

 

:good

 

glover,

Again, there is no evidence that overall boxing skills have evolved.

That's simply not true. Before Ali, Walcott and Johnson were said to have good defences. Not all of the fights were slug fests. Again, you are generalising. How many of today's heavies have got great footwork and a great defence?

Who are these fitter athletes with a tight defence? All the fighters mentioned would cause a stir against today's guys.

 

glover,

No, that's not all Ali had on Wlad. He had hand speed, reflexes, footwork, chin etc.

Wlad is fast for a man of size, but he wasn't as fast as Ali. Why do you keep referring to Ali as Clay, and why do keep calling him a CW? A boxers most important tool is footwork. Because without great footwork, other attributes are limited. It's no good being the most powerful guy in the world, if you can't get off.

You're making a huge assumption that Wlad would catch Ali and hurt him. But we know a peak Wlad couldn't catch Haye clean and hurt him. Haye's got minimal movement compared to Ali. So Wlad would of had a hard time catching Ali. Ali's movement would have caused such a big man a lot of problems.

 

p4pBute,

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In the first round of "The Jungle" Ali was dancing and hitting Foreman at will, and making him miss. It was easy. But from the 2nd round onwards, he started backing himself into the ropes and letting George hit him. That was the start of his plan, and that was because he simply couldn't fight the whole fight like the 1st round. But in 1967, that would have been Ali's game plan. His game plan would have been to fight for the full 15 rounds in exactly the same way as he fought the 1st round of "The Jungle." Now if you think Big George would eventually have caught up with him, then that's fine. But I don't think that. I think his movement would have continued to frustrate George, and I think he'd have won on points staying out of harms way. I think it would have been like the 1st round of "The Jungle" x 15.

Roy still had his gifts, but he was tired. A fully fit and motivated, younger version of Roy, would have had an easier nights work in my opinion.

I never said he schooled Wlad. I said that his movement frustrated Wlad, and Wlad couldn't land clean and get him out of there, even when he had Haye on the ropes. That proves to me, that Wlad would have been seriously troubled by a 25 year old Ali's movement. Ali had much better footwork than Haye. Of course he wasn't as powerful as Haye, but with better movement, and better all-around skills, Wlad would have had his hands full. Haye fights nothing like Ali. Haye is fast, but he doesn't dance like Ali did. He doesn't circle his man, and dart in and out of range, and feint like Ali, to make a guy miss. He's static in comparison. Ali used to keep guys at range and make them off balance. Ali's footwork and movement when he was 25, were superior to Haye's in my opinion. The bottom line is, if Wlad struggled with Haye's movement, he'd definitely have struggled with Ali's.

But that's because a 74 version of Ali had to work inside. He no longer had the footwork to dart in and out of range and to circle and pop out the jab, and be able to throw fast combinations etc. He had to change his approach. His inside game wasn't as important in his 20's.

That's your opinion, and again you're entitled to it.

But I don't see how Wlad could have knocked him out, because in my opinion, Wlad wouldn't have able to catch him clean with anything.

I think Ali's movement would have been an absolute nightmare for him.

Styles make fights, and obviously Ali and Haye have completely different styles. But if Haye managed to hear the bell, then why would Ali have not been able to hear it?

That doesn't make sense to me.

It was Haye's movement that prevented him from getting knocked out.

Ali was faster with better movement, yet he wouldn't have heard the bell, and it would have been easier than people think?

I respect your opinion, but I can't agree with that.


Great debate!

 

:good

Thank for your ideas, first I want to point out something, George is a thick boxer, bigger with skills to match, great body puncher, an can absorb a punch, better then anybody ali fought in the 60's, ali hit also harder in 74. I don't think ali was as thick also in the 60's, an George also can land on a quick boxer as we saw against ali, I think he can take 67 punch a lot easier then he took the 74 punches (which he took a lot of them), I think ali legs were smaller an he just got more effected by a punch, as you could see in a lot of his fight when he was clowning around, after being hit, he would start getting back in serious mode....Why? cause they effected him, these were guys weighing in on the average of 195, not 220 or wlads 240+.....



You say hayes frustrated wlad, I say you can't lose every round, run every round, stay in reach of the guy punching you reach, while you yourself are out of range, land only one punch in a round, an say you are frustrating him. Ali would be in the same boat, he would need to move in an move out, an this is without being hit to offen, cause a 67' ali wiskers was not so sold as 74'.

The reason I say ali does not hear the bell is, he does not hit as hard as haye, less for wlad to look out for, an he was smaller, would not take the punch so well. Plus ali throws a lot more punches, an wlad got great timing, an a great counter puncher, when hayes did let go the few times, he was countered by wlad, case in point round 12 in there fight....

 

p4pBute,

I agree that George could have absorbed a punch better than anyone who Ali faced in the 60's. Ali was a little thicker in the 70's, but he'd filled out in 67, and looked in peak condition. In 67, he was a lot stronger than when he was fighting the likes of Cooper in 63. In 67, he was a 25 year old man, and no longer a young kid. But the reason he was thicker in the 70's, was because it was harder for him to lose weight. He'd been off for three years, and his style had changed, and that mixed in with natural ageing, it was too much for him. When he was training in Zaire, he was running 45 mins per day in old army boots. I'm sure you've seen it, it's quite a famous clip. He lifts his sweater up, pinches his stomach and grabs a little bit of fat. He says to the camera "I can't get this off, no matter what I do".

You say that we saw George land on a quick boxer in Ali. But George couldn't get near Ali in the first round. He was being timed, and he was missing wildly. The only reason we saw George pound Ali, is because Ali let him. That was his whole "Rope a dope" strategy. George couldn't get near him, and then in the 2nd round, Ali started backing himself into the ropes to get hit. Now I'm in complete agreement that a 25 year old Ali wouldn't have been able to take those shots as well, but the thing is, he would never have needed to, because he'd have been up on his toes. I don't think Ali would have hurt George in 67, or stopped him, but I think he'd have won on points.

I meant he frustrated him, in the sense that Wlad wanted to make him his 50th knockout victim, especially because of Haye's antics with the tee shirt etc. I think Ali at 25 would have been able to move in and out fast and score points. Ali's objective would have been to win on points, scoring with quick flurries here and there, and then jumping back out of range. Haye couldn't fight like that, because he hasn't got Ali's footwork or reflexes. Haye also put up a terrible showing in my opinion, and in the whole 12 rounds, he didn't even attempt to throw a single body shot, even though his toe was apparently broken. If his toe had have been broken and he'd have had no leverage, then why was he constantly throwing his over hand right? (Lottery punch)

I can respect that. Wlad wouldn't have been as wary of Ali's power. He respected Haye's power and it made him a little cautious. But as the rounds went on, you could see that he was trying to land something big. So I agree, that Wlad would definitely have approached a fight with Ali differently. But would Ali's hand speed have made him just as cautious? Ali wasn't smaller than Haye. Wlad has got great timing, and he is good counter puncher, but he would have been facing a 6'2, 230 pound guy that moved faster than some LHW's. Wlad has simply never faced anybody with the foot speed of a 25 year old Ali. He wouldn't have been able to have counter punched someone that wasn't there. I respect your opinion. But I just can't envisage Wlad being able to cope with Ali up on his toes, constantly circling him, and switching direction in a blink of an eye. I don't think he'd have landed anything significant.

 

The plain fact is, while morons like glover like to indulge in meaningless wordplay in online wars with even bigger imbeciles, this thread can be boiled down to the below thesis. Boxing threads need some more intelligence, instead of arguing over demonstrably moot points, a thread should show the concrete arguments for why the boxing world is round, not flat. This post has gone on many many pages, and similar ones have gone on for many more, but I have yet to see one, ONE argument, that effectively answers the top three issues above, nor one that does not effectively fall into one of the typical counterarguments I list, and explain the irrelevance of, below.

Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 6 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's", with no other statements. This also includes things like blind statements of belief like "modern fighters haven't beat anyone". LL and the K's have beaten the top contenders numerous times. The records of the current era top contenders are generally better than the records of the past era top contenders. There is no reason to logically state the earlier contenders are better than current contenders, per main arguments #1-3 above. This also includes things like blind statements of belief like "you have no argument", or "I've proven this wrong", when your responses only fall into one of these categories. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.
6. "Modern HW's are crap because (someone) says so". Thanks dblfl for reminding me of this. Hitler said monogamous marriage was good, and smoking and drinking was bad, does that mean we should cheat on our wives and smoke and drink? Using someone else's belief is not proof for or against any argument. Many boxing analysts recognize the top HW's of today would beat the top HW's of yesteryear, although many of them still rank old timers higher, just as I do, for non H2H reasons. Manny Stewart is a great example, who left modern HW's off his toplist, but noted that it didn't mean he though those old timers could have beaten the modern boxers. Other analysts/trainers do state old HW's would beat modern HW's. They do that to glorify their own past accomplishments, improve sales of things they market when US was more dominant, or otherwise out of delusion. Citing another's opinion is not an argument, you need to actually use facts and logic for that.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons.

 

ali in 66 fought at about 208 an 200, 67 he was at about 210, an in 74 he was at 220, I think you can see him going up an down, but he was much thinner in the 60's. You can watch his 60's fights, he just didn't take a punch as well as he did in the 70's.... He fought much bigger people in the 70's...

The first round of there fight to me was even, were forman pinned him on the ropes an hit the body, just watched it again, an yes he made George miss, but he also nailed him several time. Now did ali look good the middle of the ring, yea but forman just didn't let him fight there.....

Needles to say if he worked ali to the ropes in the sixties, ali would not fare as well, nor would his punches mean as much, ali went to ropes by the middle of round one, before he got tired in the 74 matchup...



Hayes might of ducked a knock out, but running to me does not mean he frustrated him, he wasn't wlad's first challenger to go into survival mode after feeling the steelhammer, an he was not the first to survive 12 rounds, an he will not be the last....

To me ali survival mode would of been with many combos instead of a big punch, leaving wlad open to time him much better, sure ali going land, an I am sure a lot, but not as flush as you think, wlad rarly stepped into his jab against hayes, an that also had a effect on haye last to the end, but reason was to be able to not be caught, an those softer jabs were still hurting hayes.

Also wlad had hayes timed so well, go watch the fight, wlad had his arms down at the side for a lot the later rounds, ali would got that same bait...

 

This thread should have ended long ago. :scaredas:

 

p4pBute,

Sorry for the late reply.

In 1967 at 25 years of age, he was 211 and in perfect condition in my opinion. He was only 220 in 74, because he couldn't get to 210. I wouldn't say that he was much thinner in 67. In my opinion it was his perfect weight. He'd matured, and at 25, it's the best physique he ever had. He did fight big people in the 70's, but he fought guys like Ernie Tyrell in the 60's who was about 6'6.

I wouldn't have said that the first round was even, but it gave me an idication on how Ali would have fought him earlier. Ali was older, heavier and slower in 74. In my opinion, a 25 year old version of Ali, would have kept him in the centre of the ring all night. He was quicker, fitter and had better footwork.

I agree, but I don't think he would have worked a 25 year old version of Ali to the ropes. Ali briefly went to the ropes in the first round of "The Jungle" and then stayed there from the 2nd round. He wasn't tired at the start of the 2nd round, but there was no point wasting energy, because he needed it for later, to capitalize after George had tired himself out.

I agree to an extent. Wlad won a clear decision with no debate. But he was a little frustrated that he couldn't put him away.

I don't think Ali would have been in survival mode. I don't see how Wlad could have timed Ali, when Ali would have been constantly moving. I think that Ali's footwork would have been too much for Wlad.

I've watched the fight, but there's a world of difference between Ali and Haye. I don't think Wlad would have had his arms down by his sides to bait Ali, because I think he would have too much respect for Ali's speed.

Of course it's all subjective, and I respect your opinion. I only used Haye as an example, because he's the same height and weight as Ali, and his movement caused Wlad a few problems.

It's good that we have different opinions, that's what makes it a good back and forth debate.

I like Wlad, I think he's a good fighter. But I just can't envisage how he'd have coped with Ali's footwork.