Ali vs skilled super heavyweights

It's the norm for a 27 year old former Olympian and defending heavyweight titlist to make big improvements?

 

Out of curiosity, was it you who said that Golovkin is as technically skilled as McCallum was?

 

I don't see how prime Liston stops prime Ali and because I don't think he stops him, the speed disparity of punch and feet means that I would favour Ali to swell him up just like in their first fight and take over from the middle rounds. A prime Liston doesn't quit and still has success to the body, but I believe that a 67 Ali has enough ring-knowhow to see him through.

Frazier did beat Ali when he was closest to his prime and I see it as one of those fights that a fighter like Ali had to lose to learn something. Arguably the Ali that faced Foreman likely beats/does better versus the Frazier of that night - if primed, I like Ali to beat him and well, would always favour him in a series.

Foreman's flaws are so pronounced in hindsight to the Ali of the fight - the context of the fight however still suggests that Foreman fought him the way that he was supposed to - the way that he destroyed Frazier and Norton.

I think that Ali didn't consistently throw with the variety of other HW greats, but what he did do with great skill was throw his own excellent jab and quality right hand whether in a 1-2 or as a lead. I refer to Bruce Lee's "I fear the man who has practiced one kick a thousand times than the man who has practice a thousand kicks once" or something along those lines. Again, I can evidence film of him jabbing to the body and hooking as a counter shot as he pivots and angles off. Defensively, in his prime, he wasn't really tagged a lot out of lack of defensive skill, I see a lot of instances where he is tagged as he is noncholant. When the stakes were higher against more powerful opposition, he is evidently more alert and demonstrates better defensive ability. Now, arguably, I would caveat this by saying the best examples are versus Liston, excessive clinching versus Frazier in the second fight and against Foreman - perhaps, against elite fighters his defensive skill looks best versus a type of fighter? I'm open to accepting that. However, I do believe that in his prime, his footwork and angles, the way that he tucks the chin behind the shoulder when jabbing to the body and angling off as he slips punches make me believe that he would be harder to tag on a H2H basis than you do.

Perhaps, an underrated part of his defence was his ability to roll with punches and turn his head, lessening their impact?

I agree that Holmes had a greater, more consistent arsenal - I'm not sure if he was just as durable, although I am talking very minute differences, if any. That Ali beat a greater level of opponent is without question.

Lewis and Wlad did have a better arsenal - Joe Louis, Joe Walcott, Mike Tyson, Bowe, Holyfield, Douglas all had more complete arsenals - I'd still fancy Ali to win a best of series against these fighters.

He hurt Liston - you don't put stock in the fight. I guess where we differ is that I believe that he would likely drop decisions to Lewis, possibly Wlad, Bowe and Vitali - I would favour Ali to adapt and win a series versus these guys based on the intangiables demonstrated and the quality of the wins on his record. You disagree with my belief - I take a leap of faith that he could because of what he proved in the ring - you also take a leap of faith that they could beat him despite not having evidence that they could beat a fighter on his level in his prime.

I rate Norton higher than many others seemingly do. I am convinced that he was a very good boxer and with his physique and strength would think that he could transport into most eras very well, provided he could protect his chin from the absolute strongest of punchers.

Frazier was more than a left hook only type of guy. I think his right hand at mid-range and inside was a lot better than given credit for.

The whole point of having a corner is to motivate and coach adjustments between rounds. Dundee did a great job and Ali survived. I was impressed by the Ali that came off of his toes and fought with more economical movement, slipping both inside and outside the Liston jab and peppering him with good jabs (which Liston did slip a few of, to be fair) and flurried him into covering up and swelled his face up.

Lewis, Wlad and Vitali carried more power than Ali. Their beating up Terrell faster than an Ali did does not have a bearing on my consideration of a H2H between themselves and Ali.

I completely agree about a man with a casue to fight for. It is this cause or will to win/excel that gives me the belief that he would find a way.

I think it is well documented that Ali divided mainstream opinion, where middle America wasn't ready to receive a man of a different religion, as outspoken and defiant as Ali. Whether the foundations of his beliefs were right or wrong, history has fallen favourably on his side about Vietnam. Some of his speech against White people and against his own brothers e.g. Frazier especially, are very unsound and I am happy that an older Ali acknowledged his wrongdoings.

On a balance of things, I see a fighter whose character is perhaps greater than his fighting ability, but his fighting ability is nevertheless proven on paper and whose record of opponents is unmatched by any other fighter in the history of his weight division.

 

It definitely is. The best HW I've seen doing it.

 

That wasn't me. Sounds like Mendoza.

Regarding heavyweight titlists of the last 50 years who noticeably improved after a few defenses, I can think of Wlad, Lewis, and Wilder. The first two switched to Steward and the latter was badly inexperienced when he won a title. I don't think there are any others, unless Ali counts.

 

Liston in the late 1950's to early 1960's was a much faster fighter on film, so the fight would have been more competitive. Ali did not beat Liston at his best. Looking back Ali was a 10-1 underdog, and with reason as Henry Cooper nearly KO'd him with a left hook and some felt Doug Jones out boxed him. The people of the times probably thought how the heck is he going to take Liston's left hook if Cooper did that, and if Doug Jones nearly out boxed him, good luck with Liston's jab.

Liston's true age for the first Ali fight was a bit of a mystery, and the did he really hurt his shoulder? The first fight I think was a quit job, the second an tank job. I do agree though, Liston had problems with cuts and swelling.

I think the Frazier of 1971 beats any version of Ali. You could say Ali's peak was 1967, I could say Frazier's peak was the late 1960's, but we can't change how the fighter looked in time. Ali in the 1960's did not know how to clinch, and he needed that to later beat Frazier.

I scored Ali vs Frazier 1 9-6 for Frazier, but on a 10 point must system Frazier has two 10-8 rounds ( 11 and 15 ), so its a wide UD win. Frazier's steam quickly evaporated after this fight. His trainer wanted him to retire.

Aren't most big punchers flaws hidden for a while?

Ali seldom hooked to the head or body, and seldom did used an uppercut. Once in a while he jabbed to the body, but didn't see it in most of his fights . When he looked awkward with the hook for sure. I don't think Bruce Lee and Ali were any bit alike outside of speed. Lee was rather versatile and always in shape, Ali somewhat limited in attack, and not always in shape. Of course, Lee was a movie star, and really doesn't belong in this conversation, but I'll talk about him for a moment as speed can be misunderstood.

I'll use anecdotal evidence to explain what I'm talking about. I took Taekwondo as a teenager, boxing was completely out of the question with my parents. Not to insult anyone who practices Taekwondo, but it was a very basic type of martial arts, not practical in many cases. Its a promotional belt system for children/teenagers designed to make $$$. Anyway I was scheduled to go for my black belt, and pulled out of it when I learned I have to register myself at the police station. This meant if I was ever in a fight, I would be could legally liable. My master was absolutely furious with this decision! You see to him the more black belts the better for his prestige. He often had his black belts teach for free. So he asked to see me and told me to bring my gear 1 hour before class. I thought he was kicking me out of the class. Much to my surprise when I entered the building he was there with two other masters whom I recognized from the regional tournaments. He asked me to dress up and spar with him. Fine, I was significantly bigger, younger and a bit faster, though he was rather quick himself for a guy in his late 50's. Plus this unannounced ambush pissed me off. I thought to myself this was my black belt test. We probably went at it for two minutes, the early part was all me. I recall catching him early to the chest and him flying backward to one of the walls. Then he started beating me to the punch or kick, or blocking and attacking in an instant to the point where I could not score close or at mid-range in the second half, forcing me to retreat to long range only which wasn't working out well either. It was if the old man could read my mind. I thought about tackling him and wrestling him to the ground, but with the other two masters looking on, maybe they would take that the wrong way. Finally one of the two masters screamed something in Korean and it was over with a bow. Two things I'll remember, first he said you could have been one of my best students, but you chose a path with no limitations and no growth, and he asked that I never used what I have learned unless I had to. Okay sure. Secondly and this also applies to boxing, he said I wasn't that fast, and that's why he was able to better me. Huh? I did not understand him. One of the Korean masters said something in Korean and motioned to my master, and then it was explained to me again. There are two types of speeds. One is physical, but the most important speed is mental speed in attack and defense. To truly be fast you need to be good at both. That was my last lesson, I was more interested in football, girls, and such. I really didn't fully understand him until the next day. Then I got it. What good is speed if someone sees something 1/2 second before you do, or doesn't have to think about what he needs to do next, but just does it on muscle memory and repetition alone? Or better yet, knows exactly what you are going to do, and has a counter planed. Most of the best boxers are very smart. Ali, I think understood this too.

I think Holmes was just and tough and durable. Maybe even tougher than Ali as he beat Norton with a torn muscle, and never complained about anything.

I still say anyone with a similar skill set to Norton is going to beat Ali, and if they are taller, longer, and better punchers as all skilled super heavyweights are, Ali's in over his head, and would need the TKO.KO to win.

 

Liston is a faster fighter 1958 - 1962ish and I believe that a combination of the Patterson fights as well as the Cooper KD were the worst things that could have happened to Liston, as they would likely have led to him underestimating a young, as yet, unproven Ali. Cooper KD'd him and Ali was up at the count of 4 or 5 - I wouldn't call it nearly knocking him out in the literal sense of a 10 count but it's semantics.

Like you, I see Liston doing better in the first fight than given credit for. Liston was landing straight rights to the body and made an effort to commit to the body when he saw that Ali was temporarily vulnerable. However, Ali's headmovement and footmovement made Liston miss a lot of the jabs and rights that were aimed at the head. Stylistically, I believe that a prime Ali would have always been too great for a Liston to overpower, outbox and overcome.

I take Liston at his word with the injured shoulder. The force with which he threw his jab and the way that Ali stepped backwards and slipped that shot, I could envisage Liston overreaching once or twice and feeling a twinge. Ali made him miss a lot of jabs that night - it's not impossible. Ali didn't beat the very best version of Liston, but then again, young lion, old lion - it usually is the case that the young great beats the old great and then we end up debating the hypotheticals of prime versus prime.

I have thought about this very carefully since we began the debate. I do think that a slightly faster Ali of 1967 with more stamina, a quicker reflex and better legs doesn't try to knock Frazier out in the first several rounds and is more content to box and move. At the same time, I agree with the sentiment and acknowledge that the dynamics of the fighters and their styles means that Ali probably had to lose to THAT Frazier to add to his game.

A great performance from both fighters - Frazier was the better man that night but it feels ironic in that Ali seemed to physically/mentally gain from the fight, whilst Frazier was arguably never as good.

Yeah - I suppose you're right. I find it harsh to criticise Foreman too strongly for this fight. Ali was supposedly there for the taking. George cut off the ring extremely well and in his head, he probably thought that he had Ali submissive against the ropes and the stoppage was inevitable. Again, here, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The first punch he throws against Liston is a counter hook - you're right, it does look awkward because of how it lands as he's turning. He often did throw a hook and his uppercut as slappyish punches, as if he didn't want to commit technique to the punch and stand in front of his man where he was vulnerable to the counter. He ended the Quarry fight with a nice uppercut and hook combo and the hook on Bonavena was a very good punch. In his prime, he did, however, mix his jab between head and body - primary focus on the head, as always with Ali, but he did jab to the body - he had the legs to do it. That he virtually didn't do it post-exile for me is perhaps him realising his comparative lack of legs to his younger self.

I only brought up Lee as I thought the quote apt for the discussion about complete arsenals. Whilst, I acknowledge that many HW fighters were complete in their offence than Ali, I would still make Ali to be a more effective fighter than many of them purely because the sum of what he did was greater than the sum of what many of they did as offensive fighters when I compare their performance versus his performance against top fighters of their respective eras, juxtaposed with said competion ranked historically.

Boxing, Muay Thai and Krav Maga myself - I know exactly what you mean. Two things though:

• I think you would have likely been angered or at least, not relaxed when having that session with your master. This would likely have impacted your physical and mental speed. Made you telegraph more, made him read you a bit better and also made you more non-committed to actual punch delivery than you believed at the time?
• In his prime, Ali feinted with head, hand, foot and shoulder making his punch unpredictable at times. Not the actual punch thrown - you could pretty much guess that it was going to be a jab or a right cross, but the timing of when he was going to throw it made it perhaps harder to read. Maybe, I also need to qualify this by recognising that it was predominantly against fighters that he had a clear speed and height advantage over.

I like Holmes - I think over his career, he was more consistent than Ali. It's just that he doesn't have the level of fighters on his record that Ali beat and at their very best, I think Ali is a better, less complete, but better fighter. It's my preference and I know that I could be wrong but I'm comfortable with my choice.

I get your point with Norton - I don't think a prime, motivated and in-shape Ali loses a series to Norton as he did in real life if we score correctly. I do get your point, though. The one thing the premise of that last statement infers that I disagree with is that these taller, longer and better punchers are as consistent in body attack, as good at catching the jab and countering with their own jab and stepping in as Norton was.

I additionally don't think that a prime Ali can be in over his head with anybody - tough fights, sure, lose some fights in a series, I have already said that and strongly believe that there are fighters, like Frazier, possibly Tyson, Marciano, Dempsey, Vitali, Lewis, Wlad, Louis that he could lose the first fight in a series to H2H, but I see enough in his career to lead me to believe that he could adjust and find his way to take a series. I believe that this is where we differ the most.

 

I agree, I had it 3-2-1 for Ali.

I do not. The joke on the x ray was who's shoulder was it? When did Liston have the injury? Ali began to take it to him and Sonny either opted out, or chose moment for the fix. We'll never know, but does the film show when Liston was fighting with a hurt shoulder or not?

The second fight was clearly a dive by Liston with bad acting.

The 1970's Ali was stronger, mentally tougher, and didn't let his ego get in the way of doing what he needed to do to win. Ali lacked the power to keep guys off. Forget Frazier, Chuvalo, and some lower lever guys made him do things he did not want to do in the ring. I agree, the loss thought Ali a thing to two. Did Ali have better stamina in 1967? Maybe a little, but Frazier's pressure and body punching took the steam out of Ali in 1971.

Yep.

I think a bit less of the 1970's Foreman every five years or so. Suppose this was the only film on Foreman, people would feel he's greatly over rated. Foreman just wasn't very good vs solid boxers with some defense.

Agreed.

This is where we see it differently, yes Ali was greater than the sum of his parts, however whatever intangibles he had were not enough to show well vs. the better jabbers he faces, and I think that would be the same case vs Wlad, Lewis or Vitali who hit hard enough to make Ali be careful, and had natural advantages that Ali often enjoyed such as height and reach over Ali. Like I said before, which decision did Wlad, Lewis, or Vitlai every lose before the age of 39? Pretty impressive, this shows you have to out punch them, out boxing won't work.

I think Krav Maga should not be taught to just anyone. Its the submarine of martial arts, dirty and underhanded. Most of that stuff isn't even allowed in the MMA.

My master took advantage of his students. Yes, I was pissed with this ambush. Looking back, he knew what I could do, but I only saw him really work when giving the black belt tests himself. He had 30+ years of doing this, I was 17. Taekwondo is very basic. I think they had 8 moves, most of which were kicks, so using this " system " a really experienced practitioner could tell what you are going to, how to block it and what to do next in addition to balance stuff needed for recovery. Of course he should win, maybe he started slow by design, but wasn't toward the end of the session. Maybe he was conning me to continue with the lessons. Some things in life you'll just never know, but like I said 17 is a special time. I wanted to play football, date girls, hang out, ect...

A pity Holmes never fought Foreman, Lyle ( in the 1970's ) or Young, because he'd beat all three and look better than Ali did. His resume until he aged was decent and undefeated.

Holmes was far more consistent, and he just didn't have the charisma needed to turn the tides and look good while doing it. For example, when Shavers landed a bomb that sent Holmes flying down to the canvas, what happened? Holmes got up and easily won the rest of his fight with his feet and faster skills. Shavers badly hurt Ali, I'm not even sure about the cards, and Ali had to act his way out of it. You could probably say Holmes did better vs common opponents in Shavers, Berbick, and Norton, though Ali was older in these matches

Last point, Ali preferred guys to come to him unless they were much shorter and over matched. This works when you are taller and longer, but in a boxing sense does not really work when you are shorter, with less reach. The mountain he would face, combined with his style preference, and having to respect the power of these super heavies wouldn't help him on the score cards. We'll see. I know some older guys who still think 200-215 pounds is ideal, Louis and Ali fans mostly. They don't embrace Povetkin or Usyk, but should either beat Joshua or Wilder, watch how quickly they jump on them!

 

I would think he could have tweaked the shoulder in the first round potentially when he was reaching the most with the jab, after this, I don't think he reached as much. At the same time, I am mindful that in the first round, Ali's headmovement was more exaggerated so perhaps he makes it look like Liston reaches and misses more than he actually did. Maybe, Liston felt a niggle and was looking for excuses to quit when he realised that Ali had turned up the tide and he was a lot stronger and harder to tag than he had initially believed.

Up until Norton - do we know that he was mentally tougher than he was when he put his career on the line in 1967? Or do we infer it from his showing against a better calibre of fighter and things like continuing against Norton with his busted jaw, getting up from Frazier in the 15th, Foreman, taking Shavers' punches and somehow staying up? I think it's a bit of both - I am always of the opinion that adversity doesn't make you tougher, it simply uncovers what was always there.

One thing Chuvalo was, he was strong. I'm of the opinion that throughout his career, Ali fought to the level of the perception of the threat. There are fights like Foster, Chuvalo, Folley where Ali completely disregards his usual defensive tendencies for moments in the fight. These moments get him caught and this is where I criticise him.

I think a 1967 is another level of stamina to Ali of 1971 - maybe not offensively, hard to tell, but definitely in mind, with his feet and overall movement, as well as his co-ordination. Frazier's style would have always posed a nightmare for Ali - I will admit that gladly - I do see a 1967 Ali timing him better from the outside, but am happy to admit that Frazier may have always beaten him in their first fight, no matter which version of Ali, whether 1971, 1967 or 1974 faces THAT version of Smokin' Joe.

Harsh - I won't argue with you on this one and then I thought "Suppose the only film we had of Lewis was the first Rahman fight?" I get your point, but I think I am happy that Foreman was a wrecking machine who had the tables turned on him in a manner that very few would have predicted at the time. The great thing about Foreman is his loss comes to the greatest HW of them all, in my humble opinion, added to his second career and recapture of the title, I judge him less harshly than you do.

You take a leap of faith based on the evidence of their not being outboxed by a long list of contenders who weren't the fighter Ali was. I take a leap of faith based on the evidence of his career and his ability to overcome. Admittedly, the physical factors lie with Wlad, Lewis and Vitali - the intangiables and pedigree lie with Ali, for me. I take a leap of faith here with not much to back it up other than my argument of he never beat fighters like them to which I retort that they never beat a fighter like him - poorer copies, yes, but not Ali.

What say you to my contention that to match fighters of this level up, you have to hypothetically give them the same constraints and advantages of their respective eras and extrapolate what you can from their primes and intangiables demonstrated across their careers in order to be able to theorise what might have happened in a H2H?

Genuinely, it isn't, well, not proper, undiluted Krav with a serious instructor to my experience. MMA is a sport, Krav is about survival in life and death situations. Having background in boxing and muay thai, I took to it well, but you soon realise that you will hopefully never use what you are shown.

Sounds like your master was more concerned with his ego than genuinely producing the next generation of experts. From a sport point of view, I enjoy watching Tae Kwon Do - in the street, I would always revert to muay thai and boxing.

I'm glad that you qualified that Ali was older - Berbick is off the table for discussion. I very rarely look at common fighters fought as one inevitably fights a better version than the other that they are being compared to; one fighter is usually younger facing an older fighter than the fighter that they are being compared to.

I agree that Holmes was more consistent and I actually love his WWE moment from the car roof. I still crack up when I see it. Holmes deserved to come into an era removed from the charisma and media hype job of Ali's. I think people didn't forgive him for beating their hero in Ali and also that he didn't have Ali's personality.

Any fighter weighing over 190lbs can arguably knock out anyone that's ever lived if they have the requisite heavy handedness, speed and snap, proper technique and sneakiness to land the punch in a manner where the opponent doesn't see it coming. I think you find that more modern Ali and Louis fans like myself argue that the fighters were perfectly suited to the requirements of their era. They did things like wood chopping as opposed to specific weight training. The larger fighter today is in part due to growth hormones in food, better understanding of nutrition, employment of sports science, 12 rounds rather than 15, natural generational size gains, lazier training methods and ethic in many ways, less active career fighters amongst other factors. I am utterly convinced that if you take an Ali, Louis, Foreman, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Holmes etc. and have them born in the 1970s and early 1980s, give them the same natural qualities and have them train with the benefits of a more modern era, they weigh more than they did in their prime. I would also then argue that they wouldn't necessarily be better skilled than they were simply due to my belief that there is a real lack of elite trainers today and moreso a lack of elite skill amongst the HWs, who by default have always been the least skilled division historically.

 

This is my point - born in later eras, with the same natural abilities, do they not receive the benefits of generation size gains, better access to good nutrition and improved nutrional knowledge, better sports science, arguably PEDs?

Is it also arguable that with the sums involved in other, more popular sports and the decline in boxing clubs and good trainers that the talent pool in boxing is smaller than the talent pool of 30, maybe 50 years ago? If so, how does this impact the era of today's bigger SHW fighter in terms of skills and ringcraft?

 

If size was the end all Mayweather shouldn't have beaten Alvarez ,Jones jr. Should've never beaten Ruiz, Spinks shouldn't have been able to compete with Holmes, Holyfield shouldn't have been able to beat Bowe at all, or give Lewis a fight way past his prime ,Leonard shouldn't have been able to compete with Lalonde. Robinson shouldn't have been able to dominate Maxim until heat exhaustion. Their are plenty of examples through out boxing history were the more skilled smaller fighter was able to compensate for their size disadvantages by just being more capable skill wise. Being able to fight on on an ATG level more than compensate for any size disadvantages relative to a certain division when the opponent is fighting on a novice level. It's that simple. So yes A Wilder or Joshua is physically bigger than Ali. But Mentally they would be amateurs compared to him being a seasoned pro. Different more physical training, better competition would more than make up for the size differences .

 

I'd favor Ali over Vitali due to it being an awkward night but it's close. He will struggle with Vitalis style.

Ali beats Wladimir by close decision. Pre prison Ali would be slipping all of Wlads jabs and outworking him with his far superior footspeed helping him move in and out of range but it would probably be an boring fight with a lot of clinching. Wlads size definitely throws him off though

Ali beats Joshua comfortably LOL and dont say i have rose tinted glasses because im one of the only ones in the classic forum that claims that the super herculean 6'4+ 240+ pound heavyweights nowawdays would nightmarish for the smaller 70s heavyweights. Joshua heavily struggles with slicksters, movement and significantly smaller heavyweights. put all 3 together and it's a bad style match up for him.

Lewis vs Ali is 50/50.

 

Loses to Vitali, Wlad, and Lewis. He probably tko’s a gassed AJ late