Ali vs Wlad/Lewis/Vitali... how does he win?

@ Cuchulain.

You're going over points which you think are well founded and meticulous, but they simply aren't.

Ali leans forward while throwing his jab - OK, so he gains an inch of reach while substituting an inch of height - meaning the overall "gain" against a taller fighter is not there.


If we're counting Ali was 6'3 then Wlad is 6'7. Ali was 6'2 and a half. Wlad is 6'6 and a half. Wlad comes in the majority of his fights these days at 245lbs, Ali around 215 in the time period we're talking.

So, arguing in favour of Ali's reach - it is not there, especially considering the way Wlad uses his height advantage by leaning back out of range.

You're basically believing that Ali can find a home for his jab when no other fighter has been able to against Wlad. The fights Wlad has lost is because the guy has either run completely out of steam (Brewster), been caught early and not known how to recover (Purrity) or simply been hit by a huge puncher (Sanders), Wlad has never been hit consistently by a jab, despite noted jabbers like Chagaev and Ibragimov fighting him.

Believing that Ali is quicker than any other fighter at HW today is a possibility, but then you need to look at his muscle composition and the fact that he is no where near the hitter of the HW's today. Take Chris Byrd who had speed advantages over the majority of fighters he faced and in the earlier years, a tonne of speed - he never had the power required to make it count.

The fights that Terrell won against "good" opposition was the issue that most fighters have with giants, getting in past the jab. Terrell's jab was not as skillful as Wlad's but it WAS skillful enough to deal with fighters who were 6 inches shorter and didn't have much beyond a power game to win with (Chuvalo, for instance) - are you attempting to claim that Terrell is anywhere near as good technically as Wlad is and has the same defensive ability as Wlad? I don't see it.

Every single one of your arguments has limited fighters like Norton and Terrell suddenly becoming as skillful as Wlad, when anyone with a brain and eyes can see the difference in speed of delivery and ability to hold off fighters.

Wlad is not "fast for a guy his size" - Wlad is "fast for a heavyweight fighter" according to Manny Steward and review the fight footage, he generally is the faster fighter in the ring despite being the bigger fighter.

Similar to Ali in a way, Ali being so lightning fast and usually the bigger reach meant he could capitalise on the opponent. Terrell was never considered a fast fighter, just an awkward fighter due to his size and reach - ala Carnera, ala Valuev.

Infact, lots of parallels can be drawn between Valuev and Terrell.

To believe Wlad is so inadequate means you have to discount every single boxer he's faced in the last 5 years as being incapable, despite their amateur backgrounds combined with their professional backgrounds.

To believe Ali is so precise means you have to disregard the fact that he lost to Norton, Frazier and had his fight with Foreman at a younger age than Wlad is now and that he was so far past his physical peak (despite no wars and despite his great conditioning when he came back) and believe his dominance over limited fighters was evidence that his speed was so much greater in 67' than it was in 71 or 74.

You basically have to throw doubt on every opponent like Ibragimov, Brewster (II and in a way, I where Wlad dominated before running out of steam), Chagaev, etcetera while believing the Terrels, Pattersons, Listons (who had money issues and every reason to throw the fights) were so far above them.

That's not realistic, in my view. You take them against their toughest/most proven challengers.

Ali vs Frazier, Foreman, Norton and Liston
vs
Wlad vs Byrd, Brock, Brewster, Peter, Rahman and Chagaev.

And when you take the fact that the guys Ali had the most struggles with were the fast moving tall heavyweights, and realise Wlad has been so dominant in his prime - you start realising a few things, or at least you should.

As for seeing the fights as they happened in 65 - all that goes to show me is that you remember the retirement of Ali and the greatness of what people believed he was at the time, that clouds your judgement when it comes to the actual fights.

 

I'm repeating the things because I don't think they're adequately defeated in any point you've made. It's like people have a different idea of what Ali's boxing style was to what he actually boxed like.

Also, you have to discount all of the advances in technology in things like fight analysis, fight science, ability to scrutinise your faults as well as your opponents, nutrition, strength increase - all things that have effected every single sport.

Take a look at the Roy Jones Jr vs Ruiz fight and have a look at the size difference in that fight. Jones Jr has to be considered as fast as Ali, if not faster, right? See the tactics he had to employ against the much bigger man?

Do you think Ruiz is as good technically or as fast as Wlad is?

Can Ali adjust from being a big HW in his day to a relatively small HW in todays age? I don't see it against fighters like Wlad. You say size doesn't matter but the cliche remains - a good big man will always beat a great small man.

It's why MW was a step too far for Tito and Oscar. It's why RJJ despite being so superb was never going to be a challenge for Lennox Lewis, It's why Floyd Mayweather Jr would likely lose to Paul Williams (although I dispute this, I can see the rationale for it)

When you have such a big size advantage and you're not hindered by it in the way other fighters are, it generally ends in you dominating your era - Thomas Hearns, Bernard Hopkins was a big middleweight, Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, even Ali himself.

As for P4P - I don't really rate it as relevant either, not in todays age where there are so many divisions and guys argue over a two pound catchweight difference.

 

It's nostalgia combined with "No American boxers can compete, therefore boxing must be ****"

Boxing is now a worldwide sport and one where money thrown into fighters doesn't neccessarily reap the rewards (Lacy, Taylor, Brewster, Guinn) so we don't produce the super athletes we do in athletics were the money spent on our athletes gives us such an advantage over near everyone else (as shown by China surging up the rankings the moment they started funding athletics)

European fighters rule the roost, because they're extremely intelligent, improve their techniques, come in the right conditioning and have to fight a hell of a lot longer, a hell of a lot harder to find the money that American fighters get the moment they show a little bit of prospect about them.

In order for Ali to beat Wlad, Wlad has to become the guy who lost to Purrity and that's what you see when people make statements like "Ali is so far ahead of Wlad in skill" - when realistically, Ali used his size to his advantage in the majority of his fights.

You have to disregard every single factor around sport science, fight analysis, training knowledge - everything, in order to believe Ali beats Wlad - and believe that boxing (and boxing alone) is the only sport that performance hasn't improved in.