This content is protected The comment section is damn crazy,one reply says Liston and Foreman is more accomplished than Ali,one says he's overrated cus he was modern hw sized in a small era and Mike would beat him,etc... Many also underrates Frazier a ton,saying he wasn't on the level of Mike yet he beat Ali.....
Firstly,how in the world does Foreman and Liston's resume had more substance than Ali? Like fellas,do you think beating small man Patterson and kind of arrogant Moorer as your career's best win proves better...than beating a hungry and young Earnie Shavers when you're already washed up with early signs of Parkinsons? Secondly: he's not modern hw sized bruh, he's literally the size of a current cruiserweight and he beat some people his size/bigger than him, Mike did struggle beating the likes of Tillis, Tucker and he went to the distance with Mitch fraking Green! And Mike was supposed to have better power than Ali! Third and maybe the last:my man... Frazier and Tyson were different but I can assure you Frazier wasn't lower than Mike, Frazier excelled in infighting and had a good slip and duck rate as a hw,he starts slower than Mike but picks you up fast near the 3rd or 4th round,he also had better stamina and arguably paces better too, meanwhile Mike was a counter-fighter that preferred middle range,picking his shots in a somewhat higher pace than Frazier,but that requires even more superior conditioning and causes him to fade quickly...
"there is a fight that gives us a glimpse of what it might've looked like." I pretty much checked out @that point.
I guess so,comparing Tyrell Biggs to Muhammad Ali is like comparing a dogcrap with an ancient asteroid found in Greek whatever years ago.
