Could Mohammad Ali (in his prime) compete with the boxers of today?

Whacked below the belt, yes. Not much in terms of clean blows.

 

Oh my God, never thought of that. Could you imagine with all the media outlets we have today lol.

 

I will always respect 95% of poster's opinions on the classic here. They've strived in helping know virtually all of my knowledge of the fighters of yester year, but for myself I'm in a slightly transitional period of evaluating against them in the modern game. For one it isn't fair, there's no doubt about that, in the same sense that's it's hardly fair to compare someone like Jeffries, fitzsimmons or Johnsin against someone like Louis, because he came around 30/40 years after them. I rate Frazier and Ali at no.6 and no.2 in terms of greatness, but with all due respect, a fighter at 205 pounds was clearly Ali's equal, proven over 3 fights, I have no reason not to believe someone like Joshua, Wlad or Lewis who have 40+ pounds on Frazier and might almost inconclusively punched as hard and as quick as him couldn't do the exact same if not better. Greatness is one thing, but matching someone against ATGs (Wlad and Lewis atleast) that hit their primes 40 years after him couldn't handle him. Just my two cents.

 

Also the whole phycological warfare that Ali played shouldn't really be taken into account here. Considering people would have knowledge of all the bull**** prize fighters have chatted over the years, to think Ali would suddenly be able to get under their skin is ludicrous. In this day and age Ali would literally be labelled as a racist.

 

If Ali could compete in more recent eras I would have expected an Ali sized heavyweight to become champion at some point but in 22 years none have reached the top of the division

 

yeh, so message that was conveyed to you earlier was if you repeat fails again and again they are still fails just as much as first time.

 

huh? Holyfield was naturally smaller than Ali, and reached the top of the division. Hell, even an average fighter like Brewester put away Wladamir.

 

Well, Foreman crushed Frazier and Norton in 4 rounds combined. Frazier and Norton gave Ali very hard fights and went the distance with him 5 times out of 6, winning 2 of those 6 fights.

Yet Ali beat Foreman, who was 4 inches taller and 15-20 lbs heavier than a peak Frazier. Styles make fights, don't they? Lewis and Wlad do not have the crouching style, consistent body punching or the furious workrate of a prime Frazier even though they are harder punchers and bigger men.

The comparison between Fitz/Corbett/Jeffries and Louis are different. The likes of Fitz and Jefferies and Johnson have very little clear footage available on them. Louis was filmed in clear film at his best. Plus, boxing was in his early days in gloved form and techniques were still developing and the sport was still evolving.

By the time Ali emerged, the sport had evolved as much as it was ever going to evolve. So the comparison is not the same.

 

The idea that boxing is constantly evolving is comical. No sane person would argue that the 2000's or the 2010's was a better era for heavyweights than the 1990's, for example. Its outright comical.


Boxing evolved a lot in the first 30-40 years of its existence. After that, it evolved as much as it was ever going to. Joe Louis was a revolutionary in that sense. I don't think a combination puncher can get any better than Louis (combination of handspeed, power, and accurary), nor can you get a faster heavyweight than Ali, nor a more destructive overall specimen than Foreman, or a better pressure endurance based pressure fighter than Frazier. You can get guys as good in the modern era (though there are none at the moment). But as i said, boxing has evolved to its maximum capacity and did so decades ago.

 

A very valid point.

 

yeah a certain Evander Holyfield only existed in my imagination. Very valid indeed.

 

Evander's last year as lineal and unified champ was in 1994.

And Foreman was lineal until 1997. Since then all lineal champs have been big (of course, Foreman was big himself, but you can make the argument that he was about Ali's size in his prime).

 

2001-2017 champs under 6 foot 4

chaggy 6 foot 1

iggy 6foot 2

byrd 6 foot 1

holy 6 1

ruiz 6 2

jones 5 11

brewster 6 2

rahmn 6 2

peter 6 2

haye 6 3

stiverne 6 2

TOTAL 11

2001-2017 champs over 6 foot 3

lewis
wlad
vitali
parker
fury
valuev
martin
wilder

TOTAL 8

Both lists contain some of the weakest champions that boxing has ever known.

Now can we stop with this height shyt please?

END OF THREAD

 

Holyfield, despite being 34, was arguably still the best heavyweight as late as 1996. In fact, had Holyfield and Lewis fought in 1996 or even 1997, i would have favoured Holyfield to win, and i am not the only one who would do this. Besides, would any sane person argue that a prime Holyfield could not have been champion in the last 20 years when far lesser guys won belts during this time? Come on

 

None of the guys you mentioned were champs in the sense of being the worlds best heavyweight. Holding a belt doesn't make you number one.