Is Ali the No.1 h2h Heavyweight?

I would say Ali is number one, some of the reasons on here why he isn’t haven’t really been given much thought, first of all when talking about the best you have to take the fighter in his peak years so 64-67 Ali. The Cooper fight was before that when Ali was a little greener acting cocky and clowning no where near the finished article, you can put no more stock in that performance than let’s say fury struggling and really losing to McDermott even though he got the W, people can’t be saying they were fury’s peak fighting years. As far as the Norton fights are concerned Ali didn’t fight him until his 43rd professional fight that’s 18 more fight and camps than Joshua and around 12 more than fury, once again I don’t think we will be calling those the Joshua and fury peak years when they get to that fighting milestone, boxing is a hard game and wear and tear takes a toll, the fact that Norton could hardly and sometimes didn’t get past Ali when he was six years and 12 fights past his peak says that Ali would have won those encounters much easier if he was peak. Ali fought 11 hall of fame heavies more than any other beating 10 of the 11 and the other was Larry when Ali was ill with Parkinson’s and a shell. He fought 6 undisputed champions and beat everyone, he fought 9 with some claim on a heavyweight title and beat everyone of them barring Larry for the reasons we all know, he was also 11-0 in rematches, personally given all that information I think there is a great case for the number one spot.

 

Rank on a list of what?

 

This is total fantasy mate. He was ahead on the scorecards by wide margins and he was totally outboxing Byrd. He tore his shoulder man. Can't believe you think he was getting schooled or something silly like that.

 

You really think Ali was some flawless fighter in his pomp? Don't see why you can't accept that I don't buy into it. He's great, but he wasn't totally shot after he came back like so many people make out to be the case. His reputation during his prime is built more on popularity than actual greatness at this point.

 

He said Wlad was a better boxer , not a better fighter. He even says Vitali would beat his brother. Most other fighters and observers and Wlad himself thinks Vitali beats him. Bryd also rightly calls them both legends and supreme boxers.

If you disagree that is your opinion. It is just not the majority opinion.

 

Your also forgetting the fact that Patterson was literally made of glass, it would most likely look like the Hide fight.

I just completely disagree with everything you just said about quarry beating Vitali. If you made a thread about why quarry would beat Vitali I honestly even think the old nostalgic fan boys would call you a moron.

Frazier literally has no similarities to anyone Vitali fought. Vitali has the size, power, strength, chin, and skill to walk Frazier down. It would probably be a really easy night for Vitali.

Liston, the greatest h2h fighter of all time who’s best win was a glass chin Light heavyweight, and he fought in a weaker era than Vitali.

 

H2H heavyweights man, you know - the thread we're posting on right now...

 

I don't remember saying Ali was flawless?

H2H 1 simply means that if every champion fought each other 10x each, that fighter would have the most W's.

No one said he was "totally" shot after his come back but he was definitely worse athletically than in the 60's. Chuvalo fought him before and after the layoff and said there was a big difference. If you can't see it you're blind.

 

This thread isn't about if Wlad would beat Vitali it's about the fact Byrd was confident he would have beaten Vitali if the fight wasn't stopped and was confident he would beat him in a rematch.

This is about Vitali as a h2h fighter. Byrd had lots to say about their fight and gave Vitali some praise but ultimately was more impressed overall with Wladmir.

You also keep ducking what I said about Vitali's competition.

 

Muhammad Ali for me will always be no,1, had he have been permitted to box during his peak years without being banished for 43 months, rusty against Joe Frazier in 1971, he would have had a real strong case among the boxing experts. We never got a chance to see Ali fight between 1967-1970, Yank Durham was opposed to Joe Frazier fighting Ali in 1967, even though Joe was no.1 contender at the time of Ali's banishment from boxing. Yank thought that Joe was too green for Ali, who was at his absolute peak. But a shrewd move on the part of Durham, to wait and see how the draft conviction situation played out. This let Frazier gain more experience while Ali was unable to box as his license was revoked. Upon Ali's return in 1970, he was not really the same fighter at the time of his suspension. But this thread is only the opinion of the poster's.

 

He mixed up his style, but I wouldn't say he became a lot less successful after he came back. He wasn't as purely athletic as before but much cleverer and he also had tougher competition. Let's just say he wasn't out of shape and hadn't lost his sharpness, he was still quicker than pretty much anybody and moved better than anybody still too. The narrative of a declined Ali really came after the multiple wars he had in his comeback period that everyone could see took a toll on his body. People seem to attribute his losses to that period of absence even though he didn't really diminish that greatly overall as a fighter, I think it was the greater competition combined with a slight decline in raw speed.

 

No he wasn't. Patterson got knocked down and then got back up almost every time. Ingo had to knock him down like 6x to knock him out including a shot to the back of the head. Liston was the only one to brutally knock him out for the 10 count. He took blows from Bonavena and Chuvalo without getting dropped.

I said Quarry would have a chance of beating Vitali, not that he would definitely win. If you think Vitali beats Quarry 10/10 no matter what you don't get how boxing or styles work.

Vitali doesn't walk people down and he has nothing to keep Frazier off of him. Now you are starting to sound like someone who hasn't watched any of his fights. You are also wrong in claiming none of his opponents were similar. The commentators drew comparisons between Frazier and Peter but I guess they have no idea what they're looking at.

Liston would destroy Vitali. I said what I said. He would outjab him, he would destroy his body, and he would make him back up. It's a bad matchup.

 

You really don't know what you're talking about and it's clear you haven't studied the era as it unfolded. The commentators notices Ali's foot speed and reflexes were worse in his very first fights back against Quarry and Bonavena. There was no "revisionist" narrative, people noticed it immediately.

The fact Ali was quicker than anyone else in the 70's doesn't change the fact he was slower than he was in the 60's. It wasn't a "slight" decline. Like I said, opponents such as Patterson and Chuvalo who WERE IN THE RING with Ali stated he was totally different after the layoff.

 

Yes, I noted the loss of speed, and I have studied the era. But I'm saying he compensated very well for his loss of speed with his ring IQ which had vastly improved at that point. You could argue the fact that he didn't rely so much on his speed anymore was a good thing for his development as a boxer. Also he probably would have aged much the same, those lightning fast type of reflexes don't stay with you too long and result in a lot of wear and tear on the body too.
I can just imagine if Fury were to lose that many people will be repeating stuff like they said with Ali. Everyone will be talking about how he became slower and his reflexes declined which is somewhat true while ignoring the fact that he became a much cleverer boxer.

 

Patterson said the same thing.