Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

Prime Riddick Bowe would have whupped all 3 of them.

 

stop reading there...and I kept thinking "like what" ?? Care to tell me the irrefutable evidence

 

Where is the "irrefutable" evidence? that was the word you used so present them.

Powerless hitting then..thats because the fighters are too top heavy or don't have the fitness to be able to replicate it. They can hardly go 5rounds and thats with them standing still. FACT.

Who fighter is comparable to Ali? None. That's irrefutable i.e FACT.

Stats again. Google Misuse of statistics. You cannot put subjective issues into a number. Moron.

Wladimir,Vitali,Lewis all their loses come against SMALLER MEN.
Wladimir,Lewis all KO'd by SMALLER MEN.

Can you name a smaller opponent who KO'd Ali?


glover..I wonder who you really are.

 

Why can't you atleast accept the absolute basic principles that the sport has evolved

Prove that statement true in Boxing or shut the fk up

 

Only thing you've got is high KO% against bums and padded records. Proof is in the pudding.

observational?? did you really use that as 'irrefutable' proof?..umm if that was the case I along with many other people way more knowledgeable on sport then you and I like Mike Tyson,the late Bert Sugar and Emmanuel Steward would be in your corner but they/weren't arent. What a fool.

LOL. You do realize I posted a quote with Wladimir Klitschko saying he doesn't lift weights and that training like he does makes his muscles smaller but his endurance increases greatly...but err according to you it's the opposite..LOL I swear you're a **** troll.

Holyfield was outweighed against EVERY HW opponent he fought. He's an ATG. Not because of his power or size but because of his...ye heart. It's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of fight in the dog.

Brewster beats Liston..yea ok.

Vitali quit.QUIT. Ali fought with a broken jaw.

Rahman apart from KOing people with terrible records displayed this power against what top level fighter? Same with Sanders,Purrity,Brewster?? Yea it's hard to name a good opponent they KO'd. You still haven't told me what top fighters they KO'd apart from that Lennox and Wladimir.

Failing? Your mate andrew can't even continue our debate like we were previously.You still haven't responsded to my Marciano post. You still haven't answered my questions. You've posted something you think is right when the fighter you're defending is saying the opposite. You're a fool son.

 

Wow, quite a discussion you guys are having... Good read.

Actually, to be honest I'm not as sure that old timers are total mismatches for modern fighters as I used to be anymore..

The Foreman example does say something.

Also Tyson is short but was a non-issue.

The technique did improve IMO but it's hardly the case from 60's till now.

And finally, it does seem that tough conditions in life (as was the case in the old days) do translate into how good of a fighter the person becomes to a degree (that's how it looks like with Eastern Euros taking the HW division by the storm as soon as they sould compete as pros, replacing Black Americans whose conditions seemwd to have improved).

As with most controversial topics, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I still completely can't imagine Rocky or Dempsey being competitive with Lewis or even Bowe but the answer to that whole issue to me is not as obvious as it used to be anymore

 

Yea like what..Didn't you think you should have posted it?

He's not lifting for that all important "size" but for endurance.

Wladimir loses show his heart. Gassed and just gave up.
Vitali quit.

Ali never quit. Even when he's tired he still throws and throws.

This is how dumb you are
"I never claimed size meant everything"

"Clay. Whole career, outweighed opponents in 70% of fights... **** weak CLAY! And in so called "prime" outweighed practically ALL of them!! Shameful!"..but I thought size is not a big factor yet you repeatedly repeat this claim? contradicting yourself too dip****.

They're either quitters,cheaters or duckers. Can't say the same for Ali.

I'm not gonna sugar coat this one though. I will reiterate that Vitali quitting is not a proper loss, since he was winning. Had Byrd been kicking ass then it would have to be looked at differently. But you are correct, Vitali is a ****ing sook and the fact he came that far already he should definitely have finished the fight. He displayed a lack of heart and rightly deserves criticism. Shameful effort and Ali fighting on with his jaw like that was certainly a hearty effort, I take my hat off the Ali for that!!

Foreman KO'd people at high level.
Evander Holyfield "One punch and I thought he knocked my teeth out"
Shannon Briggs "He hit me the hardest,even his jab hurt"

??? Honestly you're so full ****. You're not arguing anything FACTUAL rather then stating your opinion which is full of holes.

Andrew,like yourself, ran out of answers to kept,like you,repeating something he THINKS is true but show no proof it exists in boxing. NONE. Like yourself.

Like I said earlier prove that statemtn where you said boxing as progressed or shut the fk up

 

Evolution? Wtf.. you're talking nonsense. Your STATEMENT was "Boxing as progressed" I never said it has or hasn't, I said fighters of the past are better then the ones today. You're the only constantly going on about size.

It's YOU who stated "Boxing as progressed" without anything FACTUAL to back it up.

Here's a good progress fact..Hearns taught Tim Bradley how to throw a jab and right hand after hes had 10+years of "modern" boxing? lol. refute that.
Stop talking absolutely bull**** and just answer the question.

Oh wow..

Did you not just read what I wrote about Briggs and Holy saying about Foreman?
AGAIN what are you basing this off? NOTHING but speculation. Always speculating never PROVING anything.

Lennox Lewis hit Evander Holyfield all night and still Holy kept coming forward yet one right hook from George Foreman,he's stunned and backs off and labels him the "hardest hitter" he ever fought and you're trying to argue otherwise with nothing but speculation.

Taking steroids is cheating.
Ducking Byrd is ducking.
When the referee you're paying is ignoring the constant holding and leaning so the smaller guy can't attack is cheating.


You lose on the argument size and you can't even see it.
Wladimir said himself he doesnt lift and this was the ground you based your argument off.

I can only laugh at you. Later troll.

 

nice response but i've heard it before. I've been schooled everything you post is speculation and based off nothing but fallacy.


Everything I said has been backed up. Refute the post. Refute Holy and Briggs calling him the hardest puncher and why Holy could take Lennox best but not Foremans.
Refute Bradley saying himself Hearns taught him a lot of things even thought he'd been boxing since a young boy. Shouldn't be hard "boxing as progressed"

Again with the "deluded" either put up facts or shut up.

 

I think it would had been a round robin of loses for all involved. They all win and lose to each other in rematches and trilogies.

 

Maybe you can answer the points in post 558?

Your boy andrewa1 is now stuttering all over the place.

He said boxing has improved as a whole, but now he's changed his tune, and he's only saying that the HW's have improved.

His only so called evidence, is that Usain Bolt can run faster from A to B than any other guy before him.

It really is so simple.

A lot of today's HW's would be able to beat HW fighters of the past.

Likewise, a lot of HW's of the past would be able to beat HW's of today.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT BOXING HAS PROGRESSED AS A WHOLE! NONE!

If you have two fighters of similar abilities, but one has HUGE physical advantages, then obviously that guy would be favourite to win.

But size alone doesn't determine the outcome of a fight.

Physical disadvantages can be overcome by speed and skills.

Mike Tyson at 5'10, weighing around 220 dominated the 80's HW scene.

Now how was that possible, when he was so small?

Size can play a part. Sometimes it can play a significant part. But it can't guarantee a win, if the opponent is an all-around better fighter.

With regards to Ali, in the 60's his toughest opponent was Liston. I agree with you that his resume wasn't stacked when he was peak. But we saw him beat Frazier and Foreman etc, past his peak. In my honest opinion, he'd have beaten those guys a lot easier in his 60's peak.

So you keep banging on about Ali never fought anyone the size of Wlad at his peak, and you're right. But again he beat a guy in Foreman past his peak in the 70's when his once great footwork had all but disappeared.

Ha! I wonder why?

The truth hurts!

Ali was a punch bag in the 60's? Yeah of course he was.

You do make me laugh.


1. You say Wlad would have beaten Ali because of physical advantages.

2. On a previous post, you're telling everyone how a 5'10, 220 (little) Mike Tyson could have been the greatest ever.

Here it is:

Tyson didn't win his fights ON HEIGHT, REACH OR WEIGHT, because he was at a physical DISADVANTAGE for most of his fights.

He won his fights on SPEED AND SKILL.

THAT'S A COLD HARD FACT!

So Mike could win fights on speed and skill, despite being at a physical disadvantage, yet according to you, Ali COULDN'T?

It's on rule for Ali, and a different one for Mike.


I keep bringing Haye up as an example to get through to you but I'm not having any joy.

Wlad is now peak according to you, with his losses well and truly behind him.

Wlad went into the Haye fight confident, and on a mission to make Haye his 50th knockout victim.

Haye is the same height and weight of Ali.

But he's nowhere near as skillful or as FAST.

He doesn't have the footwork and movement that Ali did in his prime.

That's a fact, and it's on tape.

Don't make a fool of yourself by saying that Haye is better than Ali.

We saw what happened in the fight.

Despite the fact that Wlad clearly won on points, Haye's movement caused Wlad problems, and Wlad wasn't able to knock Haye out, or even hit him clean, even when he was trapped up against the ropes.

That my friend is a FACT!

Wlad was frustrated and he couldn't get him out of there.

But what you're saying is, Ali who was better and faster than Haye, would DEFINITELY have been knocked out by Wlad, with no iff's or but's?

You are being ridiculous AGAIN!


Andrew has proved nothing, and the only thing he can do now, is copy and paste his old posts.

He started off by saying boxing has improved, but has since made exceptions for Hagler, Hearns and Leonard etc.

He's now got nowhere to go.

SIZE ALONE DOES NOT DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A FIGHT.

A smaller guy, can, and will, beat a bigger guy, if he's a better all-around fighter.

 

I can't believe this is still being debated in 2013 :-(

LL and the K bros would absolutely dominate in any era. Ali seems to be the main golden oldie that is brought up as a fighter that could beat this trio. As many have posted Ali won b/c he was very fast for - in his era - a big HW and out ranged most opponents. He beat an aging, plodding Liston for the title. Later Ali would defeat very good CWs like Patterson and Quarry. The smallish - by todays standards - Frazier gave him hell in 3 bouts. By the time Ali was fighting guys his size w/some skill, e.g. Norton, he barely pulled off controversial decisions. Most fans think Norton was robbed in their 3rd fight.

Ali - as he admitted - wasn't a big puncher in his era. Arreloa and Haye would beat the chinny Norton and flat footed Frazier, who were easily defeated by a K bro. What is Ali going to do vs the K bros or LL. The latter are stronger, hit much harder, and are nearly as fast. Will Ali out clinch them, pull their heads down

Lewis and either K bro would obliterate any of Ali's opponents except maybe Foreman, and I think George losses nearly every fight vs LL or K bros unless he lands something big early.

None of this BS, like this is a weak era, is going to help US HWs get back to the top. Let's face it, massive amounts of "social" programs and the feminizing of men in the US have weakened the pool of potential fighters that have the "eye of the tiger"

 

Ha!

You've given one of the best laughs I've had in ages.

Thanks!

 

Glad to help. It's easy to make fools laugh.

Let me ask a brainiac like yourself - what did I post that you found funny? That Ali had hell w/fighters that would get beat by modern HWs? Or that Ali wasn't as strong or hit as hard as LL or K bros - which are kinda important in, ya know, a fight. Try to refute that, I need a good laugh myself :tong


Keep slurping on them golden oldies from the good ol' daze :yep

 

Arreola beating flat footed Frazier. - Comedy gold.

Ali struggled with a few fighters past his peak in the 70's, just like how Lewis got knocked out by Rahman and McCall, and Wlad got knocked out by Sanders, Puritty and Brewster.

This whole - "Modern heavies are bigger, so they'd easily win!" is just hilarious.

Styles make fights.

Some modern HW's would beat past HW's, and vice versa.

It works both ways.

Ali would have been at physical disadvantages against Wlad/Vitali/Lewis, and he wasn't as powerful, which is kinda important like you say.

Let me tell you what's also kinda important in a fight, SPEED AND SKILLS.

None of the three fighters mentioned, were as fast or as skillful as a peak Ali.

What he gave up in height, reach and power, he made up for with footwork and hand speed etc.

Mike Tyson dominated the 80's, and would probably dominate today, fighting to his full capabilities, and being 100% focused etc.

He was just 5'10, and weighed 220 pounds.

He was a small heavy back in the day, and he'd be even smaller today.

But so what?

He could overcome physical disadvantages with ABILITY.