Muhammad Ali at his best vs. Wladimir Klitschko at his best, who wins?

Yes - Immeasurable.

And, strangely enough, your synopsis of how this mythical match-up might go has not made me waiver one iota from using that term to describe the chasm in skill level. Ali is some distance ahead of Wlad, in terms of skills; physical speed and stamina, as well as durability.

Never has there been a Heavyweight so fleet of foot and fist, as was Ali. He was able to develop angles and land before opponents had the chance to right their own positioning - by which time he had moved on.

Wlad might have the superior power but he is neither the superior boxer nor puncher. Ali's defences, when he was at his best, lay in those natural gifts of speed and balance.

You said it: "[Wlad's] big 3 punches". That is the extent of his ar.senal and what good is that going to do against a guy who can basically own the ring; be where he wants to at any time and land on his opponent from almost any angle he chooses. Wlad's not getting to him with that long-range right cross or looping left hook. As for the jab...

Because, Wlad would really have no answer for Ali's speed and movement, other than to try to turn the bout into a wrestling match, at the earliest opportunity. And, something tells me he wouldn't get away with such tactics, with all things being equal.

 

Now this is a thread that should be censored. No person with one iota of boxing knowledge would give robot like Wlad a prayer against a 100% Ali
To compare these two would be like putting Richard Simmons in with Sonny Liston ROFL Get real people

 

All good mate.

atsch:
That makes sense because Spinks would hurt Haye badly.

These K fans always take the worst version of the greats. Like Wlad beats Tyson just how Lennox Lewis did.:tired

 

Indeed. By accounts I've read, it would seem that Team Klitschko were not keen to rematch Williamson, at all. The suit they filed against the IBF looked a touch too slim to be realistic but they were keener to pursue this course of action than to make the rematch.

What is also interesting is that, in addition to filing suit, over what the Klitschko camp claimed to be an unfair ranking, they also asked the courts for an injunction to prevent the Byrd/Williamson bout going ahead.

On the one hand this could be viewed as the Klitschko camp covering their bases. But it is not too fantastic to suggest Team Klitschko were worried enough about Williamson becoming the IBF Titlist that they were prepared to do anything but fight, in order to prevent that from happening.

 

I wasn't talking about him missing with a jab. I meant that I could envisage Ali drawing him in, and making him miss when he threw a power shot and then capitalising on it.

I also can't envisage Wlad being successful with the jab, when Ali would be on his toes, dancing from side to side, coming in and out of range, and doing that all night if necessary, for the full 15 rounds.

 

98 percent of the time being big matters, ESPECIALLY when there is skill involved. No rational person can debate this fact, Klit is far more athletic, powerful and skilled, which alone makes his victory ever more likely. If Wlad was just a large tall guy with no boxing skills whatsoever than there is a good chance he loses, BUT he isn't so :deal

 

I think he could have done that against any HW.

That's the way he'd have fought at 25.

But Wlad vs Ali in the 70's, is a different debate altogether.

That would be a good thread.

Not that I want to start it.

 

:good

 

No it doesn't.

It all depends on the circumstances.

Ali was big, just not as big as Wlad.

But more often than not, the bigger a HW is, the less mobile he is.

Wlad is very athletic, and he's fast for a guy of his size.

But he's nowhere near as fast as Ali, and he's not more skilful.

Speed can overcome power.


Styles make fights.

That's why a guy like Doug Jones gave a good account of himself when he fought Ali when he was young. A fast, former LHW of equal size.

Ali had other attributes over Wlad, that could have more than compensated for small disadvantages in height, reach and weight.


Look at Mike Tyson.

He was only 5'10, with a reach of only 71'

Wlad's 6'6 with an 81' reach.

Wlad would have dwarfed him.

But both fighters being at their best, and fighting to their full capabilities, my money would have been on Mike any day of the week.

Because his style could overcome a big disparity in size.

 

Then you're talking about a fighter that never, ever existed in the history of the sport.

 

True, but this fight will never ever take place either.

 

Who has the better left hook?

Who has the better jab?

Who has the better straight right?

People are infatuated with Ali's speed. Yes he was probably the fastest HW with great boxing skills, but Wlad is very fast himself. The difference in speed is not as wide as the difference in power between these two.

Real question: If Ali was such a defensive master then why is he a vegetable?

He only had 61 professional fights.

His defense is massively overrated.

You can only come so far when you are barely outpointing Doug Jones or almost getting knocked out by Henry Cooper. Especially when the next fight is considered one of your biggest victories.

 

Interesting to see how others interpret things. It was the Haye fight that made me think that Ali would stop Wlad. I recently rewatched the fight and it seemed much more tactical than I remembered it with Haye having more success than I remembered. Haye caught Wlad pretty good a few times. Ali would catch him more and would be able to make Wlad miss more and tire him out setting him up for a late round stoppage.

 

The personality cult and brainwashing surrounding the biggest fraud in American sports and pop culture is alive and well, I see.

 

The difference in power, is not nearly as important as the difference in speed.

Power's great, if you can land something significant.

Wlad is fast for a man of his size.

But Ali's movement would have given him hell, and you are underestimating that.


Why have you mentioned Doug Jones?

Ali fought him as Clay in 63, and it was a competitive fight, because they were evenly matched in height, reach and weight, and Jones was a very fast former LHW.

Styles make fights.

But Doug Jones is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Because that wasn't Ali at his peak, and Wlad fights nothing like Jones.

Ali's defence in his prime was great. He was extremely hard to hit.


If I wanted to, I could elaborate on the following facts:

Wlad has been knocked out by three fighters who weren't great.

Wlad has never beaten a great fighter.

Ali's best wins came past his prime.

We can all chop and change to suit our arguments.


Also, calling Ali a vegetable is extremely disrespectful.

Everyone's circumstances are different.

Ali aged very quickly and took some awful punishment in the 70's, both in the ring and in the gym.


What do you mean, he only fought 63 fights?

It was actually 61.

But that's a hell of a lot of fights, especially when he'd made the decision to let a monster puncher like Foreman open up on him, in the hope of him tiring himself out.

He didn't have the luxury that Wlad has, with his physical advantages, and his weak opposition for the most part.

Wlad has escaped from taking punishment.

Again, everyone's circumstances are different.

Ali's also got Parkinson's as everyone knows.


But this thread is asking who would win between these two great fighters, whilst both being at their best, fighting to their full capabilities.

So you're looking at a 25 year old, 1967 version of Ali, against the version of Wlad that you choose.


:good