Mythbusting: Wlad had a greater size advantage than Ali

The more pertinent statistics would be how many guys Vlad fought who were 6'6" with an 81" wingspan, compared to how many guys Ali fought who were 6'3" with a 78" wingspan. Or the closest to their respective sizes.

 

Jerry Quarry was smaller than Adamek a bit smaller than Antonio Tarver.
Frazier could have easily made 190 if it existed as a weight class back then.

Height and reach mean a lot and same does lean mass.
A crucial ingredient in the success of Wladimir, Vitali, Ali, Lewis, Bowe and Valuev was their size. In Wladimir's case he still has to resort to soft fouling and still got destroyed 3 times before hitting 30. In Ali's case he had to get the help of a mafioso in order to save himself from a similar fate.

Both Ali and Wladimir are nowhere near great.
Same holds for Hearns but at least he was a cleaner fighter and got hard deals sometimes (his weight cutting was employed against him by the same mafioso that "trained" Ali) , so Hearns is a greater fighter than Ali and Wladimir , but still not great .
All of Leonard's mega fights were against handicapped opponents except of those he lost, and even in losing he once had both size and youth advantages and once a vast size advantage over a fellow has been.
Leonard is not a great fighter either.

 

Height, weight and reach mean jack **** if you lack one ingredient..... Talent!!

 

So according to you,who is "great?"
This should be good.

 

:tired

I think he was being sarcastic mate.

 

Point taken, I could have phrased what I meant to say better than I did.

 

I don't think he was mate,going of previous utterings!

 

Clearly great :
Golovkin
Carbajal
Sanchez
McCallum
McCall
Duran
Mosley
Froch

There are more. Leonard always had it his way, and sometimes he still managed to lose or at least should have been ruled a loser.
Same with Ali and Jones.

 

Reach and height CAN mean everything but only if he that possesses both enforces the proper style of fight. Many of the opponents of Langford, Marciano, Frazier and Tyson could not do this.

 

On that list there's only Duran and possibly Sanchez who could be described as great. Golovkin? We'll asses more towards the end of his career. Mosley, McCallum and Froch very good but not great. Carbajal and McCall! Do me a favour.
Your comments regarding Leonard,Ali and Jones are simply preposterous.

 

So who is great really, except from the obvious Joe Louis, Rocky Balboa, Mr. T., The fab 4 , Doink, Ali , Dempsey , Bret Hart, Tunney, Bruce Lee and Hulk Hogan?

Does Steven Seagull pass your greatness test? What about Powdered Toast Man ?

He got to be at least 2.5 level over McCallum, but is THAT ENOUGH to be considered GREAT ?

 

You lose a little credibility when you mention Bret Hart, one half of the Hart foundation, in the same sentence as the Immortal Hulk Hogan and Mr T, a man who debuted in one of the biggest fights of all time at wrestlemania and is undefeated in the sport of wrestling and Boxing! with his wins over Boxing Bob Orton and Roddy Piper. Unless of course you are trying to count his supposed loss to Rocky Balboa which was fought under a false name and is openly reported and accepted as being a fixed fight which was no more than an exhibition for the cameras designed to make a few dollars from the TV rights.

 

Bret Hart was a relatively long reigning champion, and quite a popular 1 as well, if my memory serves right.
Surely greater than Carbajal and had more longevity.

 

Don't be silly.

 

I'll help you out then. The fights in which Ali was in his best shape in his second career (Frazier I and II, Norton II and Foreman) he was about 212-215 lbs. Actually very close to his best weight in the 60's, that was generally thought to be 212 lbs.

When he came in heavier than that, his "advantage" was excess fat because he hadn't trained properly. If you doubt me, compare him in Norton I (221 lbs) to Norton II (212 lbs) and tell me that it wasn't fat he lost for the rematch.