THE FINALS: The All-time Heavyweight H2H Tourney: LEWIS vs. ALI

Where does Lennox obtain the power to hurt Ali without opening himself up to getting hurt? This stylistic matchup is in Ali's favour. Ali can outbox Lewis without significant risk.

 

can just see ali landing short lefts on the inside and then dancing on the outside.. just too fast for lewis. a few rounds of this and lewis would be ready to go.

 

Lewis turns Ali to mincemeat. TKO within 6 rounds.

 

No, boxing is not 'just like' wrestling and judo. If you can't tell the diference , you have no business posting on a boxing forum.

Indivudal sports are uncomparable. If you need to compare boxing to other non-related sports to bloster the modern era, its because your arguement is a failure.

You compare boxing to boxing. And the old guys were greater. There is no argument against it.

The most comparable sport to boxing is fencing. Boxing is practically fencing with gloves.
Go ahead and tell me fencers of today are far better than the ones of yeseterday.

Tell me how rennaissance era fencers would be useless in todays world and why the greatest fencers of all time existed well before Ali was born?

 

This ESB **** is so annoying. Ali loses to all these guys:
Lewis
Wlad
Vitali
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes

The best h2h are:

1. Lewis
2. Wlad
3. Vitali
4. Holyfield
5. Tyson
6. Holmes
7. Foreman
8. Ali
9. Bowe
10. Louis

 

andrewa1,

Thanks for the reply. We'll start again, without the name calling.

It was me who started that, so apologies. But it makes me angry when people tie boxing in with other sports, and you say Ali would be brutalised because of progress.

I've given many logical examples, as to why boxing hasn't progressed in the same way that other sports have.

Here, read this link, with regards to swimming world records.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_world_records_in_swimming&ei=Ib5LU6OUG6GM7AaApIGIBw&usg=AFQjCNHVE3BDlVRodRr-foeSMIQdFJDFzg

As each decade goes by, the swimmers are becoming faster. The sport progresses.

Strength and power are a lot more important to swimmers and track and field stars. Athletes are more powerful with strength and conditioning, and are on better diets due to advancements in nutrition.

But boxing is more technical, and more skills have to be mastered. Sports science etc, is only going to help today's boxers by a small margin.

Of course a discuss thrower has to perfect technique. I'm not ignorant enough to think that you could just go into a gym, and get a guy with a great physique, give him a discuss, and he'd be a great at it. It's the same with any sports. Sprinters spend hours and hours, just practicing their starts. But boxing is far more technical, because there's many more skills to be mastered, and again, strength and power isn't as important to a boxer, than what it is to a swimmer for example. Again, sports science have considerably helped athletes in other sports and have contributed heavily towards their progression.

Not at all. Again, sports science etc are far more important to a swimmer and a track and field star. Just a single second is hugely important to someone who races. They're racing against a clock. If an athlete today is stronger, and on a better diet, and is training in better equipment and in better facilities, it's going to make a big, big difference. But Boxers obviously aren't racing against the clock. Read the link I gave you. A top swimmer from 30 years ago, couldn't beat a top guy from today. But you could take a boxer from today who's got a S&C coach, a nutritionist, a masseur, and a state of the art gym etc, and there would be no guarantee that he would be able to beat a top guy from 50 years ago. Sports science help other sports progress. But they can't help boxing progress in the same way.

I don't know anything about figure skating, but I would think that modern advancements in equipment etc would play a part in it's progression. Why do increases in size correlate to increased ability and results in boxing? The HW division is at the lowest it's been for a long time. There's nothing to suggest that today's top ten guys, are better than the top ten guys of all other eras.

It doesn't go against reason. New techniques haven't been introduced to boxing. It can't progress any further than it already has. Many people think it's regressed. Swimming can't regress, because the times are improving with each decade. But fighters aren't becoming better fighters every decade. Again, there's skills and subtle little things, that were prevalent years ago, that you no longer see. I'm not disputing that different training methods in other sports, haven't helped it's progression.

You really have no argument at all.

Because it's an actual fact that swimming times and track and field records have been broken. It's a fact that as a whole, track and field etc has progressed. It's factual, and can be backed up with figures.

But you cannot say that today's WW's are the best WW's of all time.

You cannot say that today's MW's are the best MW's of all time.

You cannot say that today's top fighters, are the best fighters of all time.

You can ask any knowledgeable fan, any manager, promoter, writer, journalist etc, and they'll tell you the same.

If you really study boxing and you're a hard core fan, you would bet your life that certain boxers from yesteryear would beat today's best guys.

There's countless examples to give.


An elite swimmer from yesteryear vs today's best. Who would you put your money on?

A top marathon runner from yesteryear vs the winner of yesterday's London marathon. Who would your money be on?


Floyd Mayweather vs Tommy Hearns at WW. Who would you back?

Mike McCallum vs Saul Alvarez at LMW. Who would you back?

Mike Tyson vs Tyson Fury, Wlad, Arreola, Haye etc. Who would you back?

Carlos Monzon or Marvin Hagler vs Chavez Jnr and Martinez. Who would you back?

Ray Robinson vs Manny Pac. Who would you back?


Those fighters from the 40's, 70's, 80's and 90's would have no chance, right?


Those on the left couldn't beat those on the right, because of progression?


Ray Robinson is still regarded as the best fighter who's ever lived. Not through a love of nostalgia, but because if you analyse his skill set, he was the perfect fighter. His prime was 70 years ago. That's a hell of a long time ago. What does that tell you?

 

Part 2.

So you're saying that knowledgeable fans, sports writers, respected trainers, managers, promoters, and fighters are all stuck in a nostalgia bubble?

Go and listen to Bernard Hopkins' thoughts about today fighters and guys like Henry Armstrong and Archie Moore etc.

Start a thread and ask how Ray Robinson would do in today's era.

Only an idiot would say that he'd have no chance against today's WW's, because everything progresses.

Ray Robinson is more skilled than any fighter today. If you really analysed him in depth, you'd also see that.


Your comments on Ali and Louis are PURE IGNORANCE!


What is your theory based on?

Who from today would beat Ali and Louis at their best?

Give me all of the names and give me a breakdown.


I don't want an answer based on track and field and swimming etc, I want a logical answer based on actual skills.


This is where I lose respect for you.


It's absurd to think they'd stand a chance? WHY???


Analyse Ali at his best, and look at his speed and skills, and then tell me he'd have NO CHANCE against today's HW'S.

Compare his footwork, hand speed, reflexes, defence and his shot variation etc, against today's HW's.

You're being ridiculous!

Larry Holmes's peak was over 30 years ago. Mike Tyson's peak was nearly 30 years ago. That's three decades. That's a long time. Would they have had no chance against today's HW's? What about Frazier and Foreman? Foreman won a belt in the 90's when he was 45.

No it doesn't. You haven't put forward any logical theory as any form of evidence to back up your points. You can only give examples from other sports.

This is you - Boxing must have progressed, because it's a fact that other sports have, and whoever doesn't agree is clinging to nostalgia.

 

Lennox would shut Ali down in a big way.... Ali nut-huggers...

 

atsch

 

Great post!

I really enjoyed reading it.

But we have a guy in Andrew, who thinks it's absurd to think that Ali could even have competed with today's HW's, because of progression.

But there's been no breakdown of skills to support his theory.

There's been no logic put forward.

His opinion is based purely on the fact that other sports have progressed.

 

you have no right to talk about anything related to boxing ever again. Neither Klitschko has EVER beaten a top level fighter in their entire career. The only semi top level guy Vitali fought was past his prime 38 year old washed up Lennox who still stopped him in 6.

 

Ali has little chance against Lewis. But those people who bring up Louis? You idiots can't be serious. Louis has ZERO chance against any modern day HW. Lewis would murder Louis who wouldn't land a single punch, he'd look primitive and crude.

 

Yeah, I'm sure Arreola etc would have all destroyed Joe Louis.

 

In my opinion, size only really comes into play if each fighter is equally matched skill wise.

Otherwise, size can be overcome by skill.

But you'd have to be objective, and analyse a guys complete skill set, taking many factors into consideration.

You've asked a good question.

But I don't believe that Andrew was saying Ali and Louis wouldn't have had a chance due to size. He said it because Ali and Louis fought many moons ago, and he thinks that today's fighters are better, because boxing has progressed in the same way that other sports have. So I don't believe he's arguing about size.

At HW in particular, size can also be a disadvantage, as well as an advantage.

From the footage I've seen, my money would definitely have been on Rocky to beat Arreola. I also think that the version of Roy Jones who fought Ruiz, would beat a fair few of today's guys.

I've been a fan of Ali's since I can remember, and when I watch him at 25 years of age, in 1967, I'd put my house on the line, that he'd beat today's top guys, including Wlad.

I also believe that Joe Louis would have great success.

Now if anybody doesn't agree with me, then that's cool. But all I ask, is that they put forward logical reasons as to why they don't agree. If they do a breakdown of skills etc, and put forward a case, I'll certainly respect it.

But there's two things that I cannot respect:

1. Fighter A would have had no chance against fighter B, because fighter B was much bigger.

2. There's no way fighter A from (how ever many years ago) could have beaten fighter B, because today's boxers are now better, because the sport has progressed like other sports have.


The above two points, are based on pure ignorance.