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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by demigawd, Apr 12, 2014.


  1. DJN16

    DJN16 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,737
    2,802
    Sep 15, 2013
    That was a good point up until you said the Klitschkos are bums. They are not, they are good intelligent fighters, the best of their era.

    Did they have great competition?? Not really.

    Were they as exciting as previous heavyweight greats Liston, Ali, Tyson, Holmes, Johnson. Dempsey etc??? No, not even close.

    Do they have effective fighting styles??? Yes, without doubt.

    Head to head can they beat the previous great champions of the past???? Well possibly, they have many advantages over them but also disadvantages as well.

    People don't have to like Vitali and Wlad, but to not recognise them as top heavyweight fighters is absurd.
     
  2. demigawd

    demigawd Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,046
    154
    May 1, 2006
    Interesting. I see where you're coming from, even if I don't agree. It helps me to understand your worldview, which I absolutely respect.

    Fights like these remind me a bit of the exhibition I saw between Shaq and DLH. I think Oscar barely won, but I was pretty surprised to see how much trouble DLH had getting past Shaq's jab and sheer size. It was a CLOSE fight! I mean, Shaq never fought a day in his life and he was, in spots, manhandling Oscar. I could never quite shake that sight, lol.
     
  3. demigawd

    demigawd Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,046
    154
    May 1, 2006
    That's a bit like saying Wlad's simple style was deceptively complex, but the casual fan wouldn't notice or appreciate it. It's not because Wlad couldn't throw uppercuts or bodyshots, it's because every jab had a purpose, and if you look very closely, no two jabs are the same.

    I don't think it's unfathomable that Joe Louis could beat Wlad, but if Joe does have great lateral movement and foot speed that he would employ against Wlad despite never having never "chosen" to do so before, I don't see any video evidence of it.

    One thing Wlad does better than just about any heavyweight in history is control distance. Steward gave him a level of ring awareness and awareness of his own arm's distance that is extraordinary. I would argue that Byrd and Haye were both faster than Louis, and they just couldn't close the gap without being tied up and leaned on. After the Steward transformation, Wlad is just hard to hit. Really hard.

    That being said, we are talking about Lewis and Ali. Lennox is probably easier than Wlad to hit, and Ali is much longer and faster than Joe Louis. I don't see the keep away strategy being as effective in this fight as I do in a Wlad vs. Joe Louis fight.
     
  4. FartWristedBum

    FartWristedBum I walk this Earth like a bum Full Member

    2,248
    601
    Feb 6, 2014
    Ha ha, got here late then! Assasin already putting the wind up others I see!
    I actually quoted a lot of similar quotes back to him too Loudon, it made no odds and he simply said "Frazier having only a left hook!" was apparently the same as "OK, Frazier threw a small amount right-hooks and they weren't good". He started back-pedalling and couldn't back up the vehemence of the initial troll essentially. A toss-spewing nuisance on this forum for me.

    Anywho's, the actual fight in question is a difficult one to pick for me and genuinely one I can't imagine. The hardest thing to imagine is the reaction-speed of both fighters and who can deal with who's style best over the three fights.
    For example, I can see Lewis throwing a good jab and the elusive Ali slipping it but what about when Lewis goes "street" and starts throwing powerful combos that surprise...bombs-in-bunches, if you will?
    I go with Ali eventually, he can score points by his expert timing and countering and then spoiling inside. Winning just 2 of the 3 takes all his squirming, dirty-tactics, nous and sheer bravery but I think he takes it with more of a chance in the latter of the trilogy.
     
  5. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    61,265
    23,968
    Jul 21, 2012
    Well then you don't know nothing about boxing if you believe that. The footage on film in the majority of his fights tells a different story. A master at controlling distance would not be nicknamed 'Clinchko'
    Go watch Holmes or Bowe and learn the sport ffs.
     
  6. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,836
    10,233
    Mar 7, 2012
    I'm really enjoying this debate.

    I haven't seen any footage, but I've read little snippets here and there.

    That must have been great.

    Where was it? What year? I can't remember.

    A few things to consider though:

    Shaq wouldn't have had any respect of Oscar's power, and he'd have gone in there with no fear, looking to prove a point, over just a few rounds. I'm also assuming they'd have had head gear on. Also, Shaq is a huge guy. Shaq is just over 7ft, and he weighs around 300 pounds. Oscar is 5'10.

    Now I know we're only joking and having some great fun with these fantasy fights, but again, I'm serious when I say I'd have picked Tommy. Now this is only my opinion, but what happened with Shaq is completely irrelevant to me. Because in our fantasy fight, it wouldn't have been an exhibition with big gloves and headgear etc. In our fantasy fight, it would be a 12/15 round fight. Also, in my honest opinion, Audley wouldn't have gone at Tommy like Shaq did with Oscar. Because Audley would certainly have respected Tommy's power, and he's been knocked out many times.

    As I've mentioned, psychology and circumstances play a huge part in the outcome of a fight. Now obviously, Audley would have had big advantages in size etc. But this wouldn't be Shaq trying to prove a point, with a once in a life time opportunity against a 5'10 guy. This would be Audley against a 6'1 guy, with a 78' reach, with dynamite power in his hand. So the circumstances in my honest opinion, would have been completely different. Shaq obviously relished the opportunity, whereas Audley has been overawed many times, just freezing in certain instances. Although Tommy would have been outweighed by a huge amount, he would have possessed his famous 'Cobra' like jab, as well as being a great, fast boxer.

    Now people reading this, might think that I've had a tab of acid, but when I throw everything into the mix, most notably Tommy's skills, size and power, against Audley's weak mindset and his other vulnerabilities, then I am, in all seriousness, picking Tommy.
     
  7. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,836
    10,233
    Mar 7, 2012
    Hi mate,

    I've read his responses to you in the other thread.

    He winds me up.

    Ali vs Lewis would have been a hell of a fight, and I think Ali could have gotten to him psychologically.
     
  8. assasin

    assasin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,315
    13
    Feb 21, 2010
    remember when i constantly called you a hypocrite, Loudon??

    remember??

    you've just called me the most disrespectful poster on the forum because i spoke the truth. but for you, like in this post regarding Audley Harrison, have just rubbished him by pointing out his weaknesses and his faults.

    it's okay for you isn't it?? :huh

    oh, and regardless of how mentally weak Harrison may be, he isn't losing to any Welter in the history of the sport. especially one that had less than a good chin.

    weirdo!
     
  9. assasin

    assasin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,315
    13
    Feb 21, 2010
    why do people keep reading into my posts something i never even said???

    other Era's are called great when in fact, they are nothing of the sort.

    they're not bad Era's when viewed properly and without rose coloured glasses. but when viewed as to call them "great Era's" they just don't stand up to scrutiny.

    there are great fighters before Lewis, but none with his ability or achievements.
     
  10. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,836
    10,233
    Mar 7, 2012
    Ha!

    How is what I've wrote about Audley, ANYTHING like what you've written??

    I haven't been disrespectful. I've said he's mentally weak.

    I haven't mentioned any words like trash, moron and moronic etc, like you have.
     
  11. Loudon

    Loudon Loyal Member Full Member

    40,836
    10,233
    Mar 7, 2012
    Your last sentence is highly debatable, and it needs analysing in depth.

    Lennox was a great, great fighter. But you have to take a lot of things into consideration, and put things into context when ranking a guy's achievements. It's not a straight forward task.

    Lennox had some great wins, most notably the Ruddock one. But other than Vitali, which is a highly controversial topic, Lennox never beat a great fighter while they were prime. He unified the division by beating a faded Evander, but then lost two of the belts to Hasim Rahman, just two years later. Many people also believe that he lost to Ray Mercer. I'm not trying to rubbish his achievements, I'm just looking at what many people have said over the years. It's highly subjective.

    Have a look at the following list of fighters:

    Mike Tyson
    Muhammad Ali
    Larry Holmes
    Evander Holyfield
    Rocky Marciano
    Joe Louis
    George Foreman

    Then take the following things into consideration when assessing their achievements: Who did they fight? At what point? What were the circumstances involved? Who had their opponents beaten, just prior to their fight? Who did their opponents go on to beat afterwards? How dominant were they? How strong was their era? What opportunities did they have? How old were they? How many fights had they had?

    You could also analyse their abilities, taking the following things into consideration:

    Skill
    Shot variation and shot selection (jab, hooks, body shots, uppercuts and combinations)
    Power
    Hand speed
    Timing
    Reflexes
    Defence
    Footwork (balance, speed)
    Chin
    Heart
    Adaptability
    Mental strength
    Mental weaknesses


    It would make for an interesting debate.
     
  12. TJ Max

    TJ Max Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,300
    345
    Jun 2, 2013
    What comprises modern training methods? Weightlifting and steroid ****tails.

    It don't care how much Lewis could lift or how many steroids he was one, he was not even close to as fast as Ali.

    Speed kills.

    Ali puts a clinic on him. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets a late round KO.
     
  13. TJ Max

    TJ Max Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,300
    345
    Jun 2, 2013
    People talk about logic in this thread, yet they are incapable of applying logic themselves.

    If Lewis fought in Ali's era, it is unlikely he would have been lifting weights and his knowledge of nutrition, (assuming he even used a nutritionist), wouldn't be on the same level as it is today.

    If Ali fought in Lewis's era, he would have access to weights and nutritional information of this era.

    Modern training techniques can basically be summarized as the addition of weights to aid in training.

    There are other theories about timing your nutritional intake and interval training, but considering boxers often train in intervals, and there is still great debate about whether nutritional intake timing is important, the difference would be negligible.

    Ali whups Lewis' ass in both eras.

    SPEED KILLS.

    End of THREAD.
     
  14. demigawd

    demigawd Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,046
    154
    May 1, 2006
    I respect unusual opinions (as long as they're not obvious trolls, and I don't get the impression that you are). I also respect that you're consistent in your approach.

    Since you asked about it, here's the Shaq vs. DLH fight:

    Part 1:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG4jg14nUK8

    Part 2:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZHa9VffmO8

    Considering how Shaq landed flush a few times and Oscar could hardly reach his head, I'm thinking the headgear benefited Oscar more than it did Shaq. But it was a sobering watch, even though Oscar did end up winning.

    I suppose my biggest problem with the skills >>> physical size argument is that, at some point, unless the fighter is so good that he can avoid the bigger opponent making any physical contact at all, the bigger guy with a major physical advantage will hurt his smaller opponent through his guard. I've been boxing casual for a number of years, and I would sometimes spar new guys, though much bigger, didn't know what they were doing, but their punches would hurt my arms even though I blocked them. A straight punch would slam my gloves back into my face harder than a flush shot from someone my size, even though I blocked it. And when they would get tired, they would clinch and lean on me, where just holding my ground would wear me out. I found myself being pushed into corners just because I didn't have the strength to push back.

    Now, I'm no professional, but IMO, in order to compensate for that, the smaller guy can't just be a little bit better, or even a lot better. He has to be so much better than his larger opponent that it's unlikely they would both be professionals. I'm thinking wider than the difference between Hearns and Audley - I'm thinking the difference between Hearns and Wade Lewis (http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=48604&cat=boxer).

    Or Oscar and Shaq. :)

    That being said, while I would argue that on size alone Wlad, Vitali, or Lennox would have no trouble whatsoever with the likes of any of the old school heavyweights from the first half of the 1900s, anybody who is giving the finals match to Lewis JUST because of his size doesn't realize how big Ali and long is. It's only a 2" height advantage and a 25" height advantage. Holyfield is slightly smaller than Ali and he had no trouble getting in on Lewis. This is, IMO, a fight that Lewis can win, but it won't be just because of size that gets him the win.

    And that's something I think you and I can agree on.
     
  15. demigawd

    demigawd Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,046
    154
    May 1, 2006
    I generally agree with what you said, but you made it sound like weight lifting was first invented in 1993.

    Ali's era and Lennox's era wasn't THAT far apart. Tyson's career started only four years after Ali's career ended, and Tyson was a contemporary of Lewis'. All of these people arguing "evolution" seem to be under the impression that that Ali fought in the 1500s. Boxing did not take some quantum leap between 1975 and 1995.

    Ask Foreman. He'll tell you.