Can ANYBODY in history defeat 1967 Ali?

Both Ali and Louis fought some great competition. It’s hard to beat Ali’s resume though. He literally fought 4 top 10 HWs of all time (Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes). He beat three of them. Holmes was at the end of his career so it wasn’t much of a contest. He also fought some other really solid opponents.

Louis proved to be able to completely clean out his division. He dominated the division for years which is tough. And again, he wasn’t fighting push overs. He fought some real tough guys.

Ali and Louis are solidly #1 and #2 HWs. Other people can change places, but they are set. I think that Ali was better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I do not know why you are ignoring my simple point that 1960's and 70's were regarded as the best quality of heavyweight fighters. Ali fought in that era. I am not asking that Joe Louis gets in a Delorean and fights them. You are deliberately making out that Joe Louis opposition was better when it was plainly not.

Ali could have made 25 defences in Joe's time period there was no one there that he could not beat. On the other hand Joe would have struggled with Liston, Frazier and Big George.

I could easily dissect some of Joe Louis opponents.

Jack Sharkey was a quality fighter but he was finished by the time Louis fought him, it was his last ever fight. This is the same Sharkey that fought Jack Dempsey in his prime 10 years earlier. :o

Max Schmeling beat up and knocked out Joe Louis so it could easily be shown that he could be beaten near his prime.

The nearly 6'7 Buddy Baer had his last 2 fights against Joe and retired so was finished and at the end of his career.

There is a reason why Braddock was called the Cinderella Man.

Yet you criticise an Olympic gold medallist and heavyweight legend like Joe Frazier and yet tell me Jimmy Bivins was underrated? :confused:

The result of the Henry Cooper was? ;D

My feathers are not ruffled I enjoy bringing up what Ali achieved. He was way before my time but I read books, see his fights and understand what he did in the ring. No one can say that what he achieved does not make him the best ever heavyweight ever.

---

Why were the fighters considered better? Could be they didn't have The Great Depression or WW2 to steal talented men away from the ring :dontknow: Could be that post WW2 America allowed for it to be easier to be a Prize Fighter as a full time job. Joe Louis went 25 in a row with the belt and Ali didn't...and therefore the Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time is Joe Louis....read again...The Greatest Heavyweight CHAMPION of All-Time is Joe Louis. Was Ali more skilled? Was Lennox more skilled? Was Tyson more skilled? Was anyone else more skilled? Doesn't fucking matter 25 in a row, 1,2...twenty fucking five in a row, set 'em up knock 'em down 1-25....how difficult is that to understand?

Ali clouda shoulda woulda...you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first JOE LOUIS DID IT....Ali could have....:rolleyes: Joe Louis DID


Well Joe never fought the likes of Karl Mildenberger or Brian London or Zora Folley or Richard Dunn or Joe Bunger....so don't play like Ali only fought all-time greats either.


Oh I'm sorry Joe didn't need his glove cut to save him vs Galento or Conn.


I can say Joe Louis is the Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time and back it up and I have....25

---

25 defences is truly great and a mark of a great heavyweight because that shows consistency and dedication. I am bringing up 3 great heavyweights who had it not been for Ali would have been greater.

As Tito said, Liston was a beast with a ram rod jab, had it not been for Ali he could have reigned for years. Frazier proved his top 10 quality. Big George was another monster who proved his greatness by winning the title 20 years later.

It is all there to see but you choose not to because...?

Lewis never took hundreds of bombs like Ali did when Ali was 29 against Smoking in 1971 or like Ali taken from Northon in 1973 (jaw-broken fight). Lewis ONLY got bombed out at age 37 against Marciano. Ali retired at 36 after winning the Leon rematch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

25 defences is truly great and a mark of a great heavyweight because that shows consistency and dedication. I am bringing up 3 great heavyweights who had it not been for Ali would have been greater.

As Tito said, Liston was a beast with a ram rod jab, had it not been for Ali he could have reigned for years. Frazier proved his top 10 quality. Big George was another monster who proved his greatness by winning the title 20 years later.

It is all there to see but you choose not to because...?

---

You assume they'd be greater.

Liston would have ruled MAYBE until Leotis Martin beat him. Frazier maybe, who knows how he'd fare vs the guys he never got around to because he was too busy having his head bounce off of Foreman's fists. Foreman lost to Jimmy Young, is that great? Is that incredible?

25 title defenses happened. Hypothesizing about Ali is obviously an exercise in futility in your mind Ali is STILL undefeated it's the problem discussing him.


To you and boxing fans who don't bother taking the time to think: Ali's greatness is untouchable, unquestionable....Joe Louis' greatness comes with caveats "Weeeellll akshully he didn't fight great fighters" he fought who was available "Yeah but he didn't fight great fighters"....Were there any he missed? Did he duck anyone? "No, but he didn't fight Liston, Frazier, Foreman"...those may have been one sided as they weren't even babies when Joe was champ "Yeah but he didn't have those guys to fight in his era" ....and so he fought and beat 25 fighters in a row holding on to the title...so no points for consistency, none for work ethic and having what 13 bouts in 1 year? No 'atta boy's for that? OK, I get it...you love Ali and there's nobody else that could even hold a candle to him and his legacy and you're not cool with just YOU thinking that, but I've got to be corrected and think that way too.



What's the difference? Master? What's the difference? You tell me. "Oh it's the boxers Ali fought" Joe Louis fought 110% of everyone out there available to fight and beat them all....not great? Not acceptable? Not something which stands the test of time? I'm telling you it's not like Louis could go out and get a Frazier or Foreman or Liston and even you agree to that, but yet you STILL fuck around with "Well he didn't fight great fighters".......OK then I guess you're right then. I guess nobody will ever ever ever be better or on a par with Ali because of who he fought, not in the history of boxing, not in the future of boxing, boxing should have just folded and closed the doors when Ali retired because everything to achieve was achieved by Ali forever and ever amen.

Is that all you got?

I said 25 defences showed great consistency and an incredible feat but he got beaten up and knocked out before that.

When did I say Joe had to fight little babies in Frazier?

What are you going on about?

Throwing the rattle out of the pram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Is that all you got?

I said 25 defences showed great consistency and an incredible feat but he got beaten up and knocked out before that.

When did I say Joe had to fight little babies in Frazier?

What are you going on about?

Throwing the rattle out of the pram.

---

Yes all I have is statistical fact of achieved accomplishment in real life vs your hypotheticals and your feelings and your emotions. Yes.


You go around in circles with "Joe Louis' era didn't have these fighters!" and my response is "Who did he duck?" you answer "No one, but his era didn't have these fighters" and so I'll say "What can be done about it? What could Joe do about it?" you'd respond "Nothing, I'm not asking for anything to be done, but his era didn't have these fighters".....what's the point of it?


What are YOU going on about?


I'd throw Ali to the fucking moon right now if I fucking could. It's unreasonable to talk to any Ali fan at all. "he's the greatest he's the GOAT he's the greatest"....HOW? WHY? ....well :scratchchin: you see he ummm.... :headscratch:


See how different that is to "How is Joe Louis the greatest?" oh, well he holds a record still to this day of 25 consecutive successful title defenses so there's that concrete undeniable fact. But hey you believe what you want to believe man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Is that all you got?

I said 25 defences showed great consistency and an incredible feat but he got beaten up and knocked out before that.

When did I say Joe had to fight little babies in Frazier?

What are you going on about?

Throwing the rattle out of the pram.

---

Yes all I have is statistical fact of achieved accomplishment in real life vs your hypotheticals and your feelings and your emotions. Yes.


You go around in circles with "Joe Louis' era didn't have these fighters!" and my response is "Who did he duck?" you answer "No one, but his era didn't have these fighters" and so I'll say "What can be done about it? What could Joe do about it?" you'd respond "Nothing, I'm not asking for anything to be done, but his era didn't have these fighters".....what's the point of it?


What are YOU going on about?


I'd throw Ali to the fucking moon right now if I fucking could. It's unreasonable to talk to any Ali fan at all. "he's the greatest he's the GOAT he's the greatest"....HOW? WHY? ....well :scratchchin: you see he ummm.... :headscratch:


See how different that is to "How is Joe Louis the greatest?" oh, well he holds a record still to this day of 25 consecutive successful title defenses so there's that concrete undeniable fact. But hey you believe what you want to believe man

---

Stop trying to make me sound unreasonable.

I said name me a fighter that Joe Louis fought that would be in someone's top 10 list of heavyweight greats?

You gave me a list of fighters that were frankly just not up it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Stop trying to make me sound unreasonable.

I said name me a fighter that Joe Louis fought that would be in someone's top 10 list of heavyweight greats?

You gave me a list of fighters that were frankly just not up it.

---

If you sound unreasonable it's because you are being unreasonable.

And I said "Who did he duck? Who was there for him to fight?" ....he beat them, he beat all of them, he beat some of them twice, everyone in his era. Yet you hold this "Yeah but he has no top 10 heavyweight greats in his record" alright then Master what are the qualifications needed to obtain Top 10 heavyweight greatness? I mean they're certainly not ambiguous feeling and emotionally driven opinions riiiiiight?

Now I want you to take notice, I never....I NEVER slate Ali based on who he didn't fight who wasn't around in his era. I NEVER do that. Ali could only fight who was in his era, which apparently you rate a great deal higher than any other era so I guess Ali was more LUCKY than good if what you're standing by what you're saying. Ali was more LUCKY to be in his era, where he could lose a few times and not have it impact his greatness, than say Joe Louis was in his era where he fought anyone and everyone but you didn't rate them so 25 in a row doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Stop trying to make me sound unreasonable.

I said name me a fighter that Joe Louis fought that would be in someone's top 10 list of heavyweight greats?

You gave me a list of fighters that were frankly just not up it.

---

If you sound unreasonable it's because you are being unreasonable.

And I said "Who did he duck? Who was there for him to fight?" ....he beat them, he beat all of them, he beat some of them twice, everyone in his era. Yet you hold this "Yeah but he has no top 10 heavyweight greats in his record" alright then Master what are the qualifications needed to obtain Top 10 heavyweight greatness? I mean they're certainly not ambiguous feeling and emotionally driven opinions riiiiiight?

Now I want you to take notice, I never....I NEVER slate Ali based on who he didn't fight who wasn't around in his era. I NEVER do that. Ali could only fight who was in his era, which apparently you rate a great deal higher than any other era so I guess Ali was more LUCKY than good if what you're standing by what you're saying. Ali was more LUCKY to be in his era, where he could lose a few times and not have it impact his greatness, than say Joe Louis was in his era where he fought anyone and everyone but you didn't rate them so 25 in a row doesn't matter.

---

Joe Frazier lost still considered top 10, Big George got beat still considered great, Liston falls outside because he was unlucky to have Ali in his era.

Now you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Frazier lost still considered top 10, Big George got beat still considered great, Liston falls outside because he was unlucky to have Ali in his era.

Now you go.

---

Now I go what?

You already admit your rating system is based on LUCK. Joe Louis holds a real record, like Tyson for youngest heavyweight champ that's a real record it's quantifiable your admiration for Ali while understandable isn't quantifiable. You can't say "Ali is the greatest because of _____" it's just "Ali is the greatest." and that's it there's no because of this because of that it just IS and for no definable reason. And that my friend is the crux of this debate.

25 up 25 down...a record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Joe Frazier lost still considered top 10, Big George got beat still considered great, Liston falls outside because he was unlucky to have Ali in his era.

Now you go.

---

Now I go what?

You already admit your rating system is based on LUCK. Joe Louis holds a real record, like Tyson for youngest heavyweight champ that's a real record it's quantifiable your admiration for Ali while understandable isn't quantifiable. You can't say "Ali is the greatest because of _____" it's just "Ali is the greatest." and that's it there's no because of this because of that it just IS and for no definable reason. And that my friend is the crux of this debate.

25 up 25 down...a record.

---

Again you are conveniently ignoring what I have written many many times.

Ali is the best because he beat what most people regard as 3 great heavyweights in his career. So it is not the crux of it.

Joe Louis, who did I mention got beat up and knocked out, went on a run of 25 defences and when I said name me someone on the list that would be regarded as a top 10 you talk about the depression and world war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Again you are conveniently ignoring what I have written many many times.

Ali is the best because he beat what most people regard as 3 great heavyweights in his career. So it is not the crux of it.

Joe Louis, who did I mention got beat up and knocked out, went on a run of 25 defences and when I said name me someone on the list that would be regarded as a top 10 you talk about the depression and world war.

---

Am I?

OK so Ali is great because he beat 3 greats....what made those 3 so great?


I mean I don't doubt they're great fighters I just want to know why they're considered great? What did they achieve which made them great? You know, besides the whole "most people say" baloney :rolleyes:


Are you saying the Depression and War didn't take out fighters? Braddock almost didn't make it due to the depression. And it ain't like a war where the entire world was involved would have any impact at all on men of professional boxing age or athletic ability....whether they were killed or lost their primes or were injured or damaged in some other way where they couldn't fight up to their potential...yeah not like that would have any impact at all on any sport but specifically boxing.


Fucking hell man......ok I guess i just have to give up anything I personal think and just let you fill in the blanks for me. If that makes you feel better Master, you go ahead and tell me why Ali is the greatest and be sure to not quantify it, just use emotions and "people think" or "people feel" because that's better than the actual achievements in the ring.


Ted Williams was the last guy to hit .400 ....oh but there are such better hitters today "Have any of them hit .400?" ....well no, but they're better because well people SAY and people THINK and people FEEL the pitching is better so the quantifiable numbers don't matter :shakehead:


Unbelievable

Stop having a hissy fit about this.

Joe Louis had 25 defences in all those 25 defences I asked name me a top 10 heavyweight that people would regard is worthy.

I have named 3.That is an amazing accomplishment, truly amazing and they were truly historic events.

I said Joe Louis was an amazing champion and I didn't want to criticise him at all. He had 25 consecutive defences you know.

Go on @Master! Seeing a different side to you here. Great debating skills instead of the usual “10 year old boy” drivel!;);D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Stop having a hissy fit about this.

Joe Louis had 25 defences in all those 25 defences I asked name me a top 10 heavyweight that people would regard is worthy.

I have named 3.That is an amazing accomplishment, truly amazing and they were truly historic events.

I said Joe Louis was an amazing champion and I didn't want to criticise him at all. He had 25 consecutive defences you know.

---

Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Max Scmeling rematch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Stop having a hissy fit about this.

Joe Louis had 25 defences in all those 25 defences I asked name me a top 10 heavyweight that people would regard is worthy.

I have named 3.That is an amazing accomplishment, truly amazing and they were truly historic events.

I said Joe Louis was an amazing champion and I didn't want to criticise him at all. He had 25 consecutive defences you know.

---

Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Max Scmeling rematch

---

Max Schmeling was a solid opponent but is nowhere near a top 10 HW. Walcott is a little outside 10. Maybe around 15 or so. Charles probably the same. Although Charles is known by many as the greatest LHW of all time. But Louis lost to him.

JJWalcott/Cincinnati Cobra was both TIED for #12 ATG.

The Walcott Waltz was stole by Ali.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Stop having a hissy fit about this.

Joe Louis had 25 defences in all those 25 defences I asked name me a top 10 heavyweight that people would regard is worthy.

I have named 3.That is an amazing accomplishment, truly amazing and they were truly historic events.

I said Joe Louis was an amazing champion and I didn't want to criticise him at all. He had 25 consecutive defences you know.

---

Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Max Scmeling rematch

---

Max Schmeling was a solid opponent but is nowhere near a top 10 HW. Walcott is a little outside 10. Maybe around 15 or so. Charles probably the same. Although Charles is known by many as the greatest LHW of all time. But Louis lost to him.

---

I don't think these numbers really mean much. Unless fighters dight each other we just don't know. Ruiz better than Joshua? If they had never fought we would probably say no. All just opinions and guesses really. One reason why prime Ali against prime Tyson is so fun. We can only imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Stop having a hissy fit about this.

Joe Louis had 25 defences in all those 25 defences I asked name me a top 10 heavyweight that people would regard is worthy.

I have named 3.That is an amazing accomplishment, truly amazing and they were truly historic events.

I said Joe Louis was an amazing champion and I didn't want to criticise him at all. He had 25 consecutive defences you know.

---

Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Max Scmeling rematch

---

Max Schmeling was a solid opponent but is nowhere near a top 10 HW. Walcott is a little outside 10. Maybe around 15 or so. Charles probably the same. Although Charles is known by many as the greatest LHW of all time. But Louis lost to him.

---

I don't think these numbers really mean much. Unless fighters dight each other we just don't know. Ruiz better than Joshua? If they had never fought we would probably say no. All just opinions and guesses really. One reason why prime Ali against prime Tyson is so fun. We can only imagine.

---

True but they are educated guesses. You could also say that Max Schmeling is better than Ali and we would never know because there is no way of truly knowing, but nobody in their right mind would say that.

Max Schmeling is better than Ali.

Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Case closed.

---

Powerpuncher said no one in their right mind, you do not count, case is not closed.

Clay of 1967 had great speed , id give Holyfield of 1991 a good chance, Lennox Lewis in his prime would have beaten him.
Holmes in prime would have a shot, rampaging 1988 Tyson would have a chance also..

Clay was a great fighter in his era.

Dark Lord Al said some wonderful things right there. I totlaly agree. 91 Evander gives 67 Ali a great run for that money and prime 4 prime Lennox might sure take him out by knock OUT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Clay of 1967 had great speed , id give Holyfield of 1991 a good chance, Lennox Lewis in his prime would have beaten him.
Holmes in prime would have a shot, rampaging 1988 Tyson would have a chance also..

Clay was a great fighter in his era.

---

There was no Clay in 1967 only Ali.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Clay of 1967 had great speed , id give Holyfield of 1991 a good chance, Lennox Lewis in his prime would have beaten him.
Holmes in prime would have a shot, rampaging 1988 Tyson would have a chance also..

Clay was a great fighter in his era.

---

There was no Clay in 1967 only Ali.

---

Now that gets into the whole nother can of worms! (Say my name! Etc)

Ali 1967 was the best we all saw of him, but it's probably safe to assume he could have even been better 1968 through to 1970 had he not been unjustly stripped & banned from fighting.

I have a hard time picking against Ali '67, but a good few would have given him fits.

Frazier always gives him trouble & Smokin' Joe was also in his pomp in 1969 & Joe had the one punch Ali hated, the monster Left hook.

Larry Holmes, Evander Holyfield & Tyson '86 - '88 also ask a lot of questions of him & probably give him his hardest fights.

Lennox Lewis & Wladimir also had the size & skillset to trouble him, but I think they are slower than him & would have found Ali too fast & elusive.

Would also have loved to see how prime Ali would have handled Ken Norton's awkard style because Ali just never solved Norton, although, to be fair, Muhammad was not in prime the three times he fought Norton.

1967 Ali willth out speed Norton who plods along

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Clay of 1967 had great speed , id give Holyfield of 1991 a good chance, Lennox Lewis in his prime would have beaten him.
Holmes in prime would have a shot, rampaging 1988 Tyson would have a chance also..

Clay was a great fighter in his era.

---

There was no Clay in 1967 only Ali.

---

You call Mike Tyson - Malik Abdul Aziz ? or Mike Tyson ?Christened Clay so he is Clay, won the title as Clay , being brainwashed by a death cult doesn't change that.
So Beanz comment on my boxing picks not a made up name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Clay of 1967 had great speed , id give Holyfield of 1991 a good chance, Lennox Lewis in his prime would have beaten him.
Holmes in prime would have a shot, rampaging 1988 Tyson would have a chance also..

Clay was a great fighter in his era.

---

There was no Clay in 1967 only Ali.

---

You call Mike Tyson - Malik Abdul Aziz ? or Mike Tyson ?Christened Clay so he is Clay, won the title as Clay , being brainwashed by a death cult doesn't change that.
So Beanz comment on my boxing picks not a made up name.

---

HE had the right to change his name. That you have always insisted on refusing to use it and acknowledge that right speaks volumes.

Holyfield is made to look ordinary by Ali and Lewis and Tyson have a punchers chance but not much more than that.

Frazier, 'could' beat the 67 Ali, doesn't mean he would have. Its all conjecture and you might as well try and guess the colour on a roulette wheel.

Yes Clay was at the top of his game in his own time.
As Tyson was the best in his time, Lewis the best of his time etc.

Why is the name change an issue.

A man has the right to change his name to whatever he wants to change it to. And if a man wants to be called Muhammad Ali, godammit this is a free country, you should respect his wishes, and call the man Muhammad Ali!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Why is the name change an issue.

A man has the right to change his name to whatever he wants to change it to. And if a man wants to be called Muhammad Ali, godammit this is a free country, you should respect his wishes, and call the man Muhammad Ali!

---

I have no issue at all , I have given my opinions on who would beat him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan

Dark Lord Al said some wonderful things right there. I totlaly agree. 91 Evander gives 67 Ali a great run for that money and prime 4 prime Lennox might sure take him out by knock OUT!

---

Ok. So I think we widely recognise the Ali of 67 as probably the best he’s been. So if you and Al think Lennox beats the best version of Ali. So is Lennox higher in the ATG Rankings than Ali?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatboxingfan

Dark Lord Al said some wonderful things right there. I totlaly agree. 91 Evander gives 67 Ali a great run for that money and prime 4 prime Lennox might sure take him out by knock OUT!

---

Ok. So I think we widely recognise the Ali of 67 as probably the best he’s been. So if you and Al think Lennox beats the best version of Ali. So is Lennox higher in the ATG Rankings than Ali?

---

Great question. Based off Lennox TWO getting sparked and Ali never got, Ali is rated higher than Lennox. Lennox could spark Ali might be 1 MAYBE 2 times out of 5, but Ali wins on points 2 out of 5 and Ali STOPS Lenn 1 of every 5 times (late stoppage like Homes stopped Cooney).

The other reason I wouldn't rate Lennox as high is based off competition. Old Mercer, old Holy, Old Tyson, Morisson, Golota.....
Don't stack up to prime Sunny Liston, prime Frasier, prime Foreman, prime Norton, Shivers, Lyle, prime Spinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Why is the name change an issue.

A man has the right to change his name to whatever he wants to change it to. And if a man wants to be called Muhammad Ali, godammit this is a free country, you should respect his wishes, and call the man Muhammad Ali!

---

I have no issue at all , I have given my opinions on who would beat him.

---

I was just trying to get one of my favourite Coming to America quotes in to be fair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark TKO

Why is the name change an issue.

A man has the right to change his name to whatever he wants to change it to. And if a man wants to be called Muhammad Ali, godammit this is a free country, you should respect his wishes, and call the man Muhammad Ali!

---

I have no issue at all , I have given my opinions on who would beat him.

---

I was just trying to get one of my favourite Coming to America quotes in to be fair

---

Fair play, that went right over my head. One of the funniest film sketches ever.;D

I think prime Tyson is a much better fighter than prime Frazier. Tyson would land because he has the speed as well as the great upper body and head movement. He would be able to bust Ali up IMO. Foreman and Shavers hit hard, but Tyson did it from both hands and in combination. Quite overwhelming. I can see Ali on his bike all night, but having his own flurry moments. He couldn't stop Tyson as Tyson had a good chin.

I maintain that Vitali would have been good as his size was something different. He would get hit, but he threw 80 punches a round and could punch. Ali would have issues with the range. Ali was more of a David Haye in terms of height and build. Wlad was technically better, but bad stamina and delicate. I always enjoyed Vitali. He just seemed like such a tough bastard. Shame about the Lewis fight as he was winning that too. Lewis was okay, but I find him overrated. Easily outboxed by Bruno, bad stoppage losses, and a bit robotic. I can see Ali doing well there as Lewis was not that out of range.

Great points espically about Ali could not stop Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

I maintain that Vitali would have been good as his size was something different. He would get hit, but he threw 80 punches a round and could punch. Ali would have issues with the range. Ali was more of a David Haye in terms of height and build. Wlad was technically better, but bad stamina and delicate. I always enjoyed Vitali. He just seemed like such a tough bastard. Shame about the Lewis fight as he was winning that too. Lewis was okay, but I find him overrated. Easily outboxed by Bruno, bad stoppage losses, and a bit robotic. I can see Ali doing well there as Lewis was not that out of range.

---

It is strange you call Lennox Lewis robotic when Vitali was far stiffer and slower. Sure Lennox had poor spells in fights but he generally came out on top. Wlad became a better champion than Vitali who was injury prone. If Ali was going to have trouble it would be to Wlad who was more fluid and had speed.