Wladimir Klitschko vs Muhammad Ali

[damuttz112]

Originally Posted by Cupocity303

If the basis for your argument is that Ali would beat Wlad easily because:

*Wlad struggled or lost Vs (insert fighter here) but

*Ali did great vs (insert fighter here), therefore Ali TKO Wlad; then yes I will pick his resume apart for the purpose of destroying the argument that Ali has faced anyone who even remotely resembled Wlad.

Once again, Ali never had any trouble with boxers who were taller than him; Liston, Lyle, Bugner & Terrell. The reality is Wladimir did struggle against the likes of Brewster, Sanders, Peter and so on.

Originally Posted by Cupocity303

There is a lot of Boxing Socialism going on when discussing past and present Era's. You've got redistribution of wealth in Socialist economics, and you've got redistribution of Greatness in Boxing.
Anyone who defeated a Great fighter from the past is automatically considered Great himself.

Do you consider Hasim Rahman great for his defeat of Lewis?

Do you consider Danny Green a great for his defeat of Roy Jones?

Do you consider Buster Douglas an ATG for defeating Tyson?

See what I'm trying to suggest? Your argument is inconsistent and is related to the apologist K2 Fan logic. "If anyone criticizes the Klitschko's they either haters or historians who hate modern boxers."

Originally Posted by Cupocity303

But if someone beats Wlad, completely the opposite. Redistributionism.
I.E. if someone beats up Ali or Joe Louis for example, they're being given credit as a Great Fighter. But if someone beats up Wlad, or gives him problems, it's the opposite. It's used to discredit Wlad because look - he is not so dominant anymore, this guy knocked him down 3 times (Peter) and that guy knocked him out. His chin sucks and his opponent sucked. Never mind that his opponent was a hard puncher and had a decent record on his own merit.

Louis was stopped against Schmelling and avenged his defeat, something Wladimir can never attest to against Sanders. I do not consider Schmelling a top 15 Heavyweight.

The criticism is valid; no one and I mean no one considers the likes of Sanders (rip), Brewster & Purrity as Great Heavyweights in History. Famous for their upsets but their overall body of work in comparison to others (even Wlad) is poor.

Foreman dominating Frazier is one of the best performances of all time. Wladimir's losses came in the first half of his career. Because he's already had 3 bad losses, another one at this point in his career would hurt him badly. Even CHEF suggested if Wladimir were to lose badly in the next 2 years they would consider retirement straight away.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Cupocity303

This is a non starter and irrelevant question and we've been through this countless of times. It has nothing to do with analyzing the fight unless we're talking about the perception of who has the better resume, to which I would confess that YES - on paper Ali has the better achievements.



As I said in the previous post (and I posted the video of the fight) it didn't even occur to me that Terrel was 6'6, because he didn't look like it. His stance was horrible, the way he held his hands up invited flurries from Ali. He barely threw straight combinations (like Wlad would do), and barely used his Jab. If this is the basis for picking Ali to dominate and TKO Wlad, then fine, I can't say anything more about it than I already have.

This is irrelevant. Vitali is not Wlad but even that has no basis for anything as it was the ref who stopped it, not Vitali himself. Had that exact same fight occurred under 1940, 50's conditions, the ref wouldn't have even thought about stopping it, and who knows what would have happened (the extremists on both sides would have either said A) Vitali was winning the rounds and would have won the fight or B) Lennox was starting to come on and Vitali was breaking down, and would have won anyway). Irrelevant.





I have nothing against people picking Ali. Especially a competitive yet still clear decision.

However making abrasive statement like Ali dominating and getting late TKO's is illogical and emotional reasoning. I can only speculate on reason why one would say such things - either a strong dislike for The Klischko's or some Nostalgia for the old days.

^^^ this. Ali never faced anybody like Wlad, only Holmes and Foreman are comparable really.
People tend to treat this subject with great emotion, rather than objectivity.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by WladimirK

^^^ this. Ali never faced anybody like Wlad, only Holmes and Foreman are comparable really.
People tend to treat this subject with great emotion, rather than objectivity.

cupocity, I like your argumentation, nostalgic people have a job keeping up with you

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by hweightblogger

All you need to know:

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2342/...s-muhammad-ali

thanks, this is interesting. Funny, I always thought Mike Tyson would KO Wlad brutally, while Wlad had a very good chance dominating Ali.

[Cupocity303]

So it took you this long to come up with this "well thought out reply"? Notice i put it in quotation marks.

Originally Posted by damuttz112

[SIZE=3][SIZE=2][B]Once again, Ali never had any trouble with boxers who were taller than him; Liston, Lyle, Bugner & Terrell. The reality is Wladimir did struggle against the likes of Brewster, Sanders, Peter and so on.

And your point being? Oh right, there is no point because there is no correlation besides you being smug by once again insinuating that Wlad got beaten by "bums" and Ali didn't. There is no point other than that both guys lost three fights at bare minimum.

It has no basis for a Prime Vs Prime argument. Unless you want me to start using the 1970's fights of Ali as part of my reasoning for why he would lose. The only difference is, Ali lost his prime in his mid 30's and was better as a young man, whereas Wlad is more of a late bloomer and became better with age.

Do you consider Danny Green a great for his defeat of Roy Jones?

No and for obvious reasons. Because Roy Jones was way past his prime and had no status as a Top contender, yet alone a Champion. You shouldn't of used this example as it didn't belong with the other two.

Do you consider Hasim Rahman great for his defeat of Lewis?



Do you consider Buster Douglas an ATG for defeating Tyson?

See what I'm trying to suggest? Your argument is inconsistent and is related to the apologist K2 Fan logic. "If anyone criticizes the Klitschko's they either haters or historians who hate modern boxers."

This is a strawman argument of upsets. No, I don't consider them Great and that's the point (which you missed). Notice how you didn't use this same example with a Fighter from the past, non-modern era. And I never said Brewster should automatically get the "greatness" treatment for beating Wlad. I said that other great fighters get this treatment while Brewster gets treated like a bum, therefore "Wlad sucks because he lost to a scrub".

Lets take a look at Joe Frazier. With one win over Ali and a couple title defenses, he gets to be an All-time great. The consensus now being that:

Beating Ali made Frazier great, and Ali beating Frazier two more times in a Triology made Ali even greater. Maybe Ali shouldn't have lost to Frazier to begin with, if he is so great? You know the same way Wlad is supposed to be perfect and never have lost to Brewster, Sanders or anybody (even though he is 59-3 for God sake).

Louis was stopped against Schmelling and avenged his defeat, something Wladimir can never attest to against Sanders. I do not consider Schmelling a top 15 Heavyweight.

That's fair. Still has nothing to do with a head to head, prime vs prime argument. Only resumes; and I have Louis ahead of Wlad on the All-time list. But the thread topic wasn't about accomplishments.

I too hold it against Wlad for not having avenged all three losses just for principal reasons.

The criticism is valid; no one and I mean no one considers the likes of Sanders (rip), Brewster & Purrity as Great Heavyweights in History. Famous for their upsets but their overall body of work in comparison to others (even Wlad) is poor.

They are no worse than a Ken Norton, who gave Ali and a young Larry Holmes fits. Yet I bet Norton gets the All-time treatment for his 42-7 record....JUST BECAUSE !!!

Sanders on paper is 6'4 with a 46-4 record. Brewster is 35-6. No ATG's but nothing to be ashamed of either. And nothing to take from those fights (and come to retarded conclusions) aside from the fact that Wlad wasn't as good as he is today, having improved his Tall-man's style of fighting and doing more with less; instead of trying to fight like a smaller fighter.

[Cupocity303]

Keep in mind with all of the above that I said, that it's not me having a problem with people picking Ali to win. That's fine. You can do that.

The problem is that some of you find it impossible that Wlad could beat Ali, and people having a good contrarian argument for why Wlad could beat Ali. This knee-jerk reaction to anyone who doesn't toe the line.

"If anyone criticizes the Klitschko's they either haters or historians who hate modern boxers."

No it's not me. It's some of you guys that do this, pot calling the kettle black. I give a well detailed explanation why I think Wlad would win, and some guy replies to me with something like this:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...&postcount=114

Either sh1t or get off the pot. Bring some strong counter-arguments instead of knee jerk hysteria that sound like, "omg how can you say Ali didn't fight anybody that's better than Wlad. This is stupid lol"

[damuttz112]

LOL, Fair enough. I'm just used to all these K2 Fans spouting
'Ali would get sparked the fuck out',
'Ali get's dominated because he telegraphs his punches too much',
'Ali was lucky because of the eastern euro's were not aloud to fight back then'
'Ali get's beaten cause Wladimir is too fast'
'Ali is too small he would be a Crusierweight.'

I mean what the fuck?

Tough fight but I believe Ali always found a way to win.

I'll try and do a GIF breakdown on how Wladimir could approach this fight in a H2H Matchup.

ps: I think it would be an ugly ass fight, not necessarily the barnburner that I would hope it could be.

[Skittlez]

Originally Posted by WladimirK

thanks, this is interesting. Funny, I always thought Mike Tyson would KO Wlad brutally, while Wlad had a very good chance dominating Ali.

That blog is utter trash.

I feel sorry for the guy who spend that much time writing it.

I once asked him how long he took and he said 20 straight days.

I wrote a similar blog regarding Lennox Lewis dominating every person alive that ever boxed and it took me 45 minutes.

I emailed it to him and he was shocked.. he asked me how long I took and I told him 45 minutes.. I also told him that anybody with a Boxing IQ over 20 and with a will to troll can literally make up a 'blog' about any boxer or group of boxers and make them unbeatable using 'facts' and 'stats'.

[Skittlez]

It's ****ing outrageous to consider Wlad unbeatable when the best fighter he ever fought skill wise was David Haye.

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Skittlez

It's ****ing outrageous to consider Wlad unbeatable when the best fighter he ever fought skill wise was David Haye.

Well Wlad isn't unbeatable.
Btw I consider Chris Byrd better skill wise than Haye. Haye isn't even remarkably skilled boxing wise