Wladimir Klitschko vs Muhammad Ali

You are weird.No, I'm real mother****er!

At least you're confused lmao! You are weird.

"Mathematically" I can't be more wrong?! I have no idea what are you talking about, lol! =D It doesn't make sense. I just quoted you, that's all...At least you're confused lmao!

Mathematically, you couldn't be more wrong, lmao! I think that posters who like me or can't stand me, like a give a ****...know me well enough to know that, that is an impossibility lol. "Mathematically" I can't be more wrong?! I have no idea what are you talking about, lol! =D It doesn't make sense. I just quoted you, that's all...

"Apparently you must think Wlad beats a prime Ali, lmfao!" This. Mathematically, you couldn't be more wrong, lmao! I think that posters who like me or can't stand me, like a give a ****...know me well enough to know that, that is an impossibility lol.

So the heck what. "Apparently you must think Wlad beats a prime Ali, lmfao!" This.

Come on man, didn't you see Haye slip Wlad's jabs with ease? Difference is Ali had great offense to compliment his defense. That's how I look at it to. I imagine Ali in Haye's place, and you can't honestly tell me Ali would not have been capitalizing on the openings Haye had. The difference in who was winning the rounds in Wlad-Haye came down to two or three punches Wlad landed each round. Ali would land those punches, because he was just way, way, way better than Haye. I'm not a big fan of using comparisons this way, but it's one of those cases where it fits.

I gave my opinion onSo the heck what.

Come on man, didn't you see Haye slip Wlad's jabs with ease? Difference is Ali had great offense to compliment his defense.

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), therfore 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. 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. 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. It's this automatic favoritism towards anything from days past. Even the bums from the 50's and 60's are somehow elevated to elite status (just because I guess they're tougher for fighting on black and white TV), whereas here a bum is a bum. "Those pu$$ies on HD tv, they're too soft."I thought that the difference between the two would be how Ali and Wlad lost in their prime. Ali lost decisions where as Wlad lost by brutal ko's.

Ali had superior footwork, speed and rhythm that puts welterweights to shame let alone the stationary heavyweights you get today, not to mention his combinations he could throw and the power...oh and his chin and the ability to out think his opponent in and outside the ring... KO to Ali in the late rounds

One thing to keep in mind is Ali wouldn't really need to move that far forward to catch Wladimir who only has a one inch reach advantage. Moreover I'm not sure he's fluent enough to compete with Ali once he gets going. If you look at the Wladimir of the Haye fight, he wasn't the same fighter when he was faced with a little movement and he didn't throw the jab with the same conviction (early on anyway). This wouldn't be wise against Ali, Wladimir would need to accept he is going to get hit and pump his educated jab in Ali's direction, not necessarily hitting him all the time but just stopping him from getting into a groove, I think with enough confidence this is definitely possible and would make the fight a lot better. I feel people are under-rating Wlad's defence here as well, his blocking and parrying is excellent and he rarely mistimes in that regard, as well as just putting his arms out and moving back out of range as you pepper his arms, sometimes it looks clumsy and stupid but it's very effective. I mean it's definitely an interesting fight, moreso than most would like to admit, but I feel Ali gets the decision.

Because I'm assuming everyone thought Ali would whip Wlad's ass. Apparently you must think Wlad beats a prime Ali, lmfao! I gave my opinion on the first page of this thread, clearly stating I would favor Ali. Apparently you should read first and then comment.

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

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

All you need to know: http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2342/vitali-klitschko-vs-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.

^^^ 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

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.

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. 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." 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.

Disagreed. I see the peanut gallery arrived, not even worth refuting it. Nothing to refute it's the damn truth.