Muhammad Ali vs The Supersized Heavyweights

[them_apples]

i was going to put Lennox Lewis height as 6ft 4in like it claims in the Lewis v McCall fight programme which was published by Lewis promotional company

you are picking and choosing when it comes to height. it is well documented that Ali was 6'3, williams was 6'3 1/2 Foreman 6'3 1/2 and 6'4 in his comeback (I'd say he seemed about 6'4) Lewis was 6'5

[r.burgundy]

Ali - A+
Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Liston, Patterson - A
Quarry, Lyle, Williams, Norton, Bonavena, Folley - B+
Chuvalo, Cooper, Mildenberger, Ellis, Foster, Bugner,
Terrell, Mathis, Lewis, Young, Shavers - B

im not dealing with plus and minus.no gray area.you are either A or B.no - or +.ali and foreman were the only A guys.the beat everybody and usually in dominant fashion.they fought 1 of the great fights in history.i dont count holmes from that era.holmes career is predominantly 80's,and patterson and liston are predominantly 60's
the rest of those guys outside of frazier are all c-level guys.absolutely nothing special whatsoever.they are gatekeepers.credible opponents but not a real threat

[mickey malone]

The bigger they are, the easier Ali beats them.. He'd have had a field day with Valuev, much like Max Baer did with Carnera.. He'd have Lewis, Bowe, Wlad and Vitaly punching at the air for most of the fight.. If he can wear down and burn out a prime Foreman, he'll sure as hell do it to all the above..

[Hi-Dro]

good thread i agree with it

it is reasonable, and supported by facts which guys who downplay ali always leave out

[sonnyboyx2]

im not dealing with plus and minus.no gray area.you are either A or B.no - or +.ali and foreman were the only A guys.the beat everybody and usually in dominant fashion.they fought 1 of the great fights in history.i dont count holmes from that era.holmes career is predominantly 80's,and patterson and liston are predominantly 60's
the rest of those guys outside of frazier are all c-level guys.absolutely nothing special whatsoever.they are gatekeepers.credible opponents but not a real threat

i am cool with going down your route in which case i would rate :
Lewis, Wlad & Vitali - class C
all their opponents - class E

[sonnyboyx2]

you are picking and choosing when it comes to height. it is well documented that Ali was 6'3, williams was 6'3 1/2 Foreman 6'3 1/2 and 6'4 in his comeback (I'd say he seemed about 6'4) Lewis was 6'5

are you saying that height is a very important factor in a boxing match?

it was always considered that weight-lifting was taboo to a boxer because it ruined fast-twitch muscle, it was also always deemed that any fighter who`s height was over 6ft 4ins that their height was a hindrance.

[sonnyboyx2]

you are picking and choosing when it comes to height. it is well documented that Ali was 6'3, williams was 6'3 1/2 Foreman 6'3 1/2 and 6'4 in his comeback (I'd say he seemed about 6'4) Lewis was 6'5

i debated with myself before starting this thread wondering if it would turn into an argument about height & weight by some who never had the boxing knowledge to debate the topic of Muhammad Ali vs Super-sized heavyweights

[Jim Jeffries]

are you saying that height is a very important factor in a boxing match?

it was always considered that weight-lifting was taboo to a boxer because it ruined fast-twitch muscle, it was also always deemed that any fighter who`s height was over 6ft 4ins that their height was a hindrance.

There were lots of misconceptions about weight training in the old days. I think Haye is proof of weight lifting not hindering speed, as well as the 300 lb linebackers these days with a 4.6 40 yard dash. They were as wrong about that as they were wrong forcing people to take salt tablets.

Height did use to be more of a hindrance, as you rarely saw anyone 6'6" or over that had much athleticism or coordination, which is not the case today.

And I've now heard you argue that both height and weight are hindrances, so please explain to me why we have weight classes again? Have you never heard the saying "a great small man beats a good big man, but a great big man beats everyone?"

[Poet682006]

There were lots of misconceptions about weight training in the old days. I think Haye is proof of weight lifting not hindering speed, as well as the 300 lb linebackers these days with a 4.6 40 yard dash. They were as wrong about that as they were wrong forcing people to take salt tablets.

The issue with weight training wasn't so much that it killed a fighters speed but rather that it dulled their reflexes. Reflexes are everything in boxing. I would also point out that while those 300 pound football players have impressive 40 times, it's all straight ahead speed. They have practically no agility and mobility which is why you rarely see offensive linemen pulling these days. Fast in a straight line yes, but ability to move quickly side to side.

Height did use to be more of a hindrance, as you rarely saw anyone 6'6" or over that had much athleticism or coordination, which is not the case today.

Height is the least important physical attribute when it comes to boxing, with reach being the most important.

And I've now heard you argue that both height and weight are hindrances, so please explain to me why we have weight classes again? Have you never heard the saying "a great small man beats a good big man, but a great big man beats everyone?"

Like practically all sound-bite bromides spouted by TV broadcasters it's a gross over-simplification and like all over-simplifications it sounds good on the surface but loses its accuracy the more simplistic it gets. It's similar to the old bromide of "styles make fights". Well, the truth is there are VERY few style matchups that are determinative. The better fighter usually wins regardless of stylistic matchup: The style matchup may make it a bit more difficult a fight, but he still wins.

Poet

[CarlosG815]

There were lots of misconceptions about weight training in the old days. I think Haye is proof of weight lifting not hindering speed, as well as the 300 lb linebackers these days with a 4.6 40 yard dash. They were as wrong about that as they were wrong forcing people to take salt tablets.

Height did use to be more of a hindrance, as you rarely saw anyone 6'6" or over that had much athleticism or coordination, which is not the case today.

And I've now heard you argue that both height and weight are hindrances, so please explain to me why we have weight classes again? Have you never heard the saying "a great small man beats a good big man, but a great big man beats everyone?"

Haye is proof because he packed on muscle through weight training and wasn't able to dodge Ruiz' "see coming from a mile" punches?

And I know what you're referring to, being a Euro hugger who would love to get plowed by both Klits and David Haye at the same time. You're referring to the Klit brothers being 6'6+ and being "Agile" in your opinion, when in reality they are anything but. That's why they can't throw combinations, they get hit pretty easily, and they rely on their jab to carry them for 12 rounds.

The fact is that boxers who stick to boxing, running, and calisthenics have the best speed and reflexes.

RJJ is a good example of what happens to a guy when he puts on too much muscle. Even after he lost the weight he never got his speed and reflexes back.