31 yr old Fury vs 31 yr old Ali

[Rusty Tromboni]

i dont know you, but obviously you must be a dumb guy to not understand the gist of my post.
you cannot compare humans from different time periods because we were that much diff. The ave height of men used to be 5ft6 at that time, now its 5ft9/10.

this topic, is a hypothetical scenario, eg if they were both the same age, who would win?
I'm saying its a ****** scenario since people were smaller in Ali's era. in relative terms, if Ali existed today he wouldnt be the ali of that time period, he would be a taller/stronger/faster guy..but then that means he wouldnt be the same person.

so let's say Ali was 6ft5
he would TWAT Fury and everyone else.
don't let a performance vs a non-interested/bored klitschko and donkey wilder fool you. Fury hasnt fought anyone else. Chisora, sure..but chisora back then was erratic and not mentally in the right frame of mind to win fights, he was losing a lot of fights. David Haye knocked chisora out clean. Fury couldnt do that.
i'm not going to start thinking Fury is any different to the level he's always been at. it just means wilder is ****ter than we thought he was.

I hope someone will read that rant, since I never will.

[billeau2]

You said Ali didn't have a prime. I provided the evidence that he did.

You should also realize, as a Boxing fan, that many greats didn't enjoy a "prime".

Again, these are facts. You're spouting opinion.

I said his prime was taken and explained that to mean a good portion of his late twenties when athletes bloom and put it all together in boxing.

My understanding is every fighter will have his/her prime... If I come in as a pro at 40 and fight to 50 I would have a prime of one sort or another. Athletically we reach a certain point where we apex: our physical and experience reach equilibrium...if we can think it, the body can do it... Ali had incredible athletic ability so these years were significant for him... he may have even been greater for not losing them.

Many boxing greats are not Ali. How good would Jones have been if we took a chunk of his game away the years Ali lost?

So yeah Rusty...Ali had a prime. My grandma had a prime as the senior lady who looks the most like George washington (lol I swear its true! My dad brought it up once, Grandma was a dead ringer for the first president!) But he also was denied what would have been the athletically prime years for a fighter. And...if this occured with other fighters that does not make it better, or worse, concerning Ali.

And look...I am sorry, I do tend to say a fighter fights...and does the best he can and that is a form of greatness. I certainly would not say that Ali lost to Frazier because he was not in his prime...thats not my angle here. But lets not deny Ali his due, he deserves it. Try doing something as a matter of conscience and have every bigoted f uc w ad talk about what a coward you are. it was a courageous and noble thing for a warrior to say he would not kill people he had no business with. Thats special. That takes balls.

[billeau2]

Yup. Already did that. And only makes matters worse for you.

I'm not sure why even needs to be said though:

Like I've said several times, on planet Earth, Wilder's lazy jab and power double-jab are both effective for splitting Foreman's open guard. And his over hand right hacks down.

Someone much shorter, far less powerful, and lighter used this to great effect. His name rhymes with Raleigh... used to hang out with Steve Urkel's dad (a closeted gay man who wore the most fabulous bowties)... was famous in later life for doing a on-point impression of a vibrator.

Can you guess who i'm talking about?

Foreman would meet the same fate against Wilder that Cuevas and Duran did against Hearns. They're kevlar jaws and own fearsome offense were inconsequential.

Wilder is no Hearns. Look if you want to think Wilder would do that to George so be it... I want to invent a new concept Trombone and I want to pitch it here and now: we will call it the Fallacy of the static Opponent: and it states the following... When we consider what any fighter can do, we must always consider that a great opponent makes any fighter fail to achieve his end result. Furthermore, this process of causing failure is in direct proportion to the opponent's greatness.

So: George Foreman is not a static presence, sitting in the middle of the ring, gloves waiting to be split. When George encounters opposition he goes to the body (Wilder didnt like that body shot too much), he takes the fight inside and smothers the opponent (Like Tito did not do), and he attacks unrelenting. Wilder has very little answer for this process that I can see.

But hey who knows? my momma smoked...the doctor told her it would calm her nerves.

[billeau2]

Except that it does, here on Earth where matters are grounded in reality.

We saw Wilder take starching from a monstrosity in Fury... a fight he sought after being soundly outboxed in their first outing.

Foreman broke down in the Ali fight and his career spiraled out of control.

He wanted no part of the much smaller, albeit more talented and braver, Quarry.

Lyle took him to the brink.

So, yes when we see that Wilder is a man who'll meet scratch, and Foreman is a mental midget it absolutely matters.

This is why Triangle logic is so silly... So because Wilder who lost both times to Fury was able to be there it makes him stronger than Foreman? Dude... I mean if wilder won some rounds besides knocking Fury down... At least... that is ridiculous.

What about Ortiz? is he better than anyone Foreman fought? better than Frazier? Because he won almost every round of both those fights and had Wilder in serious trouble...Yet a puncher like Foreman would presumably not be able to do what Ortiz did? Ha! there is your logic right back at you...see how silly it is? Its a step removed from plausibility rusty... Just sayin.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Wilder is no Hearns. Look if you want to think Wilder would do that to George so be it... I want to invent a new concept Trombone and I want to pitch it here and now: we will call it the Fallacy of the static Opponent: and it states the following... When we consider what any fighter can do, we must always consider that a great opponent makes any fighter fail to achieve his end result. Furthermore, this process of causing failure is in direct proportion to the opponent's greatness.

So: George Foreman is not a static presence, sitting in the middle of the ring, gloves waiting to be split. When George encounters opposition he goes to the body (Wilder didnt like that body shot too much), he takes the fight inside and smothers the opponent (Like Tito did not do), and he attacks unrelenting. Wilder has very little answer for this process that I can see.

But hey who knows? my momma smoked...the doctor told her it would calm her nerves.

Ali is no Hearns, either.

He's not even a Benitez.

[elfag]

- -For the record, Ali busted his jaw vs Norton and then took a disputed decision in the rematch.

Fury took 47 stitches in an UD vs Wallin and then KOed Wilder.

Has 6 months before turning 32.

Man if Norton broke his jaw imagine what Fury would do to him.

[elfag]

This is why Triangle logic is so silly... So because Wilder who lost both times to Fury was able to be there it makes him stronger than Foreman? Dude... I mean if wilder won some rounds besides knocking Fury down... At least... that is ridiculous.

What about Ortiz? is he better than anyone Foreman fought? better than Frazier? Because he won almost every round of both those fights and had Wilder in serious trouble...Yet a puncher like Foreman would presumably not be able to do what Ortiz did? Ha! there is your logic right back at you...see how silly it is? Its a step removed from plausibility rusty... Just sayin.

Fraizer is a cruiserweight today.

[Rusty Tromboni]

This is why Triangle logic is so silly... So because Wilder who lost both times to Fury was able to be there it makes him stronger than Foreman? Dude... I mean if wilder won some rounds besides knocking Fury down... At least... that is ridiculous.

What about Ortiz? is he better than anyone Foreman fought? better than Frazier? Because he won almost every round of both those fights and had Wilder in serious trouble...Yet a puncher like Foreman would presumably not be able to do what Ortiz did? Ha! there is your logic right back at you...see how silly it is? Its a step removed from plausibility rusty... Just sayin.

I can appreciate that I put you in an awkward situation. You have bo argument, so you have to distort what I've actually said in to something different, and then attack that concoction.

But it's a bad look for you.

Point blank, Wilder proved himself a better man than George ever did by first pursuing Fury, and then enduring that beating without breaking.

Foreman could barely handle Lyle, and blew his wad against Ali. Jimmy Young forced him into retirement. So, while we know he'd never have the balls to actually enter the ring with Fury of his own accord, if he somehow found himself in there, he would find himself out before the 7th round.

The evidence shows Foreman lacked Wilder's heart and fortitude.

But again: you don't believe in facts; and you know Boxing better than the best trainer to grace the sport. So who am I to dispute anything you claim?

[Rusty Tromboni]

I said his prime was taken and explained that to mean a good portion of his late twenties when athletes bloom and put it all together in boxing.

My understanding is every fighter will have his/her prime... If I come in as a pro at 40 and fight to 50 I would have a prime of one sort or another. Athletically we reach a certain point where we apex: our physical and experience reach equilibrium...if we can think it, the body can do it... Ali had incredible athletic ability so these years were significant for him... he may have even been greater for not losing them.

Many boxing greats are not Ali. How good would Jones have been if we took a chunk of his game away the years Ali lost?

So yeah Rusty...Ali had a prime. My grandma had a prime as the senior lady who looks the most like George washington (lol I swear its true! My dad brought it up once, Grandma was a dead ringer for the first president!) But he also was denied what would have been the athletically prime years for a fighter. And...if this occured with other fighters that does not make it better, or worse, concerning Ali.

And look...I am sorry, I do tend to say a fighter fights...and does the best he can and that is a form of greatness. I certainly would not say that Ali lost to Frazier because he was not in his prime...thats not my angle here. But lets not deny Ali his due, he deserves it. Try doing something as a matter of conscience and have every bigoted f uc w ad talk about what a coward you are. it was a courageous and noble thing for a warrior to say he would not kill people he had no business with. Thats special. That takes balls.

So you misspoke.

That's all you needed to say.

Now, what does it matter when you can say the same applies to Dempsey and Fury?
Not to mention they were never coddled by Uncle Angelo and his machine.

And at least Ali's lost years were beneficial to his career. Can't say that about Dempsey and Fury.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Man if Norton broke his jaw imagine what Fury would do to him.

Well said.


And even when he didn't break his jaw, the jab was ALWAYS a problem for Ali.

Quarry used to **** down Norton's throat in sparring. Every puncher he faced poleaxed him.

And yet he bested Ali.

Wepner floored Ali and went 15 rounds.

This is the guy people think stands a chance against Fury!!!!!

It's madness!