Ali at 38 years old ( vitali's age )

[toyboy33]

A punchdrunk Ali who was showing signs of early stages of Parkinson's disease isn't the best comparison to Vitali, who is still in great shape and relatively fresh without having been in many tough fights.

Exactly. Vitali wouldn't be boxing now if he'd been through what Ali had by age 38.

[Suckmedry]

That isn't fair.

Vitali was also kickboxing champion of the world and had far more serious injuries than Ali ever had. You become more damaged from kicks than from punches. His four year "retirement" was to have surgery and heal those injuries.

Ali had a three year "rest" without injuries at a much younger age and people like you used it as an excuse for his loss to Frazier.

Kicks are more damging than punches? Ok. Another "fact" pulled out of his ass by Tunney, who as far as I know has never engaged in any combat sport.

Vitali's four year break was beneficial, he was injured, he got surgery, he healed, he recovered. Sometimes the benefit of resting from serious injuries outweighs the negative of inactivity.

Ali did not need a break, all the break did was accumulate ring rust.

Anyways, Ali fought Joe Frazier, a top ten ATG heavweight, only a couple fights after his layoff.

Vitali fought Sam Peter.

Oh, and another thing Tunney. I just remembered Ali did that exhibition with the Japanese martial artist who kicked the living **** out of Ali's legs, giving him serious problems with his legs, I've even heard it cited before as a partial reason Ali's legs were so bad later in his career.

So if kicks are more damaging Tunney...........

[knn]

Fact is Ali was in some tough fights that took a horrendous toll on his body.

Don't convert Ali's bad boxing (= bad defense) into a virtue (= he had tough opponents).

[knn]

Anyways, Ali fought Joe Frazier, a top ten ATG heavweight, only a couple fights after his layoff.

Vitali fought Sam Peter.

Don't mention featherfisted half-blind dwarf Frazier in the same sentence like Sam Peter.

[Steak]

Don't convert Ali's bad boxing (= bad defense) into a virtue (= he had tough opponents).

do you honestly think that any of Vitali's opponents were as good as Frazier or Foreman? honestly?

the only guy you could say is, of course, Lennox Lewis...and Vitali took a fair amount of punishment in that fight.

[Suckmedry]

Don't mention featherfisted half-blind dwarf Frazier in the same sentence like Sam Peter.

[Suckmedry]

Don't convert Ali's bad boxing (= bad defense) into a virtue (= he had tough opponents).

Ali at his best had pretty good defence. Not by fundamental standards, but he used his feet and reflexes pretty well to avoid shots.

And Ali did have tough opponents. The guy fought......

You know what, I'm not going to waste time going through who he fought, because your biased mind can't even comprehend it.

[knn]

All your arguments are based around cutting and pasting, erasing this and that, all to suit your pathetic and baffling agenda.

And you put way too much stock in KO ratios, which don't account for the level of comp.

You are right: My arguments are based on FACTS (= career records) and not on the USA's hype-machine of the 70ies. Wepner was a bum then, he would be a far greater bum now.

A guy like Wepner (35-14, deduct approx. 15 fights against cruisers) with 9 KO losses would be a warm-up nowadays.

I don't ever know whether the Klitschkos have ever boxed against anyone with such a record like Wepner. Maybe in the first months of their careers.

[Suckmedry]

You are right: My arguments are based on FACTS (= career records) and not on the USA's hype-machine of the 70ies. Wepner was a bum then, he would be a far greater bum now.

A guy like Wepner (35-14, deduct approx. 15 fights against cruisers) with 9 KO losses would be a warm-up nowadays.

Your arguments are based on skewing and twisting facts (ie: facts that nee to be looked into and taken into context, not just accepted) to suit your agenda.

[knn]

Your arguments are based on skewing and twisting facts (ie: facts that nee to be looked into and taken into context, not just accepted) to suit your agenda.

Hmm, calling facts "agenda"?

Prove me wrong then.