Comments Thread For: Vitali Klitschko Compares Wladimir With Muhammad Ali

[Pugilistic™]

Absolutely, precisely correct.

Actually it's wrong and gives no credit to a great fighter like Wlad.

Wladimir isn't all size and reach, he has alot of skills to go with his size.

When did Ali fight someone who brought the combination of size and skillset that Wlad has, i will give you a answer........no one.

Wladimir having a poor chin is irrelevant because Ali didn't have devestating power to make him pay for it.

Ali may have the better mobility and speed but Wlad knows how to use his height really well, has good footwork, has a great jab and right hand and has the far better power.

Wlad would be competitive with Ali, no doubt in my mind anyway.

[Calilloyd]

You're being ridiculous. What on earth has prettiness got to do with it?

Valuev and Dimitrenko have more size and reach than Wlad. Neither would win a single round against Wlad.

Wlad under Steward's tutelage has size and reach allied to incredible athleticism for a big man, very good overall skills, and an ATG jab. Ali never fought anyone like that.

And Ali wasn't always as smart in the ring as you appear to think he was. When a decent opponent came up with a perfect game plan, he struggled. Norton was far from an ATG Heavyweight, although he was very good, but Futch gave him the perfect game plan, which Ali never came up with a solution for in three fights. If it hadn't been for biased judging, Norton would have won two of their three fights - and even their second fight, which Ali did deserve to win, was very close. And you can bet your life that Steward would give Wlad the perfect game plan if he and Ali could fight in a fantasy match-up. Ali wasn't very smart in the Thrilla in Manilla either. His game plan played right into Frazier's hands, and only his extraordinary determination and pride saved him. His game plan in their second fight was smart, but in the third fight he was ******.
Vitali admits that Wlad doesn't have a legacy to even remotely compare with Ali's legacy, because of his lack of strong opposition. And the Wlad of five years ago isn't comparable with the great fighters of the past either. But under Steward, Wlad has improved as much as Pacquiao has improved under Roach, and as much as Lewis improved under Steward. The Wlad of today would certainly have given even a prime Ali an extremely difficult fight in a fantasy match-up.

Ali fought the way he did in the third fight because he no longer had the legs to move the way he did in the second fight. And he was 12 pounds heavier due to being older. Not because of "******ity". You can say what you want about Ali, but he was one of the smartest fighters to ever step in the ring. If Ali was "******" Wladimir was borderline ******ed punching himself out against Brewster and Puritty. You mention that "Norton was no "all time great". That may be true but he was miles ahead of fighters like Brewster,Puritty and Sanders who all KO'd Wlad. Ali fought and beat much better competition and that's all that really needs to be said. The Wlad apologist can make excuses and try to downplay Ali's career but the history speaks for itself. And it can't be rewritten.

[Forza]

vitali > wlad > ali

[Dave Rado]

Ali fought the way he did in the third fight because he no longer had the legs to move the way he did in the second fight. And he was 12 pounds heavier due to being older. Not because of "******ity". You can say what you want about Ali, but he was one of the smartest fighters to ever step in the ring.

He barely won the second fight and he lost the first. His problem in all three fights was that Futch gave Norton a gameplan to negate Ali's jab, and Ali never worked out a way to solve that problem. I didn't say Ali wasn't smart, don't make things up. I said he wasn't always as smart as the poster I was replying to implied, and that he wasn't always able to adjust to a good gameplan. And you haven't addressed the issue that Ali's game plan was all wrong in the third fight against Frazier. Made it a great fight, but it wasn't very smart.

If Ali was "******" Wladimir was borderline ******ed punching himself out against Brewster and Puritty.

Saying that Ali was ****** in one fight is very different from saying he was ******. Stop twisting what people say, it demeans you.

The Wlad of today is not even remotely comparable with the Wlad of those days. You may as well base your opinion of Pacquiao on his losses to Singsurat and Torrecampo.

[Calilloyd]

He barely won the second fight and he lost the first. His problem in all three fights was that Futch gave Norton a gameplan to negate Ali's jab, and Ali never worked out a way to solve that problem. I didn't say Ali wasn't smart, don't make things up. I said he wasn't always as smart as the poster I was replying to implied, and that he wasn't always able to adjust to a good gameplan. And you haven't addressed the issue that Ali's game plan was all wrong in the third fight against Frazier. Made it a great fight, but it wasn't very smart.


Saying that Ali was ****** in one fight is very different from saying he was ******. Stop twisting what people say, it demeans you.

The Wlad of today is not even remotely comparable with the Wlad of those days. You may as well base your opinion of Pacquiao on his losses to Singsurat and Torrecampo.

I already addressed it. Ali fought flat footed for most of the third fight because he didn't have the legs to move like he did in the second fight. I'm assuming that's what you meant by "******". It was also extremely hot in that ring and I'm sure he stayed on the ropes at times to conserve energy. I'm not making anything up. You said he fought "******". And I don't compare wlad's situation to Pacquiao's at all. Wlad is an Olympic Gold medalist and he was not some novice when he lost to Brewster(with Stewart in the corner) or Sanders. You make good points but I think I can put up a strong argument against them.

[Steak]

Watch Liston and see how plodding and basic he is.

I stand by my remarks. The "Golden Age" of hw's is totally overrated and overstated.

one of those overrated Golden Age Heavyweights went on to become the #1 Heavyweight in the world at 45, almost two decades later

interestingly enough, a guy he should have deserved a decision over at 48 is getting a title shot today, 13 years later.
pretty crazy.


Wladimir vs Ali would have been a competitive fight.

[Rosseboi]

one of those overrated Golden Age Heavyweights went on to become the #1 Heavyweight in the world at 45, almost two decades later

but people refer to that decade which was 'two decades later' as defining lewis and tyson as well as being far better than todays. you're basically saying the 80/90's were crap too.

[WladIsTheChamp]

Which era Ali...the one who was knocked damn near unconcious by British Light Heavyweight Henry Cooper? Or the one who took 15 rounds to beat a slow imobile Chuck Wepner? Wlad might have no chin...lucky for him Ali had no KO power.

No, the same Ali that took credit for beating 177 lbs and 180 pounders, while managing an impressive 60% KO ratio against these LHWs, that's the Ali that would beat Wlad.


LOL

[boxing pundit]

No, the same Ali that took credit for beating 177 lbs and 180 pounders, while managing an impressive 60% KO ratio against these LHWs, that's the Ali that would beat Wlad.


LOL

At least Ali never got KTFO by a 24-13-1 unknown.

[Dave Rado]

I already addressed it. Ali fought flat footed for most of the third fight because he didn't have the legs to move like he did in the second fight. I'm assuming that's what you meant by "******". It was also extremely hot in that ring and I'm sure he stayed on the ropes at times to conserve energy.

I thought you were talking about the third Norton fight. But in the third Frazier fight he didn't clinch effectively, whereas his clinching was a major part of his game plan in the second fight. He seemed to me to be standing on the ropes and taking vicious body punches as an intentional tactic, in the mistaken belief that Frazier would punch himself out like Foreman did - and that's what I meant by ******. (He also tried using the rope-a-dope inappropriately in the first Spinks fight). I'm sure he still had the legs to turn his man and get off the ropes, or to clinch, if he'd wanted to. As for conserving energy, nothing saps the energy like taking the sort of body shots he took on the ropes in the third fight.

And you haven't addressed the issue that he never adjusted to Norton's strategy of negating his jab.

And I don't compare wlad's situation to Pacquiao's at all. Wlad is an Olympic Gold medalist and he was not some novice when he lost to Brewster(with Stewart in the corner) or Sanders. You make good points but I think I can put up a strong argument against them.

Audley Harrison was also an Olympic Gold medallist. The pro game is completely different from the amateur game. Pacquiao was no longer a novice when he lost to Singsurat in his fourth year as a pro, and was even less of one when he drew with Sanchez. Wlad was nothing much without Steward, but under Steward's guidance he has improved out of all recognition. Some fighters need a great trainer to be great, and Wlad and Pacquiao are two examples.

As for Steward being in Wlad's corner in the first Brewster fight, the improvement under Steward has been gradual but steady, just as Lewis's was. But the improvement has accelerated in the last two years.