Could Muhammad Ali had developed into a power puncher?

[Sweet Pea 50]

Hmm...

.....

I'm getting a strong Catskills23 vibe myself

[Skittlez]

Ali is probably the most featherfisted of all HW world champs.

He ranks bottom #5:
http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2342/...s-muhammad-ali

And I can tell the most important reason why: Because of his light heavyweight background.

Former cruisers (let alone former light heavyweights) never develop good power, be it Michael Moorer or Adamek or James Toney. The only exception would be borderline cruisers who are natural heavies (around 205-210) who artificially lose weight for the weigh-in and fight at 199 lbs.

Additionally the division developed, even Earnie Shavers would be considered featherfisted today:
http://www.heavyweightblog.com/2318/...ed-featherfist

Hey man !! How long did it take you to write that blog?

It seem like you invested your life into it !!!! I am impressed . It was a nice read man ! You are a good writer !

But can you help me out and answer if Ali could have trained himself into becoming a p4p power puncher?

[Skittlez]

I already answered that question.

As long as Ali remained a cruiser or a light heavy he could have been a p4p power puncher. As soon as he moved up to real heavyweight > 200 lbs he became a featherfist thus could never be a p4p power puncher. As soon as Shavers faced heavier opponents he became a featherfist.

Additionally your question is nonsense because p4p does not make sense regarding heavyweight. p4p is ASIDE of heavyweight. p4p has been invented to be able to compare sub-heavies to heavies. p4p is to make sub-heavies feel better about themselves. Including heavies in a p4p comparison makes no sense. p4p makes sense because lower divisions are only a few pounds apart.

What do you want to compare? Mike Tyson without muscles and a thin neck to to Floyd at 240 lbs? p4p makes only sense if you exclude heavies.

How come you can't use p4p for heavyweights?
Where do you have Lennox Lewis ranked p4p among the power punchers?
Lennox is my favorite fighter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you think Lennox could have fought like Ali and danced around the ring?

What about Wlad?

[Skittlez]

hweightblogger answer me back when you get back ok?

hweightblogger I'll wait for your answer.

[jcarstenm]

He could have been as he was one of the hardest workers of his era. The fact is he simply didn't need to be though. It simply would have encouraged other fighters to quicken up also and he would have lost a portion of his primary competitive advantage, speed.

[Vadrigar.]

[Skittlez]

wth
hweightblogger

I read your entire stupid blog out of respect and now you vanish on me and don't even answer my questions?

It took me hours to read through all that stuff man at least you can answer my questions.

[hweightblogger]

How come you can't use p4p for heavyweights?

Because p4p has been invented for lower weights.

Take for example Oscar De La Hoya, who has been champ in 6 different divisions. That is only possible because these divisions are merely a few pounds apart.

Now if you look for "Who has been the best super featherweight boxer?" then this would automatically EXCLUDE Oscar, since Oscar won the super featherweight title merely TWO times.

So the first reason "p4p" has been invented to say "OK, strict divisions apart, who was the best in a fantasy division around 120-140 pounds?" to include boxers who switched divisions frequently and therefore have only little wins in each division.

THAT is p4p. It's another term for "merging divisions that are only a few pounds apart". But that doesn't apply to heavyweight since heavyweight is unlimited.

The second reason why "p4p" has been invented to have fantasy match ups in the sense of "What if Oscar De La Hoya would gain 50 pounds of muscles and yet keep all his assets (speed, footwork etc)? Could he beat Mike Tyson?" or the other way around "What if Mike Tyson would LOSE all his muscles but keep all is other assets: Would he still win against Oscar?"

This second "p4p" also doesn't make sense for heavyweights because it completely distorts typical heavyweight assets like massive muscles, protective fat layers and hard chins. Or it assumes that Oscar would still be as fast and smart with 50 lbs more.

This second definition has been introduced mainly because nobody wants to watch sub-heavies, except for rare circumstances. So they invented p4p to say "Yeah, Floyd would have no chance against Mike Tyson, BUT FLOYD would beat Tyson if Floyd was 100 pounds heavier". Complete nonsense but that way one emphasizes that Floyd is a good boxer although he has not a 10 seconds chance against Mike Tyson.

This second definition of "p4p" makes also no sense for heavyweights.

In fact would you apply p4p for heavyweight then heavyweight would always lose against lower divisions because they are nearly always slower (of course) and less athletic (of course) and have more KO losses (of course).

So your question should rather be: "If Ali would be athletic and would box in today's cruiserweight division: Would he be considered a power puncher?" That question makes sense and the answer is "Most probably he would be a featherfist at modern cruiserweight, too, and most probably he would get KOed a lot of times since the cruiser division massively evolved".

[VG_Addict]

Because p4p has been invented for lower weights.

Take for example Oscar De La Hoya, who has been champ in 6 different divisions. That is only possible because these divisions are merely a few pounds apart.

Now if you look for "Who has been the best super featherweight boxer?" then this would automatically EXCLUDE Oscar, since Oscar won the super featherweight title merely TWO times.

So the first reason "p4p" has been invented to say "OK, strict divisions apart, who was the best in a fantasy division around 120-140 pounds?" to include boxers who switched divisions frequently and therefore have only little wins in each division.

THAT is p4p. It's another term for "merging divisions that are only a few pounds apart". But that doesn't apply to heavyweight since heavyweight is unlimited.

The second reason why "p4p" has been invented to have fantasy match ups in the sense of "What if Oscar De La Hoya would gain 50 pounds of muscles and yet keep all his assets (speed, footwork etc)? Could he beat Mike Tyson?" or the other way around "What if Mike Tyson would LOSE all his muscles but keep all is other assets: Would he still win against Oscar?"

This second "p4p" also doesn't make sense for heavyweights because it completely distorts typical heavyweight assets like massive muscles, protective fat layers and hard chins. Or it assumes that Oscar would still be as fast and smart with 50 lbs more.

This second definition has been introduced mainly because nobody wants to watch sub-heavies, except for rare circumstances. So they invented p4p to say "Yeah, Floyd would have no chance against Mike Tyson, BUT FLOYD would beat Tyson if Floyd was 100 pounds heavier". Complete nonsense but that way one emphasizes that Floyd is a good boxer although he has not a 10 seconds chance against Mike Tyson.

This second definition of "p4p" makes also no sense for heavyweights.

In fact would you apply p4p for heavyweight then heavyweight would always lose against lower divisions because they are nearly always slower (of course) and less athletic (of course) and have more KO losses (of course).

So your question should rather be: "If Ali would be athletic and would box in today's cruiserweight division: Would he be considered a power puncher?" That question makes sense and the answer is "Most probably he would be a featherfist at modern cruiserweight, too, and most probably he would get KOed a lot of times since the cruiser division massively evolved".

Yes, that explains why Mayweather and Pacquiao consistently sell out arenas. You really are a dumb ass.

[Skittlez]

Because p4p has been invented for lower weights.

Take for example Oscar De La Hoya, who has been champ in 6 different divisions. That is only possible because these divisions are merely a few pounds apart.

Now if you look for "Who has been the best super featherweight boxer?" then this would automatically EXCLUDE Oscar, since Oscar won the super featherweight title merely TWO times.

So the first reason "p4p" has been invented to say "OK, strict divisions apart, who was the best in a fantasy division around 120-140 pounds?" to include boxers who switched divisions frequently and therefore have only little wins in each division.

THAT is p4p. It's another term for "merging divisions that are only a few pounds apart". But that doesn't apply to heavyweight since heavyweight is unlimited.

The second reason why "p4p" has been invented to have fantasy match ups in the sense of "What if Oscar De La Hoya would gain 50 pounds of muscles and yet keep all his assets (speed, footwork etc)? Could he beat Mike Tyson?" or the other way around "What if Mike Tyson would LOSE all his muscles but keep all is other assets: Would he still win against Oscar?"

This second "p4p" also doesn't make sense for heavyweights because it completely distorts typical heavyweight assets like massive muscles, protective fat layers and hard chins. Or it assumes that Oscar would still be as fast and smart with 50 lbs more.

This second definition has been introduced mainly because nobody wants to watch sub-heavies, except for rare circumstances. So they invented p4p to say "Yeah, Floyd would have no chance against Mike Tyson, BUT FLOYD would beat Tyson if Floyd was 100 pounds heavier". Complete nonsense but that way one emphasizes that Floyd is a good boxer although he has not a 10 seconds chance against Mike Tyson.

This second definition of "p4p" makes also no sense for heavyweights.

In fact would you apply p4p for heavyweight then heavyweight would always lose against lower divisions because they are nearly always slower (of course) and less athletic (of course) and have more KO losses (of course).

So your question should rather be: "If Ali would be athletic and would box in today's cruiserweight division: Would he be considered a power puncher?" That question makes sense and the answer is "Most probably he would be a featherfist at modern cruiserweight, too, and most probably he would get KOed a lot of times since the cruiser division massively evolved".

Damn that is INTERESTING !!!!!!!!!!

So ok Why do you hate Ali? Is it because he's not a p4p power puncher or is it because he's black?