Was Ali really the greatest?
craig44
Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
So I overheard a conversation today and the question was if we look at Ali only as a boxer, taking away all of his social/political influence, was he really the greatest? He did loose twice in his prime, and could have lost the second norton fight and possibly the third fight against Frazier. He was somewhat undersized as a heavyweight. Could be have beaten a modern heavyweight? I wonder how he would have done against a large heavyweight like Lennox Lewis. What do you think?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Norton beat Ali twice. He got robbed in the 3rd fight.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
one fighter I always enjoyed watching, even though his time was short, was Larry Holmes.
All the recent focus on Ali just reminds me how worthless boxing as a sport has become. I miss watching boxing
The only fighting on TV now is UFC and its awful. I tried to like it for a few years initially but I can't and its only gotten worse.
All the recent focus on Ali just reminds me how worthless boxing as a sport has become. I miss watching boxing
The only fighting on TV now is UFC and its awful. I tried to like it for a few years initially but I can't and its only gotten worse.
I cant get into UFC. Its awful.
Pro Boxing, bowling, and Tennis were all great sports to watch on tv in the 1960's through the 80's. Today all 3 are a joke.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
As far as mma, if you put an elite boxer In the ring with an elite mixed martial artist and the boxer would get murdered. ali wouldn't have lasted one round with Randy couture.
I'm not so sure about this. Boxer Ray Mercer beat a 2-time UFC champion in 10 seconds. And Mercer was 15 years older than his opponent.
No UFC fighter in history can last one round in a boxing ring with a top 20 boxer.
Regardless of who is better between the boxer and MMA figher, the reality is that guys who otherwise would have got into boxing who now get into the MMA will dominate that sport as well. You can teach the basics of grappling to a boxer, but you're not going to turn a grappler into a puncher no matter what you do. The woman who beat Rousey is a hall of fame boxer.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Speculate all you want about Manilla, Ali was always able to continue and Frazier was virtually blind.
Let's not forget about big George Foreman. He destroyed everyone until he met Ali.
P.S. Let's stick to boxing MMA is fine but they don't compete against boxers.
As far as mma, if you put an elite boxer In the ring with an elite mixed martial artist and the boxer would get murdered. ali wouldn't have lasted one round with Randy couture.
I'm not so sure about this. Boxer Ray Mercer beat a 2-time UFC champion in 10 seconds. And Mercer was 15 years older than his opponent.
No UFC fighter in history can last one round in a boxing ring with a top 20 boxer.
Regardless of who is better between the boxer and MMA figher, the reality is that guys who otherwise would have got into boxing who now get into the MMA will dominate that sport as well. You can teach the basics of grappling to a boxer, but you're not going to turn a grappler into a puncher no matter what you do. The woman who beat Rousey is a hall of fame boxer.
I know this is correct if I'm agreeing with garnettstyle, lol..
Ali also faced much stiffer competition in his career than any heavyweight champion since that era. It's no secret that the most notable heavyweight champs since then~Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield~have all faced much easier opponents than Ali did. Ali also lost years during the prime of his career after being stripped of his title and license to box. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers, Quarry~the 1960s and 70s were the glory years of heavyweight boxing.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Most guys that enter mma come from either a wrestling or bjj background. I guess a boxer would have a punchers chance, but a great mixed martial artist (not tim Sylvia) would immediately take the fight to the ground and finish the boxer. 98 out of 100 times.
No way. A street fighter like Mike Tyson would destroy most mma fighters. At least in his prime.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
we can't know, but based on what he did before and after it is a good assumption that he would have been very successful.
I wasn't saying that MMA fighters can't fight. I just feel like the whole thing is a complete $hitshow. What has it been 15 years?
How are they are up to UFC 5000 already? Are they counting streetcorner bum fights where the winner gets a pack of smokes?
Where boxing took over 100 years to descend into silliness UFC is determined to do in 20.
let me rephrase that for you --- I refuse to believe Tom Brady would have been as dominant in the 1970's era game. without all the QB protection he would have gotten destroyed. as for Jim Brown, he'd be OK in today's game. entire defenses were designed to stop him and they rarely did. couple that with the simple fact that he never, absolutely never missed a single down due to an injury and retired when he was at the prime of his playing career and your assertion vanishes. if he had played a 16 game schedule like all the current "record holders" he would almost certainly have pushed his yardage into uncharted territory. his physical prowess is unquestionable and there was no protection, either by rules or equipment to afford him the "safety" that Brady has. he was simply bigger, stronger, faster and smarter than everyone else who played against him. during his time in the NFL he was ALWAYS the best athlete on the field, not the best Fullback, the best athlete.
we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Muhammad Ali.
I refuse to believe Jim Brown would have been as dominant in today's game
let me rephrase that for you --- I refuse to believe Tom Brady would have been as dominant in the 1970's era game. without all the QB protection he would have gotten destroyed. as for Jim Brown, he'd be OK in today's game. entire defenses were designed to stop him and they rarely did. couple that with the simple fact that he never, absolutely never missed a single down due to an injury and retired when he was at the prime of his playing career and your assertion vanishes. if he had played a 16 game schedule like all the current "record holders" he would almost certainly have pushed his yardage into uncharted territory. his physical prowess is unquestionable and there was no protection, either by rules or equipment to afford him the "safety" that Brady has. he was simply bigger, stronger, faster and smarter than everyone else who played against him. during his time in the NFL he was ALWAYS the best athlete on the field, not the best Fullback, the best athlete.
we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of Muhammad Ali.
We will return after I respond lol. Jim Brown was bigger than the lineman back in his day, not a freaking chance he would barrel through the Ray Lewis, Vince Wilfork type players, period end of story. And I absolutely agree with you about Tom Brady
I will agree that todays players are bigger and faster at positions of defense that Brown would be going against, it's just that he was a superior athlete and could transcend generations.
I vote for Marciano.
Impressive record and all, but he didn't face the same level of competition that Ali did.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
One of the few to go the distance with Tyson during his prime, but Mike later rearranged his face in front of Dapper Dan's in the middle of the night. lol I had not seen this clip in probably 30 years, but all of this heavyweight talk brought it to mind and forced me to go dig it up. Not only has it managed to remain priceless after all this time, but I'm still without a clue @ :26
Michelle Cicely Tyson
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I vote for Marciano.
Impressive record and all, but he didn't face the same level of competition that Ali did.
You cant tell me that all 49 fights were against bums lol.
So would rocky ever have lost to a spinks or a Norton ....No
Rocky had the shortest reach of any heavyweight in history and the man had extraordinary power.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Not many people realized it I know I didn't at the time, but boxing was all over by the 90's . Tyson era was pretty much the end of boxing .
I remember the 80's era with the fragmentation of the championships I think it was coming apart then.
Most guys that enter mma come from either a wrestling or bjj background. I guess a boxer would have a punchers chance, but a great mixed martial artist (not tim Sylvia) would immediately take the fight to the ground and finish the boxer. 98 out of 100 times.
No way. A street fighter like Mike Tyson would destroy most mma fighters. At least in his prime.
A street fighter like tyson would end up on his back in about 30 seconds and either be submitted or faced with ground and pound. The same would have happened to Ali. They just wouldn't stand a chance. Boxers just don't have the skill set. They do two things (move and punch) and do those things VERY well. Those two things are not enough against a mixed martial artist. Take kimbo for example. Vicious street fighter. The only decent mma fighter he faced (roy Nelson) took him to the ground and destroyed him. So no, boxers might win 2% of matches by the lucky punch.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Not many people realized it I know I didn't at the time, but boxing was all over by the 90's . Tyson era was pretty much the end of boxing .
I remember the 80's era with the fragmentation of the championships I think it was coming apart then.
Two events ended boxing, for me anyway.
1. In the late 80's the title was splintered with separate champions of the WBA, IBF, etc. HBO sponsored a unification series of matches to consolidate the titles again. Larry Holmes came out of his brief retirement to fight Michael Spinks, and beat him like an old rug. But Holmes winning would have defeated the purpose of the whole enterprise since he'd probably just retire again, so they awarded the match to Spinks. I'm sure there had been others before it, but this match was so obviously fixed and watched by so many people that it did tremendous damage.
2. On the heels of the fixed pro fights, the 1988 Seoul Olympics featured more fixed fights than legit ones; its possible that all of them were fixed.
3. Into this tremendously discredited sport stepped an ear-chewing rapist to hammer the final nail into the coffin.
I enjoyed a few George Foreman fights after that purely as spectacle, but I hold pro boxing and pro wrestling in equal respect as "sports". Do people bet on professional wrestling matches, which is to say do people bet on how the script was written? If so, then I suppose people still bet on boxing matches.
Not many people realized it I know I didn't at the time, but boxing was all over by the 90's . Tyson era was pretty much the end of boxing .
I remember the 80's era with the fragmentation of the championships I think it was coming apart then.
Two events ended boxing, for me anyway.
1. In the late 80's the title was splintered with separate champions of the WBA, IBF, etc. HBO sponsored a unification series of matches to consolidate the titles again. Larry Holmes came out of his brief retirement to fight Michael Spinks, and beat him like an old rug. But Holmes winning would have defeated the purpose of the whole enterprise since he'd probably just retire again, so they awarded the match to Spinks. I'm sure there had been others before it, but this match was so obviously fixed and watched by so many people that it did tremendous damage.
2. On the heels of the fixed pro fights, the 1988 Seoul Olympics featured more fixed fights than legit ones; its possible that all of them were fixed.
3. Into this tremendously discredited sport stepped an ear-chewing rapist to hammer the final nail into the coffin.
I enjoyed a few George Foreman fights after that purely as spectacle, but I hold pro boxing and pro wrestling in equal respect as "sports". Do people bet on professional wrestling matches, which is to say do people bet on how the script was written? If so, then I suppose people still bet on boxing matches.
The difference between boxing and wrestling though was no one ever believed wrestling was real , as a fake sport it could still entertain .
Boxing still had a legitimacy but that was declining due to all the self inflicted wounds. Plenty of sketchiness outside of the heavyweight area too.
Hagler/ Leonard?
Pernell Whitaker and De la Hoya against each other and both separately against other fighters always lots of controversy
by the early 2000's you could just assume that every fight that wasn't a knockout would be suspect.
Not many people realized it I know I didn't at the time, but boxing was all over by the 90's . Tyson era was pretty much the end of boxing .
I remember the 80's era with the fragmentation of the championships I think it was coming apart then.
Two events ended boxing, for me anyway.
1. In the late 80's the title was splintered with separate champions of the WBA, IBF, etc. HBO sponsored a unification series of matches to consolidate the titles again. Larry Holmes came out of his brief retirement to fight Michael Spinks, and beat him like an old rug. But Holmes winning would have defeated the purpose of the whole enterprise since he'd probably just retire again, so they awarded the match to Spinks. I'm sure there had been others before it, but this match was so obviously fixed and watched by so many people that it did tremendous damage.
2. On the heels of the fixed pro fights, the 1988 Seoul Olympics featured more fixed fights than legit ones; its possible that all of them were fixed.
3. Into this tremendously discredited sport stepped an ear-chewing rapist to hammer the final nail into the coffin.
I enjoyed a few George Foreman fights after that purely as spectacle, but I hold pro boxing and pro wrestling in equal respect as "sports". Do people bet on professional wrestling matches, which is to say do people bet on how the script was written? If so, then I suppose people still bet on boxing matches.
The difference between boxing and wrestling though was no one ever believed wrestling was real , as a fake sport it could still entertain .
Boxing still had a legitimacy but that was declining due to all the self inflicted wounds. Plenty of sketchiness outside of the heavyweight area too.
Hagler/ Leonard?
Pernell Whitaker and De la Hoya against each other and both separately against other fighters always lots of controversy
by the early 2000's you could just assume that every fight that wasn't a knockout would be suspect.
I quit watching boxing for years after the Leonard-Hearns decision. Couldn't believe it
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I still think both holyfield and Lewis would have beaten Ali. I think a 1988 tyson may have won too. He had great hand speed to go along with the power. He also had great defense at that time. Any fighter can be beaten, heck, Ali was beaten 5 times.
Holyfield Ali would have been interesting. With both in their prime, I would pick Ali in a decision, but it would be close.
Ali would have obliterated Tyson and here's why; Tyson didn't have the mental toughness to go along with his (early career) skills. Mike was similar to Frazier in style, but wasn't nearly as tough as Joe. Ali would have frustrated and angered Tyson quite easily and it would have been a beating. Tyson is the most over rated boxer of all time.
Ali had the speed none of these guys had and what doesn't get mentioned is that he could take a body punch, he didn't get hit in the head too often. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher, but in every other respect he was nearly perfect. Probably the smartest of all the guys mentioned here.
As long as the silly MMA thing is being bantered about, how is one of these guys going to take Ali down when he is getting hit 7 times in the face while trying to get close enough to grab him? Ali would have used his speed and ability to "dance" to avoid being tackled.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
I still think both holyfield and Lewis would have beaten Ali. I think a 1988 tyson may have won too. He had great hand speed to go along with the power. He also had great defense at that time. Any fighter can be beaten, heck, Ali was beaten 5 times.
Holyfield Ali would have been interesting. With both in their prime, I would pick Ali in a decision, but it would be close.
Ali would have obliterated Tyson and here's why; Tyson didn't have the mental toughness to go along with his (early career) skills. Mike was similar to Frazier in style, but wasn't nearly as tough as Joe. Ali would have frustrated and angered Tyson quite easily and it would have been a beating. Tyson is the most over rated boxer of all time.
Ali had the speed none of these guys had and what doesn't get mentioned is that he could take a body punch, he didn't get hit in the head too often. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher, but in every other respect he was nearly perfect. Probably the smartest of all the guys mentioned here.
As long as the silly MMA thing is being bantered about, how is one of these guys going to take Ali down when he is getting hit 7 times in the face while trying to get close enough to grab him? Ali would have used his speed and ability to "dance" to avoid being tackled.
A mixed martial artist would use a simple double to take Ali to the ground. A mma fighter could also use the clinch and a judo take down. A grapler would take a fast shoot and Ali would have been on his back. I'm sorry, I know you like Ali, and he was a great BOXER. He simply would not have been able to beat an elite level mma FIGHTER. He just didn't have the skill set. He would have been obliterated. Put him in the ring against Couture and it would have been a very quick fight.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I still think both holyfield and Lewis would have beaten Ali. I think a 1988 tyson may have won too. He had great hand speed to go along with the power. He also had great defense at that time. Any fighter can be beaten, heck, Ali was beaten 5 times.
Holyfield Ali would have been interesting. With both in their prime, I would pick Ali in a decision, but it would be close.
Ali would have obliterated Tyson and here's why; Tyson didn't have the mental toughness to go along with his (early career) skills. Mike was similar to Frazier in style, but wasn't nearly as tough as Joe. Ali would have frustrated and angered Tyson quite easily and it would have been a beating. Tyson is the most over rated boxer of all time.
Ali had the speed none of these guys had and what doesn't get mentioned is that he could take a body punch, he didn't get hit in the head too often. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher, but in every other respect he was nearly perfect. Probably the smartest of all the guys mentioned here.
As long as the silly MMA thing is being bantered about, how is one of these guys going to take Ali down when he is getting hit 7 times in the face while trying to get close enough to grab him? Ali would have used his speed and ability to "dance" to avoid being tackled.
A mixed martial artist would use a simple double to take Ali to the ground. A mma fighter could also use the clinch and a judo take down. A grapler would take a fast shoot and Ali would have been on his back. I'm sorry, I know you like Ali, and he was a great BOXER. He simply would not have been able to beat an elite level mma FIGHTER. He just didn't have the skill set. He would have been obliterated. Put him in the ring against Couture and it would have been a very quick fight.
Ali was also a great athlete. He competed against the best in the world when there were many GREAT fighters. You just assume he couldn't compete because these guys wrestled? That's silly. I remember Ali fighting against a martial artist and the karate (or whatever) guy couldn't do anything against Ali. You have to get to him to take him down, he could move very well. EVERY fighter chased Ali, very few caught him. They ALL got punched in the face multiple times trying to get to him. Couture beating Ali hahahahahahahaha! Like saying a pit bull could beat a Lion!
In fact this debate is one of the stupidest of all time! Who cares about athletes from one sport competing against ones from another sport? It's hard enough to compare within the same sport. So I'll take a sniper against all of these guys he would just hide and shoot them, or wait.....I'll take The Hulk from the comic books now that guy could kick A$$!
It is dumb to compare athletes from different sports. Anyway neither mma or boxing is really a sport.
Boxing started as a sport but lost its way and its dead . MMA is more of a grift than a sport , not in the way wrestling as in scripted and phony . Its just a cobbled together mess thats designed to extract money .
In boxing the fighters grew to have too much power over the sport , in MMA the fighters have none at all. It's like the NFL with the PED stuff the fighting while injured etc but they get paid like waitresses 2 bucks an hour plus tips
17. Mike Tyson. Why is he so low on the list? He had fast combinations, pulverizing power and was the great intimidator. He netted over 300 million dollars in purses (that he spent) because this anti-hero had record-breaking drawing power. So why isn’t he in the top 15? Iron Mike, another D’Amato creation, was the world’s greatest front runner. Never once did he walk through fire and win. He never came from behind to win. He never rose from the deck to win. Lack of heart? Lack of character? I don’t know. You tell me.
Klitschko was rated one spot higher.
I still think both holyfield and Lewis would have beaten Ali. I think a 1988 tyson may have won too. He had great hand speed to go along with the power. He also had great defense at that time. Any fighter can be beaten, heck, Ali was beaten 5 times.
Holyfield Ali would have been interesting. With both in their prime, I would pick Ali in a decision, but it would be close.
Ali would have obliterated Tyson and here's why; Tyson didn't have the mental toughness to go along with his (early career) skills. Mike was similar to Frazier in style, but wasn't nearly as tough as Joe. Ali would have frustrated and angered Tyson quite easily and it would have been a beating. Tyson is the most over rated boxer of all time.
Ali had the speed none of these guys had and what doesn't get mentioned is that he could take a body punch, he didn't get hit in the head too often. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher, but in every other respect he was nearly perfect. Probably the smartest of all the guys mentioned here.
As long as the silly MMA thing is being bantered about, how is one of these guys going to take Ali down when he is getting hit 7 times in the face while trying to get close enough to grab him? Ali would have used his speed and ability to "dance" to avoid being tackled.
A mixed martial artist would use a simple double to take Ali to the ground. A mma fighter could also use the clinch and a judo take down. A grapler would take a fast shoot and Ali would have been on his back. I'm sorry, I know you like Ali, and he was a great BOXER. He simply would not have been able to beat an elite level mma FIGHTER. He just didn't have the skill set. He would have been obliterated. Put him in the ring against Couture and it would have been a very quick fight.
Ali was also a great athlete. He competed against the best in the world when there were many GREAT fighters. You just assume he couldn't compete because these guys wrestled? That's silly. I remember Ali fighting against a martial artist and the karate (or whatever) guy couldn't do anything against Ali. You have to get to him to take him down, he could move very well. EVERY fighter chased Ali, very few caught him. They ALL got punched in the face multiple times trying to get to him. Couture beating Ali hahahahahahahaha! Like saying a pit bull could beat a Lion!
In fact this debate is one of the stupidest of all time! Who cares about athletes from one sport competing against ones from another sport? It's hard enough to compare within the same sport. So I'll take a sniper against all of these guys he would just hide and shoot them, or wait.....I'll take The Hulk from the comic books now that guy could kick A$$!
Joe, you clearly don't understand the fight game. I just chose couture as he was the first name I thought of (and yes, he would have destroyed Ali) but any number of elite mixed martial artists would have done the same. Either shamrock, ortiz, Jones, Silva etc all would have dismantled him. Not a knock on Ali, he just lacked the skill set. He wouldn't be able to defend the shoot, and would be on his back before he understood what had just happened to him. Sorry, that's just what would have happened.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I still think both holyfield and Lewis would have beaten Ali. I think a 1988 tyson may have won too. He had great hand speed to go along with the power. He also had great defense at that time. Any fighter can be beaten, heck, Ali was beaten 5 times.
Holyfield Ali would have been interesting. With both in their prime, I would pick Ali in a decision, but it would be close.
Ali would have obliterated Tyson and here's why; Tyson didn't have the mental toughness to go along with his (early career) skills. Mike was similar to Frazier in style, but wasn't nearly as tough as Joe. Ali would have frustrated and angered Tyson quite easily and it would have been a beating. Tyson is the most over rated boxer of all time.
Ali had the speed none of these guys had and what doesn't get mentioned is that he could take a body punch, he didn't get hit in the head too often. Ali wasn't the biggest puncher, but in every other respect he was nearly perfect. Probably the smartest of all the guys mentioned here.
As long as the silly MMA thing is being bantered about, how is one of these guys going to take Ali down when he is getting hit 7 times in the face while trying to get close enough to grab him? Ali would have used his speed and ability to "dance" to avoid being tackled.
A mixed martial artist would use a simple double to take Ali to the ground. A mma fighter could also use the clinch and a judo take down. A grapler would take a fast shoot and Ali would have been on his back. I'm sorry, I know you like Ali, and he was a great BOXER. He simply would not have been able to beat an elite level mma FIGHTER. He just didn't have the skill set. He would have been obliterated. Put him in the ring against Couture and it would have been a very quick fight.
Ali was also a great athlete. He competed against the best in the world when there were many GREAT fighters. You just assume he couldn't compete because these guys wrestled? That's silly. I remember Ali fighting against a martial artist and the karate (or whatever) guy couldn't do anything against Ali. You have to get to him to take him down, he could move very well. EVERY fighter chased Ali, very few caught him. They ALL got punched in the face multiple times trying to get to him. Couture beating Ali hahahahahahahaha! Like saying a pit bull could beat a Lion!
In fact this debate is one of the stupidest of all time! Who cares about athletes from one sport competing against ones from another sport? It's hard enough to compare within the same sport. So I'll take a sniper against all of these guys he would just hide and shoot them, or wait.....I'll take The Hulk from the comic books now that guy could kick A$$!
Joe, you clearly don't understand the fight game. I just chose couture as he was the first name I thought of (and yes, he would have destroyed Ali) but any number of elite mixed martial artists would have done the same. Either shamrock, ortiz, Jones, Silva etc all would have dismantled him. Not a knock on Ali, he just lacked the skill set. He wouldn't be able to defend the shoot, and would be on his back before he understood what had just happened to him. Sorry, that's just what would have happened.
And you clearly don't understand greatness. Ali is rated as the top or second best fighter of ALL TIME by every top 10 ranking and you think a bum wrestler could beat him?
Wow...........just wow. I am bowing out now, this debate is simply too stupid for me to continue.
Enjoy the Holiday.
Ali would probably need to get paid more than a carton of smokes that the UFC guys fight for.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
you miss the point entirely, Ali wouldn't need to learn a new "skill" from martial arts, only a couple of blocks to slow his opponent enough to punch the living crap out of him.
The wrestler would be knocked out cold very quickly.
you see, you do understand!!!
one final point, you seem to really be stuck on "skill set" as though the martial arts guy is smarter and more physically gifted than the boxer who only know how to do one narrowly described thing. this is where you "miss the point" entirely -- both could better be defined as disciplines. in that sense a bower is much more disciplined because he is constrained by the rules. there are only a few things he can do to his opponent. martial arts allows much more . to compare two boxers, look at an undisciplined street fighter type like Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali who was very disciplined, so much so that he defined how his opponents fought him.
I think he'd be perfectly capable of learning some basic martial arts skills.
I don't think you can compare a sport like boxing with a MMA fighting. It's apples and oranges. Ali may not have been a good bar fighter, either, but this is boxing we're talking about.
Most of us are talking about boxing. Craig hijacked his own thread to talk about Ali not being the greatest about random other stuff.
We can safely assume Ali was not the greatest MMA fighter or radio astronomer, he did not cure cancer , he probably couldn't deep fry a turkey very well, and his hits in Japan shouldn't be counted when comparing him to Pete rose.