Home Sports Talk

Was Ali really the greatest?

craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
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, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

«1

Comments

  • DIMEMANDIMEMAN Posts: 22,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No question he was the greatest. He would have beaten Lewis, Iron Mike and all the rest. I thought he won all 3 of the Frazier fights......they gave one to Joe.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not convinced. it was said could not have answered the bell in the 15th round of the manilla fight. Had Joes corner not thrown in the towel, Frazier would have won the trilogy. He was also washed up by age 36. I think he would have had all kinds of trouble with Lewis who would have had a sizable weight and reach advantage.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    No way. Pound for pound, Marciano was the greatest.

    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

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That would have been an interesting fight. Ali vs the undefeated heavyweight champ

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    this debate is the same as all other sports debates that try to gauge athletes from different eras, especially when we have been witness to some and not the others. I think Ali faced competition that was better than the boxers that came before and after him, which provides a different perspective to view his greatness. he was certainly one of the smartest boxers I have ever watched and that developed as he got older and his strength/speed/stamina against younger men was fading. it's all about time and timing, drop a great boxer off at certain times and he'd always be great and defeat all comers. that is true of Muhammad, but is it true of all the other greats??



    one fighter I always enjoyed watching, even though his time was short, was Larry Holmes.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭



    All the recent focus on Ali just reminds me how worthless boxing as a sport has become. I miss watching boxing image

    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.
  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: bronco2078



    All the recent focus on Ali just reminds me how worthless boxing as a sport has become. I miss watching boxing image

    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

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think I disagree keets. I don't think Ali aged very well at all. He was done by 35-36 years old. He hung on for a few more years, but his days as an elite fighter were all over. I think a pre heart condition Holyfield would have beat him. A much superior athlete who was also a smart fighter. Would have been a good fight as both would have been considered small heavyweights in the modern fight world. I think people get wrapped up in his charisma and his part in the social change of the 60's-70's and he gets romanticized unlike few athletes. He was a great boxer, but was beatable and I question whether he really is the goat.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: craig44
    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

  • BLUEJAYWAYBLUEJAYWAY Posts: 7,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One thing we will never know is if the 3 years he was suspended from boxing, while in his prime, could of enhanced his record or reduced his record of W/L. Thereby increasing or lessening his "Greatness" designation.
    Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    No doubt in my mind AT ALL, Ali was the GREATEST! He was a bit undersized early in his career, but he filled out later.

    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.
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: garnettstyle

    Originally posted by: craig44

    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.
  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: craig44
    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

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,357 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tough to tell comparing people from decades ago to today. I refuse to believe Jim Brown would have been as dominant in today's game however Boxing is a different sport and regardless of the era I think it's fair to compare since it's all about one individual without " Systems" and other variables.
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    One thing we will never know is if the 3 years he was suspended from boxing



    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.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭


    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.



  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,357 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: keets
    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
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    the thing with Jim Brown is that he was a smart player, he used his body to his advantage and always seemed to be in control of how he was moving. he ran over players because he could, he ran around players when he needed to and he ran away from whoever he wanted to. your Ray Lewis' and Vince Wilfork's would be hard pressed to tackle him. additionally, playing in this era he would be used in a different way, not running sweeps which was the main thing in the 50's and 60's. with good blocking up front and his speed he'd be through the line and challenging the LB's in a way that would see them lose more often than not. the Giants designed their defenses to stop HIM and were only marginally successful, players like Dick Butkus shadowed him for entire games and lost. I was lucky enough to see him play and he did things......................



    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.
  • pitbosspitboss Posts: 8,643 ✭✭✭
    I vote for Marciano.
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: pitboss

    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.
  • galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,113 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I cast my vote for Mitch Green.



    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









  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: grote15
    Originally posted by: pitboss
    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

  • BullsitterBullsitter Posts: 5,320 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tyson would have beat Ali.

    image
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    .well, I guess that settles it, he has spokenimage
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Who did Tyson beat? Really? No way he would have beaten Ali unless he caught him flush in his prime but Ali was too quick for that.


    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.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭


    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.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: garnettstyle

    Originally posted by: craig44

    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, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ali was the greatest heavyweight I've ever seen



    mark
    Walker Proof Digital Album
    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......
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,103 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: bronco2078
    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.
    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: dallasactuary
    Originally posted by: bronco2078
    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?imageisgust; Leonard/Hearns 2?? I think ? Leonard Duran.... No Mas baffling

    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.


  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: bronco2078

    Originally posted by: dallasactuary

    Originally posted by: bronco2078

    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?imageisgust; Leonard/Hearns 2?? I think ? Leonard Duran.... No Mas baffling



    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
    Walker Proof Digital Album
    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......
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: craig44
    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.






    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • orioles93orioles93 Posts: 3,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not saying they're better than Ali but the best I've actually seen were Tyson and Klitschko. Klitschko was a beast.
    What I Collect:

    PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 77.97% Complete)


    PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.26% Complete)


    PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai

    Originally posted by: craig44

    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, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: craig44
    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai
    Originally posted by: craig44
    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$$!
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭


    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 image

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    From Bill Caplan’s 20 greatest heavyweights;

    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.
    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai

    Originally posted by: craig44

    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai

    Originally posted by: craig44

    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, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: craig44
    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai
    Originally posted by: craig44
    Originally posted by: JoeBanzai
    Originally posted by: craig44
    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.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    if Ali in his prime were to be scheduled to fight ____________ in his prime in one of these MMA spectacles there would be what, 6-12 months to train before the fight, er, match. I feel confident that Muhammad would be sufficiently capable of avoiding "the shoot" that would be used on him. the question is whether the other guy would be able to sustain the power of Ali's punches?? I don't think that can be trained, so yes, I feel safe in thinking that the champ would be OK in a cage fight, or is it a match?? I get confused.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭


    Ali would probably need to get paid more than a carton of smokes that the UFC guys fight for.
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Joe, Ali is most certainly not one of the top a two FIGHTERS of all time. He may however be one of the top two BOXERS of all time. There is a large difference between the two of which you clearly don't understand. You obviously don't like mixed martial arts and that is fine. But by denigrating and poking fun at it, you come across as condescending are just illustrating your ignorance of the subject. Being an elite mixed martial artist is similar to a baseball player being an all star at all 9 positions. Ali had a great talent for boxing. Maybe the best ever. But it was only ONE great skill set. You may be very knowledgeable about the sweet science, but about mixed martial arts, you clearly know very very little.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,393 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Keets, giving Ali 6-12 months to learn a new skill would be the same as allowing a wrestler 6-12 months to learn how to box. Do you think 6-12 months of intense training in only that one skill would prepare the wrestler to box with Ali? I don't hardly think so. The wrestler would be knocked out cold very quickly. He could never catch up, ali trained his whole life to box. The same would apply to Ali if he was given 6-12 months to learn grappling. He could never catch up to the skill the mixed martial artist had. And by diversifying his training, his striking would suffer to some degree because he couldn't focus 100%effort on that one aspect of his game. A lifetime of training in bjj or grappling cannot be matched with an intense 12 month training camp. Have you noticed that most mixed martial artists do not come from boxing backgrounds? Most come from a judo/wrestling/bjj background. This is because a boxers skill set does not translate well to mixed martial arts. It is just too narrow. When Ali found himself on his back with a bjj black belt on top of him, he would be lost. Don't forget, Ali was not know to be a one shot knockout artist. He didn't have foreman or tysons power. He would have to use combinations to damage a fighter. No mixed martial artist would allow that, they would score a takedown and make it quick and painful for Ali

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.


    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.
  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Keets, giving Ali 6-12 months to learn a new skill

    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.
  • bronco2078bronco2078 Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: grote15
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.