What would happen in Wladimir Klitschko would face Ali's opponents NOWADAYS?

[have_not]

good post knn

[Jack Napier]

Wlad have a bad chin
George KO him
Norton KO him
Frazier could lose, but he KO Wlad too

[SlickTurtle]

The difference between me and you is that I base my posts on FACTS (gunshot wound of Williams, weight of opponents, fight after loss etc) while you merely post some nonsense opinions like "Ibragimov can't fight" or "They fought in Germany".

GJC, that was really childish and I usually like your posts.

How about that ''probably drugged Foreman'' in your sig?

Why are you trying so hard to discredit every single one of his wins? lol

Even *****s can concede that MAB was a legit win for Pac and *******s admit that Corrales was a good win for Floyd.

[knn]

Wlad have a bad chin

Aaah, the famous chin myth.

[qwerty07]

About 90% of Ali's opponent would KO that glass chin of Vlad's.

[knn]

About 90% of Ali's opponent would KO that glass chin of Vlad's.

Ali was knocked down by Cooper (185lbs, 40-14) and Sonny Banks (191, 18-7) and featherfist Frazier. Thus the correct statement would be: 90% of Klitschko's opponents would KO Ali.

[GJC]

The difference between me and you is that I base my posts on FACTS (gunshot wound of Williams, weight of opponents, fight after loss etc) while you merely post some nonsense opinions like "Ibragimov can't fight" or "They fought in Germany".

GJC, that was really childish and I usually like your posts.

Weight of opponents is not really relevant speed and skill are far more of a factor hence I gave venue as a bigger factor than it is to highlight one dimensional thinking.
A few ATG fighters couldn't punch for toffee Pep and Conn leap to mind. Carnera Willard etc weighed a lot and were tall but only the kindest of historians would call them an ATG.
Punching power is a factor and can cover a few discrepancies in a fighter but without a bit more in your locker it will only get you so far e.g. Shavers, Elmer Ray, Cooney.

Losses read off boxingrec can be misleading without knowing the fighters and many boxers are capable of great fights but consistancy escapes them, **** Tiger would be an example of this.

A lot of fighters have a short prime but within that prime were a match for anyone but at other times in their career could be beaten by fighters with less ability. The Jimmy Bivins of 43 to 45 would give any light heavy in history a fight, before and after those dates not so much.

I guess you would call the following fighter a bum?
Lost 3 of his first four fights, in his 3rd year as a pro he managed 3 draws against a man whose stats for his 1st 21 fights were 10 losses and 6 draws. Lost his title at 28 (supposedly a fighters peak) never to regain it, to a fighter who at that time had 24 losses and finished his career with 65 losses.

That "bum" is Henry Armstrong, look him up, a lot think he was quite good.

A notice you minimise Ali's win over Williams by mentioning he had been shot which is fair point but then give Liston zero credit for beating Williams when he was prime.

And Ibragimov can't fight, I assume you would pick him over Liston or Frazier? The fact him and Chagaev have only lost one fight each is more an indictment of the poor standard of the HW division than any testament to their abilities.

Your facts include the nonsense that Foreman was drugged but after that fact was blown to smithereens you don't bring that up anymore

[knn]

Weight of opponents is not really relevant speed and skill are far more of a factor hence I gave venue as a bigger factor than it is to highlight one dimensional thinking.

This is true for the lower divisions, where there is a maximum weight. Thus speed/skill is more important than weight (in the lower divisions).

This is not true for the heavyweight division: Usually the one with the bigger weight wins EXCEPT if the other is far more skilled than the weight difference.

A few ATG fighters couldn't punch for toffee Pep and Conn leap to mind. Carnera Willard etc weighed a lot and were tall but only the kindest of historians would call them an ATG.

Noone talks about ATGs. Noone said that weight makes you an ATG.

And why do you mention Carnera (or in other cases Valuev) as a proof that weight doesn't matter? Carnera/Valuev is the proof that weight DOES matter. They have OK records DESPITE their skills.

Punching power is a factor and can cover a few discrepancies in a fighter but without a bit more in your locker it will only get you so far e.g. Shavers, Elmer Ray, Cooney.

Losses read off boxingrec can be misleading without knowing the fighters and many boxers are capable of great fights but consistancy escapes them, **** Tiger would be an example of this.

A lot of fighters have a short prime but within that prime were a match for anyone but at other times in their career could be beaten by fighters with less ability. The Jimmy Bivins of 43 to 45 would give any light heavy in history a fight, before and after those dates not so much.

I thank you for your input, but all of the above is offtopic since this is not a general thread about "What is needed to be an ATG". This is an "Ali's opponents vs Wladimir" thread.

I guess you would call the following fighter a bum?
Lost 3 of his first four fights, in his 3rd year as a pro he managed 3 draws against a man whose stats for his 1st 21 fights were 10 losses and 6 draws. Lost his title at 28 (supposedly a fighters peak) never to regain it, to a fighter who at that time had 24 losses and finished his career with 65 losses.

That "bum" is Henry Armstrong, look him up, a lot think he was quite good.

How can a guy who fought 180 fights and lost only 21 be a bum? I would never ever consider him a bum. He might be a bum beater (like Liston) but not a bum.

A notice you minimise Ali's win over Williams by mentioning he had been shot which is fair point but then give Liston zero credit for beating Williams when he was prime.

Liston's best win. But that doesn't lose him the title "cruiser-bum beater". Other than Williams (and cruiser Patterson) there is hardly anything on Liston's record that could be identified as "mentionable".

And Ibragimov can't fight, I assume you would pick him over Liston or Frazier?

Offtopic. This is not a thread about "Ali's opponents vs Wlad's opponents".

The fact him and Chagaev have only lost one fight each is more an indictment of the poor standard of the HW division than any testament to their abilities.

Pure speculation. I see it directly opposite. Which of course is ALSO speculation, but since everyone knows that sportsmen get better and better from generation to generation _YOU_ got the burden of proof.

Your facts include the nonsense that Foreman was drugged

I didn't include Foreman's drugging in my post. That is always mentioned in my sig. I merely clarified that Foreman _is_ Ali's biggest win and yet even this win is rather inconclusive since it was merely a gassing issue in the jungle. That win simply reminds us of Ali's biggest asset: He could out-stamin'ize his opponents.

Add to it that, yes, Foreman was INDEED probably drugged (and I am not claiming that Ali even knew it) then it makes Ali's biggest achievement to not have faced Foreman again.

but after that fact was blown to smithereens you don't bring that up anymore

Blown to smithereens? By whom? Noone can prove that something didn't happen. There will always be shadows above Ali's "Foreman in Forest" win
//krikya360.com/forums/sh...39#post5611639

[WladIsTheChamp]

Of the 61 fights Clay/Ali fought 29 wouldn't be allowed nowadays because it wouldn't be heavyweight (= one or both opponents were below 200).

Of the remaining 32 fights Ali lost 4.

Of the remaining 28 fights Ali fought 10x against opponents lighter than Eddie Chambers, the fans would shout "they should move down to cruiserweight" and that's a "proof of how the division sucks"

Of the remaining 18 fights 2 wouldn't be allowed for medical reasons: Frazier was blind on his left eye and Cleveland Williams was gunshot. Another proof of the "dire state of the division"

Of the remaining 16 fights Ali couldn't KO his opponents (within 12 rounds) in 10 fights thus they would be proof "of how featherfisty Wlad is with a KOratio of 38%" and that "Marciano would KO this bum Wlad in 1 round"

Of the remaining 6 fights 1 was a bum Charley Powell (25-11) which would be another proof for the "worst era in heavyweight boxing"

Of the remaining 5 fights 2 was against a guys coming from a loss (Ron Lyle, Alvin Lewis) and fans would accuse Wlad of "cherry-picking".

Of the remaining 3 fights 2x were against a cruiser-bum beater (Sonny Liston) and fans would speculate about how the mob or Wlad's radical ****** friends have illegally influenced the outcome.

The remaining fight was against an opponent who gassed in the heat of the rain season and fans would shout "Lame, nowadays heavies cannot go 15 rounds anymore like Joe Louis".

That's approximately Ali's record in a few sentences.

CLAYtons LOVE to give RedK and to insult ("******ed") and to refuse to argue without any counter-proof ("This thread is a joke, isn't it?"), or assume that they win an argument by mentioning Sanders/Puritty/Brewster.

If you act like that, let me assure you: Yes, you are a predictable CLAYton.

Excellent post, puts things in perspective but you are not going to change the minds of those delusional idiots who will still claim that Cassius Clay will beat the Klitschkos with one hand tied behid his back. The truth is, a prime Clay versus a prime Wlad or the current version of Wlad, would look like Wlad vs Brock.

[WladIsTheChamp]

Excellent post, puts things in perspective but you are not going to change the minds of those delusional idiots who will still claim that Cassius Clay will beat the Klitschkos with one hand tied behid his back. The truth is, a prime Clay versus a prime Wlad or the current version of Wlad, would look like Wlad vs Brock.

In Wlad's favor ofcourse.