Haters of modern boxing have many crazy ideas about previous eras but the following 2 are the most frequent:

 

(#1) "Previous heavyweight eras featured higher quality opponents."

The MAIN reason for this statement is that in previous eras "heavyweight division" was defined differently, thus it included what we call now "cruiserweight" and even "light heavyweight".

In Ali's times the heavyweight division started at 176 lbs, which is lower than the current FEMALE heavyweight division.

Thus to have a legitimate assessment of the quality of opponents throughout eras one would have to include the current era's cruiserweights OR (what I do in this blog here) exclude previous era's cruiserweights.

See Boxing eras (2) Current heavyweights are fat and out of shape -OR- Ali and the mystery of the six-pack

 

The second most frequent nonsense is the following:

(#2) "Height And Weight Are Irrelevant" ( the HAWAI myth), "therefore past champs would have no trouble with the current supersized champs".

Sometimes this HAWAI myth is described in different words:

• "Size is not everything"
• "Weight is not everything"
• "Bigger is not better!"
• "You are obsessed with size"
• "You make the mistake of equate size with quality"

 

This HAWAI myth is uttered whenever someone compares ancient fighters (like Muhammad Ali) to nowadays champs (like the Klitschkos). Then good-old-time nostalgists pat each other on their backs and mumble "HAWAI! HAWAI! Ali has no problems with the Klitschkos 'cause weight ain't nothing to Ali".

 

Angelo Dundee: "Muhammad Ali would KO the Klitschkos"

Take for example what Angelo Dundee (the trainer of Cassius Clay aka Cassius X aka Muhammad Ali) has to say about a hypothetical clash between "Muhammad Ali vs Wladimir Klitschko" or "Vitali Klitschko vs Muhammad Ali".

Let's listen how Angelo Dundee spins the truth:

Q: "How would Ali do today, with the huge Klitschko brothers?"

Angelo Dundee: "He would’ve stopped both of them. See, Ali looked great against big guys – Cleveland Williams I’ll give you as an example, a huge guy. Another guy, most people haven’t seen the fight, a guy named Duke Sabedong from early in Muhammad’s career. He was like 6'6". Ali's speed would have overcome both Klitschko brothers."

 

What you read here IS PART OF THE mythology bubble that is so dear to AliFants. Because neither was ·Duke Sabedong KO'ed nor was ·Cleveland Williams 6'6". (Additionally Williams was crippled after a gun shooting, but that's another story).

It's utter nonsense what Dundee fabricated here. Yet such falsehoods FEED AliFants (and all the disciples of of the 1970s cult) to this very day.

And you have to realize that Angelo Dundee (by artificially increasing Clay/Ali's merits) increases his own merits (and maybe the numbers on his own bank account) ("He speaks for no one but his bank account").

Who wins?
Klitschko or Muhammad A-li?
The one who spins!
Angelo Dun-dee!

 

 

Larry Holmes: "Size doesn't matter"

Let's see how Larry Holmes reacts when asked about the Klitschkos: [...] Read more »

One of the most bizarre arguments against Wladimir Klitschko that he wins only by out-talling or out-weighing his opponents.

First of all, complaining about body features in a contact sport is ridiculous. If someone has, say, long arms and strong pectoral muscles then it's idiotic to blame him for

• starting a career in martial arts
• benefiting from his long arms
• using his muscles
• having longer arms and more muscles than his opponent

If someone wouldn't have certain body features he wouldn't be in the boxing business in the first place.

 

Second of all: If you don't like body features to out-dominate the opponent's body features, then watch sub-heavyweight divisions. There is an upper weight limit in lower divisions and therefore all boxers are approximately same-sized.

But accusing a heavyweight boxer of being heavy is like accusing a featherweight of being too fast.

 

Does height matter in heavyweight boxing?

When you check the history of boxing then you will find out that TALL boxers were never really good. That is the reason why basketball-player-sized boxers (like ·Marcellus Brown) never achieved anything in the ring.

Marcellus Brown (7'0") weighed everything from 190+ lbs to 280+ lbs and showed up in athletic and less athletic shapes, and he only compiled a bummy record of 26-17 (with 13 KO losses). Whether you take Marcellus Brown 7'0" or Jameel McLine 6'6" (who is not that bummy) or others like Julius Long 7'1":

The boxers with the best records of the past were all around 6'2" and/or somewhat chubby (Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, Evan Fields, Rocky Marciano, Nikolay Valuev, Primo Carnera). Throughout the history of boxing these were the 2 winning factors: Chubbiness and/or 6'2"-ishness.

It's only now (= with the advent of Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos) that for the first time in boxing history tall+athletic boxers rule the division. That's basically a combination never seen before.

But instead of considering this as a proof of the quality of the Klitschkos (= being successful DESPITE their athleticism and their tallness), Klitschko haters use it against them by claiming "The Klitschkos dominate only because all potential boxers are in the National Basketball Association".

Well, basketball was around for ages, but very tall good boxers are only around since the Klitschkos.

The same applies to American Football. American Football exists since ages, yet the tall bulky muscular types were nowhere to be seen in decades.

Additionally basketball and American Football are mainly US sports. Tall men from other countries do NOT go to basketball or Football. The boxing pool is NOT drained by basketball or football. Big muscular men usually don't go to boxing, because big muscular men usually don't perform well at boxing.

Whether basketball-player-tall men show a mediocre performance at heavyweight because of

• thinner necks (= weaker chin)
• longer legs (= easier out-of-balance when hit or when wildly missing a punch)
• longer arms (= slower, telegraphed punches)
• taller bodies (= easier gassing because the heart has top pump blood higher)
• less muscles (= because the weight consists mainly of bones and inner organs)

is an interesting academic question. But the fact remains, that basketball players have an disadvantage at boxing, just as smaller boxers have an disadvantage at basketball.

In fact there are MANY boxers taller than the Klitschkos but only the Klitschkos have piled up their impressive records. That there are only so little good TALL boxers shows that height does not substitute quality.

So, yes, height does matter, but only if the height difference is huge (e.g. Mike Tyson vs McBride). Otherwise quality and weight are much more important.

An often heard variation of this complaint is "All past greats won against taller-than-self opponents and the Klitschkos didn't".

But this is a cherry-picked statistic ("designed flaw") like you can make them up by dozens, even against the greats of the past e.g. "Muhammad Ali is worse than Wladimir Klitschko because he didn't win against an unbeaten non-bummy southpaw" or similar, see Of Klitards and CLAYtons. This is the most retarded boxing blog ever and I won't bother to read it! –> "Designing a cherry-pick statistic"

Additionally the reason why the Klitschkos didn't beat boxers who were taller-than-self is not that they LOST to them or DUCKED them. It's simply that the Klitschkos are so tall that it's hard to find anyone of similar height and quality. The only worth mentioning opponent would be ·Nikolay Valuev (7'2"), but he retired after getting beaten by Ruslan Chagaev and David Haye, and then both, Chagaev and Haye, got beaten by Wladimir Klitschko.

Moreover, both Klitschkos _DID_ face (and beat) opponents who were pretty much the same height.

 

Vitali Klitschko vs Tomasz Adamek

When ·Tomasz Adamek fought ·Vitali Klitschko everybody was commenting how small and light Adamek is and how little chances he has.

Yet Adamek already won against TALLER boxers and against HEAVIER boxers (he fought 4 boxers heavier than Vitali Klitschko, actually up to 42 lbs heavier than Vitali Klitschko).

Additionally Tomasz Adamek is a superb boxer with a solid chin and is a multiple world champ, having won 7x in world title bouts.

When he fought Vitali he weighed 216 lbs just as did ·Muhammad Ali when he fought ·George Foreman.

Yet, against Vitali Klitschko Adamek looked like a school-boy. Helpless, barely dangerous, being severely hurt several times.

I have watched now 3 versions of the fight and the HBO version is the most interesting because it features Emanuel Steward as the co-commentator who sheds light on the subtle, near invisible maneuvers that Vitali Klitschko performs to win round after round against Adamek. It's obviously not the weight but the CLASS = QUALITY of Vitali Klitschko.

Now, if one would judge Adamek's quality solely on his performance against Vitali (or Mormeck's quality solely on his performance against Wladimir), then one could call them "bums" and "tomato cans" like so many other opponents before them have been called. Not because it's really true, but because the performance of the Klitschkos is so overwhelmingly good, that they BUMMIFY their opponents.

 

 

Height and reach advantages of a boxer

Arguing with heights and reaches of a boxer's opponents is very misleading.

Take for example Wladimir Klitschko vs Paea Wolfgramm.

Klitschko and Wolfgramm met both at the Olympic Games 1996 (finals) and in the professional boxing ring, therefore Wolfgramm's height is both listed at Olympic websites (and therefore WikiPedia) and at BoxRec.

But what is that? Paea's height is listed as 6'4" at BoxRec and 6'1"(!) at Wikipedia. Klitschko's height is listed at 6'6" at BoxRec and 6'5" at Wikipedia.

The same applies to other boxers, even when they are famous. George Foreman's reach is listed at BoxRec.com as 82", yet as 78.5" in the old TV broadcasts.

Heights and reaches given are often unreliable. And in many cases they are completely unknown. The longer ago the fight is the less known are the heights: Approx. 60% of Rocky Marciano's opponents' heights are unknown.

This applies even more so to the reach of a boxer. Reaches are known in even less cases than heights.

ADDITIONALLY they are rather useless even when known, because the reach of a boxer includes FINGER LENGTH.

Hence sometimes another figure is given ("arm length") which is measured from the arm pit to the end of the fist. But this figure is also misleading because the RANGE of a boxer includes also the shoulder span and leg length (and other factors). Thus even if a boxer would out-reach his opponent he still might be out-ranged himself.

 

Wladimir Klitschko only wins by out-weighing his opponents

First of all, let me point out that WEIGHT is _THE_ most important factor in boxing (aside of skill, but skill is a SUBJECTIVE assessment).

No matter how skilled you are, in a martial arts contest you are more likely to lose (even against a far worse opponent) the bigger the weight difference is, as everyone can tell you because…

…everybody knows that Mike Tyson
would have DESTROYED ·Oscar De La Hoya,
despite Oscar De La Hoya being taller, younger, reachier (and possibly more skilled) than Mike Tyson.

Everybody knows that.

Why?

Because weight is the most important factor (aside of quality).

And actually that's a no-brainer since boxing is divided into weight divisions and not into "height divisions", "reach divisions", "age divisions" or "neck circumference divisions".

Weight means "body mass" and means "more muscles" and "more resistance" and thus having more body mass in a martial arts sport gives you automatically an incredible advantage.

Thus this "weight complaint" (= "only wins by out-weighing") should be be taken far more seriously than the "height complaint" or a "reach complaint".

 

Let me give you some example fights of famous KO'ers and how their KO'performance suffered when fighting against heavier opponents:

• Vitali Klitschko was outweighed by Lennox Lewis and lost
• Vitali Klitschko was outweighed (or nearly outweighed) by Shannon Briggs, Samuel Peter, Timo Hoffmann, Kevin Johnson, Chris Arreola, Ross Puritty, Dereck Chisora and couldn't canvas-KO these opponents
• Wladimir Klitschko was outweighed by Ross Puritty and lost
• Wladimir Klitschko was nearly-outweighed by Sam Peter and couldn't KO him
• Mike Tyson was outweighed by Buster Douglas, Lennox Lewis, Kevin McBride, Danny Williams and got KO'ed.
• Earnie Shavers KO'ratio against lighter-than-self opponents: 83%, against heavier-or-equal opponents: 66%.

We are talking here about some of the best KO'ers the world has ever witnessed (Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko, Mike Tyson and Earnie Shavers) and it's highly interesting how the opponents' weight influences the outcome so much.

Yes, such a correlation exists, too, when fighting TALLER opponents. That's why Mike Tyson performed so mediocre against non-bums > 6'3", see Mike Tyson vs Klitschko -OR- Tyson would KO Wladimir within 1 round. But this correlation exists mainly when fighting TALLER+SKILLED opponents, whereas taller+unskilled opponents pose not much of a challenge for good boxers.

The weight however is a huge factor even against BUMMY opponents. HEAVIER+BUMMY opponents are far more dangerous than TALLER+BUMMY.

Boxing fans are so obsessed with athleticism, yet superbly athletic guys like Herbie Hide or Albert Sosnowski performed FAR WORSE than less athletic yet equally heavy guys like Dereck Chisora.

It's the weight+quality, stupid!
Not the athleticism and tallness!

 

For more impressive stats how the weight massively influenced fighters like Ali, Frazier and Shavers, see Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer

 

 

How to choose the easier heavyweight opponent

If you had the choice between 2 opponents and you wanted to choose the easier one, then here's how to choose:

 

At heavyweight boxing the rule of thumb is
Skill > weight > stance > tallness > athleticism

-and-

Athleticism plays basically NO ROLE, except in the case of undertraining.
But in such a case not the chubbiness causes the problem, but the undertraining.
If a chubby boxer is well-trained and well-conditioned he poses a far greater threat than a trained light boxer.

 

 

Heavyweight boxing statistics by weight

So after all the talk, let's finally check some weight statistics:

 

There you have it: What is used as an argument against Wladimir Klitschko is actually a hallmark attribute.

Also the following boxing stat is impressive:

As you can see Wladimir Klitschko's outweigh statistic is again a hallmark attribute.

You see also that some so called "heavy punchers" turn out to be mainly steamrollers (= powerful against smaller targets, but with little technique), e.g. Joe Frazier, Earnie Shavers, because their KO'ratio drops considerably when facing heavier opponents.

 

No other boxer at real heavyweight 200×2 has performed as well against heavier-than-self opponents than Mike Tyson and Wladimir Klitschko.

Which against proves how Klitschko haters ignore the history of the sport.

 

Additionally it's interesting that Klitschko haters hold 2 mutually exclusive views:

1) To discredit the Klitschkos haters shout that weight is the most important factor ("The Klitschkos only win because of their weight")

2) To discredit the Klitschkos haters claim that weight is not a factor at all ("Boxers of previous eras would have no problems with either Klitschko. Coz weight ain't nothing to Ali")

What is it, haters?

 

 

Wladimir Klitschko had three losses in his career, of which he only avenged one.

The mere fact that two losses are unavenged is used as a proof of a lack of quality.

"ATGs (all time greats) like Lennox Lewis", so the Klitschko haters say, "avenge their losses".

Thus Klitschko's aspiration for the "ATG Olympus" has to be denied.

Let's analyze this "Unavenged losses"-myth closer:

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he didn't avenge his losses"

A short glance at record of ATGs exposes this myth for what it is:

A blatant lie: [...] Read more »

SOMETIMES BOXING FANS, TV reporters and "experts" mention a, what I call, "bombastic statistic". That's a figure that sounds good but is pretty useless in assessing quality.

It's similar to a bombastic statement like "As a child I started to read and write earlier than John F. Kennedy" or "I could use forks and knives earlier than Albert Einstein".

It has some value as an anecdote but is only of limited use as an actual achievement.

 

Comparing walk-ins and hair cuts

Let's check some examples of bombastic statistics of boxing:

• Number of times you became a world champion
  Usually Evan Fields is introduced [...] Read more »

AMERICANS AND BRITONS love to complain about the bad shape the current heavyweight division is in ("ABC" = "American and British Complainers").

"My god, how exciting was Mike Tyson. I wish he still would box!"

"And how wonderful Muhammad Ali was! These were truly the glorious golden boxers in the golden days of the golden age of the heavyweight division."

Interestingly ABCs mention only Ali and Tyson and then it pretty much ends right there.

ABCs usually cannot come up with any other exciting boxer except "Amazing Ali" and "Mental Mike" (and maybe Lennox).

Even worse:

When they talk about Ali they can only come up with a HANDFUL of Ali fights. Because, let me tell you a secret here, MOST of Ali's fights were borefests and stinkers and usually don't even feature proper knockdowns.

Johnny Carson (The Tonight Show): "This just in from the News Room… Muhammad Ali and Alfredo Evangelista have just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize – For Promoting Non-Violence in Professional Boxing"

 

However Mike Tyson is indeed more exciting than Wladimir Klitschko.

But that's because probably nobody in the history of boxing (past and future) will ever match Mike Tyson in terms of craziness and entertainment.

Nearly all of Tyson's fights were spectacular and ended in a KO (= either the opponent got KO'ed or Mike himself) or or were exciting for other reasons.

No boxer prior to Mike and probably no boxer after Mike will ever be remembered for such a combination of

• fury
• suspense
• and memorable quotes (yes, Mike Tyson is the boxer with the best boxing quotes of all time).

 

Compared to Mike Tyson's
out-of-the ring escapades (rape, cocaine, trashtalking, leg biting)
and in-ring madness (ear chewing, referee punching, riots)
ANY other boxer is boring
including Muhammad Ali and the Klitschkos

 

Emanuel Steward (top trainer and Hall-of-Fame inductee) nailed it:

"What made Mike Tyson so special was the way that he knocked people out so savagely.

The manner was like with the clock ticking, Mike got ten minutes and if he didn't knock out or kill this guy, someone was going to murder his loved ones and family, or something like that…

I don't think I've seen any heavyweight in my lifetime fight with that type of intensity, and very few fighters outside the division.

I remember one night on a Friday night, it must have been about 1989. I was out having a good time and I remember I told all of my friends I have leave and go home. They asked why I had to go, and I said because I got to go see Mike Tyson knock somebody out. They asked who he was fighting, and I said… I didn't even know who he was fighting and I didn't care, but that was the kind of excitement Mike Tyson created and I had never known anyone else to do that…

He had no socks, the little black shoes, and no robe. I mean it was totally different and we're still experiencing that today. It was totally the opposite of Muhammad Ali with the long pretty white robe, the white shoes, the pretty looks, and the dancing. Mike came out totally just the opposite."

 

 

"Boring Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he fights like a robot"

Americans/British Complainers (ABCs) and good-old-time nostalgists love to complain about Wladimir Klitschko's STYLE.

He fights like a [...] Read more »

RANKING BOXERS BY THEIR RECORD leads soon to a problem: Instantly others will bring up losses. And instantly after someone brought up losses someone else will say "but he avenged his losses" or "he failed to avenge his losses".

Thus, believe it or not, the assessment of losses causes huge problems.

 

Please note: This article is part of a multi-part series:

• Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (1) pound for pound, head to head, record for record
• Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (2) A common sense formula -OR- Ratio*Quality
• Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (3) TOP 10 by boxing experts -OR- Grandpa's champions
• Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (4) Head-to-head toplists by trick questions
• Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (5) Losses and avenged losses
• Heavyweight Boxing Rankings (6) The all time greatest boxer

 

Losses dilemma #1 (The low number of losses)

Since we are compiling toplists the boxers on the toplist will have only little losses (otherwise they would be not considered "top"). But since these top boxers have only little losses (e.g. 2 losses in 40 fights) then it's of course stupid to draw too many conclusions from the 2 losses, just as it would be stupid to draw conclusions from 2 wins in 40 fights.

 

Losses dilemma #2 (49 > 220)?

Another problem are flawless records (= zero losses). Is a record of 49-0 better than 50-1?

I know 49-0 sounds good…

• "He retired unbeaten"
• "No man touched his belt"
• "Flawless career, stainless record"
• "Not one dent in his crown"
• "He beat every man he ever faced"
  
• "49 tried, 49 failed"

…but isn't having twice as many wins and a few losses even more impressive?

Can anyone claim that [...] Read more »

THE MOST OVERUSED EXCUSE fans use to protect their favorite boxer is:

"When my boxer lost he was PAST HIS PRIME"

Variations are

• "He was shot"
• "He was shot to pieces"
• "He was old as f*ck"
• "He was past his peak"
• "He was declining while his opponent was peaking"
• "Wheelchair Boxing Federation"
• "Grandpa wouldn't stop"
• "The eye of the geezer"
• …

So whatever you try to say to AliFans (e.g. about Ali vs Larry Holmes) or to Lennox fans (about the performance against Vitali Klitschko) they pretty fast will claim:

• "Muhammad Ali was past-prime"
• and "Lennox Lewis was fat and old"

This killer argument ("KO argument") is even twisted by accusing [...] Read more »

GEORGE FOREMAN is considered a power hitter by fans and boxing experts.

Usually when good-old-time nostalgists claim something you have to check it thrice because it very often turns out to be fiction, not fact. I analyzed some ancient fighters at

• Muhammad Ali vs Wladimir Klitschko – Fact-based analysis and prediction
• Joe Frazier vs Klitschko -OR- is Chris Byrd a better puncher than Earnie Shavers?
• Earnie Shavers – Power hitter or overrated featherfist?
• Hardest hitters of boxing: KO stats of Tyson, Klitschko, Foreman, Shavers and other knockout artists
• Boxing eras (4) Golden Age of Heavyweight -OR- Is the Klitschko era the first heavyweight era in history?

and it always turned out that the punching power of these fighters is overrated or even GROSSLY overrated.

However, George Foreman is a different caliber. George Foreman was INDEED one of the hardest punchers and his KO abilities are very good.

 

How does the KO power of George Foreman compare to Wladimir Klitschko?

The first difference between Wladimir Klitschko is already visible from the following table: [...] Read more »

NOBODY TRANSFORMED BOXING as much as Wladimir Klitschko.

Think about it: His jab, footwork, defense and offense are so unbelievably good that he completely transformed boxing to a higher level because NONE of the usual strategies or boxing styles work against him.

He proved uppercuts, combos, feinting, swarming etc to be near-worthless (in the case of his opponents) and unnecessary (in the case of himself). Thus by his perfect minimalistic-seeming technique he actually shows how bad previous generations of boxers were who [...] Read more »

LET ME TELL YOU AN OPEN SECRET:

Most fans and experts know that Muhammad Ali would have not much chance against the Klitschko brothers (be it Wladimir Klitschko or Vitali Klitschko).

They know that the Klitschkos are far too modern to be endangered by any ancient fighter, even if it's an ATG like Ali.

Most fans and experts consider ·George Foreman, ·Earnie Shavers or ·Mike Tyson (or any other hard puncher) to be far more competitive against a Klitschko than Ali. They know that Klitchko vs Ali would be a mismatch.

I already wrote

• about Wladimir/Vitali Klitschko and Joe Frazier at Joe Frazier vs Klitschko -OR- is Chris Byrd a better puncher than Earnie Shavers?
• about Wladimir/Vitali Klitschko and Earnie Shavers at Earnie Shavers – Power hitter or overrated featherfist?
• about Wladimir/Vitali Klitschko and Mike Tyson at Mike Tyson vs Klitschko -OR- Tyson would KO Wladimir within 1 round
• about Wladimir/Vitali Klitschko and George Foreman George Foreman vs Wladimir Klitschko – Who is the hardest hitter?

so it's time to analyze Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) now.

 

Wash your face in _my_ sink, Muhammad!

This article is a boxing record analysis in the sense of "Who would win in the same ring?" ("head to head", "toe to toe", "prime for prime").

A different record analysis in the sense of "Who has the better achievements?" ("record for record") can be found at Boxing eras (3) Wladimir Klitschko in the Golden Age of Heavyweight -OR- How abysmal was Ali's era really?.

Before you continue, I suggest you check my definitions of bum[?] or featherfist[?] for which I apply strict mathematical rules.

 

Cassius Clay, the cruiser -vs- Klitschko, the ultraheavyweight

Basically THE ONLY reason why people even think about comparing Wladimir Klitschko to Muhammad Ali is the ridiculous definition of *heavyweight*.

In Ali's times heavyweight was defined completely different (approximately 40 pounds lighter than nowadays) and EVERYBODY who glances at these pictures knows instantly that such "boys" would have no chance, even against modern B-level heavyweights:

The visual comparison is actually enough and my article should stop right here.

But the governing bodies messed up the term "heavyweight" thus you landed on this page and I have to write about CLAYPIGEONS vs STEELHAMMERS.

Would ancient boxers like Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis be appropriately named CakaHweights (= "Cruiserweights AKA Heavyweights" or "Cruiserweights formerly known as heavyweights" or "170-pounders") and would modern heavyweights (like the Klitschkos, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson etc) be named appropriately (e.g. "ultraheavyweights") it would be sufficiently clear how laughable a comparison is.

But back then they didn't have the term "cruiserweight" and they simply called all boxers from around 165 lbs and up "heavyweights". Thus fights like 163 lbs vs 172 lbs (·Philadelphia Jack O'Brien vs ·Tommy Burns) were called "heavyweight", which confuses fans to this very day.

 

 

 

In Ali's times "heavyweight" was defined as 176+ lbs
which is lighter than today's female heavyweight division.

-and-

Clay/Ali and Joe Louis (the two boxers from the pictures above)
out-weighed their opponents
in approximately 75% of the fights
hence to compare Louis' or Ali's records to the records of modern heavyweights is even more laughable
than the body comparison already is.

-and-

Clay/Ali had supposedly his prime in the 1960s.
His median weight in the 1960s was 199 lbs.
Nowadays Prime Ali wouldn't even be ALLOWED to box against the Klitschkos.

 

"Weight is not everything in boxing"

I already know how AliFants ("Ali fantasizers") try to cover up this truth (= that Ali was merely a blown up cruiser).

They will chant "Height And Weight Are Irrelevant" (HAWAI). I disucss this HAWAI myth at Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer.

Thus let me only say so much here:

Boxing is divided in weight classes for a reason, dear AliFants. There are no height divisions, age divisions or reach division, because weight at heavyweight boxing is one of the _most_ important factors.

 

Muhammad Clay – A fast athletic heavyweight with great stamina and a granite chin

The main reason why Ali turned from a light heavyweight to a 200+ heavyweight is because he got fatter ("From light heavyweight to lard heavyweight").

Now, I personally think that chubby boxers can actually have an advantage because of the protective assets of fat, but nevertheless anybody who insists on an "Ali vs Klitschko clash" has to be reminded of the fact that there are 2 versions of Muhammad Ali

1. Clay, the cruiser: With a suspect chin (see below)
2. Ali, the heavyweight: Fat and plodding, with a better chin but far slower

I know that AliFants ("Ali fantasizers") love mind melts ("a fast Ali with speed and a durable chin") but such Ali never existed, except for rare moments.

 

Cassius Clay aka Cassius X aka Muhammad Ali and his abysmal KO performance

Clay/Ali is one of the most featherfisted champs in the history of real[?] heavyweight boxing ("like a butterfly").

Usually if you talk about Ali's boxing merits then fans mention "speed", "stamina", "reflexes" and "chin" BUT NOT "power".

Because AliFans know exactly that their man was rather a powder puffer than a power puncher.

But even to fans it comes as a shock HOW ABYSMAL Clay/Ali's KO performance actually was.

His overall KO ratio is not that bad, but that's because he KO'ed a lot of bums[?] and cruisers (= sub-200 opponents).

But once you delete bums and cruisers and overlate KOs (= in round 13+) off the record (to have a more realistic assessment of his KO power as compared to modern heavyweight times) you find out that he scored the following SEVEN KOs in his entire career

• ·Sonny Liston (1st fight): Sonny (most probably 37 years old, thus probably Ali's second oldest opponent), retired on his chair due to a shoulder problem
• Sonny Liston (2nd fight): The most contested KO in heavyweight history for several reasons, for example: The referee didn't even start to count
• ·Cleveland Williams: Williams was gun-shot prior to the bout, had intestines removed, parts of the kidney, couldn't train properly and came to fight with [...] Read more »