Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer

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


(#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 equating 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

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:

RingTalk.com: "What about these Klitschko brothers, is it fair that they're 6'7" & 260 pounds? Should there be another weight class?"

·Larry Holmes: "No, size don't matter. It's what you can do in the ring, just look at Ali. Ernie Terrell was a big guy and Ali did what we usually do with them we wear them down. Skill and talent always beats size."


It's unreal. The interviewer mentions

  • the Klitschkos (some of the hardest punching heavyweights of all time)
  • 260 lbs


and Larry Holmes rebuts by mentioning

  • ·Ernie Terrell who was 212 lbs at bout
  • and whose median fighting weight was 197 lbs
  • and who started at 189 lbs
  • and who is one of the most featherfisted heavyweights of all time (only 2 KOs in his entire career in real heavyweight fights)
  • and whom Ali couldn't even KO in 15 rounds.



Please also note the other statement of Holmes: "Size doesn't matter". In reality Holmes himself is a good example how size matters:

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents up to 214 lbs: 73% (hard puncher)
Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents 215+ lbs45% (featherfist)

Holmes' KO'ratio against smaller-than-self opponents: 60%
Holmes' KO'ratio against same-or-taller-than-self opponents: 40%
(based on 50 fights where the height of opponent is known)

And please note how Larry Holmes is SPECIFICALLY asked about a higher weight division ("Should there be another weight class?") and Holmes answers "No!"

And I can tell you why:

Because a higher weight division ("ultraheavyweight" or however you want to name it) would instantly DEMOTE Larry Holmes to a "mere heavyweight". It would be immediately clear that Holmes was in a lower weight division (as was Ali). It would be immediately clear that the Klitschkos are the best ultraheavyweights while Larry Holmes is one amongst many good mere heavyweights.

Hence Holmes spreads the HAWAI nonsense. He protects his legacy.



Earnie Shavers: "I wouldn't have any problems with the Klitschkos"

Another member of the "The Club of the nostalgia deslusion sufferers" is Earnie Shavers.

First read my Shavers analysis at Earnie Shavers – Power hitter or overrated featherfist? and how much Shavers was affected by weight.

Then read this interview with Shavers:

  • Interviewer: "You don't think much of today's heavyweights?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "It's not like it was in our day, when there were so many good guys."


  • Interviewer: "Were boxers more gentlemanly back in your day?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "Yes, and we also had great trainers"


  • Interviewer: "People always like to speculate on who would have beaten who. What would have happened had you and David Haye rumbled?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "I'd have knocked him out, probably in two or three rounds."


  • Interviewer: "How about you and the Klitschkos? You're 6.0" and you were around 215 lbs in your prime, while the two brothers are 6'6" or more and around 240 lbs. How would you have done against them, as big as they are?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "Let me tell you something, I loved facing big, slow guys like that. I wouldn't have had any problems with them."
  • Interviewer: "You feel you'd have got inside the long jab and gone to work on the inside?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "Yes. I'd have worked inside, then attacked the body first, to bring the hands down, and then I'd have gone to the head. I'd have landed shots to the heart, a left hook to the kidney, and then shot a right hand to the head. Then you'd have heard 'Timbeeerr!'" (laughs).


  • Interviewer: "Do you think the Klitschkos deserve to be rated as all-time greats?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "I don't think so, no."


  • Interviewer: "You were part of a golden era, a special time for the heavyweights: the 1970s. Was that the best time ever for the heavyweight division in your opinion?"
  • Earnie Shavers: "Yes."

Earnie Shavers (who hasn't even won a world championship fight once) disses the Klitschkos who have some of the best heavyweight championship records of all times (if not _THE_ best).

What you read here is one delusion after the other combined with overhype and glorification of one's past. It's such obscene swaggery that hypnotizes boxing fans.


Why boxing experts fool boxing fans

Many boxing experts EARN MONEY by perpetuating the myth that weight doesn't matter.

You see, if someone claims "That ant has a far superior footwork than the elephant! And look at the magnificent speed! The elephant is sooo slow! And moreover the ant has more feet! And look at the reflexes! In my toplist I rank the elephant at position #6 and let me explain what areas the elephant has the most problems in!" then this sounds more adept than "Elephant stomped on ant".

If these boxing experts would admit, that weight is a huge factor then they would have hardly anything to say about chances of ancient boxers. Only by ignoring the weight they put themselves in a position where they can make the most ludicrous statements ("My top 10 reasons why Ali would win").

US boxing "experts" (like Bert Sugar) have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive that ancient boxers would have a chance against modern ultraheavyweights 215+ lbs. The HAWAI lie secures them TV talking time and DVD sales.

Additionally by ignoring the weight such experts not only increase Ali's chances to win against modern champs, they also cover up that one of the main reasons why Ali won so often is that he outweighed his opponents so often (as opposed to Wladimir Klitschko or Mike Tyson).



How Muhammad Ali was affected by the weight of his opponents

Not only is the HAWAI lie one of the most bizarre statements that one could make about boxing, it's one of the most bizarre statements that one could make about ANY blood sport.

Whether it's MMA or kickboxing or Kung-Fu or wrestling:

Boxing like other contact sports is divided into weight divisions for a reason.
There are no age divisions, height divisions or reach divisions.
It's the WEIGHT that is THE MOST important factor in contact sports
(aside of skill, but skill is a subjective assessment).


There is a certain type of boxing fan who cares more about mythology ("Ali is the greatest and will always be") than about facts.

For example it's TYPICAL for AliFants to CLAIM that Muhammad Ali wouldn't be affected by weight yet to never CHECK Ali's record.

So let's ACTUALLY ANALYZE how Ali, Frazier and Earnie Shavers (= 3 supposedly impressive fighters of the past) performed as their opponents got heavier:

Weight of opponentsClay/Ali's KO'RatioJoe Frazier's KO'RatioEarnie Shavers' KO'Ratio
175-184 lbs
100% (extreme hard puncher)
185-199 lbs
75% (good puncher)
100% (extreme hard puncher)
200-214 lbs
45% (featherfist)
215+ lbs
33% (extreme featherfist)
45% (featherfist)
47% (featherfist)
both 200+ lbs
34% ("like a bee")
44% ("Eliseo Castillo")
66% (somewhat good puncher)
both 215+ lbs
27% ("like a butterfly")
25% (no comment)
60% (somewhat good puncher)

Fistic Statistic [#3510.1]


This result is NOT astonishing.

This result is TYPICAL.

This result underlines, that Ali was not an exception: He, too, is influenced (even extremely much) by the weight of his opponents.


However great the skills of a fighter are: The opponent's weight is a factor one can not ignore.

Weight is such a huge factor that a heavy+bummy opponent can pose a bigger threat than a light+skilled opponent. In many cases it doesn't even matter whether the weight is lard or muscles.


In other words: If you compare 2 champs of 2 eras, then the lighter champ is AUTOMATICALLY the underdog.

Even if the lighter champ has more skills: Since both have a good skill set (they wouldn't be champs otherwise) the weight is the more important factor. Therefore the light champ would need not only superior skills but FAR SUPERIOR SKILLS to overcome the weight disadvantage.

And when you have a guy like Clay/Ali, who would not only be lighter but who is additionally inferior to Wladimir Klitschko in nearly every imaginable area (KO'ratio, height, reach etc) then you know instantly that Ali's chances against Wladimir Klitschko are basically non-existent.

For an in-depth analysis of Ali vs Klitschko read Muhammad Ali vs Wladimir Klitschko – Fact-based analysis and prediction



"Yes, heavyweight boxers are heavier, but also fatter"

Another variation of the HAWAI lie is "Weight is irrelevant, because although nowadays boxers are heavier, they are mainly fatter thus previous generations would have no problems".

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



"Wladimir Klitschko only wins by out-weighing his opponents"

This is an article for itself Wladimir Klitschko only wins by outweighing his opponents



"Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano had no problems with giant boxers"

Another variation of the HAWAI lie is "Smaller heavyweights like Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano won against huge boxers! Therefore they would have good chances against modern heavyweights including the Klitschkos!"

First of all let me point out that NOBODY here claims that very tall+heavy boxers are unbeatable.

·Nikolay Valuev, ·Vitali Klitschko and ·Wladimir Klitschko all have losses on their records against smaller opponents. Nobody claims that big boxers will always win.

I merely claim that the CHANCE of winning drops significantly the heavier the opponent is.


However, let's check concrete examples of these "ancient behemoths".

The following giants (usually mentioned in this order) have lost fights hence are used to prove that tall boxers are "beatable although being giants":

  • ·Primo Carnera, 6'5.5", median fighting weight 266 lbs (Joe Louis' biggest weight difference, and the prime example of beatable giants)
  • ·Abe Simon, 6'4", median 253 lbs
  • ·Buddy Baer, 6'6.5", median 240 lbs
  • ·Jess Willard, 6'6.5", median 225 lbs

Sometimes also the following beatable giants are mentioned:


Now after we exclude those boxers who are not real giants (e.g. 6'4") or who are bums (like Humphrey Jackson with a record of 4-3 and Tony Drake with a record of 0-1) only the following remain:

  • Primo Carnera
  • Abe Simon
  • Buddy Baer

These 3 were all beaten by Joe Louis, which shows what an exceptional fighter Joe Louis was.

Analyzing these three giants further it turns out, that

  • Buddy Baer has won only against 3 non-bummy opponents 200×2 (Abe Simon, Tony Galento, Eddie Hogan)
  • Abe Simon is a featherfist and has 10 losses on his record (36-10), and has won only against 2 non-bummy opponents 200×2 (Toles, Thompson)
  • Primo Carnera has 14 losses on his record, is smaller than Vitali Klitschko and was obviously suffering from acromegalic pituitary gigantism (= is not naturally tall like Vitali Klitschko, but a freak of nature like Nikolay Valuev)


I don't want to take ANYTHING away from Joe Louis' wins, but my statement is:

You can not claim that "Height/Weight is no issue as shown by famous fighters beating giants" when in fact it turns out that ONLY Joe Louis has beaten mention worthy giants and these giants were far from comparable to modern ultraheavyweight champs (let alone that Baer and Simon never were champs).

It's unimaginable what modern champs would do to Joe Louis, if already Buddy Baer managed to catapult Joe Louis out of the ring in round #1.

If Buddy Baer could do it
what would modern heavyweights do?




Nikolay Valuev

To prove that height and weight don't matter boxing fans sometimes use ·Nikolay Valuev as an example of a boxer who is tall'n'heavy yet is bad at boxing.

This claim is even more grotesque than the HAWAI lie, because Valuev has one of the best real heavyweight records of all time.

You see, one can not claim that size doesn't matter and then bring up Valuev who has a record of 50-2 and who has not even one proper loss on his record (both losses merely by majority decision).

Of course Valuev's opponents weren't stellar, but if anything then Valuev proves the opposite: Size alone can be a substitute for boxing skill.





Weight is huge factor in heavyweight boxing.

Anybody who thinks otherwise, or anybody who claims that ancient greats (Ali, Holmes, Maricano) would have no trouble with modern ultraheavyweights (despite of the weight differences is fooling himself.

Height and weight are irrelevant at heavyweight boxing -OR- Joe Louis vs Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, 4.2 out of 5 based on 54 ratings
Did you find this information useful? Then please donate...

Comments (55)

  • aleks says:
    [ip2username: Bobe Piju]
    #3876 aleks (2012-04-17th)

    It's very true what you write here,it's also dificult to accept that Clay would have been destrpyed by modern heavyweights!.

  • Dan Burney says:
    [ip2username: Revi Ruba]
    #3956 Dan Burney (2012-05-01st)

    What BS, the Klitscho both would have knocked big mouth Ali out, along with holmes no doubt.

  • aleks says:
    [ip2username: Bobe Piju]
    #3970 aleks (2012-05-07th)

    This article is absolute amazing! You should write this on ESPN sport so the whole world can read and acept that al these "boys" from marciano to holmes would get destroyed by modern ULTRAheavyweights! I personaly think ali,holmes,joe louis and rest of them would have trouble with some other ULTRAheavyweights today like chisora,chris areola and those guys.

  • Kid McCoy says:
    [ip2username: Luda Mymo]
    #3985 Kid McCoy (2012-05-18th)

    haha this blog is basically a Bitchko cocksucking fest it seems?

    Lard ass Toney, Sam Peter, Corrie Sanders (who spanked Wladimir Bitchko), Arreola.

    Damn those are some super great athletes right there who old time Boxers couldn't hold a candle to according to this faggot who is in man love with the Bitchko's size.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5625 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

      One would think it was pretty obvious that that would be the case, unfortunately so many people like you seemed to have been brainwashed by American media as admin has stated. You don't see such a lack of common sense in other sports in which the US is still competitive.

  • Tony Galento says:
    [ip2username: Liju Vawy]
    #4017 Tony Galento (2012-07-02nd)

    The heights recorded in the 1920's- 1940's are more accurate than the measurements given today. Fighters were meticulously measured without shoes, so a 6'4 Abe Simon is probably the same height as supposed 6'6ers today who measure wearing air Jordan sneakers.

    To Wladimirs credit, he is the only boxer who is honest about his height, if you ask him he will tell you: 6'5 with shoes off. His girlfriend Hayden actually measured him and got the same answer. Tony Thompson who is (listed) at 6'5 is clearly looking up at Wladimir during staredowns, so take American and modern Boxrec heights at your own risk.

    That said, Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey clearly had a knack for knocking out bigger opponents. They were actually BETTER against them while their peers struggled. Willard, Moris, Fulton all blasted by KO. Buddy, Primo, Simon, Galento all blasted by KO. Max Baer had Wlads power and reach so Id put him in there as a caveat.

  • Tony Galento says:
    [ip2username: Liju Vawy]
    #4018 Tony Galento (2012-07-02nd)

    Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey handled there business against giants, and both were far more experienced than Haye who went the distance with wlad outweighed by 32 lbs.

    • Honza says:
      [ip2username: Jylo Geli]
      #5266 Honza (2012-11-08th)

      Haye vs Wlad was great example. It showed that even former cruiser is ten times better than Wlad previous (heavyer) oponnents. Haye was Wlads hardest fight since First Sam Peter fight.

      • Tommo says:
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5626 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

        Haye was good fight for Wlad. Haye being former cruiser is good example that former cruisers can compete with natural heavies (to a point of course). BUT Haye would exterminate Louis and Dempsey moments after the opening bell. The giant boxers Louis and Dempsey defeated were worthless by todays standards and Max Baer's punch would be a tap compared to Wladimirs. There's no way possible to spin it otherwise with any factual credit.

  • Stourley Kracklite says:
    [ip2username: Goe Bidu]
    #4196 Stourley Kracklite (2012-09-08th)

    I whole-heartedly endorse your analysis. Clearly nutrition and training methods have increased the size of the modern boxer. I would suggest the following method to compare old-time fighters to those of a more recent vintage. Imagine a given old-time fighter as having been born contemporaneously with a modern figher to whom we wish to compare him. Take for argument's sake the old-time figher Ezzard Charles for comparison with, say, Lennox Lewis. The average size and weight for a boxer of Charles' time is less than the averages for Lewis' time. It seems reasonable to assume that had he been born about the same time Lennox was Charles would have had the benefits available to boxers of Lewis's era. He would have grown to become a fighter proportionately bigger by the ratio of Lewis-era heavyweight height and weight divided by Charles' era heavyweight height and weight. Now imagine a fighter with Ezzard Charles' skills in a body of that size. Incorporating such adjustments would allow us to more fairly assess the outcome of a hypothetical Lewis-Charles fight.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5627 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

      I agree whilst this method is not perfect because in the real world things don't exactly scale like that, it would be an interesting article to write matching up the unlimited weight division champs from all eras in a pound for pound manner in this way. Could allow for a comparison of the "skill" of fighters across the eras negating the obvious physical benefits of modern eras somewhat. :)

  • Theo says:
    [ip2username: Mura Bygo]
    #4201 Theo (2012-09-10th)

    I love reading at this blog! I gives the arguments I was looking for. If you do a critical analyzes of today’s and yesterdays fighters the conclusion must be that today’s fighters don’t do so bad as many people think. And yesterday’s fighters weren’t as great as they think.

  • froek says:
    [ip2username: Nybo Gezi]
    #4747 froek (2012-09-21st)

    Hey, do you post on eastsideboxing?

    I sometimes use your statistics to silence the haters, so you might have seen me there already.

    • Admin says:
      [ip2username: Suva Mywo]
      #4755 Admin (2012-09-21st)

      Yes, I saw already people using my stats not only on ESB, but also at BoxingScene and other places.

      That's very good. Because stats are the truth and myths are revisionism. And I thank you very very much!

      ESB banned me for saying that I didn't find Ali's humor funny. Boxingscene deleted my comments where I posted some quotes of Ali that they obviously didn't want to hear. That's how far the Ali glorification goes.

      • froek says:
        [ip2username: Nybo Gezi]
        #4989 froek (2012-09-29th)

        Just got my first ban, probably because I was either dissing Ali or it was some thread the mods didn't like.

  • VVmmvvmm says:
    [ip2username: Kyvo Kewi]
    #5407 VVmmvvmm (2012-12-09th)

    Amyway the slow,fat,fragile,untrained,featherfisted,weak,UNSKILLED Sanders destroyed
    Wladimir Klitschko.Nate Tubbs(unknown journeyman) destroyed the "prime" Sanders.
    I hink Klitschko management started to praise Sanders for save this situation.
    I think earlier noboady praised Sanders.
    Klitschko sisters aren't 260 pounds.Anyway v.Klitschko was an Incredible skinny beanpole
    earlier.watch his Warring kick-boxing fight.he Was freakishyly 205 pounds.
    I think Klitschkos' bodies based on doping.
    A 250 or 260 pounds guy is not too heavy.JON BROWER MINNOCH IS THE HEAVIEST MAN EVER(6'1" AND 1400 POUNDS). The pathetic 260 pounds compared to 1400 is ridicolous.

  • Aswin says:
    [ip2username: Xeji Muva]
    #5467 Aswin (2013-01-03rd)

    Please be objective and consistent. first, you said Height and Weight compensate for skill and hence today's heavyweights will roll over the ancient greats. Then, you again pull out opponents of a previous era (Jou Louis era) and then say that the wins over giants, even those who fit your "modern heavyweight" definition don't count because 1) They had a bum record, and 2) They were suffering from Acromegaly/were amateurish, blah, blah, and blah…..

    Tell me something, if your argument stands valid then the same applies to Wladmir, who got knocked down thrice by Sam Peter, a fat slob, who has hardly fought against 2 great proper heavyweights???? THe only 2 good heavyweights Sam fought knocked him out (Wladmir on the 2nd and 3rd attempt) and Robert Helenius.
    So, you are ready to discount Klitschko getting knocked down thrice by an average heavyweight, but you won't accept Jou Louis, who got knocked out of the ring by Buddy Baer, but was courageous enough to climb into the ring and knock his opponent out… YOu are clearly being a hypocrite here. Let me tell you two things, 1) Eventhough Primo Carnera was suffering from acromegaly, he was still a dangerous puncher vastly due to the difference between him and his opponents (This is as per your benchmark, which states that heavyweights are dangerous because they are HEAVY> 220pounds. Also, because of his size, 6 foot 6- 6 foot 7, it was very difficult for the old heavyweights even to reach his chin, let alone knock him out. Joe Louis was a superb technician and knew how to leverage his punches, thay's why we still speak about him now, even 70 years after his career ended. Joe Louis was a wandering boxing clinic, he punched to perfection. True, he was only 6 foot 2 in height, but if he had been in the modern era, he would be at least 20 pounds heavier making him a true heavyweight in your book………

    How come you discount the fact that if Wladmir and Vitali had been born in the 1970s, they would not be tall today or have the training and nutrition methods which they are getting now. This is because 1) Growth of a child depends on 1) Genetics, and 2) Nutrition. As far as I am concerned, Ukraine is not a prosperous nation and surely, Wladmir and Vitali would have never gained access to the rich nutrition that their family provided them. Please remember that Wlad and Vitali were born in the 70s, an era when the economies of the world were improving. They had far less access to modern nutrition and technology than Joe Louis or Ali did. There is no guarantee that Ali and Louis wouldn't be more heavier and perhaps taller than they were. There is a strong possibility that if Joe Louis had been a modern heavyweight, he would definitely be a champ. So, please be objective. Boxing is not about IFs and Buts. You keep comparing all sorts of statistics, but you conveniently seem to be harping on how boxers like Joe Louis and Jackson were bums because they were 20-30 pounds lighter. Are you mad? In the 1900s, people struggled to stay alive, let alone nourish themselves…. Today's children are blessed to live in a more stable economy compared to 1900s and 1940s during when countries were ravaged by war. factor these into your so-called statistics and you will get the true picture. If we stick only to your statistics then young brats like Tyson fury is the greatest heavyweight of all time because he never lost and he handled Chisora better than your great Vitali Klitschko…. Hell, HAYE KOed CHisora in less than 6 rounds while Vitali just managed a UD. Haye was supposed to be Wladmir's 50th knockout…. If Wladmir had been the greatest KO artist as you claim, why didn't he KO Haye…. Damn, he had 12 rounds….12 ROUNDS. to KO the heavyweight WANNABE (Haye in all his glory weigh only around 210-217 pounds) yet he managed to clown there, pick his paycheck and happily waltz away…… Wladmir may have dangerous fists, perhaps more power than Foreman, but he is f*cking useless when it comes to boxers, who have a slim chance of hitting him….He hardly shows positive aggression on dangerous opponents. Whereas Lewis managed to knock down Briggs even despite the fact that Briggs was giving him a beating of his life. Lewis managed to KO Golota, who gave Bowe the scare of his life twice. Lewis also managed to KO Ruddock, who gave Tyson his toughest 2 fights post prison. Lewis also knocked out Tommy Morrison, who had one hell of a Left hook and had just beaten George Foreman via MD. Even when compared to his immediate predecessor, Wladmir's resume looks only average, but yet you defend him to the hilt calling him the greatest. HELL, FORGET ABOUT GREATEST, WLADMIR IS NOT EVEN THE GREATEST BOXER IN HIS OWN FAMILY> VITALI KNOCKS HIM OUT ANYDAY. DID YOU EVER WONDER WHY VITALI's MOM ASKED FOR VITALI TO PROMISE THAT HE WILL NEVER FIGHT WLADMIR… SHE KNEW THAT WLADMIR WOULD BE EMBARRASSED TO THE POINT THAT HE WOULD GIVE UP BOXING…..

    And when I ask you answers to my questions, you will label me an ALIFANT irrespective of the fact that I never speak about Ali and that I am not from the US or UK, but India. I love boxing.. I respect all boxers, but I am sick of people who feign to be objective while indulging in narcisstic hero worship. You say you present facts, but when I ask for the context of the facts, you call me an ALIFANT (Example: Your fact: Frazier's opponents were not 200 pounders. Actual fact: It was the 1970s,a period when Blacks were just beginning to get access to 3 full meals per day… Hell, even the cream of the crop fighter like 6, "6" Ernie Terrel weighed a slim 212 pounds. Yet this era produced a better variety of boxers: Brawlers, boxers, and Counter-punchers alike)

    And you make foolish statements like 1) Sam Peter would rule the 1970s era…. That was the joke of the century….. Sam Peter is not even as Tall as Gerry Cooney (6 foot 6 inches and 230 pounds) nor heavy like Primo Carnera or Buddy Baer. His only win over a famous opponent is the Cruiserweight turned heavyweight, James Toney…. So much for objectivity.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5628 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

      You're on the wrong site buddy. There're plenty of sites where you can play make believe on mate. This is where it is discussed for real.

      • Tommo says:
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5792 Tommo (2013-03-30th)

        I am immature sometimes. Sorry Aswin lol you put good argument lots and sometimes I exaggerate.

        • Tommo says:
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5805 Tommo (2013-03-30th)

          Vitali I wouldn't say knocks Wlad anyday but certainly one could build a strong case easily for Vitali against Wladimir also. He and Lennox fought each other, something that Bowe and Wladimir being the other 2 huge+skilled modern HWs did not do so they will always get the lions share of the respect when comparing the 4.

          Samuel Peter is a big tough modern HW. Being a bit soft around the middle would not save a pre 1980's fighter from being stomped I'm sorry Aswin. I see Sam having not much problems.

          Your yesteryear champs ARE great Aswin. All the points you make about them are true. By your subjective assessment they may have been greater than anything in the modern era. But not h2h prime4prime which is what admin means. The giant boxers you mention from history were not like the Klitschko's. They could be compared to Valuev, who was champ too like some of the old boys, but got defeated by superior competition. Valuev being a modern example is larger and would beat up on the giants of the past h2h too. Louis, Tunney, Dempsey, Marciano and YES MUHMMAD ALI were all great champions and for some who lay claim to them being greater than modern champ for any other reason I have NO PROBLEM with. Just not h2h.

          Haye is good boxer. HW wannabe, same could be said of Holyfield, Mercer, Byrd, Adamek, Moorer. Sometimes cruisers that move up to HW can be awesome. You have even stated that weight isn't everything.

          Wladimir is never going to get a prize for his balls in risk taking or for being a quick finisher. Agreed. Doesn't mean he isn't capable. However it's a wonder authors statistics in such things like speed of KO etc end up with Wlad on top when you point out examples like you did above lol.

  • Tommo says:
    [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
    #5605 Tommo (2013-03-24th)

    That weight is one of the most important factors is a no-brainer. As far as punching power goes it doesn't even matter too much whether it is in the form of fat or muscles provided one has core strength which serves to increase your weight at the moment of punch impact and a solid fist/wrist muscles to transfer the power.

    Anyway there are exceptions where cruiserweights and light heavies have moved up to heavyweight in the modern era and performed very well. Statistically speaking the record of Evander Holyfield is no longer so impressive but this is one case where statistics underrate his true boxing skill. Yes he was relatively featherfisted but although he has something like 10 losses, 8 of those were against champs in title fights. He lived in a very competitive era and fought lots of very hard fights, not bad for a cruiser, even defeating a true HW champ Mike Tyson and drawing once with Lennox. Michael Moorer also made it at this time, one of the champs to defeat Evander.

    And of course now there is David Haye who although may not compile such an extensive Heavyweight record before he retires, has only lost to Wladimir since he moved up to heavy and certainly doesn't look like losing to too many other heavies at this stage.

    Of course size and weight still matter at Heavyweight I'm not stating that it doesn't, only that being a former cruiser does not exclude from achieving greatness at heavyweight in modern boxing.

  • Honza says:
    [ip2username: Mepi Zuna]
    #5711 Honza (2013-03-27th)

    And of course now there is David Haye who although may not compile such an extensive Heavyweight record before he retires, has only lost to Wladimir since he moved up to heavy and certainly doesn't look like losing to too many other heavies at this stage.

    I believe that Haye is probably second best heavyweight boxer today. But Wlad is still too big, too fast and too strong. he was number one since Lennox Lewis. Interesting would be version of Vitali from 2003-2004 when he was at his prime facing Wlad from 2008-2010 when he was at his prime. That would be very interesting clash.

  • Honza says:
    [ip2username: Mepi Zuna]
    #5712 Honza (2013-03-27th)

    But maybe i was too harsh on Wlad. Sometimes he still seems that he is still at his prime. But best of him was seen from 2005 to 2010.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5721 Tommo (2013-03-27th)

      I believe Haye is 2nd best boxer too. Atleast him and Vitali should have settled that. And Vitali of previous years would definitely have been trouble for Wladimir. I think Haye fought very good fight against Wlad considering the size difference and the difference in HW experience. Although admin likes to state that you can't just scale up cruiser performance to HW once a fighter moves up, which has truth, you can't completely exclude it. It is still experience, and experience with quicker opposition too even though weaker. Hard to factor that into statistics but still can't be over looked.

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
        #5743 Honza (2013-03-28th)

        Wlad vs. Haye was hard fight for both fighters. I think Wlad won because better stamina and of course size. I think that is very unpolite from Klitschko fans saying that fight was completely one-sided. I think even judges were too harsh to Haye. I would score it 7 rounds for Wlad and 5 rounds for Haye (maybe 4 with one round being a draw).

        • Tommo says:
          [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
          #5754 Tommo (2013-03-29th)

          Yeah something like that I would not have been surprised with had it occurred. I watched it a few times over and though Wlad did win convincingly over all I never seen anything that I would call dominant. Haye sometimes looked like he was enjoying himself lol. Hardly a one-sided beat down lol who the heck said that!?

          • Honza says:
            [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
            #5765 Honza (2013-03-29th)

            Author of this site said that it was completely one sided. And he is not the only one. Most Klitschko fans are saying that Haye was dominated by Wlad when he clearly was not. Actually he was the first in the match who got hit. I was nicely suprised that Haye showed better match against Wlad than against Valuev.

            • Honza says:
              [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
              #5785 Honza (2013-03-29th)

              But Tommo I have lost some respect for you since you have bashed Ali a lot. Calling him a tomato can (today) or punchbag. That is as lame as some "Ali fants" or "Klitschko nuthuggers" statements. Ali clinched a lot? Yes. He was running away from punches? Definetly. But Yo can not look only on this. I have seen a lot of his fights and he was sometimes pretty impressive. Some examples: Ali vs. Foley, Ali vs. Quarry, Ali vs. Bugner. In all those matches he showed that he can move fast, dodge punches and be very agressive. He would definetly be solid heavyweight today. I am not saying the best but among the best. My opinion.

              • Tommo says:
                [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
                #5787 Tommo (2013-03-30th)

                Ok tomato can is very bold statement lol but I still don't agree Ali could be good at HW. I re-watched Quarry/Ali in patches to see if I missed something and all I really seen was either standing out of range and jabbing a lot which was speedy but not lightening and what I wouldn't consider solid punches. His opponent was fit looking but very cruiser like (not as fit as modern cruiser). Then I seen him doing that silly dance he does with hands down by his side, when Quarry comes in he jabs jumps away and when Quarry manages to get close it's clinch. His big punches like an uppercut I seen he threw on the back foot- Quarry was lunging toward him when it caught. I can see how that style worked against Quarry, you're entitled to your opinion of course but I can't see it working against many decent HW today, power hitter or former cruiser. He'd get caught for sure if he tried to fight like that I reckon. Can't really convince each other but I think he'd be stopped at the gate or by a hard punching journeyman. If he had tough time against some of those guys he did back in 70's imagine what say Ross Puritty would do to him.

              • Tommo says:
                [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
                #5806 Tommo (2013-03-30th)

                Btw sometimes I exaggerate and sometimes use sarcasm sure, sorry man. Sometimes hard to resist fighting slander with slander lol :)

          • Tommo says:
            [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
            #5767 Tommo (2013-03-29th)

            Haha he's tripping. I like Wlad too and believe he is one of the best boxers. Who he can't match with skill he can out might and vice verse. But what I would not say is that Wlad is better beyond comparison to anybody else. Saying he dominated Haye isn't doing anything to improve credibility for Wlad or the era (or his opinion). Quite frankly it's time he investigated the worthiness, pros/cons and match ups of the more than dozen other boxers that I consider would have also given Wlad hard fight. Love to see how he spins Lennox/Wladimir. He could not use stats to prove anything conclusive there or rely on observtions to save golden boy.

            • Honza says:
              [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
              #5776 Honza (2013-03-29th)

              Again thank you for agreement. I also would like to see for example Lewis/Wlad comparsion or even more Bowe/Wlad. His answer when I asked him about possible Bowe/Wlad fight was: Riddick Bowe would ducked him as he ducked Lennxo Lewis. When it comes to Wlad. I do not like him as person or as champion but I really respect his boxing skills.

              • Honza says:
                [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
                #5777 Honza (2013-03-29th)

                Here are my boxers that would be real challenge for Wlad: Vitali, Lennox, Riddick, Larry, Evander. I would like to say that Joe Frazier and Mike would be great chalenge but their size would be terrible disadvantage. What is your opinion?

                • Tommo says:
                  [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
                  #5778 Tommo (2013-03-29th)

                  Yeah I seen that and commented accordingly, cop out argument. As he says "out of ring performances should not conclude what might happen in the ring". It seems we have a mutual distaste of different boxers, I am highly critical of Muhammad Ali's performance but hold his western sphere cultural significance and ability in his own era quite highly, i'm a detractor of how his performance holds up in modern times.

                  I totally agree with all your fighters being a challenge for Wlad. I am big Tyson fan and somewhat "what if" believer if things had gone different (see that article). But taking Tyson as he was I must concede Wlad would give him trouble. I am a Frazier detractor as you will have noticed. I made some over bold statements about him in places like he would be defeated by amateur fighter today but explained my case better in the Tyson debate. I don't give him any chance.

                  I feel today Wladimir and Vitali are 2 exceptional circumstances of highly skilled very large boxers.

                  I feel Lennox and Riddick were 2 exceptional circumstances of highly skilled very large boxers of the 90s.

                  Valuev was a modern example of a giant boxer relying on size and not significant skill or conditioning to win. He was both example of how size matters against relatively good boxers and also example of how other refined attributes can overcome size.

                  I think prime Vitali and Lennox are both Wladimir's match. I think Riddick and Evander would have given Wlad tough battle like Haye and are prime candidates for upset. I believe Morrison and Tyson would have punchers chance to upset him but would most likely end up canvassed. I think Holmes would be in the mix with his average competition about on par with Tommy and Mike. There are several other boxers like Mercer etc, mostly from the 90's 00's and a couple from the 80's who I would rate as comparable to the current era boxers and ahead of the golden era guys whom I don't rank today, except Foreman who would have always been a big strong puncher. I don't feel the era today is bad at all although I don't rate average contenders/gate keepers any better than I do in the 90's h2h. I think Ali could have done very well at cruiser but not much at HW today or in the 90's.

                  We can make comparison toplist at some stage lol. But author should note similarities of what we've said and start analysing who we have both ranked considering we're coming from different angles. He likes his current attacks because they are easy for his stats lol.

                  • Honza says:
                    [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
                    #5779 Honza (2013-03-29th)

                    Teh biggest problem with author is his constant criticism towards Ali and his era. His statistic are very well made. He made some very good points. Problem is that thuis site is truly Klitschko frieldy and not very much Ali friendly. I could consider myself an Klitschko hater because I just do not like them. That does not take anything from their accomplishments. But their great records are 90% of this website. I agree completely that seeing comparision of the other boxers would be nice. But you already mentioned almost all worthy challengers for Klitschkos. I would think maybe Bonecrusher and Witherspoon would be solid threat to Klitschkos. And I still believe that Wlad is more dangerous than Vitali because of his best weapon (punching speed/punching power).

                    • Honza says:
                      [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
                      #5780 Honza (2013-03-29th)

                      I think Ali could have done very well at cruiser but not much at HW today or in the 90's

                      I think that Ali was unique because he was unpredictable. When I saw how George demolished Frazier I thought that Ali is gonna get beaten in similiar way. He was not.

                    • Tommo says:
                      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
                      #5786 Tommo (2013-03-30th)

                      Yeah that's one thing which could be said regarding Ali was his highly un-orthodox style and adaptability. His victory against George I see as one of boxing's greatest moments. But I attribute his victory only in part to Ali's ring IQ and half of it to George's lack of it. Foreman had a good strong jab he used earlier fights which he did not much employ anymore at this stage. I reckon once Ali went to the ropes and George found himself not able to land any clean shots he just needed to be more measured and he wouldn't have gassed and eventually got Ali in the end. But that's not what happened so Ali gets prize.

                      Anyhow we'll see what the theme of the next article will be. My guess is something like "Wladimir: Not just a better boxer than Ali, but a better lover too" or something like that haha lol

  • Honza says:
    [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
    #5796 Honza (2013-03-30th)

    Yeah I would not be suprised if something like that happened :). Admin is very good at using stats but sometimes he overlooked them because they do not suit his image of "Wlad the barbarian". By the way did you watch first bout between Evander and Riddick? My father and I saw that just few days after Wlad/Haye fight and my dad said something what was on my mind too: "Haye vs. Wlad was very good match but this one is a one class better. Of course in terms of entertainment. :)

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5807 Tommo (2013-03-30th)

      We actually watched 2 and 3. We wanted to watch the one where Evander got knocked 1st time in career but I mistakenly put on 2 first so ended up watching both 2 and 3. Will catch up on part 1 soon though. Yeah those fights were full of action ey. I'd have to say I'd find it hard to watch a Wladimir fight if I could be treated to such classics lol ;) The case for dominating to prove greatness I understand but in this case Wlad would NOT dominate either of those 2, it would be a protracted war, and the fact that they both struggled with each other is a proof of both their greatness really lol. Top stuff!! =P

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
        #5835 Honza (2013-03-31st)

        I saw whole trilogy. I have it on cd. You said that it was first time in career? That is matter of opinion. It was clear knockdown (first time against Bowe), but some people feel that Holy was first time knockdowned by Bert Cooper. I also think that he was only wobled. Anyway watch their first fight if you can. I think it is the best one. Top stuff as you said. Another great battle was Mike vs. Buster Douglas. I personaly think that Holy and Mike are two most exciting boxers.

  • Tommo says:
    [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
    #5840 Tommo (2013-03-31st)

    My friend who is also boxing fan never seen a fight where Evander lost KO so I put them on. Never seen Cooper fight will have to check it out. I'll be treating myself to part 1 soon as I can :) My missus been sh*tty with me this last week since I discovered this blog, spending time talking to you guys and doing some homework catching up on fights hogging the TV haha. I used to box Amateur until about 7 years ago when met my wife, changed job etc and didn't have the time to dedicate anymore. Not a sport you can take half hearted unless you want to get hurt lol. I still train, just not as consistent now. Been boxing fan since kid, MMA doesn't really do it for me and I was never interested in football lol (I'm 32 by the way). I'd say you'd be about right there, Holy always delivered the goods. Such a tough guy and most guts. He'd jump into a tough fight with anybody :) Seen all of Tyson's fights I think. Watched the Douglas fight with my dad at the pub when I was a kid and I remember telling him it looked like he was losing and he told me "nah, he'll come back, he always wins" lol, not long later when he got dropped the whole pub went Oooooo lol Great fight, massive upset and great performance from Buster. I will also endeavour to watch those 3 Ali fights you told me to in full, see if I can't warm to the man a little, JUST FOR YOU mate! ;) I KNOW he isn't a tomato can and wouldn't be INSTANTLY KO'd in modern heavy although I still stand by that for a lot of his contemporys. Truth is he was a big HW in the 70's really and mostly muscles. I just can't see him doing too well that's all. But foreman card aside, he was the best of that era. It's really good to've met you on here mate, I've got a passion for it again haha. I would never try to slang you because what goes around comes around and you always make well thought out cases and are open for discussion. Your a great sport!! =P

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
      #5841 Tommo (2013-03-31st)

      And quick to pull up the author when he's overstating or over "stat" ing his case which has been rather hilarious for me as well as has some of the russian punchbag comments and yankee bitchko ones :) lol

      • Tommo says:
        [ip2username: Puga Lyxo]
        #5855 Tommo (2013-04-01st)

        Just looking back to when I first come on blog and made couple of apologies/corrections lol I was sucked in by my own bias to believing every piece of authors words were gospel it seems until properly analysing what had been claimed and checking things out. Think I was a little quick to dismiss your friend Aswin without full consideration. My attitude has evened out somewhat.

        • Honza says:
          [ip2username: Gajy Xode]
          #5860 Honza (2013-04-01st)

          You know I was the same. Only other way around. I was simply defending my favorites. But know I can see some of my mistakes. I never really like Klitschkos or even Lewis (I only cheer for Lewis when he was fighting Vitali) but I really respect their skills. I really hated authors attitude towards old fighters. Sometimes it seemed that only Aswind and me are defending old fellas with something good to say. Of course when somebody says that Wlad is something like Butterbean that is nonsense. Problem is this site is full of Klitschko haters, Ali haters etc.

  • Barolojoe says:
    [ip2username: Meji Vuga]
    #6529 Barolojoe (2013-10-07th)

    The Klitschko Brothers are nice guys. But far from beeing the best or strongest boxers in history.

    Wladimir's weekend fight two days ago – against a very weak Russian contender – once again revealed his limited abilities.

    Heavyweight boxing has never seen a leaner period than the last ten years.

    I second several experts & chroniclers who put a Klitschko not even in the all-time top 20 – and an also overrated Lennox Lewis not in the historical top ten.

    Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Ali, Foreman in his prime, and several others would have wiped up the canvas easily with them….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=341EPvi_XCc 8-)

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Xusa Pybo]
      #6535 Tommo (2013-10-19th)

      Only a family member would make such an outrageous claim. All would most likely be knocked out. Jack Johnson, Joe Louis.. They would be knocked out without even a fight!

      No honest boxing "analyst" in history would have it any other way. The opinions of "historians" and trainers and past fighters are worth nothing! I wonder if you'd bet on those guys to really win because a look at such splendidly talented fights (sarcasm intended) like Foreman vs Roman and Ali vs Frazier reveals the truth. They'd be beaten easily.

      Povetkin is in fact a really good fighter, much better and far more durable than say Joe Frazier. You might even like to label him a "Super Frazier". Underrating Wlad's opponents is ok for American trash like you but those opinions belong on Boxing News 24 not on here mate!

      • Honza says:
        [ip2username: Vuga Jygo]
        #6552 Honza (2013-11-11th)

        Why such an offensive tone Carl (it actually sound funny because you have american flag there)? Of course Wlad is good boxer. One of the best of all time but that does not change a fact that his fight with Povetkin was bad and that Povetkin is ok fighter but also one big cherry picker who did not have 30 matches yet and he is well past his 30s. This era is not a weak era. I would call it coward era in terms of cherry picking. Old fighters were not cherry picking as much as todays guys.
        I also believe that Johnson, Joe Louis and other fighters would be beaten by Wlad. problem with all these arguments are that there are two extremes when we talk about Klitschkos. One extreme labelles them as weak champions in weak era and another extreme labelles them as super terminators of boxing who can not be defeated. I hope I have proven to be somewhere in the middle when it comes to judge them. I think they are very good but a little overrated and very technical. :)

  • Lawprof says:
    [ip2username: Jobe Tivu]
    #6994 Lawprof (2014-02-05th)

    Ali, Foreman, Louis, Tyson would take either Klitschko apart. Jack Johnson would probably have found a way to make them both look like buffoons.

    The Klitschkos remind me most of Primo Carnera at his best. They move awkwardly, they're decent but not great boxers, their hand speed nowhere near Ali's. One thing the author of this fantastical diatribe forgets is that boxers could gain or lose weight depending on the opposition. Ali was no small man by far and could easily have carried 225 – 230+ lbs with that 80" reach (just as long as the Klitschkos) with modern training techniques. Imagine that Ali hand speed against the K Brothers, imagine Ali's ability to evade the K Brothers's favorite tactics, leaning on opponent to slowly wear them down. Ali would destroy them both on the same night, one after the other.

    I am a former boxer, I have eyes, I can see talent and class and the want thereof.

  • jon says:
    [ip2username: Sepi Xula]
    #7135 jon (2014-05-03rd)

    Such a foolish thread with so many foolish replies. Heavyweights back in the day fought at their natural weight as opposed to bulking up. Real strength and genetics will always defeat a blown up man if the skills are equal. Klitchko was sparked by a chubby Brewster. Koed brutally by sanders. He started his career at 219 lbs. And if you fools havent noticed, 215 ln deontay wilder is making a joke out of the hw division. Boxing isnt a weight lifting competition. Dont forget an old overweight foreman made his mark in a modern hw division, showed an iron bears and immense strength

  • jon says:
    [ip2username: Sepi Xula]
    #7136 jon (2014-05-03rd)

    Most of the people ragging on old boxers dont know sh*t and have never boxed before

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Luxa Xyso]
      #7731 Tommo (2014-12-01st)

      I've boxed.

      In fact it doesn't matter whether one has boxed or is simply a fan of boxing.

      It should be completely obvious to everybody how rubbish most of these old boxers actually were.

  • Thomas says:
    [ip2username: Witu Kajy]
    #7432 Thomas (2014-07-23rd)

    You forgot to mention that Wladimir lost to Lamon Brewster who barely weighed 96 kgs at the time. Weight is so overrated, Ali would smash the Klitschkos. If Wladimir tried to go over 110 Ali would just wear him down and over work him. Do the same thing he did to George Foreman. Skill over powers weight and Ali has a whole lot more then Klitschko. Ali was a literal master tactician and would outsmart Klitschko and day. He is only surviving on his power and height. Ali would destroy him.

    • Tommo says:
      [ip2username: Xydo Kedi]
      #7649 Tommo (2014-10-27th)


      Wladimir never got "beaten" by Brester legitimately at all. The worst you can attribute to Wlad is a steroid overdose, but the drug theory is equally plausible since Wlad ordered the damn test himself and the samples went mysteriously MISSING! I wonder what nationals would want Brewster to win that badly ;) Now let's not forget that Wladimir punched the living sh*t out of Brewster in that fight!

      But alas, Brewster was not 96kgs at all. He was 226lbs or 102.5kg, bigger and more solid than even George Foreman prime! And Brewster had a powerful KO ratio against modern era sized HW's too with better records. There was never any boxer in Ali's times LIKE Brewster anyway!

      Weight is a fact of boxing which has been clearly laid out in tables for you how much it actually does matter! Ali would be folded by the Klitschko's or most top 10 HW's now. How long Ali could survive against most, depends only on how long he can run for. So you think Ali could rope a dope Wlad right? TROLL comment!

      Ali had little real skills, Wladimir is nearly technically perfect. Ali would outsmart Klitschko? He was a borderline retard against Klitschko's PHD. Yeah, leaning against the ropes letting Foreman wail on him and generally allowing all of his opponents punch him in the head and body all his career until he developed Parkinsons was REAL smart LOL.

      Show me a decent opponent that Ali ever "destroyed"?

      • Troy Riser says:
        [ip2username: Xowe Mipu]
        #7908 Troy Riser (2015-07-08th)

        "Ali had little real skills"? You discredit yourself. And this 'What if' game people play; i.e., 'What if Ali fought Klitschko? Dempsey against Foreman? Butterbean against Willie Pep?'? It's a fun game to play but nonsense, all of it, kinda sorta similar to those imaginary fights kids argue about between fictional comic book heroes. The argument that weight matters in boxing was settled long ago, when weight classes were devised. Of course weight matters. Simple physics dictates weight matters.

        But if you're talking greatest boxers, then weight classes cease to matter. Heart matters, skill matters, style matters. Joe Louis, in my view, was a perfect boxer, the examplar of what boxing is all about. He had it all: talent, skill, power, style and courage–all of the best attributes of the sport magically coalesced into a single human being. Others might disagree but I don't claim my conclusion regarding Joe Louis is definitive.

        Using statistics might make the case more persuasively but statistics do lie; that is, numbers can form the basis of a given argument but not if the initial supposition is invalid. You propose to compare boxers from bygone eras to modern boxers and then determine who would win. I argue such a comparison purely speculative no matter how many numbers you throw at it; thus invalid.

  • bbc says:
    [ip2username: Geki Kupa]
    #7863 bbc (2015-05-23rd)

    if blacks didn't decide to play nfl or nba these days and tried boxing the cklitshcos will get whooped so fast. Black men are far superior to white boys as history proved many times.

  • Write a comment

    :wink: :twisted: :roll: :oops: :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :evil: :cry: :arrow: :?: :-| :-x :-o :-P :-D :-? :-) :( :!: 8-O 8-)
    Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies