Would Ali's fighting style be merely disgusting today or also ineffective?

CASSIUS CLAY (AKA CASSIUS X AKA MUHAMMAD ALI) IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW FAR DELUSION CAN GO. For AliFans he exemplifies superhuman abilities like "the fastest reflexes of all time", "the best footwoork", "top ring smarts" etc. They  claim that no other heavyweight comes close to his abilities. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply too micro-minded to grasp Clay/Ali's superiority.

They demand that Ali should be the blueprint for how boxing should look like. And they disdain any boxer who doesn't box like him.

I know, Mike Tyson is another boxer who considered by some to be superhuman, but nothing comes close to AliFan(t)s (Ali fantasizers) and their claims.

Well, I am sorry, but I think that Ali is the greatest bubble in boxing history, a bubble filled with "Sweet Science Fiction" and "Muhammad Mythology" ("The tale of Ali Bubble").

Now, his raw P4P record is actually good (Win/Fight ratio, Quality of opposition etc) (at least until you scrutinize his opponents or the circumstances of his wins) and he has some good moments (like every boxer) but why do AliFans have to blow his style and achievements so completely out of proportion? I wouldn't even have started this topic here if it wasn't for the mountains of ridiculous "Ali adore":

His reflexes? Phenomenal!

His footwork? Oh, my god!

His speed? Unsurpassed!

His beauty? Most beautiful boxer ever and "if Panettiere Hayden [girl-friend of Wladimir Klitschko] had the choice between Muhammad Ali or Wlad Bitchko you know very well whom she would choose" (original quote).

 

Don't fabulate about Ali's attributes!
Watch his fights!
His complete fights!

 

Ali has none of that and is none of that. Except for a few fights Ali is slow, plodding, an extreme featherfist, has a complete lack of reflexes and his footwork is non-existent:

Why else do you think is his KO'ratio so abysmal if he is such an offensive mastermind? He scored only 5 KOs within 12 rounds in real[?] heavyweight fights in THE ENTIRE 1970ies of which 2 were against bums[?] (33-12 Richard Dunn, 36-16 Coopman).

Why else do you think he gets constantly hit in the face from the first minute to the last with the greatest ease if he's such a defensive wizard? He gets hit with the slowest punches by the slowest boxers. He should have named himself Mo'hammered (haha).

In any modern cruiserweight fights (approximately 50% of Ali's fights are not real heavyweight fights 200×2) and heavyweight fight you see faster action and harder punches than anything Ali has ever delivered.

 

Ali had just a few assets that are mention-worthy:


This is a draft. Complete text is coming soon!

Instead browse the sitemap with complete articles...

Wladimir Klitschko's glass chin -OR- Hahaha, Corrie Sanders was a golfer

WLADIMIR KLITSCHKO IN HIS CAREER has suffered 3 losses.

These RoCoLa losses (against ROss Puritty, COrrie Sanders, LAmon Brewster) are used by haters as THE ultimate proof of Wladimir's bum'ness or as a reason why a status as an "All-Time-Great" has to be DENIED.

Since these 3 losses were KO losses (= Klitschko was KO'ed) haters use them as a proof of the terrible quality of the Klitschko chin (= he cannot take punches).

 

The final analysis on Wladimir Klitschko's glass chin

Before we analyze Wladimir Klitschko's "porcelain chin" let me make some general remarks that apply to any boxer:

  1. Deducting something from 3 losses (of approximately 60 fights) is actually ridiculous. It's equally ridiculous to deduct something from 3 wins (of proximately 60 losses).
  2. Having 50+ real heavyweight fights 200×2 and losing ONLY 3 times is a PROOF (and not a counter-proof) of the quality of Wladimir Klitschko (see tables below). Especially since it's actually ultraheavyweight fights 215×2. Already expect the next generations of boxers getting KO'ed more often since the punches get harder and harder.
  3. Of the 78 heavyweight world champions to date NOBODY had as many fights 200×2 and less losses than Wladimir Klitschko.
  4. Being TKO'ed by hard punchers or by KO'artists (Corrie Sanders has a KO'ratio of 67% and Lamon Brewster has a KO'ratio of 73%) is a very weak argument for a weak chin.

Additionally let me point out the following: […] Read more »

Muhammad Ali eats opponents like the Klitschkos for breakfast

A TYPICAL STATEMENT OF ALIFANS IS "Ali would beat Wladimir Klitschko the same way he beat (insert opponent)". Or "Ali has faced tougher guys than Wladimir Klitschko while Klitschko has never faced a guy like Ali".

Hmm, really?

Let us find out who on Ali's record is comparable to Wladimir Klitschko


This article is a draft. Full text is coming soon

Instead browse the sitemap with complete articles...

How Muhammad Ali won at the Supreme Court because of a technicality

DOES MUHAMMAD ALI SUPPORT ISLAMIC EXTREMISM? As you may know Ali lost his boxing license because of his refusal to serve in the US army (most probably he would have not served as a soldier but as an exhibition boxer for his fellow soldiers, similar to famous boxers like Joe Louis before him).

We want to analyze here the time line of Ali's legal problems and how he won on a technicality ("CLAY, aka ALI v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 698") and what this decision has to do with the Jihad.

Here is the chronology:

  1. Muhammad Ali (who then had still his birth name Cassius Clay) fails the US army qualifying test because of writing and spelling skills. Ali scores IQ 78 on the army's IQ test (borderline retardation, he finishes his high school as the bottom 1% of his class) and the army considers him too unqualified to be recruited.
  2. As the Vietnam war goes on longer than planned the US army lowers the qualification thresholds and Ali receives a call up letter.


This article is unfinished. The full text is coming soon

Instead browse the sitemap with complete articles...

Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents

WELCOME TO THE BLACK & WHITE WORLD OF KLITSCHKO HATERS.

Welcome to The top reasons why Wladimir Klitschko sucks!

Let's start with the first example where Klitschko haters turn a positive feature into something negative:

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents"

Seriously, some claim that Wladimir Klitschko's opponents are bums as is apparent by the fact that he can KO them so easily.

Why else could he KO them? His opponents are bums because they couldn't even survive 12 rounds. And would they be any good then he couldn't KO them.

"Wlad's opponents are all bums compared to Ali's opponents. These fighters can't even stand on their own feet for 12 rounds . . . how hard is that to realize that?"

(original quote)

Therefore featherfisted Muhammad Ali (the champ with one of the lowest real[?] heavyweight KO'ratios of all time) must have fought the best opponents who ever lived because he struggled so much against them.

This is one of the most idiotic excuses by Klitschko haters and shows what is wrong with their rants:

If Wladimir KOs them they were bums.

If he fails to KO them he failed to KO bums.

If he loses to them he lost to bums.

An impossible no-win situation.

On a side note: A major reason why Ali is considered a better boxer than ·George Foreman is exactly because of this attitude: "Ali struggled so much yet he won in the end" (= huge win for Ali), while "Foreman knocks guys out in a few rounds" (= mediocre win).

Additionally this anti-Klitschko reproach ignores the weight and quality of the opponents Wladimir Klitschko KO'ed:

Of all heavyweight world champs to date (78 world champs)
Wladimir Klitschko (13) and Roy Jones Jr (13) scored the most KOs against previously unKO'ed non-bums[?].
Follow-ups are Larry Holmes (8) and Joe Louis (6).

-and-

Wladimir Klitschko has KO'ed more (13)
previously unKO'ed non-bums in real heavyweight fights 200×2
than Mike Tyson (5), George Foreman (4), Sonny Liston (0) and Rocky Marciano (0) and Joe Louis (0)
COMBINED.

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he doesn't KO his opponents"

Some complain that, "Yes, he KOs them but it takes him too long":

"Your gladiators [Klitschko brothers] if they so good, why oh why cant they KO these guys inside 3 rounds. See thats whats missing, and thats why Vitali Klitschko and Wladimir Klitschko will always be viewed as average fighters fighting fighters less than that."

"I challenge the Klits to start KO'ing their opponents in UNDER 6 rounds."

"They are damaging their legacies whether they know it or not. If they were KO'ing most guys under 6 rounds they may be World wide ICONS by now. Someone on their teams needs to let them know that the fans want to see FAST KO's at HW. Whoever has the next interview with a Klitschko brother please ask why they don't go for earlier KOs and let them know that that is what the fans want to see."

"Chisora is a bum and I guarantee it will take Wladimir much more than 3 rounds to KO him. Wlad is a crap champ and a boring fighter."

(all original quotes)

In other words: They INVENT standards and then hate Klitschko for not meeting these self-invented standards:

"Wlad is bad because takes him longer than …think…think… THREE rounds to KO bums. And I call them bums because …think…think… they couldn't KO Klitschko"

You could even compare it with the bottle analogy: If the bottle is half-full the haters would complain that it's "half empty". If the bottle is full they would complain that it's "too full". Whatever the Klitschko brothers do they do it wrong.

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he KOs his opponents slower than Mike Tyson"

Since Wladimir Klitschko is one of the best KO'ers who ever set the foot into the ring, it's very hard to find someone who KOs his opponents FASTER and MORE FREQUENT than Klitschko.

Thus the only comparison Klitschko haters have is… Mike Tyson.

When you analyze Mike Tyson's performance it turns out that

  1. Wladimir Klitschko has a higher KO'ratio than Mike Tyson
  2. Wladimir Klitschko has scored more KOs than Mike Tyson
  3. Wladimir Klitschko KO'ed MORE opponents in world championship fights 200×2 (14) than Mike Tyson (10). In fact Wladimir Klitschko has KO'ed more opponents in world champion fights 200×2 than ANY OTHER world champion to date.
  4. Wladimir Klitschko has a higher KO'ratio in world championship fights (77%) than Mike Tyson (62%). In fact Wladimir Klitschko's world title KO'ratio 200×2 is higher than any other champion's except for Brian Nielsen (5 KOs of 6 fights) (if you consider the IBO title to be a valid title and 6 fights conclusive).
  5. Wladimir Klitschko has KO'ed more never-KO'ed-before opponents (7) in world title fights 200×2 than Mike Tyson (5). A record that Wladimir Klitschko shares with ·Larry Holmes.

Wladimir Klitschko is the world record leader in these HIGHLY MEANINGFUL statistics thus Wladimir haters have a hard time to actually find ANYTHING which could make Wladimir look worse than Tyson.

Aside from the fact that "being worse than Mike Tyson in some statistic" is no reason to declare Wladimir Klitschko a failure (or anyone else for that matter), I will show you how cherry-picked this statistic is:

The statistic where Mike Tyson is better than Wladimir Klitschko is…

"Average KO'round in world title fights"

Wladimir average KO'round is 7 while Mike Tyson's is 2.7.

The reason why Wladimir Klitschko's figure seems to be bad is because this statistic is WORTHLESS. In fact, "Average KO'round in world title fights" is so worthless that ATGs like Lennox, Larry Holmes, Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali Klitschko perform WORSE than no-name titlists like ·Michael Bentt or ·James Smith and there are SEVERAL boxers who are even better than Mike Tyson, e.g. ·Francesco Damiani if you believe this ridiculous stat.

This statistic

  1. neglects the number of fights. If you had just 1 KO'win (1st round) in 1 fight then your KO'ratio is 100% and your average round is 0.5
  2. neglects LOSSES and DECISIONS. Someone with "1 KO'win (in 1st round) and 9 losses" would have a better statistic than someone with "10 KO'wins (all in 2nd round)".
  3. neglects the quality of opposition (for example Klitschko faced more previously unKO'ed opponents than Mike Tyson)
  4. neglects the stance of your opponent (since southpaws are harder to KO than orthodox fighters). Mike Tyson ducked all southpaws of his time thus his KO stats will be better than someone who actively SEEKS difficult opponents (like Wladimir Klitschko)

Thus to OVERCOME the above problems THE ONLY possibility to assess a fighters KO'performance more accurately is to compare the "Average rounds between KOs against non-southpaw opponents".

nameAverage rounds between 2 KOs in world title fights (200×2), excluding southpaws, headbutts fights, WDQs and NCs
·Vitali Klitschko11.0
·Wladimir Klitschko6.9
·Lennox Lewis10.9
·Muhammad Ali22.2
·Mike Tyson8.1
·Riddick Bowe9.2
·Joe Louis8.5
·Larry Holmes20.0

Fistic Statistic [#420.1]

Now this is an OBJECTIVE and MEANINGFUL statistic. Unfortunately for haters it shows that Wladimir Klitschko is a faster KO'er than Mike Tyson.

 

"Waldimir Klitschko sucks because he wins only by out-weighing his opponents"

This lie is discussed at Why the Klitschkos will never be ATGs (All Time Greats).

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he only wins due to his huge body size"

Complaining about body advantages in a combat sport is really funny.

"Evan Fields only wins because of his hard chin based on his massive neck" and "Mike Tyson only wins because of his muscles" is equally ridiculous (especially considering that Mike Tyson is smaller than Oscar de la Hoya).

What's next? Complaining that "Vitali Klitschko only wins because he TRAINS MORE than his opponent"?

This "outsizing denouncement" is usually brought up by Americans/Britons who utter it for 2 reasons:

  1. They know that by Klitschko's body parameters alone he would pose a massive threat to American ATGs (Evan Fields, Ali, Foreman, …).
    Thus they know whatever supposedly superb features these ATGs had they would be massively out-bodied before the fight even started.
  2. The other reason why they complain about it is because there is no counter-argument.
    What can one say? Both "Wladimir Klitschko would still prevail even when shrunk" and "Wladimir Klitschko would lose when shrunk" are pure speculation. Especially since a mini-Klitschko would have an utterly different speed and balance thus wouldn't even be a Klitschko anymore.

And too stupid to mention: There _IS_ a division for muscular boxers who are approximately equally sized: It's the cruiser division. The whole point of the heavyweight division is to be what-is-called "unlimited": That means there is no upper limit for body weight/shape/size. Thus it is ridiculous to complain about "huge guys" in an unlimited division.

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he doesn't have all the belts"

There are several variations of this statement including "Mike Tyson unified all the belts, while Wladimir didn't" and "Muhammad Ali was undisputed champ while Wlad isn't"

Let's look at the following numbers:

  • Muhammad Ali had THREE belts (WBA, WBC, RING) for 3+ years.
  • Mike Tyson had THREE belts (WBA, WBC, IBF) for 2+ years
    Mike Tyson had FOUR belts (WBA, WBC, IBF, RING) for 1+ year
  • Lennox Lewis had FOUR belts (WBC, WBA, IBF, IBO) for 0+ years (half a year).
    And FOUR belts for 1 year (WBC, IBF, IBO, RING).
  • Wladimir Klitschko now has THREE belts (WBO, IBF, IBO) for 3+ years.
    And FOUR belts (WBO, IBF, IBO, RING) for 2+ years (until June 2011).
    And FIVE belts (WBO, WBA, IBF, IBO, RING)  for 1+ years (as of October 2012)

Hmm, strange… doesn't look that bad to me.

Actually Wladimir Klitschko OUTPERFORMS the other greats like Ali, Tyson and Lennox.

So, why this reproach against Wladimir Klitschko?

It follows a BIZARRE LOGIC which goes like this:

  • In Muhammad Ali's times there were only 2 belts (WBA and WBC).
  • Thus Ali had ALL belts
  • Thus Ali was the unified and undisputed champ

and

  • In Klitschko's times there are 5 belts (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF, IBO)
  • In other words: 1 belt is worth less than 1 belt in Ali's times
  • Thus 4 belts of Klitschko are worth less than 2 belts of Ali
  • hence Klitschko is not undisputed and is a lesser champ than Tyson, Lennox, Ali…

This piece of bizarre logic eludes anyone who is not a Lennox fan or Muhammad Ali fan.

For everyone it should be obvious that winning (and keeping) 5 belts is of course harder than 2 belts.

 

"Wladimir Klitschko sucks because he is boring and fights like a robot!"

This is a topic for itself: Heavyweight boxing died since boring Wladimir Klitschko killed the division -OR- American and British Complainers

 

"Muhammad Ali is a greater boxer than Wladimir Klitschko because failures are virtues and winning is boring!"

Oh, how AliFans love this:

"Muhammad Ali is a greater boxer because he fought 15-round-fights and Klitschko doesn't"

First of all there are no 15-round fights anymore. Therefore by this standard nobody in the future could ever be greater than Muhammad Ali.

Second, going 15 rounds is no virtue. If someone goes 555 rounds then he performs WORSE than someone who goes 55 rounds. Needing 15 rounds instead of 12 is a sign of failure, not of greatness.

 

"Ken Norton broke Muhammad Ali's jaw in round 2, yet Ali went full 12 rounds. I doubt that Klitschko could do that!"

Too stupid to mention it again. But getting your jaw broken is not a virtue. Getting it NOT broken is the virtue.

What AliFans try to do here is to convert a failure (broken jaw) into a virtue ("a remarkable display of courage from Ali").

 

"Joe Frazier was half-blind! What a great fighter!"

Joe Frazier was blind on his left eye his entire career. Yet he became a world champion.

Yes, ·Joe Frazier was brave. I give him that. But for me it's a proof of how BAD Ali's era was if a handicapped could become boxing world champion. For me it's a proof of how bad Ali was since he had so much problems with Frazier.

It's again bizarre black-is-white logic when an obvious failure (= struggling against a handicapped opponent) is converted into a virtue (= "winning against a brave fighter").

 

"Muhammad Ali was completely shot yet he didn't go down against Larry Holmes. Ali is the greatest boxer of all time"

Again, the virtue is to win the fight not to lose every round (and then lose by RTD) when being shot (= old and worn-out).

Additionally "He was shot" is a killer argument as I wrote at Definition: Boxing Prime -OR- The favorite excuse of boxing fans.

 

End words

If you consider struggling a virtue or if competitiveness makes your day then watch Ali's fights.

However, if you want to see a near-perfect display of boxing skills and power then watch the Klitschkos.

And before you dis their opponents: Watch other fights of the opponents, too. You will realize that their opponents are not bums but highly skilled boxers who are merely unfortunate enough to live in the Klitschko era.

David Haye compared to George Foreman of the 1970ies

LET US COMPARE DAVID HAYE TO 1970IES-FOREMAN. George Foreman had 2 careers: One in the 1970ies and one in the 1990ies. The KO'ratio of his first career (= Foreman I) was higher thus let us compare this powerhouse to David Haye.


This article is a draft. Full text is coming soon

Instead browse the sitemap with complete articles...

Boxing eras (3) Wladimir Klitschko in the Golden Age of Heavyweight -OR- How abysmal was Ali's era really?

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MUHAMMAD ALI'S OPPONENTS would box in the current Klitschko era and would have to face Wladimir Klitschko? Ali's opponents supposedly boxed in the so called "Golden Age of Heavyweight Boxing" (1960ies and 1970ies) and if you believe the American hype then these "Golden Men" were unequaled in grace and unparalleled in power and speed. I assume they were directly imported from Mount Olympos.

So… Would Wladimir Klitschko finally get approval would these opponents box nowadays or if he could travel back in a time machine?

 

Please note: This article is part of my multi-part heavyweight boxing eras comparison:

 

In other words: What would happen if Wladimir Klitschko faced the same opponents as Muhammad Ali?

 

What would happen if Klitschko called out Ali's opponents?

  • Of the 61 fights that Clay/Ali fought 29 wouldn't be allowed nowadays as heavyweight because one or both opponents were below 200 lbs at the time of the bout. In other words they would run as cruiser fights (or below) and Klitschko wouldn't be allowed to stage them.
  • Of the remaining 32 fights […] Read more »

Sonny Liston – The Eric Esch of the 1950ies?

SONNY LISTON COMBINES TWO FEATURES that make him remarkable: He is slow like molasses ("Honey Liston", "Slomo Liston") and he is a cherry-picker (= he fought hand-picked opponents who would nearly guarantee a win). These two features justify a comparison to another cherry-picker: Eric Esch ("Butterbean").

If you ever want to see a heavyweight with a slower performance than Valuev then watch Sonny Liston. His arms (84") look freakishly long and disproportionate. Sometimes he throws them around like foreign bodies (similar to overlong pajama sleeves) and there is always […] Read more »

Why the Klitschkos will never be ATGs (All Time Greats)

EXCUSES, more EXCUSES, far-fetched EXCUSES.

This is the impression you get when American (and English) Klitschko haters make up reasons why Wladimir Klitschko will never be considered "A Great Heavyweight Boxer".

"DELUDED FREAK…. majority of the eastern euro heavies are JOKES… america is the best country in the world"

"Wlad will be lucky if he makes it into the Boxing Top 100"

(Two original quotes)

 

Sometimes the objections are hidden behind a lot of "buts" ("But Brigade")

  • The Klitschkos have the highest KO'ratios BUT that's only because the boxers of this era are all china-chinned
  • The Klitschkos win dominantly BUT they would be outclassed by Gene Tunney (1920ies)
  • The Klitschkos are top heavyweights BUT they are not ATGs since they don't fight each other

Hmm, maybe the reason for the American hate is much simpler:

  1. Until the 1990s Eastern-Europeans are forbidden to compete in pro-boxing. Americans rule.
  2. Borders open (approximately in the year 2000) and Eastern-Europeans enter the arena.
  3. Within a decade Americans lose all their titles to Eastern-Europeans.
  4. Americans complain about "the worst heavyweight era ever", the "boring Klitschkos" and talentless opponents (of the Klitschkos) "who cannot throw a straight punch"

In light of the above points ALL REASONS given by Americans are suspicious.

Nevertheless we can have some fun by dissecting each excuse *ahem* reason one by one. Let us start with one of the less intelligent ones:

[…] Read more »

Of Klitards and CLAYtons. This is the most retarded boxing blog ever and I won't bother to read it!

FOR SEVERAL years now I have been discussing with Ali fans.

And for several years now I have been watching others discussing with Ali fans.

Let me assure you: There are NO OTHER BOXING FANS who start to insult and ridicule your opinion as much as Ali fans.

Sure, if you say Mike Tyson is overrated" then a Tyson fan may vividly disagree with you. The same applies to ·Lennox Lewis, ·Larry Holmes, ·Rocky Marciano and any other boxer.

But, boy! If you mention "Muhammad Ali is overrated" then you better prepare for some heavy storm.

Muhammad Ali has the
most unfriendly, insulting, unwilling-to-argue
fans of all time

If you start a discussion that deviates from the "Ali is the greatest"-theme then here is what to expect: […] Read more »

Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Cookies