Ali vs Ali, Winner Vs Lewis

I'm just reading Truss's article about how Lewis would match up against his Top Ten ATG Heavyweights. Everyone's in agreement that Ali beats Lewis. However, this got me thinking, which version of Ali beats Lewis? Or is it both versions?

Pre 1967, Ali was a lyth athlete, fleet of foot and fast of hand. To coin a phrase "he'd float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. He out boxed a master boxer in Patterson and made a monster look silly in Liston. However, this version of Ali was a little lighter and perhaps a little less durable. I know he was knocked down by Cooper, a concussive left hooker, but other than that we can't really comment on his abilty to absorb punches because he wasn't the kind of fighter to get hit be cleanly or soak up punishment, such were his speed and reflexes.

The post 1970 version of Ali was a little slower, and later a little smarter. Beat in '71 by Frazier, Lost in '73 to Norton, and may have lost again to him later that year. He then went life and death with Frazier another twice, was beaten by the Novice spinks, went the distance with Young and Bugner (both good fighters if a little shy from great). He is often credited with his performance against Big George, I don't need to go into how he won, but in retrospect the tactics were so simple they are laughable, though at the time they were rightly considered genius. Ali, through experience, utilised his relative lack of mobility, as compared to his younger years, and Foremans stamina issues to his advantage. Had the fight taken place, in '64 the fight would have been very different with Ali skooting around the ring schooling Foreman.

My question is who wins: the faster lighter mobile Ali vs the smarter, slower, more durable Ali. It may be the simplist question ever asked on V2, for me the answer is simply young Ali. However, I'm mindful of which version of Ali would perform best against Lewis. To further confuse things, there are two version of Lewis 1) the the young awkward, clumsey (but more mobile and fit) wrecking ball of a fighter that demolished Razor Ruddock, and 2) The more measured and cautious fighter that dealt with Tua.

Both fighters had to adjust their styles due to circumstance, Ali got slower; Lewis realised he lacked concentration and was little chinny.

So, plenty of permutations to talk about, some of the answers may be easy but how do you see some of these fights going...


Young Ali Vs Old Ali

Young Ali vs Young Lewis

Young Ali Vs Old Lewis

Old Ali vs Young Lewis

Old Ali vs Old Lewis

Young Lewis Vs Old Lewis

Cheers!

When I say Ali was smarter when he was older, I'm not only referring to his added experience contributing to his ring smarts, but also a decade worth of mind games adding to ability to get inside an opponents head. For me, the mind games would'nt play a significant part in the outcome of these fights because Lewis seems a little laid back (though he did have a couple of scuffles during pressers).

I'd give the older, wiser, heavier, better Lewis more of a chance than the younger, more naive, lighter, not as good version.

Not sure about Ali. I don't know enough about his pre and post exile pros and cons. Seems less clean cut than Lewis' just got better as he got older really mate career and is unfortunately beyond me. Sure there is enough knowledge about to give some good insight though.

I'm not contributing much here but I wanted to do more than just say good article, Mackem.

less said about that the better

Quite right too.

Edited it now, I don't want to derail this before it even gets going.

Nice thread. Not to go off on a tangent, but I was reading an article this morning about what if rjj had stayed at heavyweight after the Ruiz fight and fought, moorer, 40 year old holy, washed up Tyson, this was a time when wlad had been ko'd by Sanders. The general consensus being what ever chance Roy would have with the before mentioned, he'd have no chance against lewis, lewis having to only stand tall his weight on his back foot and measure with his jab.
I see lewis having the same advantage over young Ali. Now I understand that Ali I think is about 6-2, Roy being only 5-9, so Ali probably not at such a reach disadvantage. But I just think Ali too small at his young reign to defeat lewis.
Saying that I see old Ali beating him. But to turn things into an oxymoron, I see young Ali beating old Ali.

Think both beat him.......lightning quick the older version......

Il Gialloblu wrote:Quite right too.

Edited it now, I don't want to derail this before it even gets going.

Young Ali would simply be too good for the reckless young Lewis while being too quick and elusive for the older version. Old vs Old is the closest of any possible match, Lewis under Steward wouldn't fight like Foreman or Frazier instead he'd stick to his strengths namely his size, jab and right hand. I'd give an old Ali a good chance of overcoming it but it wouldn't be easy, if Young and Norton gave him all he could handle then certainly Lewis would too.

Good analysis of how they both changed mackem.. It's not as straight forward as 1 got better, 1 got worse.

Ali was far from all conquering pre Liston, as LRR would remind us were he here. However, late 60's Ali is pretty much as good as it gets, and beats both versions of Lewis. We probably missed his very best with Vietnam, but I'd take early 70's Ali to outfox both versions of Lewis too, but with less confidence.

jimdig wrote: I just think Ali is too small at his young reign to defeat Lewis. Saying that, I see old Ali beating him.

But to turn things into an oxymoron, I see young Ali beating old Ali.

Haha! I love this, it sums up why boxing is amazing.

I actually think the Lewis of 96-98 would beat both versions of Ali.

jimdig wrote:But I just think Ali too small at his young reign to defeat lewis.

I find it a bit surprising that you think Ali's lack of size (relatively speaking, of course) would be a big handicap against Lewis. Holyfield was a converted Cruiser (back when the Cruiser limit was 190 lb, too) and Mercer was a small Heavyweight, too. Both of them gave Lewis plenty to think about and, the more I see it, the more convinced I am that Mercer perhaps edged Lewis by a point.

Besides, Ali beat some big guys during that first reign. Liston may have lacked a little height for a Heavyweight, but he was as robust as they come and had a reach / jab from hell. Terrell was 6'6", a rough 'n' tough spoiler who liked to use his strength inside to smother opponents. Ali befuddled both of them with his quicksilver attacks.

I don't see size playing too big a role here, personally. For me, Ali's legs win the day here. Lewis wasn't a great mover and Ali's "ring geography", as Yank Durham called it while prepping a young Joe Frazier on how he could eventually beat Ali, was superb in the sixties. He was never on the same spot for more than a split second, would have loved Lewis coming at him and held the speed advantage, too. I don't think he allows Lewis to get set and get his feet planted often enough to land with anything other than singles, with Ali throwing threes and fours in reply.

Ali, the young one at least, by convincing decision, for me.

[quote="88Chris05"]

jimdig wrote:

I don't see size playing too big a role here, personally. For me, Ali's legs win the day here. Lewis wasn't a great mover and Ali's "ring geography", as Yank Durham called it while prepping a young Joe Frazier on how he could eventually beat Ali, was superb in the sixties. He was never on the same spot for more than a split second, would have loved Lewis coming at him and held the speed advantage, too. I don't think he allows Lewis to get set and get his feet planted often enough to land with anything other than singles, with Ali throwing threes and fours in reply.

Ali, the young one at least, by convincing decision, for me.

Yes Ali was fast but he got caught far too often by guys a lot slower and a lot less quality than Lewis. I just watched the 1st liston fight and the norton fight and Ali gets caught way too much. I think that Lewis would have success in landing the big right on Ali.

1. Ali wasn't in his prime when he fought Norton...

2. Liston was a great fighter who could knock guys out with one punch..the fact Ali took "the odd" punch......shows the quality of his chin...

Your summation doesn't take into the fact the Ali was quicker, more-skilled and had a better jab and workrate...

The best Ali we saw (1966/67) beats any version of Lewis. By that point the young kid had grown into a man and he really started to fit his frame whilst retaining the speed and footwork of a middleweight. Against a young Lewis he simply befuddles him with movement and quick darting combinations and possibly forces a late stoppage. Against an older Lewis, he wins comfortably on the cards against a fighter who won't let his hands go enough to impress the judges.

Of all the heavyweights there have been, I give only Tyson and Foreman a good chance against that version of Ali, but I'd still fancy Ali to win 7 or 8 times out of 10.

Really interesting article.

I'd pick Ali of '67 over any heavyweight in history personally. I agree with whoever it was that said we probably never got to see his prime years as it in his last fight pre exile he looked like he was sitting down on his shots more. At 25 years old and 212 or 214 pounds he was perfection. Made a million mistakes but made them all work. He fought at pace and could do it for 15. Although his chin and heart weren't tested much in the sixties, they were proven beyond doubt in the 70's. You can't add muscle to your chin. After exile he was, of course, much more flat footed. His attacks were less abrupt and unpredictable. Young v old would be a case of young just doing it all quicker and more, I think.

I don't see how Ali's too small for Lewis. He was 6'3, about the same as Bruno who had plenty of success against yooung Lewis with the jab. Sure, Bruno was heavier handed, but inferior in every other way to Ali who couldve stabbed his jab in all night with a few more shots to follow. He wouldn't be playing the way he did with Cooper so there's little chance he just gets caught with a big shot. Even if he does he's a proven survivor. And on the off chance a sharp counter right has Lewis wobbling, a proven FINISHER. Old Ali v young Lewis would be a superior version of Seth Mitchell v Jonathan Banks. A powerful guy trying to roll over an older foe who isn't mobile enough to damce around but getting timed.

Old Lewis gives old Ali too much time. He doesn't try to force him into a higher gear than he likes and is still not as quick of hand and not even close with the feet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Lewis take it, to be honest. A big guy, but a non robotic big guy with athleticism, power, decent speed and a brain. He could mix it up a bit and was only taken out by big shots from heavy handed fighters. This one is toughest to call for me.

As Chris said, Ali never staying in the same place for too long and not being caught with much more than a grazing jab at a time takes this. He evaded the pumping, thumping, Liston jab which is arguably the best in history - most powerful anyway - in his first title fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. Ali wasn't in his prime when he fought Norton...

2. Liston was a great fighter who could knock guys out with one punch..the fact Ali took "the odd" punch......shows the quality of his chin...

Your summation doesn't take into the fact the Ali was quicker, more-skilled and had a better jab and workrate...

Ali took more than the odd punch in the 1st liston fight, he was taking quite a beating (but was giving a better beating back) and lewis is a lot better than liston.

Ken norton beat ali in all 3 fights in my eyes but was robbed blatently in the 3rd and the 2nd one it was close but i gave it to norton.

I just think Ali took a lot of punishment in fights (probably what led to his mental health issues) and his speed is over exagerated. I actually think Dvid Haye has better defensive speed than ali.

[quote="victorgarco"]

88Chris05 wrote:

jimdig wrote:

I don't see size playing too big a role here, personally. For me, Ali's legs win the day here. Lewis wasn't a great mover and Ali's "ring geography", as Yank Durham called it while prepping a young Joe Frazier on how he could eventually beat Ali, was superb in the sixties. He was never on the same spot for more than a split second, would have loved Lewis coming at him and held the speed advantage, too. I don't think he allows Lewis to get set and get his feet planted often enough to land with anything other than singles, with Ali throwing threes and fours in reply.

Ali, the young one at least, by convincing decision, for me.

Yes Ali was fast but he got caught far too often by guys a lot slower and a lot less quality than Lewis. I just watched the 1st liston fight and the norton fight and Ali gets caught way too much. I think that Lewis would have success in landing the big right on Ali.

Yeah he took punches. Its a fight for crissakes. Moreover those punches landed when he was half blind due to underhand tactics.

Huge fan of Lewis but there's no way you can say he's a lot better than Liston, no way not by any stretch of the imagination. Liston was quicker, more powerful, better chin and a far superior jab plus he had a better variety of punches especially to the body.

Well said Ghosty. Without Ali, Liston would have gone down as one of the best ever. Definitely top 5.

That is a helluva statement Az......Although there could be something in it.....

One can see him beating the Folley's, Terrell's and Williams types........However an old Liston against a young Frazier you'd have to go with Joe....

Considering that's around 68/69..........he'd have 6 years at the top though....

Interesting..................shows timing is everything........

Liston was always old. I reckon he was born old. But the power of his jab would have been too much for Frazier.

An interesting match up would have been Liston v Foreman.

He'd be too slow for the young Frazier in 68............

Plus the tank would be on empty...............

I question Liston's heart against Lewis...........He quit twice against Ali........

Not sure he'd like eating the much bigger and heavier Lewis jab and right hand.....

Liston won most of his fights before the first bell like Tyson..

Liston against Frazier would be an interesting one, if he gets his jab working and with Frazier moving into him could see the right hand landing consistently and flooring him a few times before the ref stops it.

Truss makes a good point that Liston tended to win before the first bell so how he deals with the relentless Frazier is another thing all together but stylistically he should come out on top.

Frazier was relentless and Liston would be in his late thirties..

He'd have to win early Liston......and be able to keep frazier off....

However foreman managed to shove him back so you never know...

Also how motivated would Liston have been in 69????

It's the Foreman fights that are in the forefront of my thinking, Liston certainly has the ability but not necessarily the heart to do the same thing.

Agreed.......... .....We can speculate whether the mob got hold of him for Ali 2......but the first fight he lost his appetite...

Any fight with Frazier would have happened what 2/3 years after the second Ali fight so how the extra effects him is another variable, there's too many ifs and buts for me to say who wins. Prime for Prime it's Liston all day.

I don't mean to be obstinate but I think a Sonny Liston Vs Lewis fight would be a rerun of Lewis Vs Shannon Briggs. Some success for Briggs but a stoppage before midway for Lewis. Watch the videos....

First, an exciting Briggs Highlight Reel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFHHGAYFROc

Second, a slowed down Liston Reel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpN_SmR_bIE

Lewis Vs Briggs Full fight (13minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy7q8lB5VIs

Mackem is getting all scientific with us....

Not sure though that Briggs/Liston link is one that'll go down well on here!!

but interesting opinion Mate..

Woah, you can't compare Briggs to Liston Mackem. The jab of Liston alone would be a nightmare for Lewis, not to mention that Liston had a granite chin (the controversial Ali fights seem to have erased that part of his game). He was beating quality like Williams, Folley, Machen, Patterson and Valdes not struggling with an ancient Foreman.

Ali was at his best when he beat Foreman in the Rumble of the Jungle and this is the fight he invented rope a dope in. Lewis was at his best when he beat Tyson so if you could take them both at that time I would pick Ali to win. Lewis at his best would beat a young Ali though. He was not as strong then and made more mistakes which Lewis would have capitalised on. Both had great chins and heart though so I cant see any knockouts happening unless Lewis landed a massive punch on the sweet spot but with Alis heart he could still get back up.

Jesus christ.

Sonny had a ram rod jab, but deer me, he didn't half leave his chin out to dry. (watch from 18min 35sec until the KO @ 20min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiTQsdgt9-w

hahaha! I expected that response Ghosty!

You're basing it on the Martin fight, he must have been in his mid 40's by that point, it was years after the Ali fights. Look at his fights against Folley and Williams Mackem, a far better representation of his skill and talent.

Similar records as a whole, similar KO ratios, both good jabs, both work the body well, both great power in either hand, when they had someone hurt they were both relentless, both great chins...

Only Briggs was bigger and better!

Liston would beat Briggs but not Lewis

Yeah of course he was better and there records were no in way similar, Briggs doesn't have a single quality win, he was a dangerous puncher but that's about it.

Cleveland William Vs Liston 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWbpM99wD2M

Definitely similarities between Liston and Briggs.

Similarities yes but the quality differential is huge, anyone who should have been outpointed by an ancient Foreman doesn't have a huge amount of quality.

You're probably right about the quality differential.

Don't take this as a personal insult, I don't think Liston is all that.

Great Jab, one of the hardest and straightest ones I've seen ( ). Huge punch too, but other than that I'm not convinced of his special stature in heavyweight boxing. Ok he could wing away at the body abit and beat a small but immensely talented Pattison (only because of his power mind you).

...take Liston's power away and you have a very ordinary fighter. Same with Foreman and Shavers. However, the fact is, he did have power (and he used it well) so it's bit of a silly statement really.

Anyway, like i say, he had a few good attributes but these are blown out of proportion because he was a character with a bit of story behind him (Jail, The Mafia, Blar... etc ).

If he'd been the son a vicar he wouldn't be spoken about half as much, and he wouldn't have a cushty seat on the historical boxing mantel.

Then again the son of a vicar probably wouldn't have been the most feared boxer on the planet, he was who he was and it's a big part of what made him the fighter he was. I do think you get hung up on technical skill a bit too much, a big puncher who can utilise that power doesn't need the god given skill of a Mayweather or Whitaker, likewise a boxer without power does need a fairly high skillset.

Gordy wrote:Ali was at his best when he beat Foreman in the Rumble of the Jungle and this is the fight he invented rope a dope in.

That had me spitting my tea out in laughter... up there with the classic 'vitali who is wladimir's brother' line from waingro. Ah waingro, I do miss him... disappeared around the same time Gordy arrived

Ali was at his best against Foreman...........I love it!!!!

The getting battered till your opponent wears himself style..........

Never caught on for some reason..................

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

The getting battered till your opponent wears himself style..........

Never caught on for some reason..................

In the few fights I have had in my time I perfected the first part of the plan.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Then again the son of a vicar probably wouldn't have been the most feared boxer on the planet, he was who he was and it's a big part of what made him the fighter he was. I do think you get hung up on technical skill a bit too much, a big puncher who can utilise that power doesn't need the god given skill of a Mayweather or Whitaker, likewise a boxer without power does need a fairly high skillset.

It does come across that way sometimes Ghosty, but in truth, I like nothing more than a box-fighter such as Duran, or a boxer with dynamite in their hands like Hearns and G-man. You can keep your kotliniks and mallinagi's. I'm not even a big fan of Mayweather or Whitticker, even though I'm impressed by their ability.

For the record, my favourite boxers are:

Rigo
Lomenchenko
Wlad
Robinson
Armstrong
Hearns
Gatti
JMM
Louis
Ali

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Then again the son of a vicar probably wouldn't have been the most feared boxer on the planet, he was who he was and it's a big part of what made him the fighter he was. I do think you get hung up on technical skill a bit too much, a big puncher who can utilise that power doesn't need the god given skill of a Mayweather or Whitaker, likewise a boxer without power does need a fairly high skillset.

It does come across that way sometimes Ghosty, but in truth, I like nothing more than a box-fighter such as Duran, or a boxer with dynamite in their hands like Hearns and G-man. You can keep your kotliniks and mallinagi's. I'm not even a big fan of Mayweather or Whitticker, even though I'm impressed by their ability.

For the record, my favourite boxers are:

Rigo
Lomenchenko
Wlad
Robinson
Hearns
Gatti
JMM
Louis
Ali
Foreman

No Katie Taylor?

Keep up the technical analyses mackem... Most of us are lovers of the sport not experts on technique. Ghosty is right that its not always the answer to how a fight pans out, but it's generally a contributing factor... and a different way of looking at things is always good to add to the debate