Reply to Pete "Lewis and Ali H2H"

[dezbeast]

I understand that, but what it does mean is Lewis will be more successful with more fighters and of more fighters of different styles. That is something I find a little peculiar. How do you factor a peak appropriately. How do you factor the fact that Lewis lost twice to much lower level fighters like McCall and Rahman. Knowing this, I don't know how Lewis gives you more security than Ali.


Ok Pete, this is why I rate Lewis higher than Ali head to head even if both were at their general peaks.

I have factored Lewis’s KO losses to Rahman and McCall. And I also determined that Lewis would probably beat them over 70 percent of the time. And I do think Ali would beat the two even more often, perhaps 9 out of 10 times.

But think how much trouble Frazier and Norton gave Ali. Even if Ali was at his peak, there is no reason for me to believe that Frazier wouldn’t still beat him about 50 percent of the time or Norton at least 40 percent. Lewis would completely dominate the 2 in my opinion. I don’t think it would be close. It has to take either someone with great mass and power, with an incredible reach to knock Lewis out, or someone with great reflexes and skills, the ability take a super heavyweight punch, and also an incredible reach to outpoint him more times than not.

As a reminder, in my thread on the brief things I had to say about how my H2H system works, I took all the consensus greats, and determined how they would do in not one, but a total of 10 fights against each other, and then added up the wins. That’s the way my system works. If I did a system based on only one fight, it might be a lot different. I don’t know.

As far as factoring peak, I find that theoretically the most accurate way is to pick any fight from that fighter's career where I believe he would have scored the most amount of wins based on my system.

Anyway, I would love to see you compose a H2H list. I hardly see any one on this forum that is interested enough in something like that. It seems that everyone is mostly into accomplishments and historical impact. I think I’ll leave it at this. If I had realized my post would have been this short, I would have applied much sooner.

[Flea Man]

%'s crack me up :lol:

[TommyV]

As a reminder, in my thread on the brief things I had to say about how my H2H system works, I took all the consensus greats, and determined how they would do in not one, but a total of 10 fights against each other, and then added up the wins. That’s the way my system works. If I did a system based on only one fight, it might be a lot different. I don’t know.

I'd like to see the records of both Lewis' and Ali after this process if possible, and what year/fight you took their respective 'peaks' to be.

[mr. magoo]

=dezbeast;6150716].

I have factored Lewis’s KO losses to Rahman and McCall. And I also determined that Lewis would probably beat them over 70 percent of the time. And I do think Ali would beat the two even more often, perhaps 9 out of 10 times.


I'm thinking more like a perfect 10 out of 10 times, and in either case, he sure as hell isn't getting KTFO in the early rounds the way that Lewis did.

But think how much trouble Frazier and Norton gave Ali. Even if Ali was at his peak,

That's the problem though. He wasn't at his peak. I still think he would have struggled with both of them, even if the 1967 version of Ali had shown up. But, I'm not sure if either of those guys would have left the ring with their arms raised in victory.

there is no reason for me to believe that Frazier wouldn’t still beat him about 50 percent of the time

Given that Frazier lost 2 out of 3, I'm not sure where you got the 50 percent figure, and again Ali was past it.

Lewis would completely dominate the 2 in my opinion.

I have to agree that both of those men are very bad match-ups for Lewis, but again we're both speculating.





It has to take either someone with great mass and power, with an incredible reach to knock Lewis out, or someone with great reflexes and skills, the ability take a super heavyweight punch, and also an incredible reach to outpoint him more times than not.


Asside from having a very solid chin, I don't know that any of the other criteria you listed describes Oliver McCall particularly well. He had a hard punch, but was hardly a KO artist. He was a decent sized fighter, but not exactly a giant among heavyweights. I don't know what his reach span was in terms of arm length, but as far as height goes, I don't think he was taller than about 6'2". As for fast reflexes and skills, forget about it.


As a reminder, in my thread on the brief things I had to say about how my H2H system works, I took all the consensus greats, and determined how they would do in not one, but a total of 10 fights against each other, and then added up the wins. That’s the way my system works. If I did a system based on only one fight, it might be a lot different. I don’t know.

How is this system effective? How can you predict how many times one man is going to beat the other in a 10 fight series, when comparing two fighters from two different eras with no common opponents? Where does the data for this system come from? Furthermore, for all practical purposes, I think its irrelevant.. How many times can you think of in history that two men faced each other 10 times? The other issue, is that if two fighters had this many meetings, its common sense that the better of the two may be subject to some losses, because after a while, the other man becomes very familiar with his style, tactics, psychology, etc.. Its sort of like a young prospect who serves as a sparring partner for a great champion.. Sure, he'll get his ass kicked most of the time, but after a dozen sparring sessions, it's possible that the senior partner may get decked once or twice. In the real world things don't usually pan out this way, because fighters DON'T face each other 10 times...


As far as factoring peak, I find that theoretically the most accurate way is to pick any fight from that fighter's career where I believe he would have scored the most amount of wins based on my system.


I'd like to hear this explained in further depth.

I hardly see any one on this forum that is interested enough in something like that. It seems that everyone is mostly into accomplishments and historical impact.

Well, you have one taker right here.

[dezbeast]

I'd like to see the records of both Lewis' and Ali after this process if possible, and what year/fight you took their respective 'peaks' to be.

This was actually a project that I underwent close to a year ago. I have long since deleted the results. And I don't have the drive to do it again. It was too tedious. I do remember using the Ali of the Terrell fight and the Lewis of the first Holyfield field as a rough guide.

[Unforgiven]

Lewis was too slow-moving to cope with Muhammad Ali.
Lewis only really used his size and reach as a defence, and that wont cut it against Ali.
Ali had long arms and blinding hand and foot speed so he's not going to be pressed out of range by Lewis's size.
Lewis's overall boxing skills are a bit overrated. A faded Holyfield almost outboxed him (2nd fight), as did an out-of-shape Mercer, and Frank Bruno. Ali had SPEED and he could really turn it on a times.
I think Lewis is the big powerhouse type of fighter that Ali would excel against. He's a better boxer than Foreman, and a lot taller and heavier than Liston, but he's still no better equipped for Ali's style.

Ali in 1967, fast as lightning, a solid 212 pounds, 6'3 of pure prime athlete, and a smart brain and unparralled instinct for boxing, and solid chin ....... I dont see how any version of LL would cope with that.

[mr. magoo]

Lewis was too slow-moving to cope with Muhammad Ali.
Lewis only really used his size and reach as a defence, and that wont cut it against Ali.
Ali had long arms and blinding hand and foot speed so he's not going to be pressed out of range by Lewis's size.
Lewis's overall boxing skills are a bit overrated. A faded Holyfield almost outboxed him (2nd fight), as did an out-of-shape Mercer, and Frank Bruno. Ali had SPEED and he could really turn it on a times.
I think Lewis is the big powerhouse type of fighter that Ali would excel against. He's a better boxer than Foreman, and a lot taller and heavier than Liston, but he's still no better equipped for Ali's style.

Ali in 1967, fast as lightning, a solid 212 pounds, 6'3 of pure prime athlete, and a smart brain and unparralled instinct for boxing, and solid chin ....... I dont see how any version of LL would cope with that.

Indeed,

While I don't think its impossible that Lewis could have taken a decision, the factors don't ad up in his favor. I think Muhammad outpoints him to a clear decision win.

[dezbeast]

I'm thinking more like a perfect 10 out of 10 times, and in either case, he sure as hell isn't getting KTFO in the early rounds the way that Lewis did.

I don’t believe Ali will get knocked out by them either, but I suspect you believe this due to different reasons then myself. I try to look at boxing from an entirely scientific point of view. For instance, I see no way that Cooper would have ever floored Lewis if he had connected the same way as he did with Ali.


Given that Frazier lost 2 out of 3, I'm not sure where you got the 50 percent figure, and again Ali was past it.

First off, my system consists of ranking fighters at their peaks and since I’m going by a peak Frazier, the rest of what I have to say will add nothing to my point but I will go ahead and humor you. The first fight wasn’t even close in my eyes, and believe me, I am the most avid Ali fan out of everybody I ever hung out with. I believe the second fight should have been scored a draw. Objectively, I think the trilogy should be 1-1-1. And I don’t believe that Ali was as far past it as you do. Yes he didn’t have the speed, reflexes, and stamina of his 20’s. However he gained power, wisdom and a better ability to absorb a harder punch.


As for fast reflexes and skills, forget about it.

Note I only attribute the reflexes and skills to those who could outpoint him. Not knock him out.


How is this system effective? How can you predict how many times one man is going to beat the other in a 10 fight series, when comparing two fighters from two different eras with no common opponents? Where does the data for this system come from? Furthermore, for all practical purposes, I think its irrelevant.

I don’t really see what you’re trying to get at. To me you just seem to be throwing out questions to spark a debate or something. I will only point out that it’s impossible to determine accurately who will win or not. And I never said anything about how my system is effective. It’s definitely got flaws.


How many times can you think of in history that two men faced each other 10 times? The other issue, is that if two fighters had this many meetings, its common sense that the better of the two may be subject to some losses, because after a while, the other man becomes very familiar with his style, tactics, psychology, etc.. Its sort of like a young prospect who serves as a sparring partner for a great champion.. Sure, he'll get his ass kicked most of the time, but after a dozen sparring sessions, it's possible that the senior partner may get decked once or twice. In the real world things don't usually pan out this way, because fighters DON'T face each other 10 times.

How many times I have 2 fighters face one another in my system has nothing to do with how many times they may face each other in a career. I thought you of all posters would understand my idea.

Ok, here is my concept from another angle. Take 2 fighters at their respectable peaks, and duplicate them into 20. 10 of one fighter, 10 of the other. And have them face one another. If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can even put them in random environments and scenarios.


I'd like to hear this explained in further depth.

I don’t see anything further to explain. Please elaborate or ask a question regarding what I explained.


Well, you have one taker right here.

Cool. Care to come up with a H2H list?

[TommyV]

I think Lewis is the big powerhouse type of fighter that Ali would excel against.

I respectfully stopped here. As you've mentioned, he was a far better boxer than George Foreman and bigger than Liston, so you've contradicted you're own statement. Lewis had good hand-speed for a 6'5" 240lb heavyweight and also had good mobility for a man that size.

He is not a come-forward slugger like Foreman and although Liston also had the capabilities in both power and technical skills to be a boxer-puncher like Lewis, the speed contrast was just too wide. Lewis - I think - given his dimensions and relative-speed of hand and foot would cope much better.

Ali would fair much better if he forced Lewis to chase him around the ring, but I think Lewis would be more than happy to stand in the center of the ring and jab with Ali, given he had a great jab himself that Ali would find difficult to defend against, and had a reach advantage. Ali would be the one looking for get inside because of his size disadvantage, and while his foot speed would allow him to do so, I think eventually Lewis would start to time him with the right hand as he does so and also with a stiff jab.

It's a very, very good H2H match-up though and one that throws up much discussion. I wouldn't definitively say that Lewis beats Ali by the way, it's a match-up I haven't yet given the thought that it deserves, so I don't have a clear winner in my mind here.

[Unforgiven]

I respectfully stopped here. As you've mentioned, he was a far better boxer than George Foreman and bigger than Liston, so you've contradicted you're own statement.

I dont think being bigger than Liston would equate to more of an advantage against Ali. He's just a bigger target, because he's not bigger enough than Ali to make himself safer. And what Lewis had over Foreman was skill, but he also lacked Foreman's tendency to apply intense pressure. So, in full context, his differences were not distinct advantages in terms of fighting Ali in particular, so no contradiction.



Lewis had good hand-speed for a 6'5" 240lb heavyweight and also had good mobility for a man that size.

He is not a come-forward slugger like Foreman and although Liston also had the capabilities in both power and technical skills to be a boxer-puncher like Lewis, the speed contrast was just too wide. Lewis - I think - given his dimensions and relative-speed of hand and foot would cope much better.


I dont think Lewis had any sort of advantage in foot speed over Liston. Ali just made Liston look slow. If anything, Liston was better balanced and less cumbersome moving than was Lewis.
Handspeed, yes, Lewis had consistently faster hands than Liston, i think. But no where near enough to compete with Ali's. And Ali fought other big guys with decent hand speed too.

Ali would fair much better if he forced Lewis to chase him around the ring, but I think Lewis would be more than happy to stand in the center of the ring and jab with Ali, given he had a great jab himself that Ali would find difficult to defend against, and had a reach advantage. Ali would be the one looking for get inside because of his size disadvantage, and while his foot speed would allow him to do so, I think eventually Lewis would start to time him with the right hand as he does so and also with a stiff jab.

No, Ali wouldn't need to get inside anything. Sure, Lewis would land with a jab no and then, and maybe even a right or two, .... but watch Ali, he'll be turning it on and hitting Lewis from directions Lewis never knew Ali was at, and hitting him two, three, four punches he never saw coming. Lewis would be forced to chase Ali just to try to even the score up. That's prime Ali.

It's a very, very good H2H match-up though and one that throws up much discussion. I wouldn't definitively say that Lewis beats Ali by the way, it's a match-up I haven't yet given the thought that it deserves, so I don't have a clear winner in my mind here.

Yes, it's a good match-up. I'm no Ali-worshipper but I do find this an easy fight to imagine, and it looks like Ali would win quite comfortably, with Lewis landing enough heavy blows and having enough savvy to save himself from utter humiliation. I find it very difficult to imagine Lewis beating Ali though.

[Kalasinn]

Personally I don't see (1996-00) Lewis outboxing (1964-1967) Ali despite his 4" reach advantage and great jab (I don't see anyone outboxing prime Ali) or stopping Ali despite his big right hand. In my opinion the best strategy for Lewis would be to start key rounds very aggressively to attempt scoring and spend the rest of the time being highly territorial in the centre of the ring throwing as much as possible, clinching and pounding Ali at any opportunity if he can get hold of him. However I see Ali dancing too fast on his feet for Lewis to catch most of the time and using his elusiveness to avoid danger to land rapid 3 punch combinations using superb angles. Ali by Unanimous Decision over 12 rounds and wider over 15.

[mr. magoo]

=dezbeast;6151501]I don’t believe Ali will get knocked out by them either, but I suspect you believe this due to different reasons then myself.

Well, my reasoing is that in 61 professional fights, he was never stopped, except once on his stool by another all time great, when he was well beyond shot. In additon, his chin was proven against the likes of George Forema, Earnie Shavers and Sonny Liston - three concensus all time great punchers. He also was about 20 leagues above McCall in the talent and speed department, making it unlikely to get tagged.




I try to look at boxing from an entirely scientific point of view. For instance, I see no way that Cooper would have ever floored Lewis if he had connected the same way as he did with Ali.


You're making a simple guess that what Cooper did to one fighter, that he wouldn't be able to do to another. What is so "scientific" about that? The proper way to do it, would be to ad the appropriate variables and elements that might actually make for a scientific formula.. For example, if Lewis fought Cooper, is he going to do it at barely 20 years of age and with some 18 fights the way that Clay did? For the record, I'm not sure that I see Cooper decking Lewis either, but only for stylistic reasons. Clay had a soft spot for left hooks, whereas Lewis generally tended to feast on the men who threw them..






First off, my system consists of ranking fighters at their peaks and since I’m going by a peak Frazier, the rest of what I have to say will add nothing to my point but I will go ahead and humor you. The first fight wasn’t even close in my eyes, and believe me, I am the most avid Ali fan out of everybody I ever hung out with. I believe the second fight should have been scored a draw. Objectively, I think the trilogy should be 1-1-1. And I don’t believe that Ali was as far past it as you do. Yes he didn’t have the speed, reflexes, and stamina of his 20’s. However he gained power, wisdom and a better ability to absorb a harder punch.


I don't necessarily agree with everything here, but I'll accept it as being a fair perspective.







I don’t really see what you’re trying to get at. To me you just seem to be throwing out questions to spark a debate or something.

I don't think its unreasonable to ask another poster to clearify his thoughts, especially when he started a whole thread on the subject.

I will only point out that it’s impossible to determine accurately who will win or not.

Agreed.


And I never said anything about how my system is effective. It’s definitely got flaws.


Well I assumed that you used it, because you thought that it was effective, and I was more interested in how it worked, rather than tearing it down.




How many times I have 2 fighters face one another in my system has nothing to do with how many times they may face each other in a career. I thought you of all posters would understand my idea.


yes, but if you're using a "system" that determines the liklihood of how a man would fair against a member of another era, by matching him 10 times against his best opponent, then I don't see how you can draw an accurate conclusion otherwise. Its like creating simulated scenario without the simulation.



Ok, here is my concept from another angle. Take 2 fighters at their respectable peaks, and duplicate them into 20. 10 of one fighter, 10 of the other. And have them face one another. If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can even put them in random environments and scenarios.


It doesn't satisfy me. If you were to clone Ali in Frazier on the night that Frazier beat Ali in 1971, and provide them the exact same circumstances right down to the same water bottles, then Frazier will likely beat Ali 10 out of 10 times. The opposite of course would probably happen if you performed the same test in Manilla a few years later... This time Ali wins 10 out of 10... How does this bolster an argument for Lewis beating Ali?




I don’t see anything further to explain. Please elaborate or ask a question regarding what I explained.


See the above,




Cool. Care to come up with a H2H list?


In terms of who I feel are the most formidable fighters in fantasy fights, ranging from 1-10, or are we looking actual match-ups?

[dezbeast]

Ok, I'm limited to how much I can post again, since I'm not going to use my brother's laptop to post anymore for now.

Magoo, for the record, I actually favor Ali over Lewis in a H2H matchup, purely for stylistic reasons. That was the whole point of my response to Pete. And as for your list I'm not looking for anything complex. Just a simple top 10 H2H list of heavyweight greats, based on what your definition of being better H2H is, since it's obviously different then mine. I'd also like you to post your criteria of what makes a fighter better H2H in your opinion.

[PetethePrince]

Ok Pete, this is why I rate Lewis higher than Ali head to head even if both were at their general peaks.

I have factored Lewis’s KO losses to Rahman and McCall. And I also determined that Lewis would probably beat them over 70 percent of the time. And I do think Ali would beat the two even more often, perhaps 9 out of 10 times.

But think how much trouble Frazier and Norton gave Ali. Even if Ali was at his peak, there is no reason for me to believe that Frazier wouldn’t still beat him about 50 percent of the time or Norton at least 40 percent. Lewis would completely dominate the 2 in my opinion. I don’t think it would be close. It has to take either someone with great mass and power, with an incredible reach to knock Lewis out, or someone with great reflexes and skills, the ability take a super heavyweight punch, and also an incredible reach to outpoint him more times than not.

As a reminder, in my thread on the brief things I had to say about how my H2H system works, I took all the consensus greats, and determined how they would do in not one, but a total of 10 fights against each other, and then added up the wins. That’s the way my system works. If I did a system based on only one fight, it might be a lot different. I don’t know.

As far as factoring peak, I find that theoretically the most accurate way is to pick any fight from that fighter's career where I believe he would have scored the most amount of wins based on my system.

Anyway, I would love to see you compose a H2H list. I hardly see any one on this forum that is interested enough in something like that. It seems that everyone is mostly into accomplishments and historical impact. I think I’ll leave it at this. If I had realized my post would have been this short, I would have applied much sooner.

The bold is where I disagree. I know most people a prime Ali vs a prime Frazier is basically a 50-50 fight but I do not. Ali came off from 3+ years and in his 2 performances before the Frazier, he looked somewhat poor in one of them. And that was against a brawler/slugger of sorts in Bonavena. Frazier vs Ali was a very competitive fight, though. Round 15 was the icing on the cake, although you could certainly argue he didn't even need that round. It was still competitive over 12 rounds. For me, the 66-67 Ali had much much more punch-output. And had much much more movement. Ali is idle on the ropes from round 8 onwards. Chuvalo talked about how Ali was much better when he fought him rather than Frazier. His stamina was better... this has to be the the most underrated aspect of why Ali was so different from his late 60's version to his 70's version. Forget the speed and reflexes. His stamina and punch-output where not in the same ballpark. The Ali of the 60's had just as good as stamina as perhaps Frazier... maybe even Marciano. Lastly, Ali could dance for longer. If FOTC Ali did one thing better... maybe it was his power. I think Ali of the 60's should be favored 60/40 against prime Frazier. I accept the Norton probability considering the style. Maybe it's more 60-70 but it's difficult to gauge. Norton had a lot of things that were troubling to Ali, regardless of prime.

I understand the part I italicized. I know it's not just based on 1 fight. How many consensus greats do you use, though? How far back do you go, too. And how many borderline greats do you consider? I think I remember it being 15-20 fighters, right? I'd like to see that list, though.

I agree with your last paragraph. I'm trying to compose a H2H list. It's the most in-depth, in-detailed thing I've tried working out. It's much harder doing a list like that, rather than just doing a list on accomplishments, longevity, etc. This is why people refrain from it maybe. It's also hard to compare fighters off different eras when it is clear that modern fighters have more knowledge regarding sports medicine, nutrition, training, etc. NOT that neccessarily all of this is better. But at the most, it's knowledge. Maybe the old time fighters are tougher. Though, I think it's important to note that old-time fighters fight generally smaller fighters when regarding Heavyweights. This would be why that knowledge to get themselves bigger for the bigger more modern Heavyweights would be important and more fair in terms of H2H. Do you do some sort of scaling, or feel that's too much to factor and just accept that modern Heavyweights should and would be ranked a bit higher.

I'd love to see your list by the way. I'd also love to see how Ali might not be top 10 if you did consider non-greats. That's a polarizing opinion. If you don't want to post it here you can PM I guess.

[PetethePrince]

I am the most avid Ali fan out of everybody I ever hung out with. I believe the second fight should have been scored a draw. Objectively, I think the trilogy should be 1-1-1. And I don’t believe that Ali was as far past it as you do.

How the hell does an avid Ali fan think the 1st fight wasn't close. Then actually think the second fight was a draw. I don't believe it. I honestly can't believe that. The second fight was more decisive than the first, and I'm a fan of both Ali and Frazier equally. Right behind Marciano, they are my favorite Heavyweights ever. Did you penalize Ali that much for holding?


How many times I have 2 fighters face one another in my system has nothing to do with how many times they may face each other in a career. I thought you of all posters would understand my idea.

Ok, here is my concept from another angle. Take 2 fighters at their respectable peaks, and duplicate them into 20. 10 of one fighter, 10 of the other. And have them face one another. If that doesn’t satisfy you, you can even put them in random environments and scenarios.

I understand this point. Didn't know what Magoo was getting at. Obviously these fighters aren't going to ruin themselves, then go and fight the 10 other legends 10 more times.

[dezbeast]

Ok after reading your response, I took the liberty of rewatching the second Ali Frazier fight again, since it's been a while since I last viewed it. This time I was more lenient with all the clinches and decided to only score based on how Ali performed without tying Frazier up. I scored it 6-4-2. How did you score it?

[PetethePrince]

Ok after reading your response, I took the liberty of rewatching the second Ali Frazier fight again, since it's been a while since I last viewed it. This time I was more lenient with all the clinches and decided to only score based on how Ali performed without tying Frazier up. I scored it 6-4-2. How did you score it?

8-3-1

We must be seeing different things. I felt Frazier did so little, while Ali didn't do a lot he did more more often. I guess I could've been harder on Ali with the clinches, but Joe didn't try fighting them off nor did he complain. At least you don't see it a draw still. I can't really see that at all.

[dezbeast]

I sort of overlooked the questions in your other post. But I'm going to go ahead and wait until I get to a normal computer again, so I could respond with a bigger post.

[djanders]

This is the thread! I needn't have worried. My lid is still firmly intact.

[PetethePrince]

I sort of overlooked the questions in your other post. But I'm going to go ahead and wait until I get to a normal computer again, so I could respond with a bigger post.

Alright. I await, as ESB Classic does I'm sure.