I'm not bothering to ask greatness here, because Pea has zero argument whatsoever for being greater than Ali. Purely in terms of who was better at their peaks, what say yall?
Ali’s “prime” year was around 65-67 where he was at his fastest, while Pea’s best days were around 89-94. I personally think that as physically talented as Ali was for a HW he didn’t look as untouchable as Whitaker. Ali is certainly the most talented HW but he had his flaws. Pea at his best was the complete fighter who was able to beat a wider variety of styles, fight going forward, backwards or inside, and showed a more varied offense, especially bodypunching which Ali usually neglected even during his prime. I think many people would agree Ali was a technically flawed fighter even when he was at his best but was able to get away with mistakes because of his superior speed, reflexes, and ring IQ. So for me a prime Pea was “better”. It sounds weird saying that since we are talking about Ali here.
Whitaker was more skilled and just as talented. I think he's very clearly the better fighter. Ali may be the best heavyweight - something I'm not fully convinced of, anyway - but I always find he gets overrated in comparisons with lighter all-time greats in terms of actual in-ring ability. Ali's intangibles make it seem closer than it actually is IMO, but this is clear for Whitaker.
I always find it difficult to compare lifetime heavyweights to guys in lower divisions, the division is just too unique and they have to take different approaches as a consequence. I do think Whitaker was the better fighter skill wise, but then would he fight the same way if he was a heavyweight going up against a monster like Foreman for example? I don't see it.
I agree, but then I don't see Ali employing the same style if he was a lightweight. At least not entirely the same.
Whittaker was better. It's hit and not get hit. Ali was getting hit plenty by average guys like Doug Jones, Banks and Cooper and that was in his very very fastest, very very youngest form. Ali usually enjoyed height, reach, weight advantages too. When he didn't, he wasn't overmatched either. Whittaker usually had physical disadvantages, still got hit less. Just a better outright boxer.
What an odd question. Two different weight classes, styles, eras, and opponents. I do agree with the general consensus here that Ali often gets overrated in mythical p4p discussions. Having said that I feel like historically the heavyweight division, in general, gets very little respect from boxing fans. Take Fury for example...the guy has been very dominant, and looked spectacular lately. He destroyed and tamed one of the hardest punchers in HW history in my opinion(Wilder). Yet it would be hard to find one person that ranks Fury in the top 10 p4p list. And why is that? Yeah, I get that HW cant move up in weight to find bigger challenges but I beg to differ. Guys like Tyson and other smaller HW gave up a big weight disadvantage as much as 50 pounds. how come that is never factored in??? There are Heavyweights like (Usyk) and then there are Super Heavyweights giants like Fury and Wilder. To answer the question I think Ali was better. Whittiker is still a very good fighter he was the second-best defensive fighter in history. The first is Mayweather in my opinion.
Even if Ali wins, he got hit too cleanly too often by a smaller man for a guy trying to contend with Whittaker
And before anyone says anything.....Whittaker knew how to go balls to the wall on those rare occasions when he was behind. Hurtado for example. It's a huge positive for any fighter whose style is almost exclusively defensive to suddenly change into a marauder..
Perhaps you may want to pick a different opponent than a bum like Hurtado to prove your point, it undermines your argument. the guy had loss to Vivian Harris and draw with Mayorga for christ's sake. okay, maybe bum is a strong word. Hurtado was b level fighter.
The draw with Mayorga has a big asterisk next to it though, it was a TD after an accidental headbutt in 2 rounds, can't really hold that against him. I agree to some extent though, I thought Hurtado was decent but he didn't beat anyone great. He did very well against Whitaker and Tszyu but yeah the Harris loss is a bad one.
If I could compare him to a guy today it would be Shawn Porter. Good enough to compete with the best but always came up short. No, I take it back Shawn Porter is a level above Hurtado. Giving that bum too much credit never mind.
My point was that Pea knew how to do the things he didn't do best. And how bad could Hurtado have been? Dropping Tszyu twice? Being up on the cards Vs Pea? Very few 10 stoners today could manage that. Sure, he was fragile but he could box and punch a bit too.
I gotta disagree. Ali would beat the shit outta Chavez P4P. He was a different caliber fighter, and proved so against higher level opposition. Youre really underrating Ali.
I think Chavez is awful for Ali. He's cuts the ring off better than Frazier ever did and his left hook isn't far off Joe's. Then he was better at pretty much everything else.
Mid-60s Ali is not the same as early 70s Ali, for one. It's like comparing mid-90s Chavez to late 80s/early 90s Chavez. Chavez would never be able to cope with handspeed and footspeed. I mean, what movers was he really cutting off? A faded Camacho? The Frazier comparison undersells Joe because Joe was a helluva lot quicker and more dynamic than Chavez. I'm being extremely honest, I don't think Chavez was better than peak Frazier. He's certainly greater, but for peak? Frazier in his championship peak was better than JCC, imo.
Camacho wasn't that faded, he only had 1 loss to Haugen and avenged it right after. He became more of a runner at the time he faced Chavez but he was still a solid fighter. Chavez has shown to cope with speedy fighters like Taylor. Frazier was more relentless and perhaps a bit quicker. I just think Chavez showed more versatility in his game at his peak.
Would you say that the Disobelys fight is a good indicator of how Pea would look against Ali if he were smaller? The Hurtado fight did show that Pea can be outboxed by a faster fighter.
Chavez was quite a bit better than Frazier IMO, and I've always thought any Ali would lose to FOTC Frazier.
Camacho was a good deal faded. Really Camacho's last prime year was 87 imo. He was a good 4-5 years past it when he met Chavez. Prime for prime, does the outcome change? No, Chavez was just better than Camacho, he always wins. But I feel that prime Camacho would have given JCC a much tougher fight... in a losing effort.
Meldrick (Foolishly) Stayed at Relatively CLOSE Range w/Chavez, So He Only Had to Deal w/Speed of HAND, Not Overall Speed, the Way He Would Against Ali… And in a Lb for Lb SPEED Sense, Even Whittaker was a Notch or Slow SLOWER Than Pre-Exile Ali… REED
I’m gonna say Ali. Whitaker was more fundamentally sound, but Ali was more dynamic. Also, Ali’s signature wins are better so he’s also greater. Keep in mind Whitaker is one of my all time favorites.
