Who would win a fight between prime Mohammed Ali and prime Bruce Lee?

[Manute for Ever!]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/ali1601_228x192.jpgvs.http://www.nndb.com/people/526/000031433/bruce-lee-2-sized.jpg

Saw this book and thought I'd ask ISHer's opinons:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51UBMncFWqL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Notice I put the word 'prime' in the thread? Now the smartasses don't need to waste their time with replies of "Ali, 'cos Lee is dead". Although I know they still will...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Lee, too skilled in many forms of Martial Arts and he was in incredible shape.

[chains5000]

Don't know that much about Lee so I'll ask: did he take part in any fights or he just dedicated to making movies?

[RedBlackAttack]

Bruce Lee was 5-foot-7 and 135 pounds.

Ali was around 6-foot-3 and 225 pounds in his prime.

Completely unfair matchup.

A better one would be Lee vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (who was a better fighter than Ali anyway).

[Lebron23]

Don't know that much about Lee so I'll ask: did he take part in any fights or he just dedicated to making movies?


Lee was hailed as one of the founding fathers of the Modern Day Mix Martial Arts.

What was the name of the Japanese Wrestler who defeated Mohammad Ali in a Shoot fight?

Ali would beat Lee because of the major size advantage.

[rezznor]

Doesn't matter how great lee was Ali has 100 pounds on him. Lee could probably only win if he managed to
get a good strike at a pressure point and bring Ali down. I would still have to give the advantage to Ali
tho. We also know that Ali can take a punch from prime foreman. He can withstand lee until a punch connected and lee goes down

[rezznor]

Now lee vs sugar Ray I'd go with lee

[LA KB24]

ali, cause lee is dead.

[RedBlackAttack]

Now lee vs sugar Ray I'd go with lee
In order to go with Lee, I would have to see him perform in a real competition, not in a rehearsed movie scene or solo training.

I've seen SRR absolutely destroy other great fighters that were actually, really trying to knock him out. Can you link me to video of Lee doing the same?

It is really hard to pick a someone over the greatest boxer who has ever lived (by a longshot) based solely on hearsay.

[chains5000]

In order to go with Lee, I would have to see him perform in a real competition, not in a rehearsed movie scene or solo training.
That's why I asked about Lee fighting.
He looks great in movies but a real fight isn't the same.

[RedBlackAttack]

That's why I asked about Lee fighting.
He looks great in movies but a real fight isn't the same.
I look at it this way... Lee was a revolutionary in the way that he trained and there is no denying his ability to entertain hoards of people with his films and exhibitions.

Sugar Ray Robinson knocked people the f#ck out for a living.


There is a difference... And I am obviously a big Lee fan.

[chains5000]

Sugar Ray Robinson knocked people the f#ck out for a living.
That kinda ends the thread for me

[El Kabong]

Lee was hailed as one of the founding fathers of the Modern Day Mix Martial Arts.

What was the name of the Japanese Wrestler who defeated Mohammad Ali in a Shoot fight?

Ali would beat Lee because of the major size advantage.
Antonio Inoki. All Inoki did was lay on his back and kick Ali in the legs for 15 rounds. It was a 3-3 draw as well.

[LongBeachLakers]

size matter, brock lesnar proved it

[RedBlackAttack]

That kinda ends the thread for me
...and if that didn't, THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYKhy3KPeo&feature=related) will.

[Lebron23]

Antonio Inoki. All Inoki did was lay on his back and kick Ali in the legs for 15 rounds. It was a 3-3 draw as well.

Antonio Inoki also had fought and defeated Andre The Giant ( Nearly 7 feet tall WWE Wrestler), Chuck Wepner ( Real Life Rocky), William Rushka (Olympic Gold Medallist) and Leon Spinks ( Former Heavyweight Boxing Champion)

[bdreason]

Bruce Lee would get destroyed... and I love Bruce Lee.


He even wrote in one of his books something like, "A man with one year training in boxing and wrestling can beat any martial artist with 15 years of experience".

That's one of the cool things about Bruce. He recognized that the training techniques and methods of traditional martial art's weren't conducive to real fighting.

[kobesabi]

"fight" as in boxing ring with boxing rule...then probably Ali...equally maybe Lee if he has enough time with good boxing trainer.

In street fight, Lee would KO Ali in a short time.

In MMA, Lee would definitely win too.

[TheAnchorman]

Ali, his size advantage is just unfair. He was also blindingly fast for his weight class, his jabs make him look like a featherweight.

[miller-time]

the kid in me says lee but the realist says ali. i guess if lee could go for his legs then it'd be possible for him to win. the only thing that gives lee an advantage is that he is trained to use all of his limbs for both attacking and defending. a boxer seems to be top heavy in their method.

[RedBlackAttack]

"fight" as in boxing ring with boxing rule...then probably Ali...equally maybe Lee if he has enough time with good boxing trainer.

In street fight, Lee would KO Ali in a short time.

In MMA, Lee would definitely win too.
lol

[PHILA]

How about Muhammad Ali vs. Wilt Chamberlain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Xjt-1Zvwo




http://i30.tinypic.com/2qcql90.jpg

[I]


Although Chamberlain had no competitive experience as a boxer, he approached the Ali fight with a plan. He would retain the services of world-class trainer Cus D’Amato – who readily volunteered to prepare Chamberlain for the bout. The choice of trainers was thoroughly appropriate, as D’Amato possessed an uncanny ability to create heavyweight champions quickly. He had trained Floyd Patterson to become at age 21 the youngest Heavyweight titlist in history, a record that stood for decades until broken by D’Amato’s next prot

[Doomsday Dallas]

Are people in this thread serous?



Bruce Lee would destroy Ali in about 10 seconds.

[Saintsfan1992]

"fight" as in boxing ring with boxing rule...then probably Ali...equally maybe Lee if he has enough time with good boxing trainer.

In street fight, Lee would KO Ali in a short time.

In MMA, Lee would definitely win too.

in a Roger Mayweather Voice: Mutha ****as dont know shit about Boxin
and fighting

Ur ****in retarded

That goes for u too dumb ass above me^^^^^^^^^

[Poodle]

ali would tear bruce lee up. bruce is so overrated if we're talking real fighting and not his movies. ali's jabs/reach wouldn't ever allow bruce to get close to him. and i doubt bruce had any ground game.

[The_Night_Elf]

I would go with Bruce Lee. He was pretty much the epitome of a martial artist but also a street fighter as well. Dude would even fight guys while filming movies. Ali's size would be a great counter to Bruce Lee's skills since Ali had great skill as well but I think Bruce Lee's mentality and willingness to go further to win would ultimatley be the deciding factor.

[Saintsfan1992]

I would go with Bruce Lee. He was pretty much the epitome of a martial artist but also a street fighter as well. Dude would even fight guys while filming movies. Ali's size would be a great counter to Bruce Lee's skills since Ali had great skill as well but I think Bruce Lee's mentality and willingness to go further to win would ultimatley be the deciding factor.

Boxing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>street fighting>>>>>>>>>>martial arts

Ali faced world class fighters bruce not so much

[The_Night_Elf]

Boxing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>street fighting>>>>>>>>>>martial arts

Ali faced world class fighters bruce not so much

I consider Boxing a martial art. Bruce Lee fought a lot of world class martial artists as well. And a street fight is a completely diffrent beast than fighting in a ring with a ref.

As much as I love boxing and Ali (One of the big reasons I love boxing) I'm sticking to my statement/ pick.

[Psileas]

What kind of fight? If we're talking about street fight, I'll take the martial artist over the boxer. Boxing is a sport with rules. Martial arts are way less restricted and moral. You practice to kill or at least render your opponent unable to do anything, as fast as possible. Boxing requires stamina and quickness, but it's still a sport, not an activity made for killing.
Yes, Ali was quick for an athlete of his size. Not anywhere close to an elite martial artist, though.

[Poodle]

thing is Martial Arts in a street fight doesn't include jujitsu/judo unless they're trained in it specifically, and that only mostly includes MMA fighters of today. Bruce probably had no ground game whatsoever.

but its the same with Ali and any boxer. they ain't used to wrestling either, and its usually pretty easy to get a fight to the ground.

i think a lot of MMA fighters of today of the same size could beat them both in a street fight.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Ok its fun to pretend but physics are physics, assuming its a street fight to the death Ali would win, sure Bruce lee has sick speed and reflexes but so does ali, plus like a 100 pounds of muscle is just not fair, when it goes to the ground Ali would just ground and pound him to death. Literally.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Ok its fun to pretend but physics are physics, assuming its a street fight to the death Ali would win, sure Bruce lee has sick speed and reflexes but so does ali, plus like a 100 pounds of muscle is just not fair, when it goes to the ground Ali would just ground and pound him to death. Literally.


This is so much bull$hit.

Bruce Lee would dance around Ali and just toy with him.




It's so ridiculous that I think even asking the question of "who would win?" is a joke.

Bruce Lee would tear that mother f*cker apart.

[iamgine]

Ring fight - Ali
Street fight with gentlemen rule - Ali
Street fight with no rules - Ali/Lee 50-50

[plowking]

Some of you flat out have never competed or even sparred with someone heavier than you. Last week I fought against someone who is 45lbs heavier than me (and I'm about 215lbs at the moment) and I stood no chance. For 6 rounds it was ducking and weaving with the a majority of my shots being counter jabs and hooks.

Ali would win every time. There is a point where physical size is too much for a smaller opponent, and 100lbs is way over that limit. Lee can be as quick as he wants, though heavyweight boxers at 230lbs are quick as shit as well.

Whether it be street fight or in a ring, Ali would win. No ifs, buts or maybe's about it.

[tpols]

This is so much bull$hit.

Bruce Lee would dance around Ali and just toy with him.




It's so ridiculous that I think even asking the question of "who would win?" is a joke.

Bruce Lee would tear that mother f*cker apart.
yea because ali wasn't known for having incredible footwork and lightning quick reflexes...:roll:

[Poodle]

problem is half of bruce lee's abilities are mythical. his lightning fast speed where nobody can hit him, lightning fast kicks/punches with supposed ridiculous power, and then theres people who believe the stuff about him having some touch of death ability or some crap like that(like from KillBill2) :lol i remember i used to believe that shit when i was little too tho.

not to mention in fists of fury he could do some shit where he moved his arms so fast, they had to do it in slo-mo for us to see it. like half of Bruce's fighting game comes from his movies...

[Saintsfan1992]

problem is half of bruce lee's abilities are mythical. his lightning fast speed where nobody can hit him, lightning fast kicks/punches with supposed ridiculous power, and then theres people who believe the stuff about him having some touch of death ability or some crap like that(like from KillBill2) :lol i remember i used to believe that shit when i was little too tho.

not to mention in fists of fury he could do some shit where he moved his arms so fast, they had to do it in slo-mo for us to see it. like half of Bruce's fighting game comes from his movies...

this and to the other guy i ment eastern martial arts my B for not elebarating

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1mIc1nogkY
Re: Bruce Lee vs. Muhammad Ali: who would win in a fight?

[LJJ]

Bruce Lee would be out cold 10 seconds into the fight.

[tpols]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1mIc1nogkY
Re: Bruce Lee vs. Muhammad Ali: who would win in a fight?
yes that suave mexican backdrop made him seem so sophisticated and knowledgable I believed every bit of his elegant and completely intelligent analysis.:rolleyes:

[Doomsday Dallas]

Bruce Lee would be out cold 10 seconds into the fight.



This is a sad day for the OTC.

I can't believe so many posters feel this way.

[Saintsfan1992]

This is a sad day for the OTC.

I can't believe so many posters feel this way.

you are bat shit crazy if u think Bruce could **** with a prime Manny pac Floyd Maywether let alone Ali

i bet he could not even **** with a rocky marcino

[plowking]

This is a sad day for the OTC.

I can't believe so many posters feel this way.

No, everything is going accordingly.

You've picked the batshit crazy answer, which has in turn made you look stupid. Seems like a normal day. If you can't gather how much a 100lbs difference makes, then you're just f*cking thick.

You could train all your life at 160lbs becoming the best fighter ever in your weight division. The fact of the matter is, you'll never beat Brock Lesnar, no matter how good you are.

[Psileas]

Ok its fun to pretend but physics are physics, assuming its a street fight to the death Ali would win, sure Bruce lee has sick speed and reflexes but so does ali, plus like a 100 pounds of muscle is just not fair, when it goes to the ground Ali would just ground and pound him to death. Literally.

Exactly, physics are physics, and physics will tell you about kinetic energy that E=1/2mv^2, which means that velocity is much more important than mass. A 50% increase of velocity will need a 125% increase of mass from the other side to equal out, not to mention that if the body with the smaller mass is equally dense and has a similar shape with the body with the bigger mass, the energy of the first will be distributed in a smaller area, thus inflicting more damage (more energy per equal area).

[tpols]

Exactly, physics are physics, and physics will tell you about kinetic energy that E=1/2mv^2, which means that velocity is much more important than mass. A 50% increase of velocity will need a 125% increase of mass from the other side to equal out, not to mention that if the body with the smaller mass is equally dense and has a similar shape with the body with the bigger mass, the energy of the first will be distributed in a smaller area, thus inflicting more damage (more energy per equal area).
okay... i'll play your game.

Muhamed Ali has a 170% increase in mass.

So even assuming that Bruce Lee could punch faster he would still be able to absorb it and then some.

And, are you seriously doubting Ali's ability to take a punch? Do you know about his bout with prime foreman where he let him pound on him till he was completely drained?

All these f!cking idiots think bruce lee could even hurt Ali. Ali could take Lee's hardest shot to the head 10 times over.

[Psileas]

okay... i'll play your game.

Muhamed Ali has a 170% increase in mass.
So even assuming that Bruce Lee could punch faster he would still be able to absorb it and then some.

And, are you seriously doubting Ali's ability to take a punch? Do you know about his bout with prime foreman where he let him pound on him till he was completely drained?

All these f!cking idiots think bruce lee could even hurt Ali. Ali could take Lee's hardest shot to the head 10 times over.


1) Ali was not 170% heavier. You forget that a 170% increase means a total mass of 2,7 times as much, not 1,7.

2) Call me when Ali takes a few full force punches in the head without gloves on his opponents' hands.

3) I seriously doubt that a martial artist of Bruce Lee's ability would only manage a single punch in a real fight.

[PistonsFan#21]

1) Ali was not 170% heavier. You forget that a 170% increase means a total mass of 2,7 times as much, not 1,7.

2) Call me when Ali takes a few full force punches in the head without gloves on his opponents' hands.

3) I seriously doubt that a martial artist of Bruce Lee's ability would only manage a single punch in a real fight.

Are you telling me that a Bruce Lee's punch would cause more damage than Ali's punch? get serious.

[Jackass18]

There is a point where physical size is too much for a smaller opponent, and 100lbs is way over that limit.

Not exactly. There are MAs where you use your opponent's size against him and/or you neutralize his size advantage. The early UFC was set up to showcase a scrawny Royce Grace beating people much bigger than him. Now, I don't think Lee would have a great chance at winning, though. He could possibly win if he could avoid the punches and land leg kicks, maybe a devastating one to the side of his kneecap or such, but he'd be foolish to try and throw punches with him.

[Psileas]

Are you telling me that a Bruce Lee's punch would cause more damage than Ali's punch? get serious.

That's not necessarily a Lee vs Ali or a row strength thing, but I'll choose the punch that has the smallest chance of braking my skull or fracturing my ribs and I'll say that Bruce Lee is a lot more experienced in doing exactly this thing.

Also, I'll choose to be hit by the person who can throw less punches in the same time, where Lee has almost certainly the advantage.

Plus, It's not only a matter of causing damage, but avoiding getting hit. This isn't a "who will punch harder" competition. Bruce Lee would get serious damage if taking a hit by a boxer of Ali's size, but I seriously doubt he'd be hit anywhere near as often as the boxer would get hit by him.

[Stephen_H]

These are two of my favorite people all time! I've been a fan of both of these guys for years, and I've seen most of their material.

In a no holds barred street fight: BRUCE LEE

Bruce's incredible speed and quickness with both HANDS and FEET would be way too much for the boxer. Bruce was also a master of the nunchucks.


In a sanctioned boxing match: MUHAMMAD ALI

Ali's reach combined with razor sharp reflexes, a good chin, and devastating right hand power (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16fhhpDuDx0) would be too much for the undersized Lee.


BTW, Bruce created a whole new fighting style: Jeet-Kun-Do. Bruce's speed and body control have not been replicated since his passing.

[The_Night_Elf]

I don't think a lot of people here realize how strong Bruce Lee was. He was 135 pounds but had the strength of someone literally twice his size. What's more Bruce Lee developed a fightinig style to help smaller people beat larger opponents. To me he had every tool to deal with any advantage Ali had. Even if Ali tried to crown and bully him around I just picture Lee doing that 1 inch punch that sent a 235 pound man flying 15 feet...

[Saintsfan1992]

I don't think a lot of people here realize how strong Bruce Lee was. He was 135 pounds but had the strength of someone literally twice his size. What's more Bruce Lee developed a fightinig style to help smaller people beat larger opponents. To me he had every tool to deal with any advantage Ali had. Even if Ali tried to crown and bully him around I just picture Lee doing that 1 inch punch that sent a 235 pound man flying 15 feet...

how old are u?
or are u on crack?

santa clause is not real you do know that right?

[The_Night_Elf]

how old are u?
or are u on crack?

santa clause is not real you do know that right?
:roll:

Sigh* Google it, Wiki it, or maybe read some of the books on Bruce Lee. There seems to be a lot of eye witness accounts of his strength...

[Saintsfan1992]

:roll:

Sigh* Google it, Wiki it, or maybe read some of the books on Bruce Lee. There seems to be a lot of eye witness accounts of his strength...

there's also eye witness accounts of big foot lachness monster aliens
Ghost need i go on????????

and wiki :roll:

I can also find out what alien races who are coming here to visit us on google
also jus cause its on google doesnt mean its real


Bruce lee = overrated as shit
he said himself he could not beat ali

[Dolphin]

Anyone here actually know enough about boxing AND martial arts to actually have a reliable opinion on this matter?

Are we talking street fight with no rules (other than no weapons)? Because obviously any sort of sanctioned fight would benefit one more than the other in some respect. There is no sort of fight with legit rules that would be equally fair for both fighters.

If it's agreed that Lee would lose in a completely balanced fight, what about other famous martial artists? Isn't Jet Li supposed to be superior to Lee? How would he fair against, once again, the much bigger Ali?

What about martial artists who are 200+ lbs? So they are physically comparable to Ali? Would martial arts trump boxing then (assuming the contestant is as good in martial arts as Ali was in boxing)?

[Poodle]

:roll:

Sigh* Google it, Wiki it, or maybe read some of the books on Bruce Lee. There seems to be a lot of eye witness accounts of his strength...


actually there was some big white guy who trained with bruce lee being a lot more realistic about bruce. he wrote a book about it too i believe. while his critics say he downplayed bruce to sell books, he sounded very believable to me. imo if theres anyone who wants to be dishonest and unrealistic about bruce its his fans.

he basically generalized Bruce as more of a teacher and philosopher than a fighter. even told some story about a huge punching bag they made that bruce thought he could train on, and supposedly bruce went in to kick it and got dropped back or something to that effect, while they were laughing in the bushes :confusedshrug:

[The_Night_Elf]

Honestly the one inch punch making the guy fly 15 feet seems far fetched but here's another one... still pretty impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS6aMdskKSo

But hey...we can spend the next 8 hours trying to convince each other one would beat the other and which facts are true and which are not and it probably wouldn't happen....so let's just agree to disagree. :cheers:

In the end the question is just asking for an opinion and mine is based on fighting style and overall experience I'm going with Bruce Lee over Ali.

[iamgine]

Honestly the one inch punch making the guy fly 15 feet seems far fetched but here's another one... still pretty impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS6aMdskKSo

wth...why is that impressive at all?

[The_Night_Elf]

wth...why is that impressive at all?

You ever try it?

[Reef]

Exactly, physics are physics, and physics will tell you about kinetic energy that E=1/2mv^2, which means that velocity is much more important than mass. A 50% increase of velocity will need a 125% increase of mass from the other side to equal out, not to mention that if the body with the smaller mass is equally dense and has a similar shape with the body with the bigger mass, the energy of the first will be distributed in a smaller area, thus inflicting more damage (more energy per equal area).

That equation is to produce energy, not to measure force. Why don't you use F=ma?

[Reef]

1) Ali was not 170% heavier. You forget that a 170% increase means a total mass of 2,7 times as much, not 1,7.

2) Call me when Ali takes a few full force punches in the head without gloves on his opponents' hands.

3) I seriously doubt that a martial artist of Bruce Lee's ability would only manage a single punch in a real fight.

I'm sure someone with as great a chin as Ali's can take a bare-knuckle punch from a 130lbs (or whatever he weighs) guy.

The question is can Bruce take a bare-knucled punch from Ali?

[Reef]

I don't think a lot of people here realize how strong Bruce Lee was. He was 135 pounds but had the strength of someone literally twice his size. What's more Bruce Lee developed a fightinig style to help smaller people beat larger opponents. To me he had every tool to deal with any advantage Ali had. Even if Ali tried to crown and bully him around I just picture Lee doing that 1 inch punch that sent a 235 pound man flying 15 feet...

So how do you measure his strength? Could he bench/squat/deadlift the same as someone twice his weight?

A punch causing someone to fly 15 feet? :oldlol:
Do you understand how physics works? Do you ever watch boxing? Guys usually just drop to the ground when they're punched hard, not fly across the ring, lol.

[iamgine]

You ever try it?
push someone so he falls on the chair? yeah I've done it.

[robertshaw_1]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

the fight with last....lets say 1 minute.

ali will destroy him

[Saintsfan1992]

Honestly the one inch punch making the guy fly 15 feet seems far fetched but here's another one... still pretty impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS6aMdskKSo

But hey...we can spend the next 8 hours trying to convince each other one would beat the other and which facts are true and which are not and it probably wouldn't happen....so let's just agree to disagree. :cheers:

In the end the question is just asking for an opinion and mine is based on fighting style and overall experience I'm going with Bruce Lee over Ali.

not impressive at all
and then he most likely acted out the fall back.


and even if we where goin at experience
Ali's worst competion >>>>>>>> Lee's Best
the **** dont u understand son?

[The_Night_Elf]

not impressive at all
and then he most likely acted out the fall back.

well, that's your opinion you are more than entitled to it.

And yes Bruce Lee said "Ali would kill him." But in a boxing match "Queensbury rules but nothing else." Lee was an amatuer boxer and basically said "look at these little Chinese hands...":lol

[Rizko]

A punch causing someone to fly 15 feet? :oldlol:
Thats what I was thinking. Especially a 1-inch punch :roll: No way Bruce Lee is punching someone 15 feet away from him with a 1-inch punch.

Ali has this fight hands down. Like chains5000 said is there any real evidence of Bruce Lee actually fighting people not on movie sets, specifically people that have such a huge size and reach advantage?

[Saintsfan1992]

well, that's your opinion you are more than entitled to it.

And yes Bruce Lee said "Ali would kill him." But in a boxing match "Queensbury rules but nothing else." Lee was an amatuer boxer and basically said "look at these little Chinese hands...":lol

i will state this again
even a ****in MMA guy would beat the shit out of Bruce lee stand up or ground for sure = ground

bruce can not **** with floyd mayweather Manny pac
shane mosley

prime mike tyson would knock him out 2 sec

These are facts.

GOOD DAY SIR :mad:

[tpols]

i will state this again
even a ****in MMA guy would beat the shit out of Bruce lee stand up or ground for sure = ground

bruce can not **** with floyd mayweather Manny pac
shane mosley

prime mike tyson would knock him out 2 sec

These are facts.

GOOD DAY SIR :mad:
BUT i SWEARZ I SAW BRUCE LEE PUNCH SOMONE 20 FEET IN A MOVIE!

smh at the blee supporters:banghead:

[Jackass18]

A punch causing someone to fly 15 feet? :oldlol:
Do you understand how physics works? Do you ever watch boxing? Guys usually just drop to the ground when they're punched hard, not fly across the ring, lol.

I think he's watched too many movies. A guy gets shot and he flies back through a window for effect while Night Elf thinks it's very realistic.

[The_Night_Elf]

i will state this again
even a ****in MMA guy would beat the shit out of Bruce lee stand up or ground for sure = ground

bruce can not **** with floyd mayweather Manny pac
shane mosley

prime mike tyson would knock him out 2 sec

These are facts.

GOOD DAY SIR :mad:

Seriously, I hope you're not getting too heated with this discussion as this is what it is...just a discussion.

and they they can never be facts...

fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

Since Mr. Lee is dead this is all specualtion.

ANd again with the 15 ft one inch punch. I've admitted even I thought it was far fetched and an exaggeration.:roll: Just quoted a line I read in book...

[The_Night_Elf]

I think he's watched too many movies. A guy gets shot and he flies back through a window for effect while Night Elf thinks it's very realistic.

It's not?!? But the SH!T happens in Call of Duty all the Time!:lol

And Bruce Lee once detroyed a car by just kicking it untill balls of blue flames encased his feet for 90 seconds...or was that Chun Li from street fighter...no Bruce Lee, Definitley Bruce Lee...

[Saintsfan1992]

Seriously, I hope you're not getting too heated with this discussion as this is what it is...just a discussion.

and they they can never be facts...

fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

Since Mr. Lee is dead this is all specualtion.

ANd again with the 15 ft one inch punch. I've admitted even I thought it was far fetched and an exaggeration.:roll: Just quoted a line I read in book...

im not so stop trolling
and those are facts
u really think Bruce lee would kick mike tysons ass???

[The_Night_Elf]

im not so stop trolling
and those are facts
u really think Bruce lee would kick mike tysons ass???

Dude, I don't even know how to troll to be honest, if I am let me know exactly what I'm doing and I will apologize if I am guilty of any wrong doing.:confusedshrug:

And the fact is your "Facts" are not facts. Just opinion. A fact must be something that actually took/takes place. (I know I'm knit picking)

And Mike Tyson's crazy so that's a diffrent beast all together...

[Psileas]

I'm sure someone with as great a chin as Ali's can take a bare-knuckle punch from a 130lbs (or whatever he weighs) guy.

The question is can Bruce take a bare-knucled punch from Ali?

Who cares about chin? That's not where your brain is located.

Regardless, forget Ali, even if I was at Shaq's size, I wouldn't want my chin getting hit by someone who has broken much tougher stuff in practices.

Of course, the fact that Lee was the most famous martial artist doesn't make him necessarily the best ever. Martial arts is a lot more obscure field than boxing.

[Saintsfan1992]

Who cares about chin? That's not where your brain is located.

Regardless, forget Ali, even if I was at Shaq's size, I wouldn't want my chin getting hit by someone who has broken much tougher stuff in Movies.

Fixed.

[Psileas]

Saintsfan1992, I suggest you broaden your horizons...

[Saintsfan1992]

Saintsfan1992, I suggest you broaden your horizons...

Name one fighter Bruce lee has fought in real life?????????
ill be waiting

[Poodle]

Jet Li should be mentioned since if you watch Fist of Legend he kicks people about 40 ft

[Doomsday Dallas]

Name one fighter Bruce lee has fought in real life?????????
ill be waiting


go to the fighting history section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lee

debunk those claims.


Lee has had his fair share of kicking people's @sses.



Lee could easily shatter Ali's kneecap with one swift kick.

[highwhey]

bruce lee is overrated. if he were alive i would say it to his face! i'd of course inject myself with morphine before saying such things to him.

[Psileas]

Name one fighter Bruce lee has fought in real life?????????
ill be waiting

First of all, I already wrote that Bruce Lee was the most famous martial artist, because of the movies, but not necessarily the best.

Second, any decent biography of Bruce Lee will tell you that he did a lot of street fighting as a youth in Hong Kong ghettoes. Dominating there is like becoming a streetball legend. Of course, he went on.

Third, Bruce Lee had a few students who became quite good fighters themselves. The most outstanding of course was Chuck Norris, who, jokes aside, is one of the most qualified fighters ever, with more black belts in various martial arts than most can dream of.

Fourth, I'll also be waiting for you to post about black belt artists that Muhammad Ali beat in real life.
While you're searching, here are some facts from his early fights:


Lee defeated three-time champion British boxer Gary Elms by way of knockout in the third round in the 1958 Hong Kong Inter-School amateur Boxing Championships by using Wing Chun traps and high/low-level straight punches.[37] Hawkings Cheung, his fellow Wing Chun street fighter, witnessed the event. Lee knocked-out Pu Chung, a Cai Li Fo fighter, in the roof tops of Hong Kong in a 1958 Full-Contact match. The match was refereed by Wong Shun Leung.[38][39]

The following year, Lee became a member of the "Tigers of Junction Street," and was involved in numerous gang-related street fights. "In one of his last encounters, while removing his jacket the fellow he was squaring off against sucker punched him and blackened his eye. Bruce flew into a rage and went after him, knocking him out, breaking his opponent's arm. The police were called as a result."[40] The incident took place on a Hong Kong rooftop at 10 P.M. on Wednesday, April 29, 1959.[41]

Yeah, it's all movie hype...

[shlver]

Some of these guys are idiots.:roll:

[Doomsday Dallas]

Some of these guys are idiots.:roll:


that's what I'm saying. I didn't even think this was worthy of a debate.

[Gifted Mind]

That equation is to produce energy, not to measure force. Why don't you use F=ma?
Why would you use force? A ball coming at you with a constant velocity of 100 miles per hour and a mass of 10 KG will definitely hurt. However, it's force is 0 while it's momentum and KE are are much higher.

[Reef]

Why would you use force? A ball coming at you with a constant velocity of 100 miles per hour and a mass of 10 KG will definitely hurt. However, it's force is 0 while it's momentum and KE are are much higher.

But the ball will always start from 0 mph. It never starts at 100 mph. Force is a better indicator of how much more damaging a strike would be.

[Gifted Mind]

But the ball will always start from 0 mph. It never starts at 100 mph. Force is a better indicator of how much more damaging a strike would be.
However, when the ball hits your face, would you care more for its speed or acceleration? The answer should be obvious.

[Reef]

However, when the ball hits your face, would you care more for its speed or acceleration? The answer should be obvious.

Again, you're ignoring that the ball accelerated in the first place. Plus, a martial artist/boxer's arms and legs start at rest. They're not constantly moving at a fixed velocity.

[Gifted Mind]

Again, you're ignoring that the ball accelerated in the first place. Plus, a martial artist/boxer's arms and legs start at rest. They're not constantly moving at a fixed velocity.
I am not ignoring that aspect. I'm speaking on impact. When you throw a punch, most of the acceleration is done much before you connect your punch. In fact, your hand may not be accelerating much at all (or even decelerating) when you land your punch. Nonetheless, it will still hurt whoever it connects with (even a punch with negative force on impact can hurt). So really, how important is acceleration? In fact, punch something right now, and you will see that as you are landing your punch your acceleration is not high at all even though your speed probably still is. It maybe tricky to see the difference though. And this is very basic actually. I'm not breaking any grounds here.

Essentially, it doesn't matter how much your hand is accelerating when you land a punch versus how fast it is. Thus, force is not an important factor.

[Sarcastic]

I think it would depend on the rules. If they boxed, Ali would win. If they had a no holds barred death match, I am taking Lee.

[Saintsfan1992]

that's what I'm saying. I didn't even think this was worthy of a debate.

I think he means you.

now lets see all the people Ali whipped :applause:

I fought in my ****in Neighborhood too can i also kick Ali's ass???????


You ****ers must really think a Boxer could not last in a street fight

youf uckers are hilarious dont know shit about fighting

[chungerball]

this and to the other guy i ment eastern martial arts my B for not elebarating

I can't take you seriously for horrendously misspelling elaborating....

[Reef]

I am not ignoring that aspect. I'm speaking on impact. When you throw a punch, most of the acceleration is done much before you connect your punch. In fact, your hand may not be accelerating much at all (or even decelerating) when you land your punch. Nonetheless, it will still hurt whoever it connects with (even a punch with negative force on impact can hurt). So really, how important is acceleration? In fact, punch something right now, and you will see that as you are landing your punch your acceleration is not high at all even though your speed probably still is. It maybe tricky to see the difference though. And this is very basic actually. I'm not breaking any grounds here.

Essentially, it doesn't matter how much your hand is accelerating when you land a punch versus how fast it is. Thus, force is not an important factor.

I'm not talking about the acceleration after the impact. Obviously there would be deceleration there. I'm talking about the acceleration used to get to the highest velocity right at the instant of impact.

If I punch some random thing, and I have this high speed that you mention, how did it get so high? It obviously accelerated to that point.

Of course it matters how much your hand accelerates. A greater acceleration leads to a greater end velocity resulting in a greater force. When you land that punch, how do you think it gets to the speed at impact? Through acceleration.

Force is extremely important. If fighter A and B have similar masses/body types yet fighter A's punch accelerates faster (thus leading to a greater velocity at impact), which fighter's punch would create a more forceful impact?

Are you saying F=/= mA?

[The_Yearning]

Are you fools serious? Bruce Lee would murder Ali in cold blood.

[pete's montreux]

do you guys like circles?

[Zan Tabak]

Ali would win. He's too big for Lee. Not to mention, in his prime he's the World Heavy Weight Champion.

[WoGiTaLiA1]

I'd back Ali in a boxing match.

Anything else and I'd go with Lee. The use of feet would totally destroy Ali's size advantage. People don't realise how much conditioning martial artists do to their leg muscles and bones so they can kick, it would not take many well placed kicks from Lee to snap Ali's legs as they would have absolutely no conditioning to take a kick.

MMA would be interesting as it would present Ali a chance to use his size, whether he can wrestle or not I have no idea, but it still is an opportunity.

Normal kickboxing or street fight and I'd take Lee though, boxing gives you very limited preparation for a fight outside of a boxing fight.

A lot of people seem to get confused by Lee doing movies, he was an elite martial artist before he started doing movies, would be like saying that Mike Tyson couldn't fight because he has done movies since.

[Sarcastic]

Are you fools serious? Bruce Lee would murder Ali in cold blood.

Depends on the rules. If you put gloves on Lee, and force him to box he would not stand a chance against Ali.

[Jasper]

Boxing is a tight area combat sport... which means if Ali had Lee pinned in a corner , 1-2 punchs and Lee would be out.
--------------
I was in karate for about 6-7 years , and my first teacher was a 7th degree black belt from the Korean police army.
He was about 5'4" 145- 150 pounds . .. and could jump 5 feet standing jump and kick straight out.
If he was matched against Ali - I am afraid Ali would be seeing stars.

So if Bruce Lee was as good as this ex- korean police officer-

I will take the karate specialist over a boxer.

[plowking]

Pacquiao's camp is in talks with both, but apparently both Lee and Ali b!tched out because they're too scared to face Pac.

[iamgine]

Boxers tend to have lightning reflexes and great upper body defense. Dodging/blocking opponents and countering are natural to them. Lower body wise, boxers aren't as good but their footwork are excellent and unless strike in the correct point, leg is stronger than the hand. Boxers are also used to getting hit.

Offensively, one punch from a boxer would knock the average person out straight out, crack ribs, knock teeth out. At the very least it will sting like hell. And boxers know tricks to overwhelm opponents with their weight


This is world champion Cassius Clay we're talking about here. He was very balanced in speed and strength. Unless in an anything goes street fight, a man almost half his weight isn't likely to beat him.

[-playmaker-]

Ali would kill Lee...in any type of fight...boxing...MMA...karate...ect...

I don't think you guys understand what kind of a huge physical freak Ali was...he would stomp that movie star...

[plowking]

If Lee was 220lbs, I'd back him due to the advantage he'd have of all round striking. Even at 200lbs I'd back him, though in this case the size advantage is too big. There is 0.0000001% chance that Lee beats Ali in any sort of fight at their respective weights.

[plowking]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYAEGWhX9iw

This is a martial arts movie(IP Man 2) fight scene between the world's top boxer and a world-class kung-fu martial artist. Obviously I don't mean for anyone to take this seriously but it's still pretty cool.

****. Shit is out-of-sync.

He got up... HE GOT UP!

[AK47DR91]

Ali would knock Lee out in a boxing ring or MMA Octagon. Lee has a slim chance in the Octagon winning via submission lock.

But in a street fighting environment, Lee would win. Speed and quickness would be heavily favored here.

[HighFlyer23]

there is a reason why there are weight classes in most combat sports ...

[-playmaker-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpBkc2jK-6w

^^^ that is what Ali vs. Lee would look like

1:00 long

[EarlTheGoat]

Bruce Lee wouldnt even let Ali touch him. This is not a fair comparison, comparing 2 different worlds.

[tgan3]

No, everything is going accordingly.

You've picked the batshit crazy answer, which has in turn made you look stupid. Seems like a normal day. If you can't gather how much a 100lbs difference makes, then you're just f*cking thick.

You could train all your life at 160lbs becoming the best fighter ever in your weight division. The fact of the matter is, you'll never beat Brock Lesnar, no matter how good you are.

Wrong, a lighter guy can win still with pressure point fighting. Go watch Ong Bak and Ong Bak 2.

[plowking]

Wrong, a lighter guy can win still with pressure point fighting. Go watch Ong Bak and Ong Bak 2.

Of course, how silly of me. I'll go watch some fictional movies to sway my opinion.

[SCREWstonRockets]

Let me just say that Lee was not just an actor. He was a Martial Artist first. I mean, he created his own fighting style in Jeet Kune Do. You got to be a bad mofo to do that. Not saying he would beat Ali but Lee wasn't only a mere movie star.

[zabuza666]

Not exactly. There are MAs where you use your opponent's size against him and/or you neutralize his size advantage. The early UFC was set up to showcase a scrawny Royce Grace beating people much bigger than him. Now, I don't think Lee would have a great chance at winning, though. He could possibly win if he could avoid the punches and land leg kicks, maybe a devastating one to the side of his kneecap or such, but he'd be foolish to try and throw punches with him.

Royce Grace then proceeded to get destroyed by anyone with a decent wrestling background.

GTFO

[rezznor]

Royce Grace then proceeded to get destroyed by anyone with a decent wrestling background.

GTFO
i didn't know Ali was a wrestler



bruce isn't either, but he does know joint locks.

[zabuza666]

Boxing is a tight area combat sport... which means if Ali had Lee pinned in a corner , 1-2 punchs and Lee would be out.
--------------
I was in karate for about 6-7 years , and my first teacher was a 7th degree black belt from the Korean police army.
He was about 5'4" 145- 150 pounds . .. and could jump 5 feet standing jump and kick straight out.
If he was matched against Ali - I am afraid Ali would be seeing stars.

So if Bruce Lee was as good as this ex- korean police officer-

I will take the karate specialist over a boxer.

*Implying karate is useful in a real fight*
*has no idea about fighting*
*beta as *****

[zabuza666]

i didn't know Ali was a wrestler



bruce isn't either, but he does know joint locks.

Proof?

Honestly i don't care, Brock Lesnar would destroy both of them so eh

[rezznor]

Proof?

Honestly i don't care, Brock Lesnar would destroy both of them so eh
not gonna try and dig it up, but it was in one of those documentaries about Bruce. He was showing some demonstrations and joint locks were were one of the things he was doing.

[Gifted Mind]

I'm not talking about the acceleration after the impact. Obviously there would be deceleration there. I'm talking about the acceleration used to get to the highest velocity right at the instant of impact.

If I punch some random thing, and I have this high speed that you mention, how did it get so high? It obviously accelerated to that point.

Of course it matters how much your hand accelerates. A greater acceleration leads to a greater end velocity resulting in a greater force. When you land that punch, how do you think it gets to the speed at impact? Through acceleration.

Force is extremely important. If fighter A and B have similar masses/body types yet fighter A's punch accelerates faster (thus leading to a greater velocity at impact), which fighter's punch would create a more forceful impact?

Are you saying F=/= mA?

It seems you missed the point again.

I am not speaking of acceleration after impact, I am speaking of acceleration at impact. And the acceleration of your hand does NOT peak at impact. Try punching something yourself. The time when you accelerate the most is when you are building power, or when your arm is is almost all bent and starting to straighten itself out. When you actually reach your target for impact, you are not accelerating much and probably decelerating.

The point is this, even with 0 force on impact, you can knock someone out. Even with negative force on impact, you can knock someone out. So how can you possibly say we should measure how much force they have on impact? When a large force, small force, 0 force, and negative force all can have the same affects. This is absolutely ludicrous. I can't believe you actually need this much explaining done. I understand the force must be positive at some point, but on impact it doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Actually, in most cases on impact it will be negative. You are accelerating your arm the most before you reach your target, thus, your force will be negative when you hit your target.

[Gifted Mind]

Ali would kill Lee...in any type of fight...boxing...MMA...karate...ect...

I don't think you guys understand what kind of a huge physical freak Ali was...he would stomp that movie star...
:lol
Lee is not just a movie star. He is considered the greatest martial artist of all-time by many.

[bballer]

Ali would bite his ear off :oldlol:

[iamgine]

Ali vs Inoki: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Bu5Ki4DHo&feature=related

[rezznor]

Ali vs Inoki: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Bu5Ki4DHo&feature=related
pssshhh that's nothing.




ali vs superman:

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/Rgaete/20060117-superman_vs_muhmammad_ali.jpg

[iamgine]

http://www.4thletter.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ali01.jpg
http://www.4thletter.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ali02.jpg
http://www.4thletter.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ali03.jpg
http://www.4thletter.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ali04.jpg

[Reef]

It seems you missed the point again.

I am not speaking of acceleration after impact, I am speaking of acceleration at impact. And the acceleration of your hand does NOT peak at impact. Try punching something yourself. The time when you accelerate the most is when you are building power, or when your arm is is almost all bent and starting to straighten itself out. When you actually reach your target for impact, you are not accelerating much and probably decelerating.

The point is this, even with 0 force on impact, you can knock someone out. Even with negative force on impact, you can knock someone out. So how can you possibly say we should measure how much force they have on impact? When a large force, small force, 0 force, and negative force all can have the same affects. This is absolutely ludicrous. I can't believe you actually need this much explaining done. I understand the force must be positive at some point, but on impact it doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Actually, in most cases on impact it will be negative. You are accelerating your arm the most before you reach your target, thus, your force will be negative when you hit your target.

I was talking about the end velocity at impact, not the acceleration. The acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity so that doesn't have to be the greatest at impact or the instant before (not after impact), but the velocity can be.

I see what you're saying now. Although it's unlikely you'd have zero acceleration in the real world from a strike. There could be a negative force though like you said.

Maybe lbs/in^2 is a better measurement in this case?

[Gifted Mind]

I was talking about the end velocity at impact, not the acceleration. The acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity so that doesn't have to be the greatest at impact or the instant before (not after impact), but the velocity can be.


Yes exactly what I was talking about. The velocity not the acceleration. I knew you must've been confusing those 2.




I see what you're saying now. Although it's unlikely you'd have zero acceleration in the real world from a strike. There could be a negative force though like you said.

Maybe lbs/in^2 is a better measurement in this case?


I think what you may have wanted to talk about, and something you can make a case for, is momentum (not force). Which is just mv (instead of ma). Thus, the mass and final velocity at impact rather than acceleration (Pointless for a punch). That is a much more logical measure rather than force.

[Jackass18]

Royce Grace then proceeded to get destroyed by anyone with a decent wrestling background.

GTFO

You missed my point, and you're also incorrect. He beat Dan Severn.

[Jackass18]

Lower body wise, boxers aren't as good but their footwork are excellent and unless strike in the correct point, leg is stronger than the hand. Boxers are also used to getting hit.

They're not use to getting hit in the leg.

[pete's montreux]

yep, you guys love circles

[Brujesino]

Royce Grace then proceeded to get destroyed by anyone with a decent wrestling background.

GTFO




Proof?

Honestly i don't care, Brock Lesnar would destroy both of them so eh
:facepalm

[HisJoeness]

A better one would be Lee vs. Sugar Ray Robinson (who was a better fighter than Ali anyway).

In your opinion how far apart is the gap between Robinson and Ali?

[Jackass18]

yep, you guys love circles

I prefer triangles

[zabuza666]

:facepalm

Yeah nice man, way to address the points :lol

[Parade]

I think what you may have wanted to talk about, and something you can make a case for, is momentum (not force). Which is just mv (instead of ma). Thus, the mass and final velocity at impact rather than acceleration (Pointless for a punch). That is a much more logical measure rather than force.
The stanford fraud giving a lecture so he can prove to everyone how smart he is :rolleyes:

Newsflash numbnuts, momentum and force are related, so one isn't more correct than the other. It's funny that you keep telling others, like reef here, how confused they are when the most confused one here is you.

If you're using physics to argue how much "damage" a punch is going to inflict (and I think that's what all this mental *********ion is about) then you want to use force since damage is quantified by force.

Force is the transfer of momentum in unit time, so a fist with greater momentum is going to exert a greater force. Ergo, you arguing against force in favor of momentum is retarded. In the end it's the same thing.


The point is this, even with 0 force on impact, you can knock someone out. Even with negative force on impact, you can knock someone out. So how can you possibly say we should measure how much force they have on impact? When a large force, small force, 0 force, and negative force all can have the same affects. This is absolutely ludicrous. I can't believe you actually need this much explaining done. I understand the force must be positive at some point, but on impact it doesn't necessarily have to be positive. Actually, in most cases on impact it will be negative. You are accelerating your arm the most before you reach your target, thus, your force will be negative when you hit your target.
He is obviously talking about the force the puncher exerts on his opponent you f*ckin dolt, not the force the puncher exerts on his own fist which doesn't even make sense to bring up. The greater the average acceleration (who cares about the moment of impact), the greater the momentum (or speed), the greater the force of impact that fist is gonna have. What part of that don't you get?

The most confused nonsensical shit in here is all your wankage about negative and zero forces, which is nonsensical until you define the force and the object it acts upon, at which point anyway it becomes irrelevant and incorrect.

This is absolutely ludicrous. I can't believe you actually need this much explaining done.The irony here kills me. Not only are you wrong, but you're an arrogant douche to boot. I wouldn't expect less from a guy that created an account just so he could lie to a basketball forum about going to stanford so everyone would think he's smart.

[Go Getter]

Lmao, if Ali was "the Greatest" in the ring what do you think he could do if there were no restrictions {street fighting}?

He would murdalize Lee, lmao....

[Gifted Mind]

The stanford fraud giving a lecture so he can prove to everyone how smart he is :rolleyes:


Your constant hate continues to amaze me. :facepalm


Newsflash numbnuts, momentum and force are related, so one isn't more correct than the other. It's funny that you keep telling others, like reef here, how confused they are when the most confused one here is you.


Momentum and force are related as much as velocity and acceleration are. However, some places velocity has proper uses, and others accelerations. We don't use them interchangeably.




If you're using physics to argue how much "damage" a punch is going to inflict then you want to use force since damage is quantified by force.

Force is the transfer of momentum in unit time, so a fist with greater momentum is going to exert a greater force. Ergo, you arguing against force in favor of momentum is retarded. In the end it's the same thing.


He is obviously talking about the force the puncher exerts on his opponent you f*ckin dolt, not the force the puncher exerts on his own fist which doesn't even make sense to bring up. The greater the average acceleration (who cares about the moment of impact), the greater the momentum (or speed), the greater the force of impact that fist is gonna have. What part of that don't you get?

The most confused nonsensical shit in here is all your wankage about negative and zero forces, which is nonsensical until you define the force and the object it acts upon, at which point anyway it becomes irrelevant and incorrect.
The irony here kills me. Not only are you wrong, but you're an arrogant douche to boot. I wouldn't expect less from a guy that created an account just so he could lie to a basketball forum about going to stanford so everyone would think he's smart.

This is completely irrelevant. We were talking ON IMPACT which to use. That is what me and Reef were arguing.



I am speaking of velocity and acceleration at impact


I said, on impact Momentum is a better measure than force. Now let me repeat again because I don't want to waste my time nor yours as you greatly lack reading comprehension skills. We are talking on impact, not over the whole time interval the punch was initiated. Do you understand? I don't care what you are arguing, but me and Reef actually were finally in full agreement on our ON IMPACT argument. Once again, not over the full time interval, but just on impact. That is at least what me and Reef were discussing before you came out of nowhere with your nonsense.



So now with that said, using force, as I said earlier, is fallacious. Momentum or KE would provide much better ideas for how much it actually would hurt. So please try again with your nonsensical and quite frankly, stupid post. I don't even want to waste my time going in over the details over that.

[RedBlackAttack]

In your opinion how far apart is the gap between Robinson and Ali?
Huge. In fact, Ali doesn't even crack my Top 5 all-time pound-for-pound list and he is barely Top 10.

Robinson is so by far and away the greatest boxer who has ever lived that no one really has an argument against him. The gap between him and No. 2 is absolutely huge... Let alone him and a guy that just barely cracks the Top 10.

I did this list before, but here is my Top 5 all-time pound-for-pound...

1. Ray Robinson
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

Ali isn't really even in the discussion.

EDIT: Now that I really think about it, I don't even think Ali did crack my Top 10. He was my third ranked fighter in the heavyweight division alone. I have both Joe Louis and Jack Johnson in front of him.

[Parade]

Your constant hate continues to amaze me. :facepalm
So you didn't lie about going to stanford? Do you deny it? Lets hear you say it.

You won't deny it because you know I'll just throw evidence in your face that contradicts your lies. You won't admit that you lied either because your pride's on damage control. So you'll probably just ignore this and hope nobody notices.



This is completely irrelevant. We were talking ON IMPACT which to use. That is what me and Reef were arguing.

I am speaking of velocity and acceleration at impact

I said, on impact Momentum is a better measure than force. Now let me repeat again because I don't want to waste my time nor yours as you greatly lack reading comprehension skills. We are talking on impact, not over the whole time interval the punch was initiated. Do you understand? I don't care what you are arguing, but me and Reef actually were finally in full agreement on our ON IMPACT argument. Once again, not over the full time interval, but just on impact. That is at least what me and Reef were discussing before you came out of nowhere with your nonsense.
First of all there's no point in discussing any of this physics bullshit unless there's an impact. I'm talking fist meets face (or genitals in your case most of the time)
http://i488.photobucket.com/albums/rr247/josephkelche/poundit.gif
So you're whole rant above doesn't actually say anything. You still have to understand the terms you're using to make a valid point, and it's obvious you don't.

Case in point: How does the following make any sense?

with 0 force on impact, you can knock someone out. Even with negative force on impact, you can knock someone out.
What!? How can you knock someone out without there being a force? How does that happen? Are you going to bore them into unconsciousness? Telekinesis?

Explain to me how that's possible. If you can do that then the drinks are on you because you'll be ****ING RICH as they shower you with bitches and gold for proving Newton wrong all those years.


So now with that said, using force, as I said earlier, is fallacious. Momentum or KE would provide much better ideas for how much it actually would hurt. So please try again with your nonsensical and quite frankly, stupid post. I don't even want to waste my time going in over the details over that.That's just wrong. I don't think you know what any of those terms really mean. Damage is quantified by force. If I hit you with a larger amount of force it's going to hurt more and cause more damage then if I hit you with less force. And again, force and momentum are related by the laws of physics so that if my fist is traveling with greater momentum (ie: at a greater speed), it is going to strike you with greater force than if it was traveling at a slower speed. So you can talk about the force of the punch or its momentum to describe the amount of impact it's going to have. If you can't understand that than I don't know what to tell you. Go open a book.



Momentum or KE would provide much better ideas for how much it actually would hurt.
Kinetic Energy? Wrong again buddy. Suppose I threw a ball weighing 10kg and traveling at 30m/s at your large, relatively empty, ego inflated head, and then threw another one weighing 5kg and traveling at 50m/s.
The first ball has momentum = 10*30 = 300, and Kinetic Energy = (1/2)*10 *(30)^2 = 4500
The second ball has p = 5*50 = 250, and KE = (1/2)*5*(50)^2 = 6250.

So which ball hurts more, the one with the bigger momentum or the one with the bigger Kinetic Energy?
The one that hurts more is the one that exerts more force and that's the one with the bigger momentum.


Now lets hear you say it one time: "I was wrong"
Go ahead, it won't kill you.

[imlmf]

i laughed

when are americans going to stop thinking size is everything?

[AznBBoyX]

So which ball hurts more, the one with the bigger momentum or the one with the bigger Kinetic Energy?
The one that hurts more is the one that exerts more force and that's the one with the bigger momentum.
.

Sorry to point this out but since you the balls are different weights, you can not compare the momentum and kinetic energy of the two. It will be more fair of the two were the same weights. However if that happens the momentum will only be greater than kinetic if the velocity is less than 2 m/s.

Also so far all comparisons are made in an optimum environment where no energy is lost. This is impossible in the actual world where the human body produces so many countering forces and therefore all calculations posted so far are arguable.

[shlver]

So you didn't lie about going to stanford? Do you deny it? Lets hear you say it.

You won't deny it because you know I'll just throw evidence in your face that contradicts your lies. You won't admit that you lied either because your pride's on damage control. So you'll probably just ignore this and hope nobody notices.



First of all there's no point in discussing any of this physics bullshit unless there's an impact. I'm talking fist meets face (or genitals in your case most of the time)
http://i488.photobucket.com/albums/rr247/josephkelche/poundit.gif
So you're whole rant above doesn't actually say anything. You still have to understand the terms you're using to make a valid point, and it's obvious you don't.

Case in point: How does the following make any sense?

What!? How can you knock someone out without there being a force? How does that happen? Are you going to bore them into unconsciousness? Telekinesis?

Explain to me how that's possible. If you can do that then the drinks are on you because you'll be ****ING RICH as they shower you with bitches and gold for proving Newton wrong all those years.

That's just wrong. I don't think you know what any of those terms really mean. Damage is quantified by force. If I hit you with a larger amount of force it's going to hurt more and cause more damage then if I hit you with less force. And again, force and momentum are related by the laws of physics so that if my fist is traveling with greater momentum (ie: at a greater speed), it is going to strike you with greater force than if it was traveling at a slower speed. So you can talk about the force of the punch or its momentum to describe the amount of impact it's going to have. If you can't understand that than I don't know what to tell you. Go open a book.



Kinetic Energy? Wrong again buddy. Suppose I threw a ball weighing 10kg and traveling at 30m/s at your large, relatively empty, ego inflated head, and then threw another one weighing 5kg and traveling at 50m/s.
The first ball has momentum = 10*30 = 300, and Kinetic Energy = (1/2)*10 *(30)^2 = 4500
The second ball has p = 5*50 = 250, and KE = (1/2)*5*(50)^2 = 6250.

So which ball hurts more, the one with the bigger momentum or the one with the bigger Kinetic Energy?
The one that hurts more is the one that exerts more force and that's the one with the bigger momentum.


Now lets hear you say it one time: "I was wrong"
Go ahead, it won't kill you.
You are wrong. On first impact, momentum is a better measure. To find the average force of impact you need to find the force over time. In real-world forces, change in strength occurs, so you have to integrate to find the force over time.
http://i29.tinypic.com/2v2zfkp.jpg
The force on impact is close to zero but increases as change in momentum occurs and decreases as the fist leaves the fist. To find the average force of impact, you need to find the area under that curve.

[Parade]

Sorry to point this out but since you the balls are different weights, you can not compare the momentum and kinetic energy of the two. It will be more fair of the two were the same weights. However if that happens the momentum will only be greater than kinetic if the velocity is less than 2 m/s
The point was to determine which ball would strike with more force (this is like the real world example of determining which of two boxers, with fists of differing mass, punches harder . The balls do not have to have the same weight for this example to make its point (in fact it's the difference in weight that makes it work). What the example shows is that KE is not a good determinant of the level of "damage" a moving object imposes upon collision, as GM had suggested. As in this case, the ball with less KE actually causes more damage.


Also so far all comparisons are made in an optimum environment where no energy is lost. This is impossible in the actual world where the human body produces so many countering forces and therefore all calculations posted so far are arguable.
Who said there is an optimum environment? (which I assume you mean the collisions are elastic). The inelasticity of the collisions is particularly why KE is not a good measure of the force of impact. However since momentum is always conserved, it is the better indicator.

[TheGrassIsGreen]

I'm with the asians on this.

[Gifted Mind]

So you didn't lie about going to stanford? Do you deny it? Lets hear you say it.

You won't deny it because you know I'll just throw evidence in your face that contradicts your lies. You won't admit that you lied either because your pride's on damage control. So you'll probably just ignore this and hope nobody notices.


I don't feel the need to prove anything to you or anyone else on this forum. But what dazzles me is how much it bugs you. The only posts I see from you are replies to me constantly hating. It amazes me how much you care which school I went to. :lol




First of all there's no point in discussing any of this physics bullshit unless there's an impact. I'm talking fist meets face (or genitals in your case most of the time)
http://i488.photobucket.com/albums/rr247/josephkelche/poundit.gif
So you're whole rant above doesn't actually say anything. You still have to understand the terms you're using to make a valid point, and it's obvious you don't.


Case in point: How does the following make any sense?

What!? How can you knock someone out without there being a force? How does that happen? Are you going to bore them into unconsciousness? Telekinesis?

Explain to me how that's possible. If you can do that then the drinks are on you because you'll be ****ING RICH as they shower you with bitches and gold for proving Newton wrong all those years.

The problem you are having is you are using junior high Physics while I'm using college Physics. You are using terms like average force and acceleration, while I'm using instantaneous force and acceleration. No one was talking about average acceleration before you came. We were talking acceleration on impact, or instantaneous acceleration. Thus 1st you need to realize that and stop thinking in terms of junior high.

How does a negative force knock you out? If you define your acceleration as positive the direction you move your punch (naturally), and at the point of impact you were decelerating (more than possible). Thus, your acceleration is negative, even though your velocity might be very high, creating a negative force and a KO.



That's just wrong. I don't think you know what any of those terms really mean. Damage is quantified by force. If I hit you with a larger amount of force it's going to hurt more and cause more damage then if I hit you with less force. And again, force and momentum are related by the laws of physics so that if my fist is traveling with greater momentum (ie: at a greater speed), it is going to strike you with greater force than if it was traveling at a slower speed. So you can talk about the force of the punch or its momentum to describe the amount of impact it's going to have. If you can't understand that than I don't know what to tell you. Go open a book.


Once again, I agree if we were talking in terms of average force and acceleration. But no one is besides you. We've been talking instantaneous force and acceleration. Thus, once again, at the impact (instantaneous), you need your instantaneous momentum to be high not force. Now if you don't understand why, I'd suggest more than just opening a book.




Kinetic Energy? Wrong again buddy. Suppose I threw a ball weighing 10kg and traveling at 30m/s at your large, relatively empty, ego inflated head, and then threw another one weighing 5kg and traveling at 50m/s.
The first ball has momentum = 10*30 = 300, and Kinetic Energy = (1/2)*10 *(30)^2 = 4500
The second ball has p = 5*50 = 250, and KE = (1/2)*5*(50)^2 = 6250.

So which ball hurts more, the one with the bigger momentum or the one with the bigger Kinetic Energy?
The one that hurts more is the one that exerts more force and that's the one with the bigger momentum.


Now lets hear you say it one time: "I was wrong"
Go ahead, it won't kill you.

Funny you still are thinking of force as average. Here let me give you another example,


A truck coming at 1 m/s with a mass of 1000KG (M=1000, KE = 500)
or a ball coming at you with a mass of 1KG and 500m/s (M=500, KE = 125,000)

The truck at impact, will not do much damage. The ball, will certainly kill you. Thus, here is a case that shows KE is more important clearly. Your case, it's not so clear which one will hurt more. In general, a good way to think about momentum is it measures how much will it take to stop the incoming object. Many physicists think about momentum like that. As you can see with my truck example, though the truck might not hurt much, it is still very difficult to stop thus it has a high momentum. Thus, though I won't deny momentum is still a lot more useful than force, thus it still makes my point, however I'd still prefer KE.

[Psileas]

A truck coming at 1 m/s with a mass of 1000KG (M=1000, KE = 500)
or a ball coming at you with a mass of 1KG and 500m/s (M=500, KE = 1250)

The truck at impact, will not do much damage. The ball, will certainly kill you. Thus, here is a case that shows KE is more important clearly. Your case, it's not so clear which one will hurt more. In general, a good way to think about momentum is it measures how much will it take to stop the incoming object. Many physicists think about momentum like that. As you can see with my truck example, though the truck might not hurt much, it is still very difficult to stop thus it has a high momentum. Thus, though I won't deny momentum is still a lot more useful than force, thus it still makes my point, however I'd still prefer KE.

Just a correction, the kinetic energy in the second case is 125,000. That's basically a cannon ball at point blank range hitting you...

[New York Knicks]

I think it would depend on the rules. If they boxed, Ali would win. If they had a no holds barred death match, I am taking Lee.
This. No way does Ali win in a street fight.

[Brujesino]

Yeah nice man, way to address the points :lol
Yup just as good as the proof you provided.

[shlver]

I don't feel the need to prove anything to you or anyone else on this forum. But what dazzles me is how much it bugs you. The only posts I see from you are replies to me constantly hating. It amazes me how much you care which school I went to. :lol



The problem you are having is you are using junior high Physics while I'm using college Physics. You are using terms like average force and acceleration, while I'm using instantaneous force and acceleration. No one was talking about average acceleration before you came. We were talking acceleration on impact, or instantaneous acceleration. Thus 1st you need to realize that and stop thinking in terms of junior high.

How does a negative force knock you out? If you define your acceleration as positive the direction you move your punch (naturally), and at the point of impact you were decelerating (more than possible). Thus, your acceleration is negative, even though your velocity might be very high, creating a negative force and a KO.


Once again, I agree if we were talking in terms of average force and acceleration. But no one is besides you. We've been talking instantaneous force and acceleration. Thus, once again, at the impact (instantaneous), you need your instantaneous momentum to be high not force. Now if you don't understand why, I'd suggest more than just opening a book.



Funny you still are thinking of force as average. Here let me give you another example,


A truck coming at 1 m/s with a mass of 1000KG (M=1000, KE = 500)
or a ball coming at you with a mass of 1KG and 500m/s (M=500, KE = 125,000)

The truck at impact, will not do much damage. The ball, will certainly kill you. Thus, here is a case that shows KE is more important clearly. Your case, it's not so clear which one will hurt more. In general, a good way to think about momentum is it measures how much will it take to stop the incoming object. Many physicists think about momentum like that. As you can see with my truck example, though the truck might not hurt much, it is still very difficult to stop thus it has a high momentum. Thus, though I won't deny momentum is still a lot more useful than force, thus it still makes my point, however I'd still prefer KE.
KE is still not useful because conservation of mechanical energy does not apply in collisions. Objects stick together and objects crumple in real world collisions. Momentum is the better indicator.

[Gifted Mind]

KE is still not useful because conservation of mechanical energy does not apply in collisions. Objects stick together and objects crumple in real world collisions. Momentum is the better indicator.
Yes I definitely don't have a problem with using momentum either. I just initially stated that force on impact would not be too useful in determining how much damage is done versus momentum or KE. I think that should be clear to everyone by now.

As far as momentum vs. KE, I've always felt momentum is how much it takes to stop an object. I would much rather be hit by 250kg objects traveling .1m/s rather than a 0.25kg object traveling at 100m/s. The former would do no damage, but the later would kill you. Yet both have same momentum (but not KE).

[shlver]

Yes I definitely don't have a problem with using momentum either. I just initially stated that force on impact would not be too useful in determining how much damage is done versus momentum or KE. I think that should be clear to everyone by now.

As far as momentum vs. KE, I've always felt momentum is how much it takes to stop an object. I would much rather be hit by 250kg objects traveling .1m/s rather than a 0.25kg object traveling at 100m/s. The former would do no damage, but the later would kill you. Yet both have same momentum (but not KE).
Yeah, just using KE, momentum, or force is not a good way to find out the impact a certain collision has. There are a lot of factors such as angular momentum, impulse of force, etc.

[jbot]

Ali wouldn't touch Lee.

have u seen that demo he did way back in like the early 60's when he had a dude that couldn't even land a punch on him? Rope-a-Dope ain't gonna work this time.

[PistonsFan#21]

Huge. In fact, Ali doesn't even crack my Top 5 all-time pound-for-pound list and he is barely Top 10.

Robinson is so by far and away the greatest boxer who has ever lived that no one really has an argument against him. The gap between him and No. 2 is absolutely huge... Let alone him and a guy that just barely cracks the Top 10.

I did this list before, but here is my Top 5 all-time pound-for-pound...

1. Ray Robinson
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

Ali isn't really even in the discussion.

EDIT: Now that I really think about it, I don't even think Ali did crack my Top 10. He was my third ranked fighter in the heavyweight division alone. I have both Joe Louis and Jack Johnson in front of him.


Henry Armstrong? This guy wouldnt stand a chance agaisnt Mayweather or Pacman. Just take a look at his footwork in this clip at 1:15 in the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG84waTmH30
Looks like his defense sucks too. Just because he had an impressive record doesnt mean he is the 2nd greatest boxer of all time

[bdreason]

Why is this thread still going?

If there are any type of rules (like unified MMA), then Bruce will get murked.


If things like eye gouges, groin shots, spinal attacks, and throat chops are allowed, then maybe Bruce could pull out a win.

[AznBBoyX]

Yes I definitely don't have a problem with using momentum either. I just initially stated that force on impact would not be too useful in determining how much damage is done versus momentum or KE. I think that should be clear to everyone by now.

As far as momentum vs. KE, I've always felt momentum is how much it takes to stop an object. I would much rather be hit by 250kg objects traveling .1m/s rather than a 0.25kg object traveling at 100m/s. The former would do no damage, but the later would kill you. Yet both have same momentum (but not KE).

Now you actually introduced another factor which was previously neglected from the discussions above. The force exerted per area. The ratio of that, like you said, can mean life or death although the force is the same.



Who said there is an optimum environment? (which I assume you mean the collisions are elastic). The inelasticity of the collisions is particularly why KE is not a good measure of the force of impact. However since momentum is always conserved, it is the better indicator.

You clearly don't understand what an optimum physics environment is. But I'm not going to get into detail about that. It is useless to try to compare kinetic energy and momentum and how it's different. It is the same for both at the point of impact. That is because kinetic energy is measured at an instant of time. (d/dt)mv and P = mv. In order to find the force of the punch at impact, you you need to also determine the time the impact occurs. Or... that is actually exactly the equation for translational kinetic energy, (1/2)mv^2.

[shlver]

Now you actually introduced another factor which was previously neglected from the discussions above. The force exerted per area. The ratio of that, like you said, can mean life or death although the force is the same.

Also for the posters above who are still trying to compare kinetic energy and momentum and how it's different. It is the same for both at the point of impact. That is because kinetic energy is measured at an instant of time.(d/dt)mv and P = mv. In order to find the force of the punch at impact, you you need to also determine the time the impact occurs. Or... that is actually exactly the equation for translational kinetic energy, (1/2)mv^2.
How is momentum and kinetic energy the same? Linear momentum is a vector quantity and kinetic energy is not.

[AznBBoyX]

How is momentum and kinetic energy the same? Linear momentum is a vector quantity and kinetic energy is not.

I didn't say they are the same. They are not the same. I said that when you calculate moment with respect to point of impact (d/dt)mv, then the force that results from that is equal to the force calculated using the kinetic energy equation.

[zabuza666]

Yup just as good as the proof you provided.

Like what? That Royce Gracie got beaten by wrestlers (infact the entire gracie family used to get bent over by wrestlers). If you don't believe that look at who they lost to.

Or don't you think that Brock Lesnar could beat Bruce Lee

[shlver]

I didn't say they are the same. They are not the same. I said that when you calculate moment with respect to point of impact (d/dt)mv, then the force that results from that is equal to the force calculated using the kinetic energy equation.
I need numbers, your words are not cutting it. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
EDIT: One major contradiction is the kinetic energy equation yields a scalar quantity and force is a vector quantity.

[AznBBoyX]

I need numbers, your words are not cutting it. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
EDIT: One major contradiction is the kinetic energy equation yields a scalar quantity and force is a vector quantity.

It's not a major contradiction. I was trying to simplify it. In the case of a fist, by all means the force will be proportional to the kinetic energy which is also proportional to the momentum at time of impact.

And if I am unclear before, how about this:

F = dP/dt
F * dx = F * vdt = dP/dt * vdt
E = Integral (F * dx) = Integral (v * dp) = (1/2)mv^2

Is that clear enough?

This means previous arguments saying oh you can only use momentum or you can only use kinetic energy. It doesn't matter. As long as you are using momentum at time of impact or the kinetic energy, the comparison result should be the same.

[tpols]

I need numbers, your words are not cutting it. I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
EDIT: One major contradiction is the kinetic energy equation yields a scalar quantity and force is a vector quantity.
Isn't force divided into force and direction?

Isn't direction implied to be the same for both force and kinetic energy?

[shlver]

It's not a major contradiction. I was trying to simplify it. In the case of a fist, by all means the force will be proportional to the kinetic energy which is also proportional to the momentum at time of impact.
That is not true at all. Maybe at time of impact, but as the collision progresses kinetic energy is not conserved and is not proportional at all with force.


And if I am unclear before, how about this:

F = dP/dt
F * dx = F * vdt = dP/dt * vdt
E = Integral (F * dx) = Integral (v * dp) = (1/2)mv^2

Is that clear enough?
You gave me the derivation of the kinetic energy equation. I'm still not sure what you're saying.


This means previous arguments saying oh you can only use momentum or you can only use kinetic energy. It doesn't matter. As long as you are using momentum at time of impact or the kinetic energy, the comparison result should be the same.

So we're just talking about the time of impact?

[shlver]

Isn't force divided into force and direction?

Isn't direction implied to be the same for both force and kinetic energy?
Force is the product of mass and acceleration, velocity has direction which gives force its direction.
No because kinetic energy is not conserved. In collisions, mechanical energy can escape through heat, sound, etc.

[AznBBoyX]

That is not true at all. Maybe at time of impact, but as the collision progresses kinetic energy is not conserved and is not proportional at all with force.


You gave me the derivation of the kinetic energy equation. I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Did you read what I wrote before I listed the equations?


So we're just talking about the time of impact?

I wrote this many times and it should be common sense.

I'm done explaining this.

[shlver]

Did you read what I wrote before I listed the equations?



I wrote this many times and it should be common sense.

I'm done explaining this.
You said they were the same in another post, but proportional in another, then you say they can be interchangeably used to find comparable results for the force on initial contact. Make up your mind.

[Gifted Mind]

Force is the product of mass and velocity, velocity has direction which gives force its direction.
No because kinetic energy is not conserved. In collisions, mechanical energy can escape through heat, sound, etc.
You mean acceleration? Or you were describing momentum not force.




But anyways, as long as we all (me, shlver, AznBBoyX) agree parade was wrong I'm satisfied. :lol

[TheAnchorman]

Force is the product of mass and velocity, velocity has direction which gives force its direction.

F=ma

Just sayin.

[shlver]

F=ma

Just sayin.

You mean acceleration? Or you were describing momentum not force.




But anyways, as long as we all (me, shlver, AznBBoyX) agree parade was wrong I'm satisfied.
Yep my mistake.:lol

[RedBlackAttack]

Henry Armstrong? This guy wouldnt stand a chance agaisnt Mayweather or Pacman. Just take a look at his footwork in this clip at 1:15 in the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG84waTmH30
Looks like his defense sucks too. Just because he had an impressive record doesnt mean he is the 2nd greatest boxer of all time
It isn't even about 'who would win' in a head-to-head matchup. You have to view guys and their dominance through their respective eras. It is the same reason you can't watch a video of Wilt Chamberlain and say that he wouldn't be as effective today.

You have to look at guys for how they went against their contemporaries and how they advanced the sport. Maybe Mayweather and Pacquiao would not be the fighters that they are today if Armstrong hadn't changed the game over 60 years ago. Maybe Armstrong would 'look' 100x better had he been an active fighter in this era with the advantage of:

A. Having learned from all of the fighters before him

B. Having training strategies, vitamin supplements, and modern medicine behind him

C. Only had to fight twice a year as opposed to multiple times a month

D. High definition cameras in every corner of the ring to record every subtle nuance in super slow-mo

Armstrong is considered one of the Top 5 fighters to ever live by virtually every respected boxing historian. The reason is for his dominance in his era and how he changed the game (no one was ever as successful in jumping weight classes before he came along).

Lennox Lewis would have been a b!tch of a fighter for any HW that has ever lived and I would actually favor him over many of the guys that I have in front of him on my P4P list. Why? Because you judge a guy on his credentials during his era, not how you think a fight would go against guys that fought in a completely different climate with completely different rules and completely different circumstances.

[Jackass18]

There are different ways of looking at it. People don't really use the whole 'how they did in their era' argument for football or else someone like Don Hutson would be considered the best by many. Some would argue that their contemporaries weren't that great and that the competition is much better nowadays. I know they're different sports and one is a team sport and one isn't, but there's different sides to how people rank the greats in a sport.

[hookul]

Why? Because you judge a guy on his credentials during his era, not how you think a fight would go against guys that fought in a completely different climate with completely different rules and completely different circumstances.

Completely disagree. Let's take your argument seriously and tell me e.g. that a guy fighting back in 1890 like James Corbett can be considered anywhere near a great boxer if he is set up against todays boxers? He was world champion after all but from the fighting style, the rules and the athleticism would probably loose against any heavyweight contender in 1-2 rounds easily. You cannot excuse this with completely different circumstances and times back then. You do not do this for other individual sports neither btw (like track and field for examples). The greatest runner the world has seen is always the one with the current world record (as long as it was not a fluke performance but the runner showed that he can compete on this level for several races).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Obviously Ali wins in a boxing match, but a street fight? Size means much less. Lee is trained in far more forms of fighting, he looked to be in better shape than Ali and he'd be quicker. Ali was trained to do one thing, box. Lee was trained in a variety of martial arts. I don't think a lot of people here have a good grasp on what it means to be an expert in martial arts.

Ali would stand no chance in a street fight with no rules or a fight where martial arts was allowed.

[RainierBeachPoet]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/ali1601_228x192.jpgvs.http://www.nndb.com/people/526/000031433/bruce-lee-2-sized.jpg

Saw this book and thought I'd ask ISHer's opinons:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51UBMncFWqL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Notice I put the word 'prime' in the thread? Now the smartasses don't need to waste their time with replies of "Ali, 'cos Lee is dead". Although I know they still will...

would ali wear 12 oz gloves? lee no gloves at all?

any rules?

[johndeeregreen]

Completely disagree. Let's take your argument seriously and tell me e.g. that a guy fighting back in 1890 like James Corbett can be considered anywhere near a great boxer if he is set up against todays boxers? He was world champion after all but from the fighting style, the rules and the athleticism would probably loose against any heavyweight contender in 1-2 rounds easily. You cannot excuse this with completely different circumstances and times back then. You do not do this for other individual sports neither btw (like track and field for examples). The greatest runner the world has seen is always the one with the current world record (as long as it was not a fluke performance but the runner showed that he can compete on this level for several races).
You completely ignored the entire crux of his argument which basically put everything in your post to bed.

[RainierBeachPoet]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51UBMncFWqL._SL500_AA300_.jpg



found this from nicholas hobbes' book:



Who would win in a fight between Muhammad Ali and Bruce Lee?

While preparing for his title defence against Joe Bugner in Malaysia in 1975, Muhammad Ali announced, "I will prove to the world that I am not only the greatest boxer of all time, I am the greatest martial artist." Then, before treating the kickboxer Davis Miller to a round of sparring, he declared, "You must be a fool to get in the ring with me. When I'm through, you gowna think you been whupped by Bruce Lee." Miller reported how "I bent to the right, tossed a jab toward his belt line, straightened, snapped a long, tentative front-kick to his head. I figured it was the first kick he'd ever had thrown at him, but he pulled away as easily as if he'd been dodging feet his entire life." In that brief encounter, Ali allowed Miller to get a few hits in before knocking him senseless with two punches.

Bruce Lee would no doubt fare better than the young Miller did against the Greatest, but the end result would probably be no different. Ali was 6ft 3in tall and weighed 236lb in his prime. Lee was 5ft 7in and just 135lb when he died. If Lee were a boxer he would be a lightweight nine divisions below Ali's heavyweight class. In regular boxing there is a limited degree of movement between the weight divisions.

The first advantage people think of is the martial artist's ability to use kicks as well as punches. In any contest of champions, Muhammad Ali would be allowed to kick too just as Bruce Lee would be allowed to punch but one presumes he would rely on his fists. The second advantage is Lee's dazzling speed though frames were cut from his fight scenes to make him appear even faster. Even so, his kicks could never be as fast as Ali's punches. This is no slight against the martial artist, but simply a reflection of human physiology and the laws of physics.

Even the fastest kicks are slow compared to punches, because they require more build-up and begin from a greater distance from their target. Punches can also be followed up with more of the same, whereas combination kicks are slower, more difficult to execute and usually lose power.

Furthermore, Ali would be used to dodging punches that were much faster than Lee's kicks. So to bring his kicks to bear, Lee would need to keep Ali at a distance. Assuming that the two are fighting in a ring of limited size, Lee would probably not be able to keep out of the boxer's way for long enough. Ali himself was extremely fast for a heavyweight, but even he couldn't avoid dozens of punches from the lumbering George Foreman (realising this, he even made it part of his game plan not to try to during their "Rumble in the Jungle"). Similarly, no matter how fast Lee might be, he could not realistically be expected to dodge every blow from Ali.

Now there's an arena in which the different fighting styles can be directly compared: the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Almost anything goes in mixed martial arts, or "cage fighting", except for eye-gouging and blows to the groin. Yet, contrary to the public's expectation when the sport began, kung fu masters have fared notably badly: even worse than pure boxers. The early years were dominated by grapplers, and even today fighters stand little chance unless they have excellent wrestling skills, as so many matches are settled on the ground, either with a submission hold or with one protagonist pinned down and pummelled unconscious.

The most successful mixed martial artist of recent times is Japan's Kazushi Sakuraba. Sakuraba came from professional (that is to say, staged) wrestling, but after his promoters went bust he talked his way into the Ultimate Fighting Championship's heavyweights-only Ultimate Japan tournament in 1997. He pretended that he weighed 203lb in order to qualify and, although he was really only 183lb, he defeated a 243lb ju-jitsu champion to score the first of several victories against bigger, stronger men. One of his smaller victims was the renowned Royce Gracie, who at 180lb himself once beat a 275lb heavyweight wrestler. Sakuraba's career and those of other champions in Ultimate Fighting appear to demonstrate that grappling skills are far more effective than other martial arts or boxing disciplines in overcoming a size disadvantage. The UFC has destroyed the mystique of martial arts by showing which techniques actually work. Kung fu is not one of them.

Bruce Lee had great respect for the skills of wrestlers, but he had different priorities and recognised that their techniques were not as photogenic as the looping kicks and acrobatics that movie-goers wanted to see. He realised that his moves were only for the camera, and that the flurries of hand trapping that he learned from wing chun kung fu would be of little use in a real fight. Unlike Ali, Lee never boasted that he could take on the world. He never fought in competitive tournaments either. To then say that Lee was the best martial arts fighter in the world let alone the best fighter per se would be like saying that the Harlem Globetrotters, basketball's answer to the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), are the world's best basketball team.

The more valid question is not whether Bruce Lee could beat Muhammad Ali, but how he would fare against Rocky Balboa...

[iamgine]

found this from nicholas hobbes' book:



Who would win in a fight between Muhammad Ali and Bruce Lee?

While preparing for his title defence against Joe Bugner in Malaysia in 1975, Muhammad Ali announced, "I will prove to the world that I am not only the greatest boxer of all time, I am the greatest martial artist." Then, before treating the kickboxer Davis Miller to a round of sparring, he declared, "You must be a fool to get in the ring with me. When I'm through, you gowna think you been whupped by Bruce Lee." Miller reported how "I bent to the right, tossed a jab toward his belt line, straightened, snapped a long, tentative front-kick to his head. I figured it was the first kick he'd ever had thrown at him, but he pulled away as easily as if he'd been dodging feet his entire life." In that brief encounter, Ali allowed Miller to get a few hits in before knocking him senseless with two punches.

Bruce Lee would no doubt fare better than the young Miller did against the Greatest, but the end result would probably be no different. Ali was 6ft 3in tall and weighed 236lb in his prime. Lee was 5ft 7in and just 135lb when he died. If Lee were a boxer he would be a lightweight nine divisions below Ali's heavyweight class. In regular boxing there is a limited degree of movement between the weight divisions.

The first advantage people think of is the martial artist's ability to use kicks as well as punches. In any contest of champions, Muhammad Ali would be allowed to kick too just as Bruce Lee would be allowed to punch but one presumes he would rely on his fists. The second advantage is Lee's dazzling speed though frames were cut from his fight scenes to make him appear even faster. Even so, his kicks could never be as fast as Ali's punches. This is no slight against the martial artist, but simply a reflection of human physiology and the laws of physics.

Even the fastest kicks are slow compared to punches, because they require more build-up and begin from a greater distance from their target. Punches can also be followed up with more of the same, whereas combination kicks are slower, more difficult to execute and usually lose power.

Furthermore, Ali would be used to dodging punches that were much faster than Lee's kicks. So to bring his kicks to bear, Lee would need to keep Ali at a distance. Assuming that the two are fighting in a ring of limited size, Lee would probably not be able to keep out of the boxer's way for long enough. Ali himself was extremely fast for a heavyweight, but even he couldn't avoid dozens of punches from the lumbering George Foreman (realising this, he even made it part of his game plan not to try to during their "Rumble in the Jungle"). Similarly, no matter how fast Lee might be, he could not realistically be expected to dodge every blow from Ali.

Now there's an arena in which the different fighting styles can be directly compared: the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Almost anything goes in mixed martial arts, or "cage fighting", except for eye-gouging and blows to the groin. Yet, contrary to the public's expectation when the sport began, kung fu masters have fared notably badly: even worse than pure boxers. The early years were dominated by grapplers, and even today fighters stand little chance unless they have excellent wrestling skills, as so many matches are settled on the ground, either with a submission hold or with one protagonist pinned down and pummelled unconscious.

The most successful mixed martial artist of recent times is Japan's Kazushi Sakuraba. Sakuraba came from professional (that is to say, staged) wrestling, but after his promoters went bust he talked his way into the Ultimate Fighting Championship's heavyweights-only Ultimate Japan tournament in 1997. He pretended that he weighed 203lb in order to qualify and, although he was really only 183lb, he defeated a 243lb ju-jitsu champion to score the first of several victories against bigger, stronger men. One of his smaller victims was the renowned Royce Gracie, who at 180lb himself once beat a 275lb heavyweight wrestler. Sakuraba's career and those of other champions in Ultimate Fighting appear to demonstrate that grappling skills are far more effective than other martial arts or boxing disciplines in overcoming a size disadvantage. The UFC has destroyed the mystique of martial arts by showing which techniques actually work. Kung fu is not one of them.

Bruce Lee had great respect for the skills of wrestlers, but he had different priorities and recognised that their techniques were not as photogenic as the looping kicks and acrobatics that movie-goers wanted to see. He realised that his moves were only for the camera, and that the flurries of hand trapping that he learned from wing chun kung fu would be of little use in a real fight. Unlike Ali, Lee never boasted that he could take on the world. He never fought in competitive tournaments either. To then say that Lee was the best martial arts fighter in the world let alone the best fighter per se would be like saying that the Harlem Globetrotters, basketball's answer to the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), are the world's best basketball team.

The more valid question is not whether Bruce Lee could beat Muhammad Ali, but how he would fare against Rocky Balboa...
That's pretty much how it is. Bruce was not a fighter. If he was, he would be participating in tournaments. Like Joe Lewis once said, he was an actor and a teacher.

[hookul]

You completely ignored the entire crux of his argument which basically put everything in your post to bed.


Huh? I completely understand what he was saying and his reasons for his opinion. I just do not think his arguments have a lot of merit - no matter which sport or area of life you take. The best athlete ever in a given sport in which a potential head-to-head situation can occur (boxing, track and field, tennis etc.) is to me the one who would win in a head-to-head matchup under the conditions we got to know these athletes. I am not ready to claim Jessy Owens is the best runner of all time because of his dominance back then - Usain Bolt is. I am not ready to proclaim Navratilova the best female tennis player of all time as she would most likely get her ass kicked by Serena Williams. I am also not ready to proclaim a fighter from the 50-60s the best of all time (or 1880s for that matter) - and I do not care how dominant he was back then) when most likely he would get his ass kicked today.

On a related note, I also am not interested in weight classes in those sports. I do not give a damn if one guy is the best pount-for-pound boxer, won 100 of 100 fights by KO in the first round but weighs 130 pounds and would a) never knock out a heavyweight and b) would fly out of the ring if one punch from a heavyweight ever connects. Screw weight classes. You do not see height or weight classes in basketball (best team under 6 feet), in tennis (players below 160 or above pounds) or some other artificial crap for running (only runners with a calf radius of <11 inches). Srew that.

[RedBlackAttack]

Completely disagree. Let's take your argument seriously and tell me e.g. that a guy fighting back in 1890 like James Corbett can be considered anywhere near a great boxer if he is set up against todays boxers? He was world champion after all but from the fighting style, the rules and the athleticism would probably loose against any heavyweight contender in 1-2 rounds easily. You cannot excuse this with completely different circumstances and times back then. You do not do this for other individual sports neither btw (like track and field for examples). The greatest runner the world has seen is always the one with the current world record (as long as it was not a fluke performance but the runner showed that he can compete on this level for several races).
Like it or not, that is how it is done... Because that is the way it HAS to be done. Professional organized boxing has been happening for over a century.... Long before the advent of television and widespread recordings of athletic events. Therefore, how can historians apply your very narrow system of ranking (who would win in an actual fight without taking into consideration any outside circumstances) which is based entirely on watching video of guys?

Every respectable boxing historian will have Harry Greb in their Top 10 pound-for-pound all-time fighters (most will have him Top 5), we still have yet to find single recorded fight of Greb during his long and storied career. So, we just forget him because he happened to come along and dominate before television? How is that fair?

Only a handful of videos exist for the great Willie Pep.

The way I explained how I rank fighters in the grand scheme is the way that EVERY notable historian also does it. Your method is far too biased for current fighters and there really is no justification for looking at it that way.

Let's say you are not willing to even consider that the innovators of the sport helped the current guys simply by coming before and showing them certain techniques and styles they may have not practiced otherwise...

What about the fact that a guy like Harry Greb actually fought multiple times a WEEK during the course of his career, whereas the best fighters of today MIGHT get in the ring twice a year.

How is that not taken into consideration? :oldlol:

You don't think that, had guys had a three month training camp and then another three months to recover after every fight it would have made them 'look' better in those few fights as opposed to literally constantly fighting, all year, every year? Greb fought 298 times in his 13-year career. In one year alone, he won 37 fights... That is more than most guys win in a career today.

How can you possibly compare? It is just stupid.


And, yes.... Even track implements a certain level of 'era' when ranking its runners. Jesse Owens is still considered the greatest American track & field athlete of all-time (along with Carl Lewis), even though his records were broken long ago.

Yet, track doesn't even have close to the same kind of intricacies that boxing has, not to mention the completely different rules and career arcs.

[vinsane01]

Unless lee is extremely elusive and able to dodge every single punch ali throws i dont see him lasting against ali. Ali is just to big he can finish bruce with one punch. I dont see bruce beating ali in a few strikes without taking punishment himself.

I dont know though. Theyve talked about pretty unbelievable stuff about lee's strength. But if i had to bet, i bet on the obviously bigger guy.

[heyhey]

Unless lee is extremely elusive and able to dodge every single punch ali throws i dont see him lasting against ali. Ali is just to big he can finish bruce with one punch. I dont see bruce beating ali in a few strikes without taking punishment himself.

I dont know though. Theyve talked about pretty unbelievable stuff about lee's strength. But if i had to bet, i bet on the obviously bigger guy.


:roll: :facepalm Bruce Lee is the father of Jeet Kune Do which is the ancestor of MMA. Even Dana White gives Bruce Lee props for being the father of modern MMA.

Bruce Lee knew and studied grappling before almost anyone in North America. He's the real deal. He would have took Ali down and choked him out period.

[RedBlackAttack]

:roll: :facepalm Bruce Lee is the father of Jeet Kune Do which is the ancestor of MMA. Even Dana White gives Bruce Lee props for being the father of modern MMA.

Bruce Lee knew and studied grappling before almost anyone in North America. He's the real deal. He would have took Ali down and choked him out period.
This is just such a ridiculous stance, I can't believe that anyone is seriously adopting it, but you obviously are, so...

Early practicing of JKD had nothing to do with 'taking down' a guy. The JKD that Lee practiced was based around being defensive-minded when an opponent was throwing punches/kicks and utilizing simultaneous parrying and punching in response.

JKD has evolved over the years to involve some grappling, but wrestling was not a part of the JKD that Lee trained in. The purpose of Lee's JKD was to exploit openings for STRIKES, not takedowns or submissions.

And, if you don't think that size would be a factor, all I can do is laugh. There is a reason why Sean Sherk isn't stepping in against Fedor or Lesnar. But, we're supposed to believe that one of the craftiest fighters to ever live wouldn't have found a way to exploit a 100+ pound size advantage?

...and against an actor/entertainer, no less? :oldlol:

[Reef]

:roll: :facepalm Bruce Lee is the father of Jeet Kune Do which is the ancestor of MMA. Even Dana White gives Bruce Lee props for being the father of modern MMA.

Bruce Lee knew and studied grappling before almost anyone in North America. He's the real deal. He would have took Ali down and choked him out period.

:facepalm

Nobody even uses JKD in MMA. How is it the ancestor of wrestling, BJJ, boxing, muay thai (which originated hundreds of years ago), judo?

Grappling was around waaaaaay before Bruce.

[Jackass18]

Nobody even uses JKD in MMA.

http://www.fiveknuckles.com/assets/images/articles/tim_boetsch1_prev.jpg

[spree43]

I dont understand how Bruce Lee would finsih him. Whats his move? What can he go to and say he would beat Muhammed Ali with?

He wouldnt be knocking him out

He wouldn't be taking him down

And if someone on here is really argueing that Lee could hit harder. Child Please.

Ali spent his entire life perfecting the art of hitting hard, and knocking out guys who have necks on them like tree trunks.

There is only so much time in a day. Ali spent all his time perfecting how to hit, Lee spent half his time acting and quarter of his time looking ripped and the other quarter working on his fighting (all aspects of it)

He is not as good as striker as one of the greatest boxers to ever live. He is not big enough to control him on the ground.

So he is quicker, but Ali took hits from animals like Joe Frazier and George Foreman, who also train all day on how to hit hard. A 130 lbs man isnt going to affect him at all.

He would not beat Muhammed Ali.

[AznBBoyX]

:facepalm

Nobody even uses JKD in MMA. How is it the ancestor of wrestling, BJJ, boxing, muay thai (which originated hundreds of years ago), judo?

Grappling was around waaaaaay before Bruce.

JKD is a philosophy and not a style. Everyone mix martial artist practices the philosophy now. The philosophy is to get rid of what is useless and to perfect what is useful. And today that means learning BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and kickboxing. Get it right.

[Reef]

JKD is a philosophy and not a style. Everyone mix martial artist practices the philosophy now. The philosophy is to get rid of what is useless and to perfect what is useful. And today that means learning BJJ, boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, and kickboxing. Get it right.

I got it right. I think it's called common sense. Why would anyone use something that's useless?

[Jackass18]

Like it or not, that is how it is done... Because that is the way it HAS to be done.

Um, no it doesn't. Comparing competitors from different eras in any sport is quite difficult and leads to much speculation, subjectivity, and often bias. Historians tend to be stuffy old men set in their ways with strong biases towards old school athletes.


So, we just forget him because he happened to come along and dominate before television? How is that fair?

This is one reason why it is hard to compare athletes from different eras. You don't even have any video of a guy so you're going by nothing more than what was written about him and then you're trying to compare him to guys you have loads of video on.


The way I explained how I rank fighters in the grand scheme is the way that EVERY notable historian also does it. Your method is far too biased for current fighters and there really is no justification for looking at it that way.

Funny, you mention bias because historians tend to be rather biased themselves, though I don't know how much it applies to boxing. A lot of people tend to side with athletes that they grew up watching.


You don't think that, had guys had a three month training camp and then another three months to recover after every fight it would have made them 'look' better in those few fights as opposed to literally constantly fighting, all year, every year? Greb fought 298 times in his 13-year career. In one year alone, he won 37 fights... That is more than most guys win in a career today.

Travis Fulton has 255 MMA fights under his belt and he once won 29 fights in a year, but that doesn't make him a great MMA fighter. He also fought in 38 boxing matches during his career.

[heyhey]

I got it right. I think it's called common sense. Why would anyone use something that's useless?


With that comment you show your lack of understanding of martial arts history. FOr a long time traditional martial artists did focus on things that people with common sense would regard as "useless" mainly stances, meditation etc. When Bruce Lee suggested that people stop practicing those things it was actually a revolutionary moment for someone from a traditional martial arts background to say that.

certainly grappling existed before Bruce but again most people who practiced grappling before bruce lee, kimura, helio etc. never thought about combining it with striking.

Like it or not, bruce lee is the father of modern MMA. He would have put up a good fight against Cassius Clay, whose myth is far overblown for the fighter he actually was.

[Reef]

With that comment you show your lack of understanding of martial arts history. FOr a long time traditional martial artists did focus on things that people with common sense would regard as "useless" mainly stances, meditation etc. When Bruce Lee suggested that people stop practicing those things it was actually a revolutionary moment for someone from a traditional martial arts background to say that.

certainly grappling existed before Bruce but again most people who practiced grappling before bruce lee, kimura, helio etc. never thought about combining it with striking.

Like it or not, bruce lee is the father of modern MMA. He would have put up a good fight against Cassius Clay, whose myth is far overblown for the fighter he actually was.

LOL...ok there. The Gracies have had much more of an influence on grappling in MMA,than Bruce.

Ali's myth is overblown? :roll:

[heyhey]

LOL...ok there. The Gracies have had much more of an influence on grappling in MMA,than Bruce.

Ali's myth is overblown? :roll:


:roll: Let me guess you believe JuiJitsu is brazilian in nature as well right? you realize that the gracie family did almost nothing for Juiitsu other than putting it in a nice little package and brand it as Gracie JJ right?

THe gracies adopted the ground form of japanese Judo took it back to brazil somehow put their family name on it and profitted. I don't have a great deal of respect for the gracies. They are certainly not the father of Juijitsu as they would lead you to believe.

Ali's myth is overblown. The guy quit against Frazier, got beat by Inoki but we don't hear that do we.

[Reef]

:roll: Let me guess you believe JuiJitsu is brazilian in nature as well right? you realize that the gracie family did almost nothing for Juiitsu other than putting it in a nice little package and brand it as Gracie JJ right?

THe gracies adopted the ground form of japanese Judo took it back to brazil somehow put their family name on it and profitted. I don't have a great deal of respect for the gracies. They are certainly not the father of Juijitsu as they would lead you to believe.

Ali's myth is overblown. The guy quit against Frazier, got beat by Inoki but we don't hear that do we.

Did I say that it origninated in Brazil? It originated in Japan (look up Mitsuyo Maeda). :hammerhead:

I like how you say Ali's myth is overblown when you compare him to an actor who would throw a 1 inch punch and send guys flying 15 feet. Ya, that's not a myth at all. :roll:

Ali is considered one of the best boxers ever and was the HW champ. Bruce was the champ of what again?

By the way, the Inoki fight was a draw, so you're wrong there.

[rezznor]

By the way, the Inoki fight was a draw, so you're wrong there.
inoki wasn't allowed to grapple or throw standing kicks. he would have kicked ali's ass if it was a free for all.

[Reef]

inoki wasn't allowed to grapple or throw standing kicks. he would have kicked ali's ass if it was a free for all.

You don't know that. Ali could've knocked him out. It's all speculation just like this topic.

[rezznor]

You don't know that. Ali could've knocked him out. It's all speculation just like this topic.
that's true. it is speculation. i'm pretty sure you would agree with me though that inoki is more likely to win the ali is. just look at early MMA. once inoki shoots ali and gets him to the ground it's over. of course, ali is pretty capable of landing a good shot during the shoot but still, i'll give inoki the nod here.

[pete's montreux]

i can't believe this thread has gone on as long as it has

let's argue for days and go in circles and accomplish nothing!

[Reef]

that's true. it is speculation. i'm pretty sure you would agree with me though that inoki is more likely to win the ali is. just look at early MMA. once inoki shoots ali and gets him to the ground it's over. of course, ali is pretty capable of landing a good shot during the shoot but still, i'll give inoki the nod here.

If he can take Ali down before Ali hits him, then sure, he can beat Ali. At least Inoki competed.