Is Ali Entitled to a Top TEN spot?

It is not unusual in many cases to see Ali rated as high as the second best fighter of all time. I have even seen cases made for him to be the greatest fighter ever. Whilst acknowledging him as a fantastic fighter, I cant find room for him in my top ten and would have him in the 10-20 bracket. I certainly couldnt support an argument for him to be a top five all time fighter. I feel that his personality and his involvement in political causes at a time of grat civil movement, whilst no doubt transcended the sport, has pushed him well beyond the scope of his capacity as fighter. The legend that is Ali is greater than the fighter Ali. Whilst not wanting to take anything away from Ali, I cant help feel there are many less celebrated fighters that didnt quite have the same stage as him which often causes them to be overlooked. Most people argue that Ali is an automatic in any top ten list but finding no room for him in my own I was compelled to write an article on it to see what others opinions are. My own top ten for what its worth is: Ali comes in at about 15th.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Gene Tunney
6. Roberto Duran
7. Sam Langford
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Eder Jofre

Yep. How many others have wins over 3 divisional top 10/15ers, overcome so much in terms of odds/layoff and beaten such a list of contenders in the best era for their division?

Duran/Fitz straight out for Ali.

Sorry, but it's a bit of a travesty that you have those 2 ahead of him.

When you beat on Foreman, Frazier etc among a whole host of top top quality heavies in arguably the strongest era the heavyweight division has ever witnessed then he's an absolute shoe-in.

Sorry, but your Duran and Fitz picks are so far off the mark i'm not sure whether to laugh at you or cry with tears of pity!

What's your argument for having Jofre above Ali?

I know he's quite fashionable on here, but seriously, Ali's record is far far superior to Jofre's.

And i've just seen no Jack Johnson, but rather Fitz is there above him as well

Someone give me strength!!!!

I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I would have in my top ten - in the bottom half.

I would also rate Duran above him.

This is funny. Adding people (Fitz) who didn't know what a jab was ahead of Ali is beyong belief. Armstrong, both Sugars, and Duran at a push are top 10 ATGs for me.

Also how does one measure great? Accomplishments or ability or both. If its accomplishments then the oldies can never be dislodged as they fought weekly and against everyone and the best therefore achieved loads. But when you get a natural welter competing effectively against heavies, you instinctively know that there is a problem.

Anyway, I'm not going into another old timer debate (unless forced into it).

Coxy for me Fitz is entitled to his place above Johnson. Fitz beat two very good fighters to win his titles at middle and heavy in Dempsey and Corbett. When one considers he weighed in at 151 in the ring for the Dempsey fight and handed him a frightful beating it puts his acheivements at the heavier weight in sharper focus. Add in to the fact he still had enough to beat a very good light heavyweight in Gardiner at the ripe old age of 40 and for me he is more than deserving of a top ten berth. Historian Tracy Callis has him at number 1 and whilst this may be a bit high I can see the argument.

As for Johnson whilst he beat some decent fighters on the way up his reign is not great. Beat an ancient Jeffries and a middle in Ketchel and outside of this his reign is not great. For me the least we should be able to ask of any fighter is they beat the best of their era and unfortunately with Jack's reign this is not the case as the best fighter in the world during his reign was Langford and many consider this a real pick em. Outside of this the likes of Jeannette were more qualified than some of the guff Jack faced and none of these guys were accommodated. Jack is a great heavy but by no means a top ten P4Per and certainly not above Fitz in my eyes.

I believe that Ali's very uniqueness makes him hard to place, and I also believe that he is one of those for whom it can be said that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We can't measure ' heart ' or determination, and we can't assess his style or athleticism against the text book.

Bearing all that in mind, I'd say that his marvellous highs trump his moments of mediocrity and I'd have him in the top five, behind Robinson, Armstrong and Jofre, but scrapping it out with Greb for the fourth and fifth spots.

coxy0001 wrote:And i've just seen no Jack Johnson, but rather Fitz is there above him as well

Someone give me strength!!!!

Fitzsimmons was far from a natural heavyweight so I dont see why you are comparing him to Jack Johnson or any other heavyweight.

If you are rating heavies then Fitzsimmons gets nowhere near the top. If you are looking at it pound for pound terms his acheivements and wins across several weight divisions entitles him to a strong claim.

azania wrote:This is funny. Adding people (Fitz) who didn't know what a jab was ahead of Ali is beyong belief. Armstrong, both Sugars, and Duran at a push are top 10 ATGs for me.

Also how does one measure great? Accomplishments or ability or both. If its accomplishments then the oldies can never be dislodged as they fought weekly and against everyone and the best therefore achieved loads. But when you get a natural welter competing effectively against heavies, you instinctively know that there is a problem.

Anyway, I'm not going into another old timer debate (unless forced into it).

This ' Fitz didn't know what a jab was ' is getting tedious, az, since the REAL truth is that ' you don't know what a Fitz was. '

Joe Gans, widely acclaimed as one of the most skillful fighters from any age, spent countless hours trying to duplicate the moves of Fitzsimmons.

Yes I think he does. Greatest all time HW, wins over foreman, Frazier, norton, liston etc. Don't get me wrong he had his flaws buy he beat every great fighter of his era - often in adversity, showing speed, skill, rhythm and power as well as balls along the way. I'd certainly have him ahead of Ray Leonard - yes he beat Benitez, Duran, Hagler & Hearns but Ali beat the equivalents of his own era and had a better overall career and was more active.

1. Ray Robinson 
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Harry Greb
4. Muhammad Ali  
5. Roberto Duran  
6. Eder Joffre  
7. Willie Pep  
8. Ray Leonard 
9. Benny Leonard 
10. Sam Langford

coxy0001 wrote:And i've just seen no Jack Johnson, but rather Fitz is there above him as well

Someone give me strength!!!!

In fairness coxy, Johnson's CV is a bit inconsistent. Once he won the title he barely fought a top opponent.

To the original question I do tend to find a place for Ali. As others have said his wins over the likes of Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Patterson and Norton stand decent comparison with pretty much any other heavy and when one couples in his longevity and wider impact on the sport I tend to have him in there.

Personal preference, his names stack up for me personally. But each to their own.

Jofre above Pep?

I could go on and on really

coxy0001 wrote:Personal preference, his names stack up for me personally. But each to their own.

Jofre above Pep?

I could go on and on really

Jofre was a fantastic fighter who only lost to one opponent, and in coming back ( as an old man at the weight, ) to take the featherweight crown probably has claim to having made the greatest comeback of all.

Fleischer dubbed him ' the bantamweight Sugar Ray ' and it's easy to see why when we watch him. He really did have the lot. I know of one historian who places Jofre second only to Robinson, and you can't get much better than that.

Personally I'd have Ali in the 4-6 bracket, maybe something like this -

1. SRR
2. Greb
3. Armstrong

4. Charles
5. Pep
6. Ali

7. Duran
8. Langford
9. B. Leonard
10. Ross

Many thanks for the responses.

Sugar Boy Sweetie: Ray Leonard probably has more wins over all time greats than Ali. Hearns, Hagler, Duran x 2 and Benetiz across several weight classes top Alis wins for me. I think he was a better fighter skillwise also.

Coxy001: I think you selling Fitzsimmons very short. He may not be as good a heavyweight as Johnson or Ali but when you consider this should not be his natural weight class and he was really only a middleweight to lightheavyweight then his acheivements are outstanding.

Azania: Im aware of your views on pre 1950s fighters. Suffice to say I couldnt disagree more with the dubious scientific leap forward that you think occurs somewhere in the 1970s.

Human Windmill/Rowley: Glad to see I am not alone in appreciated Fitzsimmons remarkeable acheivements.

Windy

I know of your affection for Jofre... Kinda a ying to Truss's yang for Duran etc

And Colonial

I appreciate what Fitz did from middle to heavy, apologies if my point came across that i was directly comparing them as heavies as i wasn't.

Again, i have Johnson above Fitz in the rankings. As your list shows it's an each to their own scenario, unless we polled 10,000 hardcore boxing fans we would never get a generalised list based on many opinions etc.

Coxy,

Where do you rate Johnson in a top 10 heavies list?

coxy0001 wrote:Windy

I know of your affection for Jofre... Kinda a ying to Truss's yang for Duran etc

Strewth, I hope it's not THAT extreme, mate.

I do love the little man, though. He could box, brawl, take a man out with either hand, had a granite chin, great stamina and workrate, tremendous will to win, was a genuine two weight champion and has a fantastic record.

It's all subjective, though, and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me in ranking him so highly.

Coxy,

Where do you rate Johnson in a top 10 heavies list?

Behind Ali and in a tie with Louis for 2nd or so.

Controversial Coxy!

I think I'd have him behind Ali, Louis, Holmes & Lewis for definite. He fits in the 5-8 bracket with Marciano, Holyfield & Foreman for me.

Such is the variability of the critieria that goes into making these lists that I am increasingly drawn to the idea of seperating them into different categories. Differentiate between "greatest" and "pound for pound".

When rating Fitzsimmons ahead of Ali what is it based on really? (this isnt rating Fitz as a heavy by the way). Its hard to imagine Fitz having the skills or physical attributes Ali had. Would anybody really classify him as a "better" fighter?

I can see how in pound for pound terms which emphazises weight hopping and probably favours the lower weights more than heavier, Fitzsimmons acheivement of winning from middle to heavy is revered but this is overemphasised for me. Ali has better wins and is more talented. Even if yo want to deviate from pure boxing abilty and record, Ali's iconic status and ability to transcend the sport surely counts heavily in his favour.

ali for me is the greatest boxer ever- not just on skill (i still dont think there's a heavyweight with alis combination of speed, skill, power and chin) but just on achievement, legacy and showman ship and attension he brought to the sport

Manos

For me, I tend to consider record as the main driver behind list placement, then ability. I don't buy into the "if all fighters were the same size, who would be best" part of it as I can rank fighters just fine on their records. A bit of leeway is needed for the heavies and flyweights, but generally it works out ok.

wow_junky wrote:Manos

For me, I tend to consider record as the main driver behind list placement, then ability. I don't buy into the "if all fighters were the same size, who would be best" part of it as I can rank fighters just fine on their records. A bit of leeway is needed for the heavies and flyweights, but generally it works out ok.

If you're looking at it in terms of record, then Manny is #1 followed by Floyd, Oscar and other 5 weight champions. Also Roy Jones would therefore be held up for his achievement that equalled Fitz. If you consider a 151lb alcoholic to be better that Ali, then all power to you.

For me in terms of ability, bth Sugars are 1 and 2 with Ali at 3.

I, for one, didn't say Fitz is better than Ali but, just out of interest, where do you get the ' Fitz was an alcoholic, ' from ?

Not going to go into it too much at the moment but i think he does make the top 10, probably top 5 in most peoples cases but for me not top 3, not got a problem if anyone has him in the top 12 but anymore and it's crazy.

Ali was flawed:

Feather fisted, pure head hunter, mediocre hook and uppercut, minimal inside game.

BUT what he had: speed, chin, heart, desire, timing, footwork, stamina and tactical nous was enough to make him the greatest heavyweight ever.

Trouble is when you look at fighters like Leonard that could really do it all and achieved as much I really think Ali the man as opposed to Ali the boxer must be part of the equation to rate him in the top 5 (or top 2!).

He wasn't the biggest puncher but feather fisted is reaching.

fearlessBamber wrote:Ali was flawed:

Feather fisted, pure head hunter, mediocre hook and uppercut, minimal inside game.

BUT what he had: speed, chin, heart, desire, timing, footwork, stamina and tactical nous was enough to make him the greatest heavyweight ever.

Trouble is when you look at fighters like Leonard that could really do it all and achieved as much I really think Ali the man as opposed to Ali the boxer must be part of the equation to rate him in the top 5 (or top 2!).

Featherfisted? Ask his victims. He punched deceptively hard.

Is Ali entitled to a top ten spot?

Yes

Duh!

I think calling him feather fisted might be a bit OTT! He was no ernie shavers but he he could punch when he had to and scored his fair share of ko's.

For me I go with record (ie quality opponents beaten as opposed to ability to hop around 5 or 6 weights in an era where a decent sized dump can seperate some divisions), followed by my judgement of their ability and combination of skills. There wasn't a great deal more Ali could have done in the career he had. I think his status does mean he gets looked on favourably a lot when ATG lusts are compiled, but even so I can't justify him not being in a top ten.

azania wrote:

wow_junky wrote:Manos

For me, I tend to consider record as the main driver behind list placement, then ability. I don't buy into the "if all fighters were the same size, who would be best" part of it as I can rank fighters just fine on their records. A bit of leeway is needed for the heavies and flyweights, but generally it works out ok.

If you're looking at it in terms of record, then Manny is #1 followed by Floyd, Oscar and other 5 weight champions. Also Roy Jones would therefore be held up for his achievement that equalled Fitz. If you consider a 151lb alcoholic to be better that Ali, then all power to you.

For me in terms of ability, bth Sugars are 1 and 2 with Ali at 3.

I don't judge a record by number of belts won / divisions hopped - otherwise Duke McKenzie would be ranked ahead of Hopkins!

A fighters record should be judged on who they beat, manner of victory, fight intangibles, etc.

wow_junky wrote:

azania wrote:

wow_junky wrote:Manos

For me, I tend to consider record as the main driver behind list placement, then ability. I don't buy into the "if all fighters were the same size, who would be best" part of it as I can rank fighters just fine on their records. A bit of leeway is needed for the heavies and flyweights, but generally it works out ok.

If you're looking at it in terms of record, then Manny is #1 followed by Floyd, Oscar and other 5 weight champions. Also Roy Jones would therefore be held up for his achievement that equalled Fitz. If you consider a 151lb alcoholic to be better that Ali, then all power to you.

For me in terms of ability, bth Sugars are 1 and 2 with Ali at 3.

I don't judge a record by number of belts won / divisions hopped - otherwise Duke McKenzie would be ranked ahead of Hopkins!

A fighters record should be judged on who they beat, manner of victory, fight intangibles, etc.

Some of those guys on your list didn't beat anyone of note and many applied a colour bar. SR Leonard should be ranked #1 therefore as he beat 4 guys on the ATG top 100 (only man to do so). Benitiz, Hearns were comprehensively beaten and so was Duran.

I change my mind on lists like this all the time and can see arguments for both Fitzsimmons and Duran being above Ali but also vice versa.

Multiple titles at different weights mean very little if you beating weak opposition like Mckenzie did

For instance Jones winning at middlweight and heavyweight isn't comparable to Fitzsimmons for he wasn't the recognized champion at either weight nor did he weigh within the middlweight limit when he won his title, he actually weight above the then cruiserweight limit.

Duran has a series of wins that is better than people give him credit for spanning 30 years and over 7/8 weights which is exceptional, bookended by wins over Kobayashi/Marcel then all the way through to Castro.

azania wrote:

wow_junky wrote:

azania wrote:

wow_junky wrote:Manos

For me, I tend to consider record as the main driver behind list placement, then ability. I don't buy into the "if all fighters were the same size, who would be best" part of it as I can rank fighters just fine on their records. A bit of leeway is needed for the heavies and flyweights, but generally it works out ok.

If you're looking at it in terms of record, then Manny is #1 followed by Floyd, Oscar and other 5 weight champions. Also Roy Jones would therefore be held up for his achievement that equalled Fitz. If you consider a 151lb alcoholic to be better that Ali, then all power to you.

For me in terms of ability, bth Sugars are 1 and 2 with Ali at 3.

I don't judge a record by number of belts won / divisions hopped - otherwise Duke McKenzie would be ranked ahead of Hopkins!

A fighters record should be judged on who they beat, manner of victory, fight intangibles, etc.

Some of those guys on your list didn't beat anyone of note and many applied a colour bar. SR Leonard should be ranked #1 therefore as he beat 4 guys on the ATG top 100 (only man to do so). Benitiz, Hearns were comprehensively beaten and so was Duran.

Which fighters on my list didn't beat anyone of note?

azania wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:...Feather fisted, ...

Featherfisted? Ask his victims. He punched deceptively hard.

Nah - I don't buy it. Foreman collapsed from exhaustion. He never really hurt Frazier. Never hurt the questionably chinned Norton. Even Patterson and Our 'Enry stood up to his shots and those guys were basically chinny.

Fitz shouldn't be anywhere near there. Langford also. Most fighters prior to 1940 should not be on any p4p list. Certainly those pre ww1 should have their own list as their sport only resembles boxing in name only. I wouldn't call circus acts which many of them practically were a sport as I wouldn't call a trapeze artist a sportsman.

fearlessBamber wrote:

azania wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:...Feather fisted, ...

Featherfisted? Ask his victims. He punched deceptively hard.

Nah - I don't buy it. Foreman collapsed from exhaustion. He never really hurt Frazier. Never hurt the questionably chinned Norton. Even Patterson and Our 'Enry stood up to his shots and those guys were basically chinny.

Ha. That is funny. I loved the nasty beating he dished out to Patterson. Taught the guy a nasty lesson about respect and name. He practically propped him up and refused to KO him. I like boxers with a viscious streak. For all his smiles, Ali had that streak in abundance.

azania wrote:Fitz shouldn't be anywhere near there. Langford also. Most fighters prior to 1940 should not be on any p4p list. Certainly those pre ww1 should have their own list as their sport only resembles boxing in name only. I wouldn't call circus acts which many of them practically were a sport as I wouldn't call a trapeze artist a sportsman.

You should know about the circus, since your comments here are those of a clown.

azania wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

azania wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:...Feather fisted, ...

Featherfisted? Ask his victims. He punched deceptively hard.

Nah - I don't buy it. Foreman collapsed from exhaustion. He never really hurt Frazier. Never hurt the questionably chinned Norton. Even Patterson and Our 'Enry stood up to his shots and those guys were basically chinny.

Ha. That is funny. I loved the nasty beating he dished out to Patterson. Taught the guy a nasty lesson about respect and name. He practically propped him up and refused to KO him. I like boxers with a viscious streak. For all his smiles, Ali had that streak in abundance.

You loved seeing one of the nicest, most humble, articulate and dignified men ever to climb through the ropes taking a viscious beating, classy, real classy.

azania wrote:Fitz shouldn't be anywhere near there. Langford also. Most fighters prior to 1940 should not be on any p4p list. Certainly those pre ww1 should have their own list as their sport only resembles boxing in name only. I wouldn't call circus acts which many of them practically were a sport as I wouldn't call a trapeze artist a sportsman.

Az we get it nobody before colour TV could last more than a round with Kelly Pavlik. However given what you know about Fitz and Langford could be written on the back of a postage stamp, in felt tip think on this one I will put a little more stock in the opinions of those who actually saw them live and they tend not to agree with you, and then some.

azania wrote:Fitz shouldn't be anywhere near there. Langford also. Most fighters prior to 1940 should not be on any p4p list. Certainly those pre ww1 should have their own list as their sport only resembles boxing in name only. I wouldn't call circus acts which many of them practically were a sport as I wouldn't call a trapeze artist a sportsman.

Fitz beat the best middle, lightheavy and heavy at the time, hardly no-names (even though he wasn't on my list!)

Langford beat McVey, Kid Norfolk, Jeanette, Wills, O'Brien, Ketchel, Gans and had a controversial draw against Walcott. These guys were some of the best fighters of the era and definitely not "no-names"!

My opinion of Patterson is not very high. From where I come from people like him are given short thrift. I believe in parts of the world he would be described as Thomas's uncle. But that is putting my personal views on this thread which I hope doesn't mean it descends into chaos.

Have to say taking pleasure out of seeing any boxer take a beating is a low even for you

As Jeff has already said you know next to nothing about Fitzsimmons or Langford so how you can come out with nonsense like he was an alcoholic is fairly amusing. Fitzsimmons was and still is the epitomy of a pound for pound great, would be hard to place him in any one division but his overall record speaks for itself, 4 wins over hall of fame opposition and did all when weighing between 150-168lbs, truly staggering.
Langford is one fighter i've never taken a shine to so have never really researched him so can't say but judging from the glowing appraisals of Chris, Jeff, Windy and Jimmy he must have been pretty damm good.

I would rate Langford ahead of Fitzsimmons personally. Think hes capable of everything Fitzsimmons is and more.

Worth remembering somebody like Fitzsimmons didnt have to contend with the colour barrier like Langford did.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Have to say taking pleasure out of seeing any boxer take a beating is a low even for you

As Jeff has already said you know next to nothing about Fitzsimmons or Langford so how you can come out with nonsense like he was an alcoholic is fairly amusing. Fitzsimmons was and still is the epitomy of a pound for pound great, would be hard to place him in any one division but his overall record speaks for itself, 4 wins over hall of fame opposition and did all when weighing between 150-168lbs, truly staggering.
Langford is one fighter i've never taken a shine to so have never really researched him so can't say but judging from the glowing appraisals of Chris, Jeff, Windy and Jimmy he must have been pretty damm good.

Boxing is not a tickling contest. People take a beating often. The skill Ali displayed is handing that whooping to Floyd was a joy to behold.

It's your wording that disturbed me

Enjoying a performance is far different from enjoying seeing some take a beating