Would Ali be number 1 on his second career alone ????

I'm biased...Ali is my number 1 p4p fighter of alltime........Robbo et al for me never had any Monsters to fight....Liston and Foreman made men run to the toilet (look at Patterson and Norton) and Ali had the rocks to get in and dismantle both.....Amazing stuff..

Ali had a wonderful pre-Vietnam-controversy career.........Liston twice...Patterson...Folley, Big cat and a unifier with Terrell..........That's top 10 material on its own perhaps.....But can we just erase it and have Ali number 1 with his post Vietnam tour of Boxing duty...???

Loss to Joe and Ken.......

But Norton x 2.......Frazier x2.......Foreman......Ernie Shavers( often viewed as one of the greatest never to win the title)...Ron Lyle (same as Ernie) Jimmy Young(same as Ernie and Ron).....Regaining at 38 against Spinks...........Chuck in Euro champ Bugner and the highly rated Quarry x2 and Bonavena...

Yes some decisions were contentious but hey I thought Bowe won the 2nd fight with Holy....and Witherspoon beat Larry...It happens.

For me Ali is number 1 if you start judging him from 70 onwards........He's number 1 by a country mile if you start before !!

But it's MY opinion.......

It's an interesting question, Truss. Worth remembering that not everyone has him number one as it is, so can only assume that the number of those who don't would grow had his career (or meaningful / championship career) started in 1970.

Although his results on paper were fantastic in the seventies, a lot of Ali's actual performances were anything but. If you factor in his age, his pre-exile career and the fact that he lost three of his prime years, you can make allowances for some of that and, to an extent, sweep it under the carpet.

But without that, he's 'just' another great Heavy who was probably the best of his time and had some incredible highs, but who also needed a couple of very dubious decisions to keep hold of his title and who lost it to one of the worst lineal champions in history.

It'd be close, and that 1970-onwards record alone would arguably never see him outside a top three or four...But I think a lot of Ali's aura lies in the fact that, at his best, he just looked like something so wonderfully different to so many other great Heavies when he fought. And that version of Ali belonged to the sixties, not seventies.

88Chris05 wrote:It's an interesting question, Truss. Worth remembering that not everyone has him number one as it is, so can only assume that the number of those who don't would grow had his career (or meaningful / championship career) started in 1970.

Although his results on paper were fantastic in the seventies, a lot of Ali's actual performances were anything but. If you factor in his age, his pre-exile career and the fact that he lost three of his prime years, you can make allowances for some of that and, to an extent, sweep it under the carpet.

But without that, he's 'just' another great Heavy who was probably the best of his time and had some incredible highs, but who also needed a couple of very dubious decisions to keep hold of his title and who lost it to one of the worst lineal champions in history.

It'd be close, and that 1970-onwards record alone would arguably never see him outside a top three or four...But I think a lot of Ali's aura lies in the fact that, at his best, he just looked like something so wonderfully different to so many other great Heavies when he fought. And that version of Ali belonged to the sixties, not seventies.

One of life's many mysteries for sure.....How a guy with probably 5 Top 20 ATG Heavies on his resume most more than once and 5 guys on the list for greatest fighters never to become champion finds himself second to a guy that lost to his only top 20 names.....Though if you want Walcott in a top 20 list he got a gift and a desperate knockout against him.....and beat a bunch of pretty much second rate fighters in ten years...Paychek, Buddy Baer, Galento, Pastor, Farr, Godoy etc..some of them twice..

The fact I have Louis number 2 on my list probably means I'm doing a disservice to Wlad who I have around 20......Only because of his time at the top....like Louis.

You make good points Chris.......But I still don't think the resume from 70-78 can be beaten by anyone else.......All about opinions though.