Ali - Why is he not the greatest?

I’m a casual boxing fan, I make no bones about that, though since the site started and you all moved over I’ve spent a lot more time reading the articles in this section.
One thing has particularly struck me (no it’s not D4’s infatuation with Manny or Hitmansam’s hatred of Calzaghe)

How there is a huge difference between the casual fan like myself’s perception of the greatest ever boxer and true boxing aficionados.
Why is it to the mainstream that Ali transcends all others even to the point of coming top in polls such as BBC greatest sportsman ever yet amongst his own he’s behind Sugar Ray Robinson in nearly every poll and Harry Greb and Henry Armstrong in the IBRO top twenty?

Is it purely down to how he used the media to his advantage, that his persona and character lifted him into popular culture?
Go gentle on me fellas.

'Greatest ever sportsman' and those type of awards place a lot of weight on cultural influence, crossover success etc. Most boxing fans try to judge on achievement in a boxing sense only, and to a lesser extent percieved ability. Quite simply, most believe that the guys above him have better achievements; be it the number of hall of famers they defeated, or weight jumping success in Armstrong's case. To be honest though, I wouldn't argue too much with having Ali top.

Combination of a higher level of media exposure in comparison to earlier fighters (the dawn of the 'pop' star era) and 'good' timing, insofar as Ali's opposition to a high-profile and extremely unpopular war, coupled with the peak of the U.S. civil rights movement both provided a forum for him to achieve notoriety. Also having a big mouth didn't hurt.

Oops, I forgot the original question. He isn't the greatest because SRR was better.

The armchair fan will rank Ali as the greatest of all time, however I'd say he ranks outside the top 10 IMO, if we rank fighters pound for pound, you'd have to say for example when Duran beat Leonard, Ray is a much better pound for pound fighter than Ali had beaten, so therefore he falls behind Fitz,Greb, Robinson,Langford,Armstrong, Charles etc.

For example Ray Robinson has a ridiculous resume of

Henry Armstrong
Kid Gavilan
Jake LaMotta
Sammy Angott
Fritzie Zivic
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fullmer
Randolph Turpin
Joey Maxim
Rocky Graziano
Rocky Castellani
Charley Fusari
Carl Bobo Olson
Joey Giardello
Maxie Shapiro
Jimmy Doyle
Tommy Bell
Jean Walzack

Simply fantastic, and for a genuine fight fan I don't think many could justify as Ali being the greatest lb 4 lb fighter in history IMO anyway.


Cheers

Rodders

Morning, Hero.

I grew up with the first generation Ali, and I remember that he was positively despised when he first burst onto the scene, and particularly so after beating Liston in '64 and embracing the Nation of Islam. It would be years before Ali would be the iconic figure which he is today.

As a fighter, Ali was a one - off. He broke all the rules of established boxing technique, but his incredible reflexes, athleticism, guts and strength allowed him to get away with it. Very few folks regard him as anything other than one of the two greatest heavyweights of all time.

However, Robinson was just about perfect, and could do everything Ali could do in addition to being able to take a man out with a single punch from either hand.

Armstrong was probably the greatest ' pressure ' fighter of all time, and his feat of holding three of the ' original eight ' world titles SIMULTANEOUSLY has never been duplicated. A very worthy number two, in my opinion.

Bottom line is that it IS all about opinions, but Robinson and Armstrong are the greatest, for me.

Will have to agree with Windy that Robinson and Armstrong take one and two, would tend to have him down the lower end of the top 10, but could possibly have him in the top 5 depending on the mood i'm in. One day my decision will be final though.

Rodney wrote:The armchair fan will rank Ali as the greatest of all time, however I'd say he ranks outside the top 10 IMO, if we rank fighters pound for pound, you'd have to say for example when Duran beat Leonard, Ray is a much better pound for pound fighter than Ali had beaten, so therefore he falls behind Fitz,Greb, Robinson,Langford,Armstrong, Charles etc.

For example Ray Robinson has a ridiculous resume of

Henry Armstrong
Kid Gavilan
Jake LaMotta
Sammy Angott
Fritzie Zivic
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fullmer
Randolph Turpin
Joey Maxim
Rocky Graziano
Rocky Castellani
Charley Fusari
Carl Bobo Olson
Joey Giardello
Maxie Shapiro
Jimmy Doyle
Tommy Bell
Jean Walzack

Simply fantastic, and for a genuine fight fan I don't think many could justify as Ali being the greatest lb 4 lb fighter in history IMO anyway.


Cheers

Rodders

Many of those guys were face first toughmen.

But going back to Ali. No he was not the greatest ever boxer. Even he acknowledged that that title belonged to SRR. Brawlers always gave Ali issues. Look at the Frazier fights and the Bonavena fight for examples. But he had the chin and skills to find a way to win. I'll add that prior to his ban, he didn't have problems with brawlers. Age slowed his footspeed.

But he was and still is the greatest ever living sportsman. We will never see his like again. Thoroughly disliked in America due to his politics but loved in Africa.

azania wrote:
But he was and still is the greatest ever living sportsman. We will never see his like again. Thoroughly disliked in America due to his politics but loved in Africa.

I'm not sure I understand why this is so relevant. David Hasslehoff is a laughing stock insome parts of the world, and a past-it has-been in the States, yet in Germany his music is apparently massive. Not having a dig, but you get my point?

Many of those guys were face first toughmen.
_________________________________________

Thats just a shot in the dark comment.Without any substance

Rodders

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:
But he was and still is the greatest ever living sportsman. We will never see his like again. Thoroughly disliked in America due to his politics but loved in Africa.

I'm not sure I understand why this is so relevant. David Hasslehoff is a laughing stock insome parts of the world, and a past-it has-been in the States, yet in Germany his music is apparently massive. Not having a dig, but you get my point?

I think this may be the only ever time that Ali has been compared to The Hoff.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:
But he was and still is the greatest ever living sportsman. We will never see his like again. Thoroughly disliked in America due to his politics but loved in Africa.

I'm not sure I understand why this is so relevant. David Hasslehoff is a laughing stock insome parts of the world, and a past-it has-been in the States, yet in Germany his music is apparently massive. Not having a dig, but you get my point?

I'll show you the relevance. Ali's politics was one of black liberation and black self empowerment. That was an amethema in USA. In Africa it wasn't as many Africas nations were still throwing of the shackles of colonialism. His stance was in keeping with the movement in Africa. That made his the world's first and true world champion. All that added to the mystique as to why he was and still is the greatest ever sportsman.

I mean, who in Bokum, Ougadougu or Khyalitsha knows of Michael Jordan or David Beckham? They all still know of Muhammed Ali.

Rodney wrote:Many of those guys were face first toughmen.
_________________________________________

Thats just a shot in the dark comment.Without any substance

Rodders

I've spent hours recently watching old timers and I maintain that. It SRR fought them at welterweight (a weight he made his mark) they wouldn't have lasted a round.

As a general point I think that's quite fair. SRR liked to play the matador and most of his opponents, especially at Middle were the type that would come to him.

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:Many of those guys were face first toughmen.
_________________________________________

Thats just a shot in the dark comment.Without any substance

Rodders

I've spent hours recently watching old timers and I maintain that. It SRR fought them at welterweight (a weight he made his mark) they wouldn't have lasted a round.

Who you classing as face first I find it a little bit of a cheap insult, would you class Joe Frazier as face first ?? Just because you're a pressure fighter doesn't mean your'e face first or less talented, Henry Armstrong was a constant pressure fighter who probably is one of the most talented fighters born.

Cheers

Rodders

Without this degenerating into an old timer vs semi-modern fighter.... SRR smacks lumps out of any welterweight REGARDLESS of era. He was quite simply that good

And moving on

Ali is always a tough one, most definately a top 3 HW and his record his still pretty scary when you look at who he fought (and beat).

Think he'd probably make my top 15, and then trying to sort a top 10 is always a mare for me as it's never set in stone. Defo wouldn't have him #1, SRR takes that accolade for me personally as his record was just silly. Where to rank Ali? around 7-15 for me, and yes - i have splinters in my bum from all the fence sitting.

I touched on this point in passing yesterday, Robinson is as guilty of anyone of not facing the best of his generation, in short the black murderers row and he did much prefer to face a brawler than a technician like Burley or Williams.

imperialghosty wrote:I touched on this point in passing yesterday, Robinson is as guilty of anyone of not facing the best of his generation, in short the black murderers row and he did much prefer to face a brawler than a technician like Burley or Williams.

I agree Imperial, I rate Langford and Greb above Robinson personally possibly even Fitz above Robbo, Robinson fought in what was arguably the strongest era in boxing history. Burley, Williams, LaMotta, Gavlin, Chase, Moore, Bivins, Kid Chocolate, Soose, Zivic, Charles, these men were monsters, absolute world class fighters without exception. Any one of these guys would bea multi-weight world champ were they fighting now, or anytime, if things were done fairly.

That Robinson didn't fight most of the guys i've named is another issue of course

Cheers

Rodders

With Robinson I wouldn't called it ducking though because of the names he did face, timing, risk/reward etc. But certainly Burley, Cocoa Kid, Williams, Marshall (not completely sure on the timing/weight with Marshall) would be good additions. To go too deep would be ignoring what he did do and that you can't have a perfect record but I believe a few of his contemporaries suggested similar things regarding a lack of technicians.

I tend not to use it against Robinson but goes to show that even the greatest of all time had his own shortcomings.

Not a huge fan of Langford myself and have Greb in the lower reaches of my top ten with Robinson still a clear number one.

Ghosty makes a fair point, whilst Robbo's record is impressive enough for him to deserve his top spot, the fact, sacrilegous as it is to many is he wanted no part of the black murderers row and particularly in Burley's case he seemed to want no part of the fight, despite Burley being eminently qualified

Scottrf wrote:With Robinson I wouldn't called it ducking though because of the names he did face, timing, risk/reward etc. But certainly Burley, Cocoa Kid, Williams, Marshall (not completely sure on the timing/weight with Marshall) would be good additions. To go too deep would be ignoring what he did do and that you can't have a perfect record but I believe a few of his contemporaries suggested similar things regarding a lack of technicians.

For the life of me I don't want to get into that debate but he should have at least faced one or two of the technicians around who I feel may have given him problems. As you say though he fought and beat something like 10 hall of famers as it is so can't complain about his choices too much.

I think it has a lot to do with peer pressure and also where/ when you grew up.

For example, Hero is of a similar age to me, and would have been aware of the middleweights of the UK from a cultural point of view (Eubank, Benn etc).

Were these the greatest of all time? No. But ask people of a certain age to name some boxers and they will say Eubank, Benn, Collins, Mcguigan etc.

I think its the same with Ali. If people are asked in a straw poll to name the best boxer ever, they will have heard people (not boxing experts) talk of Ali and naturally nominate him.

Ask the question of teenagers now and they will nominate Khan and Haye.

Its all about what, when and who you ask. Casual fans only know the here and now. Its like your music quiz - people are voting for modern stuff, whent the great hits of the 80's that I am nominating are being criminally overlooked!

Hobo wrote:Its like your music quiz - people are voting for modern stuff, whent the great hits of the 80's that I am nominating are being criminally overlooked!

yes...quite. Bit early to be on the sauce, isn't it? Good point though.

I think a key element (which hasn't been touched on yet, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me) also has to be that the Heavyweight division, while it may be the most famous, hasn't usually been one of the best weight classes in terms of depth of talent, the number of outstanding champions produced, and how many seemingly 'poor / paper' champions it's had at it's summit. I'd say that over history, Light-Heavyweight, Middleweight, Welterweight and Lightweight have all been far superior to Heavyweight, and so becoming, for instance, a top five Middleweight of all time is a greater achievement than becoming a top five Heavyweight of all time in the eyes of many.

That said, Ali was lucky to fall in to the strongest Heavyweight era of them all, that golden time of the sixties and seventies, one of the rare times in which the division could compete with its aforementioned rivals. Thus, the attention and the focus on the division (which has always been the most lucrative and watched, regardless of quality) became even greater, and allowed Ali to chance to showcase himself to the world both inside and outside the ring more than any other Heavyweight champion before or since.

I think for dominating his era in the manner that he did, and for the fact that he was a different breed to most other great Heavyweights (his reflexes, speed and agility in his 'first incarnation' were a sight to behold) Ali must make a top ten, but realistically, given that he didn't set new standards as champion the way Joe Louis did, and that he wasn't able to move over to other divisions in search of extra challenges, you'd have to have Robinson and Armstrong ahead of him, and I'd also have Greb in front of him too. I do, however, think that Ali is a nailed on top ten, and I'd actually have him fourth or fifth behind the names mentioned, pretty much interchangeable with Langford.

Asfor his crossover appeal leading many casual fans to put him at number one, it's understandable. The man (today, was a different story back in the sixties obviously) is seen as a beacon of courage and love, and his colourful and bombastic personality means he's stuck in the public psyche for longer than any other boxer this side of the war.

Hobo wrote:
Its all about what, when and who you ask. Casual fans only know the here and now. Its like your music quiz - people are voting for modern stuff, whent the great hits of the 80's that I am nominating are being criminally overlooked!

Remember in 1999 a local music station rang a "song of the millenium" vote...

And from memory it was that really annoying Cher - i believe in a thing called love

Same principle here

No doubt in 50 years time those we think are the bees knees probs won't make it into a top 30 list, save for losses in the future we won't see coming etc.

coxy0001 wrote:

Hobo wrote:
Its all about what, when and who you ask. Casual fans only know the here and now. Its like your music quiz - people are voting for modern stuff, whent the great hits of the 80's that I am nominating are being criminally overlooked!

Remember in 1999 a local music station rang a "song of the millenium" vote...

And from memory it was that really annoying Cher - i believe in a thing called love

Same principle here

No doubt in 50 years time those we think are the bees knees probs won't make it into a top 30 list, save for losses in the future we won't see coming etc.

I think you have the wrong title there coxy. Or is that a double bluff..?

Chris-I always figured the reason heavyweight lacked the depth of talent was because of the proportionally higher jump in weight, making moving up that much more challenging, and the fact that there's only one direction for fighters to move into heavyweight from, unlike the other divisions (bar minimumweight).

In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

Balti

Upon further investigation it was "I believe"

Either way i still want to shoot whoever wrote it.

Anyone who thinks that brawlers like Armstrong would have beaten Ali in the 60s are dreaming. Speed kills and Ali had way too much of that. His only weakness imo was his reluctance to go to the body. But that added to his skills given that the head is a much smaller target and he hit it more often than not.

Ali for me is No 3 behing the 2 SR's.

Louis I dont think was good enough to wipe Ali's boots. ALi is the clear No1 heavy by some distance.

imperialghosty wrote:In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

Cannot agree with you in the slightest Imperial, its not romantic its hard given facts. Why do you rank Liston, Frazier, Foreman so highly, In reality you could say Liston bottled twice on the big stage when it got tough and Foreman has arguably a very poor heavyweight title resume. Greb, Langford beat multiple ATG across the board even two and three times, to dismiss them as romantic notions doesnt seem reasonable IMO

Cheers

Rodders

Frazier managed it and he was by any definition a brawler

As touched upon by Baltimora, Ali seems to be suffering at the hands of posters here by virtue of the fact that everyone else placed above him in their personal rankings had the ability/opportunity to test themselves in other weight classes thus increasing their stock in these p4p rankings.

It is what it is, but to mark Ali down because his body type wouldn't allow him to boil down to LH seems a tad unfair.

As an aside, how many of the p4p greats only fought at one weight?

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:Many of those guys were face first toughmen.
_________________________________________

Thats just a shot in the dark comment.Without any substance

Rodders

I've spent hours recently watching old timers and I maintain that. It SRR fought them at welterweight (a weight he made his mark) they wouldn't have lasted a round.

Who you classing as face first I find it a little bit of a cheap insult, would you class Joe Frazier as face first ?? Just because you're a pressure fighter doesn't mean your'e face first or less talented, Henry Armstrong was a constant pressure fighter who probably is one of the most talented fighters born.

Cheers

Rodders

LaMotta, Basillio, Zale, Graziano, Olsen, Fulmer amongst others. They took pride is being tough and their ability to take a punch. More like glorified and skilled bar room brawlers. SRR was a class apart and if he fought them as welter, he would wipe the floor of them.

coxy0001 wrote:Balti

Upon further investigation it was "I believe"

Either way i still want to shoot whoever wrote it.

sorry to be a pedant but it was "Believe".

I Believe was a EMF song (as well as a few other people as well)

I hate the Cher song with a passion.

Rodney wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

Cannot agree with you in the slightest Imperial, its not romantic its hard given facts. Why do you rank Liston, Frazier, Foreman so highly, In reality you could say Liston bottled twice on the big stage when it got tough and Foreman has arguably a very poor heavyweight title resume. Greb, Langford beat multiple ATG across the board even two and three times, to dismiss them as romantic notions doesnt seem reasonable IMO

Cheers

Rodders

Who did either beat that trumps Liston, Frazier or Foreman?

I've also never understood why Langford is above Fitzsimmons, in beating Dempsey, Corbett and Gardner beat three genuine greats over 3 divisions which and I may be wrong is better than Langfords comparitive wins.

Azania I can simply point to Robinson losing to La Motta when he was a Welterweight to disregard that point yet again, you rate Hatton as having above average talent but he was worse than many of those you mentioned with regards to his face first tactics.

imperialghosty wrote:In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

First off Ghosty, congratulations on your thousandth post mate, a lot of which I've enjoyed. Next, I can totally understand anyone placing Ali second to Robinson as you do, as we all have our own ways of judging a pound for pound list. That said, I'd have to disagree with your claim that the likes of Greb and Langford didn't beat as high a level of competition as Ali did. Greb, in the shape of Walker and Tunney, beat two men who are, in my eyes, nailed on top twenty pound for pound fighters of all time - I can't see anyone else who did that, and I'd say those two wins trump anything of Ali's record and, possibly, even Robinson's, too.

Likewise, Langford's feat of beating an all-time top five Lightweight in Gans at a 140 lb catchweight, stopping in between to draw with one of the great Welterweights in Walcott and knock out a great Light-Heavyweight in O'Brien and then, finally at the total opposite end of the spectrum, beating a top twenty Heavyweight in Wills is simply out of this world. Our own Jimmy once summed it up beautifully when he said that 'Langford rendered the term pound for pound almost meaningless' and (as long as he doesn't mind me nicking his quote!) I'd agree.

Maybe you don't rate the likes of Walker and Tunney (or the Langford victims I've mentioned) as highly as I do, but that's just the way I see it. Still, it's a very subjective thing as I said, I just don't think that even Ali (whose CV is still fantastic) can match a few others when it comes to great wins.

Rodney wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

Cannot agree with you in the slightest Imperial, its not romantic its hard given facts. Why do you rank Liston, Frazier, Foreman so highly, In reality you could say Liston bottled twice on the big stage when it got tough and Foreman has arguably a very poor heavyweight title resume. Greb, Langford beat multiple ATG across the board even two and three times, to dismiss them as romantic notions doesnt seem reasonable IMO

Cheers

Rodders

Actually imperial is correct. All those guys would have been ATGs were it not for Ali ending their title reigns.

imperialghosty wrote:In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

Certainly nothing romantic about either Harry Greb for instance Between March 1919 and the end of 1922 he was beaten just once, by Tommy Gibbons, a loss that was bruttaly avenged.

He fought in in excess of 100 times during this period and the level of competition is unmatched by any fighter in any 3 year period of the sport's history. Greb beat:

Jack Dillon
Mike McTigue
Soldier Bartfield
Gunboat Smith
Battling Levinksy
Billy Miske
Bill Brennan
Willie Meehan
Gene Tunney
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Kid Norfolk
Jack Renault
Mike McTigue
Tommy Loughran
Billy Shade


He amassed, in this short period, a better win resume than 95% of ATG fighters manage in a career. He beat most of these men multiple time, and in some cases utterly dominated fellow ATG fighters like Gene Tunney and Jack Dillon. In a fight schedule that saw him fight once a week on occasion, he slipped up only once against a bigger man who he would go on to utterly dominate.


As for Azania comments about Armstrong as a brawler, have you ever watched him fight?

He is arguably one of the most talented fighters ever, just because he didnt dance around on his feet and do a little razzle dazzle, doesnt mean you're not skilled. His infighting, defensive prowess, educated stalking and pressure is as good as any skill you'll likely to see.

imperialghosty wrote:Azania I can simply point to Robinson losing to La Motta when he was a Welterweight to disregard that point yet again, you rate Hatton as having above average talent but he was worse than many of those you mentioned with regards to his face first tactics.

When Robinson was a Welterweight, LaMotta was a Middleweight. Even there he is supposed to have struggled a lot with the weight.

imperialghosty wrote:Azania I can simply point to Robinson losing to La Motta when he was a Welterweight to disregard that point yet again, you rate Hatton as having above average talent but he was worse than many of those you mentioned with regards to his face first tactics.

The fact that those guys fought every two weeks or so was like going to the office. Anyone can have a bad day at the office and Robbo had his. Yes Hatton was above average. So were the guys Robbo fought...above average. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tunney is criminally under rated and a nailed on top 15 guy for me but one win out of 6 doesn't cut it for me, would be like mentioning La Mottas win over Robinson when by and large he was dominated the rest of the time. Understand that Tunney/Greb was more competitive for the large part but you get the point i'm making.

I rate the Gans victory highly too many question marks over the relative merits of O'Brien and Wills to see him jump above Ali but can fully understand your view.

Armstrong is always a really tricky one for me to rank, has the remarkable achievement of 3 simaltaneous world titles but the names he beat make him very hard to pin down. Take out that record and not sure how highly he'd be regarded, he tended to overshadow the likes of Ambers, Ross, Canzoneri, Mclarnin of that time who are fairly comparable.

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Azania I can simply point to Robinson losing to La Motta when he was a Welterweight to disregard that point yet again, you rate Hatton as having above average talent but he was worse than many of those you mentioned with regards to his face first tactics.

The fact that those guys fought every two weeks or so was like going to the office. Anyone can have a bad day at the office and Robbo had his. Yes Hatton was above average. So were the guys Robbo fought...above average. Nothing more, nothing less.

The guys Robinson beat were great any which way you think of it, you don't beat Cerdan and Williams without being pretty damm good.

Well Hatton was a face first brawler, drank between fights and generally didn't adhere to 'modern nutrition' so must be absolute rubbish

imperialghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Azania I can simply point to Robinson losing to La Motta when he was a Welterweight to disregard that point yet again, you rate Hatton as having above average talent but he was worse than many of those you mentioned with regards to his face first tactics.

The fact that those guys fought every two weeks or so was like going to the office. Anyone can have a bad day at the office and Robbo had his. Yes Hatton was above average. So were the guys Robbo fought...above average. Nothing more, nothing less.

The guys Robinson beat were great any which way you think of it, you don't beat Cerdan and Williams without being pretty damm good.

Well Hatton was a face first brawler, drank between fights and generally didn't adhere to 'modern nutrition' so must be absolute rubbish

If you say so IG. Our opinions differ again and I'm not going down this route with you again as you will inevitably resort to name calling.

This thread is about Ali. Lets keep it that way eh?

Think you'll find 'mate' you were the one who started going down this route so don't act like a jumped up ''''' with me.

imperialghosty wrote:Think you'll find 'mate' you were the one who started going down this route so don't act like a jumped up ''''' with me.

Give it a rest IG. My views on old timers differ from practically everyone else's here yet only one person ever resorts to name calling.

Anyway, back to the thread.

When you can stop bringing the subject up at every given opportunity i'll show you the respect you so clearly crave

imperialghosty wrote:When you can stop bringing the subject up at every given opportunity i'll show you the respect you so clearly crave

I seriously dont give a hoot about respect IG. Just basic manners and debate. As for me bringing up the subject, it seems you want the licence to sing the praises of old timers without hearing any criticism of them. A tad hypocritical dont you think. I mean it seems to annoy you that I an critical of old timers and you obviously dont want to hear any view that run contrary to yours.

That isn't debate. It is churlish peurile nonsense. But please feel free to continue and I'll leave the last word on this little tiff to you.

Have you actually read my comments on this thread because if you have that's a pretty nonsensical thing to say, I judge each fighter on 'his' relative merits regardless of when they were around and don't use generalisation as my sole argument.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:In some boxing circles think Ali gets a rough deal, other than Robinson I don't see anyone who comes close to surpassing him. Liston, Frazier and Foreman is a set of wins on it's own that trumps anything the likes of Langford and Greb achieved. I'm going to say it and this will annoy some but it seems romantic to have Greb and Langford so high, in my opinion they didn't come close to beating the names Ali did.

Certainly nothing romantic about either Harry Greb for instance Between March 1919 and the end of 1922 he was beaten just once, by Tommy Gibbons, a loss that was bruttaly avenged.

He fought in in excess of 100 times during this period and the level of competition is unmatched by any fighter in any 3 year period of the sport's history. Greb beat:

Jack Dillon
Mike McTigue
Soldier Bartfield
Gunboat Smith
Battling Levinksy
Billy Miske
Bill Brennan
Willie Meehan
Gene Tunney
Tommy Gibbons
Jeff Smith
Kid Norfolk
Jack Renault
Mike McTigue
Tommy Loughran
Billy Shade


He amassed, in this short period, a better win resume than 95% of ATG fighters manage in a career. He beat most of these men multiple time, and in some cases utterly dominated fellow ATG fighters like Gene Tunney and Jack Dillon. In a fight schedule that saw him fight once a week on occasion, he slipped up only once against a bigger man who he would go on to utterly dominate.


As for Azania comments about Armstrong as a brawler, have you ever watched him fight?

He is arguably one of the most talented fighters ever, just because he didnt dance around on his feet and do a little razzle dazzle, doesnt mean you're not skilled. His infighting, defensive prowess, educated stalking and pressure is as good as any skill you'll likely to see.

Yes I have watched his fights. And agree that he was extremely talented. So was Duran who remains one of my favourite boxers. Yet they were still brawlers. Not face first brawlers as they were very adept at letting their punches go before their opponents could fight back. And very good at slipping punches.

But for me, a good boxer will always beat a good brawler.