Ali - Why is he not the greatest?

First topic message reminder :

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.

So simple power puncher would be his undoing then, interesting

There was me thinking that strongmen don't do well in boxing

The Mighty Atom wrote:So simple power puncher would be his undoing then, interesting

There was me thinking that strongmen don't do well in boxing

Good grief. I suggest you read what I wrote again. If that's all I said and you claim you win the debate, then I celebrate your victory with you.

Happy days.

But what you've done is highlight the weaknesses of a fighter you don't like and the strengths of another to guage an opinion, you've not considered the flipside of the argument. Remember its 'peak' vs 'peak' so weaknesses don't count

The Mighty Atom wrote:But what you've done is highlight the weaknesses of a fighter you don't like and the strengths of another to guage an opinion, you've not considered the flipside of the argument. Remember its 'peak' vs 'peak' so weaknesses don't count

At their very best every boxer has weakennes. Louis' weaknesses were glaring.

I think you miss the point of peak vs peak.

So glaring your the only one who considers him so poor right?

I'm using the logic that Ali beats Frazier because he was untouchable at his peak despite the fact he was vulnerable to the left hook which was Fraziers main weapon but thats disregarded due to not being 'up' for it.

So I can apply the same logic as well surely?

The Mighty Atom wrote:So glaring your the only one who considers him so poor right?

I'm using the logic that Ali beats Frazier because he was untouchable at his peak despite the fact he was vulnerable to the left hook which was Fraziers main weapon but thats disregarded due to not being 'up' for it.

So I can apply the same logic as well surely?

Of course you can apply any logic. Generally when a boxer is facing a bigger threat, he ups his game. He took Cooper lightly in the manner he would never have done against Frazier. Simples.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So glaring your the only one who considers him so poor right?

I'm using the logic that Ali beats Frazier because he was untouchable at his peak despite the fact he was vulnerable to the left hook which was Fraziers main weapon but thats disregarded due to not being 'up' for it.

So I can apply the same logic as well surely?

Of course you can apply any logic. Generally when a boxer is facing a bigger threat, he ups his game. He took Cooper lightly in the manner he would never have done against Frazier. Simples.

It's commonly accepted that Louis took Schmeling lightly first time out, so does that mean you'll stop using that as a reason why Louis wouldn't survive in today's era?

So can I assume that Louis would up his game against Liston and do what he always did and win?

azania wrote:At their very best every boxer has weakennes. Louis' weaknesses were glaring.

He only used to glare during referee's instructions.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So glaring your the only one who considers him so poor right?

I'm using the logic that Ali beats Frazier because he was untouchable at his peak despite the fact he was vulnerable to the left hook which was Fraziers main weapon but thats disregarded due to not being 'up' for it.

So I can apply the same logic as well surely?

Of course you can apply any logic. Generally when a boxer is facing a bigger threat, he ups his game. He took Cooper lightly in the manner he would never have done against Frazier. Simples.

It's commonly accepted that Louis took Schmeling lightly first time out, so does that mean you'll stop using that as a reason why Louis wouldn't survive in today's era?

I agree he took Sch lightly. He figures he would be another lumbering oaf (which he actually was). He paid the price for his error. I just believe that the names I mentioned were more skilled and better fighters than Louis who I dont rate that highly.

He is one of those guys (like Ali) in which you dont speak ill of. Its considered rude to put him down. Overrated, slow, plodding boxer with good hands I'll add, but not great.

And again you show up your lack of knowledge

The Mighty Atom wrote:And again you show up your lack of knowledge

How?

Every time you talk about any old timer, it's the same thing

slow... blah
plodding... blah
over rated... blah
blah blah blah

Your more boring than D4, at least he sticks to one person, you throw in a whole generations worth of boxers you know nothing about

The Mighty Atom wrote:Every time you talk about any old timer, it's the same thing

slow... blah
plodding... blah
over rated... blah
blah blah blah

Your more boring than D4, at least he sticks to one person, you throw in a whole generations worth of boxers you know nothing about

I know plenty about Mayweather.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Every time you talk about any old timer, it's the same thing

slow... blah
plodding... blah
over rated... blah
blah blah blah

Your more boring than D4, at least he sticks to one person, you throw in a whole generations worth of boxers you know nothing about

Predictable response.

The thing is every thing you say about the old timers shows a lack of knowledge about them

The Mighty Atom wrote:The thing is every thing you say about the old timers shows a lack of knowledge about them

Thats a matter of opinion.

It's not really an opinion when you don't know about them

I tend not to discuss things I have no knowledge of, I suggest you do the same

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's not really an opinion when you don't know about them

I tend not to discuss things I have no knowledge of, I suggest you do the same

Then I'd have nothing to say.

Don't mean this in an overly harsh way but you dont add anything to debates about the old timers, its the same thing always

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't mean this in an overly harsh way but you dont add anything to debates about the old timers, its the same thing always

No worries. That's your opinion. Posts about old timers are now done out of humour. But my underlying opinion is always the same. These debates have made me look at more vids of them which, although I may have been unduly harsh on them, they have in fact cemented my views. I simply cannot see many, if any old timers beating any of today's finest. Not one.

As for Louis, my opinion of him is very low. As a man and as a boxer. As a man it probably clouds my views on him as a boxer, (I will not discuss that as it is mainly political and nowt to do with boxing).

AZ you watched any Ken Buchanan yet?

Then yout opinion is quite frankly worthless

The Mighty Atom wrote:Then yout opinion is quite frankly worthless

Well said. Yours should be cherished and never questioned as always.

I'm not saying that but your never going to give a balanced opinion so whats the point giving one at all

The Mighty Atom wrote:I'm not saying that but your never going to give a balanced opinion so whats the point giving one at all

My opinions are balanced. Its just that they differ from yours and you dont like that. I have a strongly held view which I will maintain and no amount of name calling etc will change. Youtube is a wonderful source of material and I've probably burnt a hole in their system now.

They aren't balanced in the slightest, you had an assumption that has no basis

Thing is I disagree with Chris, Windy and Jeff all the time but they thankfully back up their opinions rather than stating a boxers era as their biggest weakness, a rather pathetic argument on your part.

The Mighty Atom wrote:They aren't balanced in the slightest, you had an assumption that has no basis

Thing is I disagree with Chris, Windy and Jeff all the time but they thankfully back up their opinions rather than stating a boxers era as their biggest weakness, a rather pathetic argument on your part.

I make my call on what I have seen. If that is baseless then you surprise me. You just dont like the way I back up my opinions. But thankfully that is your problem and not mine.

OK. I'll leave the last word to you.

You have not yet backed up one opinion you've made

All of todays fighters can do what Burley could do was a major highlight