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.

imperialghosty wrote:Frazier managed it and he was by any definition a brawler

They didn't fight in the 60s.

He was still comprehensively beaten Frazier or do we only judge every single boxer at their absolute bests?

imperialghosty wrote:He was still comprehensively beaten Frazier or do we only judge every single boxer at their absolute bests?

When doing a P4P judgement call, you absolutely rate them as if they were bringing in their A game. It is arguable that Frazier was at his absolute best in 1971 whereas Ali had an enforced 3 year absense. He was a completely different type of boxer after those 3 years.

Are you arguing otherwise?

In that case no top rated boxer has ever lost, you need to consider their weaknesses as well as their positives.

He was still a very effective boxer, his style had changed but that still doesn't change the fact he lost to Frazier.

imperialghosty wrote:In that case no top rated boxer has ever lost, you need to consider their weaknesses as well as their positives.

He was still a very effective boxer, his style had changed but that still doesn't change the fact he lost to Frazier.

When you are doing a hypothetical H2H, you take each boxer at their peak and then do the comparison. The fact that Frazier beat the 2nd coming of Ali doesn't mean he would have beaten the 1960s version of him. That Ali beat him twice afterwards lends more credibility to my version.

Ali was still effective and had to change his style as his legs gave way and he planted his feet more and stopped dancing as much. The 60s version would have beaten every heavy in history with ease.

Why are you also taking a peak Frazier and not a leak Ali? You seem to shift goalposts all too often.

You take a version that you assume would turn up on any given night, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses.

The 60's version with the acception of Liston hadn't beaten anyone to prove beyond doubt he would have beaten everyone with ease, the Frazier fights showed a vulnerability to that style of fighter whether he was past his best or not isn't overly relevant.

I'm not shifting goalposts, you seem all to eager to dismiss any weakness that a fighter showed during their career to being either an off night or them past their best. You are then all too eager to use the Saddler fights against Pep without taking into account he was well past his best at the time.

imperialghosty wrote:You take a version that you assume would turn up on any given night, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses.

The 60's version with the acception of Liston hadn't beaten anyone to prove beyond doubt he would have beaten everyone with ease, the Frazier fights showed a vulnerability to that style of fighter whether he was past his best or not isn't overly relevant.

I'm not shifting goalposts, you seem all to eager to dismiss any weakness that a fighter showed during their career to being either an off night or them past their best. You are then all too eager to use the Saddler fights against Pep without taking into account he was well past his best at the time.

No you do not take a version that you assume would turn up. You are supposed to base them on their relatives strength at the peak of their powers when doing a H2H. Why not take the 1980s version of Ali then or the 1981 version of Frazier, match them up and see who wins. Frazier imo.

Ali cleaned up the HW division in the 1960s. All the boxers he didn't fight in the 1960s he met in the 1970s and beat them when he was slower.

Of course Ali had weaknesses. I have high;lighted one glaring weakness on this (or another thread) today. His lack of body punching meant he was not the complete package hence I rate SRR and SRL above him.

Its hard to tell when those guys were at their peak as they fought for so long.

Exactly you take into account weaknesses that they showed during their career whether it was during a supposed peak of a few years or after, seeing the trouble he had with Frazier suggests to me he would always have struggled with him.

Are you suggesting it was a peak Pep who fought Saddler then?

imperialghosty wrote:Exactly you take into account weaknesses that they showed during their career whether it was during a supposed peak of a few years or after, seeing the trouble he had with Frazier suggests to me he would always have struggled with him.

Are you suggesting it was a peak Pep who fought Saddler then?

Of course he would have struggled with Frazier. Who wouldn't? But the Ali of 1966-67 would have beaten whatever version of Frazier all the time.

Regardless of what Pep fought Saddler, Saddler would have prevailed. He had his number and was more skilled in the dark arts than Pep (who was no shrinking violet when it came to the dark arts).

The problem you have is you have nothing to back up what your suggesting, your assuming that Ali was invincible during that period which no boxer is, using such a small timeframe isn't a basis to pass a proper judgement. I could say the Frazier of 68-72 beats anyone in history, he was never beaten during that period so it's hard to suggest otherwise.

Why would Saddler have prevailed? Ever seen footage of Pep at his best?

Even though he'd be left partially paralyzed in a plane crash, had none of the speed of before and still managed to compete suggests to me it isn't as cut and dry as you make out.

imperialghosty wrote:The problem you have is you have nothing to back up what your suggesting, your assuming that Ali was invincible during that period which no boxer is, using such a small timeframe isn't a basis to pass a proper judgement. I could say the Frazier of 68-72 beats anyone in history, he was never beaten during that period so it's hard to suggest otherwise.

Why would Saddler have prevailed? Ever seen footage of Pep at his best?

Even though he'd be left partially paralyzed in a plane crash, had none of the speed of before and still managed to compete suggests to me it isn't as cut and dry as you make out.

You seem to want to understand what you want as opposed to what is written. Once again, the Ali of the 1960s was a far superior version of that in the 1970s for the simple reason being that his biggest asset (according to Ali and his opponents) diminished. His footwork slowed drastically. He was perpetual movement in the 1960s whereas in the 1970s he planted his feet more often. By him planting his feet it allowed Frazier to employ his game plan more effectively and take a deserved decision in their first fight. Ali adapted and won the rest. testimony to the fact that had they fought in the 1960s a superior version of Ali would have beaten any version of Frazier.

Frazier lost in 1972 to Ali so you are wrong there. A poorer version beat Frazier.

But carry on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Frazier was for intents and purposes finished by the time Ali beat him as evidenced by the demolition job he received at the hands of Foreman so do we disregard those wins? You seem not to realise the absurdity of your own arguments sometimes. Frazier beat a better version of Ali than Ali beat of Frazier, so as has been said before using head to heads simply doesn't work.

You say the Ali of 67-68 was unbeatable so it must be true by your logic

imperialghosty wrote:Frazier was for intents and purposes finished by the time Ali beat him as evidenced by the demolition job he received at the hands of Foreman so do we disregard those wins? You seem not to realise the absurdity of your own arguments sometimes. Frazier beat a better version of Ali than Ali beat of Frazier, so as has been said before using head to heads simply doesn't work.

You say the Ali of 67-68 was unbeatable so it must be true by your logic

You seem to be arguing for the hell of it and coming with more ridiculous posts at every turn. I do find them funny though so please continue.

Ali's legs slowed. His most effective tool as a boxer was negated through age and the ban he recieved. But hey, carry on with your arguments which are as amusing as they are illogical.

But 3 years out of the ring does affect a boxer's ability.

Its all much of a muchness debating who is the greatest boxer of all time. There isn't alot separating the top 4-5, its still an incredibly high accolade. If the Godfather is number 2 and Gone with the Wind no 1, that doesnt make the Godfather a pile of cack.

In terms of skill + great nights in the ring + achievement + ATG/ excellent fighters defeated, for me the two greatest boxers of all time are Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson. Both sublime, moved through the ring with grace, out-fought and out-thought opponents. At heavyweight, there is not much possible to do than defeat Foreman, Frazier twice and Liston twice.

The above two are the best known and will undoubtedly be mentioned more often by the public and general sports fans. They transcend boxing and sports, famous men in their own right. Fighters such as Armstrong are not as well known. But, certainly there are a litany of other greats who deserve to be mentioned and will probably be hotly debated among boxing aficionados.

Where have I said that the 3 years out of the ring didn't effect his abilty?

The funny thing is reading your posts which never refer to any stylistic reasons why boxer a beats boxer b, it's all based on assumption that he's better therefore must win.

Ali was always susceptible to the left hook even during the pre exile years and that was Fraziers greatest weapon, if Banks and Cooper can deck him with it then sure as hell Frazier could during that period but please carry on in your blissful ignorance.

imperialghosty wrote:Where have I said that the 3 years out of the ring didn't effect his abilty?

The funny thing is reading your posts which never refer to any stylistic reasons why boxer a beats boxer b, it's all based on assumption that he's better therefore must win.

Ali was always susceptible to the left hook even during the pre exile years and that was Fraziers greatest weapon, if Banks and Cooper can deck him with it then sure as hell Frazier could during that period but please carry on in your blissful ignorance.

Sigh. I was always referring to Ali of the 1960s. That version would be too fast and ellusive for Frazier. yes Cooper and Banks decked him. But he would have been "up" for Frazier as he was the bigger challenge. jab and move all night long for a wide UD.

Carry on.

So we ignore him getting decked by Cooper and Banks but we use it against Lewis that he got beaten by McCall and Rahmann when he wasn't up for it?

The jab isn't the key to beating Frazier, he wouldn't be deterred by it, knew better than anyone how to cut of the ring and would bore into Ali with full force and turn it into a war. Once they're up close and personal it's a 50/50 between Ali's superior hand speed and Fraziers superior power. At no stages of their respective careers does Ali have it easy with Frazier.

There's a BIG difference between getting decked and getting KTFO.

Just as well that Lewis never got KTFO then isn't it, stopped on his feet both times

imperialghosty wrote:So we ignore him getting decked by Cooper and Banks but we use it against Lewis that he got beaten by McCall and Rahmann when he wasn't up for it?

The jab isn't the key to beating Frazier, he wouldn't be deterred by it, knew better than anyone how to cut of the ring and would bore into Ali with full force and turn it into a war. Once they're up close and personal it's a 50/50 between Ali's superior hand speed and Fraziers superior power. At no stages of their respective careers does Ali have it easy with Frazier.

Lewis was knocked out. A slight difference which may have slipped your mind in this debate.

Read what I wrote IG. I said Ali's best weapon and something he lost due to his ban and age was his footspeed. That would be the key to beating Frazier. Stick and move all night long.

Stopped staggering like a drunk on his feet.

Frazier was no slouch himself, he was a master of cutting of ring space like no other, Ali during his pomp had never had to deal with that.

50/50 fight for me

He wasn't up for it though so that doesn't count surely?

imperialghosty wrote:Frazier was no slouch himself, he was a master of cutting of ring space like no other, Ali during his pomp had never had to deal with that.

50/50 fight for me

He wasn't up for it though so that doesn't count surely?

Frazier was pure class. Excellent footwork in cutting off the ring as you say. But Ali was just too fast on foot and handspeed and would have confused Frazier far too much. He would have offered him far too many angles. Furthermore, Frazier had never fought anyone like Ali either.

I dont see how you get to 50/50 when an older, slower Ali beat Frazier 2/3 times.

It was an older, slower, considered shot (not my words, watch the documentaty) Frazier as well, he was at his best around 68-72. He was finished at the top level after Foreman handed it to him, you don't recover from a beating like that.

Frazier at his absolute best beat Ali, but took some horrendous punishment and was hospitalized afterwards. I don't find it hard to imagine a fleet feet lightening handed Ali of '67 landing more and taking less given the state he and Frazier left each other in after the FOTC.

imperialghosty wrote:It was an older, slower, considered shot (not my words, watch the documentaty) Frazier as well, he was at his best around 68-72. He was finished at the top level after Foreman handed it to him, you don't recover from a beating like that.

I'd be amazed is the veating he took from Foreman finished him as a force. It takes more than a 2 round yo yo performance to end most boxers. Normally its a long prolonged beating that finishes boxers like the thrilla in manilla. But I'd agree with JBW above.

For me he will always be the greatest.....

1) His opposition was second to none....

2) He was never outboxed

3) His longevity was amazing..

4) He had everything, heart,skill etc..

5) He held the greatest prize in sports,,,Let's face it Schwarzenegger wasn't as good as Columbo but being a heavyweight and not a middle always won the overall.

6) If he fought all the fighters you put ahead of him man to man without such thing as weightclasses he knocks Robinson et al out...

7) He transcended boxing like nobody else...

Simplistically he is the greatest boxer because he beats them all!!!!!

Doesn't he!!

Even Ali himself regards Robinson to be greater

Fighters show due deference to other icons...

Shouldn't read too much into that..

Also called himself the greatest.

Overall think Robinson trumps Ali for top spot but can see the argument for him being top, any lower than 5 is a traversty

It's all subjective...

But from a purely layman's view he is the best because he would beat them all...

Would Robbo beat Frazier????

I know it's a strange road to go down but everyone on the list he beats so if there were no weight classes he'd be the greatest anyway..

However I can see the reasons why some disagree..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For me he will always be the greatest.....

1) His opposition was second to none....

2) He was never outboxed

3) His longevity was amazing..

4) He had everything, heart,skill etc..

5) He held the greatest prize in sports,,,Let's face it Schwarzenegger wasn't as good as Columbo but being a heavyweight and not a middle always won the overall.

6) If he fought all the fighters you put ahead of him man to man without such thing as weightclasses he knocks Robinson et al out...

7) He transcended boxing like nobody else...

Simplistically he is the greatest boxer because he beats them all!!!!!

Doesn't he!!

Ali wasn't the greatest that accolade is solely for Sugar Ray Robinson, would have him as my number 2 ATG just ahead of Pep.

I'd put Ali 3rd. Robbo at 1 with SR Leonard at 2. My reasoning? Both the Sugar's were more complete in that they were also excellent body punchers......one thing Ali lacked. But to counter that, the head is a smaller target and easier to defend but Ali found it with amazing regularity.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For me he will always be the greatest.....

1) His opposition was second to none....

2) He was never outboxed

3) His longevity was amazing..

4) He had everything, heart,skill etc..

5) He held the greatest prize in sports,,,Let's face it Schwarzenegger wasn't as good as Columbo but being a heavyweight and not a middle always won the overall.

6) If he fought all the fighters you put ahead of him man to man without such thing as weightclasses he knocks Robinson et al out...

7) He transcended boxing like nobody else...

Simplistically he is the greatest boxer because he beats them all!!!!!

Doesn't he!!

Ali wasn't the greatest that accolade is solely for Sugar Ray Robinson, would have him as my number 2 ATG just ahead of Pep.

Pep? Ok

I think he was the greatest alright.......

my opinion is my opinion and I've explained why.

If nobody invented weight classes he'd beat the lot.

Got Leonard at 8 myself, no one can claim to have a better series of wins than that of Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler but didn't fight at the top level long enough to oust the top top guys. Definitely has the talent and big wins but not the longevity

imperialghosty wrote:Got Leonard at 8 myself, no one can claim to have a better series of wins than that of Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler but didn't fight at the top level long enough to oust the top top guys. Definitely has the talent and big wins but not the longevity

I always put an asterix over the Hagler "win".

Had Hagler winning it comfortably myself but the record books say otherwise

imperialghosty wrote:Had Hagler winning it comfortably myself but the record books say otherwise

OK. I'm gonna hit the bottle and then hit the empty bottle over my head. We agree on something!!!!!!!

116-112 I had it but there's only 3 peoples opinions who matter unfortunately

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For me he will always be the greatest.....

1) His opposition was second to none....

2) He was never outboxed

3) His longevity was amazing..

4) He had everything, heart,skill etc..

5) He held the greatest prize in sports,,,Let's face it Schwarzenegger wasn't as good as Columbo but being a heavyweight and not a middle always won the overall.

6) If he fought all the fighters you put ahead of him man to man without such thing as weightclasses he knocks Robinson et al out...

7) He transcended boxing like nobody else...

Simplistically he is the greatest boxer because he beats them all!!!!!

Doesn't he!!

Ali wasn't the greatest that accolade is solely for Sugar Ray Robinson, would have him as my number 2 ATG just ahead of Pep.

Pep? Ok

Why you down on Pep?

imperialghosty wrote:116-112 I had it but there's only 3 peoples opinions who matter unfortunately

I had it similar. Such is boxing when 3 men can decide who wins.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For me he will always be the greatest.....

1) His opposition was second to none....

2) He was never outboxed

3) His longevity was amazing..

4) He had everything, heart,skill etc..

5) He held the greatest prize in sports,,,Let's face it Schwarzenegger wasn't as good as Columbo but being a heavyweight and not a middle always won the overall.

6) If he fought all the fighters you put ahead of him man to man without such thing as weightclasses he knocks Robinson et al out...

7) He transcended boxing like nobody else...

Simplistically he is the greatest boxer because he beats them all!!!!!

Doesn't he!!

Ali wasn't the greatest that accolade is solely for Sugar Ray Robinson, would have him as my number 2 ATG just ahead of Pep.

Pep? Ok

Why you down on Pep?

He was too negative and got owned by Saddler who I rate higher. Powder puff puncher also.

Still banging on about that then and fail to see why him not being a power puncher makes any difference

imperialghosty wrote:Still banging on about that then and fail to see why him not being a power puncher makes any difference

You would at least expect a top 3 P4P to have a decent dig.

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Still banging on about that then and fail to see why him not being a power puncher makes any difference

You would at least expect a top 3 P4P to have a decent dig.

I dno't want to get into the Saddler vs Pep one again we did that before. I see your point about punching power. Just out of interest where on your ATG list would you have Pernell Whittaker?

How can anybody have Hagler winning that fight..

He was an idiot that disrespected leonard early and threw it away.

I don't see why punching power effects a boxers standing if he is still beating people

imperialghosty wrote:I don't see why punching power effects a boxers standing if he is still beating people

If your rating on an ATG basis punching power must come into it. But 10 quick less powerful punches can do just as much damage if not more than a 1 punch ko.

Earnie Shavers isn't a top Heavyweight name but is arguably the biggest puncher

If you beat your opposition it doesn't matter whether its a points win or a knockout, its just a win