Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-27-2009, 11:52 AM   #31
DINAMITA
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Past
Posts: 10,079
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jatt1 View Post
Why is mohamad ali always rated as the number 1 boxer p4p ever when clearly he aint even the greatest heavyweight(in my opinion).i have just watched all of his fights and while i agree he is 1 of the best i.e top 20 he shouldnt be regarded as number 1?

can any 1 shine some light on the matter?

surely the rope a dope is a stoopage in todays fights?
liston?2 fights a farce?
ali fighting and getting credit for beating a 50 year old archie moore?
I have never ranked Ali as my p4p number 1. Until I read your post. Now I do.
DINAMITA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-27-2009, 11:54 AM   #32
Olu G. Rotimi
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Ali is clearly the greatest heavyweight of all time period. His record and the quality of opposition he defeated speaks for itself. The young Ali until he was stripped of his title is the best heavyweight the world has ever seen. When he came back after the 3 and a half years exile he had lost some of his speed but was able to prove himself top dog again this time in the greatest era of heavyweights being the 70's. When all is said and done and you scrutinize all the facts the heavyweights are ranked as follows:

1.Muhammed Ali
2. The great Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. The great Joe Louis
5. Joe Frazier
6. George Foreman
7. Sonny Liston
8. Mike Tyson
9. Evander Holyfied
10. Gentleman Lennox Claudius Lewis(the last great heavyweight)

Honorable mention goes to the overprotected Rocky Marciano, Gentleman Gene Tunney, the great Jack Dempsey(the Manasa Mauler) and the great John L Sullivan and Sam Langford without whom none of this would have been possible.
Olu G. Rotimi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:06 PM   #33
natonic
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,751
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo View Post
I personally feel that he's #1 at heavyweight while Louis is #2, but I don't have a problem with those who have it the other way around.

As for a p4p rating, I think he deserves to be rated a little higher than most often place him. If you look at most p4p greats, a lot of them receive huge points for winning titles in other divisions, ie, Leonard, Duran, Robinson, etc.... That's fine. But, a man who starts his career at heavyweight is not likely to drop down and go searching for challenges elswhere, unless your're talking about Bob Fitszimmons. Ali fought more rated opponents than most champions in any class and has a better winning record against world class comp than most as well....
I have no problem with that statement at all. He had 3 of his prime years taken from him too. Yeah, he's didn't have the luxury of weight jumping but not too many (if any) accomplished as much after a 3 year layoff. My top 3 is written in stone for now (Robinson, Langford, Greb) but I wouldn't getting too riled up seeing him anywhere between 4 and 9.
natonic is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:12 PM   #34
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,266
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DINAMITA View Post
I have never ranked Ali as my p4p number 1. Until I read your post. Now I do.

Beautiful!


If you really were the hot chic you posted a photo of as yourself, this would persuade me to ****ing swim across the Atlantic for you (well, assuming you live in the US, not just for the thing of it).
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:13 PM   #35
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,755
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by natonic View Post
I have no problem with that statement at all. He had 3 of his prime years taken from him too. Yeah, he's didn't have the luxury of weight jumping but not too many (if any) accomplished as much after a 3 year layoff. My top 3 is written in stone for now (Robinson, Langford, Greb) but I wouldn't getting too riled up seeing him anywhere between 4 and 9.

Thats reasonable. I can picture him deserving a rating between 4-9 as well.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:21 PM   #36
round15
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

I don't believe there is one particular heavyweight fighter who can be called the "greatest" the sport has ever seen.

Ali's greatness, in many ways is defined by the condition of his opponents after having fought him. Frazier, Foreman and Ken Norton were never the same fighters after their matches with Ali.

Secondly, Ali was robbed of the peak years of his career when he was exiled in 1967. When he came back, he had a very successful second reign as heavyweight champion and is the first to thrice win the title.
round15 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:41 PM   #37
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olu G. Rotimi View Post
Ali is clearly the greatest heavyweight of all time period. His record and the quality of opposition he defeated speaks for itself. The young Ali until he was stripped of his title is the best heavyweight the world has ever seen. When he came back after the 3 and a half years exile he had lost some of his speed but was able to prove himself top dog again this time in the greatest era of heavyweights being the 70's. When all is said and done and you scrutinize all the facts the heavyweights are ranked as follows:

1.Muhammed Ali
2. The great Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. The great Joe Louis
5. Joe Frazier
6. George Foreman
7. Sonny Liston
8. Mike Tyson
9. Evander Holyfied
10. Gentleman Lennox Claudius Lewis(the last great heavyweight)

Honorable mention goes to the overprotected Rocky Marciano, Gentleman Gene Tunney, the great Jack Dempsey(the Manasa Mauler) and the great John L Sullivan and Sam Langford without whom none of this would have been possible.
Overprotected?? Marciano CLEAN out his era. There was no one to fight when he retire. And dont say Patterson or Liston, Patterson was not in the top ten, and Liston would come 4 years after the Rock's retirement. How can you call Dempsey great, who didnt defend against his number 1 for 7 years in a row, and call the Rock overprotected when he fought and clean out his era.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:43 PM   #38
Bokaj
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,266
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

This may sound surprising, but I don't think Ali actually gets enough credit for what he did in the 70's. I think it's just unheard of in any sport that an athlete looses the best 3+ years of his career and come back as strong as he did.

Some uses FOTC as a proof that a peak Frazier always would beat Ali. Personally, I'm amazed that Ali could give an absolute beast like Frazier such a good fight just 6 months after coming back from that lay-off. Norton seems to be more of a mark against him, but seeing how tough he was at 34 for a peak Holmes it's hard to hold that loss(es) too much against Ali.

And aside from these losses he beat Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Bugner, Lyle, Foreman etc. Several of them in a very one-sided fashion. Hell, did he even break a sweat in the rematch against Quarry? He was the only one to ever stop Bonavena and Foreman, despite not being seen as a puncher. Etc, etc.

It was just an absolutely amazing second career.
Bokaj is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:07 PM   #39
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,755
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

I think we can all pretty much agree that Muhammad Ali's opposition was absolutely sick to say the least. We don't have to look at the signature wins of his career either in order to see this. Hell, I counted only one fighter who had a losing record when he fought him. with only a handful of bouts, Ali was already taking on men who were 35-10, 44-2, 16-0, etc... Even the journeyman and trial hoarses he fought weren't that bad..
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:15 PM   #40
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
This may sound surprising, but I don't think Ali actually gets enough credit for what he did in the 70's. I think it's just unheard of in any sport that an athlete looses the best 3+ years of his career and come back as strong as he did.

Some uses FOTC as a proof that a peak Frazier always would beat Ali. Personally, I'm amazed that Ali could give an absolute beast like Frazier such a good fight just 6 months after coming back from that lay-off. Norton seems to be more of a mark against him, but seeing how tough he was at 34 for a peak Holmes it's hard to hold that loss(es) too much against Ali.

And aside from these losses he beat Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Bugner, Lyle, Foreman etc. Several of them in a very one-sided fashion. Hell, did he even break a sweat in the rematch against Quarry? He was the only one to ever stop Bonavena and Foreman, despite not being seen as a puncher. Etc, etc.

It was just an absolutely amazing second career.

The second career is what makes him, not beating challengers of the calibre of London, Mildenberger, Williams, Chuvalo and Cooper.
My dinner with Conteh is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:51 PM   #41
Rock0052
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: All up in Djibouti
Posts: 11,361
vCash: 79
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DINAMITA View Post
I have never ranked Ali as my p4p number 1. Until I read your post. Now I do.
Rock0052 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:55 PM   #42
Vantage_West
ヒップホッププロデューサー
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 黒人文化の恋人のサンプリ
Posts: 10,027
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokaj View Post
It would indeed be very interesting to see how Ali would fare against the skilled giants of recent times. But he had a pretty easy time against the biggest guys of his day (Liston, Williams, Terrell, Lewis, Mathis, Bugner and Foreman), and several of those guys had good skills. Personally, I don't even think Lyle was that a difficult opponent, despite Ali being behind when the fight was stopped. I just think Ali by being lazy and lackluster threw 4-5 rounds away, but without really losing control of the fight.

Guys who gave him lot of area to hit by being big and upright was actually something he generally feasted on. But Lewis, Wlad and Bowe was of course both bigger and better than just about anyone Ali met, so it's hard to say. I do think that guys like Marciano and Frazier would struggle stylistically with the modern giants. Ali, on the other hand, was mostly stylistically challenged by pressure and awkwardness, not size and strength.

ali's style is based on movement and speed....and durability when the going gets tough. i dont think it matters about hieght only reach and quickness. and ali had both.

i think he coudl throughly outbox bowe, with his movement. lewis i think is a bit flat footed could be a tough fight. wlad i'm unsure about i think wlad is a perfect foili for ali or a complete nightmare.
wlad couldnt get rid of rahman when hasim was sittign uncomfortably on the ropes. ali wouild of pawned and bishop wlad in that situation.
Vantage_West is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:58 PM   #43
Rock0052
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: All up in Djibouti
Posts: 11,361
vCash: 79
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh View Post
The second career is what makes him, not beating challengers of the calibre of London, Mildenberger, Williams, Chuvalo and Cooper.
I do think he gets a bit of a free pass for the Norton trilogy, and the Young bout. It's also easy to forget that Frazier was looked at as being washed up and Ali was supposed to win an easier (relatively speaking) fight when they met the 3rd time.

Despite me playing devil's advocate when it comes to Ali lately, he had a spectacular career when it was all said and done. I just happen to think that because he was as charismatic as he was, that it's impossible for alot of people to not romanticize his career and look at it with rose-colored glasses.
Rock0052 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:13 PM   #44
Clinton
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,854
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock0052 View Post
I do think he gets a bit of a free pass for the Norton trilogy, and the Young bout. It's also easy to forget that Frazier was looked at as being washed up and Ali was supposed to win an easier (relatively speaking) fight when they met the 3rd time.

Despite me playing devil's advocate when it comes to Ali lately, he had a spectacular career when it was all said and done. I just happen to think that because he was as charismatic as he was, that it's impossible for alot of people to not romanticize his career and look at it with rose-colored glasses.
Good points all.Thanks,by the way.Provocative.However,I know they were both past it at that point,but in my opinion,the Thrilla in Manila is the best heavyweight fight I've ever seen.Maybe they had just one great fight left in them,but that fight was beyond incredible.
Clinton is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:31 PM   #45
HomicideHenry
Bareknuckle Brawler
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Buckeye State
Posts: 1,024
vCash: 1061
Default Re: Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Ali has a strong claim to the position of being #1

He defeated the best of the 1960's and 1970's heavyweights, and who he did lose to, he avenged those losses. His speed is something that no other HW in history can match, so it is hard to imagine any other HW champion being able to have defeated him on points. He is also one of the p4p holders of being an iron chinned bastard, there's few HW champions you could name, if any at all, who had a punchers chance of knocking him out either.

He had to be 38, in the early stages of Parkinson's, inactive for over a year, and on a thyroid drug that messed up his metabolism, for a prime Larry Holmes to make him quit on his stool. Thats how tough he was. You would be hard pressed to find anyone to do the same feat in his prime or near prime.

I dont like Muhammad Ali all that well, most everyone knows that, but if I can admit that this man is more than likely the #1 HW in history, then I think others should come to grips with it too. He faced virtually every name opponent you can think of during his time, and what ones he didnt meet in the ring, who would give them a snow balls chance in hell to have beaten him, unless it was late 1978-early 1979 following the rematch with Spinks and before he retired as WBA champ?
HomicideHenry is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013