What is the lowest justifiable ranking for Ali?

I'm not a huge fan of out of ring activities determining ATG rating so I pass on the name calling etc. But a case could be made that he had his hands completely full with the likes of Frazier, Norton, and who knows how the fight with Ali and Foreman would have panned out had the ropes not been illegal, and if Liston dived in the second fight, I think a case could be made that he's top 3-4.

I personally have mixed feelings about him, and I'm old enough to have watched him. I think he definitely could take a punch better than pretty much anyone in history, and in his prime he was likely the fastest heavyweight in history, both in hand and foot speed. But like Roy Jones, he never fought in an overly conventional manner and as boxers have grown particular in the '90's and beyond it's not inconceivable that fighters like Bowe, Lewis, Wlad and Vitali could beat him, certainly one or two of them might if he fought all four. But even if an argument can be made about him being top 4 rather than top 2, he's still a legend and always will be.

 

i know what you mean about mixed feelings.
On the one hand he's arguably the biggest sports personality theres ever been and he picked boxing up in the 60s and made sure fighters since have become megastars.
On the other hand his treatment of Frazier went beyond funny and ended up nasty.
I've said on this forum, how come Joe Louis made friends with former opponents and so did other fighters but not Ali ??
I didn't particularly like his style of boxing but every time i boxed as an amateur thered be a kid aping Alis hands at his side style.
He was more copied than even Ray Robinson.
There's no getting away from the fact he's the greatest.

 

Maybe. I lean towards Louis as being the greatest heavyweight and in terms of fighters l've watched on my lifetime it's a close call between Ali, Duran and SRL. And at his absolute peak one could possibly include RJJ.

 

I think you can make a case for a lot lower, but it relies on a lot of favourable assumptions for other fighters.

But i think that it is arguable that he is only top 2 in his time. Certainly, if you use the common opponent ranking, he may even behind George Foreman. Foreman beat Norton and Frazier a lot more convincing than Ali did, and as great as his win over Foreman was, i t relied on a lot of things - heat, ropes, rope a dope etc. Plus, what Foreman did in his second career, there is not doubt that ali would have been unable to duplicate.

Thare have been a lot more all time greats than most are willing to concede. I personally rate ali at number one, but plenty of people could be ranked ahead of him. Marciano never lost a fight or ducked anyone. YOu cant do any more than that. Louis' record was phenomenal. Tyson at his best was astonishing. The sheer size of Lewis or even Klitchsko's make them a difficult proposition for anyone. The list goes on. I think that you could easily have Ali below the top 5 and not necessarily be being completely ridculous.

 

That's a very food post. There are lot of variables at play and l agree that a plausible augment could be made to have him in the 3-5 range. Whoever tried making this argument would likely be in the minority but this isn't math in which answers are either right or wrong. Nothing wrong with thinking outside of the box if you can support your ****ysis.

 

I'd probably rank him #2 behind Joe Louis, and sometimes I think he should be #1, but I think around #5 or #6 could be justifiable.

I mean, it depends on criteria.
Ali often looked out-of-shape and sluggish against ordinary opponents, didn't hit hard often, and lost the championship to a 7-fight novice.
For people who prefer Spartan-like warriors who never clowned and prepared well for every fight (champion qualities), I could see how the likes of Marciano (who never lost) could move ahead of him.

 

Yes. And it goes something like this.

DQ loss in the Cooper fight for using illegal smelling salts.

Downgraded if Frazier and Norton never gave him rematches. Frazier was passed his best for the re-matches and Norton on a fair card won the third fight easily. 2-1 Norton over Ali.

Lucky on the cards to avoid draws vs. Young and Shavers

Outboxed by Lyle until landing a bomb

Never gave Foreman a rematch.

The Liston fights were fishy. The 2nd one likely fixed.

Competition in the 1960's was not great.


These are some of my thoughts. If you want to go deeper into the woods, see what this guy had to say. I do not agree with all of it, but he has some points.

[url]http://www.heavyweightblog.com/[/url]

 

The thing with Ali is he was bigger than boxing in a way nobody could ever be...and he really was great as well. There is no getting around that.

This also means he made the 1970s heavyweights appear better than they were.

The level of exposure boxing got through Ali elevated everybody else especially during his decline. But it all stands up even when you break it down, there is no getting away from the fact that Ali really was about as great as a fighter can get.

Take Frazier. Ali made Frazier. Without beating Ali nobody really knew what to make of him. Was Joe the real champ or was it only because of Ali's exile? Then Joe beats Ali and its only because "Ali had been away so long", which is kind of unfair but there we are.

Ali makes Ken Norton because Ken Norton broke his jaw and was always able to take Ali to the wire. Ken never bothered any other great fighters but there you have it.

Then Ali makes Foreman. Here we have a green kid who is beating losers like 5-14 Terry Sorrell in his previous fight. George beats the "Ali slayer" in Joe Frazier and George becomes king Kong.

Then of course Ali becomes an iconic legend by beating young George Foreman outside if his own 1960s era. On the surface an impossible win. but when you scratch the surface there is a case that Foreman was as green as grass getting past a faded Frazier who was only who he was because he could beat a comebacking Ali (who some say was not quite ready) in the first place.

But this is by the by. Frazier, Norton and Foreman were the best HW fighters of the 1970-74 period. Without Ali they dont shine so bright and their era is far less memorable. Ali added the legendary status to the scene because of his historical sport transcending story,colourful personality and earlier dazzling ability in the 1960s.

and in 1972 Ali as an ex champion in limbo Ali ran up a terrific run over legit contenders.. so there is no taking anything away from Ali there always was real substance behind his worth.

More of the substance was in the 1960s, most of the legend came in the 1970s.

 

If you are a proponent of the bigger is better argument you could probably rank him outside your top ten.

 

I have him at #1 at heavyweight. I can see a fair argument for pushing Joe Louis ahead of him for the # 1 spot, but can't see him rating any lower than #2.. Pound for pound ratings are a bit more difficult and open the door for many differing opinions and arguments.

 

Let's say Tyson never loses to Douglas and still is champ when he goes to prison. After coming back in 1995 he beats just about everyone of the notable fighters, including Lewis, Bowe and Holy, up until the Klit brothers. He suffers a loss to Bowe shortly after coming back but avenges it twice, and also loses to a more average fighter whom he struggles with twice more in close/controversial wins. And then he rounds off his career in the early 2000's with some embarrassing losses when he is way past his prime and in the early stages of a very serious illness.

But before then he has beaten everybody of note between ca 1985 and 2000, and suffered all of his losses after losing his best years in prison. Even so he came back and proved himself the best in an era containing Holy, Bowe, Lewis et al.

That is Ali's career more or less.

Without some serious revisionism he doesn't go below 2 at HW.

 

This hypothetical Tyson to Ali is what Ali is to Louis imo. All though I don't agree with your comparison I see what your saying. That's why this is fun, many differing views and no right answers. Although I must add had Tyson done that he'd be my undisputed no.1 with a sizeable gap between himself, Louis and Ali.

 

I can't see a justifiable case for him being outside the top 3. ****, I have an issue with him not being no. 1. That said, this is how I personally "Justify" him, but as we know, that is a very subjective. What's justifiable to one, is clearly not to another. So I'm a little unclear on the verbiage here, but I'll say for me, no, it's not justifiable for him to be outside the top 3

 

no..just no... 2 at worst. He is
Clear 1

 

The bull**** of the month