Was Ali the greatest heavyweight of all time?

If he did all that we'd be arguing between 1-3 imo.

 

Styles influence fights. Foreman's defining win was against a guy with an aggressive come-forward style who was not difficult to hit. Frazier would happily take a punch to land a punch which is not the best strategy to deal with Foreman if your a smaller heavyweight without an exceptional chin. Louis fought guys who were better defensively than Frazier and who are much better equipped to handle someone like Foreman. It's silly to think Foreman is just going to bulldoze everyone when his opponents have different strengths and weaknesses. Slick, clever boxers are going to be a problem for Foreman.

Also, I don't find the argument that we should disregard the Lyle and Young fights because he wasn't there mentally or whatever. He was still young and in his physical prime. He looked like his pre-Ali self against Frazier, LeDoux, Dino Dennis, etc.

 

If your gonna dock Foreman for getting off the canvas to beat Lyle then what about the times Louis got dropped? Braddock dropped him, Galento dropped him, Baer dropped him, Conn hurt him at 169lbs. Let' be consistent with our evaluations.
Let's not disregard that Schemling knocked him out.

 

Agreed, and as Tyson himself has stated, he did not train at all for the Douglas fight. He did no roadwork.
He did not step into the gym, at all--no speed bag, no heavy bag, no calisthenics, no conditioning.
The only time he broke a sweat in Tokyo before that fight was when he was banging the babes,
and again, that's straight from Tyson. I have no doubt that if he trained for a good solid eight weeks
prior to the Douglas fight, ate push-ups for breakfast and heavy bags for lunch, then Tyson would've
won that fight within 6 rounds. Douglas was super-fit and had a good strategy, but nobody could
beat a fit, motivated Mike Tyson in that era.

 

That's right. And man, could Louis slip a jab! He slipped jabs and then threw and landed his left, and more than once he'd slip a jab and hammer a guy with a right cross, a short right hook or even a haymaker. I may be wrong and no doubt, if I am the Almighty will strike me down at the same time someone on here says I'm wrong, no worries, but I see Louis giving Ali a lot of trouble. I don't see Ali beating Joe Louis. Ali's whole game was based on landing his jab, and Ali certainly had a magnificent jab. But Louis slipped all kinds of jabs from incredible fighters and then dropped guys with his counter-right. Joe Frazier took away Ali's left jab in Frazier-Ali 1, and Frazier really only fought with one hand that night, he didn't throw many right hands at all. But Louis was rock n' roll with both hands.

 

1st what "Incredible " fighter did Louis slip the jab from? He was repeatedly beaten to the punch, or jab, by Schmeling in their 1st fight and knocked-out . Conn beat him to the punch repeatedly in their 1st fight and damn near stopped him at a 170 lbs. Both of those fights were in Louis's prime. But somehow were expected to believe Louis could slip the jab of 6'3" 210 lbs prime Ali? Ali was much faster than Schmeling and Conn, and hit much harder, had the hand and foot speed of a middleweight, and the fastest jab in heavy history. 2nd, Ali, the punch that actually got him in trouble was the left hook(Louis did have a excellent left hook) but counter right hands rarely landed cleanly on him, and didn't trouble him until he was completely "down the hill". Prime vs prime if they fought 10 times I'd pick Ali 10 times. My opinion Ali's biggest threats in his prime would be Holmes (possibly the "best jab " all around in heavy history) Tyson,( all the physical tools to beat Ali. his mental make up is were he looses) Lewis (bigger man with good jab when he used it, good feet for a man his size,if he used his size right,could've caused Ali problems.) and of course Frazier(Though it wasn't prime Ali,we saw the potential problems he could've caused even prime Ali) Outside those 4 I don't see any heavy being a big problem for prime Ali, and yes that includes Joe Louis.

 

neither do I see Ali beating Louis. I dont think Ali can him out of there but I Do see Joe's jab causing Ali problems, much like the Norton jab. IMO, Norton really whipped Ali in that third fight. Jimmy Young also showed Ali a thing or two about boxing

I think Joe had a long reign but undistinguised. even so, Louis would whip Ali on points (much like Ken Norton)

 

You either seriously underrate Louis or over estimate Ali. The fact you think only 4 heavyweights give Ali big problems would suggest it's the latter.

 

Ali had more gifts then any other fighter in boxing history.

Massive doubt surrounding the Liston fights. Liston 2 sonny most definitely took a dive.

Norton 2 the best Ali could have hoped for was a draw. But he wrongly got the win.

Frazier 2 real poor decision. Joe controlled the fight throughout and landed the much cleaner blows.

Didn’t rematch foreman and unashamedly ducked him for 3 years

Next up the biggest robbery I’d say is the jimmy Young fight. Young won by about 6 rounds. Disgrace

Norton 3 Ali himself said he lost and so did Angelo Dundee. Nearly as clear as Ali vs Norton 1.

The shavers fight also could have gone either way but of course it went Ali’s way.

You could probably add 6 loses on to Ali’s record and that would have been fair. If it would have been Holmes or Lewis (unpopular champs) those fights would have gone against them.

I understand why Ali gets the decisions. It’s because the government wrongly stripped him of the title for 3 years in his prime. But fairs fair and people like Norton and Young should definitely have winning head to heads over Ali.

I also think the 3 years out helped Ali longevity wise and popularity wise.

 

It is true that several of Ai's decision wins could have gone the other way. Most of those came when he was far past his prime, though. And it's not like he was the only ATG to have close decision wins. Louis (Farr, Godoy, Walcott), Frazier (Bonavena), Holmes (Norton, Witherspoon, Williams), Holy (Bowe, Mercer) and Lewis (Mercer) did as well.

And while Ali's exile because of his stance against the Vietnam war in the end did increase his popularity, it robbed him of a substantial part of his abilities. He never was quite the same again, despite all the things he achieved afterwards.

Did the exile help his longevity? Who knows. It gave him 3,5 years of rest from the rigors of being an active pro, but I also don't think he would have had such a punishing fight with Frazier if he hadn't lost speed and stamina during the lay-off.

In the end he was unbeaten in his prime and had a better post prime career than arguably any other fighter ever.

 

I don't think Ali was past his prime in the early 70s. If we are going to say he was past his prime at such a young age than shouldn't we give other fighters who first lose at a similar age a pass? Holyfield was older than Ali when he lost the first time, Lewis was the same age as Ali, Frazier roughly the same age. If Ali is somehow past his prime at age 28/29 why don't other fighters get the same excuse? During his layoff he was free to train and spar so it doesn't necessarily follow that it would result in greater decline than you see in other fighters.

 

No. Not unless you're going to say that age alone determines a fighter's prime, which would be silly. Aging isn't even a single process that can be easily conceptually isolated, like (say) respiration.

 

Ad Wolgast was shot younger than many reach their prime now. It's not just about the number of years they've lived.

 

I assume most the people here have already seen the 1970 footage of Angelo Dundee and Cus D'amato analyzing Ali has in spars in preparation for the FOTC. If you haven't seen it, it's well worth watching. Both agree that Ali has (literally) lost a step.

 

It wasn't about age, it was about being totally inactive (no regular training, no exhibition fights) for 3.5 years. Tell me one athlete that's come back the same from such inactivity.

And at the time the consensus view, even before he lost to Frazier, was that he wasn't quite as good after the exile. It's contemptorary revisionism that questions this, not the ones who actually followed him at the time.