Duran, Zarate, Monzon, Arguello , Cervantes,Olivaires, Ali, (1st half of 70's) Holmes (2nd half)Gomez,Leonard,(very late 70's) Benitez (late 70's also)
Ok, I apologize for calling your post bollocks but my exasperation got the better of me. It wasn't because I couldn't refute your arguments, it was because your arguments were so fundamentally flawed that it was barely worth replying at all. So, I can dissect your post point by point but that requires an effort that I'm not sure will be beneficial to either of us. I don't say this to make you look or feel bad, just to say that if you're going to hold unconventional opinions, you have to have something substantial to back them up with. If you want me to go ahead and post a point by point response to your last post, I will this one time if you are genuinely interested. But after that it'll probably be easier if I don't respond to things you write of that nature because I can't promise I won't return to 'you're talking complete bollocks' as a simpler default reponse. Up to you.
These are all terrible, terrible excuses that you are inventing to support a dubious argument, that Foreman deserves to be ranked above Ali in the 1970s. Foreman himself never made such excuses and these are almost pseudo conspiracy theories that Foreman lost for every possible reason other than Ali beat him fair and square and was better than him. Ali was the no. 1 contender not out of some favouritism but because he had beaten the other two top contenders (Norton and Frazier) for the title. He was justifiably ranked at no. 1 before the Foreman fight and after beating Foreman reigned for 5 years and defended the title multiple times over that period. Foreman crushed Frazier and Norton - no one is denying that - and there are plenty of people who have Foreman in their top 10 fighters of the 1970s but no one has him above Ali, because it doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny. You've concocted a fantasy around the Ali-Foreman fight that flies in the face of what people witnessed and that is why people are calling you on it, not because you have your own opinion and other people don't.
Overrated how? A list of boxers Ali defeated in the 70s: -Jerry Quarry x 2 -Oscar Bonavena -Jimmy Ellis -Buster Mathis -Jurgen Blinn -Mac Foster -George Chuvalo -Alvin Lewis -Floyd Patterson -Bob Foster -Joe Bugner x 2 -Ken Norton x 2 -Rudie Lubbers -Joe Frazier x 2 -George Foreman -Chuck Wepner -Ron Lyle -Jean-Pierre Coopman -Jimmy Young -Richard Dunn -Alfredo Evangelista -Earnie Shavers -Leon Spinks Sure, there are some no hopers in that list but that's also a deeper resume than Foreman's during the same period and guess what, Foreman's name is on there too despite your protests (which are not facts - you really need to stop saying they are). Your points here are just a highly subjective interpretation of events taken to the point of absurdity. I'm not an Ali fanboy by any stretch, but if you're prepared to dismiss his achievements the way you are doing, you are clearly not capable of being objective about this.
But no-one is saying Cooney is highly ranked, I and other people are just saying that about Ali and there is a weight of evidence to support that claim. That's the reason people rate him so highly, not because they are living in a 'fairy tale'. There's really only one person who can be reasonably accused of that here, and it's not me. Did Ali get some favourable decisions? Yes. Did he fight some average opposition? Yes. Did he beat all the best heavyweights across two decades? Yes. Did he KO George Foreman? Yes. Did he reign for nearly 5 years in the 70s as undisputed heavyweight champion? Yes. Was he demonstrably greater than Foreman in the 70s? Yes. I'm done.