In an article of the ring magazing (June `96) titled: The 50 greatest fighters of the last 50 years Ray Robinson was voted No.1 and Ali was rated No.2, did both or either fighter deserve that rank at the time and which fighter had the better resume? What they stated about Robi: Quality of competition: 10 Bouts vs. Top 50 fighters: 4 Why he`s here: The last 50 years, the last 100, it doesn`t matter. He`s the greatest of all-time. What he could have done to improve his ranking: Walked on water. What they stated about Ali: Quality of competition: 10 Bouts vs. Top 50 fighters; 6 Why he`s here: With apologies to Joe Louis, there`s never been a better heavyweight. What he could have done to improve his ranking: Defended his title from March 1967 to October 1970.
SRR had more wins over ranked contenders, often over bigger fighters. That's what sets his resume apart from Ali's, but not a big difference.
It's hard to beat a resume with wins over frazer,foreman,Liston,Patterson,Moore and norton(with an asterisks) on it he probably deserves No.2 just by resume but no. 2 of all time no way
Unfair criticism of Ali's record. I fail to see how he could have defended his title from April '67 to October '70. Those possibilities were out of his control since he had been barred by the state boxing commissions from defending his title in the USA and he was barred by the courts from leaving the country.l
Ali. He beat the best, several atg heavyweights who are universally regarded as great. Many top contenders who could be champs today as well. This while missing out his prime years. It's not really Robinson's fault but he doesn't have the resume at welter to match Ali's at heavy. He was old by the time of his great fights at middleweight, but I think he gets overrated a touch at middleweight. Again, not his fault that he was old and past his best. He still beat some great fighters. Ali to me had easily the best resume at heavyweight. That makes it hard to pick a better record of almost any fighter at any weight.
I'd just give Robinson the slight nod. He had a lot more bouts and at one stage he was 128-1-2. He came back from a layoff of his own in his 30's to regain world titles. Ali did it at heavyweight though against the strongest men and hardest punchers out there so it's very close between them imo. If you say Ali, I can see why and he has the best heavyweight resume.
Ali had better resume. He beat three fighters who are routinely in his division's all-time top 10. Can any other fighter claim that on their resume? I wish a current heavyweight would beat three fighters in his division's current top 10. Did Sugar Ray beat a consensus top 10 welterweight or middleweight? That's not exactly fair as, with more men weighing welter to middle, there are many more fighters so it is much harder to crack top 10 by dint of a deeper pool of talent. But Sugar was, in my opinion, the better fighter lb for lb. He had less weaknesses technically but as Ecto says that has nothing to do with strength of resume and that's what the thread is asking. If you're talking about another fighter, other than Ali, who beat three fighters who were all time top tens in their division, you could say Sugar Ray, of course. Just not this one.
