You can't pick when a loss counts and when it doesn't. Over his career Ali lost fights, should we discount him because of it? Mike Tyson lost fights, does that weaken the claim that in his prime he was one of the best ever? Ultimately, heavyweight boxing is like that. They all lose at some point...except Marciano. Rahman was good enough on the day, and that's it. Had he gone on to create a legacy then we would realise it wasn't a fluke, a one off. But, because he never really fulfilled that potential people are more likely to give Lewis the benefit of the doubt and assume he had an off day. Remember, Lewis two defeats (Rahman and McCall) were against guys he was expected to beat relatively easily. It could be he simply got complacent and overlooked them.
Ali would win obviously because of speed, speed and even more speed. He had the skills to pay the bills as well as the best chin ever. You really need to include Big Larry Holmes as he could and would likely defeat eveyone peak for peak except Ali.
Hard to say. My front runners would be Ali, Lewis and Klitschko. A LOT hinges on stylistic matchups and I can see some guys that would be favoured over others losing to a third fighter who the guy they beat would beat. I can see a guy like Fury being a right pain in the ass for the boxer types on here (like Ali). On the other hand a dude that isn't scared to throw down like Foreman, might well give Fury a hard time, whereas we all know he lost to Ali IRL. I think Frazier, who was a hard matchup for Ali, might struggle against rangey boxers with power like Lewis and Klitschko etc etc. I pick those three as having the best chance against a wide variety of opponents. So if it is a round robin event take your pick.
Lewis is a H2H nightmare for basically anyone, I'd fancy him strongly here. I don't know why you're even mentioning Wilder anywhere near this conversation, he's levels upon levels away from the guys on this list.
I thought you said this tournament was for the fighters at their best.That means in their prime so Ali was never beaten in his prime Lewis was simple as that.Its not picking and choosing its a fact
Fair point. I was going to add Holmes, and I did mention him as one of those I left out. I just felt it was him or Frazier and Joe is just more my kind of fighter and I was intrigued how people thought he might get on against some of the smaller guys like Mike Tyson or Holyfield.
I think I merely mentioned him in the context of smaller guys. I absolutely wouldn't put him anywhere near this list. But, you have to conceed some people, Wilder included, actually think he's an ATG and his (padded by bums) k.o record is at least impressive on the surface.
I'm not sure what you are driving at. You said Lewis lost to Rahman and implied that meant he wasn't fit to be on the list. I replied that just because a fighter loses, especially in the heavyweight division, doesn't mean they aren't great. All of the ATG heavyweights, with the exception of Marciano, lost fights. You want to suggest Ali didn’t really lose because he wasn't in his prime, as if that is relevant to a man's lengthy career. I don't know, perhaps I've misunderstood your point. Ultimately, yes, we are assuming that it is the best version of each fighter. That just means when they were at their most dangerous, motivated, physically robust etc... It's entirely debatable when exactly that is for certain fighters. For instance, would you say the Ali who beat Liston (both times if you like) was a better version of the man than the Ali who beat Foreman? They were separated by about 10 years, but is that important? Experience can overcome youth. Was he a more sophisticated, skilful operator when he faced Foreman? I'm not saying he was, or wasn't, I'm just posing a question. It's certainly up for debate which is the best version of a fighter.
And there are some people, Jake Paul included, who think Jake Paul is actually a real boxer. We have words for such people... "Casual" is the polite one, "idiot" or "deluded" are often more accurate.
Jake Paul is only fooling the 12 year olds who worship him. Grown ups see him for the fraud he is. However, as much I have zero time for Wilder, let's not go overboard and suggest he is anything like Jake Paul. We need to be rational.
Ali was only 216 and Foreman 220 in that match... Only 4 pounds difference. 1 inch in height 0 inch in reach...
The Ali that beat Liston was for sure a better fighter My point is Ali was a completely different fighter before his enforced exile.He was a magnificent specimen in his youth and would have been too quick for Lewis and boxed rings around him
Nono, I'm not saying Wilder is anything like Jake Paul in boxing terms. I'm saying that the idea of Wilder as an ATG is not far off being as ridiculous as the idea that Paul is a legit boxer rather than a sideshow for kids. Nobody serious has Wilder within a million miles of ATG just as nobody serious has Jake within a million miles of proper professional boxers. I was being hyperbolic for effect, but nonetheless I'm not sure I could take someone who consider Wilder an ATG seriously.
Just tournament bracket. Ali beats Foreman to move forward. Tyson Beats Fraizer to move Forward. Ali Beats Tyson to move on to the Final. Lewis beats Holyfield, Fury beats Klitschko. Lewis beats Fury to move into the final. Lennox Lewis wins the final.