Does SRR have any wins better than Ali vs Liston, Foreman, and Frazier?

Hard to say, there are so many factors going into it so it really depends what you emphasize. But I think beating LaMotta several times prime for prime while giving up a good chunk of size could well be argued to be up there with any wins Ali have.

 

At the age Ali was when he beat Shavers, Charles lost to John Halman and Toxic Hall. Shavers KO'd Young, Ellis and Norton and had Lyle and Holmes in desperate trouble, so he was definitely levels above these guys.

And there were many lesser fighters than Norton who saw the distance against Charles. The aforementioned to start with.

I agree that Charles's wins over Moore are better than any Ali have, but most of your post is actually nonsense.

To suggest that Ali/Clay went to the Olympics in order to "delay his pro debut" is actually the single dumbest thing I've seen on this board for a good while. You mean to say that winning Olympic gold had less to do with it than getting a few extra months before facing the terrifying Tunney Hunsaker? You must trolling.

 

You have some seriously high standards @Claw4075, to look at the statements that @Rubber Glove Sandwich and @Mike Cannon gave and conclude that, that is why you cannot rate him #1!

 

Ali lost to Leon Spinks, who wouldn't be inside top 20 Charles wins.

Not P4P and Rocky was prime, while Charles past it. Meanwhile, Liston was past prime while Ali reached his peak. Not comparable at all.

 

Where the F are these guys coming from? Or is it just some old alt?

 

Spinks isn't one of Ali's top 20 wins either and Charles lost to worse fighters than Spinks. Not sure what your point is.

And, yeah, the good 'ol Liston coming off of his two best performances was an old depleted shell while Ali, coming off struggles against Jones and Cooper, was peak.

But I do agree that Charles was past his best against Rocky and maybe could have won at least one of the fights if he was in his prime.

Thing is, if you want to argue that Charles's wins over Moore trumps anything on Ali's record, you won't get much resistance. You don't have to go into overdrive trying to discredit Ali's work. The quality of Charles's best wins are just fine on their own merit.

 

Yes he has. The only reason Ali's opposition seems better was cause of the era in which he boxed was more exposed to television and publicity, his opponents were simply more well known to the general public, but that does not mean they were better.
SRR has Kid Gavillan, Jake Lamotta, Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, Bobo Olsen, Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio etc.
Also, SRR is also regarded as the GOAT due to having won titles in 2 weight classes (would have been 2 if not for the extreme heat that forced him to retire against Joey Maxim for the LHW title, a match he was completely dominating), being almost unbeatable in his prime (with a streak of 85 consecutive wins), and having all the qualities a boxer should possess.

 

Aren't all of them crude obsolete amateurs by modern standard?

 

Charles had over 120 fights in his career and he fought way past his best. Of course he'd have more losses.

By the way, that's not my argument for Charles over Ali. I'm just pointing out the flaws in the original post logic.

 

Liston was older than stated and did not train properly for the first fight cause he underestimated Ali. Took a dive in the second.

Foreman was indeed prime, but he was neither the most skilled, nor the smartest cookie in the jar. Foreman punched himself out in the scorching heat of Zaire. Ali tricked him and he knew that would not work twice, that's why he didn't give him an immediate rematch.

Ali cheated in their second fight by excessively holding and pushing down on Frazier's neck and head. He should have been disqualified.
And by the time of their 3rd fight, he was almost completely blind in one eye. Plus Ali was about to quit himself had Eddie Futch not thrown the towell.

Patterson had an injured sacroiliac joint.

Norton was good, but nothing special. He only got famous cause he beat Ali.
Quarry was not even a proper HW size wise.
Ellis was decent but again, nothing special.
Terrell was a B level boxer at best.
Lyle was good, but the fight was stopped prematurely.
Bonavena was a stiff slow bum.

 

It does not matter how they are by modern standards, this is about greatness not H2H, meaning how good they were in their era, not how they would do now.

 

Then why not Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford or Harry Greb for GOAT candidacy?

 

Greb and Lagford are candidates, although they don't have as much of a claim as SRR cause the level in their era was lower than that in SRR's era. And they racked up more losses in their prime than SRR, who only lost once.
Fitzsimmons played in garbage era, probably the weakest ever.

 

You did. And I think it also is a flaw to point out Ali's loss to Spinks, at a point where Ali was more than 10 years past his best, as something meaningful or something that separates him from Charles.