Better resume Ali vs Mayweather

I don't focus on losses when assessing fighters; I look at how good they were at their best. At his peak, Wlad dominated his competition and, by your own admission, faced a similar level of opposition to Holmes but did so far more clearly and convincingly. Even if Holmes was more skilled on paper, he didn’t consistently show it in the ring, often having close fights with opponents who shouldn’t have been on his level. In contrast, Wlad was dominant, which is why I rank him higher.

 

Ali mostly cut his teeth fighting the best in the world as an older man past his prime ... Floyd in many cases was the older mn but he brilliantly cherrypicked who he fought and when he fought them. He was a brilliant promoter in addition to being an exceptional fighter .

 

BS!

You absolutely focused on Duran’s losses when we debated the other week, on No Neck’s genius thread regarding the resumes of Floyd and the Fab Four.

Do you want me to post your replies??

Also, if you’re objective, you look at ALL factors.


Wlad was never better than Larry.

They dominated a similar level of competition.

But Wlad wasn’t more skilled, and he was far more vulnerable with worse losses.

 

Not true my overall point was that Floyd has more good wins but Duran has better singular wins. I was talking about how you can't give credit for fighting and losing to better fighters which I don't but I also don't take away credit for losing maybe that went over your head a bit.

Again you admit their level of competition was similar but objectively speaking Wlad dominated his while Holmes had several either close or competitive fights so where's the domination from Holmes? I really don't see it.

 

Did Holmes unify?

 

These are the facts Ali fanboy.
It's not my fault you're butthurt.
Ali is the most overrated boxer in history.

 

You have a point here. Even though Wlad's struggles came in his 20's, I agree that his fantastic 10 years alter that is a good basis to judge his greatness on. It's perfectly plausible that he hit his best during that period. Actually, it's the most likely option.

 

Is Wlad closer to being in the top 3 or being in 5-10?

 

Ali also tricked Archie Moore and Sandy Saddler who together had almost a century of boxing experience.

 

Ali beat nineteen out of twenty top ten Ring Magazine rated heavyweights in their 1963 and 1973 magazines. He fought everyone, even boxers who were stylistically bad matches and beat them.

 

themaster458,

It didn’t go ever my head.

It’s you who doesn’t realise that a resume is a stand alone factor.

Where a guy ranks, is then dependant upon the results from those fights that are on his resume.

That’s how it is.


Duran clearly has the better resume than Floyd.

Now if you want to rate Floyd higher, as Duran lost his biggest fights, then you can try and make an objective case for that.

But Duran has the better resume, as he fought much better fighters. True ATG fighters, who were in their absolute primes.

Their competition was similar.

But look at the WHOLE picture.


Again, Wlad wasn’t more skilled.


Again, Wlad got knocked out by THREE NON great guys, whilst in his 20’s.

Now if a fighter is shot and gets knocked out, then that’s not really that relevant when you’re ranking them all time. But if it happens THREE times in their 20’s, then that’s a huge black mark.

Then imagine Larry getting knocked out by a guy like Sanders, and then getting his brother to go and avenge his defeat on his behalf.


Again, it doesn’t matter if Larry ALMOST got knocked out by the guys you mentioned. They were very good and very dangerous fighters.

And again, Wlad DID get knocked out.


He got knocked out FOUR times, to four NON great fighters in his career.

He was knocked down THIRTEEN times.

Larry was only knocked out ONCE, by a GREAT HW, who was in his prime, in a 75 fight career which spanned 20 years. And he was past his prime and had been inactive at the time, like when Wlad had lost to AJ.


Now you can look negatively on Larry’s resume, but look at who Wlad fought, and how he fought them etc:

The fourth greatest HW in history, does not go life and death with Sam Peter.

They do not fight Povetkin like they’re in the UFC.

They do not cautiously fight David Haye, after promising to go through him.

They do not get completely psyched out by Tyson Fury, who at the time, had barely beaten anybody.


Those are not the actions of the fourth best HW in history.


Larry had a better chin.

Larry was mentally stronger.

Larry wasn’t vulnerable like Wlad was, when he was put under pressure.

Larry didn’t have an older brother to tag team the division.


And whilst No Neck is playing his imaginary ‘What if?’ game, then I can tell you something for sure:

Wlad only has the record that he does, because Vitali had to keep retiring for surgery.

If Vitali had stayed injury free and remained active, Wlad would never have acquired all of the belts and reigned for so long.

It also goes without saying that the era was quite weak.


You cannot rank Wlad above Larry.

It is nonsensical.


I don’t care about the stats.

There’s much more to look at, as mentioned above.


Prime for prime, Larry Holmes was just the better, more complete fighter.

 

Sure you can. Wlad had the longer reign and was more dominant during his reign.

He could also potentially beat Larry

 

I have my opinion you have yours I don't tell you how to think don't tell me how to think I gave my reasons if you disagree cool I respect your opinion but we have different criteria on how we rank fighters.

 

3 to 6 is somewhat fair game. Anyone not putting him right next to Larry, higher or lower, is lying to themselves.

 

So??