How come the strong consensus is Ali and Louis are the top 2 heavyweights of all time?

As others have said, it is pretty clear cut on paper.

They both beat twice as many elite fighters as any potential rival for a top two spot.

That doesn't men that you should not make a case for someone else to be in the top two, but you need to be aware of the above before you start.

 

I’m actually kind of shocked that Briggs was considered the next best heavyweight to Lewis when they fought. Yes I know he was lineal, a weak one at that, but he really ranked over Holyfield at that time whom was coming off back to back wins over Tyson and a beatdown of Moorer. A Majority decision over a 47 year old Foreman, most people felt Briggs lost, really is an anomaly for being ranked over Holyfield.

 

Anti-populist bias.

In my two decades on this forum, I have seen many a fan be so contrarian that they critique fighters for things that their favourites didn't even achieve half of.

Ali's competition is unrivalled at HW in terms of the regularity that he faced and beat the best fighters of the day. Louis is also up there, but he doesn't have Liston, Frazier and Foreman on his résumé.

There are forum members that will straight faced tell you how bad they were and how Mike Tyson, Lennox, Holyfield, now Usyk - pick a fighter would ruin them, they're overrated and are horrible H2H and then when you scratch the surface or unproven elements of who they champion, the change in logic is belly tickling.

The separation between two great fighters in the ring is much smaller than us non-elite boxer types realise. However, when it comes to proven record in the ring, the gulf between Ali and Louis is so far away from everything else, that they can logically be fitted into a top 10 - 15 ATG p4p list without batting an eyelid - no other HWs can do this!

 

There are some Tyson fans here who straight out dismiss Ali's wins over Liston and Patterson due to injuries, but when I ask them if the same goes for Tyson's wins over Thomas and Tucker - which I've done numerous times - there's never been a reply. Not a single time.

So, as you say, logic definitely changes when it needs to.

 

Spinks with the bad knees.
Holyfield with the heart/stamina questions.

No point in debating. As you've probably seen, I tend to save my Ali commentary to step in to show how he had solid fundamentals alongside unorthodoxy and technical errors everytime that misnomer of no fundamentals arises.

I've come to realise that many of us, myself often, we are stupid fans chatting sh1t and not realising how inconsistent our logic is when we are just trying to win an argument with someone else who's just as stupid with their logic.

 

You’re basing a lot of Liston's greatness on the perception at the time rather than his actual career and condition when Ali fought him. Yes, he was feared, but fear alone doesn’t make a fighter all-time great.

The reality is, the Liston Ali beat wasn’t the prime Liston who destroyed Patterson—he was aging, inactive, and dealing with injuries. His aura was still there, but his peak form wasn’t. Ali still deserves credit, but acting like he slayed an all-time great version of Liston is overstating it.

Compare that to Frazier and Foreman—Ali beat them when they were still very good fighters, and those wins hold up far better when looking past the hype.

And there are legitimate arguments for why Ali isn’t number one. For a while, he wasn’t even the best fighter of the '70s. When he was near his peak, he lost to Frazier, whereas Louis, at his peak, never lost. He also struggled with Norton and never convincingly beat him, while Louis had close fights but always avenged them decisively.

Then there’s longevity—Ali took time to become the lineal champ and didn’t have Louis’ title defenses or reign. Those are all valid reasons someone might place Louis over Ali. That said, I’d still rank Ali higher, but I can see the case for either.

 

The argument about Ali’s '60s opposition being weak comes down to context. Liston was past his best by the time Ali fought him, and Patterson, while skilled, was a small heavyweight who struggled against bigger elite opponents. So while those wins still matter, they're not as impressive as they seem on paper.

Beyond that, the rest of Ali’s title reign in the '60s wasn’t exactly stacked. Guys like Terrell, Folley, and Williams were good contenders, but none were all-time greats, and some of them were clearly past their best. That’s why there's an argument to be made that the competition wasn’t as strong as in his second reign

 

Was the 60s being weak a thing? I thought it was rated among the strongest. It definitely gets a heap more praise than today's era for sure.

 

Its wedged in between the consensus strongest and weakest era so its in a kinda strange place.

 

It's mainly the 70's that gets praise, the 60's rather the opposite, I'd say. Strange when you had Patterson, Liston and Ali all peaking in that decade.

It's true that Ali caught Williams and Folley past their best, though, but it gets oversold when it comes to Folley. He rolled back the years in that one I think. And many reigns will have challengers who have seen their best days.

 

When Ali was at his peak in the 1960s, the heavyweight division wasn’t at its strongest. By the time he took over, many of the top fighters from the previous era had aged past their best. The division was actually deeper when Liston and Patterson were champions, as most of their top opponents were still in their primes.

By the time Ali fought them, however, that talent pool had declined. Liston was still dangerous but past his peak. Patterson was undersized and physically outmatched, especially with his back issues. Terrell was a solid contender but too slow and predictable to truly trouble Ali.

So in hindsight, Ali’s best wins from that period—Liston, Patterson, and Terrell—don’t look as strong as they might have at the time. The division became much stronger in the ‘70s, where Ali had to face prime versions of Frazier, Foreman, and Norton, along with dangerous contenders like Shavers and Lyle.

 

And beat them all.

 

It's arguable if he ever truly beat Norton but rest yep which is why he's number 1

 

Because they are.

Duh.

 

I just don't see it as being close. Holmes does not have the competition. He has longevity like Louis and Ali, but it came mostly from being in a weak era and avoiding even the best drug addicts and fat guys that were out there.

I mean, compare the consensus top ten wins (vote tally included):

ALI
George Foreman 11
Sonny Liston I 11
Joe Frazier II 11
Ken Norton II 10
Joe Frazier III 10
Ernie Terrell 9
Floyd Patterson 1 8
Sonny Liston II 7
Ron Lyle 7
Jerry Quarry I 6

HOLMES
Norton-5
Witherspoon-5
Shavers 2-5
Cooney -5
Berbick-5
Leon Spinks-5
Bonecrusher-4
Mercer-4
Shavers 1-4
Weaver-4

I have not done a Louis top ten, but when you start with Baer, Schmeling, Walcott, Conn....