Ali fraud...

I couldn't care much about my list either.

I find making these lists about as interesting as watching Ali versus Buster Mathis, Jurgen Blin and Mac Foster ...... :dead

 

You're doing it wrong, that's why. :good You're supposed to judge fighters based on how good they looked on film, and the quality of their opposition...you clearly haven't done that if you're having to contemplate Ali getting a runner's up spot or not.

 

Whether or not one is a devotee, a critic, or a convert, this post has salient points that baby-boomers would do well to ponder.

Ali was a great fighter, but a "hero"?

Give us a break.

 

"Quality of opposition" is often a tricky one.
Boxing is a business and as Seamus pointed out, it's more akin to pro wrestling than boxing fans are prepared to admit. Quality of opposition can be analysed in various ways, the whole business of boxing is to "build-up" fighters and make them seem special .... this either works or it backfires and causes a backlash, either way we end up with varying perspectives on the "quality" of a fighter, and often a distortion.

People go to great pains to tear apart the opposition of certain fighters, which is unfair I guess, but Ali seems to get a free pass. Truth is, he fought most of the best around in his time, as did many other great heavyweights.

Ali looks great on film. He was great. But like other great fighters, he looked consistently really great for a relatively short period of time, and take his career as a whole he often looked less-than-great.

 

I can see the points you're trying to make, but I'll just ask you plainly to avoid all of this filler.

What Heavyweight beat the quality of opposition that Muhammad Ali did?

 

I dont really accept that there's a knowable answer to the question, but .....

Arguably, Joe Louis did, and Holyfield.

 

Yup. Doesn't mean he is first though.

And a green or fading Ali could get caught by Baer or Schmeling. And with a ref who was enforcing the rules of the game and limited clinching, holding the ropes, hitting and holding, that legendary chin would get truly tested.

 

If Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, or Lyle couldn't stop a faded Muhammad Ali, Baer and Schmeling won't be doing it either.

 

I'm kind of confused why some see his struggles with Norton as such a knock against him. Norton was a terribly difficult conondrum for non-punchers and Ali was past his prime on all occassions. For the third fight he was way past his prime. Probably as past it as Leonard was against Norris, if not more.

 

Muhammad Ali is the only fighter who is overly judged for past prime performances. It's a testament to how good the man was at his best.

 

As for Ali's opposition being overrated I think it's enlightening to see how some of the 70's fighters did in other eras. Not only Foreman and Holmes, but even Bugner, who lost to all the top guys he fought in the 70's, came back in his late 30's and recorded wins over Page, Tillis and Smith.

 

You missed the caveat of clean fighting and the exclusion of Ali's cheating bull****. And I believe Schmeling and certainly Baer hit harder than Frazier and Lyle. And for sheer concussive power Baer is up there with Foreman and, gasp, arguably even with Shavers.

 

It's not really a huge knock against him, unless you think he indisputedly proved himself the greatest of all-time. It's a bit of a blemish on the career record.

I see Holyfield get criticized for losing to Moorer (in a fight where he underperformed badly, past his prime and lost by razor-close decision), and for going 1-2 against Bowe, as some sort of evidence that he was inconsistent.

Holmes gets called up on controversial or "gift" wins against Tim Witherspoon and Carl Williams when he was past prime.

The point with Ali-Norton is that, for those of us who seen them and are not entirely convinced Ali won the series (and possibly not decisively won a single fight), it throws the idea that Ali "dominated" the 1970s field slightly off.

All fighters have troublesome opponents, certain guys they cant do well against, so it's no shame for Ali with Norton. But it does throw his 70s-vintage dominance into question. In fact, there wasn't much legitimacy to Ali's challengers and defenses after Manila, which came only a year after he regained the title from Foreman, before which he'd already only gone 1-1 with Norton.
I think Joe Louis for one, was way more dominant.

 

He's not being overly judged for past prime performances. He's being judged the same as everyone else.

He was 29 years old when he FAILED to win back the title from Joe Frazier.
He was 32 when he SUCCEEDED in winning it from George Foreman.
In between, he lost to Ken Norton, and he had a few other somewhat dismal performances (and some very good ones).

This isn't "overly judging". Yes, he was past prime, but absolute "primes" never last long, and fighters do get measured on what they did when they were still good enough to win championships.

 

Oh **** off.