Who is the most overrated heavyweight, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Tyson Fury, or others?

There is no one who beat better contenders and more in their prime than Ali. At Hw period. This isn’t a debate it’s a fact. They were also great contenders with proven records. Unlike the marshmallows today who beat one ranked man than avoid everyone till a alphabet title shot. These men were all testing each other.

 

I have to bite my tongue or this thread will become all about me and my affection for Ali. I can kind of see where the pushback comes from because he has assumed boxing deity status like Jordan has received basketball deity status, Brady has received football deity status, Serena Wlliiams has received women's tennis deity status and so forth and so on for other sports. Here's the thing. Were those athletes without flaws? No. Did they always come out on top? No. But they were stellar in high leverage moments. I also categorically reject the assertion that only casuals rate Ali highly. If there's money on the table I'll cite with documentation multiple boxers, trainers, promoters, and historians who say he was one of the best. I'm not going to do all that work for nothing.

 

Lennox Lewis

 

You are going overboard here

Ali easily outboxed Liston in the first fight.

The second looked shady but I have no doubt he could have outboxed Liston again

The Young and Norton title defenses were after the Triller in Manila and Ali was clearly slipping.

Yes Norton presented a tough stylistic matchup and their fights were razor close

But up till '67 Ali presented a unique ability to apply blazing foot and hand speed to outbox his opponents

The enforced layoff robbed him of some of his prime

But the huge upset of Foreman who was thought unbeatable to regain the title and the win in the Thrilla in Manila reallly cement a stellar legacy in my eyes.

He probably should have retired after the Thrilla in Manilla

 

The argument against his competition was that many of them weren't at their best when he beat them and that some get overrated simply cause he faced them.

 

I meant every word.
And I've said this already, circumstances matter. Many of them were past it when Ali beat them or he was gifted the win.

 

Liston might have done great after he faced Ali, but that doesn't change the fact that:
- he wasn't in his prime anymore (he was past it even when he became champ);
- he badly underestimated Ali;
- he had a shoulder injury.
And he did great cause he actually trained after that.

He looked like **** in that fight, and I've never rated him personally. How he beat Machen is beyond my comprehension. Machen was so much more skilled.

Ringside witnesses confirm Ali realized Liston took a dive. Like I said, the only thing that is unclear is the reason.
Watch Jerry Izenberg talk about the Liston fight at around 16:00

This content is protected

 

The Census is pretty good proof. Many close to Liston confirm he was way older than stated. The coroner who performed the autopsy on his body aproximatted his age at around 50. Those are pretty good arguments to me.

One year before his fight with Ali, Cleveland Williams was shot with a .357 magnum by a cop. The bullet hit Williams in the stomach and lodged in his right hip. Williams had to undergo four operations in the next seven months for colon damage and an injured right kidney. The right kidney had to be removed in June 1965. Doctors could not extract the bullet, which had broken his right hip joint and caused partial paralysis of some of the hip's muscles, he also lost over 10 feet (3 m) of his small intestine, and sustained nerve damage which affected his left leg above the knee and caused it to atrophy as a result.
If that's not a fighter that's past his best, I don't know what is.

Natural HWs are +215 lbs. Patterson wasn't.

He cheated in their second fight and Frazier was almost completely blind in one eye for their 3rd match.

Wilder, Lewis, Bruno, Wladimir K., Liston, Tua - all are harder punchers than Shavers. Shavers KO percentage against proper HWs (+215 lbs) is 11 KOs in 23 fights.

He was very slow and had average skill. He simply became champ due to a lucky punch. He got beat by every good boxer he faced in the 90s. Moorer was dominating him all night long until his ego got the better of him and he wanted to show the world he could trade with Foreman.

Yes, that's part of him, but speed and reflexes are not the same as skill.

True, but almost all casuals do. That's the definition of overrated.

 

Who in your opinion beat more prime opponents? Can you name two at Hw? I mean if he’s over rated it should be an easy thing to do.

I don’t think anyone cares about Williams who although was a decent fighter was past it when Ali met him and he wouldn’t register as a top ten win for Ali let alone top five. By the way every fighter faces old and young competition but no one fought more great contenders in their prime than Ali did. I just don’t see how u can argue otherwise. Look forward to your two picks.

 

Should we place an asterisk next to the name of every boxer who has held and won? Thank you in advance.

 

I’ve stayed off here but can’t help myself I must respond to this ****.
You can look at the ring top 10 heavyweight rankings from 1962 to 1980 almost two decades and in every year he’s beaten at least half of the contenders, most years 7 or 8 one year all 10.
His achievements are extraordinary, no matter what you think of him if you can’t see that then you should be watching another sport.
So what if he had technical deficiencies, I would say he had quite a bit going for him like blistering speed and reflexes or haven’t you noticed that about him either?
Of course this is apart from having the heart of a lion and a rock hard chin, or have you not noticed those things about him either?
Head to head I have no problem with people saying Louis, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis or one or two others could beat him they’re great fighters although he’d still be favourite for me.
But to dismiss him and what he clearly did over two decades ducking no one especially compared with the paper thin resumes of the present day “luminaries” is a joke, you haven’t got a clue.

 

I agree with this 100%. Because Ali faced them means they're great fighters? Certain opposition gets picked apart: Wlad's (for good reason), Iron Mike's, Lennox's, Louis's, Marciano's, Dempsey's, Holmes's, but most of Ali's opposition especially during his first reign get put on a pedestal simply for being Muhammad Ali's opponent!

Ali's resume is top tier but he did fight some old timers and Euro bums.

 

Some of these posts go well beyond legitimate criticism. There are a lot of boxers I dislike but I confine my criticism of them to that which is legitimate.

 

That still doesn’t make him the greatest fighter of all time. Greatest HW? An argument can be made in his favor, but I still say his name built the popularity of other HWs who would never be remembered if not for being an opponent of Ali. Norton was not great fighter, Quarry much smaller, Young, Shavers, Jones and Norton were all robbed and the Liston fights were fixed. He whooped up on an ancient Moore and a shot, injured Patterson 2x. His legacy is tainted IMO, and his best win was Foreman, who was not a great boxer and who lacked stamina.

 

Whatever Big George lacked he's a perennial top ten hw atg as is Joe Frazier. And when I evaluate a professional athlete I measure his or her impact on society and few athletes have had a larger impact on society than Muhammad Ali.