Ali H2H

Tyson did not become the true hwt champion until he beat Spinks.

Being a multiple winner of titles is much easier with so many titles to grab for.

Ali is the greatest for many multiple reasons. Predominant however is his ability to rise to another level to beat the odds vs exceptionally tough opposition. His coming out on top in a war with top rated challenger Joe Frazier in 75 put the exclamation point on his ATG status. Frazier against most any other fighter underbthose same circumstances SHOULD have won this bout. Ali called on some hidden reserve at a time where he appeared totally spent (round 11) to beat back Joe to a point where he could no longer continue. This type win is what the phrase ATG signifies.

 

Your ignorance of what Ali was, is clear.
He surpassed just boxing achievements.
In a world without the internet and satellite TV, it was said that you could drop him from a plane anywhere on earth and the first person to see him would embrace him.
He transcended his sport in a way no boxer ever will again.
He was voted the number one sportsman of the Century !
As for boxing he took the HW division to new levels of speed and skill.
Its not just an 'old timers' thing.
We were so lucky to have him.

 

Ironically, you are describing a syndrome that better reflects the irrational nostalgiaists who refuse, without any apparent equivocation, to recognize that the great hws of earlier era would be outmatched. Size is a huge part, yes, but it is also simply a reflection of a general increase in talent pool that has seen records broken across the spectrum in tangible sports. It's fascinating how people can turn such a blind eye to such strong and obvious logic; mental contortions to try to justify the beliefs they hold, it's called confirmation bias, and the nostalgiaists have it very bad.

As Joff says well, fans like us, while we naturally have favorites and biases etc, as any human does, are vastly less vested in a predetermined result than posters who can only accept that their favorite old timer must always remain unbeatable. Apart from the fact that we have logic on our side, our comparative lack of confirmation bias also suggests we're correct.

 

Actually, you shouldn't back down on that point. Many of history's great scientific discoveries were made by people outside of the chosen profession, free from being brought up in the dogma of the particular field.

 

He just said Ali was the greatest. Just that he's not the godlike entity some of you people make him out to be.

Along with Louis, he had an impact on boxing and history that no other boxer probably ever will. To anyone outside of the boxing nostalgiaists fanbase, recognizing that would be considered HUGE praise and evidence of my respect for him. But because I'm realistic about his h2h limitations against modern top level shws, people like you would call me a hater. It's bizarre.

 

Agree with most of this, although Ali would be small in both height and weight today. Most of the ring top ten are taller than him, some much taller, and the shorter ones are only about an inch shorter

 

Correct. Like it or not, top level heavyweight boxing ( say the best 6-7 that are ranked ) has evolved into very large and skilled men who can hit hard from a distance.

And because they are so big and can hit so hard, you get a built in caution when the best fight each other for the most part.

Iron chins that can take these type of blows are rare these days, not one of the top ten heavies has a proven one and its because everyone can hit.

Ali liked it best when guys came to him. He was not as good when he had to come to them. But he'd have to come to them vs the best skilled super heavyweights.

 

If you look at the face off with Wlad and Joshua you'll find that Joshua is no more than 6'4. Only an inch taller than Ali.

 

You will find that the most knowledgable posters understand that almost nothing is obvious in matching fighters from different eras.

It is the people with the biggest gaps in their knowledge are the only ones who are certain of their views.

You make the assumption that the talent pool is bigger today than at any time in the past.

All the evidence suggests that this is not the case, in as much as the data leads to any definite conclusion.
The global talent pool seems to have been declining since the Second World War, and it might in fact have peaked during the 1920s!

Ironically the post steroid heavyweights seem to be the first great fighters who did not go on to be regarded as the greatest, by the generation who grew up with them.

This is in large part because they all dropped the ball in some major way.

 

As I mentioned in my other post, I'd largely agree that the people who "know" the least are most certain of their correctness. Haven't you noticed that the people who maintain that Ali would beat anyone are generally more dismissive of any other viewpoint?
As to talent pool, all evidence correlates to a vastly bigger talent pool. The world is vastly more populated now than ever, and it's also more culturally connected. That means vastly more people can find their way to the sport. It may not be as proportionately popular in the us as before, but neither are many Olympic sports where records have also been broken. Physical talent tends to navigate to appropriate athletic endeavor s. And there is vastly more physical talent worldwide now than 40 years ago, and they are vastly more plugged in and accessible to world athletic participation than ever before. Globalism.

 

You hit the nail on the head regarding talent pool. Good job, that's a hard concept for alot of people.

 

Head to head no one should be favored save Jeffries at 25 rounds....even odds Johnson..Dempsey..Tunney..Louis..Walcott would be pretty tough for Ali..thanks

 

Newbies and their obsession with size. It should be the last variable to consider. The newbies put it forefront because it's the easy concept to grasp.