Consensus pound-for-pound greatest

I don't rate Norton any higher than yourself. But it is wins like them that fill your record very nicely when you have a lot of them plus top of the range stuff to go with it. He beat a prime Liston, and was far superior, he beat a prime Frazier, and he stopped a prime Foreman, and he was past his own best then, to counter that with him being a 'better, more clever boxer' at that time is truly nitpicking i'd say.

The 'records' thread you made, you said you would only post the names and leave the subjective stuff up to us, well that's what i'm doing here. I'm analysing the names on Ali's record and what they amount to and what they mean under the circumstances. I'd easily label it astonishing to be honest.

But i'm not knocking your placement of him at all Manassa, there's nothing else i would like to add apart from what i said in post number 29.

 

That's what I've always felt about Ali. His era featured a few standout greats here and there (Frazier, Liston, Foreman) and then a wealth of "just OK" contenders, and that's basically how his resume looks. Foreman and Liston were humongous wins, no question, but fighters like Chuvalo, Quarry, Bonavena, Lyle, Bugner, etc. aren't really anything spectacular IMO. If anything, they just get a lot more exposure than they should from being in high profile matches with "The Greatest" and the Greatest's chief rivals.

Even Norton I don't believe was a true great, given all the times he was embarrassingly KO'd all through his career. He was probably "the best of the rest" outside of the greats like Frazier and Foreman, but even he's famous mainly because Ali lost to him and then struggled in their rematches.

 

Actually, I'd go a step further and say Marshall was almost definitely better than Norton, and Quarry was not on the level of Sarron(who is vastly underrated IMO).

Marshall had far more big and meaningful wins than Norton, wasn't any more embarrassed in his losses while he was in or near his prime.

Quarry was just a perennial contender who got numerous opportunities to either win a title or get shots at them, and blew them all. Sarron was good enough to win the big fight, and against a long-reigning HOFer (Miller), and the only fighter ever to stop him in 100-plus fights was the incomparable Armstrong, whereas Quarry was KO'd by someone like Chuvalo while right in his prime.

 

But maybe pound for pound is not all about legacy and accomplishments and actually takes into account head to head on a pound for pound basis?


This is just a thought, but Ali, in his prime was timed as having a faster jab than middleweight Ray Robinson. I think that this probably makes him the pound for pound fastest boxer in history. Given his size, probably by quite away. I think that also, pound for pound his chin, heart and recovery ability are second to none and arguably this makes him the pound for pound best (or close to it) in these areas. His ability to improvise in the ring and apply general tactics is also as good as anyones. When you consider all of this, maybe, just maybe he is the pound for pound greatest?

 

Agreed.

 

Seconded

 

I still see it exactly how i initially posted, my whole point is that Ali is on the level of the very highest tier of fighters ever, wether he is behind them in placements or not, there is no gulf in class inmy opinion. I made my post becasue his name didn't pop up, and never does, whereas fighters on his level frequently do.

 

I actually consider that pretty damn high praise for Norton and Quarry to be mentioned in that company. I for one think Marshall was light-years ahead of Norton.

 

To be honest with you, even if we could only take into acount one win for each oponent, he would still come out ahead of Robinson and Armstrong.

That aside beating the same oponent multiple times is more impresive than beating them once.

 

No. Not at all actually.

 

Yeah, I would question that as well.

Beating Gans was an impressive feat, especially considering Langford was at such an early stage in his career; but outside of that, his biggest achievements were actually draws with reigning champions, Walcott and Ketchel. Granted, both those outcomes were debated by some, but without film we can't really know what happened or who (if anyone) "really" won. By contrast, Armstrong outright beat the reigning champs at three different weights, and two of them were HOFers like the ones Langford fought. And I don't think any one of Langford's wins were as big as Armstrong's over Ross.