This is not an Ali bash thread. But generally people rate him around 2-5 on the ATG lists. So this thread is going to look at him with the heightened scrutiny that such lofty praise warrants. People usually rate a fighter on their resume and H2H skills. Their legacy is typically combination of those two. No fighter is completely perfect, but I see some glaring weakness in Ali's game. Weaknesses that shouldn't be there in the 2nd greatest fighter ever in my opinion. First, his lack of power. He was never a huge puncher and since boxing is punching that's big one for me. Second, his lack of body punching. Was he not interested in it, or did he just lack the skills to go to the body effectively? Either way it's a glaring weakness. Now his resume is strong, but top 5 strong? Let's see. Is his resume any stronger than Manny Pacquiao's? Now I'm not saying the pacman is the greater fighter, but resume wise is that such an outlandish statement. They both knocked out an ATG in their prime. And they both had two close disputed rivalries that they came out on top of. I'd give Ali a pass if it was just Frazier or Norton. But the fact that two fighters gave him such problems worries me. It raises the question, was it a stylistic nightmare? Or given the fact that two fighters exposed his weaknesses mean that there were obvious weaknesses in his game? His late 70s and 80s losses can be attributed to age and decline, but given his struggles with Norton and Frazier doesn't that give cause for concern? Who's to say a younger Ali doesn't lose to Holmes as well?
While I can understand your opinion on Ali's ranking as far as greatest of all time pound for pound, and yes anyone honest and know anything about the fight game know from a pure technique stand point Ali left a lot to be desired. But to me the punching power argument kinda a reach, Ali IS the only fighter to stop Bonevena and Foreman. Punching also is about timing and placement, not just pure power. 37 ko's in 56 wins, is nothing to sneeze at ,esp when considering who he was stopping. Who's to say, he wouldn't have lost to Holmes? Your comment. If were using that as a premise, would you think the same about Spinks, who defeated Ali before Holmes did? Of course you wouldn't , everyone knew Ali's final real harrah was Manila, everthing after was a slow but losing fight against father time. Hell, he was beginning to show early signs of parkinsons by the time of the Spinks fight. All great fighters meet fighters for some reason or another gives them pure hell, Louis had Conn,Walcott. Robinson had Lomatta,Turpin and I can name many others....Do we hold it against Robinson Lomatta gave him hell 5 times? The most important thing is they found AWAY to win. That separates the greats, from the very goods.... Like I earlier said, I understand your reasons for the questions you asked, and their very valid. But it also could be used as a argument FOR his top 2 placement pound for pound.
If you're talking about p4p I would say no because he wasn't that complete of a fighter. He lacked fundamentals which bring him down on my list. Had he better fundamentals he would have beaten Frazier and Norton but that is not the case. What he did have was a top p4p chin, defense, great hand speed and ring IQ. But my p4p list is made up by how complete a fighter is. Sugar Ray Robinson obviously being the number 1.
Ok good post. As far as the power thing does Frazier walk through Ali and land all those left hooks if Ali had more power? What if Ali could have gone to the body. And it wasn't just Frazier. It was Norton too. As for Robinson he went like 130-1. With his lone loss too a much stocker and bigger man who he then beat 5 times in a row.
Would you care to give us the percentage of heavyweights throughout history who had one punch KO power? I think you will find if you have the hand speed and accuracy to succeed with both single shots, and combinations to the head like Ali had, you don't need to worry about going to the body too much. How many governing bodies were there in Ali's day? Who even fukkin cares how many there are in Pacquioa's era? None of them are worth a cup of cold p!ss. Who in fact gave him problems before he was in his mid 30's and had an enforced 3 year lay off? Of course his late 70's and 80's loses were down to age and decline. Ffs the guy had the onset of Parkinson's syndrome. As stated Ali only ever had serious trouble in his post exile career, and he was aging then fairly quickly too. Of course he had faults, what fighter doesn't? But to compare him and his era to a pr!ck like Pacquioa and this era is a bit strong IMO.
Ali was 1/1 against Norton 2/3 against Frazier, key is, like Robinson he eventually found away to win, though like Robinson vs Lamotta NONE of the fights were easy and dominating.
I pretty much agree with this, but the way would you mind posting your top 10 p4p fighters, you've got me curious.
1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Harry Greb 3. Henry Armstrong 4. Joe Louis 5. Ezzard Charles 6. Roberto Duran 7. Sam Langford 8. Archie Moore 9. Carlos Monzon 10. Benny Leonard Most fighters that people might think are obvious that I didn't put in here are most likely close.
It's not necessarily fair to count it against Ali that the likes of Duran, Pacquiao etc. physically grew and developed, either. Although Duran and Pacquiao are anomalies themselves, and both are Top 15 for their accomplishments. It's hard for me to say. Ali has asterisks: 1. I sincerely don't believe his victories over Liston are legitimate 2. I sincerely believe Zora Folley also took a dive. 3. The Henry Cooper situation but we'll just give credit to Ali, I won't bother with this one. 4. He wasn't invincible as he's imagined when it comes to P4P rankings, from a H2H perspective. 5. He was prime in the 60's, but only had 4 years worth of fights, against non-top level fighters. 6. I personally believe he was no longer the same fighter after the 3 year break. I don't hold the Frazier loss massively against him given he's no longer prime Clay, and it was avenged. 7. I believe the rematch with Frazier is what caused his onset of Parkinson's. Since then, he started to decline more and he also wasn't as focussed. 8. He was very consistent at the top level in the 70's - although Norton just had his number and in the final match in particular, Ali was just out of shape and sloppy by then. Foreman and Frazier are among the best fighters ever, so Ali gets big props. Greatest Heavyweight ever? Absolutely. He is greater than Joe Louis, though. Ali's competition was just better. Where you rank him depends somewhat on where you rank Louis.
I personally rank Louis higher than Ali, and would have Ali in the lower end of the top 10. I'm probably in the minority, but I rank Duran ahead of Ali. I think Duran was a much more complete fighter/boxer and operated on a higher skill level. Ali was more along the lines of Jones, (with a better chin and more heart) whereby both where extremely good athletics first, and their boxing skills were somewhat secondary. Louis also had better fundamentals than Ali, and in terms of the fighters who were available to fight at the time, I also think his results were better. Ali had a couple of controversial decisions that, to me at least, question his h2h greatness more than most. I'm also ambivalent about any heavyweights making the top 10 of a p4p list.
Good list, Monzon's a bit of a surprise, but then again I do think he's probably the best h2h middleweight, not named Greb. So then where do you rank Ali. Myself, I would be comfortable removing Monzon and substituting Ali somewhere in the 7-10 range.
I think very few knowledgeable boxing people rate him #1 P4P. Perhaps as a HW. Most experts would have him outside the top 5 i would think, as would i.
Somewhere in the top 10-20. Ali had a great chin, resume, hand speed, respectable power and great ring IQ. He had faults but so do most fighters. I have him as my number 1 heavyweight if that answers any questions.
How can you have him as your number 1 heavyweight when you ranked Louis 4th on the p4p list. That's confusing.
