Sorry to make a big thing out of this guys, but I was reading what a lot of you had to say in the aforementioned thread and felt compelled to respond. Is Muhammad Ali overrated? If one was to come out and categorically tell you that Ali would defeat any fighter of all time, in any weight class, that'd probably be classified as overrating Ali. But I don't think that is happening at all. I think a lot of fans are accusing Ali of being overrated based on him being widely regarded as the greatest heavyweight of all time. I realise this is as subjective as the next opinion, but can you honestly say a man that has achieved what Ali did is overrated for being regarded as the best in his weight class? I don't think so. Muhammad Ali, I don't need to remind you, cleared out his division at least three times during his career. Even when he was accused of being average, by a lot of our fellow ESB users, he still dominated the division. I am of course refering to the late 70s, where he was able to fend off the once unstoppable George Foreman, and go 2-1 against his greatest rival and a fellow all time great, Joe Frazier. These are two fantastic feats, and even if you pick them apart by saying Frazier was shot, or that Foreman was one-dimensional, this is all in hindsight. At the time of when Ali achieved all of his greatest feats, he was barely a live underdog. This is to the man's credit. I haven't even called on the time when he was able to stop Sonny Liston twice. Regardless of how these victories came, it is undeniable that you must first give credit to young Cassius for believing himself when nobody else will. Furthermore, it is to Clay's credit that he was able to thoroughly outbox Liston until the stoppage, whilst overcoming great adversity. This can be compared to what Kelly Pavlik achieved against Jermain Taylor in their first outting. Would we simply in hindsight criticise Jermain for not winning, or should we congratulate the winner? In some cases, perhaps both, but credit still goes to the winner, regardless. Other instances of when Ali is criticised was for his questionable victory in his third outting with Norton. Considering Ali was far past his best, it is to the man's credit that he is still able to be competitive with one of the most impressive Heavyweight contenders during that time. Also, let's not blame the fighter for the judges decision. Lastly, Ali concured that he did not feel like a winner that night after the decision was given, and this is to the man's credit. A lot of fighters in his position would have grabbed hold of the victory, but this was further proof that Ali is a man of values and honesty. Muhammad Ali made a case for winning both his fights with Young, and Shavers. Both fighters came at the tail end of his career. My point is clear. Muhammad Ali has a fair case for being regarded as one of the greatest Heavyweights of all time, and most certainly is a lock for either 2nd or 1st place, depending on preference. I haven't even touched upon the man's antics outside of the ring and I think I have made many cases of his dominance. He defeated all of his worthy contenders, both in the 60s and 70s. What else can we ask of a man who brought Boxing to the mainstream like no other fighter, and captured the imagination of it's fans like no other? Muhammad Ali is not considered one of the greatest fighters of all time because he himself thought he was and said it at every opportunity. Nor was he considered great based purely on the man's personality outside of the ring. He proved himself to be great every time he entered the ring, even in his defeats to Frazier and Holmes. Don't forget that.