leaving Ali and Louis out of top 10 ATG list is it justifiable?

I hear this all the time and I think its just totaly wrong. I think posters get wrapped around skill sets so hard on this forum that dominating or competing, winning and intangibles have taken a back seat to how good a guys skill set looked or supposedly was.

Meanwhile one guy rules for 12 yrs at a time when there is only one heavyweight Champ. The other fights during a time when the divison is arguably stacked with the greatest talent Pool in its history this after losing three prime yrs.

Someone please break it down to me, so I can understand cause I dont get it.

 

Every fighter who just fought at one weight division is at an disadvantage against fighter who either were one of the top guys at one weight division, or even dominated, and did good work at other weight divisions or fighters who did great work at many different weight divisions or fighters who were great or even dominated more than one weight division.

I have no one weight division fighter in my first three tiers but four of them in my Tier4 which is equivalent to a ranking between 11 and 14 - Pep, Monzon, Ali, Louis.

Also I´m one of those guys who think the 70´s are slightly overrated at hw due to Ali fighting there and everybody who fought Ali became a name and a "talent" jut because they fought Ali.

 

I disagree. IMO every all-time rating is at the same time an all-time pound-for-pound rating.

The greatest heavyweight of all-time is also the greatest heavyweight of all-time pound-for-pound; the same as the greatest flyweight of all-time is the greatest flyweight of all-time pound-for-pound.

In fact IMO, the heavyweight division is the ultimate in pound-for-pound because of the unlimited nature of the weight class.

 

Yes. If we are talking P4P of course.

This is because P4P should favour guys who have achieved across multiple weight classes, and smaller guys who have stepped up to beat bigger guys, like Langford, Walker and Barbados Joe.

 

The dreaded cube rule.

 

I have ali in mine but not louis so yes would say it is very must justifyable

 

No. It's not justifiable. If we leave out two of the most dominant HW's ever, then what is our criteria? Too often we wanna break these guys down into aggregate parts as in an algebraic equation. Then I can see why some would dismiss them when talking ATG's. But is that not an exercise off-point? Some commonly cited guys on ATG lists are beautiful to watch, marvels of footwork and defense, have the cleanest hooks, the shortest right hands and the fastest, most accurate jabs, but they often lose the big fight anyway. And this might be a simplification, but I really don't think so: Joe Louis was the best HW of his time, and Ali was the best of his.

 

Certainly. I've played the case out for it without too much violent protest so I don't see why it's not justifiable. It's just not popular.

 

Do you have any HW's in the top 10? If so, any of their respective eras? In truth, I didn't notice the "10", stipulation. I'm running on empty today, on fumes, but somehow I still think it's hard to leave these guys out if were talking dominance, overall effectiveness.

 

I know alotta guys if not most on this board have compiled lists. What things are considered when doing so?

 

ATG
Ali-#1
Louis-top-10

 

If Ali was a greater heavy then Leonard was at his best weight then Ali is the greater pound for pound fighter. That simple.