Lets be honest. Muhammad Ali is good, but not that great...

Ali beat everyone there was to beat in the division at the time he fought. Frazier, Liston, Foreman, and Patterson.

 

YDKSAB.

 

Make no mistake, the man was great, inside the ring and outside. He wasn't perfect but what he did for boxing inside and outside of the ring is still felt today. Fury wouldn't be moving the way he moves if it wasn't for Ali, fighters wouldn't be making the money they are making if it wasn't for Ali. No fighter out there can lay claim to a boxing maneuver named after them. No fighter has been recognized world wide and welcomed in the company of kings and queens and presidents like Ali was. They are still using the rope a dope and the Ali shuffle right today. His boxing skills were elite among the elite, He is indeed one of the greatest heavy weight boxers to ever walk this planet. Let me add to this, when he died, one billion people watched his memorial services world wide. That's greatness!!!

 

Someone should cut off your hands for typing such garbage.

 

Okay but you do realise he got his best wins after his prime so perhaps it's worthy of considering that as a period where he was a credible boxer? You're acting like he was in his parkinsons stage ffs.

 

I know everybody is entitled to their opinion, and if you think Ali was overrated that is cool. Myself, I think he was the greatest just like he always said. His pure boxing skill always fascinates me to this day. Taking cheap shots at him is uncalled for on here.

 

Frazier would not have been famous without Ali but Foreman would have been known as an unstoppable monster who`s career would have been rated far above Frazier`s minus his iconic win in the first bout v Ali. Shavers would have just been a hard punchder known for his right hand that nearly ruined Holmes but that`s all he`s known for anyway, his fight v Ali was crap. Holmes punching the crap out of a Parkinson`s suffering Ali didn`t add much to his legacy at all, so you can leave Shavers and Holmes out of this.

 

Ali out-hooked Frazier in their rematch, watch that bout again and count how many hooks Ali throws in that bout, he also hurt Joe badly in that one but the ref intervened for no reason.

 

Mark I'm not talking about their rematch. In fact part of my point is that Ali was still a top level boxer and wasn't too far out of his prime that he couldn't compete with Ken Norton. He beat Frazier and Foreman after those first two fights so thanks for aiding what I'm trying to get across. My point is that Ken Norton just had the beating of Ali. This guy seems to think Ali was basically in his parkinsonian stage at that point.

 

Some of the initial claims are patently false.
Besides the OP celebrating other boxers casuals prefer, it is factually untrue that almost all who think him the GOAT at HW are casuals. Just the comments & ring savvy of many posters here gives the lie to that statement.

Also I do not think he comprehends how much hand speed, lateral movement, & ring dancing for 15 rounds capacity Ali lost when inactive for years during his prime.
Nor how little you need to lose at the top level to go from dominant to merely among the best.

He also contradicts himself re: admitting he is among the best, but not elite?
If you are an ATG or elite or among the best, all 3 of these expressions apply.
A harmless exaggeration, but false, is that he never went to the body.

I wonder if even Norton would have denied that a prime Ali would comfortably beat him.
And somehow even the first second fight is considered a robbery?

Look you can reasonably say Ali would not likely beat the very best of modern SHWs. t least under modern rules.
I do not agree, but you can make a good case.
But things like how he treated Joe Frazier (shamefully) are irrelevant to his boxing skills, + betray bias.
As does cherry picking only the last fights of a sick fighter-when you will not do so for others like Tyson, who did not even have any disease.

This is called being a "reactionary".

 

Ali was far more skilled than Oscar who lost many of his biggest bouts and Tyson was on another level to DLH, no comparison at all.

 

Mike's my favorite fighter easily, and I do think he had more talent than Oscar. But, no matter the reasons (prison robbed him of his prime, etc), I think Oscar fared better, even in losing efforts, against the best fighters he fought than Mike did. Oscar was never wiped out in his prime by someone of Buster's level. Was the competition Mike beat or was competitive with better than Oscar's? I honestly don't think so.

 

Yes whats your top 3

 

I cant argue too much with that.

 

Obviously a huge talent and legend for the sport but I can't get over (at a purely personal level) how he cheated 185 pound fellow Brit, Henry Cooper, another KO on his record.