Muhammad Ali: Why is he rated #1 when he clearly isn't the greatest?

Ali IMO is the #1 heavyweight of all time. The Ali of 1967 nobody beats, EVER!!

 

Yes, I'm wondering that myself. As a fan of the sport?

 

oh dearatsch

all your credentials are falling like 1920's stock




ali gets alot of credit for beating some amazing fighters in there own right...in there prime who were hungry for it.
he also trancended the sport. at one point he was more recognisable than jesus
he has a great resume,great head 2 head, he done things outside of boxing, and is an ambassador for he sport and the fighter most boxers want to be.
he has become the epitemy of champion. he is a peoples champion while also having his own beliefs and personality.


he has a dodgy defence, can only punch if the other guy is reaching, and never goes to the body. and clinched like anything.


p4p he isnt at numero uno, but he is and always will be in the top 10.

ray robinson,henry armstrong, willie pep, duran,joe louis, both leonards will all be jostling but ali will never move from the top 10.



also he is called the greatest but he rarely is taken literally.

 

I agree with most of the above, no one would really claim Ali is P4P best, or even no 1 HW (for me it's Foreman, i know, i know but i think Ali was a very wise man to refuse him a re-match), but there's a reason why Ali makes the top ten and it's one word: heart. Sure he would clinch endlessly and treated his opponents in some disrespectful ways, but he fought everyone and always came back punching.

 

Hmm. A newbie account with only 11 posts, and one of the first threads he starts is clearly designed to stir the pot....:think

 

Ali is all time top 5 p4p & no1 HWT.

He is one of the few HWTs Id choose over the 86-89 Tyson.... tho Ali would have to be the 64-67 version to pull it off.

 

Don't even pay attention to this gimp. He made a thread earlier saying Calzaghe should be at the very least top 15 P4P of all time atsch

 

You reckon a troll has entered our neck of the woods?

 

One can never be too sure.

 

I like to see Ali at the low end of a P4P alltime top 10. I rate the pre-exile Ali as the greatest Heavyweight ever. He didn't do everything great and some things (body punching) he didn't even do good but his strengths would have been too much for anyone to overcome IMO.

 

I personally feel that he's #1 at heavyweight while Louis is #2, but I don't have a problem with those who have it the other way around.

As for a p4p rating, I think he deserves to be rated a little higher than most often place him. If you look at most p4p greats, a lot of them receive huge points for winning titles in other divisions, ie, Leonard, Duran, Robinson, etc.... That's fine. But, a man who starts his career at heavyweight is not likely to drop down and go searching for challenges elswhere, unless your're talking about Bob Fitszimmons. Ali fought more rated opponents than most champions in any class and has a better winning record against world class comp than most as well....

 

Except for Louis, I don't think any fighter in any division has a better record when it comes to title fights (22 wins and 3 losses). And that's a very important stat for me, because the challenger knows it's the chance of a liftetime for him and therefore always will be dangerous.

Also, there's only a handful of fighters with more wins against ranked opposition and I don't know if any of them have a better percentage of wins.

There are plenty of fighters with more wins in total, though. But how much stock should one give for beating up on dozens upon dozens of club fighters? When Ali met unranked opposition he toyed with them even when long past his prime (Coopman and Dunn for example). I think he could have added up 50-60+ wins over bums on his record without losing to any of them.

 

Agree, there is very little to almost no padding on that record. Of course, he did allow himself a few soft title defenses here and there, particularly towards the end of his reign. Chuck Wepner, Alfredo Evangelista, Jean Coopman and Richard Dunn, were basically all fringe types. I do think they might have had a rating though..

Anyway, I concur with all of your points.

 

I am a big Ali fan, but the pre - exile version never fought the big, powerful and skilled HW's of the Lewis - Bowe - Klitschko prototype. Such fighters simply didn't exist back then. He was floored by Henry Cooper and that fight was a somewhat lucky affair for Ali. He did struggle mightily with Jones, I actually watched that fight and it could have easily been a draw or gone either way. The Lewis - Klitschko types would just put a 188 pound fighter like Jones away. Ali's career was unique, his mental strength can never be surpassed and he would have been a very difficult opponent for anyone, but unbeatable? I don't think so.

 

It would indeed be very interesting to see how Ali would fare against the skilled giants of recent times. But he had a pretty easy time against the biggest guys of his day (Liston, Williams, Terrell, Lewis, Mathis, Bugner and Foreman), and several of those guys had good skills. Personally, I don't even think Lyle was that a difficult opponent, despite Ali being behind when the fight was stopped. I just think Ali by being lazy and lackluster threw 4-5 rounds away, but without really losing control of the fight.

Guys who gave him lot of area to hit by being big and upright was actually something he generally feasted on. But Lewis, Wlad and Bowe was of course both bigger and better than just about anyone Ali met, so it's hard to say. I do think that guys like Marciano and Frazier would struggle stylistically with the modern giants. Ali, on the other hand, was mostly stylistically challenged by pressure and awkwardness, not size and strength.