Nat Fleischer's Opinion Of The 1955 Marciano

It is correct to say it is important to prove all the required ATG characteristics in assessing greatness. However the ultimate key element will always be an actual best ring performance in head to head suggestions for prime versus prime. All of Ali's great feats of prime ring performances were within Nats day. He still saw the best of Ali. As he did with Marciano.

 

This is why Foremans comeback creates a situation whereby some fans multiply Old Foreman with Young Foreman to create a George Foreman who has the best of both young and old. This Foreman did not exist.

Whatever it took for Ali to prove himself later on does not detract from the fact that he was at his very best in the 1960s. And Nat viewed these greatest performances.

 

Yes but choklab, Hopkins was seemingly a better fighter in his 20's.but it was until he beat the men he beat in his 30s and 40s that he could be viewed as a great fighter.

 

Yes, he could avoid punches with the rhythm of his body movement when he punched.

He also loved getting countered because the more his opponent opened up, the more opportunity he had to land big shots.

https://streamable.com/39o1

 

Until said fighter shows he has ATG abilities he is not an ATG. Ali proved he was an ATG after Nats death.

 

No Ali already proved he had all time great footwork, all time speed, all time reflexes, all time athleticism,all time accuracy, timing and world dominance. This was because his best ring performance had already been witnessed.

The extra legacy that came afterwards did nothing to improve his best ring performance.

It enhanced his stature not what he could do in the ring.

 

Ali was absolutely an all-time great by the time of his exile. Undefeated, 9 title defenses and dominant victories over Liston and Patterson get him a spot. What exactly has Dempsey done again? Or Tunney? Or Corbett?

 

Wrong. Ali did not show the ATG characteristics required for all time greatness and this is why he was not rated as any more than a fringe ATG by historians by the time of Nats death in 1972. Nats assessment of Ali was not just his it was the predominant thought of most boxing historians of that time. You may want it to have been different but that's boxing history as it was back in the very early 70's.

 

The only rule of boxing, is you can never be 100% right.

What if Deontay Wilder starts knocking out every great contender that he fights for the next 10 years, and becomes an ATG? Or maybe, what if he gets KO'd next fight, and quits boxing?

It's hard to tell, and we're all hedging our bets, the same way Fletcher was hedging his on Ali.

 

Yes Hopkins was able to "old man" younger fighters out of fighting their best fight to such the extent B-hop could still win at world level at a ripe old age. This is taken into account when assessing Hopkins over all worth but it's with an actual performance that he is measured against others. If you feel he was a better fighter younger chose that version. If you think he was harder to beat when he was old and messing people about stealing the rounds chose that version. What you can't do is combine both and create a Hopkins that never was.

 

What ATG characteristics?

 

If Ali was considered an ATG by 1972 please post all the top ten listings by noted boxing historians that rated him in their top ten. It was Ring in 1975, after Ali beat Foreman etc that elevated him to their top ten. That's the first or at least among the first noted boxing historian (in this case the voice of boxing at that time) that named Ali an ATG.