Top 3 P4p Boxers In History

Refreshing yet again. You may well going to the cross like Jesus presenting such a list on here to some people. No Pep, Charles, Armstrong, Greb. You'll be seen as a criminal.

Nice criteria. It seems that the amount of fights a fighter has weighs in strongly with some people. 40 fights and getting into the top 5?. Can't be having that can we.

Anyway mate. I don't agree with your list entirely, but it's a change and an opinion I respect.

 

I personally don't know if I would put Ali in top 5, but I think it's wrong to say it's unreasonable to do so. The man fought and beat all the best fighters in his division for almost 2 decades. Very few can claim the same. He also beat two fighters that was seen as nothing less than invincible at the time, and on one of these occassions he was 7 years past his prime. I don't think anyone else can claim to have done this.

These feats alone give him a good case for a very high place in p4p ratings IMO.

 

The best of the HWs simply isn't as impressive as the best of the LWs. or the WWs. Or the MWs. Greb's feats are greater. Ali never beat anyone as formidable as Kid Gavilan, Armstrong, Ray Leonard, or Sandy Saddler.

Liston? Foreman? Liston didn't train for the first bout and threw the second. Foreman, who I rank very high in terms of H2H, was a one-dimensional, crude banger who was short-on-stamina. He whips most HWs because most HWs have nowhere near the skill level of LWs, WWs, or MWs.

We can politely disagree, but irregardless, resume is a big part of p4p ranking but it isn't all there is.

For the record, I have Ali at #1 HW, and either #10 or #11 P4P.

 

Meatloaf said it best: "2 out of 3 ain't bad." Pernell was great, but I will parry Robbi's jab and say that 45 fights ain't exactly longevity, and longevity means something when you talk about greatness -especially the top 3 or 5 ever. The fact that Benny Leonard had as many fights as Whitaker did before he turned 18 years old shouldn't be chucked aside. It matters.

You say that Robinson's not bringing his A game sometimes is important to your rankings. I think that you are not only off on that one, but you're failing to consider context. Most of Robinson's losses happened after he turned 40. What was Pea doing when he turned 40? Robinson always did his best, but at times simply fought too damn much and was exhausted (which goes far to account for his 2nd loss).

All in all, though, it's a good post. It's detailed and shows that you aren't a slouch! Keep it up.

 

I respect those opinions, but I just don't see it as madness to have Ali among the very highest. As you stated earlier giving SRL such a position based on resume is... strange, but I don't think it's a similar reach when it comes to Ali. Jim Jacobs had him as nr. 1, and he definitely knew his boxing.

 

Jim Jacobs should have known better. Ali was not known for his humility... Maybe Jacobs overlooked this tape in his vast collection:

[YT]3fK2Cc2mxNA[/YT]

You probably think me severe about Ali not belonging in the top 3 or 5 all time, p4p, but I stand by it for many reasons that I've already stated.

 

No, I don't.

But I think it's severe to say that only one who knows next to nothing about boxing would have him that high. Myself, I probably have SRR as the greatest p4p as well (who am I to question the judgement of the Greatest).

 

--not top 10, top 5. It's exponential. The closer someone has Ali to the top spot, the more perturbed I get.

See, here's the thing. I believe that Ali has an unearned reputation of being magic. His style was formed around legs, speed, and reflexes; his strategy was based on disruption, yours. The fact that he was 6'3, strong, and had great durability (esp. later) and stamina (es. earlier) helped. It's interesting the way he had either of those in abundance during the decade he needed it, and less in the decade where he didn't.

However, Ali's style required a different gameplan. Most fighters, like most people, fight in a rythym based on prior experience. People are conditioned to deal with problems by being deliberate and basing their response on the norm. See? What Ali did was he disrupted all that because he turned boxing on its head. Most of his opponents couldn't really see what he was doing because they fought him as they would Jimmy Ellis or Eddie Machen.

Ali was a savant, but had Futch had a live body earlier, Ali would have been beaten in his prime. I have no doubt. Futch had answers and I suspect that many old school trainers would have as well...

 

Not to mention a god damned scared shitless wreck by the time he got into the ring in Zaire.

Loose ropes assisted Ali in taking the beating of a lifetime as well, anyway.

 

The more of these somewhat strained arguments against Ali I hear, the more I feel like moving him up.

The following arguments are completely rubbish IMO: 1. Liston was really past it when he faced Ali - Hindsight bull****. I'm not saying it was his best outing, but he came off of his best two wins (two of the best in HW-history, actually) and NO ONE saw any signs of detoriation in him at the time.
2. The win against Foreman had to with the conditions that night - Exactly the effing opposite! Another case of ridicolous hindsight. The conditions was the worst imaginable for Ali's gameplan to stick and move. He adapted, Foreman didn't. End of story.

Fact of the matter is that both these fighters were perceived as invincible before they met Ali. I'm always sceptical to revisions after the fact. How the fighters were perceived by the people who saw them at the time on a daily basis carry much more weight for me.


Then we have the arguments that has merit but gets overrated:

1. Every close fight Ali had is blown up. He was definitely fortunate to not lose at least one of the fights against Jones, Norton II and III, Young and Shavers, but the word robbery is used WAY to often.
2. About him being incomplete. Yes, he was without a doubt better at some areas than others. His most obvious flaw was that he just about never utilised defensive techniques that kept him in the "pocket" and allowed him to counter effectively. But he was not as inept at for example in-fighting and bobypunching as some like to claim, rather he didn't have that much use for them since he was at his best on the outside.
3. He wasn't there to be taken by any decent fighter that Futch trained. Yes, Futch saw flaws that Norton and Frazier capitalized on, but Ali corrected much of those and didn't get as exposed in subsequent fights with them. After all these were guys that were murder on any boxers the met and still a past his prime Ali had at least 3-3 (officially 4-2) against them. Before he got way past his prime he had 3-2.

Now to the arguments for Ali. He was possibly the fastest fighter ever p4p. He is the only one I know of who dispatched of two fighters that were perceived of as invincible before he met them. He is 2-1 against another ATG while past his prime. He had an impressive second tier of conquests, including: Patterson, Folley, Terrell, Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, Chuvalo, Bugner, Lyle etc. He was unbeaten before his exile and never even close to being beaten in his prime (which only spanned about 10 fights, though). Even before and after his prime he easily beat good fighters like Moore, Quarry, Ellis etc.

 

Wanted to add one or two things to your points. Liston would always have beaten Patterson even if he would have come into the ring inside a wheel chair. It´s a styles thing just like Foreman-Frazier. And yes, Liston was past it, quit in the first one for unknown reason and threw the second one. I never had the impression Ali wanted to stick and move against Foreman, i always thought he wanted to put him on the wrong track.

Here i also wanted to write something. Ali got the nod in all of his close fights. I think he would get less critic for that if he would have lost 1 or two of those fights - or at least got only a draw. Ali isn´t a complete fighter that´s just fact. But nevertheless he became the greatest hw ever because he was plessed with such natural talent. Nothing to be ashamed of. I agree with you last point. :good

 

As I said, I don't like this exercises in hindsight. Liston had cleaned out the division in a most impressive manner and was seen as formidable even before taking on Patterson. The two demolition jobs of Patterson was just further confirmation of his superiorty in the division. Then Ali/Clay beats him quite easily, and all of a sudden he wasn't that great after all? Don't float with me. Don't forget that he continued racking up wins even after losing to Ali, even though he understandbly never was the same again.

I also think Ali wanted to bewilder Foreman. But I think movement was a big part of his plans.

That's true. But one can try and stay a bit objective still. Some things I hear are just laughable.