Was ALI the best boxer ever?

If we look at opposition they faced during their primes (which excludes Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, DLH and Trinidad), I'd say it was fairly even.

 

No.

 

Muhammad's my favourite boxer ever but he's not THE best ever p4p. ONE of the best,definitely !

 

As far as "technical ability or genius " no. Even at heavyweight their were plenty fighters who fought with better technique. But athletic ability,physical and mental toughness, their isn't anyone close. Those are the reasons why he is considered and is the best heavy in history.

 

I think "technique" can be viewed different ways.. I mean there is "proper" technique in boxing.. but boxer's have different body make ups so what proper technique works for one doesn't necessarily work for another.. I think it's more about a boxer figuring out what works best for him in being successful in getting the Win and thus developing his own specialized technique. And as far as that goes and given his resume.. There is very very few compared to Ali..

 

I think you can make a case Ali is top 5 P4P in history. Definitely top 10. Not the greatest.

 

The best l'very seen in my lifetime is probably Duran. (If you go on youtube there's some excellent videos breaking down his technique, especially against Palomino). Best of all time SRR. Ali had a lot of ability but he wasn't the best boxer.

Best athlete at his peak...yup. (Jones should get a mention),

 

Are you sure? David Haye has blown everything aswell, why else do you think he's still boxing? He hates fighting.

I understand it's not the perfect comparison but it's relatively close in some ways.
It makes my point anyway, one you don't agree with, which is fine

 

And I don't agree that fighting a lot makes you a better fighter, despite only a 70% win record. All time great, top 100, even 75 for sure, but top 2 p4p is a huuuugggeee strectch

 

The financial opportunities available to Haye today, versus Langford when he retired, is night and day.

 

Would't personally agree with Jones. I thought his one of a kind physical ability hid a lot of technical flaws. Flaws that really began to show when he began to slow down. Hands held low,lack of a good jab, after combinations his chin usually exposed. Didn't ride with punches, taking the full force of them. When he slowed just a little,he crashed and burned. no slow decline for him.

 

Exactly, fighters who are technically skilled. Well schooled in the fundamentals, can slow their decline. Think guys like Moore and Hopkins. You arent relying on the gifts that age generally takes away from you (speed, reflexes, etc) so you dont decline as fast. When those physical gifts decline and thats the main tool in your toolbox you are toast. I think Ali falls into this category but he had so many of those natural gifts: Speed, size, reflexes, durability. That when his speed and reflexes left he was still a problem when he combined his durability and size with his guile. Im not saying the guy had no skills. That would be absurd. But he made a ton of mistakes in the ring that caught up with him late in life when his reflexes abandoned him and stopped avoiding punches and started absorbing them.

 

Not far ahead as such, but they have it on paper.

 

Would it make you think any less of him, except in respect of his judgment?

 

Yes, because he'd keep losing.

Thats not the only reason for Langford's poor win % and large number of draws and losses anyway though, they didn't only come toward the end of his career, they were fairly consistent throughout it.