When did Muhammad Ali start being considered a all time great ?

I have to agree with this even though I previously said he wasn't considered atg more widely until after FoTC (reading other posts I may have got that wrong. I've always felt there was a greater generosity of spirit to him after he had lost so gallantly and that afforded him the ATG consideration that always winning had failed to do. But perhaps he still needed that one last push ie the Rumble and then the Thrilla).

But I think Puge is right. If he wasn't considered ATG in career 1, he should have been. The contemporary critics got it wrong. Olympic gold medallist and champ aged just 22 after beating a monster, defended regularly and on the road, reigned as long as Marciano with better quality defences. Made more defences than Dempsey against better quality. Gave up the crown undefeated.

In fact, other than Louis, who had had a more impressive reign at that point? For the scribes who rated him outside the top ten in reign 1, what criteria were they using because it looks like he was judged differently to everyone else?

Not surprised Fleischer rated him so lowly. That man was driven by inner prejudices that clouded rational judgement that should have precluded him being a journalist.

After he had beaten a string of fighters after losing to Ali, Sonny Liston asked Fleischer why he wasn't rated in the Ring's top ten. Fleischer replied 'Look what kind of man you are.' Sonny, unerring as ever, hit the nail squarely on the head in replying 'What's that got to do with it?' Nothing, of course but, to Fleischer, everything.

 

If Ali never would have come back after 1967, he eventually would've been acknowledged as an ATG. He'd done great work. But we wouldn't have realized it for a while. These things take time, especially when some questions (outlined in previous posts) haven't been fully answered.

The OP's question was, "When did Muhammad Ali start being considered an all time great?" Not, "Looking back, when did Ali first become an ATG fighter?"

 

Fleischer was a champion of the black cause in the fight game. To infer he was a racist is completely idiotic.

 

Will to win and toughness are key criteria for all time greatness.

 

Where did I infer he was racist?

 

So if Roy Jones Jnr had retired in 2003 as a heavyweight champion who had been imperious as middle, super middle and light heavy, would the fact that he had been so good he had never had to demonstrate 'toughness' or 'will to win' preclude him from having ATG status bestowed on him?

 

foreman fight clearly marked history

 

Again.....those that know the sport are very clear as what abilities need to be exhibited in order to be considered an ATG. Liston giving up the greatest title in sport on his stool as an example makes it very difficult to rank him along side men like Marciano who you could hit with a hammer and he would not quit. As an example.

 

Nonsense.

Racism was thriving in 60's America, particularly when Ali antagonised American society by renouncing his " slave " name in 64, and ranting his N.O.I beliefs. It is fair to say he was one of the most reviled men in the US between 64 and 67, and those contemporary journalists ( including Fleischer ) judged him accordingly. Not on his ability or his resume up until that point.

Before Liston 1 and the conversion he was seen as no more than a harmless buffoon who kept boasting how pretty and great he was. Once he had proved it, and made the conversion he changed to public enemy # 1 almost. You can never underestimate how much guts that took, and the death threats, and hatred that was directed at him.

 

Not because he was black. His refusal to serve may be another story.

Ring under Fleischer ownership maintained Ali as champion right up until he retired in 1970. Most everyone else stripped Ali of his title.

Fleischer made it a high priority to end the color line in hwt boxing in the twenties.

 

I don't get your point, Perry. As I am understanding it, you think that fighters have to display great feats of toughness to qualify as an ATG.

Surely there are several criteria to qualify as an ATG and a fighter does not have to tick every box?

For example, should a fighter not have to display great footwork and defence to qualify for ATG status? Are these not every bit as valid criteria as will and toughness? They're the very basis of the sport and how can a fighter not excel in either and yet still be considered an ATG of the sport

And, if they are essential criteria, does that not mean that Marciano's ATG credentials are null and void? Of course not. His other qualities more than compensate. Greatness credentials, like prejudices I might add, can take many forms.

 

You should get what I mean. It's boxing 101. Nothing I invented.

Toughness, heart, will to win. Ability to withstand punishment and not quit no matter what.

All are what boxing historians are looking for in an ATG fighter. Physical and technical abilities are much more apparent and over some time shorter term these can be determined.

However the intrinsic abilities of toughness, will to win. These are NOT so easily seen and one needs to take time to see if under the right circumstances does the fighter rise up to meet the challenge or fail when tested. Many fighter have the physical skills. Far fewer have the toughness of an ATG champion.

 

Funny, I don't remember George W Bush being reviled because he didn't serve. In fact you could say he did quite well for himself.

Seeing as Ali didn't lose in the ring, Fleischer couldn't really do anything other than maintain Ali as champion up until 70, could he? After all Ring wasn't supposed to be " political " on face value.

As for your reply to Eddie Ezzard implying that Ali only achieved true ATG status after he was getting battered but found ways to win, as opposed to him winning with comparative ease due to using his sublime skills, it simply defies belief, and it should be said, common sense.

After all, isn't the art of pugilism being able to hit, without getting hit?

Are you actually claiming if a fighter came along in the future, and had say 50 fights taking on and beating all comers in his division, comfortably out pointing everyone he faced with perfect shut outs, yet was unable to KO ANY of them, he shouldn't be considered as valid an ATG as say a Marciano who was in blood and guts wars?

 

So Duran and Arguello aren't ATG's? That's just for starters.

 

Nor Whitaker. Or Hearns. Finito Lopez. Floyd Mayweather.

All pipped to the ATG post by Arturo Gatti.