Who you think is the best pound 4 pound champ ever? i think ray robinson
and heres my top 10.

1.sugar ray robinson
2.roy jones jr
3.Henry Armstrong
4.muhammad Ali
5.Roberto duran
6.sugar ray leonard
7.Archie Moore
8.Willie Pep
9.Ezzard Charles
10.Benny Leonard

:boxing:

Yea Roy jones, michael spinks, sugar ray robinson, Mayweather, Mike tyson.

Oh and Def bob Foster, skinny as hell but packed a wallop.

Ali said in video that Ray Robinson was the best p4p ever. He then said that he's the best Heavyweight of all time.Which I would think that he doesnt include himself in the p4p at all because he's a heavyweight.

Pound 4 Pound
1.Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Willie Pep
3.Henry Armstrong
4.Original Joe Walcott
5.Harry Greb
6.Joe Louis
7.Roberto Duran
8.Muhammad Ali
9.Joe Gans
10.Sam Langford


Made this list like half a year or so, and I am sure I'd rearrange it, may do that sometime soon.

Who you think is the best pound 4 pound champ ever? i think ray robinson
and heres my top 10.

1.sugar ray robinson
2.roy jones jr
3.Henry Armstrong
4.muhammad Ali
5.Roberto duran
6.sugar ray leonard
7.Archie Moore
8.Willie Pep
9.Ezzard Charles
10.Benny Leonard

:boxing:

So you base your list on over all skill? Or..? (Just curious)

I consider Ray Robinson the greatest fighter ever, regardless of weight.

Poet

There's alot of p4p candidates. Gees, they go back to the 1800s. Almost impossible to determine, but SRR was as good as the come, no doubt. Harry Greb...OMG...check out the literature on his career. Amazing.

1- Roy Jones JR
2- SRR
3- Hagler
4- SRL
5- Liston
6- Duran
7- Ali
8- Hearns
9- Armstrong
10- Moore

i'd say robinson,and #2 pernell whitaker considering the level of competition he had during his reign as p4p king
top10 would be

1 robinson
2 whitaker
3 jones
4 leonard
5 armstrong
6 mayweather
7 pep
8 b leonard
9 greb
10 mosley

We need to see Hagler more in these lists!

We need to see Hagler more in these lists!

He is my favorite fighter ever, but unfortunately he does not belong in top 10 p4p all time.

So you base your list on over all skill? Or..? (Just curious)

Yeh based on skill to be onest thats the way i based my list on and Ali fought 2 wieght classes light heavy at olympics and heavy when pro and also had hand speed as a welter wieght so he could of easliy became a pound 4 pound fighter.

Yeh based on skill to be onest thats the way i based my list on and Ali fought 2 wieght classes light heavy at olympics and heavy when pro and also had hand speed as a welter wieght so he could of easliy became a pound 4 pound fighter.


Thx for the reply. I do mine slighty different. I add in several elements apart from talent/skill. I factor in opponents beating, chin, heart, well....just anything I deem important that a fighter should have. Nothing against your way at all like I said I was just curious in your ranks, and I understand your reason.

Robinson
Jones Jr
Armstrong
Duran
Pep

Alot of ppl are putting Jones. Didnt expect that honestly. His chin is weak, and I dont believe his def. is rly all that great. His reflexes are up there w/ Ali, Robinsons, and ect. His power p4p is amazing, hand n foot speed again amazing. But his chin, and lack of blocking use doesnt make my list.. . Just my thoughts.

Marvin Hagler was absolutely dominating in his weight class. Pound-for-pound should take things like this into consideration. Just because he was disciplined, and chose to stay in the same shape for his entire career, should not demote him from the list of elites. If Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali, who fought only at heavyweight, can make this list, Marvin Hagler deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Also, Jones' poor blocking skills were still superior to those of Muhammad Ali's. There were many analysts, former champions, and critics of the sport who observed his [Ali's] fights up close, as well as his training sessions, and they said that Ali simply didn't know how to block a jab, so he leaned away from it. This is evident in Ali's later career where he simply took beatings and tried to outlast his opponents.

Jones never even suffered his first defeat (he was definitely not losing during the DQ) until the age of 35, after moving up to heavyweight (30+ pounds above his natural weight), then weight draining himself to make it back down to light heavyweight, only to face a strong contender in Tarver. Oh yeah, Jones still won the first time too. I would say that Roy Jones Jr., with the amazing talent, speed, and other attributes, could take many of the other fighters on the list(s) presented, as well as earn their respect given his championship accomplishments. Probably somewhere between 6-10.

Marvin Hagler was absolutely dominating in his weight class. Pound-for-pound should take things like this into consideration. Just because he was disciplined, and chose to stay in the same shape for his entire career, should not demote him from the list of elites. If Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali, who fought only at heavyweight, can make this list, Marvin Hagler deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Also, Jones' poor blocking skills were still superior to those of Muhammad Ali's. There were many analysts, former champions, and critics of the sport who observed his [Ali's] fights up close, as well as his training sessions, and they said that Ali simply didn't know how to block a jab, so he leaned away from it. This is evident in Ali's later career where he simply took beatings and tried to outlast his opponents.

Jones never even suffered his first defeat (he was definitely not losing during the DQ) until the age of 35, after moving up to heavyweight (30+ pounds above his natural weight), then weight draining himself to make it back down to light heavyweight, only to face a strong contender in Tarver. Oh yeah, Jones still won the first time too. I would say that Roy Jones Jr., with the amazing talent, speed, and other attributes, could take many of the other fighters on the list(s) presented, as well as earn their respect given his championship accomplishments. Probably somewhere between 6-10.

True but Ali had something Jones doesnt,....a iron chin. Which is needed to be a all time great. Your have be able to take what you give. Ali, Robinson, Louis, Duran, Hagler, Leonard, and on and on proved this. Jones proved he had no heart, or chin w/ Tarver and Johnson. Ali couldnt block at all yes, but he made up for that w/ a chin that could take a punch. Sooo since Jones doesnt block and cant take a good punch, what happenes when he faces a all time great? My outlook on things.

Thank you for someone finally including Pernell Whitaker,Incredibly talented and fought the best in his years.Entertaining style and good ring gerneral ship.

Well to be a p4p fighter you have to at least have something to do with other wieght classes even having a hand speed of another class but hagler stuck to his own wieght class yeh he was a great fighter but not p4p quality.
Ali hardly had to block a jab because he would out jab every single opponant he had one of the best jabs every seen in boxing opponants would throw the jab then Ali would throw it back faster ,harder and more accurate plus he had great leaning ability also reflexes it was very hard to out jab ali in his prime anyway.

jones actually has a decent chin
against hanshaw i seen em get hit wit shots that made me think he was gettin ko'd again
but he proved me wrong

Ali hardly had to block a jab because he would out jab every single opponant he had one of the best jabs every seen in boxing opponants would throw the jab then Ali would throw it back faster ,harder and more accurate plus he had great leaning ability also reflexes it was very hard to out jab ali in his prime anyway.

True but this is p4p, not a greatest heavyweight discussion. Ali in a p4p match would meet several others that could match, and possibly be out match his jab. He'd be forced to change his offense, and his main weapon through out 80% of his matches was his right jab. He would have to raise his arms and BLOCK the jab, which is something he never really did. A perfect example is what if Sonny Liston was younger, and in his prime when they fought? Listons jab barely missed Clay/Ali, soooo that means Listons jab would of been faster with him being prime, and argueably would of hit Clay/Ali. What would of happened then? Clay/Ali would of ate several HARD jabs from Liston all night, and IMO this would of made for a interesting fight. I still think Ali would of pulled off a SD against a prime Liston, but who is to say Clay/Ali wouldnt of been beaten up really bad with swelling, broken jaw/nose, adn ect?

jones actually has a decent chin
against hanshaw i seen em get hit wit shots that made me think he was gettin ko'd again
but he proved me wrong

Jones has proved he can be KTFO,.....by someone at Tarver's level. So think about it p4p Liston, Louis, Foreman, Moore, all the big p4p puncher has a amazing chance versus Jones. Please dont get me wrong, I am not hating on Jones, just stating my opinion. I love watching Jones pick apart fighter, but I can rank him up the ATG's...ONLY due to his chin. You have to have that chin (or amazing heart i.e Louis) so no one can say "we'll he'd just get knocked down over and over then quit".

You might want to check out the career of Bob Fitzsimmons when talking about p4p. He beat 'em up all the way from middles to heavies. Ferocious puncher.

You might want to check out the career of Bob Fitzsimmons when talking about p4p. He beat 'em up all the way from middles to heavies. Ferocious puncher.

No argument from me, Fitzsimmons is one of my all-time favorite fighters.

Poet

i dunno about eberyone els ebut i wanna c roy jones against de la hoya 2 prove who is the best p4p of the 90's! seeing as roy brought trinidad out of retirement how bout michelawski and ottke???

Fitz was spectacular.

best p4p ever? how about the guy who held titles at diffrent weights at the same time: henry armstrong

Also, in regards to Ali's jab vs. his opponents:

A smart opponent isn't simply going to throw the jab out there, hoping to score on a guy who's just going to lean out of the way. Ali had a tendency to get busy with his hands when the action was low, and would likely start jabbing first. The wise move is to time one's own jab to counter his. The right side of Ali's face was constantly open. Were Sonny Liston not so old, he probably could have exploited this with his extensive reach and power (and superior jab). Instead, he trained for a 4 round contest and tried to knock Ali's block off.

It does not matter how fast a person is, they can not throw a jab effectively and lean out of the way of a counter at the same time. If he leans, his own punch isn't going to land in mid-throw. If he throws, his right side is available. Now Ali has to rethink his point strategy, probably defaulting to lead right hands. Since that's the hand in the rear position, there's much more time to react or defend, or even close in. Ali would predictably throw the uppercut as a fighter came in, which left the right side of his face wide open for the left hook. This immediately causes Ali to back up and cover, opening his midsection to tenderizing. These methods are how slow plodders like Joe Frazier and Ken Norton exploited Ali's complete inability to truly defend a punch. Furthermore, if Ali's primary focus of attack is neutralized, he's certainly not going to go the body (as he threw maybe 12 body punches in his career). Post exile or not, the difference in Ali's quickness isn't so much that this strategy becomes null and void.

Ali's poor defensive skills should be taken into consideration when formulating a p4p list and his relative location on said list. He suffered from these flaws throughout the majority of his career. Jones may have (and I stress "may"), had a chin problem, but that really only made itself evident in one fight; a rematch from a contest that he had won previously. After that, Jones was simply old. I would go so far as to say that poor defensive skills are far more important than a chin when rating a champion. Especially since a chin isn't something you can do much about in the way of training, whereas a champion is something you train to become.

Also, in regards to Ali's jab vs. his opponents:

A smart opponent isn't simply going to throw the jab out there, hoping to score on a guy who's just going to lean out of the way. Ali had a tendency to get busy with his hands when the action was low, and would likely start jabbing first. The wise move is to time one's own jab to counter his. The right side of Ali's face was constantly open. Were Sonny Liston not so old, he probably could have exploited this with his extensive reach and power (and superior jab). Instead, he trained for a 4 round contest and tried to knock Ali's block off.

It does not matter how fast a person is, they can not throw a jab effectively and lean out of the way of a counter at the same time. If he leans, his own punch isn't going to land in mid-throw. If he throws, his right side is available. Now Ali has to rethink his point strategy, probably defaulting to lead right hands. Since that's the hand in the rear position, there's much more time to react or defend, or even close in. Ali would predictably throw the uppercut as a fighter came in, which left the right side of his face wide open for the left hook. This immediately causes Ali to back up and cover, opening his midsection to tenderizing. These methods are how slow plodders like Joe Frazier and Ken Norton exploited Ali's complete inability to truly defend a punch. Furthermore, if Ali's primary focus of attack is neutralized, he's certainly not going to go the body (as he threw maybe 12 body punches in his career). Post exile or not, the difference in Ali's quickness isn't so much that this strategy becomes null and void.

Ali's poor defensive skills should be taken into consideration when formulating a p4p list and his relative location on said list. He suffered from these flaws throughout the majority of his career. Jones may have (and I stress "may"), had a chin problem, but that really only made itself evident in one fight; a rematch from a contest that he had won previously. After that, Jones was simply old. I would go so far as to say that poor defensive skills are far more important than a chin when rating a champion. Especially since a chin isn't something you can do much about in the way of training, whereas a champion is something you train to become.

Dont you hate it when you type this long ass reply, and post then the net messes up and you lose everything? /Sigh ...

Anyway I'll short my lost reply... . I agree mostly Brass, and good post! I find a good chin really important in ranking p4p because you will be hit when facing a ATG, and you will need to have the chin and heart to battle it out for the win. Jones hasnt to me proved his suspect chin, is indeed average or more. Everyone has a bad day in example Duran vs Hearns, but Duran has prove he can take a beating and still win. Jones to me hasnt proved that his heart, and chin are good. So if he was to fight Henry Armstrong (as meantioned above and he is in my top 10) I feel he would be knocked out if someone like Tarver could. Same goes for Joe Louis, Duran, and ect. I agree chin isnt born, but chin can be balanced by a good heart example Joe Louis.

To Ali's jab I agree but what happens in a p4p fight when his opponent is faster? He would have to find another way to work his game plan (he would most likely), but since his actualy def. skills are in question I think he would take a beating by in a p4p fight from someone would go move forward really fast, and have good hand speed. He isnt getting Ko'd win could lose by dec from getting hit so much. My reason, and I hope it makes sense cause I did a short summary of what I just typed.... .

Yeah, I too like BOB FITZSIMMONS= the original EXPLOSIVE THIN MAN (pardon me Arguello).
My top 10:
1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Jersey Joe Walcott (the first w/the Shuffle, please study him all you boxer/punchers).
4. Sugar Ray Leonard
5. Aaron Pryor
6. Joe Gans
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Naseem Hamed
9. Nicolino Locche
10. Mike Tyson

Yeah, I too like BOB FITZSIMMONS= the original EXPLOSIVE THIN MAN (pardon me Arguello).
My top 10:
1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Jersey Joe Walcott (the first w/the Shuffle, please study him all you boxer/punchers).
4. Sugar Ray Leonard
5. Aaron Pryor
6. Joe Gans
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Naseem Hamed
9. Nicolino Locche
10. Mike Tyson


Robinson is behind Jones? Srry I think a WW Robinson vs a SMW Jones in a p4p fight is a total mismatch. Just read my post here for my reason.

wel its his list and his opinion

We need to see Hagler more in these lists!

Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
Hagler
HaglerHappy now?

What do I get in return? ;)

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Roberto Duran
Jack Dempsey
Willie Pep
Rocky Marciano
Benny Leonard
Mike Tyson

Alot of ppl are putting Jones. Didnt expect that honestly. His chin is weak, and I dont believe his def. is rly all that great. His reflexes are up there w/ Ali, Robinsons, and ect. His power p4p is amazing, hand n foot speed again amazing. But his chin, and lack of blocking use doesnt make my list.. . Just my thoughts.

im a huge jones jr fan, but cant help agree with you. althought he is in my mind 2nd to SRR. his chin was rather weak and he should have used beter defence but really i guess he was thinking why block when you can avoid it all together? lol guess he found out with Traver tho,that was a sad day for me but i guess it was gonna end somtime

Robinson is behind Jones? Srry I think a WW Robinson vs a SMW Jones in a p4p fight is a total mismatch. Just read my post here for my reason.

you're right it is a mismatch
sugar would get annihilated

wel its his list and his opinion

Right your are, but I am allowed to state my opinion aswell. I just dont agree with with RJJ being ahead of SRR.

im a huge jones jr fan, but cant help agree with you. althought he is in my mind 2nd to SRR. his chin was rather weak and he should have used beter defence but really i guess he was thinking why block when you can avoid it all together? lol guess he found out with Traver tho,that was a sad day for me but i guess it was gonna end somtime

Thank you! You are probally right concerning your statements of why he didnt work on a def plan/style. He had mad reflexes, but its takes more then that to win a p4p atg fight imho.

you're right it is a mismatch
sugar would get annihilated

Reasons why you think that? I made my reasons pretty of clear of why I think Jones isnt top 10 p4p quality. There is something you have to have, and he has yet to prove he has them. The other toolsyea he has them, but not heart, and chin.


P4P
WW Robinson
vs
SMW Jones Jr
=
KO w/e Robinson lands a good left hook, and HE WILL LAND one!

Reasons why you think that? I made my reasons pretty of clear of why I think Jones isnt top 10 p4p quality. There is something you have to have, and he has yet to prove he has them. The other toolsyea he has them, but not heart, and chin.


P4P
WW Robinson
vs
SMW Jones Jr
=
KO w/e Robinson lands a good left hook, and HE WILL LAND one!

sadly i think it to late for that,but eh he could get back on his feet if he was to improve his blocking but the odds of that are slim i think

sadly i think it to late for that,but eh he could get back on his feet if he was to improve his blocking but the odds of that are slim i think

I really hope he does cause boxing needs all the talent it can get w/ UFC pushing advertising every which way possible. Like I've said I am not hating on RJJ, just stating my thoughts on his ranking with ATG's. But I agree with you andI to hope the same. He isnt as fast anymore and needs to up his def game now, but if he does I see more titles around his waist,....but not a HW one Ruiz is long gone.. . Im looking foward to his Tito fight, .....if Tito comes to fight and can handle the weight.

i agree completely roy at heavywieght wasfast yes and could pick them apart fromt he outside, but now..with all the speed gone hed just get hurt. i think he should shoot for the either LHW or SMW.

i agree completely roy at heavywieght wasfast yes and could pick them apart fromt he outside, but now..with all the speed gone hed just get hurt. i think he should shoot for the either LHW or SMW.

He should....

fight Hopkins @ LHW
fight Taylor @ SMW

I'd pay to see both fights.

He should....

fight Hopkins @ LHW
fight Taylor @ SMW

I'd pay to see both fights.

hopkin and roy..aw man that be a good one hasn't bernard been wanting a rematch for a while to make up for his loss?
but taylor i donno i think roy would win by a landslide

A great champion can't be discounted for suffering his first loss at age 35, against a fighter he already beat once, after being weight drained from heavyweight to light-heavyweight. Add to that the fact that a chin is practically inborn and it's rediculous, if not plain ignorant to dismiss Jones as an all-time elite for these factors. Furthermore, his chin was only questionable in one fight...again, when he was 35, against a naturally larger opponent (who he beat once, and went the distance with the third time), and after shaving 25 pounds. This is such a small, and rare circumstance to point to and mark as the defining moment in his career. If Jones was able to go 26 rounds in three fights with Tarver while in his mid-to-late 30's, he would demolish him in his prime.

This is the same as saying that Roy Jones Jr. could never have been an all-time great simply because he was born with an allegedly weaker chin than some of the other greats. Even though he's probably faster, stronger, more skilled, with better stamina, longevity, and greater punching power. I guess none of that matters...his chin was suspect in one fight when he was old, that rules him out.

I don't mean to sound annoyed, but it's so insane to read such a lopsided rating of an all-time great because of one, freak occurence against a fighter who was well passed his prime. Why don't we just say that Larry Holmes proved that Ali was terrible against another good boxer? Or that Rocky Marciano would knock out Joe Louis every time? Or how about ranking Mike Tyson above Joe Louis because he had a way better chin, speed, movement rate, and possibly punching power? ARRRGGHHH!

As to B-Hop and RJJ in a rematch: I don't think that it would prove anything. Both fighters were green in their first fight (Jones was only 15-0), and both fighters are over the hill if they fight again. We never got to see them face each other in their prime. Nonetheless, it would sell tickets.

A great champion can't be discounted for suffering his first loss at age 35, against a fighter he already beat once, after being weight drained from heavyweight to light-heavyweight. Add to that the fact that a chin is practically inborn and it's rediculous, if not plain ignorant to dismiss Jones as an all-time elite for these factors. Furthermore, his chin was only questionable in one fight...again, when he was 35, against a naturally larger opponent (who he beat once, and went the distance with the third time), and after shaving 25 pounds. This is such a small, and rare circumstance to point to and mark as the defining moment in his career. If Jones was able to go 26 rounds in three fights with Tarver while in his mid-to-late 30's, he would demolish him in his prime.

This is the same as saying that Roy Jones Jr. could never have been an all-time great simply because he was born with an allegedly weaker chin than some of the other greats. Even though he's probably faster, stronger, more skilled, with better stamina, longevity, and greater punching power. I guess none of that matters...his chin was suspect in one fight when he was old, that rules him out.

I don't mean to sound annoyed, but it's so insane to read such a lopsided rating of an all-time great because of one, freak occurence against a fighter who was well passed his prime. Why don't we just say that Larry Holmes proved that Ali was terrible against another good boxer? Or that Rocky Marciano would knock out Joe Louis every time? Or how about ranking Mike Tyson above Joe Louis because he had a way better chin, speed, movement rate, and possibly punching power? ARRRGGHHH!

As to B-Hop and RJJ in a rematch: I don't think that it would prove anything. Both fighters were green in their first fight (Jones was only 15-0), and both fighters are over the hill if they fight again. We never got to see them face each other in their prime. Nonetheless, it would sell tickets.

I rank Joe Louis above Mike Tyson, and Rocky. So I do factor in "he was old then" losses and father time being the real winner. Tyson having a better chin then Louis? I dont think so, even if he does/did Louis had up for it in heart. I have already said my reasoning, if you disagree then cool beans. Its Jones's own fault for weight hoping so quickly, and didnt Glen Johnson also knock him out? Was that a freak occurance aswell? A freak occurance is Hearns KO'ing Duran in 2! That was a damn good shot and 99% of any fighter within 160'ish would of at least been knocked down! Duran proved that was the case. To ME Jones hasn't proved that. Dis credit me for believing you have to have a good chin and heart to be ranked amoung the ATG's. Why is Julian Jackson never in the top 10? HIS CHIN! But if you think Jones can go 15 rounds with a prime Robinson, Foreman, Louis, Duran, and ect in a p4p fight and not get hit solid 10+ times then thats cool go ahead but I dis agree. Before I get the "Your putting words in my mouth/replies", I am saying IF you think that way. We just have to agree to dis agree our reasoning tactics take different paths, and not a damn thing wrong with that. Peace.

First of all, Louis didn't have half of Tyson's chin. He [Louis] didn't ever show the ability to get his head snapped back for 10 or 11 rounds by bigger men before falling. The one or two instances where he took really good shots, they weren't even in consistent repetition (Schmeling and Marciano), and he still got KO'd pretty hard. Even so, I still rank Louis higher than Tyson as a champion, even though Tyson would probably fare better against more top 10 heavies than would Louis, simply given his style. Rankings have to factor their success as champion, as well as the marvel of their feats (ie: 25 defenses, 11+ years as champ vs. 10 defenses, 4 years, and youngest champ ever), etc.

Jones could probably go 15 rounds with a lot of people on a top 10 p4p list; but Mike Tyson shouldn't be scratching the surface of that list. His size, strength, reach, and power would give him sick advantages over lighter fighters, no matter how quick they were. His speed is also comparable to those of fighters much smaller than he is, and his chin would be nigh impregnable for someone 30+ pounds lighter than he is. He would have to exert much less force to put down SRR than he would Muhammad Ali, for example. Despite this, a top 10 p4p list should have very little to do with head-to-head matchups, and more to do with ability + accomplishments, or else the list looks rediculous and includes guys like Mike Tyson.

Seeing as how there is no real way to determine who would actually win the head-to-head matchups between two fighters of different eras, it only makes an argument look silly to assume that Duran, for example, would beat RJJ because his chin looked poor against a couple of guys way late in his career. It's impossible to know beyond speculation, and that speculation isn't reasonable unless there are insane advantage differences like those listed above in the Mike Tyson example. If that's the case, RJJ's combination of speed, power, reflexes, and stamina would be worlds beyond a lot of the classic fighters, outside of perhaps Sugar Ray Robinson, who would undoubtedly be first on my (and many other) list(s) anyway.

This is turning out a lot like that guy who said that Tua was a top 5 all-time heavyweight.

Also, why is Floyd Mayweather, Jr. on these lists then? He's got a good chin, a good body, good speed, decent power, masterful skill, the ability to change his plan when things are slightly awkward (ie: Castillo, Judah, De La Hoya), he's beaten the best of his day, he's won six championships, and he's got no signs of slowing down any time soon if he stays active. That's a little bit of everything, and according to these credentials, he'd stand a good chance against many fighters throughout history.

All that I'm saying, is picking one weak quality, which would matter only in very specific head-to-head matchups, is absolutely not a legitimate (debate) reason to keep someone off of a list who is just as skilled as they are, perhaps physically more gifted, with excellent championship accomplishments.

Like I've said I am not hating on RJJ, just stating my thoughts on his ranking with ATG's.

** Your thoughts need a major overhaul and makeover.

The first good big man Robinson faced he was beat by, Lamotta.

Maybe you need to understand that Robby was a skinny fellow who turned pro at around 130lbs. Roy turned pro at the 154 level and was extremely fast, strong, powerful, and unorthodox at the weight.

Robby is generally considered the best fighter in history with Greb, Pep, and Armstrong being his main competitors.

Yet Robby couldn't handle a smallish, featherfisted LH Maxim near Robby's peak as a fighter. He never waded in those waters again. He was beat many times at middle when he was still viable, but past his best which was LW/WW.

As a jr mid, mid. super mid Roy was the most powerful, fastest, most dominant fighter in these divisions of his era. He could have stayed as a middleweight and run up a Hop/Monzon type record easily.

You're asking way too much of Robby to beat a prime Roy, no different from Roy idolators who think he could beat Dempsey, Louis, Rocky, and Marciano or asking a Michael Spinks to beat Tyson or asking Rocky to beat Lewis.

Might as well build a bridge over the Pacific or Atlantic.

One neglected fighter in these lists is the great Johnny "Tucan" McGinty

First of all, Louis didn't have half of Tyson's chin. He [Louis] didn't ever show the ability to get his head snapped back for 10 or 11 rounds by bigger men before falling. The one or two instances where he took really good shots, they weren't even in consistent repetition (Schmeling and Marciano), and he still got KO'd pretty hard. Even so, I still rank Louis higher than Tyson as a champion, even though Tyson would probably fare better against more top 10 heavies than would Louis, simply given his style. Rankings have to factor their success as champion, as well as the marvel of their feats (ie: 25 defenses, 11+ years as champ vs. 10 defenses, 4 years, and youngest champ ever), etc.

Jones could probably go 15 rounds with a lot of people on a top 10 p4p list; but Mike Tyson shouldn't be scratching the surface of that list. His size, strength, reach, and power would give him sick advantages over lighter fighters, no matter how quick they were. His speed is also comparable to those of fighters much smaller than he is, and his chin would be nigh impregnable for someone 30+ pounds lighter than he is. He would have to exert much less force to put down SRR than he would Muhammad Ali, for example. Despite this, a top 10 p4p list should have very little to do with head-to-head matchups, and more to do with ability + accomplishments, or else the list looks rediculous and includes guys like Mike Tyson.

Seeing as how there is no real way to determine who would actually win the head-to-head matchups between two fighters of different eras, it only makes an argument look silly to assume that Duran, for example, would beat RJJ because his chin looked poor against a couple of guys way late in his career. It's impossible to know beyond speculation, and that speculation isn't reasonable unless there are insane advantage differences like those listed above in the Mike Tyson example. If that's the case, RJJ's combination of speed, power, reflexes, and stamina would be worlds beyond a lot of the classic fighters, outside of perhaps Sugar Ray Robinson, who would undoubtedly be first on my (and many other) list(s) anyway.

This is turning out a lot like that guy who said that Tua was a top 5 all-time heavyweight.

Tyson isnt even in my top 10 HWY's.. ? I agree with you totally about your statments concerning him, BUT like I said even if Tyson's chin was better then Tyson Louis made up for it with his heart. So trying to think out who is a better fighter, and how they would win in a p4p fight against other ATG's is silly to you? Thats cool man whatever insult me all you want doesnt bother me. We see things differently as I have said over and over and over. Keep on proving that fact by all means.

Also, why is Floyd Mayweather, Jr. on these lists then? He's got a good chin, a good body, good speed, decent power, masterful skill, the ability to change his plan when things are slightly awkward (ie: Castillo, Judah, De La Hoya), he's beaten the best of his day, he's won six championships, and he's got no signs of slowing down any time soon if he stays active. That's a little bit of everything, and according to these credentials, he'd stand a good chance against many fighters throughout history.

All that I'm saying, is picking one weak quality, which would matter only in very specific head-to-head matchups, is absolutely not a legitimate (debate) reason to keep someone off of a list who is just as skilled as they are, perhaps physically more gifted, with excellent championship accomplishments.

I wont include him yet cause he hasnt been retired (like legit). Only then I'll know 100% of everything he did/has done.

** Your thoughts need a major overhaul and makeover.

The first good big man Robinson faced he was beat by, Lamotta.

Maybe you need to understand that Robby was a skinny fellow who turned pro at around 130lbs. Roy turned pro at the 154 level and was extremely fast, strong, powerful, and unorthodox at the weight.

Robby is generally considered the best fighter in history with Greb, Pep, and Armstrong being his main competitors.

Yet Robby couldn't handle a smallish, featherfisted LH Maxim near Robby's peak as a fighter. He never waded in those waters again. He was beat many times at middle when he was still viable, but past his best which was LW/WW.

As a jr mid, mid. super mid Roy was the most powerful, fastest, most dominant fighter in these divisions of his era. He could have stayed as a middleweight and run up a Hop/Monzon type record easily.

You're asking way too much of Robby to beat a prime Roy, no different from Roy idolators who think he could beat Dempsey, Louis, Rocky, and Marciano or asking a Michael Spinks to beat Tyson or asking Rocky to beat Lewis.

Might as well build a bridge over the Pacific or Atlantic.

Thats why its p4p,....size and weight doesnt factor in.

roy was amazing when he was at heavy he was small compared to them but stil had power and speed he should of stayed back then.

Thats why its p4p,....size and weight doesnt factor in.

** Au contraire. Roy and Robby are about the same height. Robby was at his best at welter, Roy as middle/supermiddle. Only a 6% difference between them. Yet Roy was slaughtering big stronger fighters than himself, not outpointing them like Robby might do.

The best fighter Robby met at welter was Gavilan which ended up with a very controversial decision for Robby followed by a wide decision.

Now, compare to Roy who won a wide decision over Hopkins with a broken hand. a complete shutout of Toney, and wide decision over McCallum, all fighters bigger and stronger than Roy I might add.

Robby gets extra props for competing well past his best weight and prime as a middle, something Roy sort of duped as a LH, but not nearly at the same level of comp as Robby.

Career is Robby hands down. Peak is Roy, no contest.

** Au contraire. Roy and Robby are about the same height. Robby was at his best at welter, Roy as middle/supermiddle. Only a 6% difference between them. Yet Roy was slaughtering big stronger fighters than himself, not outpointing them like Robby might do.

The best fighter Robby met at welter was Gavilan which ended up with a very controversial decision for Robby followed by a wide decision.

Now, compare to Roy who won a wide decision over Hopkins with a broken hand. a complete shutout of Toney, and wide decision over McCallum, all fighters bigger and stronger than Roy I might add.

Robby gets extra props for competing well past his best weight and prime as a middle, something Roy sort of duped as a LH, but not nearly at the same level of comp as Robby.

Career is Robby hands down. Peak is Roy, no contest.


Thats your opinion. I respect it but have to disagree. SRR defeated more hall of famers, and champions. You think they sucked compared to RJJ's competition, but ok. P4p factors in weight as well my friend. Robby as you call him has several KO's waaaay more then Roy boy so why couldnt he knockout LHW's? After all he lost going 14 rounds in like 110+ temp, it was his opponent that beat him it was the heat. He about died that night, simply trying to win,....dont see Jones doing anything like that.

Thats your opinion. I respect it but have to disagree. SRR defeated more hall of famers, and champions. You think they sucked compared to RJJ's competition, but ok. P4p factors in weight as well my friend.

** Nobody ever claimed Ray's comp was bad. It was smaller because he's a smaller man. Roy didn't start off fighting lightweights.

They are only 6% difference in size at their peaks. Shrink Roy down to fit and you have a lightning fast Camacho type fighter on steroids. Very difficult to track down while eating flurries you can't see and crawling around on the canvas.

Roy had his way with durable HOF boxer/puncher types with larger body frames, yet Robinson was knocked through the ropes by Lamotta and staggered by Doyle, fighters with inferior speed and power to Roy.

Peak matches don't respect longevity or greatness, like Tyson v Louis, or SRLeonard v Armstrong or Ross. Peak welts who have an even chance to knock off Robby would be Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Griffith, Curry, and those are just his natural peers. Shrink Tyson down, oh my, you'd have a 5'4" wrecking ball you can't see.

Also, oodles of really great peak fighters who don't make all time lists, but knocked off greats in single inspired performances or held it together for only a few fights before health problems or personal problems derail them. The Hurricane Carters of the business, guys like that who may completely obliterate a great like Emile Griffith, but will never be a champ.

** Nobody ever claimed Ray's comp was bad. It was smaller because he's a smaller man. Roy didn't start off fighting lightweights.

They are only 6% difference in size at their peaks. Shrink Roy down to fit and you have a lightning fast Camacho type fighter on steroids. Very difficult to track down while eating flurries you can't see and crawling around on the canvas.

Roy had his way with durable HOF boxer/puncher types with larger body frames, yet Robinson was knocked through the ropes by Lamotta and staggered by Doyle, fighters with inferior speed and power to Roy.

Peak matches don't respect longevity or greatness, like Tyson v Louis, or SRLeonard v Armstrong or Ross. Peak welts who have an even chance to knock off Robby would be Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Griffith, Curry, and those are just his natural peers. Shrink Tyson down, oh my, you'd have a 5'4" wrecking ball you can't see.

Also, oodles of really great peak fighters who don't make all time lists, but knocked off greats in single inspired performances or held it together for only a few fights before health problems or personal problems derail them. The Hurricane Carters of the business, guys like that who may completely obliterate a great like Emile Griffith, but will never be a champ.

Your claims of Roy having more power and speed p4p is something I just dont agree with. Lamotta is a ATG, and his style is nothing like Roys so saying since Lamotta knocked down Robinson and since Roy hit SOOOO much harder then Lamotta p4p Roy > Robinson is crazy. Plus Lamotta may of had 20 + pounds on Robinson that night, and Robinson got the W over Lamotta FIVE more times after..... . Roy avenged his lose to Tarver how many times (counting the W before his lose doenst count as a avenged W).....? Ray fought the better p4p opposition, accomplished waaaaaay more. Proved himselves to be able to fight forward or backwards, and proved if things are looking down and a L is on the way he WILL find a way to win. Jones hasnt done this idc how many times he knocked someone down, or how many hits he stepped back from. I dont see RJJ over SRR in a p4p ATG list. I dont put Roy on my list for reasons stated, and you dis agree I am not going to keep repeating myself over this. P4p Mike Tyson gets clocked earily by SRR, Mike like Roy had no heart, and Ray had quite the punch himself. If you think Roy Jones Jr could go 15 rounds with out getting clocked hard by several ATG's then thats your opinion I dis agree but I wont try to argue with you over it.

. Roy avenged his lose to Tarver how many times

** Look I've already acknowledged Robinson as the best p4p champ ever. You changed the debate to who could beat who best to best.

Different topic. As a peak fighter Robinson is only one of many greats and not so greats. Talking about a Roy loss when he's 35 has nothing to do with Roy's peak or prime.

** Look I've already acknowledged Robinson as the best p4p champ ever. You changed the debate to who could beat who best to best.

Different topic. As a peak fighter Robinson is only one of many greats and not so greats. Talking about a Roy loss when he's 35 has nothing to do with Roy's peak or prime.

If it exposed his chin,heart, and will it does. The same thing of very well happened to him during his prime @ SMW. He just happened to be so fast (not being sarcastic) it didnt matter. All I am saying is if you compare a prime for prime Ray n Roy then compare the two in a p4p fight meaning era, weight, size , and ect doesnt matter. Roy's chin would be his undoing.

Besides I only began so dis agree with the listing when Roy was ahead of Ray. I could see someone putting him ahead of Duran, Louis, Ali, Tyson, Leonard (ect,ect,ect,ect,ect) and we agree that Robinson is the p4p #1. I personallt dont think he ranks there I made my reasons why and you dont agree on my logic for doing so. Thats fine with me, but I wont just say "Yea your right".

If it exposed his chin,heart, and will it does. .

** Nothing to do with peak son.

Louis was KOed twice, once early, once in last fight. Glass jaw with no chance against anyone?

Ali wanted to quit 3x, the first Liston fight, the 3rd Frazier fight, and finally he did the Holmes fight though everyone will say it was his corner, when in fact Holmes had been carrying him. Ali, quitter with no chance against anyone?

Duran, "No Mas." Duran, quitter with no chance against anyone?

Carlos Ortiz against Buchanan, Kotsyu/Hatton, Chavez/Weber, quitters with no chance against anyone?

Ezzard Charles, 6-13 with 4 KOs losses after Rocky, last fight at same age Roy is now....no chance against anyone?

** Nothing to do with peak son.

Louis was KOed twice, once early, once in last fight. Glass jaw with no chance against anyone?

Ali wanted to quit 3x, the first Liston fight, the 3rd Frazier fight, and finally he did the Holmes fight though everyone will say it was his corner, when in fact Holmes had been carrying him. Ali, quitter with no chance against anyone?

Duran, "No Mas." Duran, quitter with no chance against anyone?

Carlos Ortiz against Buchanan, Kotsyu/Hatton, Chavez/Weber, quitters with no chance against anyone?

Ezzard Charles, 6-13 with 4 KOs losses after Rocky, last fight at same age Roy is now....no chance against anyone?


I've already said Jones has yet to prove himself, and Duran Louis Robinson ect has indeed proved themselves making those events in thier career rare occurences, or flukes.

at least roy jones jr is stil fighting and winnning.

at least roy jones jr is stil fighting and winnning.

Im not to sure how to take that? I'll just reply "twice" to it.

1) Yea and I personally wish him the best come back because boxings needs his talents to knock UFC down a peg. He is/was a great champion and will earn HOF no doubt.

2) Well for obvious reasons Robinson or Louis cant say the same, but Duran had his last fight in 01 (lost I am sure).

yeh wel he stil tryin to prove himself he did well in his last match but he hasnt alot of time left

yeh wel he stil tryin to prove himself he did well in his last match but he hasnt alot of time left

True that, and I only wish the best for him. I think he still has alot left in him personally. About him vs B hop n Taylor (something that got lost in the thread). Idc is they was both green then, and its "prove" nothing. Itd be a damn good fight, and Jones could rly use the win over a potential GOAT MW even if he already has it under him. Taylor I do belive wouldnt give Jones much problems,....but I still want to see the fight to see how Taylor would handle someone of Jones's caliber.

Just so you know, I was never trying to make an insult towards you. Words like "silly" and "rediculous" are directed towards sweeping statements and speculative pokes and not at the person. I actually believe that BoxingScene has turned into quite a friendly atmosphere recently, given the absence of a few argumenative (albeit, great) previous posters.

I was also never stating that Roy was better than Robinson; he may win if they fought, given the size, speed, power advantages, etc., but that's not the goal here in determining ATG's. I just feel as though Roy deserves to be mentioned among the greatest, because his accomplishments, dominance, and longevity (ie: not losing until he was 35) are on par, or better than many others who are reserved on the lists for vintage sake.

Its all good Brass. The thing about Tua being top 5 HW or something like that was what I was talking about more then anything. Idk who that guy is and I certainly dont think he is. Like I said I make my listing going on p4p who wins the most against who, who was the best boxer and most complete. I dont dis agree with your (anyone elses) methods just the way I do things. Seems more "fun" my way. Yea this forum has gotten better (I've been reading here for months just dont post often). Never was hating on Roy even thought it seemed to be so, I enjoy watching him fight and will follow his comeback till the end.

yeh i hope royjones does wel.

People seem to lose their passion for things they are heavily involved in after so long, and I think that this happens to boxers in particular. Roy, for example, had been pretty much uncontested from his amateur days all the way through winning the heavyweight crown. One day, he gets called out by a hot-shot, up-and-comer in the light heavyweight division, so he figures, "all right, one more go around." The money was right, and the public wanted more, so naturally, there was a rematch, despite his victory. Unfortunately for him, it was a fight that tarnished his otherwise pristine career. Then he fights a few more times hoping to go out with some wins, but you can see from those fights that he had lost a little zip, and his heart just wasn't in it anymore.

It only makes sense for him to come back. A fighter who stays away for awhile, but still actively works out will probably feel as though they can take on the world. It's like being born again, so to speak. Hopefully, this will carry Jones to some important victories.

Ali's poor defensive skills should be taken into consideration when formulating a p4p list and his relative location on said list. He suffered from these flaws throughout the majority of his career. Jones may have (and I stress "may"), had a chin problem, but that really only made itself evident in one fight; a rematch from a contest that he had won previously. After that, Jones was simply old. I would go so far as to say that poor defensive skills are far more important than a chin when rating a champion. Especially since a chin isn't something you can do much about in the way of training, whereas a champion is something you train to become.


I just want to ask, why do you say that Ali had poor defensive skills. Nat Fleischer put out a list just before he died on several different categories and one of them was defense, here's his top 3.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Tommy Loughran

In his prime (1960-1967), it was very hard to hit Ali. You could count the punches that did.

Also, watch Ali in this film against Dokes, at approx. the 2 minute mark you will see what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a119woHLAe4&mode=related&search=


Also, here's Nat Fleischer's picks as who had the best jab.

1. Joe Louis
2. Ali
3. Jem Driscoll

Here's his picks on the Best Combination Puncher

1. Benny Leonard
2. Ray Robinson
3. Muhammad Ali

Ali had a great physical swiftness, and could therefore lean away from punches, but as Joe Louis would point out in his autobiography:

(Louis p 260), “Ali’s a great fighter, (but) he made too many mistakes, his hands are down a lot, and he takes too many punches to the body. I know what I’m talking about.

"Technically, Ali wasn't a very good fighter; it was just that his physical gifts (speed, reflexes, and chin) were so astonishing that he was able to get away with things that would have gotten most fighters beaten up. Some may argue he did end beaten up when his career was over. George Foreman noted on his web-site (www.georgeforeman.com) that after Ali’s speed diminished “it became apparent that he never really learned defense.”"

I, for one, would listen to Joe Louis, one of the greatest boxing brains in terms of solving opponents, before Nat Fleischer. Not that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but still; Joe's experience in the ring speaks for itself, and he spent a lot of time with Ali and studying him on film.

George Chuvalo, who was slow footed, lacked pure punching skill or speed, managed to find success to Ali's body, setting up flush shots to the chin in the 13th round of their fight while Ali was in his prime. Doug Jones, a small heavyweight with modest ability was able to be competative with Ali because he had quick hands and a good jab of his own. In both fights with Henry Cooper, Ali was hit cleanly by jabs. Even though he went on to win these contests, very average opponents were able to give him trouble while he was at his quickest. A well-passed-his-prime Sonny Liston was less than centimeters behind Ali when he threw a jab, but instead decided to go for the kill in a fight that he didn't train seriously for. I can guarantee Liston would have landed that jackhammer jab to counter Ali's jab were he [Liston] any younger. Even if Ali's speed would have saved him, there's a good chance that Liston's jab would have forced a different strategy from the young, dancing Clay.

I never said that Ali didn't have a good jab, just that his jab left him open to counterpunching. Unfortunately for this theory, he never faced a top-notch contender who possessed this ability until later in his career. When he did, he got hit a lot.

Ali also used right uppercuts to try to catch incoming opponents, which often left the right side of his face wide open. Regardless of his time spent away from the ring, this is one reason why Frazier and Norton were able to catch him cleanly so often. His chin saved him in these fights, not his defense. Were it an opponent with faster hands and an ability to finish, such as Joe Louis or Mike Tyson, for example, Ali may not have recovered.

He was very difficult to hit from 1960-1967, because he never fought anyone with more than adequate ability to accomplish the simple measures for beating him; short of an over-the-hill Liston, or a quickly fading, suffering from back injury-laden Patterson.

Nonetheless, I still rate Muhammad Ali as my #2 all-time heavyweight (sometimes #1, depending on the day). I'm just making clear that a critical eye can really show how hittable, and downright beatable anyone in history truly is.

I really don't see anyone that could have beaten him when he was at his best. You say Chuvalo gave him a battle, well the scores were as follows:

referee: Jackie Silvers 73-65
judge: Tony Canzano 74-63
judge: Jackie Johnstone 74-62

referee: Dave Brown 59-51
judge: Tommy Paonessa 60-46
judge: Tommy Keyes 58-51

Not very close.

Doug Jones hit him with a vey good right hand in the 1st round, BUT Ali won most the the remaining rounds. Several years ago I gave the tape of that bout to several well known boxing judges and asked them to judge the bout for themselves and they came out with an average score of 7-3 for Ali.

Cooper did hit him with a perfect left hook, BUT again Ali got up and stopped Cooper on cuts in the next rounds. Some people say that it took several minutes before they got another glove for Ali, BUT the film states a lot different.

With that, Ali was only 21 years old at the time and still filling out.

In the 1st Liston bout, Ali made Sonny look old. Liston had just KO'ed Patterson twice and boxing experts were comparing him with some of the all-time Greats.

I rate Ali #1 because he beat the better Heavyweights then anyone else, including Joe Louis. Here's a list that is 2nd to none

1. George Foreman (http://www.boxrec.com/record000090.html) - 6' 3½ - 220 – (76-5) - 68 KO
2. Joe Frazier (http://www.boxrec.com/record000147.html) (Won 2/3) - 5' 11½ - 205½, 209, 215 – (32-4-1) - 27 KO
3. Sonny Liston (http://www.boxrec.com/record009031.html) (Won 2) - 6' 0½ - 218, 215¼ - (50-4) - 39 KO
4. Ken Norton (http://www.boxrec.com/record000168.html) (Won 2/3) - 6' 3 – 210, 205, 217½ - (42-7-1) - 33 KO
5. Floyd Patterson (http://www.boxrec.com/record009038.html) (Won 2) - 6' 0 - 196¾, 188½ - (55-8-1) - 40 KO
6. Jerry Quarry (http://www.boxrec.com/record009385.html) (Won 2) – 6' 0 - 197½ , 198 - (53-9-4) - 32 KO
7. Oscar Bonavena (http://www.boxrec.com/record009386.html) - 5' 10½ - 204 – (58-9-1) - 44 KO
8. Jimmy Ellis (http://www.boxrec.com/record016178.html) - 6' 1 – 189 – (40-12-1) - 24 KO
9. Zora Folley (http://www.boxrec.com/record009384.html) - 6' 1 - 202½ - (79-11-6) - 44 KO
10. Ernie Terrell (http://www.boxrec.com/record009383.html) - 6' 6 - 212¼ - (45-9) - 21 KO
11. George Chuvalo (http://www.boxrec.com/record000119.html) (Won 2) - 6' 0 – 216, 221 – (73-18-2) - 64 KO
12. Ron Lyle (http://www.boxrec.com/record000226.html) - 6' 3 – 219 – (43-7-1) - 31 KO
13. Earnie Shavers (http://www.boxrec.com/record000320.html) - 6' 0 - 211¼ - (74-14-1) - 68 KO
14. Joe Bugner (http://www.boxrec.com/record000924.html) (Won 2) - 6' 4 – 219, 230 – (69-13-1) - 41 KO
15. Bob Foster (http://www.boxrec.com/record009000.html) - 6' 3 – 180 – (56-8-1) - 46 KO
16. Mac Foster (http://www.boxrec.com/record009388.html) - 6' 2 - 211¼ - (30-6) – 30 KO
17. Karl Mildenberger (http://www.boxrec.com/record009381.html) - 6' 1½ - 195 – (53-6-3) – 19 KO
18. Archie Moore (http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=8995) - 5' 11 – 191 – (185-23-11) – 131 KO
19. Jimmy Young (http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=276) - 6' 2 – 209 – (34-19-2) – 11 KO
20. Cleveland Williams (http://www.boxrec.com/record009382.html) - 6' 3 - 210½ (78-13-1) – 58 KO
21. Doug Jones (http://www.boxrec.com/record009378.html) - 6' 0 – 188 – (30-10-1) – 20 KO
22. Henry Cooper (http://www.boxrec.com/record009379.html) (Won 2) - 185½ , 188 – (40-14-1) – 27 KO
23. Leon Spinks (http://www.boxrec.com/record000262.html) (Won 1/2) - 6' 1 - 197¼, 201 – (26-17-3) – 14 KO
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

All in all, Ali fought a total of 38 Top 10 contenders, when they were rated in the Top 10, in his 61 bouts, That's a percentage of 62.295% and if you count the boxers that he fought that were at one time or another rated in the Top 10, Ali fought a total of 38 different opponents 49 times, which is a percentage of 80.3279%.
<o></o><!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o></o><!--[endif]--> <!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
Henry Cooper in his biography stated:

"I would jab once, the I'd double jab. He'd jerk his head back to the first, then the second and I'd sling in yet another jab and he'd jerk back from that too. He could judge a punch to the last quarter inch...he could play with margins as narrow as that...but after his jerks he could still come back with a sneaky right hand."

Zora Folley in Sports Illustrated:

"Louis wouldn't have a chance; he was too slow... There's no way to train yourself for what he does. The moves, the speed, the punches and the way he changes style every time you think you got him figured. The right hands Ali hit me with just had no business landing but they did. They came from nowhere. Many times he was in the wrong position but he hit me anyway. I've never seen anyone who could do that. The knockdown punch was so fast that I never saw it. He has lots of snap, and when the punches land they dizzy your head; they fuzz up your mind. He's smart. The trickiest fighter I've seen. He's had twenty-nine fights and acts like he's had a hundred. He could write the book on boxing, and anyone that fights him should be made to read it."

Ali had a great physical swiftness, and could therefore lean away from punches, but as Joe Louis would point out in his autobiography:

(Louis p 260), “Ali’s a great fighter, (but) he made too many mistakes, his hands are down a lot, and he takes too many punches to the body. I know what I’m talking about.

"Technically, Ali wasn't a very good fighter; it was just that his physical gifts (speed, reflexes, and chin) were so astonishing that he was able to get away with things that would have gotten most fighters beaten up. Some may argue he did end beaten up when his career was over. George Foreman noted on his web-site (www.georgeforeman.com) that after Ali’s speed diminished “it became apparent that he never really learned defense.”"

I, for one, would listen to Joe Louis, one of the greatest boxing brains in terms of solving opponents, before Nat Fleischer. Not that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but still; Joe's experience in the ring speaks for itself, and he spent a lot of time with Ali and studying him on film.

George Chuvalo, who was slow footed, lacked pure punching skill or speed, managed to find success to Ali's body, setting up flush shots to the chin in the 13th round of their fight while Ali was in his prime. Doug Jones, a small heavyweight with modest ability was able to be competative with Ali because he had quick hands and a good jab of his own. In both fights with Henry Cooper, Ali was hit cleanly by jabs. Even though he went on to win these contests, very average opponents were able to give him trouble while he was at his quickest. A well-passed-his-prime Sonny Liston was less than centimeters behind Ali when he threw a jab, but instead decided to go for the kill in a fight that he didn't train seriously for. I can guarantee Liston would have landed that jackhammer jab to counter Ali's jab were he [Liston] any younger. Even if Ali's speed would have saved him, there's a good chance that Liston's jab would have forced a different strategy from the young, dancing Clay.

I never said that Ali didn't have a good jab, just that his jab left him open to counterpunching. Unfortunately for this theory, he never faced a top-notch contender who possessed this ability until later in his career. When he did, he got hit a lot.

Ali also used right uppercuts to try to catch incoming opponents, which often left the right side of his face wide open. Regardless of his time spent away from the ring, this is one reason why Frazier and Norton were able to catch him cleanly so often. His chin saved him in these fights, not his defense. Were it an opponent with faster hands and an ability to finish, such as Joe Louis or Mike Tyson, for example, Ali may not have recovered.

He was very difficult to hit from 1960-1967, because he never fought anyone with more than adequate ability to accomplish the simple measures for beating him; short of an over-the-hill Liston, or a quickly fading, suffering from back injury-laden Patterson.

Nonetheless, I still rate Muhammad Ali as my #2 all-time heavyweight (sometimes #1, depending on the day). I'm just making clear that a critical eye can really show how hittable, and downright beatable anyone in history truly is.


Wow nice post Brass! :fing02:

Zora Folley in Sports Illustrated:

"Louis wouldn't have a chance; he was too slow... There's no way to train yourself for what he does. The moves, the speed, the punches and the way he changes style every time you think you got him figured. The right hands Ali hit me with just had no business landing but they did. They came from nowhere. Many times he was in the wrong position but he hit me anyway. I've never seen anyone who could do that. The knockdown punch was so fast that I never saw it. He has lots of snap, and when the punches land they dizzy your head; they fuzz up your mind. He's smart. The trickiest fighter I've seen. He's had twenty-nine fights and acts like he's had a hundred. He could write the book on boxing, and anyone that fights him should be made to read it."[/FONT]

Wouldnt you agree Louis had more technical knowledge? Making his opinion stronger?

Wouldnt you agree Louis had more technical knowledge? Making his opinion stronger?

Louis never fought Ali, Foley did.

Also, Jersey Joe Walcott, who fought Louis twice said that Ali was the best Heavyweight he ever saw.

Ali had a great physical swiftness, and could therefore lean away from punches, but as Joe Louis would point out in his autobiography:

(Louis p 260), “Ali’s a great fighter, (but) he made too many mistakes, his hands are down a lot, and he takes too many punches to the body. I know what I’m talking about.

"Technically, Ali wasn't a very good fighter; it was just that his physical gifts (speed, reflexes, and chin) were so astonishing that he was able to get away with things that would have gotten most fighters beaten up. Some may argue he did end beaten up when his career was over. George Foreman noted on his web-site (www.georgeforeman.com) that after Ali’s speed diminished “it became apparent that he never really learned defense.”"

I, for one, would listen to Joe Louis, one of the greatest boxing brains in terms of solving opponents, before Nat Fleischer. Not that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but still; Joe's experience in the ring speaks for itself, and he spent a lot of time with Ali and studying him on film.

George Chuvalo, who was slow footed, lacked pure punching skill or speed, managed to find success to Ali's body, setting up flush shots to the chin in the 13th round of their fight while Ali was in his prime. Doug Jones, a small heavyweight with modest ability was able to be competative with Ali because he had quick hands and a good jab of his own. In both fights with Henry Cooper, Ali was hit cleanly by jabs. Even though he went on to win these contests, very average opponents were able to give him trouble while he was at his quickest. A well-passed-his-prime Sonny Liston was less than centimeters behind Ali when he threw a jab, but instead decided to go for the kill in a fight that he didn't train seriously for. I can guarantee Liston would have landed that jackhammer jab to counter Ali's jab were he [Liston] any younger. Even if Ali's speed would have saved him, there's a good chance that Liston's jab would have forced a different strategy from the young, dancing Clay.

I never said that Ali didn't have a good jab, just that his jab left him open to counterpunching. Unfortunately for this theory, he never faced a top-notch contender who possessed this ability until later in his career. When he did, he got hit a lot.

Ali also used right uppercuts to try to catch incoming opponents, which often left the right side of his face wide open. Regardless of his time spent away from the ring, this is one reason why Frazier and Norton were able to catch him cleanly so often. His chin saved him in these fights, not his defense. Were it an opponent with faster hands and an ability to finish, such as Joe Louis or Mike Tyson, for example, Ali may not have recovered.

He was very difficult to hit from 1960-1967, because he never fought anyone with more than adequate ability to accomplish the simple measures for beating him; short of an over-the-hill Liston, or a quickly fading, suffering from back injury-laden Patterson.

Nonetheless, I still rate Muhammad Ali as my #2 all-time heavyweight (sometimes #1, depending on the day). I'm just making clear that a critical eye can really show how hittable, and downright beatable anyone in history truly is.

It's well known that in his prime Ali did everything "wrong" from a technichal aspect. He got away with it because of his incredible speed and reflexes. In a way it was actually a strength because you couldn't predict what he would do. A good comparison from today is Roy Jones. All these things were said about him as well. The difference between the two is that once his speed and reflexes diminished Ali adapted and found a new way to fight; Jones did not and kept trying to fight the same way he did in his prime. The results were Jones was starched in back to back fights.

Poet

It's well known that in his prime Ali did everything "wrong" from a technichal aspect. He got away with it because of his incredible speed and refelexes. In a way it was actually a strength because you couldn't predict what he whould do. A good comparison from today is Roy Jones. All these things were said about him as well. The difference between the two is that once his speed and reflexes diminished Ali adapted and found a new way to fight; Jones did not and kept trying to fight the same way he did in his prime. The results were Jones was starched in back to back fights.

Poet

I agree 100%

Louis never fought Ali, Foley did.

Also, Jersey Joe Walcott, who fought Louis twice said that Ali was the best Heavyweight he ever saw.

Yea I realize Foley fought Ali... . Still Louis is know for his knowledge of the Sweet Science. Louis was better then Foley was well.... .

So anyone can say "Yea he was great cause he got the win against me"
Just doesnt prove anything to me. As for Walcott thats a personal opinion not saying it doesnt count for anything (cause Jersey Joe was great!).

I put ROY JONES first because of the total package: HAND and amazing FOOT SPEED. In fact, while the hands get all the glory in boxing, it's really the FEET which deserve the praise in my book. They set up all punching angles. And if you dont have that FOOTWORK, you will be mediocre. All the guys that are really P4P had mad skills in the footwork department: ROBINSON, ALI, JONES, HAMED (tho some dont agree he was ill wit his feet)...

JOE LOUIS, on the other hand had DECENT to GOOD footwork. And that was for a reason. BLACKBURN his trainer didnt' want to put all the effort into getting his feet together. The plan was to develop krazy hand speed/combo punching because no heavyweights of the time really had that except for JERSEY JOE WALCOTT--who was also trained by BLACKBURN in the beginning of his career before he left him for LOUIS!

One big important element of the sport is too make your opponent look very ORDINARY because you're so far ahead of them in skills. JONES and ALI did that. ROBINSON. That's the point. Altho Ali shoulda retired by 1972. 10 plus years in boxing is an EON mayne! Roy shoulda been thru by 1998 or 99 at the latest. But the ADULATION and BAD MONEY MANAGEMENT gets these guys...

Also as far as being TECHNICAL with ya skills in boxing--I think that's something to be avoided. You can be too technical, tryna do your punches correct. Boxing is really about OPENINGS when you see one, close it with a punch. Whether it's 1 or a 2, 3, 4 punch combo depends. Dont always throw a punch from EXPECTED angles. Walcott, Ali, Hamed, Jones and Pryor were all great for throwing punches from odd angles (that's a true MARTIAL ARTS skill which boxing is, let's not forget that).

At the end of the day, I agree with most of everyone's choices. After all, you cant really narrow it to just 10. I really need a top 25 and the order could change. It would simply be these are the fighters that belong in that 25.

And just to address the comment on ROBINSON v JONES: It would be interesting at MIDDLEWEIGHT. At 12-15 rounds, I'd go with Robinson. He was the better conditioned fighter. 10 rounds or less, Jones, possibly, even by stoppage. Robinson was more fluid and knew how to conserve movement. You know he watched INSECTS (especially the PRAYING MANTIS) for learning how to fight, move...Meanwhile, we all know Jones watched CHICKENS (chased them too).

Always an interesting subject. And anybody can beat anybody else on a given day in the SQUARED CIRCLE.

I put ROY JONES first because of the total package: HAND and amazing FOOT SPEED. In fact, while the hands get all the glory in boxing, it's really the FEET which deserve the praise in my book. They set up all punching angles. And if you dont have that FOOTWORK, you will be mediocre. All the guys that are really P4P had mad skills in the footwork department: ROBINSON, ALI, JONES, HAMED (tho some dont agree he was ill wit his feet)...

JOE LOUIS, on the other hand had DECENT to GOOD footwork. And that was for a reason. BLACKBURN his trainer didnt' want to put all the effort into getting his feet together. The plan was to develop krazy hand speed/combo punching because no heavyweights of the time really had that except for JERSEY JOE WALCOTT--who was also trained by BLACKBURN in the beginning of his career before he left him for LOUIS!

One big important element of the sport is too make your opponent look very ORDINARY because you're so far ahead of them in skills. JONES and ALI did that. ROBINSON. That's the point. Altho Ali shoulda retired by 1972. 10 plus years in boxing is an EON mayne! Roy shoulda been thru by 1998 or 99 at the latest. But the ADULATION and BAD MONEY MANAGEMENT gets these guys...

Also as far as being TECHNICAL with ya skills in boxing--I think that's something to be avoided. You can be too technical, tryna do your punches correct. Boxing is really about OPENINGS when you see one, close it with a punch. Whether it's 1 or a 2, 3, 4 punch combo depends. Dont always throw a punch from EXPECTED angles. Walcott, Ali, Hamed, Jones and Pryor were all great for throwing punches from odd angles (that's a true MARTIAL ARTS skill which boxing is, let's not forget that).

At the end of the day, I agree with most of everyone's choices. After all, you cant really narrow it to just 10. I really need a top 25 and the order could change. It would simply be these are the fighters that belong in that 25.

And just to address the comment on ROBINSON v JONES: It would be interesting at MIDDLEWEIGHT. At 12-15 rounds, I'd go with Robinson. He was the better conditioned fighter. 10 rounds or less, Jones, possibly, even by stoppage. Robinson was more fluid and knew how to conserve movement. You know he watched INSECTS (especially the PRAYING MANTIS) for learning how to fight, move...Meanwhile, we all know Jones watched CHICKENS (chased them too).

Always an interesting subject. And anybody can beat anybody else on a given day in the SQUARED CIRCLE.

Good post and yea footwork does matter alot. I dont understand your logic however about Ray v Roy because your saying if the fight is 12-15 rounds itll go to Ray, but it the fight is only 10 round Roy gets a stoppage... . Isnt it safe to say no one stops a MW Robinson at his best? I mean he was in the pickle so much and still went to a dec or a KO win. Plus is Jones can stop Ray in 10 rounds why does it matter that the fight goes 12 or 15?

I would trust a Joe Louis who so much as heard of Ali before a Zora Folley who fought Ali even ten times. Louis made a very critical analysis after watching Ali's fights (even being present for a few of them), and watching him on film. Joe was a man who knew everything from a critiquing standpoint.

Also, Ali was extremely quick, but he was not superhuman. Much of time, in fact, he was fractions of second ahead at best. When he faced other guys with quick hands (see: my previous post), he actually ran into trouble. Louis threw explosive, lightning fast, and laser accurate combinations into the smallest of openings. A counter-jab requires only timing to beat even the fastest fighter. He could pull that off. Does that mean he'd beat him? I don't know, but it could certainly force a change up that Ali didn't expect, nor would he be comfortable with. He didn't learn that he could simply soak up damage, lean on the ropes, and headlock his opponents into oblivion until he started getting old.

I would trust a Joe Louis who so much as heard of Ali before a Zora Folley who fought Ali even ten times. Louis made a very critical analysis after watching Ali's fights (even being present for a few of them), and watching him on film. Joe was a man who knew everything from a critiquing standpoint.

Also, Ali was extremely quick, but he was not superhuman. Much of time, in fact, he was fractions of second ahead at best. When he faced other guys with quick hands (see: my previous post), he actually ran into trouble. Louis threw explosive, lightning fast, and laser accurate combinations into the smallest of openings. A counter-jab requires only timing to beat even the fastest fighter. He could pull that off. Does that mean he'd beat him? I don't know, but it could certainly force a change up that Ali didn't expect, nor would he be comfortable with. He didn't learn that he could simply soak up damage, lean on the ropes, and headlock his opponents into oblivion until he started getting old.


There very few Greats that would admit that they would be beaten by anyone.

The main reason I rate Ali over Louis is the CHIN. Ali had one of the best and Louis's was just average. Also, Louis had all kinds of trouble with boxers such as Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott. Walcott knocked him down several times and light hitting Conn had him hurt and almost knocked him down as well.

Most of the films you see on Louis is the highlights of his best bouts, try looking at the entire fight. I am not saying that Louis wasn't Great, because he was, BUT I am saying that nobody was unbeatable, and that includes Louis and Ali.

It's well known that in his prime Ali did everything "wrong" from a technichal aspect. He got away with it because of his incredible speed and reflexes. In a way it was actually a strength because you couldn't predict what he would do. A good comparison from today is Roy Jones. All these things were said about him as well. The difference between the two is that once his speed and reflexes diminished Ali adapted and found a new way to fight; Jones did not and kept trying to fight the same way he did in his prime. The results were Jones was starched in back to back fights.
Poet

** Da Poet gets starched back to back to back back to back to back back to back to back back to back to back back to back to back back to back to back and on ad infinitum but da Poet don't know it.

Jones was 35 after a long career when he was starched by two bigger, stronger fighters on top of their games.

Ali was fairtheewell whooped at age 29 by a prime peer, and had his jaw busted up and whooped fairtheewell by another prime peer at age 31. Add on all the controversial fights Ali had and you positively cannot even begin to compare the level of excellence Roy was achieving before meeting his downfall.

Roy never lost to a Leon Spinks. That's as disgraceful as your Poetry.

Ali is a great fighter who fought more HOFers than did Roy, but he in no way was as consistantly excellent and dominant as was Roy who also has some strong comp. Now look at Roy at age 38 and I'd pick him to KO a 38 yr old Ali in a heartbeat.

That's a shame because I and others held out for Ali to retire long before he did rather than exploit his fame and ruin his health.

Don't compare apples to oysters and Ali to Roy. Ain't no rhyme or rythym or reason to it, don't ya know it, Poet?

Ali's chin was better than Louis, but his skill and technique was less than half that of the Brown Bomber. Furthermore, Louis never at any point in his career wanted to just quit in the corner, which Ali was guilty of on a few occassions; this gives Louis a bigger heart to overcome the chin factor. Having trouble with Walcott is nothing to be ashamed of, especially compared to having trouble with Doug Jones, Henry Cooper, and George Chuvalo.

Chin is not more important than skill, heart, technique, defensive skill, dominance, and reign as champion. The latter all lean towards Louis.

Ali's chin was better than Louis, but his skill and technique was less than half that of the Brown Bomber. Furthermore, Louis never at any point in his career wanted to just quit in the corner, which Ali was guilty of on a few occassions; this gives Louis a bigger heart to overcome the chin factor. Having trouble with Walcott is nothing to be ashamed of, especially compared to having trouble with Doug Jones, Henry Cooper, and George Chuvalo.

Chin is not more important than skill, heart, technique, defensive skill, dominance, and reign as champion. The latter all lean towards Louis.


Like I stated before, Ali was knocked down by Cooper BUT he didn't have that much problems with him besides that. He won 7 out of 10 rouns against Jones and beat Chuvalo twice in onesided bouts.

I have just about every film that Louis fought in and I can't see him beating Ali. Ali had the Great heart, if he didn't he would have given up several times. Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Norton and a lot of others.

Every boxing expert that I know will tell you that Ali had a Great heart, yes even Greater then Louis. After he lost some of the skills, it was his Heart and Chin that got him by.

Did you see the 1st Schmeling bout? Louis didn't try to get up.

Ali was hardly ever hit when he was in his prime. He use to play with his opponents. He even lost 3-1/2 prime years and then came back and won the Title again.

As far as Walcott goes, we are putting up a Monument in his honor in Camden on October 6th. We went their today and they were just putting it in. If you look at Walcott's record a year before he fought Louis, he lost to Maxim then beat him by a split decision. He lost to Elmer Ray by a split decision, then beat him in another close match. I think both of them were very good, BUT I wouldn't put them among the all-time great heavyweights would you.

I met Jersey Joe many years ago and he told me that no one was as good as Ali. Actually I think he called him Clay at the time.

Just compare the boxers that fought Louis to the boxers that fought Ali, when they fought them. Who do you say fought the better?

By the way, I rate Louis #2 on my all-time Heavyweight list.

Did you see the 1st Schmeling bout? Louis didn't try to get up.


** No need to be completely flattened.

Louis was caught early by Schmeling, and like Leonard against Duran, he was in the ozone for the rest of the fight, the only difference being that Duran tired of so easily pounding on Ray and started to coast, but Schmeling finished off Louis, completely brutalizing him.

Don't you even dare to compare the young, green, scared and goofy Clay to a young destroyer Louis who had flattened a smorgasbord of fringe contenders by age 22 plus flattened mankillers and recent world titlests Carnera and Baer .

You wont see any 50 yr old lightheavies and controversial results over smallish heavy pretenders like young Clay compiled on Louis' record.

Louis avenged his Schmeling defeat in spades, something that Ali could never top, and we know who has the better record and most KOs and least controversial fights.

Now, go stand in the corner for an hour and reflect on anything besides Ali.

** No need to be completely flattened.

Louis was caught early by Schmeling, and like Leonard against Duran, he was in the ozone for the rest of the fight, the only difference being that Duran tired of so easily pounding on Ray and started to coast, but Schmeling finished off Louis, completely brutalizing him.

Don't you even dare to compare the young, green, scared and goofy Clay to a young destroyer Louis who had flattened a smorgasbord of fringe contenders by age 22 plus flattened mankillers and recent world titlests Carnera and Baer .

You wont see any 50 yr old lightheavies and controversial results over smallish heavy pretenders like young Clay compiled on Louis' record.

Louis avenged his Schmeling defeat in spades, something that Ali could never top, and we know who has the better record and most KOs and least controversial fights.

Now, go stand in the corner for an hour and reflect on anything besides Ali.


Don't get me wrong, Joe Louis was one of the Greatest, BUT I just go by the facts and here they are:

Ali fought 38 different opponents 49 times in 61 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 80.3279%

Louis fought 43 different Opponents 54 times in 71 (or 72) bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 76.056%

Rocky fought 13 different Opponents 16 times in 49 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 32.653%

Ali fought 38 out of 61 opponents while they were in the top 10. He beat 33 of them 54.098%

Louis fought 34 out of 71 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat 31 of them 43.662%

Rocky fought 11 out of 49 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat all 11 of them 22.44898%

Ali fought boxers that had an average pro record of 33-5-1 when he fought them.

Louis fought boxers that had an average pro record of 38-10-2.5 when he fought them.

Rocky fought boxers that had an average pro record of 29.7-10.16-1.78 when he fought them.

Just compare the list of Opponents that each fought, you can't tell me that Ali didn't box the better opponents.

Ali beat Foreman, Frazier 2 out of 3 times, Liston twice, Norton 2 out of 3 times, Patterson twice, Quarry twice, Bonavena, Ellis, Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo twice, Lyle & Shavers. I can go on, BUT I think you know what I mean.

Louis beat Greats like Baer, Schmeling, Walcott twice, Conn twice, Braddock, Carnera & Sharkey.

Compare them at the time they fought Ali or Louis, not just their overall record, and you will see what I am talking about.

Both of these Great boxers are among the best ever, I rate them 1-2. When I was a kid, most experts would say that it was Dempsey who was the Greatest, as time went on the experts would say it was Louis, now for many years, they say it's Ali. No one knows for sure and everyone has their opinions.

These are the facts and I am not going to tell you to go in a corner, BUT if you would take the time to look at them, you will see for yourself.

Don't get me wrong, Joe Louis was one of the Greatest, BUT I just go by the facts and here they are:

Ali fought 38 different opponents 49 times in 61 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 80.3279%

Louis fought 43 different Opponents 54 times in 71 (or 72) bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 76.056%

Rocky fought 13 different Opponents 16 times in 49 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 32.653%

Ali fought 38 out of 61 opponents while they were in the top 10. He beat 33 of them 54.098%

Louis fought 34 out of 71 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat 31 of them 43.662%

Rocky fought 11 out of 49 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat all 11 of them 22.44898%

Ali fought boxers that had an average pro record of 33-5-1 when he fought them.

Louis fought boxers that had an average pro record of 38-10-2.5 when he fought them.

Rocky fought boxers that had an average pro record of 29.7-10.16-1.78 when he fought them.

Just compare the list of Opponents that each fought, you can't tell me that Ali didn't box the better opponents.

Ali beat Foreman, Frazier 2 out of 3 times, Liston twice, Norton 2 out of 3 times, Patterson twice, Quarry twice, Bonavena, Ellis, Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo twice, Lyle & Shavers. I can go on, BUT I think you know what I mean.

Louis beat Greats like Baer, Schmeling, Walcott twice, Conn twice, Braddock, Carnera & Sharkey.

Compare them at the time they fought Ali or Louis, not just their overall record, and you will see what I am talking about.

Both of these Great boxers are among the best ever, I rate them 1-2. When I was a kid, most experts would say that it was Dempsey who was the Greatest, as time went on the experts would say it was Louis, now for many years, they say it's Ali. No one knows for sure and everyone has their opinions.

These are the facts and I am not going to tell you to go in a corner, BUT if you would take the time to look at them, you will see for yourself.Let me preface this response by stating that Muhammad Ali is my 2nd. favorite fighter of all time. Before Roberto Durán burst unto the boxing scene, Ali was #1. Despite that, my objectivity remains intact.

Your analysis is flawless. You really did your homework. But at the end of the the day, it is still your opinion, based on your standard of judgement. It (the analysis) doesn't prove that Ali was superior to Louis. My standard doesn't prove that Louis was better either, but my criteria is just as valid as yours, which is Power numbers.

I put a high premium on Power and use it to rate one fighter of otherwise equal merit over another. Louis had a KO percentage of 79.41% to Ali's 66.07%. In addition, Louis recorded 25 succesful defenses of his title, 21 by KO. I'm not big on micro-analysing quality of opponents. In my book, Power rules!

Let me preface this response by stating that Muhammad Ali is my 2nd. favorite fighter of all time. Before Roberto Durán burst unto the boxing scene, Ali was #1. Despite that, my objectivity remains intact.

Your analysis is flawless. You really did your homework. But at the end of the the day, it is still your opinion, based on your stantard of judgement. It (the analysis) doesn't prove that Ali was superior to Louis. My standard doesn't prove that Louis was better either, but my criteria is just as valid as yours, which is Power numbers.

I put a high premium on Power and use it to rate one fighter of otherwise equal merit over another. Louis had a KO percentage of 79.41% to Ali's 66.07%. In addition, Louis recorded 25 succesful defenses of his title, 21 by KO. I'm not big on micro-analysing quality of opponents. In my book, Power rules!

I agree that everyone has their opinion, BUT if you go by your standards, Rocky would be the best followed by Foreman and then Klitschko. I take every thing into consideration, BUT like you stated, everyone goes by a diffferent Criteria and we all have to respect that too.

There very few Greats that would admit that they would be beaten by anyone.

The main reason I rate Ali over Louis is the CHIN. Ali had one of the best and Louis's was just average. Also, Louis had all kinds of trouble with boxers such as Billy Conn and Jersey Joe Walcott. Walcott knocked him down several times and light hitting Conn had him hurt and almost knocked him down as well.

Most of the films you see on Louis is the highlights of his best bouts, try looking at the entire fight. I am not saying that Louis wasn't Great, because he was, BUT I am saying that nobody was unbeatable, and that includes Louis and Ali.

Walcott can Conn are more "complete" fighters then Ali. Ali was better and I most certianly rank Ali ahead of each. Also wasnt Louis over the hill when he fought Walcott? Getting into a who would win against Louis or Ali really biols down to opinion. Cause a prime/young Ali didnt face a great technician like Louis. Louis had the tools to give Ali trouble and VISE VERSA. However I do believe that in three fights Louis wins 2 -3 . He would notice his faults in the first fight (which I think he loses,....and most likely bad). Ali was a ring genious, but Louis was more so. The way I see things..


1. Ali - Tko late rounds
2. Louis - Tko mid/late (stoppage)
3. Louis - SD/UD (controversial)

I just go by the facts and here they are:


** Not exactly.

1st you change the topic. You claimed Louis laid down against Schmeling, completely ignoring he went down and got up frequently all through the bout and took a terrible pounding in between. Louis didn't know where he was by the time of the last KD.

2nd, you select the facts that suit you. The fact is Ali was a magnet for controversial fights.

You claim he won 2 of 3 against Norton, but many, probably most think Norton handily won the 2nd fight as well which would have knocked Ali further away from the title. The 3rd was the most competitive, but Ali never showed he could win barely more than a handful of rounds against Norton and chose Leon instead of his mandatory Norton in a 4th match.

Then the Young fight, complete and utter disgrace, even worse than Leon which was just over the horizon, waiting patiently like a buzzard. Foreman at least made a great attempt to fight Young.

Throw out the Liston fights, the most nonsensical set of fights in history. Was he was or was he ain't? Regardless, Liston was the most heavily mobbed fighter in history, and someone made sure he can no longer testify. Then you have the half dozen or so lesser fights the people in the day complained about.

Joe had two controversial fights in his life, gave quick rematches, then quickly dispatched the controversy. No embarrassing little Leons in Joe's record. I'll grant that Frazier and Foreman are a notch above Joe's best comp, but Joe's comp was otherwise more credible and stronger and Joe finished with stronger results with fewer bumps. End of story.

Walcott can Conn are more "complete" fighters then Ali. Ali was better and I most certianly rank Ali ahead of each. Also wasnt Louis over the hill when he fought Walcott? Getting into a who would win against Louis or Ali really biols down to opinion. Cause a prime/young Ali didnt face a great technician like Louis. Louis had the tools to give Ali trouble and VISE VERSA. However I do believe that in three fights Louis wins 2 -3 . He would notice his faults in the first fight (which I think he loses,....and most likely bad). Ali was a ring genious, but Louis was more so. The way I see things..


1. Ali - Tko late rounds
2. Louis - Tko mid/late (stoppage)
3. Louis - SD/UD (controversial)


Actually Walcott was a little older then Louis and he went through a lot of tough fights before ever getting a shot at the title.

You say that Ali never fought anyone like Louis, well it goes both ways, Louis ever fought anyone like Ali either.

Like you said, it's only someones opinion and I just think that if Conn could out box Louis for 12 rounds, Ali would have done the same, but even better. Conn weighed in the 170's when he fought Louis the 1st time and Ali would come in at 210, that's 40 pounds more.

In the 2nd bout with Walcott, he was again losing and even hit the canvas, BUT Jersey Joe got cute and got tagged. Remember Walcott didn't have the Greatest chin either, as he was stopped 6 times during his career.

** Not exactly.

1st you change the topic. You claimed Louis laid down against Schmeling, completely ignoring he went down and got up frequently all through the bout and took a terrible pounding in between. Louis didn't know where he was by the time of the last KD.

2nd, you select the facts that suit you. The fact is Ali was a magnet for controversial fights.

You claim he won 2 of 3 against Norton, but many, probably most think Norton handily won the 2nd fight as well which would have knocked Ali further away from the title. The 3rd was the most competitive, but Ali never showed he could win barely more than a handful of rounds against Norton and chose Leon instead of his mandatory Norton in a 4th match.

Then the Young fight, complete and utter disgrace, even worse than Leon which was just over the horizon, waiting patiently like a buzzard. Foreman at least made a great attempt to fight Young.

Throw out the Liston fights, the most nonsensical set of fights in history. Was he was or was he ain't? Regardless, Liston was the most heavily mobbed fighter in history, and someone made sure he can no longer testify. Then you have the half dozen or so lesser fights the people in the day complained about.

Joe had two controversial fights in his life, gave quick rematches, then quickly dispatched the controversy. No embarrassing little Leons in Joe's record. I'll grant that Frazier and Foreman are a notch above Joe's best comp, but Joe's comp was otherwise more credible and stronger and Joe finished with stronger results with fewer bumps. End of story.

I never said Louis laid down, what I am saying is that he didn't make too much of an effort to get up. He just rolled over. That is because of the beating he took like you said.

In the Young bout Young put his head out of the ring several times. The rules state that if you do so you loss a point. Maybe that is what the judges looked at.

In the 2nd Norton bout I honestly thought Ali won, BUT when I saw the 3rd Norton bout, I honestly thought Ali lost, BUT my good friend Harold Lederman had Ali winning so I watched the bout again and saw what he meant.

As far as Liston goes, boxing experts were comparing him with Louis, Dempsey and the other Greats, so I don't know how you can rule that bout out.

Again, just look at the boxers that each of them fought, just about every boxing person I know, will say that Ali fought in the best era.

We all have our own opinions on this and that is what makes this sport so GREAT. I have no idea what anyone on this sites background is on boxing, BUT I always listen to everyone. That is the only way you learn.

When I asked Bert Sugar how come he changed his all-time ratings, he stated because he listens to what others have to say.

Over the years, I have received countless amount of calls, letters, E-Mails from Sports Writers all over the country for information. I not only give them the information on boxing but on all sports as well. You can just "Google" my name (Henry Hascup) if you wish.

I am not saying that I know more then anyone on this site, BUT I do have a background. I am a charter member of IBRO, which started back in 1983. I am one of the editors on BoxRec. I have researched or worked with Herb Goldman, Bert Sugar as well as many other boxing experts and historians.

My point is that no one knows for sure how one boxer would do against another, especially from different era's. It's all up for debate and I really enjoy debating this with all of you.

Henry,

I posted a long response last night to you then deleted it but I'll post it again. I for one respect your opinions and your background as a historian. I have no idea why you post over here and not CBZ which clearly has more infinitely knowledgeable and mature posters.

This clown LondonRingRules is 57 year old internet troll by the name of Roberto Aqui who gets off on waxing poetic on his favourite fighters while going through hoops to diminish others. He admittedly takes great delight in trying to piss serious posters off which makes him a useless waste of bandwith on any boxing site aimed at mature discussion. He was recently banned over at CBZ (who thankfully screen the quality of postings) for his ridiculous and ignorant opinions.

Henry feel free to drop me a PM and I'll direct you to where you should be posting.

Actually Walcott was a little older then Louis and he went through a lot of tough fights before ever getting a shot at the title.

You say that Ali never fought anyone like Louis, well it goes both ways, Louis ever fought anyone like Ali either.

Like you said, it's only someones opinion and I just think that if Conn could out box Louis for 12 rounds, Ali would have done the same, but even better. Conn weighed in the 170's when he fought Louis the 1st time and Ali would come in at 210, that's 40 pounds more.

In the 2nd bout with Walcott, he was again losing and even hit the canvas, BUT Jersey Joe got cute and got tagged. Remember Walcott didn't have the Greatest chin either, as he was stopped 6 times during his career.

Well if Louis never fought anyone like Ali then why use Conn as a example? If they bothed danced and boxed circles wouldnt that be a close enough comparision to say Louis did infact fight someone like and I stress LIKE Ali? Age can not have a affect on a fighters prime example Hopkins seemed to of got better and better but finally around 40's he seems to show the signs. Weight IMO wouldnt be that much of a factor due to each fighters styles. Simply put it all comes down t if you think Louis can catch Ali enough , or if Ali could dance away for 15. Thats why I belive Louis would figure Ali out and return with several tactics to get the Win. Ali can knock Louis down and Louis can knock Ali down.

Henry,

I posted a long response last night to you then deleted it but I'll post it again. I for one respect your opinions and your background as a historian. I have no idea why you post over here and not CBZ which clearly has more infinitely knowledgeable and mature posters.

This clown LondonRingRules is 57 year old internet troll by the name of Roberto Aqui who gets off on waxing poetic on his favourite fighters while going through hoops to diminish others. He admittedly takes great delight in trying to piss serious posters off which makes him a useless waste of bandwith on any boxing site aimed at mature discussion. He was recently banned over at CBZ (who thankfully screen the quality of postings) for his ridiculous and ignorant opinions.

Henry feel free to drop me a PM and I'll direct you to where you should be posting.

I dont have a problem with London nor anyone else on this forum, I do see hmi taunting Poet alot , and Poet finally just put him on ignore. Idk what that is about and it is none of my business.

Henry,

I posted a long response last night to you then deleted it but I'll post it again. I for one respect your opinions and your background as a historian. I have no idea why you post over here and not CBZ which clearly has more infinitely knowledgeable and mature posters.

This clown LondonRingRules is 57 year old internet troll by the name of Roberto Aqui who gets off on waxing poetic on his favourite fighters while going through hoops to diminish others. He admittedly takes great delight in trying to piss serious posters off which makes him a useless waste of bandwith on any boxing site aimed at mature discussion. He was recently banned over at CBZ (who thankfully screen the quality of postings) for his ridiculous and ignorant opinions.

Henry feel free to drop me a PM and I'll direct you to where you should be posting.

Thanks Sabbath, I will get back to you this week-end. Right now I have to go to the wake and funeral of Joe Louis Parham. Joe was the 1st Pro opponent you my good friend Emile Griffith and one nice guy.

Tomorrow, I have to stop at an old time boxing writer and photographer and then I have to go to Trenton to oversee the Amateur bouts that they are having.

The reason I come on these sites is both to educate people and to also learn. Yes learn, no matter who it is, everyone has something to add and I might learn something in return.

I do go on CBZ, and I enjoy it very much. I should go on their more.

Thanks, Henry Hascup

Well if Louis never fought anyone like Ali then why use Conn as a example? If they bothed danced and boxed circles wouldnt that be a close enough comparision to say Louis did infact fight someone like and I stress LIKE Ali? Age can not have a affect on a fighters prime example Hopkins seemed to of got better and better but finally around 40's he seems to show the signs. Weight IMO wouldnt be that much of a factor due to each fighters styles. Simply put it all comes down t if you think Louis can catch Ali enough , or if Ali could dance away for 15. Thats why I belive Louis would figure Ali out and return with several tactics to get the Win. Ali can knock Louis down and Louis can knock Ali down.


The difference is that Conn weighed approx. 175 if that and Ali weighed 210-220. Also Conn had only 13 knockouts in 70 bouts at the time he fought Louis the 1st time. Ali had 37 KO's in his 61 bouts. You might say that Ali didn't punch that hard, BUT he punched a lot harder then Conn did.

I am not saying that I know more then anyone on this site, BUT I do have a background. I am a charter member of IBRO, which started back in 1983. I am one of the editors on BoxRec. I have researched or worked with Herb Goldman, Bert Sugar as well as many other boxing experts and historians.


** That is great background if true, but if you will look at your language concerning Louis when he's down for the final count, I really don't see how anyone can read that without thinking that you claim Louis just quit, laid down.

I frankly get a bit POed at all the acclaim Ali gets when the fight film reveals a different picture. He fell into the best period for a young ****y fighter to break into the heavyweight scene, and then does suffer from his personal belief system but holds true and mounts a credible comeback with two of some of the most acclaimed fights in history.

But then there is the rest of the story that gets swept under the rug.

One of the all time great talent, yes. One of the all time great personalities, yes. The greatest? Only in name. Had some significant flaws. Overall the world is much poorer without him.

So, at any rate, it's always a good day when I get to get on my high horse about Joe Louis, so thanks.

I posted a long response last night to you then deleted it but

** Hey, Ozzie Jr., it don't matter how much effort you throw into your shoeshine, batscat ain't ain't going to improve your shine.

I've vaguely remember enjoying getting locked up with you over favored fighters, but if you think that somehow you got something over me, well lay it out and don't be hiding behind some keyboard smirking like some schoolboy on a ****site.:You_Rock_

** That is great background if true, but if you will look at your language concerning Louis when he's down for the final count, I really don't see how anyone can read that without thinking that you claim Louis just quit, laid down.

I frankly get a bit POed at all the acclaim Ali gets when the fight film reveals a different picture. He fell into the best period for a young ****y fighter to break into the heavyweight scene, and then does suffer from his personal belief system but holds true and mounts a credible comeback with two of some of the most acclaimed fights in history.

But then there is the rest of the story that gets swept under the rug.

One of the all time great talent, yes. One of the all time great personalities, yes. The greatest? Only in name. Had some significant flaws. Overall the world is much poorer without him.

So, at any rate, it's always a good day when I get to get on my high horse about Joe Louis, so thanks.

Maybe we got off on the wrong side. All I am saying is that Louis didn't try to get up after being dropped by Schmeling the 2nd time.

Louis did show heart in many of his fights and no one can say that he wasn't a Great Great Fighter.

What you read about me is all true. I have been the President of the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame for 22 years, the President of the New Jersey Diamond Gloves for 20 years and I have been both their Historians in 1980. I also ring announce & MC at times, if you go to some of the web sites, you can read about most of it.

I use to be on baseball, football, hockey, basketball trivia sites and contests until people start saying everyone knows that they are after 2nd place, meaning that I had 1st place all by myself.

A while back I found a boxing trivia site and after a couple of weeks they gave me a belt and changed the site to read:
Boxing Trivia: Boxing quizzes, trivia, facts, home of the trivia king hhascup

Well I got to go to the wake now, as I have to give the eulogy.

Thanks once again and lets all be friends, Henry

I've vaguely remember enjoying getting locked up with you over favored fighters, but if you think that somehow you got something over me, well lay it out and don't be hiding behind some keyboard smirking like some schoolboy on a ****site.Trust me Bob I don't "hide behind some keyboard". You're a waste of bandwith.

Keep talking tough though. I know you're a pathetic broken down 57 year old former health care worker. Probably got your ass handed to you anytime a real confrontation ensued that didn't inolve sitting on your fat Texas Cowboy ass typing lame put-downs.

Get lost.

Opinions and statistics, while they should remain exclulsive (as an opinion is supposed to be a drawn conclusion with personal preference included; while statistics are numbers), statements like, "Louis KO'd more people, so he's better," or, "Ali's opponents had a higher win % at the time he fought them, so he's better," etc., are conclusions poorly drawn.

Why isn't it considered that Ali fought a lot of guys who were young in the division at the time he faced them, thus accounting for their low loss totals in their average record at the time he faced them? For example: Leon Spinks, may have been 7-0 when they fought, but he finished 26-17-3. That alone is a drastic misrepresentation of Ali's competition as champion, and only one of the many potential examples.

Conn may have weighed that of a present-day light heavyweight, but that would generally make him lighter, more agile, and quicker than someone 40 pounds heavier. As swift as Ali was, he would probably be a pinch easier to chase down with the extra weight, and he would present himself a much larger target; who often left the right side of his face completely open when he threw a punch. If Louis could make a simple calculation such as this when preparing for their fight, he'd make Ali pay.

All that I'm trying to say is that, in a vacuum, Louis was the greater champion.

12 year reign, 25 successful defenses (with a 4 year layoff in between), avenging his only loss during his youth (while green) in brutal, convincing fashion, better overall record, comparable competition, higher KO percentage, more longevity, suffered less damage and didn't struggle with subpar competitors nearly as much as Ali did, etc.

vs.

6 year reign, 11 successful defenses (with a 3 year layoff in between), avenging his first prime loss by decision, and then again when they were both beyond their best in a 14 rd. stoppage, losing again to Norton, and then taking two controversial decisions (one of which should have gone to Norton), then losing to someone who was only 7-0, but hey, his name is next to many all-time greats in the ring, and perhaps the most historically bias era in all of sports, so he's given his self-proclaimed title of "The Greatest" by some people today.

Also, I still hear more people say that Joe Louis was the greatest today than I hear of Muhammad Ali. Even ESPN's list picked Louis above Ali. Muhammad Ali can only be realistically selected above Joe Louis when the eras are taken in bias, (ie: the 70's were so much better than the 30's and 40's, etc.) which is relative and not absolute anyway. Furthermore, there are fewer people alive today who remember Louis' prime era, and it wasn't broadcast on national television (because it didn't exist yet), thus unable to make as big of a household impact. More people are generally familiar with Ali's name than Louis' because of things like this, thus there are those among the commonfolk who will utter "Ali" when speaking of the greatest. Even seasoned and respected critics fall subject to this because they lived Ali and not Louis.

Analyze them in a vacuum. Take away their eras, the feel of those eras, and remember that the greats they were surrounded by and scoring wins (or losses) against are only considered as such because of the level of competition they provided one another. Joe Frazier, for example, while my favorite fighter (and #6 or #7 on my all-time HW list), may not really be that good were he in any other era. He just looked good because he beat a bunch of slouches and knew how to give Ali fits. Ali's greatness, meanwhile, is almost rooted entirely in his upset wins against a very old and under-prepared Sonny Liston, and a take-a-beating-but-outlasted the "I can't handle the heat or a poor style matchup" George Foreman.

This could really go on and on to show the other side of the coin, but I think it's redundant; plus I lost focus a while ago in this post, and I apologize for that. Anywho, I'm going to go jogging.

When the vacuum seal is removed

Maybe we got off on the wrong side. All I am saying is that Louis didn't try to get up after being dropped by Schmeling the 2nd time.

Louis did show heart in many of his fights and no one can say that he wasn't a Great Great Fighter.

What you read about me is all true. I have been the President of the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame for 22 years, the President of the New Jersey Diamond Gloves for 20 years and I have been both their Historians in 1980. I also ring announce & MC at times, if you go to some of the web sites, you can read about most of it.

I use to be on baseball, football, hockey, basketball trivia sites and contests until people start saying everyone knows that they are after 2nd place, meaning that I had 1st place all by myself.

A while back I found a boxing trivia site and after a couple of weeks they gave me a belt and changed the site to read:
Boxing Trivia: Boxing quizzes, trivia, facts, home of the trivia king hhascup

Well I got to go to the wake now, as I have to give the eulogy.

Thanks once again and lets all be friends, Henry

Harry, this bozo makes a habit that sort of thing which is why he's one of the very few people on my ignore list.

Poet

What you read about me is all true. I have been the President of the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame for 22 years, the President of the New Jersey Diamond Gloves for 20 years and I have been both their Historians in 1980. I also ring announce & MC at times, if you go to some of the web sites, you can read about most of it.

** Well then Henry, maybe you can provide a link for one of those sites. I enjoy talking to "oldtimers" who have been there and done that.

I mainly stick around the historical site at BS since the regular site is mostly spam by juveniles. As you can see I am a major defender of Joe Louis which lifts my spirits immensely, so again I thank you for that opportunity.

I'm guessing that you have some inside information on the Wepner/Ali affair in Ali's first defense after rewinning the title against Foreman. Wepner was marketed as a bartender as I recall, though it turns out he seems to have been a liquor salesman. He was big, strong and fouled Ali most of the night before Ali did a gut check and caught up to him in the last round.

It wasn't a clean fight and I would be interested in your take on the fight since it seems to have been the origin of the Rocky series of movies.

Before the fight on the Mike Douglas show Ali baits Wepner by accusing him of using the N word which causes a scuffle and ends in Ali leaving the auditorium shouting WWF style. How real do you think the fight was given the blatant fouling and the outcome?

The fight also took place after Ali's Playboy interview where he claimed a black oilman offered he and Foreman 5 million for a rematch in Indonesia as I recall. The Wepner fight must have grossed considerably less at the time, so I have always wondered about this period.

At any rate, Ali will never be duplicated, and like I said, the world would be much poorer without him. It's difficult to see him in his current state, but I'm glad he is getting around again and has some good help. Mike Tyson should end up so lucky.

Probably got your ass handed to you anytime a real confrontation ensued that didn't inolve sitting on your fat Texas Cowboy ass typing lame put-downs.

Get lost.

** No need to shoeshine me with your Junior of Oz batscat.

Let me know anytime you get near Muleshoe or anywheres in Texas. Not guaranteeing I would bother to introduce you to my "fat Texas Cowboy ass" since travel distances are ridiculous, but sometimes convenience is a godsend when it works out. All legal and in a gym with plenty minders for you of course!

Opinions and statistics, while they should remain exclulsive (as an opinion is supposed to be a drawn conclusion with personal preference included; while statistics are numbers), statements like, "Louis KO'd more people, so he's better," or, "Ali's opponents had a higher win % at the time he fought them, so he's better," etc., are conclusions poorly drawn.

Why isn't it considered that Ali fought a lot of guys who were young in the division at the time he faced them, thus accounting for their low loss totals in their average record at the time he faced them? For example: Leon Spinks, may have been 7-0 when they fought, but he finished 26-17-3. That alone is a drastic misrepresentation of Ali's competition as champion, and only one of the many potential examples.

Conn may have weighed that of a present-day light heavyweight, but that would generally make him lighter, more agile, and quicker than someone 40 pounds heavier. As swift as Ali was, he would probably be a pinch easier to chase down with the extra weight, and he would present himself a much larger target; who often left the right side of his face completely open when he threw a punch. If Louis could make a simple calculation such as this when preparing for their fight, he'd make Ali pay.

All that I'm trying to say is that, in a vacuum, Louis was the greater champion.

12 year reign, 25 successful defenses (with a 4 year layoff in between), avenging his only loss during his youth (while green) in brutal, convincing fashion, better overall record, comparable competition, higher KO percentage, more longevity, suffered less damage and didn't struggle with subpar competitors nearly as much as Ali did, etc.

vs.

6 year reign, 11 successful defenses (with a 3 year layoff in between), avenging his first prime loss by decision, and then again when they were both beyond their best in a 14 rd. stoppage, losing again to Norton, and then taking two controversial decisions (one of which should have gone to Norton), then losing to someone who was only 7-0, but hey, his name is next to many all-time greats in the ring, and perhaps the most historically bias era in all of sports, so he's given his self-proclaimed title of "The Greatest" by some people today.

Also, I still hear more people say that Joe Louis was the greatest today than I hear of Muhammad Ali. Even ESPN's list picked Louis above Ali. Muhammad Ali can only be realistically selected above Joe Louis when the eras are taken in bias, (ie: the 70's were so much better than the 30's and 40's, etc.) which is relative and not absolute anyway. Furthermore, there are fewer people alive today who remember Louis' prime era, and it wasn't broadcast on national television (because it didn't exist yet), thus unable to make as big of a household impact. More people are generally familiar with Ali's name than Louis' because of things like this, thus there are those among the commonfolk who will utter "Ali" when speaking of the greatest. Even seasoned and respected critics fall subject to this because they lived Ali and not Louis.

Analyze them in a vacuum. Take away their eras, the feel of those eras, and remember that the greats they were surrounded by and scoring wins (or losses) against are only considered as such because of the level of competition they provided one another. Joe Frazier, for example, while my favorite fighter (and #6 or #7 on my all-time HW list), may not really be that good were he in any other era. He just looked good because he beat a bunch of slouches and knew how to give Ali fits. Ali's greatness, meanwhile, is almost rooted entirely in his upset wins against a very old and under-prepared Sonny Liston, and a take-a-beating-but-outlasted the "I can't handle the heat or a poor style matchup" George Foreman.

This could really go on and on to show the other side of the coin, but I think it's redundant; plus I lost focus a while ago in this post, and I apologize for that. Anywho, I'm going to go jogging.

When the vacuum seal is removed


I agree with a lot of what you say, BUT I still feel that Ali fought the better opponents and so do most of the boxing experts.

As far as their records go, Louis fought several that lost near the end of their careers. When he fought Charles, Ezzard had a record of 61-5-1 and when Charles retired he ended up 90-25-1.

Just match up Ali's opponents with Louis's that they beat.

I have my picks in BOLD

Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Max Baer 50-6-0
Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Schmeling 48-7-4 & 52-7-4
Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Braddock 50-25-7
Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Walcott 44-11-2 & 44-12-2 Pick-Em
Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Conn 59-10-1 & 62-11-1
Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. Nova 26-2-4
Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Galento 76-23-5
Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Sharkey 38-13-3
Folley 74-7-4 vs. Farr 66-20-13 Pick-Em
Terrell 38-4-0 vs. Carnera 82-7-0
Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Godoy 53-8-7 & 53-9-7
Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Simon 34-7-0
Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Buddy Baer 50-5-0 & 50-6-0

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also witch them around if you want, just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents and Ali box the top opponents of Louis.

** Well then Henry, maybe you can provide a link for one of those sites. I enjoy talking to "oldtimers" who have been there and done that.

I mainly stick around the historical site at BS since the regular site is mostly spam by juveniles. As you can see I am a major defender of Joe Louis which lifts my spirits immensely, so again I thank you for that opportunity.

I'm guessing that you have some inside information on the Wepner/Ali affair in Ali's first defense after rewinning the title against Foreman. Wepner was marketed as a bartender as I recall, though it turns out he seems to have been a liquor salesman. He was big, strong and fouled Ali most of the night before Ali did a gut check and caught up to him in the last round.

It wasn't a clean fight and I would be interested in your take on the fight since it seems to have been the origin of the Rocky series of movies.

Before the fight on the Mike Douglas show Ali baits Wepner by accusing him of using the N word which causes a scuffle and ends in Ali leaving the auditorium shouting WWF style. How real do you think the fight was given the blatant fouling and the outcome?

The fight also took place after Ali's Playboy interview where he claimed a black oilman offered he and Foreman 5 million for a rematch in Indonesia as I recall. The Wepner fight must have grossed considerably less at the time, so I have always wondered about this period.

At any rate, Ali will never be duplicated, and like I said, the world would be much poorer without him. It's difficult to see him in his current state, but I'm glad he is getting around again and has some good help. Mike Tyson should end up so lucky.

You can go to the following to see my bio:

http://www.wdyt.com/henry.shtml

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/forumentry.shtml

I don't want to give you too many more BUT I am a trivia checker on several sites and I won just about every sports trivia contest I went into. If you google "Boxing trivia Boxing quizzes, trivia, facts, home of the trivia king hhascup" you will see the boxing trivia site I go into.


As far as Wepner goes, he is a very good friend of mine. Chuck was and still is a liquor salesman. WEpner always claims that he did knock Ali down with that body punch. He said that Ali didn't complain about it until after the bout was over.

Chuck told me that he was so tried in the end of the bout that he just couldn't go on. The Referee was Tony Perez and I had the pleasure of introducing him and Chuck at many functions.

The Rocky movies were made when Stallone saw Wepner fighting Ali.

Chuck and Ali are very good friends now and even make appearances together at times, or at least they use too.

I just made a great, lengthy post, and lost internet because of a t-storm. In a nutshell:

Ali's best opponents:
Liston (50-4) made 1 successful defense.
Frazier (32-4-1) made 4 successful defenses.
Foreman (76-5) made 3 successful defenses in two careers.

Louis' best opponents:
Charles (96-25-1) made 7 successful defenses.
Walcott (52-18-2) made 1 successful defense.
Marciano (49-0) made 6 successful defenses.

Louis' opponents fought more, fought more frequently, and were tough-as-nails style competitors. They made more successful title defenses, and didn't fight under protected, high promotion, groom for the payday environments.

As a side: Liston is considered by many to be one of the ten best champions in heavyweight history, yet he only made one successful defense (against the same guy he beat to get the title), and lost the only important defense he made against Clay. George Foreman arguably has the largest list of tomato cans in heavyweight history as opposition. How they can be considered "great" champions when they never truly reigned? Walcott also only made one defense, losing to Rocky Marciano. He was always a contender, but never a reigning champion.

Again, it can go on and on in the comparison war, but even a consensus doesn't make something so. For example: Most of America dislikes our president's economic policies. If they did a little research, however, they'd see that companys are booming, taxes have been lowered in the middle and lower classes moreso than the upper class, the stock market has never been higher, unemployment is steadily declining, and America's private healthcare providers still rate higher than all other first world (public) healthcare providers. EXPERTS say he's handling the war poorly, yet 8 of 12 major objectives have been completed (3 of the remaining 4 ivolving mostly Iraqi effort), the troop surge was a resounding success according to the Generals, fewer troops have died over the course of the war than any other in American history, especially compared to insurgent casualties....*sigh* I guess what I'm saying is, the media feeds us fodder, likeable phrases such as "the 70's are the Golden Age of boxing!" or "universal healthcare!" and people eat it up, because it sounds good on the outside. Doing even a little research reveals a far more interesting, competative line of statistical comparisons.

One thing we forget as well, is that the 60's and 70's were the first full decades where boxing could be broadcast on national television on open circuits. Obviously boxing was booming then, as the previous eras had brought it to the forefront of the sport. The promotional side of things became huge, grooming and protecting fighters in the right places to set up super, moneyfights.

Crazy. Anyway, my wife is calling. I love this thread. It's totally made me nuts with the wealth of information present. Current list:

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Larry Holmes
5. George Foreman
6. Joe Frazier
7. Jack Dempsey
8. Mike Tyson
9. Lennox Lewis
10. Sonny Liston
11. Jack Johnson
12. Evander Holyfield
13. Jim Jeffries
14. Ezzard Charles
15. Floyd Patterson

Liston is considered by many to be one of the ten best champions in heavyweight history, yet he only made one successful defense (against the same guy he beat to get the title), and lost the only important defense he made against Clay. Liston was the number #1 contender for years and openly ducked by Patterson's management. Had Patterson been mandated to face Liston he would have lost his belt earlier and Liston's reign would have lasted at the very least a few years. Liston cleaned out the division of any meaningful comp while Patterson defended against guys like Roy Harris, Pete Radamacher (pro debut!) and Tom McNeeley.

Bad example.

...When I asked Bert Sugar how come he changed his all-time ratings, he stated because he listens to what others have to say... I am not saying that I know more then anyone on this site, BUT I do have a background. I am a charter member of IBRO, which started back in 1983. I am one of the editors on BoxRec. I have researched or worked with Herb Goldman, Bert Sugar as well as many other boxing experts and historians...Your mention of Bert Sugar as a colleague is rather interesting precisely because he does not share your perspective of Ali ahead of Louis. Not only is Louis the greatest heavyweight in his book, he is ranked 4th. overall, ahead of Ali, 7th.

In fact, most boxing historians, scribes, experts and polls rank Louis ahead of Ali. Again, your opinion is just as valid as the next guy's, but in the grand scheme of things, it is as significant as a fly on an elephant's ass.

Bert Sugar's top ten:

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Willie Pep
Joe Louis
Harry Greb
Benny Leonard
Muhammad Ali
Roberto Durán
Jack Dempsey
Jack Johnson

No need to shoeshine me with your Junior of Oz batscat. Let me know anytime you get near Muleshoe or anywheres in Texas. Not guaranteeing I would bother to introduce you to my "fat Texas Cowboy ass" since travel distances are ridiculous, but sometimes convenience is a godsend when it works out. All legal and in a gym with plenty minders for you of course!No need to travel to the armpit of Texas to see you in a nurse uniform changing the bedpans of lobotomy patients.

I'll pass.

I just made a great, lengthy post, and lost internet because of a t-storm. In a nutshell:

Ali's best opponents:
Liston (50-4) made 1 successful defense.
Frazier (32-4-1) made 4 successful defenses.
Foreman (76-5) made 3 successful defenses in two careers.

Louis' best opponents:
Charles (96-25-1) made 7 successful defenses.
Walcott (52-18-2) made 1 successful defense.
Marciano (49-0) made 6 successful defenses.

Louis' opponents fought more, fought more frequently, and were tough-as-nails style competitors. They made more successful title defenses, and didn't fight under protected, high promotion, groom for the payday environments.


Louis lost to both Charles and Marciano. My list is the boxers they beat. Liston (2), Frazier (2/3), Patterson (2), Foreman (1). I see you left out Patterson, BUT he had 6 successful defenses.

Just match up the boxers that fought Ali with them that fought Louis. Here they are again:

I have my picks in BOLD

Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Max Baer 50-6-0
Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Schmeling 48-7-4 & 52-7-4
Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Braddock 50-25-7
Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Walcott 44-11-2 & 44-12-2 Pick-Em
Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Conn 59-10-1 & 62-11-1
Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. Nova 26-2-4
Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Galento 76-23-5
Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Sharkey 38-13-3
Folley 74-7-4 vs. Farr 66-20-13 Pick-Em
Terrell 38-4-0 vs. Carnera 82-7-0
Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Godoy 53-8-7 & 53-9-7
Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Simon 34-7-0
Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Buddy Baer 50-5-0 & 50-6-0

Your mention of Bert Sugar as a colleague is rather interesting precisely because he does not share your perspective of Ali ahead of Louis. Not only is Louis the greatest heavyweight in his book, he is ranked 4th. overall, ahead of Ali, 7th.

In fact, most boxing historians, scribes, experts and polls rank Louis ahead of Ali. Again, your opinion is just as valid as the next guy's, but in the grand scheme of things, it is as significant as a fly on an elephant's ass.


Yes I know he has Louis as #1, several years ago he had Dempsey. I asked him why did he change his list, he said because he listens.

On the ESPN show where he picked his Top 10 Heavyweights, Larry Holmes, George Chuvalo and the Host all had Ali as #1.

I think Sugar is Great and I respect his opinion a lot, BUT even the best of us will not agree on everything.

By the way,here's his list:

Sugar's top 10 heavyweights

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. Gene Tunney
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Ezzard Charles
8. George Foreman
9. Joe Frazier
10. Larry Holmes

Source: "Ringside: The Ten Greatest Heavyweights," ESPN Classic

Here's another list he made in 1991:

Bert Sugar, 1991

1.Jack Dempsey
2.Joe Louis
3.Muhammad Ali
4.Jack Johnson
5.Gene Tunney
6.Rocky Marciano
7.Joe Frazier
8.Larry Holmes
9.Sonny Liston
10.Mike Tyson
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->Here's Herb Goldman's lists:

Herbert Goldman, 1987<o></o>
<o></o>
1.Muhammad Ali
2.Sonny Liston
3.Larry Holmes
4.Jack Johnson
5.Jack Dempsey
6.Joe Louis
7.Rocky Marciano
8.Harry Wills
9.George Foreman
10.Joe Frazier
11.Mike Tyson<o></o>
12.Joe Jeannette<o></o>
13.Jersey Joe Walcott<o></o>


Herbert Goldman, 1997

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Sonny Liston
4.Mike Tyson
5.Larry Holmes
6.Jack Johnson
7.Jack Dempsey
8.George Foreman
9.Rocky Marciano
10.Joe Frazier


Steve Farhood, 1997

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Jack Johnson
4.Larry Holmes
5.Rocky Marciano
6.Jack Dempsey
7.Jim Jeffries
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Mike Tyson
10.George Foreman

Here's what Teddy Atlas and Max Kellerman have as their all-time Greatest boxers:

Max Kellerman:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Harry Greb
5. Sam Langford
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Roberto Duran
8. Willie Pep
9. Benny Leonard
10. Ezzard Charles
10a. Jimmy Wilde
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o></o>
Tony Atlas:<o></o>
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong<o></o>
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Benny Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Harry Greb
7. Mickey Walker
8. Roberto Duran
9. Gene Tunney
10. Carlos Monzon
10a. Joe Louis
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->


There many that have Louis as #1 including the Organization that I was a charter member of. Note: Not everyone voted but I think you will enjoy it anyway:

IBRO Member Poll, 2005

1.Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3.Jack Johnson
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Rocky Marciano
6.Larry Holmes
7.James Jeffries
8.George Foreman
9.Sonny Liston
10.Joe Frazier

Here's another one that might interest you:

Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years <o></o>
<hr align="center" color="black" noshade="noshade" size="1" width="100%">


2002
Sugar Ray Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Robinson)
Henry Armstrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Armstrong)
Muhammad Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali)
Joe Louis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Louis)
Roberto Duran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Duran)
Willie Pep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Pep)
Harry Greb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Greb)
Benny Leonard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Leonard)
Sugar Ray Leonard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Ray_Leonard)
Pernell Whitaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pernell_Whitaker)
Carlos Monzon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Monzon)
Rocky Marciano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Marciano)
Ezzard Charles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezzard_Charles)
Archie Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Moore)
Sandy Saddler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Saddler)
Jack Dempsey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Dempsey)
Marvin Hagler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Hagler)
Julio César Chávez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_C%C3%A9sar_Ch%C3%A1vez)
Eder Jofre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eder_Jofre)
Alexis Arguello (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Arguello)
Barney Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Ross)
Evander Holyfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander_Holyfield)
Ike Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Williams_%28boxer%29)
Salvador Sanchez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Sanchez)
George Foreman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman)
Kid Gavilan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Gavilan)
Larry Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Holmes)
Mickey Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Walker)
Ruben Olivares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Olivares)
Gene Tunney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Tunney)
Dick Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tiger)
Fighting Harada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Harada)
Emile Griffith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Griffith)
Tony Canzoneri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Canzoneri)
Aaron Pryor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Pryor)
Pascual Perez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascual_Perez_%28boxer%29)
Miguel Canto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Canto)
Manuel Ortiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Ortiz_%28boxer%29)
Charley Burley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Burley)
Carmen Basilio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Basilio)
Michael Spinks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Spinks)
Joe Frazier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Frazier)
Khaosai Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaosai_Galaxy)
Roy Jones, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Jones%2C_Jr.)
Tiger Flowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Flowers)
Panama Al Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Al_Brown)
Kid Chocolate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Chocolate)
Joe Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Brown_%28boxer%29)
Tommy Loughran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Loughran)
Bernard Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Hopkins)
Felix Trinidad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Trinidad)
Jake LaMotta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_LaMotta)
Lennox Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennox_Lewis)
Wilfredo Gómez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfredo_G%C3%B3mez)
Bob Foster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Foster)
Jose Napoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Napoles)
Billy Conn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Conn)
Jimmy McLarnin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_McLarnin)
Pancho Villa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_%28boxer%29)
Carlos Ortiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ortiz)
Bob Montgomery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Montgomery_%28boxer%29)
Freddie Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Miller_%28boxer%29)
Benny Lynch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Lynch)
Beau Jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Jack)
Azumah Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azumah_Nelson)
Eusebio Pedroza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebio_Pedroza)
Thomas Hearns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hearns)
Wilfred Benitez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Benitez)
Antonio Cervantes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Cervantes)
Ricardo Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Lopez)
Sonny Liston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Liston)
Mike Tyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson)
Vicente Saldivar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Saldivar)
Gene Fullmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Fullmer)
Oscar de la Hoya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_de_la_Hoya)
Carlos Zarate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Zarate)
Marcel Cerdan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Cerdan)
Flash Elorde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Elorde)
Mike McCallum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_McCallum)
Harold Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Johnson_%28boxer%29)<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><o></o>

Yes I know he has Louis as #1, several years ago he had Dempsey. I asked him why did he change his list, he said because he listens.

On the ESPN show where he picked his Top 10 Heavyweights, Larry Holmes, George Chuvalo and the Host all had Ali as #1.

I think Sugar is Great and I respect his opinion a lot, BUT even the best of us will not agree on everything.Your point is well taken and everything you say is true, particularly that opinions vary, even within a given individual at different times. I am my own best example of this. I reviewed several posts on this forum to find that while I consistently listed the same fighters, the order of ranking among the top 10 varied.

Also of note to this obserer is the fact that Muhammad Ali's ranking among the best heavyweights, as well as his ranking overall (p4p) was higher among today's contemporaries as opposed to the old-timers. That is, the younger the individual, the higher his placement of Muhammad Ali.

Back to the Ali/Louis debate in closing: Of all the rankings I have been exposed to through the years, a vast majority (about 80%) have ranked Louis ahead of Ali.

No need to travel

** You're smarter than I credited you for Junior. Of course Ozzie Sr ain't going to let his precious little sonnyboy leave his nanny to go down to mean ol' Texas for a whippin' since he has his minders take care of that little piece of business when necessary and you have your education to attend to.

Stay in school kid and be serious about your studies. When you get your balls under you, let me know and I'll be happy to treat you to some ring time or happytime, the choice will be yours, but hopefully you'll be a bit more mature.

Chuck told me that he was so tried in the end of the bout that he just couldn't go on. The Referee was Tony Perez and I had the pleasure of introducing him and Chuck at many functions.

** Ahh, I thought you might have a some insight on this fight. I will go and check out those sites you mention.

Yes, Wepner was technically called out and I thought him finished, but that was one of many very strange, one off types of fights that Ali seemed to have a lot of.

You have provided many career details for your rankings which is very commendable. Consider Nat Fleischer saw Ali in his prime and at his peak, yet never ranked Ali higher than 10 overall as I recall. The Chuvalo rematch would have been the last bout Nat ever saw.

How do you explain this given Nat's stature in boxing history?

When you get your balls under you, let me know and I'll be happy to treat you to some ring time More tough talk there Miss Ratchett. Careful now. You might put a run in your pantyhose.

** Ahh, I thought you might have a some insight on this fight. I will go and check out those sites you mention.

Yes, Wepner was technically called out and I thought him finished, but that was one of many very strange, one off types of fights that Ali seemed to have a lot of.

You have provided many career details for your rankings which is very commendable. Consider Nat Fleischer saw Ali in his prime and at his peak, yet never ranked Ali higher than 10 overall as I recall. The Chuvalo rematch would have been the last bout Nat ever saw.

How do you explain this given Nat's stature in boxing history?


Sorry for the delay BUT I just got back from the Amateur bouts in Trenton, were I Had to introduce James Scott, Sammy Goss among others.

As far as Nat Fleischer goes, he never liked the modern boxers, just look at his all-time ratings:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958, 1971.

1.Jack Johnson
2.Jim Jeffries
3.Bob Fitzsimmons
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Jim Corbett
6.Joe Louis
7.Sam Langford
8.Gene Tunney
9.Max Schemling
10.Rocky Marciano

People wanted him to rate Ali but he wouldn't do it. He actually waited until they retired about he rated them,so maybe that's why.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Opinions and statistics, while they should remain exclulsive (as an opinion is supposed to be a drawn conclusion with personal preference included; while statistics are numbers), statements like, "Louis KO'd more people, so he's better," or, "Ali's opponents had a higher win % at the time he fought them, so he's better," etc., are conclusions poorly drawn.

Why isn't it considered that Ali fought a lot of guys who were young in the division at the time he faced them, thus accounting for their low loss totals in their average record at the time he faced them? For example: Leon Spinks, may have been 7-0 when they fought, but he finished 26-17-3. That alone is a drastic misrepresentation of Ali's competition as champion, and only one of the many potential examples.

Conn may have weighed that of a present-day light heavyweight, but that would generally make him lighter, more agile, and quicker than someone 40 pounds heavier. As swift as Ali was, he would probably be a pinch easier to chase down with the extra weight, and he would present himself a much larger target; who often left the right side of his face completely open when he threw a punch. If Louis could make a simple calculation such as this when preparing for their fight, he'd make Ali pay.

All that I'm trying to say is that, in a vacuum, Louis was the greater champion.

12 year reign, 25 successful defenses (with a 4 year layoff in between), avenging his only loss during his youth (while green) in brutal, convincing fashion, better overall record, comparable competition, higher KO percentage, more longevity, suffered less damage and didn't struggle with subpar competitors nearly as much as Ali did, etc.

vs.

6 year reign, 11 successful defenses (with a 3 year layoff in between), avenging his first prime loss by decision, and then again when they were both beyond their best in a 14 rd. stoppage, losing again to Norton, and then taking two controversial decisions (one of which should have gone to Norton), then losing to someone who was only 7-0, but hey, his name is next to many all-time greats in the ring, and perhaps the most historically bias era in all of sports, so he's given his self-proclaimed title of "The Greatest" by some people today.

Also, I still hear more people say that Joe Louis was the greatest today than I hear of Muhammad Ali. Even ESPN's list picked Louis above Ali. Muhammad Ali can only be realistically selected above Joe Louis when the eras are taken in bias, (ie: the 70's were so much better than the 30's and 40's, etc.) which is relative and not absolute anyway. Furthermore, there are fewer people alive today who remember Louis' prime era, and it wasn't broadcast on national television (because it didn't exist yet), thus unable to make as big of a household impact. More people are generally familiar with Ali's name than Louis' because of things like this, thus there are those among the commonfolk who will utter "Ali" when speaking of the greatest. Even seasoned and respected critics fall subject to this because they lived Ali and not Louis.

Analyze them in a vacuum. Take away their eras, the feel of those eras, and remember that the greats they were surrounded by and scoring wins (or losses) against are only considered as such because of the level of competition they provided one another. Joe Frazier, for example, while my favorite fighter (and #6 or #7 on my all-time HW list), may not really be that good were he in any other era. He just looked good because he beat a bunch of slouches and knew how to give Ali fits. Ali's greatness, meanwhile, is almost rooted entirely in his upset wins against a very old and under-prepared Sonny Liston, and a take-a-beating-but-outlasted the "I can't handle the heat or a poor style matchup" George Foreman.

This could really go on and on to show the other side of the coin, but I think it's redundant; plus I lost focus a while ago in this post, and I apologize for that. Anywho, I'm going to go jogging.

When the vacuum seal is removed

Good post Brass! No way I could of said it better myself. You know how I look at things given the eariler "debate" in the thread. The way I see Ali vs Louis is that Ali being so flawed as a boxer the genious Louis was would expose Ali with great tactical boxing. Joe could block a jab (Ali main weapon) and Joe could execute swift combinations to all parts of the body accurately. About Conn I was about to meantion that myself. I figure Ali himself would create a plan for Louis aswell. Itd be a good fight and it could go either way but my hat is tipped toward Louis.

Sorry for the delay BUT I just got back from the Amateur bouts in Trenton, were I Had to introduce James Scott, Sammy Goss among others.

As far as Nat Fleischer goes, he never liked the modern boxers, just look at his all-time ratings:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958, 1971. [FONT=&quot]

1.Jack Johnson
2.Jim Jeffries
3.Bob Fitzsimmons
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Jim Corbett
6.Joe Louis
7.Sam Langford
8.Gene Tunney
9.Max Schemling
10.Rocky Marciano

People wanted him to rate Ali but he wouldn't do it. He actually waited until they retired about he rated them,so maybe that's why.

I've seen a list of Fleischers where he ranks Ali in his 11-20 rankings at very least, but I thought I'd include this article by Nat. Very interesting.

[[[[[[[[By Nat Fleischer

As I have had it listed in The Ring Record Book for some years, my all-time rating of heavyweights is as follows: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis, 7. Sam Langford, 8. Gene Tunney, 9. Max Schmeling, 10. Rocky Marciano.

I started the annual ranking of heavyweights in the 1953 with only six listed: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis.

In later years I found it necessary to expand the ratings in all classes to top 10, with these top listings: heavyweights, Jack Johnson; light heavies, Kid McCoy; middleweights, Stan Ketchel; welters, Joe Walcott; lightweights, Joe Gans; feathers, Terry McGovern; bantams, George Dixon; flyweights, Jimmy Wilde.

For some time now I have been under great pressure from some readers of The Ring magazine and of The Ring Record Book, as well, to revise my ratings, especially in the heavyweight division.

Here is a strange facet to this pressure move. It has concerned, chiefly, Cassius Clay.

Never before in the history of the ratings did I find myself pressured to revise the listing of a heavyweight, right on top of a defeat.

There was considerable pressure to include Clay among the Top 10 during his 3 1/2-year interlude of inactivity.

But the campaign became stronger after Clay had returned with knockout victories over Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena. The demand on behalf of Clay became strongest after he had been beaten by world champion Joe Frazier in a 15-round contest that saw Cassius decked in the final heat.

Clay’s fight with Frazier left thousands of his admirers, who had seen the contest over television, protesting that Clay had won and that the unanimous decision of referee Arthur Mercante and judges Artie Aidala and Bill Recht, was a hoax, or worse.

Before we go any farther, let us dispose of this point. Frazier was declared the winner without a dissenting vote because he was the winner with unanimous force and unbiased conviction.

Clay never hurt Frazier. He messed up Joe’s left eye and made it look as if there had been an indecisive result, or a definite verdict in favor of Clay. Clay’s gloves reached Frazier more often than Frazier’s punches reached Clay. But Cassius lacked force.

Clay was hurt, especially in the 11th and 15th rounds. Clay came near being knocked out in the play-acting 11th. Clay’s constant retreat to the ropes was the tipoff on the fight.

I sat in the first press row in the Garden and emphatically saw Clay beaten. However, we have thousands of Clay backers insisting that he had established himself as one of the all time Top 10.

I did not regard Ali as a member of the leading 10 before he got into his argument with the Federal Courts. I did not see, in the Clay record as it stood after his seven-round knockout of Zora Folley in New York on March 22, 1967, any reason for my revising the heavyweight listing to include Cassius among the all-time 10. Nor did the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights impress me to the point at which I found myself considering ousting one of my Great 10 to make room for Clay.

Suppose I suffered an aberration and decided to include Clay among the top 10. This would mean ousting Marciano to make room for Ali as my all-time number l0. That would be farcical. Clay never could have beaten Marciano. Clay’s record is not the superior of the one the tragic Rocky left behind him when he retired from boxing unbeaten.

I even had something to do with Clay’s winning the Olympic light heavyweight championship in Rome in 1960. I spotted him for a likely Gold Medal, but I did not like the way he was training—or rather, not training. Cassius was entertaining the gals of the Italian capital, with gags and harmonica playing, and forgetting what he had been entered for.

I gave him a lecture and a warning. Maybe it had something to do with his victory. Maybe he would have won just the same. But I doubt if my talk did any harm.

After Cassius had won the title I felt that we had another Floyd Patterson in the making. He did not have Patterson’s speed of hands at that time, but he had more speed of foot. And more animation, which, of course, is an understatement. Floyd never has been a paragon of vivacity.

As Clay left the Olympic ring a champion, I saw him growing fast into a heavyweight. And I treated myself to a dream. I said to myself, “This kid could go far. It all depends on his attitude, his ability to tackle his job earnestly and seriously. Some of his laughter could be a real asset.” Ultimately it was.

Neither animus nor bias, neither bigotry nor misjudgment, can be cited against me in my relations with Cassius Clay. After he had been found guilty of a felony by a Federal jury in Houston, and Judge Joe Ingraham had sentenced Ali to five years in a penitentiary and a fine of $10,000, there was a rush to take the title from the draft-refusing champion.

The Ring magazine refused to join in the campaign against Clay, a stand now thoroughly vindicated. The Ring insisted that Cassius was entitled to his day in court, and that his title could be taken from him only if he lost it in the ring, or he retired from boxing, as Marciano, Tunney, and Jeffries had done before him.

Pressure on The Ring was tremendous. But this magazine would not recede one iota from its never relaxed policy of fighting for Law and Order.

Only when Muhammad Ali announced that he would fight no more and asked permission to give The Ring world championship belt to the winner of the Frazier-Jimmy Ellis fight, did The Ring declare the title vacated and drop Clay from the ratings.

With Clay’s return to the ring, The Ring revived his rating among the top 10 heavyweights. Not until Frazier knocked out Ellis in five rounds did The Ring allocate the vacant world title to Joe.

I do not mean to derogate Clay as a boxer. I am thoroughly cognizant of every fistic attribute he throws into the arena, every impressive quality he displayed on his way to the title and in fighting off the challenges of Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, Cleveland Williams, Ernie Terrell, and Zora Folley.

When Ali went into his 3 1/2-year retirement, he had not yet achieved his personal crest. Nor did the fights with Quarry, Bonavena and Frazier, which marked his return to action, send him any farther in the direction of fulfillment of claims of his loyal supporters.

The way Cassius Clay stands, he does not qualify for rating with the greatest heavyweights of all time. Nor, the way the future shapes up for him, is he likely to qualify. Now his hands are quick. His footwork is quick. His punch is not the type that is calculated to stop a man forthwith, no matter what he did to Sonny Liston in their second encounter, at Lewiston, Maine.

Cassius has got to wear down his opponent. He has got to flick his glove into the eyes of the opposition, the way he did against Frazier. He has a style all his own. But its sui generis quality does not make him one of the top 10.

I want to give credit to Clay for punching boxing out of the doldrums into which it fell with the rise of Liston to the championship. Liston could not get a license in New York. Liston had a bad personal record. Liston was emphatically not good for boxing. Into the midst of this title situation came the effervescent kid from Louisville, favored by conditions, by his potential, by his personality and his clean personal record.

The situation called for a Clay and, fortunately, the situation was favored with one. He was the counterpart, in boxing, of Babe Ruth in baseball, after the Black Sox Scandal.

Through superior punching power, Frazier is Clay’s current better as a ringster. But Frazier has yet to develop the overall influence that Clay exercised. Nor does it appear likely that Joe will ever be to boxing what Cassius was when he became the world champion and when he stirred up world boxing with his exploits against the best opposition available pending the development of Frazier, another Olympic hero.

I have the utmost admiration for Cassius Clay as a ring technician. Certainly not for his attitude toward the United States and its armed forces. Of that mess he is legally clear.

I do not see Cassius Clay as a candidate for a place among the top 10 heavyweights. Nor may Frazier, his conqueror, eventually force me to revise my all-time heavyweight ratings.]]]]]]

Yes, I read something like that before, BUT would you honestly list some of these boxers in your all-time top 10. Even if you go back to the early 1970's I still would have rated Ali above a lot of these boxers.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano

Like I stated before, I honestly respect Nat Fleischer, BUT I don't agree with some of his ratings.

Like I stated before, I honestly respect Nat Fleischer, BUT I don't agree with some of his ratings.

** Agreed completely with above. Nat is no longer here to explain, defend, or qualify, so it falls on us to advance what was his life's passion.

I respect Nat greatly for buying up a broken Jack Johnson's bio when he left prison and then burying in his safe because it was fiction.

I like how he ranks Langford up there but am mystified over his Corbett, Fitz, and Schmeling ratings. As I recall also he criticized Jeffries for not fighting the "dusky 4," Langford, Jeannette, Johnson, and McVey, ignoring that only Johnson was a credible contender in that time. Johnson had lost critical bouts against Griffin and Hart before Jeffries retired, so Hart was drafted to fight Root. Yet Nat ranks Jeffries 2nd.

I tend to think Nat was influenced by the name and status, which would put Corbett and Fitz really up there. Schmeling is still a mystery when you also have Liston, Patterson, and even Baer. I guess Schmeling's domination of Louis in the first bout was big in his thinking.

Anyway, I like Ali as a talent and personality, but see weaknesses in his style and record when taken against other greats. Of course all the greats have some weakness in style and record which makes the excercise of comparision so interesting and even overly passionate at times.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

I could easily swing Dempsey past Ali had the Wills fight not fallen through resulting in Jack wasting 3 yrs in Hollywood. Most excellent for his pocketbook however, and he should not be criticized for his choice given his situation and background.

Jeffries dominated his era from day one and fought anyone regardless of what the history books may bleat.

Sam is hard to rank because of his size, but was the dominant fighter and became the dominant heavy of his era and is probably the greatest, most fearless fighter ever, though some other greats may be better p4p fighters.

Rocky....Rocky!

Tyson, the youngest and most dominant and destructive heavy in history when in training with his original team. A tragedy too great for even Shakesphere to create for the stage.

Johnson would fall into the next tier. Just read the NYTimes report on the Jeffries fight. Jack says no way he's fighting Langford. John L picked Johnson BTW and I guess won some money. He say's he couldn't believe Jeffries could come back after so much time away and weight loss. Interesting character, John L.

wow london ring u sure write alot maybe to much cause some people dont have time to read that much lol.

wow london ring u sure write alot maybe to much cause some people dont have time to read that much lol.

Of course it would help if he had something worthwhile to say. But hell, the dudes senile so we shoudn't expect too much.

Poet

Of course it would help if he had something worthwhile to say. But hell, the dudes senile so we shoudn't expect too much.Poet

** Of course it would help if the Poet wasn't in denial over being so puerile and penile, don't you know it?

** Of course it would help if the Poet wasn't in denial over being so puerile and penile, don't you know it?Take your Zoloft Miss Rat-****.

Woah...we're not trying to sell tickets, guys.

Woah...we're not trying to sell tickets, guys.

:lol1:....

Here's my list, head-to-head.

1. Muhammad Ali (HW)
2. Sugar Ray Robinson (WW)
3. Henry Armstrong (LW)
4. Joe Gans (LW)
5. Willie Pep (FW)
6. Roberto Duran (LW)
7. Ezzard Charles (LHW)
8. Sugar Ray Leonard (WW)
9. Roy Jones, Jr. (LHW)
10. Joe Louis (HW)

:fing02:

Back to the Ali/Louis debate in closing: Of all the rankings I have been exposed to through the years, a vast majority (about 80%) have ranked Louis ahead of Ali.


I have most of the top boxing historians and experts ratings and it's getting a lot closer as time goes by. In fact of 33 boxing expert and Historian's list that I have, Ali actually is ahead now.

Back when I was a kid, in the late 50's, early 60's, most of them had Dempsey as #1. Now I am pretty sure, neither Dempsey or Louis had anymore bouts but the rating changed as time went on.

Of the 33 I have (this is not counting anyone that didn't see Ali's 2nd career, like Nat Fleischer)

Boxer ------ 1 --2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
Ali had ---- 19 - 6 - 3 - 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 had him rated #9
Louis had -- 11-14 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 had him outside the top 10

oh thats close ali had more talent then louis i reckon

Also of note to this obserer is the fact that Muhammad Ali's ranking among the best heavyweights, as well as his ranking overall (p4p) was higher among today's contemporaries as opposed to the old-timers. That is, the younger the individual, the higher his placement of Muhammad Ali.

I have most of the top boxing historians and experts ratings and it's getting a lot closer as time goes by. In fact of 33 boxing expert and Historian's list that I have, Ali actually is ahead now.

Back when I was a kid, in the late 50's, early 60's, most of them had Dempsey as #1. Now I am pretty sure, neither Dempsey or Louis had anymore bouts but the rating changed as time went on.I alluded to that phenomenon above - Ali's stock goes up with the passage of time. This generation and those to follow will be responsible for Ali's increasing majority ranking as the top heavyweight, or at least ahead of Louis.

Given the greater picture however, I doubt that Ali will ever replace Sugar Ray Robinson as the overall (p4p) greatest fighter of all time. That honor may be reserved for someone whose parents have yet to meet.

I alluded to that phenomenon above - Ali's stock goes up with the passage of time. This generation and those to follow will be responsible for Ali's increasing majority ranking as the top heavyweight, or at least ahead of Louis.

Given the greater picture however, I doubt that Ali will ever replace Sugar Ray Robinson as the overall (p4p) greatest fighter of all time. That honor may be reserved for someone whose parents have yet to meet.


Yes, most people say it's Robinson and you can't really go wrong their.

i'd say to be the best pound for pound you gotta beat a list of good-great fighters from more than 1 division(the division u started in,the division u rise in)

pernell whitaker would have to be number 1
light - greg haugen,roger mayweather,azumah nelson,jose ramirez,gorge paez
jr welter - rafael pineda
welter - wilfredo rivera,buddy mcgirt,julio cesar chavez
jr middle - julio vasquez

he ducked noone
most of these fighters were undefeated wen they fought sweet pea

Is this thread a joke? Roy Jones? What the ****?!

Intersting Roy Jones. To be a top pound per pound ever, you need to beat top quality, not beat a couple of good fighters. Generally quality of opposition is a top considering factor. Roy beating only Hopkins and Toney as great fighers, IMO does not make him a top fighter, not like a Robinson, Ali, Duran, Leonard.

Too bad Jones wasn't around during a time when he could be tested. The same old argument will always come up against him, but at least he'll always be considered. I don't think any fighter looked as good as Jones did in his prime.