Why Ali was not the greatest

[butterfly1964]

Clay throws two jabs right when the bells ding's. He doesn't throw alot of punches mostly plays with Patterson, but none the less he threw 4-5 jabs in that round. So I'll have to see someone more "proving" then that.

Quit lying. He didn't throw a punch. He just threw his arms out and acted like he was throwing a punch. He threw no punches, and completely outclassed Patterson and won the round.

[Lubutheimmortal]

Quit lying. He didn't throw a punch. He just threw his arms out and acted like he was throwing a punch. He threw no punches, and completely outclassed Patterson and won the round.

I never lie, I saw him throw two jabs right at the beginning, and around two more in the later part of the round. I agree he was playing with Patterson, but he did throw PUNCHES (very little but 3 isnt 0).

[butterfly1964]

I never lie, I saw him throw two jabs right at the beginning, and around two more in the later part of the round. I agree he was playing with Patterson, but he did throw PUNCHES (very little but 3 isnt 0).

You saw him stick his arm out to measure the distance between him and Patterson to keep that distance, but he didn't throw any punches. His gloves were open, and he didn't stick it out that fast. They were not punches.

[SquareCircle]

Gene Tunney is above Louis, Ali, and Foreman in my all time heavyweight rankings. Don't get this confused. I'd pick Foreman or Ali over Tunney in an actual bout, any day of the week. It's just that he accomplished way more than either three of those guys, the only one that would give Tunney a run for his money is Foreman because he came back and won the HW title as old as he did. But Tunney is still above the three of them.

now if I were to pick one heavyweight fighter who would have the best chance against any opponent it would be the ali that fought foreman. You understand, it wasn't just his skills that made him so great that night, it was also that the people in the country he was fighting in were with him in that ring, tehy really believed in him.

[Hydro]

Gene Tunney is above Louis, Ali, and Foreman in my all time heavyweight rankings. Don't get this confused. I'd pick Foreman or Ali over Tunney in an actual bout, any day of the week. It's just that he accomplished way more than either three of those guys, the only one that would give Tunney a run for his money is Foreman because he came back and won the HW title as old as he did. But Tunney is still above the three of them.

now if I were to pick one heavyweight fighter who would have the best chance against any opponent it would be the ali that fought foreman. You understand, it wasn't just his skills that made him so great that night, it was also that the people in the country he was fighting in were with him in that ring, tehy really believed in him.

Based on how many fights at heavyweight?

How many wins against top heavyweights?

Wow, two wins over Dempsey (who hadn't fought in 3 years) is really better than dethroning Liston and Foreman...or making 25 successful defenses.

GTFOH.

[Yogi]

GTFOH.

If you ask me, Hydro, this is about all you needed to say in that particular post of your's.

[SquareCircle]

No way should George Foreman be ranked ahead of Muhammad Ali.

Foreman faced handpicked opposition for his 2nd career except when it came to the title shots.

How many top ten HWs did he beat in his second career?

One? Two?

And I mean real top ten, not some terrible IBF ranking.

Foreman avoided the top HWs for most of his 2nd career, and got away with it because he was the "cute old teddy bear" and stuff like that.



A disgrace....you mean like how Foreman got stripped of his belts for avoiding a 36 year old Tony Tucker, got a gift against Alex Schulz, and paid bribes to the IBF???

Based on how many fights at heavyweight?

How many wins against top heavyweights?

Wow, two wins over Dempsey (who hadn't fought in 3 years) is really better than dethroning Liston and Foreman...or making 25 successful defenses.

GTFOH.

Now you're comparing opposition in separate eras, which isn't the critera. I expected you to do that, though, because I knew you, yourself, had no ****ing idea how to compose an all time list; you're comparing the opposition of separate eras, in your last post, lol.. It's cool though. I've done the same thing before, albeit about 7 years ago, when I was just taking a liking to the sport.

The fights vs Dempsey were his notable wins at heavyweight, of course. But you have to remember that Tunney was naturally a light heavyweight. You cannot judge only what he has done at Heavyweight like that's all he has done. You have to judge what he did in his era, vs what guys did in their other respective eras. Greb, Carpentier, and Gibbons just go unmentioned, and I guess that's the way you wanted to present your argument, which is fine; I deal with people who sugarcoat what they say, all day long, so I'm cool with it. I just think you should respect the fact that he fought and beat the best at the time and worked his way up to that weight to accomplish his goals, in doing so, defeating the best in the world on the way up. Plus, in Tunney's era these guys were fighting 6 times a year, way unlike what Ali and Foreman did. You know, I really wouldn't be suprised in the least to see Tunney completely school George Foreman if he fought a smart fight and kept George on the end of his jab, much like Moorer did for the majority of his fight with George. Because Tunney's jab was like a laser, IMO it was better than Moorer's by far. Anyways, that's another thread. Just understand that you're wrong for comparing opposition in separate eras, and that when you make an ATG list, take all facts into consideration, all facts, not just opposition, but all facts. The current ranking of the era, how many weight classes a guy went up, how his losses happened, who he ducked, etc. Comparing opposition to other opposition is not warranted when arguing or composing an atg list simply because it is not the criteria.

[SquareCircle]

If you ask me, Hydro, this is about all you needed to say in that particular post of your's.

clearly you are the epitamy of intelligence

[hhascup]

First of all it's hard to rate the all time greats, BUT this is what I have:

Ali fought the best, followed very closely by Louis.

Of Ali's 61 bouts, he fought boxers that were rated in the top 10 in the World when he fought them 38 times (62.295%), winning 33 (54.098%) of them. He also fought a total of 49 boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in his 61 bouts. That's a percentage of 80.3279%.

Of Louis's 72 bouts, he fought boxers that were rated in the top 10 in the World when he fought them 34 times (47.887%), winning 31 (43.056%) of them. He also fought a total of 54 boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in his 72 bouts. That's a percentage of 76.056%.

Ali fought boxers with an average pro record of 32.23 - 5.25 - 1.2, for an average winning percentage of 85.268595%

Louis fought boxers with an average pro record of 38.1 - 10.23 - 2.6 for an average winning percentage of 77.349364%

[Hydro]

The fights vs Dempsey were his notable wins at heavyweight, of course. But you have to remember that Tunney was naturally a light heavyweight. You cannot judge only what he has done at Heavyweight like that's all he has done. You have to judge what he did in his era, vs what guys did in their other respective eras. Greb, Carpentier, and Gibbons just go unmentioned, and I guess that's the way you wanted to present your argument, which is fine; I deal with people who sugarcoat what they say, all day long, so I'm cool with it. I just think you should respect the fact that he fought and beat the best at the time and worked his way up to that weight to accomplish his goals, in doing so, defeating the best in the world on the way up. Plus, in Tunney's era these guys were fighting 6 times a year, way unlike what Ali and Foreman did. You know, I really wouldn't be suprised in the least to see Tunney completely school George Foreman if he fought a smart fight and kept George on the end of his jab, much like Moorer did for the majority of his fight with George. Because Tunney's jab was like a laser, IMO it was better than Moorer's by far. Anyways, that's another thread. Just understand that you're wrong for comparing opposition in separate eras, and that when you make an ATG list, take all facts into consideration, all facts, not just opposition, but all facts. The current ranking of the era, how many weight classes a guy went up, how his losses happened, who he ducked, etc. Comparing opposition to other opposition is not warranted when arguing or composing an atg list simply because it is not the criteria.

We're talking about his heavyweight ranking, not his all-time standing.

Why should what Tunnney did at light heavyweight affect his HEAVYWEIGHT ranking all-time?

Michael Spinks is one of the best light heavyweights ever, but should that come into play in ranking him all-time at HW? Same with Duran being one of the greatest 135 lb fighters ever, that's separate from his standing at welterweight, junior middle, etc...

If you're going to use it for his p4p ranking all-time or a greatest fighters list, that's one thing. I agree with it. But a fighter's accomplishments at a lower weight class affecting his all-time standing in another is a totally different story.