Ali is greater than Robinson

[Fiasco]

Heavyweight fighters generate more interest that the other weight divisions, and as a result are generally better known, particularly 1970s vintage du to Ali being a great self publicist. Many people on this forum can comfortably reel off the names of all the HW champions from JLS onwards from memory. Very few could do the same with the fighters from other weight classes. None of this means that heavyweights are technically better fighters, they are just better known.

This forum section is for boxing historians. Those historians should know not to rate a fighter based on popularity. I sure do and that's not the reason why I think Ali is the greater fighter.

The difference is that back in SRRs era boxers engaged in many more and many more frequent contests. There were many more professional boxers active during SRR's era than there were during Ali's era. The quality of opposition was clearly much higher. SRR fought many more times than Ali did.

The reason he had more fights is because boxing needed to make a decent living, in those days. It was different in the Ali's generation and onwards to today's generation of fighters.

And most of his fights weren't against the best of the best. More like club fighters, journeymen and tomato cans.

For my money Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Patterson, Norton, Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were technically nothing special when compared to the majority of fighters active in the first 60 years of this century. Ali was a standout due to his chin, his recuperative powers, his reflexes, his speed, and his evasive skills. But when he lost the reflexes, speed, and evasive capability all that was left was a very tough guy able to withstand enormous punishment. Fortunately for Ali as the process occurred the division had also become progressively weaker.

Considering that the 1970s is considered by many to be the strongest era in heavyweight history, I can't take what you just said seriously.

SRR is an altogether different proposition. He was every bit as tough as Ali (the only time he failed to finish a fight on his feet was when fighting a much larger man in scorching heat), but he also had the technical skills to carry on fighting top opposition long after his reflexes had headed South. He not only regained his title several times, he also successfully defended it many times. There really is no comparison.

Ali never got knocked out, either. The only sort of knockout recorded on his record was when his corner stopped the fight on his stool, after Ali wanted to continue. Keep in mind that Ali was feeling the effects of Parkinson's, at the time.

And Ali made more successful defenses of his heavyweight title than Robinson did for his middleweight and welterweight title combined.

Ali is a lot like the top fighters of today, a great natural physical talent, but lacking in technical skill. SRR could tick both boxes.

There is absolutely no comparison between Ali and the heavyweights of this era.

[EzzardFan]

I can name more, for Robinson. I bet you can't, for Ali.

Yeah yeah we all have access to boxrec, wiki, and google. The 13 year old kid next door could probably beat both of you at that game.

Ali was fast tough, and had incredible reflexes.

SRR was fast, tough, had incredible reflexes, and awesome technical ability which enabled him to continue long after his physical advantages had been eroded by time. He also fought many more fights, against tougher opposition, in a much longer career.

[Fiasco]

So let me get this straight: Making an idiot of yourself with your lack of reading comprehension and leaps of logic is proving me wrong? Okay Junior. I've just had my laugh for the day

Poet

What I proved wrong was that you couldn't name anymore fighters who had a very good chance at beating Ali, while I could for Robinson. Look at how you avoided replying to my last statement, where I just called you out on it, once again.

And, now that you chose to run away by logging off, it's clear who got the better of this debate.

[Fiasco]

Yeah yeah we all have access to boxrec, wiki, and google. The 13 year old kid next door could probably beat both of you at that game.

Ali was fast tough, and had incredible reflexes.

SRR was fast, tough, had incredible reflexes, and awesome technical ability which enabled him to continue long after his physical advantages had been eroded by time. He also fought many more fights, against tougher opposition, in a much longer career.

Those websites can't explain how fantasy match-ups would go. I can, though.

[EzzardFan]

And most of his fights weren't against the best of the best. More like club fighters, journeymen and tomato cans.

The tomato cans of the fifties would be world champions today. There are certainly enough belts to go round...

Considering that the 1970s is considered by many to be the strongest era in heavyweight history, I can't take what you just said seriously.

It was certainly the most exciting. But you need to remember that the HW division was hampered for any years by limiting the access that great black fighters had to the title. There were many more great HWs in the old days, they just didn't get a shot. In the '70s you had perhaps six.

Ali never got knocked out, either.

Yeah that's what I said if you take the time to re-read it.

And Ali made more successful defenses of his heavyweight title than Robinson did for his middleweight and welterweight title combined.

That's more down to the quality and quantity of opposition. Liston was pushing 40, smaller, and well past it. I love Patterson, he was an exciting fighter to watch but his chin was terrible. Frazier again was great fun to watch but technically he was very limited. Norton was big and awkward but not a technical boxer by any stretch, Eddie Machen would have had his number, and also given Foreman a much better run for his money. Foreman was a big slugger than wouldn't have troubled a peak '67 vintage Ali. Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were nothing special.

Having said that we lost the best 4 years of Ali.

[Fiasco]

The tomato cans of the fifties would be world champions today. There are certainly enough belts to go round...

Oh, boy..

It was certainly the most exciting. But you need to remember that the HW division was hampered for any years by limiting the access that great black fighters had to the title. There were many more great HWs in the old days, they just didn't get a shot. In the '70s you had perhaps six.

Whether or not it had more top heavyweights, the '70s had the best heavyweights, out of all eras.

Yeah that's what I said if you take the time to re-read it.

If you were allowed to make a such a great description of Robinson's only form of a knockout loss, I can do the same for Ali.

That's more down to the quality and quantity of opposition. Liston was pushing 40, smaller, and well past it. I love Patterson, he was an exciting fighter to watch but his chin was terrible. Frazier again was great fun to watch but technically he was very limited. Norton was big and awkward but not a technical boxer by any stretch, Eddie Machen would have had his number, and also given Foreman a much better run for his money. Foreman was a big slugger than wouldn't have troubled a peak '67 vintage Ali. Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were nothing special.

Having said that we lost the best 4 years of Ali.

What you just did to Ali's opponents could be done to Robinson's opponents, as well. Except for the thing you mentioned about Liston, which is completely wrong.

Liston was actually 31 years old, when he fought Ali for the first time. Nowhere near 40.

[TheGreatA]

Just to move on with the topic, which isn't about Zivic, I'll say that he was in his absolute physical prime. No man or machine could've possibly beaten him.

I never claimed that nobody could beat him, because Robinson beat him twice, and once stopped him. I only pointed out that he was not such a washed up fighter that should be discounted from Robinson's resume for no good reason. You only seemed to do it because Zivic would be one more great fighter in Robinson's resume, adding up to his already impressive legacy.

If you believe Liston wasn't in his prime against Ali, tell me what he didn't do as good as he did before. I'll await your answer, which I suspect to be ridiculous.

He was slower.



He could not go 6 rounds without tiring when previously he could fight 12 rounds at a hard pace.

He did not have the heart to take a beating while in the past he had fought on with a broken nose and a broken jaw.

As for Terrell, I think it's safe to say that the "what's my name?" fight with Ali had a big mental effect on his career. Wouldn't you be effected if you were beaten in an absolutely one-sided fight, while your opponent is shouting at you and embarrassing you, in a huge stadium and on national TV?

It's also safe to say that Zivic may have been affected from getting beaten down and stopped by a 1 year pro in Robinson when he himself was a veteran of the game. Zivic went onto say that everything he did, Robinson did better. This was a Robinson who had only fought one year as a pro. Anyone should be able to see what's amazing about that.

A real boxing historian would know that Armstrong was retired by the age of 32, while Jones at 32 was dominating in his division and had yet to go on and win a heavyweight title two years later.

But like I said, only real boxing historians would know that.

At 40 years of age Jones wasn't winning anything though, and you compared the Jones who fought Calzaghe to the Armstrong who fought Robinson. Armstrong was ranked number 1 in the division, had beaten very good to great fighters and evidently still had something left while he was not the terror of 3 years ago. Jones is not world class at this stage.

You see the funny thing is, I did ask historians whether or not Ali is better than Robinson. That was the meaning of this thread. I aim to get opinions on the matter in order to discuss it with them.

I asked you to do the same for your little theory, but you got very defensive about it. Which leads me to believe that you're not so confident others will agree with you.

And the result is that most people have Robinson over Ali.

This doesn't mean that you can't argue against it and I've never said you couldn't. Your only response to a part of my post was to ask someone else of their opinion while not stating anything yourself on the matter, which is not a valid way to argue against anybody.

Sure I could ask others but what's the point? It's you who is supposed to be proving me wrong here. I could say that the majority thinks Robinson was better than Ali and leave it at that, but that's not proof of anything.

Good, but not elite-worthy.

Because wins over nothing but the elite don't count? In my opinion Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Ellis and Terrell weren't elite. Does this mean wins over them shouldn't count?

So then don't only concentrate on one fighter and try to make it seem like he was the only one who did it. If you knew it was a big deal for both fighters, you would've mentioned the other fighter, as well.

You didn't ask me about what Ali did post-30 years of age.

It doesn't only have to do with records. Accomplishments and skills add into a fighter's greatness, as well.

Records are quite a big deal. Obviously Kid Gavilan is not lacking in accomplishments or skill either.

I'll use Foreman, as an example:

Foreman is considered to be not only one of the greatest punchers in heavyweight history, but on a P4P basis, as well. Is Gavilan one of the best punchers in the history of his division?

You picked the one attribute that Foreman has over Gavilan. Did Foreman have better boxing technique than Gavilan? Was he a better ring general? Did he have better defense? Did he have better footwork? Was he faster? Foreman had better punching power over Gavilan but in almost every other category Gavilan was simply better. Did Ali have better punching power than Foreman?

Foreman retired and came back to win a heavyweight world title at 45 years old. The oldest to do so. Did Gavilan do something similar to that?

A lot of people didn't come back to regain the title at 45 years of age. Henry Armstrong didn't, does this mean he doesn't rate over George Foreman? Ali didn't either.

Foreman did not have 7 title defenses, Foreman was not a more skilled boxer than Gavilan, Foreman did not have as many wins over top ranked contenders.

Except they were considered by many to have been in their primes (or very close to it), while Armstrong wasn't.

At 30 years of age and having recently been knocked out twice in the first round by Liston, Patterson was certainly not thought to be in his prime.

Liston was the champ but he was a non-factor in the division after Ali beat him.

I'd say that most agree Ellis's true prime was in the late 1960's when he held a version of the heavyweight title.

I'm not claiming that these fighters should be counted out for Ali because they may or may not have been at their peak, I'm claiming that Zivic or Armstrong shouldn't be counted out for Robinson. No, beating Armstrong at the time Robinson did is not the same as beating a peak Armstrong, but he was still the top ranked contender in the division and Robinson had to get past him, so it should count.

If it can't physically be done by both fighters, then don't try to bring it up in hopes to make a comparison.

So we shouldn't bring up Robinson's accomplishments because heavyweights couldn't do it? Armstrong's accomplishment of holding titles in three divisions shouldn't be brought up if he were compared to Joe Frazier?

It's only a part of what makes Robinson great, I'm not saying that Robinson rates over Ali because he was successful in different weight classes. It's the combination of everything he accomplished that's why he rates over Ali.

Like I said, fighters had to fight to make a decent living, in those days. They fought more than any of the more modern generations of fighters.

But you said that Robinson only fought a bunch of tomato cans and clubfighters. He fought numerous ranked contenders in his 200 fights which is a part of why he is great.

A fighter could have 40 fights and fight 30 contenders in total. Another could fight 100 times and fight 20 contenders in total. In that case the former should rate over the latter when it comes to the amount of contenders fought. Like I said previously, Len Wickwar had more fights than anybody, but he beat nobody. I don't rate fighters based on how many wins they had, but how many wins against good fighters they had.

In this case Robinson fought 200 times, fought nearly a hundred contenders, while Ali fought about 60 times and fought around 40-50 contenders. Robinson fought more contenders than almost anybody.

He was a head hunter and that was part of his strategy. Not every fighter is the same. So I'm sorry that Ali doesn't match up to your perfect idea of how a fighter should be. We just have to accept them as they are.

It was part of his "strategy" but it was also a flaw because some fighters benefited from it. Frazier only used his left hook, and a great left hook it was, but he would have been even better if he had a great right hand to go along with that left hook. Robinson was a great headhunter and a great body puncher, with dynamite in both hands.

Evidence? Not everything you state is evidence. A lot of it is just opinion and not fact. Don't confuse them.

You're very far from winning this debate.

Opinion backed up by factual evidence.

[EzzardFan]

Liston was actually 31 years old, when he fought Ali for the first time. Nowhere near 40.

That is highly debatable.

[Fiasco]

You like putting words into other people's mouths don't you? I never claimed that nobody could beat him, because Robinson beat him twice, and once stopped him. I only pointed out that he was not such a washed up fighter that should be discounted from Robinson's resume for no good reason. You only seemed to do it because Zivic would be one more great fighter in Robinson's resume, adding up to his already impressive legacy.

You don't understand sarcasm, do you?

And yes, I'm so worried that adding Zivic to Robinson's resume of prime fighters that he beat would stomp all over Ali's resume.

He was slower.

I don't see any significant difference in speed between his hand speed against Bethea and his hand speed against Ali (in their first fight).

Perhaps it only appears that Liston was faster in that fight because he was able to unload combinations on Bethea, while he wasn't able to do so against Ali. The reason for that being because Ali was far more superior in defense and in overall fighting ability than Bethea was. Fighters look different against every other fighter they face.

He could not go 6 rounds without tiring when previously he could fight 12 rounds at a hard pace.

What makes you say that?

He retired on his stool halfway before his first fight with Ali and got knocked out in the first round in their rematch. Kind of hard to say whether or not he would have been able to go the distance, don't ya' think?

He did not have the heart to take a beating while in the past he had fought on with a broken nose and a broken jaw.

He had an injured shoulder. Kind of hard to continue with that, when your shoulder plays into every punch you throw. You know? Because you need to throw punches, in order to win the fight.

Also, he was getting a rematch and that could've possibly made him think he was going to better next time.

It's also safe to say that Zivic may have been affected from getting beaten down and stopped by a 1 year pro in Robinson when he himself was a veteran of the game. Zivic went onto say that everything he did, Robinson did better. This was a Robinson who had only fought one year as a pro. Anyone should be able to see what's amazing about that.

Of course Robinson is a better fighter than Zivic. I didn't say otherwise and neither did anyone else in this thread. I just question what stage of his career Zivic was in, due to him losing most of his major bouts less than a year later.

But like I said, this is a discussion that I don't care on having. I've already told you that Zivic was an unstoppable force that no one could tame.

At 40 years of age Jones wasn't winning anything though, and you compared the Jones who fought Calzaghe to the Jones who fought Robinson. Armstrong was ranked number 1 in the division, had beaten very good to great fighters and evidently still had something left while he was not the terror of 3 years ago. Jones is not world class at this stage.

I thought we already went over this. A real boxing historian would know that age doesn't play a part in how good a fighter is.

Armstrong was done by 32 and retired. Jones was in his prime and dominating in his division, at that age. Does that mean that Jones is a greater fighter than Armstrong?

Didn't think so.

And the result is that most people have Robinson over Ali.

This doesn't mean that you can't argue against it and I've never said you couldn't. Your only response to a part of my post was to ask someone else of their opinion while not stating anything yourself on the matter, which is not a valid way to argue against anybody.

Sure I could ask others but what's the point? It's you who is supposed to be proving me wrong here.

Most, but it's pretty close.

I don't care to answer that comparison question, since it would just lead into another useless debate about those fighters, without fully concentrating on Ali and Robinson.

Like I said, though. If you wanna talk about, go ahead and make a new thread and ask other posters their opinions on it. I might even add into it. Just don't try to create these extra little debates in a thread that's not about them.

This is the last I'll be answering about it.

Because wins over nothing but the elite don't count? In my opinion Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Ellis and Terrell weren't elite. Does this mean wins over them shouldn't count?

Where did I say that wins over good fighters don't count? Please show me.

You didn't ask me about what Ali did post-30 years of age.

I didn't, but you should've.

Records are quite a big deal. Obviously Kid Gavilan is not lacking in accomplishments or skill either.

Foreman's accomplishments are better than Gavilan's. Anyone would tell you that.

You picked the one attribute that Foreman has over Gavilan. Did Foreman have better boxing technique than Gavilan? Was he a better ring general? Did he have better defense? Did he have better footwork? Was he faster? Foreman had better punching power over Gavilan but in almost every other category Gavilan was simply better.

Is SRL greater than Armstrong, based on skill?

A lot of people didn't come back to regain the title at 45 years of age. Henry Armstrong didn't, does this mean he doesn't rate over George Foreman?

I asked if Gavilan did something similar to that. I'm guessing you have no answer.

Foreman did not have 7 title defenses, Foreman was not a more skilled boxer than Gavilan, Foreman did not have as many wins over top ranked contenders.[/QUOTE]

If we rate fighters by title defenses, then Joe Calzaghe would be greater than Benny Leonard and Willie Pep.

If we rate fighters by skill, then SRL would be greater than Armstrong.

As for the top ranked contenders part, Foreman's two wins against Frazier, Norton and Moore are greater than the any of the others Gavilan beat. But once again: don't take my word for it, if you don't wish. Put a poll up and get the general consensus.

At 30 years of age and having recently been knocked out twice in the first round by Liston, Patterson was certainly not thought to be in his prime.

Patterson vs Liston was a bad stylistic match-up.

Patterson's chin wasn't good, but he was able to make up for it with his boxing ability against other fighters. As for Liston, he was one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.

If you can't spell a bad style match-up, I don't know what to tell you.

Liston was the champ but he was a non-factor in the division after Ali beat him.

Ruined.

I'd say that most agree Ellis's true prime was in the late 1960's when he held a version of the heavyweight title.

There's no shame in losing to Frazier. Ellis just couldn't match up against someone like him.

I'm not claiming that these fighters should be counted out for Ali because they may or may not have been at their peak, I'm claiming that Zivic or Armstrong shouldn't be for Robinson. No, beating Armstrong at the time Robinson did is not the same as beating a peak Armstrong, but he was still the top ranked contender in the division and Robinson had to get past him, so it should count.

I never said it didn't count. I just don't count it as a full-credited win. Does it get credit? Yes. Does it get full credit? No.

So we shouldn't bring up Robinson's accomplishments because heavyweights couldn't do it? Armstrong's accomplishment of holding titles in three divisions shouldn't be brought up if he were compared to Joe Frazier?

It's only a part of what makes Robinson great, I'm not saying that Robinson rates over Ali because he was successful in different weight classes. It's the combination of everything he accomplished that's why he rates over Ali.

It shouldn't be brought up to make a comparison, if no comparison can fairly be made.

But you said that Robinson only fought a bunch of tomato cans and clubfighters. He fought numerous ranked contenders in his 200 fights which is a part of why he is great.

A fighter could have 40 fights and fight 30 contenders in total. Another could fight 100 times and fight 20 contenders in total. In that case the former should rate over the latter when it comes to the amount of contenders fought. Like I said previously, Len Wickwar had more fights than anybody, but he beat nobody. I don't rate fighters based on how many wins they had, but how many wins against good fighters they had.

In this case Robinson fought 200 times, fought nearly a hundred contenders, while Ali fought about 60 times and fought around 40-50 contenders. Robinson fought more contenders than almost anybody.

What you don't seem to realize is that everything I said adds up together.

Fighters fought much more frequently to make a decent living, thus they would fought more contenders than any of the past few generations of fighters.

If Robinson was fighting in the 1980s and 1990s, do you honestly think he woud've fought one hundred contenders?

It was part of his "strategy" but it was also a flaw because some fighters benefited from it. Frazier only used his left hook, and a great left hook it was, but he would have been even better if he had a great right hand to go along with that left hook. Robinson was a great headhunter and a great body puncher, with dynamite in both hands.

If they didn't need it, then why would they try and add it to their strategies and styles?

Opinion backed up by factual evidence.

I have countered most of your opinions, as well as the factual evidence behind it. But don't worry. We're still debating and it's far from over.

[disolly]

ali was great, but sugar ray robinson, in my opinion is the greatest ever. 128-1-2 with 84 knockouts, in his first 131 pro fights, avenged that 1 loss a couple fights later (against lamotta of course, and robinson had a 16 pound weight disadvantage in the 10 round fight he loss to him), beat many other ATG's,,, and greats like Ali, Louis, and Leonard all call him the p4p best ever.