Is Muhammad Ali the #1 Heavyweight of all time?

[New England]

he holds wins, several, in some cases, against virtually all of the HW from the best era in the division's history. you all know who he beat, and what kind of fights he was in. you all know the lasting damage that he carried after a career like that.

there's a reason why fighters don't do that regularly, and the fact that most don't have the talent is only part of the equation.



he was a great boxer with a great, great chin. that's a huge problem for any style at HW. every HW can punch, hurt you, and eventually knock you out after a few rounds. ali had the snap, the chin, and the style to beat any HW ever. i believe that. i don't think a HW could touch ali in 1967. that's when his body was really starting to mature into a true HW with a punch. the revocation of his license robbed us of what would have been some of his best years.



i like to break ali's career into two separate eras. first was the 60's, where his talent was on full display. accounting for his size, i've never seen a fighter, or athlete for that matter, who can move like that. he had the best first step that i've ever seen on any man in any sport. he could use his legs virtually whenever he needed to call on them. it was hard to put a glove on him. i'm not talking about looking for flush shots, i'm talking about top guys who couldn't put a glove on any part of his body.

in the 70's he couldn't always rely on his legs, and we started to see him on the ropes, clinching, showing his chin, and doing whatever else he needed to do to win. he'd flurry off the ropes, act like he had legs when he didn't, take some of the hardest punches you'll ever see a HW take. he's probably the best HW i've seen in the clinches. great fighters find a way.

early in the 70's he was able to box for full rounds, or at least for long periods of time. later in the 70's he'd spend much of the fight on flat feet. he took losses to frazier, norton, and leon spinks, and avenged them.

he was totally destroyed by holmes, but he was absolutely shot. i dont' think i've ever even seen the berbick fight. what's the point? if i did, i'd be shocked if i finished the thing.

[BennyST]

I agree with a lot your saying... Don't get me wrong, resumes are the main thing to base a guys career off of.. But I also think h2h is also a good measure in comparing 2 guys with similar resumes and skill levels..
Take foreman and Frazier for example,, very close in skill, ability, resume, but we all know that foreman crushed Frazier, so I think it's fair to use that when determining rankings...

Resumes are a must, when talking about ATG rankings.. But when everyone has a terrific resume, I think skills, and h2h comparisons are effective when trying to rank guys with all great resumes..

And resumes don't win you fights.. Not one fighter has ever won a fight based on resume. They tell the story of your career but never wins you any fights

Indeed. Completely agree.

[No Tomorrow]

Absolutely

[billeau2]

he holds wins, several, in some cases, against virtually all of the HW from the best era in the division's history. you all know who he beat, and what kind of fights he was in. you all know the lasting damage that he carried after a career like that.

there's a reason why fighters don't do that regularly, and the fact that most don't have the talent is only part of the equation.



he was a great boxer with a great, great chin. that's a huge problem for any style at HW. every HW can punch, hurt you, and eventually knock you out after a few rounds. ali had the snap, the chin, and the style to beat any HW ever. i believe that. i don't think a HW could touch ali in 1967. that's when his body was really starting to mature into a true HW with a punch. the revocation of his license robbed us of what would have been some of his best years.



i like to break ali's career into two separate eras. first was the 60's, where his talent was on full display. accounting for his size, i've never seen a fighter, or athlete for that matter, who can move like that. he had the best first step that i've ever seen on any man in any sport. he could use his legs virtually whenever he needed to call on them. it was hard to put a glove on him. i'm not talking about looking for flush shots and landing shots that

in the 70's he couldn't always rely on his legs, and we started to see him on the ropes, clinching, showing his chin, and doing whatever else he needed to do to win. he'd flurry off the ropes, act like he had legs when he didn't, take some of the hardest punches you'll ever see a HW take. he's probably the best HW i've seen in the clinches. great fighters find a way.

early in the 70's he was able to box for full rounds, or at least for long periods of time. later in the 70's he'd spend much of the fight on flat feet. he took losses to frazier, norton, and leon spinks, and avenged them.

he was totally destroyed by holmes, but he was absolutely shot. i dont' think i've ever even seen the berbick fight. what's the point? if i did, i'd be shocked if i finished the thing.

What really should give people pause for reflection is that good as Ali was....his best years were stolen from him. Its kind of like people used to talk about Satchel Page, who was pitching competitively at well past 40 years of age... But who knows how good he would have been pitching in the majors in his prime years?

[greeh]

Since when is "agreeing" the point of these tit tats?

It’s fun to discuss and all that, but it felt like we had hit the wall and simply won’t agree. Then it’s just a pretty worthless way to spend your time on keeping bumping heads without anything new actually being said.

Anyhow you perhaps give yourself too little credit here.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this.

Actually we agree on Judah. Perhaps you misunderstood my point about the spaz (Zab)....

That’s something new.

It’s possible that I misunderstood. I thought it was something like “Judah was a beast, and Mayweather schooled him!”

I’m just so tired of hearing ‘tards screaming over how beastly Judah actually was etc. etc.

He has been on the whole incredibly overrated.

Spot on.

Therefore I mentioned Crisanto Espana. He is never heard of today, but he was on a higher level technically than Zab and had more than enough ability to beat him in my opinion. Excellent fundamentals and beautiful combinations.

I’ve never been a fan of Zab though. Bad attitude and a mental wimp when things got hard for him.

Frankly regarding loose and Mayweather I thought you slipped a bit on that one....I mean you are careful about your arguments sport and Mayweather is by no definition "Loose"...so yeah on this one we have to disagree....Mayweather is about as careful as you are when selecting a fighter who was not heralded as he/(she?) should have been by the unwashed masses...Sheesh!!!

I used loosely in a lack of better word. It wasn’t meant as me thinking he is sloppy.

It maybe wasn't the most perfect word for what I wanted to explain, but it was the best and closest I could come up with.

Your seem to imply I have a limited vocabulary of fighters to draw upon to make a point....guilty as charged.

Well, perhaps. I just thought it was a pretty weird comparison in general.

The reason I dismissed your comparison is because I felt Mayweather was adequate to make a point of comparison.

Well he is. But I just found it weird. That’s all.

I kind of nitpicked since I personally would maybe have used someone else who would have reminded more of Louis in his approach.

It’s not that I don’t get your point really. Louis and Mayweather are technically sound and relies less on their athletic ability than Jones and Ali do.

I get it.

I am interested in the fighters you speak of (in this case Curry) but the fact that he might make that point better does not help my point.

If you’ve never seen Curry before, you’re in for a treat.

Ridiculously overrated by some - his lack of top-end durability, chin and less than superb mental strength was his biggest drawbacks and stopped him from being great - but he’s one of the absolute best offensive fighters there is film of in my opinion.

Overall just an awesome technical boxer-puncher. A bit like Louis and Saldivar in the way he never wasted motion or telegraphed his offense while firing off textbook shots directly from his stance. He was an excellent punch-picker as well.

But seriously my intention here is not to tit for tat....

Neither is mine.

[greeh]

What happened to Kalule?

Are you questioning my loyalty to the "Mighty One"?

I have to show some compassion, don’t I?

Since everyone already knows that Kalule would have pushed their **** in with the Ugandan smoothness of his - comparing them with the "Mighty One" would have been about as fair as pushing a blind person - stuffed with pork chops under his clothes - into a cage… Full of bears… Who haven’t got anything to eat for several weeks... And expect him to come out alive.

The likelihood for that is…… Well, the odds isn’t exactly good, to put it mildly. Let’s leave it at that.

[greeh]

Did you guys know its possible to be both naturally gifted and technically skilled? Crazy i know!

I know. I haven’t disputed that at all.

[LoadedWraps]

Yes? No? Why or Why not?

No. Rocky Marciano says hi. Fought everyone he could, beat everyone he fought, and was a rare gem of a fighter. A savagely underrated boxer and criminally disrespected on BoxingScene as a whole.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

No. Rocky Marciano says hi. Fought everyone he could, beat everyone he fought, and was a rare gem of a fighter. A savagely underrated boxer and criminally disrespected on BoxingScene as a whole.

No disrespect to Marciano, but having wins over faded 40 year old moore and ezzard doesnt stack up well vs other great heavys, let alone Ali

[greeh]

I disagree kinda,, maybe H2H isnt the best way if the guys are from different eras and never fought, but i do put H2H as a good form of criteria when discussing 2 fighters that actually fought in their prime against one another.. Obviously it doesnt help if its tyson-holmes, or something like that when one guy is faded, then no it shouldnt be used, but if its something like hopkins-roy or toney-mccallum, then i think its a very applicable measure when ranking guys... Cant be used for any scenario, but certain ones i find it useful
Resumes dont win you fights, its skill level..

If they fought and beat a fighter in or close to their prime I don’t consider it as H2H. That’s just part of their resume.

I see H2H as how a fighter would fare in potential match-ups against fighters they never met. For example, I see Jung-Koo Chang as being a H2H nightmare. It’s the same thing with Fighting Harada.

Anyway, in my opinion should rating fighters on their H2H-ability just be for fun and not have too much stock into it.

For example, let's say you are putting together an all-time list. If two fighters achievements and resume is incredibly evenly matched - the fighter that ends up higher is usually the one who you prefer between the two.

That's usually how it ends up anyway, and it's perfectly fine.