why mohamaad ali considered as the best ?

[billeau2]

Anyone can knit pick those statistics ,he never weighs in relevancy of Alis opposition at the time of the fight either.Statistics of winning percentages dont tell what his top opposition of age or year ,one cannot claim better resume without that those factors otherwise its just a numbers game over relevancy and its flawed.

He weighed the relevacy of his opposition in any number of ways, he categorizes many measures of relevancy which gives them substance. For example: he uses record, opposition, status etc. He uses virtually any category one can.

With any statistical analysis there has to be some provisional faith. Most experts feel that the division was at its best during this time... Yet another measure Hascup brought into the picture. Many of these experts saw fighters from past generations. Now obviously we can't use JUST this judgement call, but together with all the other factors it makes sense. If one looks at experts there is a group who saw Jack Johnson, through Dempsey up to Louis. Then we had guys who saw Dempsey up until recent times.

[AddiX]

hhascup » 30 Apr 2014, 18:11 BoxRec Forum Post

Thanks, an even netter argument than I remembered.

Anyone can knit pick those statistics ,he never weighs in relevancy of Alis opposition at the time of the fight either.Statistics of winning percentages dont tell what his top opposition of age or year ,one cannot claim better resume without that those factors otherwise its just a numbers game over relevancy and its flawed.

If you disagree I have no problem with that, but your going to have to do a lot better to convince me, especially after re-reading hascups post.

I mean, your not really going to sit here and try to argue Ali cherry picked his way through his career and fought and bunch of washed up scrubs, right?

Please tell me you won't try to do that because that's what your Insinuating.

[juggernaut666]

Thanks, an even netter argument than I remembered.



If you disagree I have no problem with that, but your going to have to do a lot better to convince me, especially after re-reading hascups post.

I mean, your not really going to sit here and try to argue Ali cherry picked his way through his career and fought and bunch of washed up scrubs, right?

Please tell me you won't try to do that because that's what your Insinuating.

I don't have to say he cherry picked anyone...however break down his 60's era,and then you will see how I can easily break down Hascups blueprint of Ali.



Using statistics as hascup did,yes Ali ranks high percentage wise but that counts little with ther actual relevance of the quality of the Resume,i see guys like Lewis and Wlad over him ,exclude the quality of the time frame then ali looks to be number one,but that's not realistic.


Example...Ali never defeated a prime Frazier in 71 it can be argued he slowed while Ali remained fairly strong and mobile in the rematches.All fighters he fought were decent but really how good were they at the time he fought them?questionable Norton fights and the cooper incident,a win is a win so I cant really count questionable circumstances since we are going by resumes.


Ali beat ONE undefeated prime guy his entire career and that was Foreman,who I do consider overatted not statistically but skillfully these are not included in hascups breakdowns,losing to J.young and retiring after that fight,hurts alis standings.

[juggernaut666]

He weighed the relevacy of his opposition in any number of ways, he categorizes many measures of relevancy which gives them substance. For example: he uses record, opposition, status etc. He uses virtually any category one can.

With any statistical analysis there has to be some provisional faith. Most experts feel that the division was at its best during this time... Yet another measure Hascup brought into the picture. Many of these experts saw fighters from past generations. Now obviously we can't use JUST this judgement call, but together with all the other factors it makes sense. If one looks at experts there is a group who saw Jack Johnson, through Dempsey up to Louis. Then we had guys who saw Dempsey up until recent times.

Alis best prime guys he fought in his prime was chuvalo who when ali fought him,heChuvalo was 34 and 14,and didn't fight really anyone worth of note and win.Patterson was not a real Hw any way you look at it if we are playing the number statistics that includes everything.

[Scott9945]

Alis best prime guys he fought in his prime was chuvalo who when ali fought him,heChuvalo was 34 and 14,and didn't fight really anyone worth of note and win.Patterson was not a real Hw any way you look at it if we are playing the number statistics that includes everything.

Ernie Terrell was certainly in his prime with a 15 fight winning streak, including an easy win over Chuvalo in Canada.

[juggernaut666]

Ernie Terrell was certainly in his prime with a 15 fight winning streak, including an easy win over Chuvalo in Canada.

So lets take Terrell where does he rank in contrast to other top era fighters?i will also point out he fought with one eye through the entire fight and went 15 rounds.He also lost to Williams in 62,a guy Ali didn't fight until he was handicapped and injured,does this reflect on Alis resume because it should,if we are counting relevance of the fighter.Looking at his k.o percentage its only 38%,this also will be included in the numbers game..this is important in the heavyweight match ups,its extremely low.Does this give Ali the ticket as the best resume still?Absolutly not,unless you can list a killers row Terrell dominated.

[Scott9945]

So lets take Terrell where does he rank in contrast to other top era fighters?i will also point out he fought with one eye through the entire fight and went 15 rounds.He also lost to Williams in 62,a guy Ali didn't fight until he was handicapped and injured,does this reflect on Alis resume because it should,if we are counting relevance of the fighter.Looking at his k.o percentage its only 38%,this also will be included in the numbers game..this is important in the heavyweight match ups,its extremely low.Does this give Ali the ticket as the best resume still?Absolutly not,unless you can list a killers row Terrell dominated.

Terrell wasn't great and he didn't beat a "killers row". I was simply correcting you on saying that Chuvalo was the only prime opponent who Ali fought in the 60's. And like I said, Terrell was in his prime and better than Chuvalo.

I wasn't all that interested in this debate because comparing resumes is boring. But if you are into that type of thing, then I'd like to hear how Klitschko has a better resume than Ali. Hopefully it won't involve the type of logic that would pick Alex Leapai to beat Joe Frazier. Yeah, I read that the other day.

[juggernaut666]

Terrell wasn't great and he didn't beat a "killers row". I was simply correcting you on saying that Chuvalo was the only prime opponent who Ali fought in the 60's. And like I said, Terrell was in his prime and better than Chuvalo.

I wasn't all that interested in this debate because comparing resumes is boring. But if you are into that type of thing, then I'd like to hear how Klitschko has a better resume than Ali. Hopefully it won't involve the type of logic that would pick Alex Leapai to beat Joe Frazier. Yeah, I read that the other day.

Leapai was 6'0 240/250 with a 30 and 4 record at the time Wlad fought him which is comparable toa 30 and 2 Ron Lyle ali squeeked by,one does not need skill to beat Frazier more than power.bonevena a hard hitting former lhw who was about 200/210 against Frazier nearly T.k.od him in 2.Wlad has beat the most undefeated fighters in hw history and in championship fights it is 9,soon to be 10 next month and looking at his record in championship fights he looks to be ahead of ali with the better opponents resumes and prime opponents he defeated and his super heavyweights hes beaten all together isn't even close,ali had a handful of guys at the modern size ,wlad has them in abundance,if we are still playing the numbers game,which is what I was invited to do.



Could Leapai lose to Frazier?Yes if frazier survives the first few rounds,the link below however tells me its going to be a bigger Bonevena and faster foreman hitting frazier.To assume this guy will be no match is the ridiculous part.If Wlad is handling guys like this it speaks volumes on his resume,because it would be like Frazier weighing 225 but in shape and carrying it well outside his 205 pound frame.

[Scott9945]

Leapai was 6'0 240/250 with a 30 and 4 record at the time Wlad fought him which is comparable toa 30 and 2 Ron Lyle ali squeeked by,one does not need skill to beat Frazier more than power.bonevena a hard hitting former lhw who was about 200/210 against Frazier nearly T.k.od him in 2.Wlad has beat the most undefeated fighters in hw history and in championship fights it is 9,soon to be 10 next month and looking at his record in championship fights he looks to be ahead of ali with the better opponents resumes and prime opponents he defeated and his super heavyweights hes beaten all together isn't even close,ali had a handful of guys at the modern size ,wlad has them in abundance,if we are still playing the numbers game,which is what I was invited to do.



Could Leapai lose to Frazier?Yes if frazier survives the first few rounds,the link below however tells me its going to be a bigger Bonevena and faster foreman hitting frazier.To assume this guy will be no match is the ridiculous part.If Wlad is handling guys like this it speaks volumes on his resume,because it would be like Frazier weighing 225 but in shape and carrying it well outside his 205 pound frame.

There was no comparison between Ron Lyle and Leapai if you saw them both fight. Two entirely different levels that record stats don't show.

When Frazier fought Bonavena he had been pro for just a year. In a rematch he won decisively and was never in trouble. Frazier was so much faster than Leapai it's ridiculous. He'd go through him like a hot knife through butter.

This has drifted way off topic so that's all from me for the Frazier/Leapai debate.

[sonnyboyx2]

There was no comparison between Ron Lyle and Leapai if you saw them both fight. Two entirely different levels that record stats don't show.

When Frazier fought Bonavena he had been pro for just a year. In a rematch he won decisively and was never in trouble. Frazier was so much faster than Leapai it's ridiculous. He'd go through him like a hot knife through butter.

This has drifted way off topic so that's all from me for the Frazier/Leapai debate.

Your wrong to claim, "Frazier won decisively and was never in trouble".. i have that particular fight and the way it went was: Frazier winning the first 9 rounds fairly convincingly. Bonavena then started his charge from rounds 10-15. Ringo's pressure was incredible and Frazier was badly staggered in the final round, with the final bell being a god-send`for Frazier"....a truly great fight.