Muhammad Ali- Was he the greatest heavyweight?

[RockyMarcianofan00]

i think he is the greatest by far... his flamboyant behavior helped him too... he told everyone he is the greatest and proved it.. if a boxer fights and makes less noise that ali he wouldnt be considered the greatest.. he marketed himself that way thats why he's the greatest.. not to take anythng away from his fighting though.. he was a helluva fighter....

agreed to an extent i do believe ppl wouldn't think he was as great a fighter if he didn't market himself the way he did
he was a good fighter but because he marketed himself so well he came across as the best
________
AVANDIA LAWSUIT

[Warhawk46]

So, Butterfly...and I am addressing you because you are the one who is blindly worshipping Ali here...

When was Ali's prime...it was only a three month period in 1967? Because he fought two fights in '67.

No, on the contrary, Ali WAS in his prime when he fought Sonny Liston, and also the few fights preceding this. He was in his prime up until he was suspended. It is quite obvious you know very little about this subject. What you are able to do, and do well, is keep repeating Ali is the Greatest because he "could float like a butterfly" and was unhittable in his (two month) Prime.

You are just as bad as the Tyson nuthuggers who say his Prime was his fight against Michael Spinks...Tyson's prime was a bit longer than that, and Ali's was longer than his three month, two fight period in 1967.

[butterfly1964]

So, Butterfly...and I am addressing you because you are the one who is blindly worshipping Ali here...

When was Ali's prime...it was only a three month period in 1967? Because he fought two fights in '67.

No, on the contrary, Ali WAS in his prime when he fought Sonny Liston, and also the few fights preceding this. He was in his prime up until he was suspended. It is quite obvious you know very little about this subject. What you are able to do, and do well, is keep repeating Ali is the Greatest because he "could float like a butterfly" and was unhittable in his (two month) Prime.

You are just as bad as the Tyson nuthuggers who say his Prime was his fight against Michael Spinks...Tyson's prime was a bit longer than that, and Ali's was longer than his three month, two fight period in 1967.

just because ali did good in '64 doesn't mean that was his prime. a prime is defined as the period of time where an athlete is in the best physical condition he can ever be in his entire life. he was better in '66 and '67 than in '64, so that would be his prime. don't forget it would last longer if he continued boxing after '67. in 1964 his weight was 210, and he had to struggle to keep that weight, but in 1967, he comfortably filled out at 212 3/4lbs. plus his punches were harder, and they were more accurate, you would notice this if you track his fights from '60 to '67. so '64 was good but in '67 he did better so 1967 is more ali's prime than 1964!

[TheManWhoCan]

"He was supremely talented, but his skills were somewhat lacking. He held his hands too low (knowing he was a much better athlete than a lot of the plodders he fought in the 1960s) pulled back at punches, and also used illegal holding quite a bit in his later career."

"And as for handspeed, I can think of a few heavyweights with similar handspeed. Mike Tyson, for example, actually had quite comparable handspeed. What makes prime Tyson's handspeed more impressive though, is that he threw POWER punches so quickly...Ali's flicking jab and right were very fast; however, Tyson's right to the body, followed by an uppercut was more impressive...he sat on his punches and delivered them nearly as fast, if not as fast as Ali delievered his."

I don't agree with these two points. First let me say though, that the guy who said Lennox could beat Ali is an idiot. Moving on...

I don't think you can knock Ali for intentionally dropping his hands low. That's not a technical flaw. It in fact shows greater technical skill to draw your opponents attack in, so you counter almost immediately.

About Tyson's punching power. One of the factors (and an extremely important one) is timing. Tyson hit you hard and just tried to punch through anybody's defense, whereas Ali hit you when you weren't expecting it. Ali's timing is superior to Tyson's in my opinion. So while it matters how hard you close your fist, how fast you move, how strong you are etc. It can all be checkmated, so to speak, by a well timed less intese punch. Sometimes it's not how fast it moves, but how soon it gets there.

I'm not bashing Tyson or anything becase he without a doubt is one of the fastest, hardest and most effective punchers, but I don't think that Tyson's skills can be compared to Ali's.

[RiverCityMike]

Joe Louis was a far better heavyweight than Ali in my opinion and I rank ali in my top 3.

I'm from Louisville and I'm not even the greatest Greatest fan. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's the #1 heavyweight, but he would rank higher than Louis. Ever heard of 'the bum of the month club.' Louis really had no one to fight except Schmeling and some old washed up fighters from the previous era. Ali did have Frasier and Foreman both of whom would have never lost a fight except against Ali and in Frasier's case against the other above mentioned.

[Da Iceman]

louis fought whoever the #1 contender was or whoever they put in front of him, joe louis is number #1 ali is #2

[CARSPIV]

Great, but not THE Greatest

I have recently read several books on some of Muhammad Ali's

fights and have discovered that he won alot of controversial

decisions over fighters like Ken Norton, Jimmy Young, Ernie

Shavers that could have easily gone in their favor. Ali rose

to occasion to beat great fighters like Foreman, Frazier, Liston.

But he wasn't always consistent, so was he the greatest

heavyweight of all time or was it the hype the he built up?

My opinion: Even as an Ali fan in my teens (I began really following Boxing at age 10, just before the 1st Ali-Frazier fight), I never believed him to be THE greatest.

He was a personality of world-wide fame. To the 60s radicals and media, he was a symbol of the Anti-War movement. To American Blacks, he was a source of pride--the baddest man on the planet. There is not(and there may never be) an Athlete more world-reknowned (sorry, Babe Ruth fans--they know nothing of Baseball in Africa).

But all of this does not make him the greatest fighter of all time. He is not even the greatest heavyweight. And, yes, he got more than a few gift decisions: Jimmy Young beat him by 10-5 on my ALI FAN scorecard at the time. Norton beat him in their 3rd fight. And, during the 2nd round of his fight with Shavers, I left the room for a moment rather than see Ali KOd. Shavers won that fight, too. The officials thought otherwise. Also, in the 2nd Frazier fight, someone counted over 180 Ali-instigated clinches...one every 12 seconds!!

Also, the myth of Ali's popularity takes a hit when you examine the FINANCIAL DETAILS of some of his fights when it was HE who was the indisputable "attraction." His fights with Mathis, Mac Foster, Blue Lewis, Brian London were all huge financial flops.

I am not saying Ali was not a great fighter. He was. His blend of size and speed had never been seen before. He was a great athlete. Perhaps what made him as good as he was was his EGO and PRIDE. He talked himself up so much, he had to make good on it. THIS is what I think is as responsible as anything else for his remarkable ability to absorb punishment.

But look at his first reign. Liston, like it or not, was even on the scorecards in Miami when he quit in his corner; a pre-"No mas" no mas. He took a dive in Lewiston. Patterson, outweighed, crippled by a disk in his back and 30 years old, was finished as a first-rate fighter after the 2nd Johansson fight 5 years before. Chuvalo absorbed everything for 15 rounds and gave a clue on how to beat Ali by crowding him and ****ing him in the body. Cooper was a stiff, KOd (cleanly) by Johannson and Folley before and Patterson after. London was even worse, a one-time one round KO victim of Cooper. Mildenberger was nothing but a novelty built up by Ring Magazine (another Schmeling?HA!! He wasn't even another Adolph Heuser!). Cleveland Williams was a shadow of a shadow of a fighter who ALWAYS had trouble with boxers (Billy Daniels and Ernie Terrell both went the distance, Terrell winning their 2nd fight, in William's supposed "prime", which was gone probably even before Williams was shot by that cop). Terrell was later exposed as a fighter with......great height and reach, later beaten by hearty-partyer Thad Spencer and the mighty Mexican, Manuel Ramos. Zora Folley was 34, outweighed, and had been KO'd previously by the likes of Young Jack Johnson and Doug Jones (not to mention Sonny Liston), and beaten by Henry Cooper on a decision.

Ali was a greater fighter during his 2nd reign...during the first year of it. He was finished after the 3rd Frazier fight.

As a world-wide famous figure, Ali is unmatched. You can argue that he was a cultural icon. As I get older and read more about his anti-american and anti-white feelings during his "exile", he looks more and more like just a pawn in the hands of Elijah and Herbert Muhammad. And less and less like "The Greatest". As a matter of fact, I think that Larry Holmes, in his prime, beats Ali at his best ever.

[Kid Achilles]

Great post! Welcome to the forum.

[Oasis_Lad]

Great post! Welcome to the forum.

your ahving a laugh if u think holmes beats a prime ali
and yes he was the greatest heavyweight ever

[butterfly1964]

I think that Larry Holmes, in his prime, beats Ali at his best ever.

yeah, sure. marciano beats louis at his best. spinks beats holmes at his best. tunney beats dempsey at his best. young beats foreman at his best. williams beats tyson at his best.