Muhammed Ali Over-rated?

[GJC]

What I find interesting with analysing Ali's career is that he lived in an age when pretty much all of his fights were filmed and available for viewing now. So whilst close verdicts will always be cause for argument we are reading that Wepner gave him a close fight! The fact that the films are available would negate arguments I would think. It is more difficult where fights are not filmed or the film is not freely available.
I am reading a lot of fights being rated as bad decisions when they were close or close when they went the distance but one sided where film is not freely available.
Another thing that does amuse me is the fact that people take no account for the
re-writing of history in books and magazines, it happens in politics etc why not boxing? I can remember the general feelings at the time I have been alive I am now 70. It doesn't make me an expert but I can repeat the feelings at the time and not be clouded by events that I can only read about.
Marciano was a highly regarded champion there was no obvious contender that he avoided, the same was not so for Patterson.
Liston was terryfying, Tyson did not even get close to the intimidation that Liston gave off.
And Ali was not a popular champion for his first reign, he got a grudging respect but that was about it. A lot of purists thought it was a matter of time before his style got his comeuppence and there was a su****ion he was chinny. After the ban he disproved a lot of critics wrong and is now quite rightly much loved and his skills appreciated.

[GJC]

Not saying Bert Sugar is the be all and end all, but he's certainly one of the most respected boxing historians of all time, and just to prove my point that many of the most respected boxing experts disagree with you, the top 10 ATGs in Bert Sugar's 2006 list were:

1 Sugar Ray Robinson

2 Henry Armstrong

3 Willie Pep

4 Joe Louis

5 Harry Greb

6 Benny Leonard

7 Muhammad Ali

8 Roberto Duran

9 Jack Dempsey

10 Jack Johnson

Good list no doubt about it, I might argue with the order, subtract and add a few but I would say every fighter on it would get in my top 25.

[StarshipTrooper]

Not saying Bert Sugar is the be all and end all, but he's certainly one of the most respected boxing historians of all time, and just to prove my point that many of the most respected boxing experts disagree with you, the top 10 ATGs in Bert Sugar's 2006 list were:

1 Sugar Ray Robinson

2 Henry Armstrong

3 Willie Pep

4 Joe Louis

5 Harry Greb

6 Benny Leonard

7 Muhammad Ali

8 Roberto Duran

9 Jack Dempsey

10 Jack Johnson

Also regarding his power being almost as good, that seems an odd statement to me. I'll agree his power was under-rated by some, but apart from the Liston rematch he didn't knock anyone out with a single punch as far as I remember, whereas Louis knocked quite a few people out with one punch. Several of Ali's opponents said he didn't hit that hard, it was the speed that got them, and being hit by a large number of punches that they couldn't see coming, when they were already off balance, rather than the power.

Bear in mind though that it took Sugar until the 1990s to even rank Ali near the top of his Heavyweight ATG list.

Poet

[GJC]

On a reasonably related add on to my earlier post, I'm sure most have read it but if not I highly recommend In This Corner as a book. One thing is a recurring theme, no boxer ever lost a fight. Any fight that went the distance was a home town decision even if the winner had knocked the guy down in every round. If they did get knocked out it was because of an injury, making the weight etc. It is great to see two fighters verdict on the same fight they had. Great book though. Just shows that good fighters always expect to win thats what makes them good, simple really.

[GJC]

Bear in mind though that it took Sugar until the 1990s to even rank Ali near the top of his Heavyweight ATG list.

Poet

Sugar has always had his favourites like Nat Fleischer before him.
Like we all do I suppose, I am pretty sure my lists will include some that others don't rate.

[F l i c k e r]

I belive he was/is, what do you guys think?

I completely agree with you. Ali is pretty over -rated in the PRESENT. In the past he was phenomenal but in the PRESENT, the year 2009, he is very over-rated. People seriously believe that someone like Tyson, Lennox, or Holyfield in their prime cant beat Ali for some reason.

Im not saying that Ali isn't a great boxer, he WAS great. In the present its not surprising to see a speedy heavyweight. An outboxing heavyweight isn't surprising anymore. Back then no one knew how to fight heavyweights like Ali. Now we know how to fight them.


So yes I believe he is over-rated for now-a-days. If we are talking over-rated in the 50-60s then no. But in the 90-00s, yes, he is over-rated.

[GJC]

Im not saying that Ali isn't a great boxer, he WAS great. In the present its not surprising to see a speedy heavyweight. An outboxing heavyweight isn't surprising anymore. Back then no one knew how to fight heavyweights like Ali. Now we know how to fight them.

Knowing how to beat a fighter and putting it into practise are not the same thing. Holmes even past prime knew how to beat Tyson but didn't have the speed and reflexes at that time to do it. I could probably give you a pretty good plan on how to beat any fighter but putting into practise is the tricky part.
Tyson was at his best with Rooney calling out the numbers of combinations to him, by round 3 Ali would know the numbers better than Tyson. Tyson undefeated had many fighters intimidated and beaten before they got in the ring, like Liston did in his day. Ali was never intimidated by anyone.
Holyfield I can't see beating Ali good fighter though he was.
Lewis I think would cause Ali problems but again I'd go for Ali.
I think a good litmus test is how well Foreman did in his comeback, 20 years past prime. And now imagine Ali in his prime?

[F l i c k e r]

Knowing how to beat a fighter and putting it into practise are not the same thing. Holmes even past prime knew how to beat Tyson but didn't have the speed and reflexes at that time to do it. I could probably give you a pretty good plan on how to beat any fighter but putting into practise is the tricky part.
Tyson was at his best with Rooney calling out the numbers of combinations to him, by round 3 Ali would know the numbers better than Tyson. Tyson undefeated had many fighters intimidated and beaten before they got in the ring, like Liston did in his day. Ali was never intimidated by anyone.
Holyfield I can't see beating Ali good fighter though he was.
Lewis I think would cause Ali problems but again I'd go for Ali.
I think a good litmus test is how well Foreman did in his comeback, 20 years past prime. And now imagine Ali in his prime?

First of all Foreman and Ali are different. Someone who tries to destroy you against someone who tries to chip away at you are totally different things. You can survive a comeback with brutal power because it doesn't require any technicality. You cant survive a 20yr comeback with outboxing.

Like I said though. Im not saying Ali wasn't a great fighter and all but some people blow it way out of proportion. I think Holyfield in his prime would be a huge threat to Ali. Lennox as well. I think that because of the knowledge, they all can implement it. Lennox, Holyfield, and Tyson arent 2nd rate fighters, I believe they can hang with Ali. I think Holyfield and Lennox can actually beat Ali if not then give him hell.

I never thought of Tyson-Ali like that though. That makes alot of sense, because he was calling out combinations for Tyson.

You gotta admit that people do blow Ali out of proportion though.

[GJC]

First of all Foreman and Ali are different. Someone who tries to destroy you against someone who tries to chip away at you are totally different things. You can survive a comeback with brutal power because it doesn't require any technicality. You cant survive a 20yr comeback with outboxing.

Agree totally they are different styles, and the last thing a fighter loses is his punch. My point was more that Foreman moved out of his era and acquitted himself well in another so why not Ali. I think the leap in knowledge argument you use has more validity when comparing recent fighters with fighters such as Dempsey and Johnson rather than more recent fighters such as Ali.

Lennox, Holyfield, and Tyson aren't 2nd rate fighters, I believe they can hang with Ali.

Don't argue that, all very good fighters and would all be in my top 12. I think they would all be worthy challengers but I think Ali would beat them all. I think Lewis on his game would put up the best fight IMO.[/QUOTE]

You gotta admit that people do blow Ali out of proportion though.

I think people have a tendency to say Ali was without any weaknesses in the ring which isn't the case. They also make him out to be an intellectual civil rights campaigner etc etc. I personally just rate him as a fighter. Bit like someone wiser than me once said about democracy, it isn't a great system but its the best we have.

[Dave Rado]

Bear in mind though that it took Sugar until the 1990s to even rank Ali near the top of his Heavyweight ATG list.

Poet

Bert Sugar's top 10 ATGs from his 1984 list:


1 Sugar Ray Robinson

2 Henry Armstrong

3 Harry Greb

4 Jack Dempsey

5 Benny Leonard

6 Joe Louis

7 Mickey Walker

8 Sam Langford

9 Tony Canzoneri

10 Muhammad Ali


Both top 100 lists are here.