Muhammed Ali Over-rated?

[GJC]

Hey it works! Watch me go now
Thanks for the tips/help guys

[vandiar]

wow this thread takes the cake of the most ludicrous s*** I have ever seen.

[Dave Rado]

Hey it works! Watch me go now
Thanks for the tips/help guys

LOL! You're getting good, but you left one too many [/q uote] end tags in, if you look at your post.

[Dave Rado]

wow this thread takes the cake of the most ludicrous s*** I have ever seen.

There have been some very good posts in it, though, IMO - worth reading through.

[GJC]

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.

Seen those lists but never compared them. What is he thinking of? If you look at them the only fighter who had any fights between the 2 lists was Duran. But we lose Walker, Langford and Canzoneri from the 1st to be replaced by Pep, Jack Johnson and Duran. Also the order changes quite a bit.
So apart from Duran who of the others did any more or less between the lists?
I personally prefer the 2nd list, why does Pep not show in 1984 but now rates as number 3 in 2006. I'm not arguing that rating i'd have Pep very high but he didn't exactly win a lot of fights after 1984 and was also pretty well known in 1984.
It seems like you quoted the list to refute that point that Sugar didn't list Ali earlier which it does but it just makes Sugar seem foolish and makes you doubt how he arrives at these lists.

[GJC]

LOL! You're getting good, but you left one too many [/q uote] end tags in, if you look at your post.

I think i'll stick, I'm happy enough I just know if I get carried away i'll completely **** it up lol

[GJC]

Got to say though when I used to look at Fleischer's ratings it seemed like he thought boxing ended with Jack Johnson! Thanks for posting those lists, will certainly look at those Sugar lists in detail, some serious anomolies there.

[Dave Rado]

Seen those lists but never compared them. What is he thinking of? If you look at them the only fighter who had any fights between the 2 lists was Duran. But we lose Walker, Langford and Canzoneri from the 1st to be replaced by Pep, Jack Johnson and Duran. Also the order changes quite a bit.
So apart from Duran who of the others did any more or less between the lists?
I personally prefer the 2nd list, why does Pep not show in 1984 but now rates as number 3 in 2006. I'm not arguing that rating i'd have Pep very high but he didn't exactly win a lot of fights after 1984 and was also pretty well known in 1984.
It seems like you quoted the list to refute that point that Sugar didn't list Ali earlier which it does but it just makes Sugar seem foolish and makes you doubt how he arrives at these lists.

Maybe he'd been studying boxing history and the fighters for that much longer, so his second list was better?

Maybe he got feedback about the first list from other historians and took the feedback on board?

[GJC]

Maybe he'd been studying boxing history and the fighters for that much longer, so his second list was better?

Maybe he got feedback about the first list from other historians and took the feedback on board?

Could be, fair play to him in that case. None of us should be so stubborn as to never change our minds.

[Boxingwizard]

I would favor a prime Ali over almost any heavyweight in history. Whether be Wlad, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, Louis, Marciano. He was that good his record proves it, even when he was like only 70% of himself, he was still to be able to defeat guys like Earnie Shavers, Frazier, and Jimmy Young.