Serious question from a casual fan

**Guest** · 08-18-2009, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by KJohnston

Hey, how is everyone tonight? So I am a casual fan of boxing, but don't get me wrong, I love the sport. I am a staff writer for MMA Authority Magazine, so because of this fact I'm usually constantly working on articles or watching fights, which doesn't leave me the time I would need to fully follow the sport. However, my question is this. I lurk on these forums from time to time, and it seems as if everyone has Ali down at anywhere between 5-8 on the pound for pound list. Now from a casual fans view, he is built up to be the best. What is it that makes him not as credentialed as other fighters to be billed as the best? Thanks guys.

He's plenty high up there, but boxing is a sport with a long and varied history, and Sugar Ray Robinson tends to top polls on here.

There have been over a hundred years plus of fights and fighters so it's understandable some guys get the nod over him some for personal preference some on sheer volume of high quality fights.

He's plenty credentialed I think sometimes it's a matter of degrees and number of fights.

**Spacey1991** · 08-18-2009, 09:33 PM

Most people rate him at #2 behind Sugar Ray Robinson, in fact... Ali has even admitted that P4P wise he isn't as great as SRR was.

**catalinul** · 08-18-2009, 09:35 PM

The resumes and accomplishments of Robinson,Armstroing or Langford might be a bit higher than his but he is up there with the best of all time.

**Grand Champ** · 08-18-2009, 09:36 PM

Damn I Didn't know a heavyweight could make the p4p list. He's a ATG top 5 because of his stacked resume and charisma. But regarding accomplishments fighters like armstrong also fought everybody but he also did it in multiple divisions. Something Ali for obvious reasons couldn't do. SRR is considered p4p best ever. With a resume that's most likely never to be beaten with 200 fights in total and over a 100 KOs.

**DiegoFuego** · 08-18-2009, 09:40 PM

Putting him #2 all time is a safe bet. He's definitely the best heavyweight ever, having emerged the best in the best era of all time. If not for the Vietnam situation, he never would have lost a fight in the eyes of most. Even after a 4-5 year layoff, he arguably fought Frazier within a point or two the first time around.

**Thread Stealer** · 08-18-2009, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by KJohnston

Hey, how is everyone tonight? So I am a casual fan of boxing, but don't get me wrong, I love the sport. I am a staff writer for MMA Authority Magazine, so because of this fact I'm usually constantly working on articles or watching fights, which doesn't leave me the time I would need to fully follow the sport. However, my question is this. I lurk on these forums from time to time, and it seems as if everyone has Ali down at anywhere between 5-8 on the pound for pound list. Now from a casual fans view, he is built up to be the best. What is it that makes him not as credentialed as other fighters to be billed as the best? Thanks guys.

Well for one, it's usually hard for heavyweights to be ranked really high p4p. The term pound-for-pound was originally used for non-heavyweights like Bob Fitzsimmons who started out smaller and was a MW champ before winning a HW title (do not believe the myth that the term was created for Sugar Ray Robinson, he more or less popularized the term), and other non-heavyweights like Tony Canzoneri were called the best pound-for-pound before Robinson popularized the term.

It's hard for anyone to surpass the achievements and resume of guys like Henry Armstrong (who won world titles in 3 of the 8 original divisions and drew with another champ in a 10 rounder), or Sugar Ray Robinson.

And then you've got other guys like Sam Langford who defeated much larger men. He started out as a welterweight and moved up and regularly beat light-heavyweights and heavyweights.

I tend not to take the term "pound-for-pound" so seriously anyway. But with all the belts in the sport and people arguing over whom is a division's "real champion", the title of pound-for-pound has become such a big thing for marketing and prestige.

Ali's talent, achievements, and especially opposition level though, are no doubt extremely impressive.

**FloydsEra** · 08-18-2009, 10:10 PM

Ali? Pfffft he wasn't p4p anything

in his prime he got his ass handled by journeyman Ken Norton. Frazier busted Ali up too

**Fulcrum29** · 08-18-2009, 10:15 PM

that's because

#1 as good as Ali was, being a heavyweight he still didn't accomplish as many amazing feats as other people like henry armstrong or arguably duran etc who have went up in weight so many times and captured titles

#2 Ali in an interview stated himself that he is not the best ever, SRR is. He is only the best heavyweight ever

**rj_ct** · 08-18-2009, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by KJohnston

Hey, how is everyone tonight? So I am a casual fan of boxing, but don't get me wrong, I love the sport. I am a staff writer for MMA Authority Magazine, so because of this fact I'm usually constantly working on articles or watching fights, which doesn't leave me the time I would need to fully follow the sport. However, my question is this. I lurk on these forums from time to time, and it seems as if everyone has Ali down at anywhere between 5-8 on the pound for pound list. Now from a casual fans view, he is built up to be the best. What is it that makes him not as credentialed as other fighters to be billed as the best? Thanks guys.

Pound for pound isn't a real thing. It only exists in boxing magazines and on internet message boards. For me the all time pound for pound list looks something like this:
#1 Ray Robinson
#2 Everyone else

Originally posted by NoQuitters

Ali? Pfffft he wasn't p4p anything

in his prime he got his ass handled by journeyman Ken Norton. Frazier busted Ali up too

Ali was the best heavyweight of all time. He fought in the best era of heavyweights and proved himself the best. Why people try to discredit his skills and accomplishments is beyond me.

Serious question from a casual fan