Is Ali a bit overrated ?

[knn]

No, Ali fought FULLY in the heavyweight division according to the rules in that era.

Exactly. Long gone rules (from 1920).

Let's say in 100 years they will have a "heavyweight" starting at 350+ lbs.

Then what? You will still compare Ali and Marciano to such fighters? Just because of the word "heavy"? You know exactly that would be idiotic.

[Boxingwizard]

if you actually had read the thread, you wouldn't ask why I think he is a bit overrated

If you think Ali is overrated, then so is Wladimir Klitschko, so is Lennox Lewis, so is Larry Holmes. All the great heavyweights in the past are overrated if you think Ali is overrated. Come on don't be an idiot here, I mean you can nitpick his career all you want, but remember the government took three years away from his prime and he still dominated the HW division after that.

[Vadrigar.]

Exactly. Long gone rules (from 1920).

Let's say in 100 years they will have a "heavyweight" starting at 350+ lbs.

Then what? You will still compare Ali and Marciano to such fighters? Just because of the word "heavy"? You know exactly that would be idiotic.

Ali fought according to the rules at that time. Those rules classified that particular weight range as the heavyweight division.

"Let's say in 100 years they will have a "heavyweight" starting at 350+ lbs." -this backfires on you because according to YOUR LOGIC klitckho wouldn't be a heavyweight fighter. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.


"Then what? You will still compare Ali and Marciano to such fighters? Just because of the word "heavy"? You know exactly that would be idiotic." - the word heavy is merely a descriptive word. It does not have an absolute meaning. The weight division that Ali fought in was regarded as "heavy" according to the rules in that era.

Are you criticising Ali for obeying the rules? How is that a bad thing.

If Ali started a campaign to make the heavyweight division 200ib+ during his era every boxing authority would shut him down.

you have to make comparisons using the word heavy. You can't just say something is heavy and disregard everything else. You have to ask:
"what is it heavier than?"

[knn]

If you think Ali is overrated, then so is Wladimir Klitschko, so is Lennox Lewis, so is Larry Holmes.

If A is overrated then is B, too? I see no connection.

Come on don't be an idiot here

The poll is now roughly 60:90. To suggest that Ali is overrated is not as idiotic as one may think.

I mean you can nitpick his career all you want, but remember the government took three years away from his prime

The opposite is true. The government gave him a few years more without Parkinson.

and he still dominated the HW division after that.

Just tells you what a crap the golden age was. See also my sig.

[knn]

Ali fought according to the rules at that time. Those rules classified that particular weight range as the heavyweight division.

Exactly. Ali was a heavyweight by the then-valid definition. This definition doesn't exist anymore (except in history books, of course).

You are free to classify fighters by rules of 1920. Doesn't change the fact that we should compare a "175+ vs 175+" fight with a "175+ vs 175+" fight, no matter whether one has been called "ultraweight" and the other "megaweight". By the current valid definition Ali boxed in the cruiser division. And then he got fatter and fatter and he boxed in what we call now "heavyweight division".

If in the past they had allowed Ali to box against women then those fights, too, would have to be excluded from the comparison to nowadays boxers.

"Let's say in 100 years they will have a "heavyweight" starting at 350+ lbs." -this backfires on you because according to YOUR LOGIC klitckho wouldn't be a heavyweight fighter. This is exactly the point I am trying to make.

Why the heck "backfires"? If a heavyweight division is defined "350+" then Klitschko OF COURSE would not be a heavyweight by the new definition. He wouldn't look remotely like a 350+ guy. It's obvious that Klitschko's record shouldn't be compared with a 350+ division. It's only the CLAYtons who disagree with the obvious.

the word heavy is merely a descriptive word. It does not have an absolute meaning. The weight division that Ali fought in was regarded as "heavy" according to the rules in that era.

Aaah, finally you come to your senses. EXACTLY. The word "heavy" means "what we call heavy" or "temporary heavy". It does not mean "heavy now and for all times".

Are you criticising Ali for obeying the rules? How is that a bad thing.

If Ali started a campaign to make the heavyweight division 200ib+ during his era every boxing authority would shut him down.

What are you talking about? Me "critisizing Ali for obeying the rules"? Ali would be "shut down" by "every boxing authority" for campaigning?

How old are you?

you have to make comparisons using the word heavy.

Exactly. The comparison is done by the current official definitions. 200+ = heavy. Sub-200 = not heavy. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Boxingwizard]

If A is overrated then is B, too? I see no connection.


The poll is now roughly 60:90. To suggest that Ali is overrated is not as idiotic as one may think.


The opposite is true. The government gave him a few years without Parkinson.


Just tells you what a crap the golden age was. See also my sig.

-The connection is if we over-glorify Lennox Lewis or Rocky Maraciano's career we can nitpick their careers too. But the fact is in terms of resume and dominance neither of them had a career as good as Ali's.

As for the rest of your arguments, lol are you actually serious? If Ali never boxed again after 1967 no one consider him an ATG. And the golden age sucks? Back then they actually had contenders like Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Shavers, etc. Look at the heavyweights today, they're out of shape and don't have world class skills.

[Vadrigar.]

Moreover I already answered that. You are free to classify fighters by rules of 1920. Doesn't change the fact that we should compare a "175+ vs 175+" fight with a "175+ vs 175+" fight, no matter whether one has been called "ultraweight" and the other "megaweight". By the current valid definition Ali boxed in the cruiser division. And then he got fatter and fatter and he boxed what we call now "heavyweight division".

If in the past they had allowed Ali to box against women then those fights, too, would have to be excluded from the comparison to nowadays boxers.


Why the heck "backfires"? If a heavyweight division is defined "350+" then Klitschko OF COURSE would not be a heavyweight by the new definition. He wouldn't look remotely like a 350+ guy. It's obvious. It's only the CLAYtons who disagree with the obvious.


Aaah, finally you come to your senses. EXACTLY. The word "heavy" means "what we call heavy" or "temporary heavy". It does not mean "heavy now and for all times".


What are you talking about? Me "critisizing Ali for obeying the rules"? Ali would be "shut down" by "every boxing authority" for campaigning?

How old are you?

"Moreover I already answered that. You are free to classify fighters by rules of 1920. Doesn't change the fact that we should compare a "175+ vs 175+" fight with a "175+ vs 175+" fight, no matter whether one has been called "ultraweight" and the other "megaweight". By the current valid definition Ali boxed in the cruiser division. And then he got fatter and fatter and he boxed what we call now "heavyweight division".

If in the past they had allowed Ali to box against women then those fights, too, would have to be excluded from the comparison to nowadays boxers." - Again this comes back to my original point. You cant superimpose your definition on another era. Ali is classified as a heavyweight according to the rules of his era. But you don't have authority to criticise these rules because they are in a different time frame. Ali is a heavyweight boxer.

"Why the heck "backfires"? If a heavyweight division is defined "350+" then Klitschko OF COURSE would not be a heavyweight by the new definition. He wouldn't look remotely like a 350+ guy. It's obvious. It's only the CLAYtons who disagree with the obvious." - Again the new definition has no authority over another time frame.

"Aaah, finally you come to your senses. EXACTLY. The word "heavy" means "what we call heavy" or "temporary heavy". It does not mean "heavy now and for all times"." - Exactly, so You will agree that Muhammad Ali was a heavyweight boxer. He fought in the heavyweight division. Thanks for proving my point.

"What are you talking about? Me "critisizing Ali for obeying the rules"? Ali would be "shut down" by "every boxing authority" for campaigning?" - Again you haven't understood the concept of a time frame/era and the rules that apply to suit it. Don't comment on this post if you don't understand it. Ask me to make it clear

"Exactly. Ali was a heavyweight by the then-valid definition. This definition doesn't exist anymore (except in history books, of course)." - Again the current definition doesn't have validity over the previous one because it is not in the same time frame.

"Exactly. The comparison is done by the current official definitions. 200+ = heavy. Sub-200 = not heavy. Thank you for pointing that out." The current official definition cannot be supperimposed on another era. It is a RELATIVE definition not an absolute one.



"If in the past they had allowed Ali to box against women then those fights, too, would have to be excluded from the comparison to nowadays boxers." - This is the most ******ed post I've seen. It's common sense that women and men have ABSOLUTE meaning. The word HEAVY has a relative meaning.

[knn]

-The connection is if we over-glorify Lennox Lewis or Rocky Maraciano's career we can nitpick their careers too.

Of course we can. Marciano is even more overrated than Ali.

But the fact is in terms of resume and dominance neither of them had a career as good as Ali's.

Ali's resume is very good. His dominance within the ring is not. He barely survived sometimes and was given gift decisions.

But his resume is good. Having said that: Most of modern heavies would go through him.

And the golden age sucks? Back then they actually had contenders like Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, Shavers, etc. Look at the heavyweights today, they're out of shape

Frazier was a half-blind dwarf. Please read my posts in this thread. Holmes is not part of the golden age.

Earnie Shavers had 16 non bum fights (200+-): He lost 8 of them. He never won a worldchampionship. Earnie Shavers is the Brian Nielsen of the 70ies.

Foreman is the best of those that you mention (even better than Ali).

Moreover current heavies are only "out of shape" if you define "out of shape = non-athletic". That athleticism is necessary at heavyweight is a completely unproven statement as in "Athleticism is necessary for Sumo fighters". ESPECIALLY since "Ali, the Whaly" was the Sam Peter of the 70ies.

[Vadrigar.]

Of course we can. Marciano is even more overrated than Ali.


Ali's resume is very good. His dominance within the ring is not. He barely survived sometimes and was given gift decisions.


Frazier was a half-blind dwarf. Please read my posts in this thread. Holmes is not part of the golden age.

Earnie Shavers had 16 non bum fights (200+-): He lost 8 of them.

Foreman is the best of those that you mention (even better than Ali).

Moreover current heavies are only "out of shape" if you define "out of shape = non-athletic". That athleticism is necessary at heavyweight is a completely unproven statement as in "Athleticism is necessary for Sumo fighters". ESPECIALLY since "Ali, the Whaly" was the Sam Peter of the 70ies.

Ali wasn't given gift descisions he worked hard and showed heart in manny of his fights.

[knn]

"Moreover I already answered that. You are free to classify fighters by rules of 1920. Doesn't change the fact that we should compare a "175+ vs 175+" fight with a "175+ vs 175+" fight, no matter whether one has been called "ultraweight" and the other "megaweight". By the current valid definition Ali boxed in the cruiser division. And then he got fatter and fatter and he boxed what we call now "heavyweight division".

If in the past they had allowed Ali to box against women then those fights, too, would have to be excluded from the comparison to nowadays boxers." - Again this comes back to my original point. You cant superimpose your definition on another era. Ali is classified as a heavyweight according to the rules of his era. But you don't have authority to criticise these rules because they are in a different time frame. Ali is a heavyweight boxer.

"Why the heck "backfires"? If a heavyweight division is defined "350+" then Klitschko OF COURSE would not be a heavyweight by the new definition. He wouldn't look remotely like a 350+ guy. It's obvious. It's only the CLAYtons who disagree with the obvious." - Again the new definition has no authority over another time frame.

"Aaah, finally you come to your senses. EXACTLY. The word "heavy" means "what we call heavy" or "temporary heavy". It does not mean "heavy now and for all times"." - Exactly, so You will agree that Muhammad Ali was a heavyweight boxer. He fought in the heavyweight division. Thanks for proving my point.

"What are you talking about? Me "critisizing Ali for obeying the rules"? Ali would be "shut down" by "every boxing authority" for campaigning?" - Again you haven't understood the concept of a time frame/era and the rules that apply to suit it. Don't comment on this post if you don't understand it. Ask me to make it clear

"Exactly. Ali was a heavyweight by the then-valid definition. This definition doesn't exist anymore (except in history books, of course)." - Again the current definition doesn't have validity over the previous one because it is not in the same time frame.

"Exactly. The comparison is done by the current official definitions. 200+ = heavy. Sub-200 = not heavy. Thank you for pointing that out." The current official definition cannot be supperimposed on another era. It is a RELATIVE definition not an absolute one.

Learn how to quote.

Obviously not only your avatar is buttugly but also your quoting.

I refuse to answer any of your posts if I have to do the quote-work for you.

"If in the past they had allowed Ali to box against women then those fights, too, would have to be excluded from the comparison to nowadays boxers." - This is the most ******ed post I've seen. It's common sense that women and men have ABSOLUTE meaning. The word HEAVY has a relative meaning.

And unfortunately for you "177lbs" has ALSO an ABSOLUTE meaning. It's only CLAYtons like you who want to upgrade a win over an 177lbs-opponent to be comparable to any of Klitschko's opponents.