Is Ali a bit overrated ?

[Motofan]

If there was a choice for vastly overrated I would have picked that one.

[Tiozzo]

Try to refute any of these if you can: 1) the combined win -to-loss of W. Klitschko and Tyson's opponents is better than that of Ali's 2)Ali was not the only 3-time HW champ 3) It's harder to become a lineal champion in a division that has multiple belts than in a division that only has one belt 4)Ali is not only champion who has never been KOd. Which one of these statements is insane?

You can try, but you won't be able to.

piece of cake

1) the combined win -to-loss of W. Klitschko and Tyson's opponents is better than that of Ali's

true or not, that is not a valid argument to judge the quality of opposition the 3 fighters faced
most fighters on Ali's record who have multiple losses are HOFers, Wladimir has never beaten a great fighter in his prime (if you think he did, try and name them), and a lot of undefeated fighters on his record were bums or good fighters who are no match when you compare them to men like Quarry, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Liston, Patterson,...

2)Ali was not the only 3-time HW champ

at the time he became 3 time LINEAL HW CHAMPION OF THE WORLD, nobody ever did it, and it has not been surpassed up to this day

Ali's 3 time lineal HW champion of the world >>>>>> Holyfield 4 time HW champion of the world

3) It's harder to become a lineal champion in a division that has multiple belts than in a division that only has one belt

false logic, as someone already said, if you got only one belt to win, the process to win that one and only belt will be harder because you have to go through the best contenders that all fight for one belt only, and of course the lineal title will be attached to the belt, which is not the case when you got multiple belts

and obviously, you have no idea what a lineal champion is
Tyson became lineal champion the day he beat Michael Spinks, and Spinks had no belt at the time
Tyson already collected all the 3 belts, but since Spinks was the man who won the lineal title from Holmes who won it from Ali, until Tyson would beat Spinks, he would not be the lineal champion of the world

Wladimir is not even a lineal champion today (the lineage has been lost when Lewis retired with it, and has never been recovered since the 2 best fighters have not faced each other, Vitali and Wlad that is)

so no, the lineal title is not harder to get when there are numerous belts as opposed to only one since the lineal title is not won by winning belts, but by beating the man who beat the man who beat the man....

your poor boxing knowledge has been exposed

4)Ali is not only champion who has never been KOd

so what ? it is only one argument among others that attest his greatness

your poor boxing knowledge has been exposed

[Tuggers1986]

Big time....

[Tiozzo]

Forgot to mention Central American, Mexico in particular, boxing has always been big there and it still is, it's not waning there one bit. The only place in the world where boxing has been perceived to be doing poorly is in the US. Although judging from super fights involving Mayweather, Oscar, etc. It still doing pretty damn well in the US as well. I am not sure what golden age you were referring to but probably to the time when people did not have any other forms of entertainment and there was one tv set on the entire block, college sports were not as big, and the most popular sporting event was baseball (not football as it is today). Stop living in the past, unless you are 60...

it was not necessarily the golden age for boxing in its whole, but it was the golden age of HW boxing for ****ing sure, because of the number and the quality of the fighters there were and the quality of the fights that were made

[TheMagicMan]

If there was a choice for vastly overrated I would have picked that one.

Ditto. Ali is the Ricky Martin of boxing.

[Vadrigar.]

You are persistent, I give you that... The "manner" in which he won? How hard is to beat a gimp with one leg and no stomach? How hard is it to look spectacular while doing it? Williams might have been someone dangerous before getting shot but after he got shot he had an atrophied leg, 10 feet of intestine taken out, failed kidney, and he was off for a year... Yeah, you can claim this as some great victory for Ali but to anyone sane, you look crazy doing it...

This would be equivalent to W. Klitschko beating up on Morrisson today. Would you give Waldimir credit for that win? After all Morrisson had one of the deadliest left hooks in history, I mean he was a serious puncher, his KO% is much higher than that of Cleveland Williams and he actually managed to win a title at HW, which Williams can never claim to have done.

"How hard is to beat a gimp with one leg and no stomach?" Cleveland williams was not a gimp with one leg and no stomach.

"How hard is it to look spectacular while doing it? Williams might have been someone dangerous before getting shot but after he got shot he had an atrophied leg, 10 feet of intestine taken out, failed kidney, and he was off for a year... Yeah, you can claim this as some great victory for Ali but to anyone sane, you look crazy doing it..." - Well he fought a perfect fight that night. Prabably ne of the greatest dominances of all time. Not everyone can look spectacular doing it. ALi showed a perfect combination of footwork timing and
accuracy in that fight. He even knocked williams down going backwards. That was something ray Robinson did. To be honest, words can't really describe how great Ali was that night. Just take a look at this video with a clear mind:




"This would be equivalent to W. Klitschko beating up on Morrisson today. Would you give Waldimir credit for that win? After all Morrisson had one of the deadliest left hooks in history, I mean he was a serious puncher, his KO% is much higher than that of Cleveland Williams and he actually managed to win a title at HW, which Williams can never claim to have done." - It definitely isn't equivalent to beating up tommy morrison today. That's a silly comparison.

dividing the men who were under 200 lbs of the men who 200 lbs and more is uttelry ******ed because the CW division didn't exist in that era
if you fought above 175 lbs, you were a HW, period

[Vadrigar.]

"Golden age" of heavyweights similar to "The Black Murderers' Row"

[knn]

and a lot of undefeated fighters on his record were bums or good fighters who are no match when you compare them to men like Quarry, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Liston, Patterson,...

Yeah compare Wlad's opponents with handicapped Frazier (blind on left eye), cruiser Quarry (197 lbs) or cruiser Patterson (188 lbs).

Never ever mention these handicaps and cruisers again when you compare Wlad's opponents to Ali's opponents.

And 6'0'' Liston was mainly a bum-beater.

Half of Wlad's opponents would rule the 70ies. Tony Thomson, Sam Peter, Calvin Brock, Eddie Chambers etc etc.. I have seen NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the 70ies that would impress me more than nowadays heavies.

at the time he became 3 time LINEAL HW CHAMPION OF THE WORLD, nobody ever did it, and it has not been surpassed up to this day

Woooow! The mythical lineage that descends from King Arthur has been torn! The end is neigh!

Dominating every round for years is better than beating some former champion.

false logic, as someone already said, if you got only one belt to win, the process to win that one and only belt will be harder because you have to go through the best contenders that all fight for one belt only

Dream on. Being a unified champ is approx. 20x more worth nowadays than it was in Ali's times as I wrote at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...98#post5528498

and obviously, you have no idea what a lineal champion is

Hmm, how about you give us the link to a correct definition instead of giving us your own definition that suits you the most?

Wait, let _me_ give you the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_championship

"Another boxer can only win the lineal championship by defeating the reigning lineal champion in the ring."

Tyson became lineal champion the day he beat Michael Spinks, and Spinks had no belt at the time

What a nonsense. By your logic we were really lucky that Butterbean didn't become lineal champion by beating Larry Holmes.

[Tiozzo]

Yeah, let's trust bum-beater Liston more than FACTS.


Of course you can deduct power from the KOratio. Please don't try to argue against common sense.


If you claim that he had power but tended to miss... then EFFECTIVELY he was NOT a power-puncher. Who cares how he would score on a punch-o-meter?


Gee, did you read what I wrote? That 78-13 record includes CRUISER opponents. Muhammad Ali has a KOratio of 76% in cruiser fights and 34% in heavyweight fights. Muhammad Ali is cruiser-KOer but a heavyweight featherfist.

Who cares that Evan Fields was a heavy hitter as a cruiser (78%)? All that counts is that he is a featherfist as a heavyweight (36%).

Williams was a heavyweight featherfist. As was Frazier (KOratio 50%).

I didn't want to get to this, but you're a total ******

I said you cannot SOLELY judge power from ko ratio

there is no doubt George Foreman and Shavers were WAY bigger punchers than Vitali who is not a one punch ko artist, but still he gets a lot of KO/TKO because of his style and accumulated punishment (and the fact that he never fought great fighters like Ali did)
if you fight bums, you will get a higher ko ratio, so the opposition faced has to count too

Shavers = KO% 76.4
Foreman = KO % 83.95
the lesser puncher Vitali who has never beat anyone of note = KO% 90.48

both losses and wins are calculated in the ko win ratio
even Shavers is a better puncher than Foreman (ask Foreman, Ali and Lyle), although his ko ratio says otherwise

to call Williams and Frazier featherfisted... wow, I doubt you will get much support, this is so ******ed

dividing the men who were under 200 lbs of the men who 200 lbs and more is uttelry ******ed because the CW division didn't exist in that era
if you fought above 175 lbs, you were a HW, period

[Tiozzo]

Yeah compare Wlad's opponents with handicapped Frazier (blind on left eye), cruiser Quarry (197 lbs) or cruiser Patterson (188 lbs).

Never ever mention these handicaps and cruisers again when you compare Wlad's opponents to Ali's opponents.

NAME THE HOFERS THAT APPEAR ON wLAD'S RESUME

And 6'0'' Liston was mainly a bum-beater.


Wlad usually outweighs his opponents by 25 lbs or more, so you should cut the crap about Ali ''fighting CW''

Half of Wlad's opponents would rule the 70ies. Tony Thomson, Sam Peter, Calvin Brock, Eddie Chambers etc etc.. I have seen NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the 70ies that would impress me more than nowadays heavies.

HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Woooow! The mythical lineage that descends from King Arthur has been torn! The end is neigh!

Dominating every round for years is better than beating some former champion.


Dream on. Being a unified champ is approx. 20x more worth nowadays than it was in Ali's times as I wrote at
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...98#post5528498

the other guy didn't know the difference between being unified or lineal champion, I straightened it out

Hmm, how about you give us the link to a correct definition instead of giving us your own definition that suits you the most?

Wait, let _me_ give you the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineal_championship

"Another boxer can only win the lineal championship by defeating the reigning lineal champion in the ring."

What a nonsense. By your logic we were really lucky that Butterbean didn't become lineal champion by beating Larry Holmes.

the lineal championship is what it is, like it or not

A LOT OF time had passed since Holmes lost the lineal title at the hands of Spinks when he faced Eric Esch, aka butterbean, so it is just another irrelevant fantasy of yours

Lets face it : you're a Klit ****sucker