Muhammad Ali is the 2nd greatest boxer in history

[NChristo]

You remember? **** how old are you

He's trying to be funny.

[chrisJS]

I remember when the 30-0 Sugar Ray Robinson beat the debut fighter **** Banner and knocked him out. That was when I realized he was the greatest.

Robinson's competition pretty much from the start was excellent. He was fighting much more experienced men with 60/70 or more fights and a lot of damn good ones. He'd beaten a number of all-time greats within his first 2 years as a pro. Fighters fought more often then so there is the odd dud opponent yes, but overall Robinson's competition was staggering. He was already an ATG before he even fought for a title.

[4truth]

Ali relied quite a lot on one of the best chins ever. Not saying he wasn't a great boxer, he was, but his defense looked better than it was because he could absorb pretty much whatever the other guy could dish out and smile.

[Removed Now]

Who is the greatest boxer and the 2nd greatest boxer is a matter of opinion not provable fact. Robinson and Ali are popular choices but someone might two other great and famous boxers were better and you can't prove them wrong. So you should put an Ithink or an in my opinion Robinson and Ali were the 1st and 2nd greatest boxers in history rather than stating it as if it was a proven fact because it isn't.Neither Robinson or Ali were unbeatable. They both lost lots of fights. Robinson lost 19 times. Robinson winning the middleweight title 5 different times doesn't really prove he was the best because he lost that title often. How is that better than winning the title one time and never losing it the way Joe Louis won the heavyweight title and never lost it for all those years and 25 title defenses. Robinson was defeated by Basilio who was a welterweight and Robinson was easily defeated by Ralph Jones. Ali had a very hard time with Norton who was easily beaten by others. I am not saying your choices are wrong. I am saying it's just your opinion and others might disagree and chose two other great fighters instead and have plenty of good reasons for their choices and they are just as right or wrong as you are. It's opinion not provable fact.

Yea but Robinson loses came from a lot of bigger men. That wouldn't be sanctioned now a days.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Why no Greb or Langford? Greb’s resume takes a fat dump on Monzons. I understand if you are sort of going for the angle that there’s less (in Grebs case none) footage of the early 20th century guys and their styles seem far less developed but my personal criteria when I think ALL-TIME is to also measure relative to their eras. So I guess it comes down to preference in grading system there.

Greb is officially 1-2 w/ 2 newspaper decisions (1-1) vs. Tunney in Tunneys prime at Tunneys weight. The general consensus is that Greb was blatantly robbed in fight II & III with the secondly looking su****iously fixed given Tunneys good connections. Greb probably got the better of four of the fights according to the reports and accounts of the time.

MY personal all-time top 10 would look like :-

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Sam Langford
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Willie Pep
9. Eder Jofre
10. Joe Gans

I think 1-3 are fairly interchangeable, Armstrong is my clear bridge between 3 and 5 with 5-10 being interchangeable.

My honorable mentions (rough order) next 15 would be - Mickey Walker, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Gene Tunney, Bob Fitzsimmons, Barney Ross, Archie Moore, Sugar Ray Leonard, Tony Canzoneri, Packey Macfarland, Jimmy McLarnin, Carlos Ortiz, Carlos Monzon, Sandy Saddler, Jimmy Wilde. Probably forgetting a few there.

I honestly wouldn’t be able to rate Greb, Langford accurately due to the limited coverage.

I’ve seen enough of Tunney against Dempsey, Carpentier to make some sort of judgement. Plus I feel him and Benny Leonard were real pioneers stylistically, in terms of using defence in the form of footwork and lateral movement. Probably should have include Leonard, he’d have been my honourable mention.

I included Monzon because personally I would struggle to pick any Middleweight in history to beat him.

From what I’ve read of the series Greb won the first fight clearly, the second fight was contentious but the majority feel Greb done enough and was robbed. Tunney clearly outpointed Greb in the third fight, hurting him multiple times to the body. The fourth fight was extremely close, very indecisive reports on that one and then Tunney won convincingly in the 5th fight. I’ve read a lot more on Tunney than I have on Greb though so my judgement may be a little clouded.

It’s really hard to judge without any footage to go off, especially because the large majority of the media would have been bias.

[chirorickyp]

Who is the greatest boxer and the 2nd greatest boxer is a matter of opinion not provable fact. Robinson and Ali are popular choices but someone might two other great and famous boxers were better and you can't prove them wrong. So you should put an Ithink or an in my opinion Robinson and Ali were the 1st and 2nd greatest boxers in history rather than stating it as if it was a proven fact because it isn't.Neither Robinson or Ali were unbeatable. They both lost lots of fights. Robinson lost 19 times. Robinson winning the middleweight title 5 different times doesn't really prove he was the best because he lost that title often. How is that better than winning the title one time and never losing it the way Joe Louis won the heavyweight title and never lost it for all those years and 25 title defenses. Robinson was defeated by Basilio who was a welterweight and Robinson was easily defeated by Ralph Jones. Ali had a very hard time with Norton who was easily beaten by others. I am not saying your choices are wrong. I am saying it's just your opinion and others might disagree and chose two other great fighters instead and have plenty of good reasons for their choices and they are just as right or wrong as you are. It's opinion not provable fact.

Many good points. I disagree with one. Norton was not easily beaten by others. He was only easily beaten by George Foreman. In Norton's prime he won all him fights handily except when he fought Larry Holmes. That was one of the greatest heavyweight title fights EVER. Holmes won by split decision. The fight should have been a draw or it could have went Norton as well.
Norton's losses were at the end of his career past his prime and he was never the same after the Holmes fight. So a KO by Foreman and a questionable decision against Holmes does not make you easily beatable. Holmes and Foreman are ATG's

[chrisJS]

I honestly wouldn’t be able to rate Greb, Langford accurately due to the limited coverage.

I’ve seen enough of Tunney against Dempsey, Carpentier to make some sort of judgement. Plus I feel him and Benny Leonard were real pioneers stylistically, in terms of using defence in the form of footwork and lateral movement. Probably should have include Leonard, he’d have been my honourable mention.

I included Monzon because personally I would struggle to pick any Middleweight in history to beat him.

From what I’ve read of the series Greb won the first fight clearly, the second fight was contentious but the majority feel Greb done enough and was robbed. Tunney clearly outpointed Greb in the third fight, hurting him multiple times to the body. The fourth fight was extremely close, very indecisive reports on that one and then Tunney won convincingly in the 5th fight. I’ve read a lot more on Tunney than I have on Greb though so my judgement may be a little clouded.

It’s really hard to judge without any footage to go off, especially because the large majority of the media would have been bias.

I highly recommend reading the book "Harry Greb: Live fast, die young" by Stephen Compton. It's one of the best books I've ever read. Full of content he dug up and researched for over a decade. Got all kinds of reports, accounts of the fights etc; really enjoyable for anyone interested in that era. The reports of certain newspapers can be biased but they often had them from different cities and states though so there's neutrality there.

I've got no doubt Greb had the greatest resume in the history of the sport and to be honest the only thing keeping him from #1 is that I've seen Robinson and even reports of his day are astonished how well he holds up vs. history and he's probably the most talented boxer in history but I think it would be wrong of me to put Greb any lower than say 3. The Sam Langford book written by Clay Moyle is also superb and worth a read.

Yeah, Leonard is a real pioneer in a sense with his style and brilliantly nuanced skill. Same with Gans for his era.

Monzon was indeed great and I rate him very highly, perhaps as high as #3 all-time at middleweight though I think he'd have lost head-to-head to Robinson, Hagler, Jones from what I've seen.

[RuleOfTheSpear]

Alot of people easily forget Ali vs Foreman and the circumstances surrounding that fight.


Ali is the greatest and will remain the greatest

[McNulty]

Alot of people easily forget Ali vs Foreman and the circumstances surrounding that fight.


Ali is the greatest and will remain the greatest

That fight was fixed. Just like the Doug Jones, Ken Norton, Sonny Liston, and Earnie Shavers fights were fixed.

Fùck Ali, fùcking coward. Calling Joe Louis an Uncle Tom when that motherfùcker fought for our country, made sure blacks on deployment got to see him fight (he even paid for their tickets!!!), and fought Schmeling in the most intense representation of competition in sporting history. He repped the US vs Germany during WWII, nobody had that much pressure on them in any sporting event ever.

Ali was a pùssy and gets credit for race relations when he was a racist himself and against his own people!!!

His own people didn't even care about him and kept pushing him to fight when he got vegetized. They had to tie him to golf carts so he wouldn't fall off because he couldn't sit up on his own at the end doing Super Bowl appearances.

Joe Louis paved the WAY for black fighters, fought for his country, repped his country, and this piece of shít Ali calls him an Uncle Tom. Louis got such a bad deal with taxes he had to be a fùcking door greeter in Vegas to put food on the table. Luckily Sinatra helped him as best he could.

Max Schmeling helped with the funeral bill, where the fùck was Ali? He was making plenty of money. Even Mayweather came to the aid of Genaro Hernandez and payed for his funeral.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I highly recommend reading the book "Harry Greb: Live fast, die young" by Stephen Compton. It's one of the best books I've ever read. Full of content he dug up and researched for over a decade. Got all kinds of reports, accounts of the fights etc; really enjoyable for anyone interested in that era. The reports of certain newspapers can be biased but they often had them from different cities and states though so there's neutrality there.

I've got no doubt Greb had the greatest resume in the history of the sport and to be honest the only thing keeping him from #1 is that I've seen Robinson and even reports of his day are astonished how well he holds up vs. history and he's probably the most talented boxer in history but I think it would be wrong of me to put Greb any lower than say 3. The Sam Langford book written by Clay Moyle is also superb and worth a read.

Yeah, Leonard is a real pioneer in a sense with his style and brilliantly nuanced skill. Same with Gans for his era.

Monzon was indeed great and I rate him very highly, perhaps as high as #3 all-time at middleweight though I think he'd have lost head-to-head to Robinson, Hagler, Jones from what I've seen.

I’ll try and check it out, Greb has been a guy I’ve never got round to intrinsically studying. I’ve only read about him in a broader context tbf.

Monzon was just so difficult to beat at 160 IMO, mainly because he was so big and physically imposing, I think you can make the case SRR, Roy outpoint him, but I have a feeling his sheer physical size would’ve been too much for naturally smaller men like Robinson.
Completely subjective of course.