rating atg HW's in order is basically impossible.

[Ambling Alp]

Goon-I disagree with several of your points.

Frazier did win the first fight; however he didn't "whoop" Ali. It was a competitive fight.
Ali won the 2nd and 3rd fights. Frazier wasn't through after the Foreman fight. In fact in the 3rd fight with Ali, he fought one of the best fights of his career.
Given that Ali was older than Frazier, and had more fights than Frazier, it's hard to buy the excuse that Frazier was washed up when Ali beat him. You could make make a better case that Ali wasn't at his best in the first fight. The bottom line is that Ali won the series 2-1.

Ali was only one fight removed from a 3 and half year layoff and obviously wasn't as sharp as he could have been. Ali didn't look great in the Bonavena fight, but he still beat a very good fighter.

The Liston shoulder injury is a myth. He looked fine in the fight and was trying to land haymakers throughout the fight. There are even witnesses that saw him throw a chair after the fight.

Liston was a great fighter who got outclassed by someone who was even better.

Ali wasn't shot, but he was by no means in his prime when he beat Foreman in 1974. He was 2 years older when he fought Norton for the 2rd time in 1976, and clearly was past his best.

Ali didn't look good in the first Norton fight in 1973, and deserves some criticism for that. However, you have to balance that against all of his phenomenal achievements.

Ali's opponents during his title reign was pretty impressive. He had to beat Liston to win the title, and then defended the title 9 times in 3 years. (Probably would been atleast one more if it was for the hernia operation.) Brian London was by the worst opponent and even he almost knocked out Ingemar Johansson.
Patterson obviously was a great fighter, Chuvalo,Cooper,Mildenberger,Folley,Williams, Terrell were all very good fighters. They all had their weaknesses; but they stack up well against any other heavyweight champions title defenses. From 1964-1967, Ali was 10-0 in title fights, with 8 knockouts and two lopsided decisions. You can't get much more dominating than that.

If you want to you nitpick or spin anyone's career to where it doesn't look that great. Pick someone else and I would be glad to do it.
However, if you take an honest and good look at Ali's career, it's truly phenomenal.

[AngryGoon38]

frazier clearly beat ali in the 1st bout.i dont see why or how frazier would'nt beat 64-67 ali.
we can ultimately only specualte the entire scenario with all of its intracies and variables.
most people either say ali or tyson was the greatest,and then,some say louis.most people who say ali say so because they love his character and charisma above everything else they see.this is what impresses them the most about ali.his confidence and the way he talked and acted in front of the camera.also,the way he danced around in the ring.dancing around isnt a determiner of greatness though.ali had a heckuva jab but holmes's was actually better according to most experts.

foley and williams were way over the hill and were never that good to begin with.terrell would've lost pretty badly to holmes and probably would've been destroyed by tyson,foreman,louis or even marciano.holmes would've beaten terrell quite easily.chuvalo was extremely tough but thats about it.he really didnt do anything else very good at all.he was just extremely tough but very beatable.holmes would've pummled chuvalo.so would've louis,tyson,lewis,marciano and even someone like holyfield.

mildenburger was a southpaw and a bit tricky but very beatable for anyone with above average skill or a good puncher.
holmes would've beaten carl up quite badly without needing to figure him out.and tyson,louis,marciano,holyfield,foreman,liston(unless his ole shoulder popped out),lewis,bowe,etc,etc,would've destroyed mildenburger.

and as far as Cooper goes,he would get beat by guys like Tommy Morrison in my own honest opinion.
71 ali was better than 74 ali but people use the foreman fight to redeem ali even though he lost quite badly against norton the year before and thus,admit ali was washed up by the time he fought norton but then quickly turn around and say he beat foreman simply cuz he's the greatest...holmes would've beat foreman on that night as well.so would've alot of boxers.foreman looked like crap in that fight.it is so incredibly obvious.

frazier from 68-72 may very well have beat ali most of the time if you faced him against any version of ali.
frazier was clearly not the same anymore after the foreman bout in 73...foreman looked absolutely devastating in that bout and he was clearly looking dazed and sluggish right at the beginning of the 74 ali bout which has allready a lesser version of ali from the 71 version that got decisively beat by frazier.

people rate based on they're own preferances and alot of people naturally love ali because of his character and charisma.
he had an incredible personality and people love him for that.he had the greatest character personification in all of boxing history and people decide to rule out any other factors of consideration and basically determine him to be the greatest because he was such a beautifull character.a lovable character.someone with a great personality.someone who knew how to talk and entertain with his mannerisms and sayings.

on the other hand.there are plenty who say hands down,tyson's the best.they love how he looks in the spinks fight and this tells it all for them.they really dont consider anything else other than this particular bout and the pile of bums he destroyed with his brutal punches.they love his ferocity and the way HE talked as well.

it is all subjective.the hw division has too many variables and there are so many greats who had such amazing abilities whether they be toughness,slickness,brutality,or a combination of stuff like Larry Holmes for example.
the 64-67 ali didnt fight anyone like holmes.and liston did throw his shoulder out.thats why he quit on his stool.he was even with ali until his shoulder went out and you can clearly see that he doesnt throw the right with any power after a certain point in the bout.thus,leaving him not able to counterpunch or be aggressive anymore like he was early on in the fight.this bout just doesnt do it for me.

it doesnt tell me that ali was without a doubt,the greatest.i am always very very iffy when i hear either ali is no.1 or tyson is no.1...it is just simply wayyyy too subjective to me.this is the point of me making this thread.hw is just that type of division more so than any other division.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Frazier beat Ali in the first fight, & it was clear, but make no mistake --- it was close. I had it dead even going into the final round (though the momentum on my card was clearly with Frazier).

Clear, but certainly close, Frazier decision.

[Ambling Alp]

I had Frazier winning 9 rounds to 6. I had Ali winning the second fight 9-3, and was up 8-6 in the 3rd.
Getting back to the heavyweight division being subjective, well you can say that about anything.
The middleweight division is subjective. The lightweight division is subjective. Whether Abraham Lincoln was a better President than Richard Nixon is subjective.

That doesn't mean you can't make an unbiased, well informed opinon.

If someone wants to spin it that the Ali-Liston fight was somehow even and that Liston quit because of a bad shoulder instead of him getting beat up, fine.

If someone wants to pick apart Ali's opponents and not do the same with Tyson's, fine. (Which opponent that Tyson beat would have beat Ali?)
If someone wants to overlook at important factors such as Ali beating Liston,Frazier, and Foreman who were all far better than anyone Tyson ever beat, fine.
If someone wants to overlook that Tyson go knocked out by Buster Douglas, fine.
If someone wants to ignore that a 30 year old Tyson got stopped by a 34 year old Holyfield, fine.

However, if someone is going to look at important data with an unbiased and knowledgable point of view, they aren't going to say that it's hard to say if Ali was better than Tyson or even consider Tyson as the best of all time.

[BoxBuzz]

uh that Holyfield -Tyson statement should be multiplied by the power of 2.

[AngryGoon38]

i do not think that highly of Tyson Overall.

Liston obviously threw his shoulder out and thats why he quit.

before injuring his shoulder,the fight was relatively even.

Liston was allready past it by this time as well.Mostly from being rusty and inactive following the Patterson bouts.
Overall,i think more highly of Liston than i do of Tyson.I think more highly of Holmes,Louis and even Lennox Lewis as well.
I think that Tyson vs. Holyfield prime vs prime could go either way.i'm basically 50-50 on it.very much undecided.
I do think that Tyson was slightly more past it than Holy when they fought though,even though Holy is 4 years his senior.Holy was a young 34 and Tyson was quite an old 30 allready by that time.Tyson was a very very early bloomer.He matured very young but also pretty much burned out very young as well.

Liston obviously had shoulder problems.I think that Liston in his prime most likely would've beaten Prime Ali.
I think that most likely,a non drugged Foreman who is also not boxing in a grueling Zaire heat would likely Prevail Over Ali,especially the later stage Ali(1973+ version).That bout looks too fishy.Foreman looks so sluggish and gets all worn out so quick.I believe him when he says that he was drugged b4 the bout.Why would he lie about something like that?
Foreman looked absolutely nothing like he did against frazier and norton and the others when he boxed ali in the grueling zaire heat.he definately looks drugged as well.he just flat out doesnt look like himself.it is just too blatantly obvious.

I think that 68-72 frazier(pre-foreman fight) beats prime ali something like 6 outta 10 with one or two being even.
This is the way i honestly feel.

I DO admit that Ali would've probably had Joe Louis's number(at least most of the time) but not so much prime Tyson's number.
I definately think that Prime Holmes beats Ali 7 outta 10 prime for prime.or maybe 6-2-2 in favor of Holmes.
I think that Prime lennox Lewis is at least 50-50 with Prime Ali.1973+Ali gets beat badly by even a 2002 Version Of Lennox Lewis imo.

And even Floyd Patterson who had a bad back against Ali in bout 1,held his own fairly well until the back became too much of the handicap it allready was.I think that even prime Floyd Patterson would be 50-50 against prime Ali.Styles make fights and floyd had the speed in his prime and ali didnt have the punch to take him out like liston did twice in 1 round.

This is simply just how i honestly feel.I can never feel confident with deciding for whatever reason to proclaim ali as number 1.

[AngryGoon38]

and also,even though ali was also dealing with the zaire heat,he was barely doing anything for much of that bout.he was conserving his energy alot more than foreman was.he was letting george punch himself out by just lying on the ropes and the ref didnt do anything about it.anyone else would've been warned,penalized and even eventually dq'd or ruled as a tko victim for not punching back enough,which ali was not doing for much of that bout.

ali got away with alot in the ring because of the fear that people had of his outside connections.many people are aware of this...ali was very catered to throughout his carear and the liston 2 fight was clearly a fix.anyone who thinks otherwise,seriously doesnt know boxing or are seriously mentally challenged.or at least very delusional and very caught up in they're love for ali.

so yes,foreman punched himself out while bombing away his body punches on a rope a doping ali who was doing an illegal strategy that isnt allowed like that by anyone else.people need to wake up and realize these things b4 always undoubtably proclaiming with beloved affection towards there ali,that he's undoubtably no.1.
i just simply dont see it this way...it just seems funny how one side says clearly ali is no.1 without a doubt and then another group of casual fans say tyson is no.1....this is all quite funny if you really analyze everything out properly.

there are far too many variances to determining who's in what order on any given atg list.
i agree with the one who posted and said all divisions are subjective.true.i agree.but my point was that i think that it's especially prevelant to make this point with hw's,even more so than any other division.
with each division it should be a list of 5-10 who are a candidate for being the best but no definite's.
it is just funny to hear people give they're supposed definite's when there are clearly subjective and substaintial factors of serious analysis and carefully thought out consideration b4 ultimately and definately making ones conclusion of certainty.

[AngryGoon38]

more about Tyson now.

like i've allready said...i dont think THAT highly of Tyson,especially not like his legions of fanboys out there.

i would pick Prime Holmes,Prime liston,Prime Foreman,and Prime Louis to beat Prime Tyson.

and anyone who is at least 3rd tier and can either box a little and punch alot or box alot and punch a little has a definite chance against even a Prime Tyson.

Prime Ali could outbox Prime Tyson but he could also get caught by a left hook and not be able to recover or have it happen early in the round and get stopped.If Cooper was able to do what he did with his weaker(as compared to tyson) left hook,then just imagine a prime tyson letting loose with a vicious barrage of left hooks when ali is near the ropes.he would have to be running alot and have an exact gameplan just like any other given tier level boxer who has the potential to outbox tyson.
he certainly wouldnt have a punchers chance with prime tyson.he'd have to have an exact gameplan and fight very cautiously and precisely because prime tyson was faster than the liston that fought ali.and thats a definite given!

The Ali from 73 on up would be in a world of hurt against a prime tyson and that very same 74 version of ali who pulled off the fluke staunner against foreman in zaire would not have been able to get away with that rope ah dope stuff with a raging snarling 1988 version of tyson.you put the version of tyson who ko'd spinks in 1 round against the 74 zaire version of ali and ali gets beat badly imo...it is funny how people use the foreman bout as a big part of a redeeming factor in the ali legacy.like they really need to in order to justify his prior poor showings with norton.most peeps say norton should have won 2 of 3 against ali and ali clearly used cheating tactics with norton by leaning on his back all them times and the ref dont do nothing about it because he is afraid of ali's outside connections.

norton was a marine though and he wasnt afraid.the 73 bouts w/norton are necessatively overlooked in favor of the suppossed redeeming fight that the foreman bout was but the thing is,it is clear that ali was illegally doing rope ah dope and getting away with it enabling an allready drugged george to punch himself out while ali conserved his energy and was allowed to do all that illegal based rope ah dope stuff.

prime tyson would really hurt that version of ali even if he thought the rope ah dope would work for him.foreman didnt look very mean at all in that bout.he looks all dazed right from the get go.basically a lame starry eyed version of his true self.a shadow version basically.very clear indications that he simply wasnt himself that night.the 73 version that decked frazier all them times would've easily pounded ali outta there and so too,would've prime tyson,louis,lewis,holmes,and at least a good few others as well.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree with your comments; about 10% of them anyway.

[Cojimar 1945]

Rating heavyweights in terms of accomplishments seems rather straightforward and some guys clearly can be eliminated from the top spot. Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson are clearly not number 1 when it comes to accomplishments and I don't see how any argument to the contrary can be made.