1959-2009: The Greatest Fighter of the Last 50 Years

[I Feel Fine]

Ummm... bullshit.

[Collins2000]

Ummm... bullshit.

That's the pure stench of Elmo.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Ummm... bullshit.

Indeed, it is. Sorry, Elmer, but c'mon. Ali does get held up to unfair standards at times. I think we would all do well to remember the Ali who fought Norton, in spite of having great things ahead of him (pre-third fight), was not the Ali of his peak.

Yeah, he probably should've done better in three fights with Norton, but he did not lose all three fights. He was closer to winning than is ever credited in their first fight, & the second could legitimately have gone either way (I had it for Ali by a point, but there was no way Norton won it convincingly, if he won at all). The third fight was a robbery, yes, &, while Norton was just beginning to slip around this time, Ali was 90% finished, IMO.

I'll stop here, as any more defense of Ali on my part & poor Collins' head will explode.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Ali is the best fighter who we have full visual coverage of, we can see him from his first fight to his last fight on film, which we cannot do for those others, we can't see anything of Greb's or Langford's and we can only see the others mostly in their later years, with only some exceptions. Among fighters who we can objectively watch and judge for ourselves without having to read other people's reports, from the beginning to the end of their careers, Ali is the greatest of all time.

- It is this footage that has caused me to downgrade Ali. The footage too often doesn't match the walking on water accolades his supporters claim.

In fact, some of it downright stinks. This is what happens when a fighter's personality, magnetism and legend outstrip his ring performances. He becomes greater than the sum of his career.

Too many stinkers, controversial fights, and too many nefarious associations with Don King for me in the latter half of his career where he receives the most credit. I had stopped viewing him as a legit champ long before Leon upset him.

SRRobby was stilly pretty handy in 59, so technically he's the answer to the threat header. If Robby is discounted for being near his end, then Duran who was closer to unbeatable than Robby himself in their primes.

At any rate, the thread is running a beauty contest with the poll. Most can't come up with good reasons to defend their choices, they just know what they like.

[I Feel Fine]

Right, well that is what I was trying to say was that there is something to the idea of emphasizing this specific period where most of the fighters around had most/all of their fights filmed, so we can view them objectively and in their entirety. Obviously I disagree with your conclusions about Ali, but that is what I meant, was that for example maybe if we saw more of Ray Robinson at Welterweight we might see some decisions that were close and that some might call controversial, and that this might alter Ray's legacy. But because we don't have the film, people will always assume that Robinson was perfect at Welterweight... and maybe he was, but we'll never know for ourselves. Ali... or Duran, if you like, or Monzon or whoever... had most of their fights filmed, so we can view them objectively and decide without having to rely on other people's opinions of what happened.
And I am a fan of Ray Robinson, I should add, I am just using him as an example.

[elmersalsa]

Back in the 70s, the name of Muhammad Ali was the best thing that ever happened in boxing according to millions of fans. It is understandable since the MAJORITY of the world population don't know who is Eder Jofre nor Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles. People, the majority, tend to confuse POPULARITY AND FAME with greatness. The great Muhammad Ali was a great boxer, no doubt, but not the greatest pound per pound. He's probably the greatest heavyweight ever, and that's it. No doubt, that Ali was the most famous fighter ever, but the best of the last 50 years? No way. We got too look close at his fights, and his accomplishments.

To say that he had great challengers in the 60s, we got to see it in deph. None of the challengers were something of trouble. None of them were highly skilled. Sonny Liston was the only great fighter he beat in the 60s. Floyd Patterson was through at 30. Liston just destroyed him TWICE. George Chuvalo? nothing high to be about. Just a tough guy that you could outbox. Karl Middleberger? Henry Cooper? Cleveland Williams? Ernie Terrell? Brian London? They were already beaten by other boxers. The only great boxer waiting in the wings in his prime was the great Joe Frazier and by BAD CIRCUMSTANCES they never met in their primes. Ali's record in his prime was 29-0. Eder Jofre in his complete prime, in the 60s, was something about 52-0 or something like that. But, since Jofre was not even known by his own neighborhood, because of Brazil's love for Pele and Garrincha and Ali's robbing the headlines, this great fighter Jofre, was not the best NOR EVEN KNOWN. Plus, Jofre was not American and the TV in those days were not as advanced as is now, I could see why.

American fight fans and media would not let another fighter like Jofre, Carlos Monzon or Roberto Duran be recognized as better than Ali regarding their great accomplishments and that is the SAD TRUTH. Nationalism is a great part of it. Eder Jofre could match with Ali's accomplishments fighter by fighter, pound per pound, skill by skill. Jofre's opponents were not FAMOUS....They were good solid bantamweights. How can a bantamweight get more coverage on TV than a heavyweight?

Ali lost in THE BIGGEST AND MOST ANTICIPATED FIGHT OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
Ali lost to the same guy 3 times, but something the judge$$$$$ saw that was not right.
Ali was the Ring Fighter of the Year in 1978? What did he do? Beat in the rematch a MEDIOCRE fighter like Leon Spinks? When Wilfredo Gomez (WTKO5 Carlos Zarate) and Roberto Duran (WTKO12 Esteban DeJesus) had better highlights?....Gimmie a break. If this is not called Nationalism, then what is?

Ali at 36 was WASHED UP. Jofre and Duran are winning world titles and beating greater fighters at 37 years old?
Ali took 3 years off by BAD CIRCUMSTANCES....Duran was active for more than 34 years, beat guys bigger and more talented, and was a better lightweight champion than Ali was at heavyweight. Duran was more DOMINANT. NO COMPETITION.
Duran NEVER BEAT a washed up fighter or a fighter on the way down or a fighter below his weight class in his prime....THINK ABOUT IT.... Ali? you could count Patterson, you could count the great Archie Moore, you could count Bob Foster, you could count Frazier, because Frazier when he fought Ali the second and third times, WAS FINISHED.

Look at ESPNCLASSIC, it is all about Ali, MOST OF THE TIME. If we see his famous fights, The Fight of the Century with Frazier is not even shown. When was the last time we've seen that fight? In the other hand, We see The Thrilla in Manila for the millionth time?

This is very BIASED.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Floyd Patterson was through at 30. Liston just destroyed him TWICE.

- Like it or not, Americans made modern boxing what it is as a pro sport with some assistance from the world of course.

As such, yes there is some American bias in the IBHOF, but it truly does have some great international fighters in it. You've gone overboard on the nationalism point regarding Ali whom I used to be a bigger fan of before the Don King era. He was international and most in the world if asked to name the greatest fighter ever would name Ali in a landslide, no two ways about it.

So Ali may be overranked, but there's definitely a reason for it.

RE:Floyd Patterson. He actually improved as a fighter by a good margin after the Liston losses. He was not an astute boxer under D'amato, very clumsy on his feet with terrible balance, defending against obviously inferior fringe contender types mostly, but was exciting with leaping hooks putting fighters down when not hitting the deck himself. After his Liston losses he remade himself from scratch and actually started to learn the craft and the art of boxing. He became a more complete fighter who compiled an excellent post title record against the cream of the top 10, that's mainly why he made the IBHOF although wins over Moore and Ingo helped. I would pick the 37 yr old Floyd in his last fight, the Ali rematch against the Floyd in the middle of his title reign any day. Older Floyd was quite a bit sharper upstairs and his physical loss from prime was minimal, a better fighter at his retirement.

[I Feel Fine]

Some people on this forum have issues with Ali. Some people on this forum would need a whole team of psychologists to sort out their Ali issues.
Ali's title reign in the 60s was neither bad nor great... it was decent on average, on par with the kind of guys that Louis and Tyson and Holmes were fighting in their title reigns, though he won the belt from a fighter who was superior to anyone on Louis or Tyson or Holmes' resumes. Patterson was by no means finished after his defeats to Liston, as BRR pointed out, and had some of his biggest wins and best performances ahead of him. Certainly better than beating Cooney or Michael Spinks, and not too far off from beating a Schmeling.
If someone wants to rate '60s Jofre and '70s Duran ahead of '60s and '70s Ali, that's ok, and I might even agree with those statements. But career for career I would rate Ali higher, admitting that I could be wrong, but pointing out that they should not be that far apart. I think I gave fair arguments in an earlier post for why I rank Ali ahead of Duran, I could be wrong, but I don't think my arguments were unreasonable. Trying to suggest a nationalism bias against me is ad hominem and unfounded; Duran is one of my favorite fighters.
Ali losing the first Joe Frazier fight is significant, but not definitive. He was rusted, and won two rematches. No other fighter is downgraded for winning a trilogy 2-3, Duran against DeJesus for instance (Frazier ranks much higher than DeJesus), and neither should Ali be.
Most fighters are shot by 35-36.
Your use of ESPN Classic as some sort of conspiracy theorist evidence is frivolous as always... ESPN Classic shows more Joe Louis fights than Julio Cesar Chavez fights, that does not indicate to me that they have an anti-Chavez bias and I certainly am not going to rate Chavez ahead of Louis as a result, just to get back at this treacherous network. I have more pressing concerns in my daily life.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Some people on this forum have issues with Ali. Some people on this forum would need a whole team of psychologists to sort out their Ali issues.
Ali's title reign in the 60s was neither bad nor great... it was decent on average, on par with the kind of guys that Louis and Tyson and Holmes were fighting in their title reigns, though he won the belt from a fighter who was superior to anyone on Louis or Tyson or Holmes' resumes. Patterson was by no means finished after his defeats to Liston, as BRR pointed out, and had some of his biggest wins and best performances ahead of him. Certainly better than beating Cooney or Michael Spinks, and not too far off from beating a Schmeling.

- Hold it right there, bud, let's be clear here, young Tyson's 5 yr reign of terror is the best 5 yrs of heavyweight history when you combine his unparalleled ferocious excellence with the most overall talented array of title comp back to back in history.

Mark my words all you naysayers and twangwang yankeedoodlepooty boys, 10 consecutive title wins cleaning up big, strong prime talented champs Holmes ducked and blasted the faux Rocky designer jockstrap off of Mr. Larry hisself for good measure. Didn't just beat them, but obliterated them on the spot and/or shut down on the cards.

Matched head to head in sequential order, Patterson defenses are D- quality overall, Ali C quality, and Tyson A grade. I'd sure like to give Ali more credit than I do on these boards, but as long as I see the purple slurple Ali koolaide sippers making obscene Ali noises, I'll resurrect my original head to head match up of each first 10 title opponents and let you imagine what Mike Spinks or Tony Tucker does to Mildy, Sir Henry, Williams, London, Floyd, ect.

Officially, Ali doesn't become great until his comeback where he accumulates his first losses and is in against much better comp.

[Collins2000]

Some people on this forum have issues with Ali. Some people on this forum would need a whole team of psychologists to sort out their Ali issues.
Ali's title reign in the 60s was neither bad nor great... it was decent on average, on par with the kind of guys that Louis and Tyson and Holmes were fighting in their title reigns, though he won the belt from a fighter who was superior to anyone on Louis or Tyson or Holmes' resumes. Patterson was by no means finished after his defeats to Liston, as BRR pointed out, and had some of his biggest wins and best performances ahead of him. Certainly better than beating Cooney or Michael Spinks, and not too far off from beating a Schmeling.

- Hold it right there, bud, let's be clear here, young Tyson's 5 yr reign of terror is the best 5 yrs of heavyweight history when you combine his unparalleled ferocious excellence with the most overall talented array of title comp back to back in history.

Mark my words all you naysayers and twangwang yankeedoodlepooty boys, 10 consecutive title wins cleaning up big, strong prime talented champs Holmes ducked and blasted the faux Rocky designer jockstrap off of Mr. Larry hisself for good measure. Didn't just beat them, but obliterated them on the spot and/or shut down on the cards.

Delusional or what?

[I Feel Fine]

Tyson's opposition in his first title reign was average, as was Ali's in the 60s. Ali was not only a great fighter but a hall of famer before he ever had a fight in the 70s. 60s Ali was the best Heavyweight ever to put on a pair of gloves. Tyson fans never learn.
Tyson's win over Michael Spinks will go down as one of the most overrated accomplishment in boxing history.
Tyson's reign of terror was real impressive when Douglas bounced him around the ring like a sock puppet.

[elmersalsa]

Tyson's opposition in his first title reign was average, as was Ali's in the 60s. Ali was not only a great fighter but a hall of famer before he ever had a fight in the 70s. 60s Ali was the best Heavyweight ever to put on a pair of gloves. Tyson fans never learn.
Tyson's win over Michael Spinks will go down as one of the most overrated accomplishment in boxing history.
Tyson's reign of terror was real impressive when Douglas bounced him around the ring like a sock puppet.

I agree with you on that, Tyson's reign compared to Ali's is not close. At least Ali's opponents in the 60s were better technicians. Tyson in 1988 was the greatest fighter in the world. Ali in 1965 was the greatest in the world. Both of them very famous.

[elmersalsa]

Some people on this forum have issues with Ali. Some people on this forum would need a whole team of psychologists to sort out their Ali issues.
Ali's title reign in the 60s was neither bad nor great... it was decent on average, on par with the kind of guys that Louis and Tyson and Holmes were fighting in their title reigns, though he won the belt from a fighter who was superior to anyone on Louis or Tyson or Holmes' resumes. Patterson was by no means finished after his defeats to Liston, as BRR pointed out, and had some of his biggest wins and best performances ahead of him. Certainly better than beating Cooney or Michael Spinks, and not too far off from beating a Schmeling.
If someone wants to rate '60s Jofre and '70s Duran ahead of '60s and '70s Ali, that's ok, and I might even agree with those statements. But career for career I would rate Ali higher, admitting that I could be wrong, but pointing out that they should not be that far apart. I think I gave fair arguments in an earlier post for why I rank Ali ahead of Duran, I could be wrong, but I don't think my arguments were unreasonable. Trying to suggest a nationalism bias against me is ad hominem and unfounded; Duran is one of my favorite fighters.
Ali losing the first Joe Frazier fight is significant, but not definitive. He was rusted, and won two rematches. No other fighter is downgraded for winning a trilogy 2-3, Duran against DeJesus for instance (Frazier ranks much higher than DeJesus), and neither should Ali be.
Most fighters are shot by 35-36.
Your use of ESPN Classic as some sort of conspiracy theorist evidence is frivolous as always... ESPN Classic shows more Joe Louis fights than Julio Cesar Chavez fights, that does not indicate to me that they have an anti-Chavez bias and I certainly am not going to rate Chavez ahead of Louis as a result, just to get back at this treacherous network. I have more pressing concerns in my daily life.

Yeah right, Ali beat Frazier when Frazier was damaged goods by the great George Foreman....Of matter of fact, Frazier was OVER when he beat Ali. He left all his prime in the Fight of the Century. His next 2 title defenses in 1972 were pitiful, STRUGGLING, against NOBODIES.

Of course ESPN is going to show Joe Louis fights more than Julio Cesar Chavez...Louis is an AMERICAN. If Chavez were a blue eyed American, with that record, we would have calling the greatest fighter ever. At least ESPN would have called him that.

Patterson did not beat NOBODY SPECTACULAR after his losses to the great Sonny Liston. Eddie Machen was not spectacular. George Chuvalo was not spectacular. Neither Henry Cooper. They were class C fighters at best.

It is a shame when you are just a heavyweight...You get blown up more than it should be by the stupid media.

[I Feel Fine]

I agree with your last line about Heavyweights getting too much attention. Other than that... I think I've said what I have to say. Frazier was not shot after the first fight, and he never met Ali in Ali's prime either. He beat a rusted Ali, and lost the trilogy... he and his fans make a lot of excuses.

[elmersalsa]

Frazier probably was not totally shot, but he was not the machine of the late 60s and early 70s...I know you would not admit that Frazier left everything at The Fight of the Century in New York. Was Ali the same after the 3 year layoff? Not at all. But when they fought the second time Ali was the fresher of the two.

Frazier in 1972 and up was not the same of the 1967-71 period.

[I Feel Fine]

I could go through this debate again, but I have said what I have to say already, and I will refer you to my prior posts. Frazier was at no disadvantage in their rematch in the Garden, they were both middle aged fighters. The same cannot be said for Ali in the first fight. Neither fighter beat the other in their prime, but Ali won the trilogy and this means more than losing the first fight. It is arbitrary and very convenient for Frazier fans to make the first fight the be all and end all, but this does not hold up. Just because you are no longer at your peak does not mean that you get excused for every loss that you have... otherwise Ali is undefeated. Fighters who are shot, who clearly should be in retirement, can get some leeway... Frazier against Cummings, Ali against Spinks, Tyson against McBride... but neither Ali nor Frazier were finished as fighters before Manila.
Again, I don't see anyone ranking DeJesus above Duran.

[bjermaine]

the greatest fighter of the last 50 years is ali imo. nice poll but i think there's one glaring omission. you might want to include the fighter of the decade in the 90s.

[elmersalsa]

the greatest fighter of the last 50 years is ali imo. nice poll but i think there's one glaring omission. you might want to include the fighter of the decade in the 90s.

Pernell Whitaker bar none was the best of the 90s...He is in the poll.

[elmersalsa]

I could go through this debate again, but I have said what I have to say already, and I will refer you to my prior posts. Frazier was at no disadvantage in their rematch in the Garden, they were both middle aged fighters. The same cannot be said for Ali in the first fight. Neither fighter beat the other in their prime, but Ali won the trilogy and this means more than losing the first fight. It is arbitrary and very convenient for Frazier fans to make the first fight the be all and end all, but this does not hold up. Just because you are no longer at your peak does not mean that you get excused for every loss that you have... otherwise Ali is undefeated. Fighters who are shot, who clearly should be in retirement, can get some leeway... Frazier against Cummings, Ali against Spinks, Tyson against McBride... but neither Ali nor Frazier were finished as fighters before Manila.
Again, I don't see anyone ranking DeJesus above Duran.

See, you don't want to admit that Frazier was not the same guy. C'mon man. Frazier after the Fight of the Century was not even near of the fighting machine that he was in the 70s. He only had guts alone. Ali was not KO'd LIKE Frazier got when he fought Big George. That was a brutal KO that takes a lot of a individual. That Frazier was not in any DISADVANTAGE? Compare Frazier's fights before The Fight of The Century and then after that

[bjermaine]

the greatest fighter of the last 50 years is ali imo. nice poll but i think there's one glaring omission. you might want to include the fighter of the decade in the 90s.

Pernell Whitaker bar none was the best of the 90s...He is in the poll.

i guess there was a big mistake when jones was voted fighter of the decade. :) if you think whitaker was the better fighter in the 90s, i'm not going to argue but not including jones in the poll is silly.

[I Feel Fine]

Elmer, you're not reading what I'm saying, so there's no reason to answer you. Frazier never met Ali in Ali's prime either... tattoo it on your ass.
And, sure, I agree that Whitaker is better than Roy, but he could have been in the poll.

[elmersalsa]

Elmer, you're not reading what I'm saying, so there's no reason to answer you. Frazier never met Ali in Ali's prime either... tattoo it on your ass.
And, sure, I agree that Whitaker is better than Roy, but he could have been in the poll.

Ali had a 3 year layoff. He might not be in his prime, but he was fresher than Smokin Joe...That is a fact.

The facts are:
Ali was not in his prime when Frazier beat him.
Frazier was not in his prime in the second and third fights with Ali
Ali was fresher than Frazier
Ali had a 3 year layoff of bad circumstances
Ali lost 3 times to the same guy...Ken Norton...The judges saw $$$$$ bills
Roy Jones, Jr did not meet THE VERY BEST in his prime...Pernell Whitaker did.

[I Feel Fine]

World's smallest violin playing for Frazier. He lost the trilogy, deal with it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"Frazier never met Ali in Ali's prime either... tattoo it on your ass..." - IFF

LOL!

Whitaker, whether you think he deserves the mantle or not, is at a disadvantage when compared for the title with Jones, who came along later, & therefore had more prime years in that decade than the older, earlier-debuting Whitaker.

[elmersalsa]

World's smallest violin playing for Frazier. He lost the trilogy, deal with it.

That is another TRUE FACT...Nobody is denying that. But you are denying that Ali lost the biggest fight of his career in the biggest night in boxing.

I am not playing violin for Smokin' Joe...I am just stating the facts. Deal with it, pal.