Where do you rank Ali pound for pound all-time?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hearns was significantly greater than Dempsey or Marciano. He falls quite a bit short of Moore.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I am sorry that feel that I twisted your words. I did not mean to.
As for Ali vs Duran, I don't see how you think duran beat as good as competition. Frazier, Liston, and Foreman were all top 15 heavyweights. Leonard is the fighter Duran ever beat that was even in the top 30 of a weight class. Ali certainly beat as many good fighters as Duran and his loss losses were much less embarrassing and few of them.

Its easy to say that ali would have been knokced out more than Pep if he had fought as much. However that is pure specualtion. Ali never came close to being knokced out anywhere near his prime. The only time he didn't go the distance was when he 38 and had not fought in two years against Holmes.
Ali could not have kept up with Peps schedule? He beat more contenders than Pep. He certainly could have fought a lot of nobodies and not got knocked out.

Pre-layoff Ali would have been knocked cold by Frazier? Please. Frazier best shot put Ali down for a three count. He would have hit Ali a lot less. Ali wins atleast 10 rounds. Of course, if you are comparing resumes, it does not matter what we think would have happended.

As for Armstrong, Greb, Robinson and Langford? I agree that they were (along with Charles) were the best, but I include Ali along with them. You want me to compare Ali to them?
Well how about Armstrong?
They each beat the same amount of Top contederns(33). They both beat a lot of good-great fighters.
Armstrong's best victims were Ross and Ambers. I would rate Frazier and Foreman with them.
After that Wolgast, Angott and was 2-2 against Arizmendi. I would rate Liston, Norton, and Patterson with them.
After that, Armstrong beat Petey Sarron, Jenkins, and was 1-2 against Zivic. And Ali beat Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry.

The competition that Ali and Armstrong beat is very close. You also have consider that Armstrong lost to some less than great fighters-Joe Conde, Ritchie Fontaine,Davey Abad.

A lot of this boils down to how much credit you give a great fighter for beating a journeyman or worse. I give a great fighter very little credit for doing that. I don't hold it against them, but I think don't it means anything.
For example I don't give Ali credit for beat Richard Dunn or Coopman. I give him some credit for beating guys like Quarry and, Ellis. I give him alot of credit for beat Liston, Frazier and Foreman.

If you think Armstrong had the better resume fine. However if you say that it is not close than you really are not looking at it closely.
Quality is a lot more important than quantity.

No feeling, you've definitely been twisting crap." name me the 10 guys who clearly have better resumes than Ali" How about this? Honestly at this point you're boring me tears. You don't even respond to anything I say. You just repeat the same poop over and over and over. There is nothing on earth you could possibly say or write that would put Ali over Armstrong for me. The resume just isn't there.

Why don't you try making your own list or writing a book about your hero? There is no point carrying on with this. Your Ali love is too much for me and I'm a fan. I'm sure you can find someone else to try and tear down Henry Armstrong with. I'm sure Jesus is game. That wont fly with me. at the way you're trying to bring Ali to light because a guy like Hank lost more fights. Ray Robinson lost to ralph Jones. How long before you get into that? That is shameful. I thought you were a rational poster, I guess I just never wondered into your Ali wheelhouse. You're making me yearn for Granberry.
Duran gets the same treatment. He fought until he was almost 50 and across 10 weight classes. Embarrassing losses? You're embarrassing yourself. he was something along the lines of 78-2 when he left Welterweight. Ali never even approached that many fights. A top30 Lightweight is akin to a top 15 Heavyweight and if Dejesus & buchanan don't make that cut, I'd love to see that ;list. Why don't you work on that? I'd be interested in reading that far more than this futile crusade against my placement of your hero.

The complete lack of objectivity in your posts about Pep, Armstrong & Duran is just unreal. I don't know how you can write that with a straight face. Maybe you're not serious at all. I sure would hope not. You really dug deep on Henry's resume.

As for the rest of the post. I couldn't care less anymore. Somehow, someway you will have to sleep at night knowing that Muhammad isn't in my all time top 10 and there is no chance in the world that he ever will be. The last list I did he came in behind Joe Louis at #13( yup he isn't even my #1 Heavy!), if that is "hating" and not looking at things closely, so be it. I'm sorry that hurts you so deeply. Buck up little trooper

I'm still here. I don't have Ali in the Top One Hundred.

Sorry man, I barely knew the original and this impression is horrible. He would have 50 posts in this thread. You waited way too long to chime in. You're also not nearly seething enough. It's like you've never read Granberry's rage.

[Darling]

A low grade imitation of the great man.

LOL

[Ambling Alp]

I will answer each of your statements in black.

I never said Buchanan & dejesus were better than Frazier or Foreman. There you go again twisting words. You don't understand? I've given you one example after another. My statement was their resumes are close enough that Duran being better offensively & defensively seals the deal for me.

You said earlier: Leonard, Buchanan, Marcel, DeJesus, Palomino, Barkley & Cuevas compare just fine with Foreman, frazier, Liston, Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Shavers"

I said that I don't think they do and said why. I never said you thought they were better. So you are the one twisting my words.

And yet again I said about 100 posts ago that it is arguable. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? I'm not acting condescending, I'm fending off a stalker off of a stupid mythical list. I'm condescending and yet you are arguing with me about what I said is arguable? This whole thing has surprised me. If I hadn't read a lot of your posts I would have just dropped you on ignore a while ago. There is nothing worse on line than someone just twisting around every word you say to suit their own posts. Yeah, you don't know what I'm talking about and yet you will do it again in the next post.

I am not criticizing you personally. You have done that to me. Now you say WTF is wrong with me? Wow, what class.

And no I am not twisting your words.

You broke down Armstrong and Ali resume for resume? Really? The whole 3 title thing, I'm sure you've heard of it, doesn't factor into the rankings? You go into great detail on the ones I said are arguable. I'll give you that much. But even then your posts reek of bias.

Of course I realize Armstrong had 3 titles had the same time. Of course I factor it in. I didn't think it was necessary to mention. Just like I don't mention every very obvious thing about Ali either.
I certainly don't try to be biased. I have been comparing apples to apples as much possible when comparing two fighters from vastly different weight class who fought in different eras. I rank fighters that I can't stand over guys that I like quite often.

You've typed 10,000 words in here and have yet to produce a list other than that laughable top 30 Lightweights that you can't possibly think Buchanan & dejesus don't belong in. At least I know the degree of stubborness I am dealing with here. Clearly you started doing it and realized they should be between 20 and 30 so you had to toss in fighters like DLH that barely scratched the surface of the weight. Run that resume breakdown for me. DelaHoya vs Dejesus & Buchanan at 135. I'll get the popcorn for that.

I made a list over 4 years ago rating lightweights that I posted on this forum. I have done a little tweaking but basically it is the same.
De la Hoya barely scratches the surface? He had more fights at lightweight than any other weight class. He beat some very good fighters like Leija,Ruelas, Hernandez and Molina. He looked better at that weight class than any other. So no, I am not just making things up as I go along.

Head to head, De La Hoya vs Buchanan? I would go with De la hoya.

Put up your top 10 . That's a reasonable request after all of your novels and criticism. Put up or shut up.

My top 10? Well you never asked for it before, but fine.
1.Robinson
2. Ali
3. Armstrong
4. Charles
5. Greb
6. Langford
7. Leonard
8. Monzon
9. Pep
10. Moore

Of course there are a lot of close calls. Reasonable and knowledgable people can disagree on some of these. I weigh the quality of opponents they beat vs defeats. The stage of careers of the fighter I am rating and their opponents are a big part of this. I really don't care too much about the sheer number of wins (which seems to be a big factor for you since you bring it up a number of times; but I don't want to twist your words.) Any great fighter could have as many wins as he wanted to against journeyman.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Not bad, Ali is predictably too high. Other than that the only one not in my top 10 is Monzon. As for the rest of your blabbering. * Yawns*, you're arguing with yourself. I never said ali couldn't rate over Duran. Not for one second.

I'm done with you.

[GranberryReturns]

A lot of rancor in this thread.

[raylawpc]

1.Robinson
2. Ali
3. Armstrong
4. Charles
5. Greb
6. Langford
7. Leonard
8. Monzon
9. Pep
10. Moore

To which Leonard do you refer - Benny or Ray?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Think it's safe to say he's referring to the Sugarman --- Alp is a huge fan

[dempseyfire]

Did I just read that Mercer would have KO'd Frazier? The Mercer who tried to bribe Ferguson to take a dive mid-fight and who got chased around the ring by Marion Wilson?? Frazier would've not only beaten Mercer but his work-rate would've forced a late stoppage on a completly gassed Ray.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Think it's safe to say he's referring to the Sugarman --- Alp is a huge fan

Oh, I assumed he meant benny. i'd have a problem with that too. But not big enough for 2 more pages and 100,000 words. Being trained by the same guy as ali has to bump Ray up 5 to 10 places.

I don't really see how anyone can rank Ray over Duran, regardless of where they are placed.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Alp & I recently discussed who should rank higher all-time --- Duran, or Leonard. In the end, we simply had to agree to disagree.

[Ambling Alp]

1.Robinson
2. Ali
3. Armstrong
4. Charles
5. Greb
6. Langford
7. Leonard
8. Monzon
9. Pep
10. Moore

To which Leonard do you refer - Benny or Ray?

Ray.
I weigh the quality of opponents they beat vs defeats. The stage of careers of the fighter I am rating and their opponents are a big part of this. I really don't care too much about the sheer number of wins .
Any great fighter could have as many wins as he wanted to against journeyman.

Benitez,Duran, Hearns, Hagler. Those are better wins than Duran, Pep,Monzon Benny Leonard. Moore had several losses. Leonards loss near his prime was a tough decision loss to a great fighter (Duran.)

Obviously on this forum this invites criticism. There is always an excuse for his opponents.

[Goodnight, Irene]

With total, sincere respect Alp --- More had something like FIVE TIMES the number of fights Leonard did. It is a poor criticism.

[Ezzard]

It all depends on your methodology for rating a fighter.

I essentially believe in (a) ability (b) achievement and (c) longevity.

I don't really understand the defeats aspect. First of all it doesn't translate across eras. Secondly you end up promoting fighters who took fewer risks and fought less. Thirdly... I can’t talk for US sports but in the UK it’s more common to discuss what teams and athletes have achieved. Nobody would ever demote Spain, the current football world champions, because they lost their opening game to Switzerland. It would be simply absurd to do so. I’ve never heard of a tennis player being criticised for getting knocked out of some small tournament if they’ve won grand slams. Nobody talks about the tournaments a golf player didn’t win. I don’t see why boxing should be a different case and I don’t see why we fans have to be so critical.

But that’s just my opinion.

I also don’t feel like I should be forcing my way of rating boxers on other fans.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It all depends on your methodology for rating a fighter.

I essentially believe in (a) ability (b) achievement and (c) longevity.

I don't really understand the defeats aspect. First of all it doesn't translate across eras. Secondly you end up promoting fighters who took fewer risks and fought less. Thirdly... I can’t talk for US sports but in the UK it’s more common to discuss what teams and athletes have achieved. Nobody would ever demote Spain, the current football world champions, because they lost their opening game to Switzerland. It would be simply absurd to do so. I’ve never heard of a tennis player being criticised for getting knocked out of some small tournament if they’ve won grand slams. Nobody talks about the tournaments a golf player didn’t win. I don’t see why boxing should be a different case and I don’t see why we fans have to be so critical.

But that’s just my opinion.

I also don’t feel like I should be forcing my way of rating boxers on other fans.

[raylawpc]

It all depends on your methodology for rating a fighter.

I essentially believe in (a) ability (b) achievement and (c) longevity.

I don't really understand the defeats aspect. First of all it doesn't translate across eras. Secondly you end up promoting fighters who took fewer risks and fought less. Thirdly... I can’t talk for US sports but in the UK it’s more common to discuss what teams and athletes have achieved. Nobody would ever demote Spain, the current football world champions, because they lost their opening game to Switzerland. It would be simply absurd to do so. I’ve never heard of a tennis player being criticised for getting knocked out of some small tournament if they’ve won grand slams. Nobody talks about the tournaments a golf player didn’t win. I don’t see why boxing should be a different case and I don’t see why we fans have to be so critical.

But that’s just my opinion.

I also don’t feel like I should be forcing my way of rating boxers on other fans.

Excellent post. (Although you threw me for a minute saying Spain was "football world champion" . . , then I remembered what you call football, we call soccer. Not that it matters: Soccer and American football are for pussies. I turned my interest to rugby - a real man's game - a long time ago. )

[Goodnight, Irene]

Rugby Yawnion? That, "real man's game," owing its origins & history to a bunch of private-school ponces & priviledged rich kids?

League is the game for real men 8)

[raylawpc]

Rugby Yawnion? That, "real man's game," owing its origins & history to a bunch of private-school ponces & priviledged rich kids?

League is the game for real men 8)

I like union and league. And I prefer either to American football or soccer.

[hhaehre]

Rugby Yawnion? That, "real man's game," owing its origins & history to a bunch of private-school ponces & priviledged rich kids?

League is the game for real men 8)

Damn straight, go Broncos!

[raylawpc]

Rugby Yawnion? That, "real man's game," owing its origins & history to a bunch of private-school ponces & priviledged rich kids?

League is the game for real men 8)

Damn straight, go Broncos!

You Bogans are so rubbish at the sport that you had to go out and invent one that nobody but you would want to play.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Except it was invented by the English

Besides, if popularity is your criteria for criticism, you should be a positive groupie for the one true world game, no? 8)

[Ezzard]

It all depends on your methodology for rating a fighter.

I essentially believe in (a) ability (b) achievement and (c) longevity.

I don't really understand the defeats aspect. First of all it doesn't translate across eras. Secondly you end up promoting fighters who took fewer risks and fought less. Thirdly... I can’t talk for US sports but in the UK it’s more common to discuss what teams and athletes have achieved. Nobody would ever demote Spain, the current football world champions, because they lost their opening game to Switzerland. It would be simply absurd to do so. I’ve never heard of a tennis player being criticised for getting knocked out of some small tournament if they’ve won grand slams. Nobody talks about the tournaments a golf player didn’t win. I don’t see why boxing should be a different case and I don’t see why we fans have to be so critical.

But that’s just my opinion.

I also don’t feel like I should be forcing my way of rating boxers on other fans.

Excellent post. (Although you threw me for a minute saying Spain was "football world champion" . . , then I remembered what you call football, we call soccer. Not that it matters: Soccer and American football are for pussies. I turned my interest to rugby - a real man's game - a long time ago. )

Hi Ray,

They analyse past and prsent rugby greats in the same way.

[Ambling Alp]

It all depends on your methodology for rating a fighter.

I essentially believe in (a) ability (b) achievement and (c) longevity.

I don't really understand the defeats aspect. First of all it doesn't translate across eras. Secondly you end up promoting fighters who took fewer risks and fought less. Thirdly... I can’t talk for US sports but in the UK it’s more common to discuss what teams and athletes have achieved. Nobody would ever demote Spain, the current football world champions, because they lost their opening game to Switzerland. It would be simply absurd to do so. I’ve never heard of a tennis player being criticised for getting knocked out of some small tournament if they’ve won grand slams. Nobody talks about the tournaments a golf player didn’t win. I don’t see why boxing should be a different case and I don’t see why we fans have to be so critical.

But that’s just my opinion.

I also don’t feel like I should be forcing my way of rating boxers on other fans.

I believe in ability, achievement, ability, and longevity as well. However you have to ask yourself questions:
1. By achievement, what exactly do you mean? To mean, it's who you beat (and when). I think to others it's more about collecting titles. I think winning a title against a great fighter is much different than winning some WBS paper title against some mediocre opponent.

2.Ability-To me that is how they look on film. Of course some guys aren't on film. Others only a handful of fights.

3.Longevity-To mean that has to be produict longeivity. Not just beating journeyman when you are in your 40's.

-You also have to decide if all three are just as important. I feel that if a fighter fought enough to win more major fights in a short career than a nother fighter in a long career, the fighter with the shorter career has the edge.

As for defeats, I think they certainly have to count. A defeat tells you something. It (usually) means that the fighter was not as good as someone else on that day. They tell you more than a 100 wins over journeyman. That has to be a factor in rating someone.

Of course some count more heavily than others. A close decision loss should count more against you than if you were dominated. (ie-Jimmy Youngs loss to Norton is different than Duane Bobick's)
In fact a close loss to say Ray Robinson is more impressive than a win over almost anyone else.

More importantly is who you lost to. A loss to a great fighter should not be held against you nearly as much as to an inferior one.
Of course a loss when you are on your way up or way past your prime should not count. (Nor should a win over a great fighter not near his prime.)

You have to weigh all of this. In the case of an Archie Moore, he did have some losses periodically throughout his career, in his 20's his 30's, his 40's. Some were to great opponents and some were not. You have to sift through all that and then compare that to his many major wins. He may be the hardest fighter of all to rate.

Probably the hardest thing of all is to be fair. It's very easy to rate fighters that you like over guys that you don't. Sometimes your guy is better and sometimes he isn't.

[raylawpc]

Except it was invented by the English

Besides, if popularity is your criteria for criticism, you should be a positive groupie for the one true world game, no? 8)

I used the phrase "bogan" to describe the kind of mindset that dumbed down union rugby to create league rugby. I didn't limit that mindset geographically, and used bogan because I know its a common term in Oz. A bogan is a bogan whether in England or America, and even if called something else in those places.

Who said popularity was my criteria? I like union rugby better than league rugby because I think it is better rugby. Period. Believe me, popularity has nothing to do with it. I am among only a handful of Americans who prefer rugby over NFL football.