Is Muhammad Ali Overrated?

[crusader]

yes, im not saying he isnt a top 20 heavyweight maybe lower top 10 but most of his reputation is based on the foreman and frasier fights and his anti war stance

Since he is in the lower top ten according to you, could you please name the fighters you think had betterv careers or could beat him head to head.

in no order

Lewis
Louis
Holyfield
johnson
holmes
tyson
foreman (his 2nd career pushes him ahead of ali for me)


that would make ali 8 in my list

i also think vitali and bowe in there respective primes would beat ali but there careers are inferior so i rank them bellow

[ThatOne]

I agree with the exception of the third Norton fight. For the record I rate Ali as an all time great but I still think he is overrated by many.

I understand the backlash. Michael Jordan suffers the same backlash in basketball. Fans get tired of being bombarded with so and so is the greatest all the time.

Ray Robinson was probably the best pfp fighter.

But Ali is inarguably the most famous boxer to have ever lived. I know some folks will say Dempsey but I just don't think he's the same worldwide figure.

Its not the fairest of comparisons, though. Dempsey fought in an era where there was less exposure. Even so, there are newspaper accounts of Dempseys exploits from places like New Zealand, FFS...in the 20's! Gotta give that Tex Rickard his due.

Ali is a Muslim and the most famous Muslim athlete of all time, by far... This gives him a fan base of almost two billion people to start.

[ryanst1982]

I was just getting up off the floor at suggestions Lennox Lewis is above Ali on all time rankings, when bang im out for the count at suggestion vitali would best Ali.

Come on Adam, all due respect that is astonishing. Im English so Lewis holds a place in my heart but Ali would outb ox him for 12 rounds leaving him panting for air by round 7 after chasing Ali all over the ring.

And vitali, he gets destroyed anyway Ali choses though probably on cuts, or a decision where Ali takes every round
Ali was a true great. Im not denying his legacy outside the ring has elevated what he did in it which is wrong. But I feel its gone to far the other way now and people have forgotten the boxer. The skill of the early days and the courage, heart and commitments of the late one. Not greatest boxer of all time but, for me greatest hw of all time.

[Rambo]

I understand the backlash. Michael Jordan suffers the same backlash in basketball. Fans get tired of being bombarded with so and so is the greatest all the time.

Ray Robinson was probably the best pfp fighter.

But Ali is inarguably the most famous boxer to have ever lived. I know some folks will say Dempsey but I just don't think he's the same worldwide figure.

Its not the fairest of comparisons, though. Dempsey fought in an era where there was less exposure. Even so, there are newspaper accounts of Dempseys exploits from places like New Zealand, FFS...in the 20's! Gotta give that Tex Rickard his due.

Ali is a Muslim and the most famous Muslim athlete of all time, by far... This gives him a fan base of almost two billion people to start.

fanbase of 2 billion? I doubt every single muslim cares about boxing, Zinedine Zidane is probably more famous than him(in muslim countries) being more recent and a much more popular sport

[ThatOne]

Its not the fairest of comparisons, though. Dempsey fought in an era where there was less exposure. Even so, there are newspaper accounts of Dempseys exploits from places like New Zealand, FFS...in the 20's! Gotta give that Tex Rickard his due.

Ali is a Muslim and the most famous Muslim athlete of all time, by far... This gives him a fan base of almost two billion people to start.

fanbase of 2 billion? I doubt every single muslim cares about boxing, Zinedine Zidane is probably more famous than him(in muslim countries) being more recent and a much more popular sport

I can't take a poll. But I suspect most Muslims know who Muhammad Ali is and would prefer him against a generic opponent. JMO.

[addi]

i can understand the argument about where he ranks all time or even in the heavyweight div. these things are a matter of opinion but overrated, never no way no how.

[BO Selecta]

Reading some of the replies on this thread makes me think that the title question should be, "IS MUHAMMAD ALI UNDERRATED?"

Ali lost twice in his prime? What? He was in his prime in 1971 & 1973, when his legs had clearly gone & his primary asset was robbed of him?

Jimmy Young had faster hands than Ali? OK, I accept that he had faster hands than the 34 year old that he faced, but in terms of handspeed, Jimmy Young should never be mentioned in the same breath as Ali.

Ali lost to Spinks, therefore he was not really that good? A 36 year old in the early throws of Parkinson's Syndrome (although we didn't know it at the time) loses an admittedly embarrassing decision & that is somehow justification for saying he wasn't really that good?

[hhaehre]

Reading some of the replies on this thread makes me think that the title question should be, "IS MUHAMMAD ALI UNDERRATED?"

Ali lost twice in his prime? What? He was in his prime in 1971 & 1973, when his legs had clearly gone & his primary asset was robbed of him?

His legs were not gone in 1971-73. Some of the biggest bullshit I hear is how diminished Ali was post layoff. What little he had lost in speed and mobility hardly constitute "having lost his primary asset". And just for the record Ali's primary asset was never legs, speed or any other physical attribute.

[ThatOne]

Reading some of the replies on this thread makes me think that the title question should be, "IS MUHAMMAD ALI UNDERRATED?"

Ali lost twice in his prime? What? He was in his prime in 1971 & 1973, when his legs had clearly gone & his primary asset was robbed of him?

His legs were not gone in 1971-73. Some of the biggest bullshit I hear is how diminished Ali was post layoff. What little he had lost in speed and mobility hardly constitute "having lost his primary asset". And just for the record Ali's primary asset was never legs, speed or any other physical attribute.

I was just rereading "Muhammad Ali-His Life And Times" In the book Jimmy Ellis discusses his bout with Ali, which was held just after the first Frazier fight. He said going into the fight he liked his chances because he knew Ali since they were amateurs in Louisville, had sparred with him numerous times, and that his legs weren't what they once were.

If you want I will provide the complete citation.

You have the right to choose to believe him or not.

[hhaehre]

Reading some of the replies on this thread makes me think that the title question should be, "IS MUHAMMAD ALI UNDERRATED?"

Ali lost twice in his prime? What? He was in his prime in 1971 & 1973, when his legs had clearly gone & his primary asset was robbed of him?

His legs were not gone in 1971-73. Some of the biggest bullshit I hear is how diminished Ali was post layoff. What little he had lost in speed and mobility hardly constitute "having lost his primary asset". And just for the record Ali's primary asset was never legs, speed or any other physical attribute.

I was just rereading "Muhammad Ali-His Life And Times" In the book Jimmy Ellis discusses his bout with Ali, which was held just after the first Frazier fight. He said going into the fight he liked his chances because he knew Ali since they were amateurs in Louisville, had sparred with him numerous times, and that his legs weren't what they once were.

If you want I will provide the complete citation.

You have the right to choose to believe him or not.

Big difference between "gone" and "not what they used to be" I'd say. Also Ellis' chances turned out to be zip didn't they, legs or no legs.

[ThatOne]

His legs were not gone in 1971-73. Some of the biggest bullshit I hear is how diminished Ali was post layoff. What little he had lost in speed and mobility hardly constitute "having lost his primary asset". And just for the record Ali's primary asset was never legs, speed or any other physical attribute.

I was just rereading "Muhammad Ali-His Life And Times" In the book Jimmy Ellis discusses his bout with Ali, which was held just after the first Frazier fight. He said going into the fight he liked his chances because he knew Ali since they were amateurs in Louisville, had sparred with him numerous times, and that his legs weren't what they once were.

If you want I will provide the complete citation.

You have the right to choose to believe him or not.

Big difference between "gone" and "not what they used to be" I'd say. Also Ellis' chances turned out to be zip didn't they, legs or no legs.

So you would agree he was a physically diminished fighter. Then the only thing we are debating is how diminished. And yeah, any version of Ali up until 1978 or so is beating Ellis. He was that much better.

[hhaehre]

I was just rereading "Muhammad Ali-His Life And Times" In the book Jimmy Ellis discusses his bout with Ali, which was held just after the first Frazier fight. He said going into the fight he liked his chances because he knew Ali since they were amateurs in Louisville, had sparred with him numerous times, and that his legs weren't what they once were.

If you want I will provide the complete citation.

You have the right to choose to believe him or not.

Big difference between "gone" and "not what they used to be" I'd say. Also Ellis' chances turned out to be zip didn't they, legs or no legs.

He was a physically diminished fighter. The only thing we are debating is how diminished. And yeah, any version of Ali up until 1978 or so is beating Ellis. He was that much better.

True but when we are talking about a fighters prime we are usually referring to a span of several years, not the month or 6 months said fighter peaked. When talking about Ali's prime (the years he actually fought) I think 71-73 belongs in there. If not then surely Frazier was not in his prime for FOTC either, he was arguably better in 1969 and certainly had more physical problems in 71.

[ThatOne]

Big difference between "gone" and "not what they used to be" I'd say. Also Ellis' chances turned out to be zip didn't they, legs or no legs.

He was a physically diminished fighter. The only thing we are debating is how diminished. And yeah, any version of Ali up until 1978 or so is beating Ellis. He was that much better.

True but when we are talking about a fighters prime we are usually referring to a span of several years, not the month or 6 months said fighter peaked. When talking about Ali's prime (the years he actually fought) I think 71-73 belongs in there. If not then surely Frazier was not in his prime for FOTC either, he was arguably better in 1969 and certainly had more physical problems in 71.

His prime was when he was fighting continuously or allowed to fight continuously. We wouldn't say any other athlete could have a three and one half year interruption in their career during the ages of 25-29 and not lose something. Why are we holding Ali to a higher standard?

[hhaehre]

He was a physically diminished fighter. The only thing we are debating is how diminished. And yeah, any version of Ali up until 1978 or so is beating Ellis. He was that much better.

True but when we are talking about a fighters prime we are usually referring to a span of several years, not the month or 6 months said fighter peaked. When talking about Ali's prime (the years he actually fought) I think 71-73 belongs in there. If not then surely Frazier was not in his prime for FOTC either, he was arguably better in 1969 and certainly had more physical problems in 71.

His prime was when he was fighting continuously or allowed to fight continuously. We wouldn't say any other athlete could have a three and one half year interruption in their career during the ages of 25-29 and not lose something. Why are we holding Ali to a higher standard?

So he never had a prime then? I understand that he lost the years that could have been his best but we will never know and he has to be judged on the years he actually fought. The reason I consider 71-73 (71-74 really) as part of Ali's prime is simply that he was so damn good in those years. He lost two fights in that period, so what? Frazier and Norton were not exactly bums and even the most rabid Ali fan-boy will have to concede that a prime Frazier could have beaten Ali in 69' sans exile.

[ThatOne]

True but when we are talking about a fighters prime we are usually referring to a span of several years, not the month or 6 months said fighter peaked. When talking about Ali's prime (the years he actually fought) I think 71-73 belongs in there. If not then surely Frazier was not in his prime for FOTC either, he was arguably better in 1969 and certainly had more physical problems in 71.

His prime was when he was fighting continuously or allowed to fight continuously. We wouldn't say any other athlete could have a three and one half year interruption in their career during the ages of 25-29 and not lose something. Why are we holding Ali to a higher standard?

So he never had a prime then? I understand that he lost the years that could have been his best but we will never know and he has to be judged on the years he actually fought. The reason I consider 71-73 (71-74 really) as part of Ali's prime is simply that he was so damn good in those years. He lost two fights in that period, so what? Frazier and Norton were not exactly bums and even the most rabid Ali fan-boy will have to concede that a prime Frazier could have beaten Ali in 69' sans exile.

I will refrain from ad hominem attacks. Ali's legacy doesn't rest on forcing any single opponent into a prime that he really wasn't in.

I wonder if Joe Frazier hadn't fought in three and one half years and lost the first decision only to come back and win the next two, the last by a RTD or TKO, would we be hearing that the first fight was the only fight that matters?


I never said it was inconceivable a prime Frazier could beat a Prime Ali. I am just saying it never happened. Or it's fairer to look at their rivalry as a trilogy with a beginning, a middle, and an end. That argument, though, is like kryptonite to Joe Frazier, and his followers,;for obvious reasons.

[hhaehre]

His prime was when he was fighting continuously or allowed to fight continuously. We wouldn't say any other athlete could have a three and one half year interruption in their career during the ages of 25-29 and not lose something. Why are we holding Ali to a higher standard?

So he never had a prime then? I understand that he lost the years that could have been his best but we will never know and he has to be judged on the years he actually fought. The reason I consider 71-73 (71-74 really) as part of Ali's prime is simply that he was so damn good in those years. He lost two fights in that period, so what? Frazier and Norton were not exactly bums and even the most rabid Ali fan-boy will have to concede that a prime Frazier could have beaten Ali in 69' sans exile.

I will refrain from ad hominem attacks. Ali's legacy doesn't rest on forcing any single opponent into a prime that he really wasn't in.

I wonder if Joe Frazier hadn't fought in three and one half years and lost the first decision only to come back and win the next two, the last by a RTD or TKO, would we be hearing that the first fight was the only fight that matters?


I never said it was inconceivable a prime Frazier could beat a Prime Ali. I am just saying it never happened. Or it's fairer to look at their rivalry as a trilogy with a beginning, a middle, and an end. That argument, though, is like kryptonite to Joe Frazier, and his followers,;for obvious reasons.

So when was Ali's prime then?
And just for the record, I have no problem with Ali beating Frazier 2 out of 3 but I do wish the ref had stopped the excessive holding in fight #2 (and no I do not think the ref saved Frazier from being knocked out in that fight).

[ThatOne]

So he never had a prime then? I understand that he lost the years that could have been his best but we will never know and he has to be judged on the years he actually fought. The reason I consider 71-73 (71-74 really) as part of Ali's prime is simply that he was so damn good in those years. He lost two fights in that period, so what? Frazier and Norton were not exactly bums and even the most rabid Ali fan-boy will have to concede that a prime Frazier could have beaten Ali in 69' sans exile.

I will refrain from ad hominem attacks. Ali's legacy doesn't rest on forcing any single opponent into a prime that he really wasn't in.

I wonder if Joe Frazier hadn't fought in three and one half years and lost the first decision only to come back and win the next two, the last by a RTD or TKO, would we be hearing that the first fight was the only fight that matters?


I never said it was inconceivable a prime Frazier could beat a Prime Ali. I am just saying it never happened. Or it's fairer to look at their rivalry as a trilogy with a beginning, a middle, and an end. That argument, though, is like kryptonite to Joe Frazier, and his followers,;for obvious reasons.

So when was Ali's prime then?
And just for the record, I have no problem with Ali beating Frazier 2 out of 3 but I do wish the ref had stopped the excessive holding in fight #2 (and no I do not think the ref saved Frazier from being knocked out in that fight).

His prime was robbed by the United States government and the boxing commissions. He was getting bigger, stronger, and better with each fight. This isn't a Tyson thing where he was getting worse and not better before his layoff...

[Goodnight, Irene]

I understand the backlash. Michael Jordan suffers the same backlash in basketball. Fans get tired of being bombarded with so and so is the greatest all the time.

Ray Robinson was probably the best pfp fighter.

But Ali is inarguably the most famous boxer to have ever lived. I know some folks will say Dempsey but I just don't think he's the same worldwide figure.

Its not the fairest of comparisons, though. Dempsey fought in an era where there was less exposure. Even so, there are newspaper accounts of Dempseys exploits from places like New Zealand, FFS...in the 20's! Gotta give that Tex Rickard his due.

Ali is a Muslim and the most famous Muslim athlete of all time, by far... This gives him a fan base of almost two billion people to start.

Glad to see my point completely lost.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

To conclude I believe that Ali owns his wins and losses over Joe Frazier and Ken Norton with neither the wins or losses deserving of an asterisk.

I agree with the exception of the third Norton fight. For the record I rate Ali as an all time great but I still think he is overrated by many.

I understand the backlash. Michael Jordan suffers the same backlash in basketball. Fans get tired of being bombarded with so and so is the greatest all the time.

Ray Robinson was probably the best pfp fighter.

But Ali is inarguably the most famous boxer to have ever lived. I know some folks will say Dempsey but I just don't think he's the same worldwide figure.

Nobody was more popular than Dempsey, NOBODY.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

So he never had a prime then? I understand that he lost the years that could have been his best but we will never know and he has to be judged on the years he actually fought. The reason I consider 71-73 (71-74 really) as part of Ali's prime is simply that he was so damn good in those years. He lost two fights in that period, so what? Frazier and Norton were not exactly bums and even the most rabid Ali fan-boy will have to concede that a prime Frazier could have beaten Ali in 69' sans exile.

I will refrain from ad hominem attacks. Ali's legacy doesn't rest on forcing any single opponent into a prime that he really wasn't in.

I wonder if Joe Frazier hadn't fought in three and one half years and lost the first decision only to come back and win the next two, the last by a RTD or TKO, would we be hearing that the first fight was the only fight that matters?


I never said it was inconceivable a prime Frazier could beat a Prime Ali. I am just saying it never happened. Or it's fairer to look at their rivalry as a trilogy with a beginning, a middle, and an end. That argument, though, is like kryptonite to Joe Frazier, and his followers,;for obvious reasons.

So when was Ali's prime then?
And just for the record, I have no problem with Ali beating Frazier 2 out of 3 but I do wish the ref had stopped the excessive holding in fight #2 (and no I do not think the ref saved Frazier from being knocked out in that fight).

His prime was robbed by the United States government and the boxing commissions. He was getting bigger, stronger, and better with each fight. This isn't a Tyson thing where he was getting worse and not better before his layoff...[/quote]

Earlier you listed 27 prime fights for him.

[BO Selecta]

His legs were not gone in 1971-73. Some of the biggest bullshit I hear is how diminished Ali was post layoff. What little he had lost in speed and mobility hardly constitute "having lost his primary asset". And just for the record Ali's primary asset was never legs, speed or any other physical attribute.

I was just rereading "Muhammad Ali-His Life And Times" In the book Jimmy Ellis discusses his bout with Ali, which was held just after the first Frazier fight. He said going into the fight he liked his chances because he knew Ali since they were amateurs in Louisville, had sparred with him numerous times, and that his legs weren't what they once were.

If you want I will provide the complete citation.

You have the right to choose to believe him or not.

Big difference between "gone" and "not what they used to be" I'd say. Also Ellis' chances turned out to be zip didn't they, legs or no legs.

Please stop splitting hairs; you know what I mean when I say his legs were gone.

Of course he could still dance to a degree, (he even danced through the second Spinks fight years later), but his movement had diminished from his 60s peak & that affected his fighting style from then onwards, contributing him him taking more punches etc.

[ThatOne]

I agree with the exception of the third Norton fight. For the record I rate Ali as an all time great but I still think he is overrated by many.

I understand the backlash. Michael Jordan suffers the same backlash in basketball. Fans get tired of being bombarded with so and so is the greatest all the time.

Ray Robinson was probably the best pfp fighter.

But Ali is inarguably the most famous boxer to have ever lived. I know some folks will say Dempsey but I just don't think he's the same worldwide figure.

Nobody was more popular than Dempsey, NOBODY.

:




For the 4th straight year, "The Greatest of All Time" is the most famous of all sports celebrities
NEW YORK, June 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- For the fourth year in a row, Muhammad Ali has been ranked #1 in Marketing Evaluations' annual Sports Q ratings, Muhammad Ali Enterprises, LLC (MAE) announced today. In the survey's most significant category, "Familiarity," Ali was ranked #1 among the 487 athletes in the poll, ahead of such notables as LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, David Beckham, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter and Peyton Manning.

The "Familiarity" category covers all age groups, ranging from 12 to 64 years old. According to the survey:

•Ali was #1 in the overall category, among the age group of 12 to 64 years old.


•Ali was ranked first in the 18- to 34-year-old group, considered the top consumer group by Marketing Evaluations.


•Ali finished first in the highest income level, households earning more than $75,000 annually.


•Ali ranked #2 among teens, ages 12 to 17, trailing only Tiger Woods. This is particularly remarkable, considering that this age group was born two decades after Ali's last fight.


For the survey, more than 2,000 people, ages 12 through 64, were interviewed during the spring of 2010.

MAE is a subsidiary of CKX, Inc. Michael G. Ferrel, the CEO of CKX, noted that this latest ranking comes amidst the 50th anniversary of Ali's gold-medal winning performance at the 1960 Rome Olympics.

"It's amazing that a half-century after he burst upon the scene, Muhammad Ali remains one of the world's most recognized figures, known and loved around the globe," Ferrel said. Ali has been heralded as the "Athlete of the Century" by numerous publications and organizations, and has been the recipient of countless awards for his humanitarian efforts.




http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 10684.html

[ThatOne]

Its not the fairest of comparisons, though. Dempsey fought in an era where there was less exposure. Even so, there are newspaper accounts of Dempseys exploits from places like New Zealand, FFS...in the 20's! Gotta give that Tex Rickard his due.

Ali is a Muslim and the most famous Muslim athlete of all time, by far... This gives him a fan base of almost two billion people to start.

Glad to see my point completely lost.

I understand that Ali benefited from fighting in an era where mass communications was much more advanced than in Jack Dempsey's era but how does that explain him being more popular than current sports icons like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, David Beckham, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter and Peyton Manning thirty years after he retired?

[raylawpc]

Ali is a Muslim and the most famous Muslim athlete of all time, by far... This gives him a fan base of almost two billion people to start.

Glad to see my point completely lost.

I understand that Ali benefited from fighting in an era where mass communications was much more advanced than in Jack Dempsey's era but how does that explain him being more popular than current sports icons like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, David Beckham, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter and Peyton Manning thirty years after he retired?

But Dempsey had the same status 30 years after he retired. It would be interesting to see if Ali is still so universally remembered and admired 75 years after he retired.

[ThatOne]

Glad to see my point completely lost.

I understand that Ali benefited from fighting in an era where mass communications was much more advanced than in Jack Dempsey's era but how does that explain him being more popular than current sports icons like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, David Beckham, Lance Armstrong, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter and Peyton Manning thirty years after he retired?

But Dempsey had the same status 30 years after he retired. It would be interesting to see if Ali is still so universally remembered and admired 75 years after he retired.

He will be dead in forty five years. However it has been thirty years after he retired, and he still has a higher Q rating than contemporary uber sports celebrities like Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Tiger Woods, David Beckham, and Kobe Bryant. I don't want to be macabre but it's plausible, like Elvis and John Lennon, he will be even more popular dead than alive.