Justifying Ali as the best BOXER ever.. (read b4 u vote plz)

[dempseyfire]

BB -Not sure how to respond to your comments since you don't believe all them yourself, but I thought I would respond to some.

First about Bob Satterfield, I thought that he saying that Satterfield fought in 1970's but I guess he meant that Satterfield was comparable to Shavers (which isn't a good comparson).
I just don't understand the fascination people have with Satterfield. His record was just 50-25-4, with many of his losses to journeyman. He has few big wins, I guess the biggest win over Cleveland Williams who was a last minute replacement.
He was supposed to be such a big puncher, yet he only scored 31 kos in 79 fights, that's nothing impressive. I have seen him on tape and he didn't show me anything. I can't believe he should have been in the top 10 when he fought in the 1950's which I think almost anyone would agree wasn't as good as the 1970's for heavyweights.
Earnie Shavers certainly had his limitations, but he was much, much better than Satterfield.

As for the Ali-Louis comparison, sure you can go through any fighter and nitpick that they had a tough fight against this guy or got knocked down by this guy, so I won't go too much into that.

I just don't think that it's valid to say that since Norton gave Ali trouble that Louis would beat Ali. Remember Ali was 31 when he fought Norton the first time and 34 the last time. His speed was mostly gone. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

So if you are comparing say the 1935-1941 Louis to Ali in the second part of his career, Louis may have been better. But I would argue that Ali in the 1960's would have beaten Louis at his best. I also think that Ali in the early 1970's would have beaten the post WWII Louis.

?

So Satterfield showed you nothing? What fights have you seen him in? Offensively, he was a monster. Fast hands, good movement, constant pressure, and power in both hands. Better offensively then Shavers, although Earnie hit harder. But both of them faded down the stretch and didn't have the best chins. They are clearly comparable. Satterfield has the lest impressive record but he didn't stack up his record with lots of creampuffs like Shavers. Both big punchers who faded late and could get knocked out. I think Shavers was the all around better HW, but Bob could of beaten most of the guys Earnie beat.

Regarding the off-commented nugget that Ali could dance for 15 rounds in his prime. Show me ONE fight in which he dances for 15 rounds . . .or even 10 rounds . .. you won't find iut b/c it never happened. Ali in the 60s, like Ali in the early 70s, danced for a few rounds and then went back to being flat-footed and basically using his left jab and reflexes for defense. See Jones, Chuvalo, Cooper 11, Patterson 1 etc.

Some posters here seem to have bought into the myth of Ali. He's had more documentaries, specials, highlight tapes made then any other boxer, even more then Tyson. Thus, he's inserted himself in the public mindset as 'the greatest.' That doesn't mean he was, however.

Regarding the PFP argument, this whole 'bias vs heavyweights' argument is pretty much BS. Are some of you arguing Ali showed more skills as a boxer then Armstrong, Robinson, Hagler, Griffith etc.??? That is absurb to say the least. This is a guy who couldn't even in-fight, or learned to successfully parry a jab. At his best he may have had the speed to get away with breaking the rules vs most opponents, but that's natural talent, not boxing skills. And I bet that Ali had wished he learned some proper defense when he faced Norton, Young, and Frazier (instead of excessively clinching vs the likes of Joe).

I think Ali was one of the greatest HWs of all time, top 3. But he does NOT stand in a class by himself, and he is NOWHERE NEAR being the top PFP boxer in history.

[Ezzard]

BB -Not sure how to respond to your comments since you don't believe all them yourself, but I thought I would respond to some.

First about Bob Satterfield, I thought that he saying that Satterfield fought in 1970's but I guess he meant that Satterfield was comparable to Shavers (which isn't a good comparson).
I just don't understand the fascination people have with Satterfield. His record was just 50-25-4, with many of his losses to journeyman. He has few big wins, I guess the biggest win over Cleveland Williams who was a last minute replacement.
He was supposed to be such a big puncher, yet he only scored 31 kos in 79 fights, that's nothing impressive. I have seen him on tape and he didn't show me anything. I can't believe he should have been in the top 10 when he fought in the 1950's which I think almost anyone would agree wasn't as good as the 1970's for heavyweights.
Earnie Shavers certainly had his limitations, but he was much, much better than Satterfield.

As for the Ali-Louis comparison, sure you can go through any fighter and nitpick that they had a tough fight against this guy or got knocked down by this guy, so I won't go too much into that.

I just don't think that it's valid to say that since Norton gave Ali trouble that Louis would beat Ali. Remember Ali was 31 when he fought Norton the first time and 34 the last time. His speed was mostly gone. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

So if you are comparing say the 1935-1941 Louis to Ali in the second part of his career, Louis may have been better. But I would argue that Ali in the 1960's would have beaten Louis at his best. I also think that Ali in the early 1970's would have beaten the post WWII Louis.

?

So Satterfield showed you nothing? What fights have you seen him in? Offensively, he was a monster. Fast hands, good movement, constant pressure, and power in both hands. Better offensively then Shavers, although Earnie hit harder. But both of them faded down the stretch and didn't have the best chins. They are clearly comparable. Satterfield has the lest impressive record but he didn't stack up his record with lots of creampuffs like Shavers. Both big punchers who faded late and could get knocked out. I think Shavers was the all around better HW, but Bob could of beaten most of the guys Earnie beat.

Regarding the off-commented nugget that Ali could dance for 15 rounds in his prime. Show me ONE fight in which he dances for 15 rounds . . .or even 10 rounds . .. you won't find iut b/c it never happened. Ali in the 60s, like Ali in the early 70s, danced for a few rounds and then went back to being flat-footed and basically using his left jab and reflexes for defense. See Jones, Chuvalo, Cooper 11, Patterson 1 etc.

Some posters here seem to have bought into the myth of Ali. He's had more documentaries, specials, highlight tapes made then any other boxer, even more then Tyson. Thus, he's inserted himself in the public mindset as 'the greatest.' That doesn't mean he was, however.

Regarding the PFP argument, this whole 'bias vs heavyweights' argument is pretty much BS. Are some of you arguing Ali showed more skills as a boxer then Armstrong, Robinson, Hagler, Griffith etc.??? That is absurb to say the least. This is a guy who couldn't even in-fight, or learned to successfully parry a jab. At his best he may have had the speed to get away with breaking the rules vs most opponents, but that's natural talent, not boxing skills. And I bet that Ali had wished he learned some proper defense when he faced Norton, Young, and Frazier (instead of excessively clinching vs the likes of Joe).

I think Ali was one of the greatest HWs of all time, top 3. But he does NOT stand in a class by himself, and he is NOWHERE NEAR being the top PFP boxer in history.

Dempsey

I think you raise some excellent points. I rank Ali as the top heavy but over the years he has grown into this unbeatable figure. I do not accept that he's in a class of his own. It's also good to hear/read someone make the point about not dancing for 15 rounds.

I'd pick Ali over any other HW but he could and would be beaten by some of the other greats.

[silkov]

BB -Not sure how to respond to your comments since you don't believe all them yourself, but I thought I would respond to some.

First about Bob Satterfield, I thought that he saying that Satterfield fought in 1970's but I guess he meant that Satterfield was comparable to Shavers (which isn't a good comparson).
I just don't understand the fascination people have with Satterfield. His record was just 50-25-4, with many of his losses to journeyman. He has few big wins, I guess the biggest win over Cleveland Williams who was a last minute replacement.
He was supposed to be such a big puncher, yet he only scored 31 kos in 79 fights, that's nothing impressive. I have seen him on tape and he didn't show me anything. I can't believe he should have been in the top 10 when he fought in the 1950's which I think almost anyone would agree wasn't as good as the 1970's for heavyweights.
Earnie Shavers certainly had his limitations, but he was much, much better than Satterfield.

As for the Ali-Louis comparison, sure you can go through any fighter and nitpick that they had a tough fight against this guy or got knocked down by this guy, so I won't go too much into that.

I just don't think that it's valid to say that since Norton gave Ali trouble that Louis would beat Ali. Remember Ali was 31 when he fought Norton the first time and 34 the last time. His speed was mostly gone. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

So if you are comparing say the 1935-1941 Louis to Ali in the second part of his career, Louis may have been better. But I would argue that Ali in the 1960's would have beaten Louis at his best. I also think that Ali in the early 1970's would have beaten the post WWII Louis.

?

So Satterfield showed you nothing? What fights have you seen him in? Offensively, he was a monster. Fast hands, good movement, constant pressure, and power in both hands. Better offensively then Shavers, although Earnie hit harder. But both of them faded down the stretch and didn't have the best chins. They are clearly comparable. Satterfield has the lest impressive record but he didn't stack up his record with lots of creampuffs like Shavers. Both big punchers who faded late and could get knocked out. I think Shavers was the all around better HW, but Bob could of beaten most of the guys Earnie beat.

Regarding the off-commented nugget that Ali could dance for 15 rounds in his prime. Show me ONE fight in which he dances for 15 rounds . . .or even 10 rounds . .. you won't find iut b/c it never happened. Ali in the 60s, like Ali in the early 70s, danced for a few rounds and then went back to being flat-footed and basically using his left jab and reflexes for defense. See Jones, Chuvalo, Cooper 11, Patterson 1 etc.

Some posters here seem to have bought into the myth of Ali. He's had more documentaries, specials, highlight tapes made then any other boxer, even more then Tyson. Thus, he's inserted himself in the public mindset as 'the greatest.' That doesn't mean he was, however.

Regarding the PFP argument, this whole 'bias vs heavyweights' argument is pretty much BS. Are some of you arguing Ali showed more skills as a boxer then Armstrong, Robinson, Hagler, Griffith etc.??? That is absurb to say the least. This is a guy who couldn't even in-fight, or learned to successfully parry a jab. At his best he may have had the speed to get away with breaking the rules vs most opponents, but that's natural talent, not boxing skills. And I bet that Ali had wished he learned some proper defense when he faced Norton, Young, and Frazier (instead of excessively clinching vs the likes of Joe).

I think Ali was one of the greatest HWs of all time, top 3. But he does NOT stand in a class by himself, and he is NOWHERE NEAR being the top PFP


boxer in history.

Try watching Ali vs Terrell and Chuvalo1... saying Ali is only top 3 heavy all time is just silly...

[Ambling Alp]

BB -Not sure how to respond to your comments since you don't believe all them yourself, but I thought I would respond to some.

First about Bob Satterfield, I thought that he saying that Satterfield fought in 1970's but I guess he meant that Satterfield was comparable to Shavers (which isn't a good comparson).
I just don't understand the fascination people have with Satterfield. His record was just 50-25-4, with many of his losses to journeyman. He has few big wins, I guess the biggest win over Cleveland Williams who was a last minute replacement.
He was supposed to be such a big puncher, yet he only scored 31 kos in 79 fights, that's nothing impressive. I have seen him on tape and he didn't show me anything. I can't believe he should have been in the top 10 when he fought in the 1950's which I think almost anyone would agree wasn't as good as the 1970's for heavyweights.
Earnie Shavers certainly had his limitations, but he was much, much better than Satterfield.

As for the Ali-Louis comparison, sure you can go through any fighter and nitpick that they had a tough fight against this guy or got knocked down by this guy, so I won't go too much into that.

I just don't think that it's valid to say that since Norton gave Ali trouble that Louis would beat Ali. Remember Ali was 31 when he fought Norton the first time and 34 the last time. His speed was mostly gone. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

So if you are comparing say the 1935-1941 Louis to Ali in the second part of his career, Louis may have been better. But I would argue that Ali in the 1960's would have beaten Louis at his best. I also think that Ali in the early 1970's would have beaten the post WWII Louis.

?

So Satterfield showed you nothing? What fights have you seen him in? Offensively, he was a monster. Fast hands, good movement, constant pressure, and power in both hands. Better offensively then Shavers, although Earnie hit harder. But both of them faded down the stretch and didn't have the best chins. They are clearly comparable. Satterfield has the lest impressive record but he didn't stack up his record with lots of creampuffs like Shavers. Both big punchers who faded late and could get knocked out. I think Shavers was the all around better HW, but Bob could of beaten most of the guys Earnie beat.

Regarding the off-commented nugget that Ali could dance for 15 rounds in his prime. Show me ONE fight in which he dances for 15 rounds . . .or even 10 rounds . .. you won't find iut b/c it never happened. Ali in the 60s, like Ali in the early 70s, danced for a few rounds and then went back to being flat-footed and basically using his left jab and reflexes for defense. See Jones, Chuvalo, Cooper 11, Patterson 1 etc.

Some posters here seem to have bought into the myth of Ali. He's had more documentaries, specials, highlight tapes made then any other boxer, even more then Tyson. Thus, he's inserted himself in the public mindset as 'the greatest.' That doesn't mean he was, however.

Regarding the PFP argument, this whole 'bias vs heavyweights' argument is pretty much BS. Are some of you arguing Ali showed more skills as a boxer then Armstrong, Robinson, Hagler, Griffith etc.??? That is absurb to say the least. This is a guy who couldn't even in-fight, or learned to successfully parry a jab. At his best he may have had the speed to get away with breaking the rules vs most opponents, but that's natural talent, not boxing skills. And I bet that Ali had wished he learned some proper defense when he faced Norton, Young, and Frazier (instead of excessively clinching vs the likes of Joe).

I think Ali was one of the greatest HWs of all time, top 3. But he does NOT stand in a class by himself, and he is NOWHERE NEAR being the top PFP


boxer in history.

Try watching Ali vs Terrell and Chuvalo1... saying Ali is top 3 heavy all time is just silly...

As for Satterfield, if he was such a monster why didn't he get results. He won 50 of 79 fights, which is only about 63%. Shavers won about 83% of his fights. Satterfield only knocked out about 39% of his opponents, Shavers knocked out about 76% of his.
Can't see how anyone can think Satterfield's competition was better. Shavers knocked out Norton, Young, Ellis and Bugner among others. Look at their records, where are all of these great fighters that Satterfield knocked out. He had eoungh trouble beat no names.
I saw him on tape against Charles, and got waxed early. Saw him against Johnson and he didn't seem to be much of a monster. in that fight either.

As for Ali, it's obvious that you don't like Ali or his style. It was unorthadox, but it worked. You say that the bias against heavyweights is BS, then you immediatly say that it's absurd to think that Ali had the skills of guys in smaller weights like Armstrong, Hagler, Robinson, and Griffith. That shows your bias right there. His jab, speed, chin, stamina, punching accurracy, ability to throw combinations, defense, and heart as good as any of these guys. His competiton was also as good as anyones.

As for the Chuvalo and Terrell fights brought up by Silkov, why is it silly to consider Ali one of the top 3 heavyweights of all time by his performance in these two fight? He won almost every round in both of them, the only 2 ot the 10 title fights that went the distance before he was stripped of the title.

These negative comments about Ali just further my point that many people aren't able to fairly rate fighters that they don't like them or their style. No he wasn't perfect, but he was one of the greatest pound for pound fighters ever.

[walshb]

Ambling Alp I agree fully. The thing with this p4p list is that people don't seem to realise that the heavyweights will never really be as fast on their feet or with their hands, as the fly's, Bantam's etc. That's just nature. These guys are 15 bloody stone. That is to be expected. But to slate them because of Nature is plain silly and is wrong. The fact that a 15 stone Ali could throw blistering combos as fast as any fighter in history and the fact he danced and moved so effortlessly and gracefully and better than every fighter thru history tells me that he is more worthy of the title greatest ever fighter. He was doing things beyond the realms of a Heavy. We expect the Fly's, Bantams, Welters to be greasy fast and nimble. They're doing nothing extraordinary, great as they are. But to see a 15 stone Ali at his peak in action is the greatest display ever in Sports history. That is why he was the Greatest....all the others are great fighters at lower weights, he did it in the premier division in the toughest era of all.......

[silkov]

?

So Satterfield showed you nothing? What fights have you seen him in? Offensively, he was a monster. Fast hands, good movement, constant pressure, and power in both hands. Better offensively then Shavers, although Earnie hit harder. But both of them faded down the stretch and didn't have the best chins. They are clearly comparable. Satterfield has the lest impressive record but he didn't stack up his record with lots of creampuffs like Shavers. Both big punchers who faded late and could get knocked out. I think Shavers was the all around better HW, but Bob could of beaten most of the guys Earnie beat.

Regarding the off-commented nugget that Ali could dance for 15 rounds in his prime. Show me ONE fight in which he dances for 15 rounds . . .or even 10 rounds . .. you won't find iut b/c it never happened. Ali in the 60s, like Ali in the early 70s, danced for a few rounds and then went back to being flat-footed and basically using his left jab and reflexes for defense. See Jones, Chuvalo, Cooper 11, Patterson 1 etc.

Some posters here seem to have bought into the myth of Ali. He's had more documentaries, specials, highlight tapes made then any other boxer, even more then Tyson. Thus, he's inserted himself in the public mindset as 'the greatest.' That doesn't mean he was, however.

Regarding the PFP argument, this whole 'bias vs heavyweights' argument is pretty much BS. Are some of you arguing Ali showed more skills as a boxer then Armstrong, Robinson, Hagler, Griffith etc.??? That is absurb to say the least. This is a guy who couldn't even in-fight, or learned to successfully parry a jab. At his best he may have had the speed to get away with breaking the rules vs most opponents, but that's natural talent, not boxing skills. And I bet that Ali had wished he learned some proper defense when he faced Norton, Young, and Frazier (instead of excessively clinching vs the likes of Joe).

I think Ali was one of the greatest HWs of all time, top 3. But he does NOT stand in a class by himself, and he is NOWHERE NEAR being the top PFP


boxer in history.

Try watching Ali vs Terrell and Chuvalo1... saying Ali is top 3 heavy all time is just silly...

As for Satterfield, if he was such a monster why didn't he get results. He won 50 of 79 fights, which is only about 63%. Shavers won about 83% of his fights. Satterfield only knocked out about 39% of his opponents, Shavers knocked out about 76% of his.
Can't see how anyone can think Satterfield's competition was better. Shavers knocked out Norton, Young, Ellis and Bugner among others. Look at their records, where are all of these great fighters that Satterfield knocked out. He had eoungh trouble beat no names.
I saw him on tape against Charles, and got waxed early. Saw him against Johnson and he didn't seem to be much of a monster. in that fight either.

As for Ali, it's obvious that you don't like Ali or his style. It was unorthadox, but it worked. You say that the bias against heavyweights is BS, then you immediatly say that it's absurd to think that Ali had the skills of guys in smaller weights like Armstrong, Hagler, Robinson, and Griffith. That shows your bias right there. His jab, speed, chin, stamina, punching accurracy, ability to throw combinations, defense, and heart as good as any of these guys. His competiton was also as good as anyones.

As for the Chuvalo and Terrell fights brought up by Silkov, why is it silly to consider Ali one of the top 3 heavyweights of all time by his performance in these two fight? He won almost every round in both of them, the only 2 ot the 10 title fights that went the distance before he was stripped of the title.

These negative comments about Ali just further my point that many people aren't able to fairly rate fighters that they don't like them or their style. No he wasn't perfect, but he was one of the greatest pound for pound fighters ever.

I meant that its silly to rate Ali only 3rd best Heavy of all time.... Its more or less impossible to say who was the best boxer p4pound... but I think the only men who could lay claim to that accolade are Armstrong, Robinson, Pep, Duran and Ali.... Ali certainly deserves to be up there with the very best... just because his style was less orthadox to Robinsons doesn't mean he was a lesser boxer.... Ali's originality is one of the very things that made him great....

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

thunderfromdownunder, i didnt mean what i said, i was simply implying how one could tear apart anyone even alis record.

. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

really? norton also said "ali would lose 5 times in his career, but only me and frazier beat ali in his prime."


he thinks he beat a prime ali?




silkov u have to understand, a louis right hand will not knock out holmes. but it will paralyize holmes, and then louis will follow it up with the deadliest combinations holmes has ever seen and THAT right there would knock out holmes.

- renaldo snipes nearly knocked out holmes with one right hand


- holmes did face hard hitters, but not top punchers with incredible handspeed, accuracy, great combinations like joe louis



IMO joe louis beat better competition than larry holmes

[silkov]

thunderfromdownunder, i didnt mean what i said, i was simply implying how one could tear apart anyone even alis record.

. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

really? norton also said "ali would lose 5 times in his career, but only me and frazier beat ali in his prime."


he thinks he beat a prime ali?




silkov u have to understand, a louis right hand will not knock out holmes. but it will paralyize holmes, and then louis will follow it up with the deadliest combinations holmes has ever seen and THAT right there would knock out holmes.

- renaldo snipes nearly knocked out holmes with one right hand


- holmes did face hard hitters, but not top punchers with incredible handspeed, accuracy, great combinations like joe louis



IMO joe louis beat better competition than larry holmes

Norton, Weaver, snipes, Cooney, M. Spinks Witherspoon, Williams, Shavers... who did Louis face that was better than these fighters?.... Holmes opposition was superior by some degree...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

thunderfromdownunder, i didnt mean what i said, i was simply implying how one could tear apart anyone even alis record.

. I think that if Ali would have fought Norton when he still had his speed he would have beaten Norton fairly easily.(Which Norton himself freely has admitted).

really? norton also said "ali would lose 5 times in his career, but only me and frazier beat ali in his prime."


he thinks he beat a prime ali?




silkov u have to understand, a louis right hand will not knock out holmes. but it will paralyize holmes, and then louis will follow it up with the deadliest combinations holmes has ever seen and THAT right there would knock out holmes.

- renaldo snipes nearly knocked out holmes with one right hand


- holmes did face hard hitters, but not top punchers with incredible handspeed, accuracy, great combinations like joe louis



IMO joe louis beat better competition than larry holmes

Norton, Weaver, snipes, Cooney, M. Spinks Witherspoon, Williams, Shavers... who did Louis face that was better than these fighters?.... Holmes opposition was superior by some degree...

holmes lost to spinx so that doesnt count. i did think holmes won rematch,


past his prime louis beat a peak jersey joe walcott who IMO was better than all of those guys including norton.

louis also beat max schmeling, max baer, billy conn, bob pastor(terribly underated fighter who beat all the great black contenders), buddy baer, tami mauriello, tommy farr, jack sharkey, james braddock, abe simon, etc


walcott, schmeling would have beaten all those guys above.


nova, baer, braddock, conn were better than snipes, shavers, williams, cooney.


what about some of the other tough challengers louis beat like

bob pastor- very underated
buddy baer
tommy farr
abe simon
tami mauriello
lou nov- very underated
primo carnera
paulino uzceden
arturo godoy- very underated
jack sharkey- still tough despite past his prime





cooney- he was an overated fighter who never beat a top 10 contender in his life. his best wins are guys who were currently living in the retirement home for senior citizens.


williamss- never a world beater, never even won an aplha title


shavers- one of the hardest hitters who ever lived but overated as a fighter. lossed in his prime to 17-21 bob stallings, ron stander, and was knocked out in one round by past his prime jerry quarry.


snipes- good fighter, no world beater. he never even won the alpha title.


i conssider trevor berbick a better fighter than snipes and williams.



louis beat the superior fighters( schmeling, baer, walcott) , holmes might have an edge in depth though





now louis had his share of journeyman fighters but IMO holmes fought more ham and eggers.

holmes feasted on many undeserving journeyman who had no businness in the ring like scott le doux, alfredo evangeslista, leon spinx, ossie oscacio, scott frank, lorenzo zanon, leroy jones, marvis frazier, tex cobb, lucien rodriguez.

[Rory McCloskey]

I agree that louis didnt have the hardest schedule, as the 70's heavyweights did, but he fought some damn good fighters while he went on his bum of the month tour.

Holmes on the other hand. i dunno. it seemed like he came in at the perfect time. It was Before tyson evander and lewis, but after ali frazier and foreman. holmes beat up on some pretty weak competition, and over the hill 70's fighters. (not all over the hill but several, especially ALI) Holmes in his prime never beat anyone of HOF calibur. Louis beat several HOF fighters while he was fighting them in their prime.

[evndrbsn]

Louis was far more accomplished-25 defenses is all that needs to be said. Louis was more talented and, if he did struggle, as Silkov pointed out but didn't finish was that he destroyed the majority of them in a one sided rematch, many times in one round. He could have added 10-15 more defenses between 42-46, but couldn't because of the war.

Louis also had the weaker opposition in his title run.

[Rory McCloskey]

then holmes?

[evndrbsn]

then holmes?

I meant Louis fought weaker opposition than Ali in his title run, although Louis had 25 title defenses. I thought that Sherlock was talking about Ali, but if he was talking about Holmes, I apologize.

[Rory McCloskey]

oh no no its fine, you are correct louis did not fight the competition that ali did. its a little confusing here, 3 fighters names have been tossed around alot latley.

[evndrbsn]

oh no no its fine, you are correct louis did not fight the competition that ali did. its a little confusing here, 3 fighters names have been tossed around alot latley.

I think the strength of the title runs go in this order:

1) Ali
2) Louis



(Further down)



3) Larry Holmes

I thought Larry Holmes was great and fought some potentially fantastic opponents, they just were too busy snorting crack or doing other nefarious activities.

[Rory McCloskey]

haha yeah..i would agree that louis and ali faced far better competitors while in their prime.

[Sherlock]

Louis was far more accomplished-25 defenses is all that needs to be said. Louis was more talented and, if he did struggle, as Silkov pointed out but didn't finish was that he destroyed the majority of them in a one sided rematch, many times in one round. He could have added 10-15 more defenses between 42-46, but couldn't because of the war.

Louis also had the weaker opposition in his title run.

Besides Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Norton, Patterson, and Quarry, who did Ali might that was so great? Louis beat hall of famers Baer, Braddock, Schmeling, Walcott, Conn, Sharkey and tough contenders Uzcudun, Levinsky, Tommy Farr, and Lou Nova.

Shavers was nothing but a puncher, little substance and is not an all time great. Jurgen Blin? Joe Bugner? Karl Mildenberger? Leon Spinks? Richard Dunn? Jean Pierre Coopman? Brian London? With the exception of Lyle (who nearly beat him), Jimmy Young (who did beat him), and Bonavena and maybe Mathis, the rest of his opposition were plain awful. The 60's and 70's had outstanding depth at the top, but the lower top 10 were forgettable fighters who achieved little, and would have been top 25 in other eras.

But I do agree that Ali did fight the overall tougher schedule (just trying to make a balanced debate instead of a one sided Ali heralding), but the point is he never dominated his division like Louis. He never put Frazier behind him, as he clearly lost the first, nobody really one the second, and Ali was nearly wasted in the 15th of the 3rd fight but Frazier's corner stopped it. He never clearly beat Norton, whose biggest victory other than Ali is over a washed-up Quarry and an overhyped Bobick. Ali did beat Foreman though, a remarkable achievement.

I have nothing against Ali, I just don't see him as the greatest p-4-p fighter ever, especially when Sugar Ray Robinson beat as many greats as Ali had fights. I can see an agrument for best heavyweight and I can agree on many points, but with the accomplishments of Louis I would disagree.

[evndrbsn]

Louis was far more accomplished-25 defenses is all that needs to be said. Louis was more talented and, if he did struggle, as Silkov pointed out but didn't finish was that he destroyed the majority of them in a one sided rematch, many times in one round. He could have added 10-15 more defenses between 42-46, but couldn't because of the war.

Louis also had the weaker opposition in his title run.

Besides Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Norton, Patterson, and Quarry, who did Ali might that was so great? Louis beat hall of famers Baer, Braddock, Schmeling, Walcott, Conn, Sharkey and tough contenders Uzcudun, Levinsky, Tommy Farr, and Lou Nova.

Shavers was nothing but a puncher, little substance and is not an all time great. Jurgen Blin? Joe Bugner? Karl Mildenberger? Leon Spinks? Richard Dunn? Jean Pierre Coopman? Brian London? With the exception of Lyle (who nearly beat him), Jimmy Young (who did beat him), and Bonavena and maybe Mathis, the rest of his opposition were plain awful. The 60's and 70's had outstanding depth at the top, but the lower top 10 were forgettable fighters who achieved little, and would have been top 25 in other eras.

But I do agree that Ali did fight the overall tougher schedule (just trying to make a balanced debate instead of a one sided Ali heralding), but the point is he never dominated his division like Louis. He never put Frazier behind him, as he clearly lost the first, nobody really one the second, and Ali was nearly wasted in the 15th of the 3rd fight but Frazier's corner stopped it. He never clearly beat Norton, whose biggest victory other than Ali is over a washed-up Quarry and an overhyped Bobick. Ali did beat Foreman though, a remarkable achievement.

I have nothing against Ali, I just don't see him as the greatest p-4-p fighter ever, especially when Sugar Ray Robinson beat as many greats as Ali had fights. I can see an agrument for best heavyweight and I can agree on many points, but with the accomplishments of Louis I would disagree.

Might as well bring up Walcott who beat Louis also.

[Sherlock]

Might as well bring up Walcott who beat Louis also.

Louis was just about shot as a fighter, but still kayoed Walcott in the rematch.

[evndrbsn]

Might as well bring up Walcott who beat Louis also.

Louis was just about shot as a fighter, but still kayoed Walcott in the rematch.

And who is to say Ali would not beat Young in a rematch?

[theone]

Besides Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Norton, Patterson, and Quarry, who did Ali might that was so great? Louis beat hall of famers Baer, Braddock, Schmeling, Walcott, Conn, Sharkey and tough contenders Uzcudun, Levinsky, Tommy Farr, and Lou Nova.

Thats all you have to say to prove Ali was better than Louis. Fraizer, Foreman Liston are definitly all time heavyweight greats, arguably top 5. Norton and Patterson are arguable all time top ten heavyweights. There is no comparison between them and the fighters you mentioned for Louis. In fact if Quarry fought Louis, he would be his toughest compitition ever.

but the point is he never dominated his division like Louis.

A division that was much easier to dominate. Ali, Forman and Fraizer would have went through his compition like juggernauts.

[dempseyfire]

Ali did overall fight the tougher opposition then Louis.

Louis, however, was more consistant. 25 straight defenses speaks for itself. Only gift Joe ever got was in Walcott 1, and he sealed the deal with a KO. His only other loss prior to his first retirement vs Schmeling, he revenged with a KO. Ali lost to Frazier and Norton and although he beat both in the rematches never definetively made it clear who was the better man. Both were very close fights. Ali also had the questionable calls vs Lyle, Young, and Shavers.

I'm not an Ali hater. Far from it. I won't even bring up the Doug Jones fight, b/c I don't view the decision as controversial at all.

Some of ya'll are saying that Ali is head and shoulders above the rest. The rest of us are simply saying there are others in his class.

[BoxBuzz]

Pretty good take Dempseyfire, My money would be on Ali against any of the top 4 or 5 but just like Frazier proved, he can be beat even at his best.
However I don't think Frazier could have ever repeated that little miracle....and he didnt.


But it can happen to anyone. Ask Holmes what took him so long to get up when Renaldo caught him, When he was around you could have Asked Louis About Schmeling. The only guy you can't really ask is Rocky and he got out when he knew his number was up. Never did like that decision, it didnt allow nature to take it's course.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Louis was just about shot as a fighter, but still kayoed Walcott in the rematch.

i dsagree, louis was past his prime but not shot. he still had a lot left, and had just kayoed top contender skilled tamie mauriello in one round. the louis of walcott fights was ALOT better than louis of charles fight. fact is, louis ran into a PEAK walcott and walcott was a great fighter and would have beat a lot of heavyweight champions that night.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Never did like that decision, it didnt allow nature to take it's course.

would u rather see him defend it till 1958 and as an old men suffer a brutal KO loss to peak liston? that is IF he could hold onto the title till 58.

- rocky was never won to defend against anyone but top contenders or big matches, when he beat moore he eliminated any big matches and cleaned out the division.

- i thought rocky retiring was a lesson to other fighters when to get out at the right time. but rocky had good reasons for retiring


- of course i would have loved to see an aging rocky take on patterson or machen but i respect his decision to retire.