Muhammad Ali: Best win?

[Jacopodb]

Sometimes it's hard to say if someone is trolling or clueless.

Well, you know, I might be clueless, but when it comes to ratings, I must consider a boxer's whole career span. It's no fantasy fights, dude; if not, it would go all the way like this, arguably: "prime Tyson beats anyone period", or so. It's not like this... a boxer that achieves great results in his prime, but loses his skills later in his career, due to loss of explosive power and speed, gets rated lower than a boxer who's maybe a little less talented, but trained well enough to stay fit until the end: imagine a marathoner, taking the lead for 41 kilometres, then losing it right before the 42nd; he doesn't win the race anyway, if he faces somebody, even less-fast, but who has saved his energies for the last mile.

I can't picture how you guys can't understand all this, for it looks just obvious, to me: Alí was hugely talented, even the most talented boxer ever, but lacked Marciano's work-ethics, that's why I would rate the latter higher... simple as this.

The marathon argument does not work because that would constitute an analogy for a single fight, not a career. Going by your logic if Nino Benvennuti (63-0) had quit half way through his career he would be without doubt the greatest fighter ever.

Nino might well have been on the verge of being considered all-time p4p no.1 if he had beaten Monzon, not if he had stopped earlier, of course.
Floyd Jr. did a similar thing to that vs a prime Canelo, which was freakin' scary, specially to a guy past his prime, with brittle bones disorder, coming up from superfeatherweight... now Floyd Jr.'s up there, of course, higher-rated than Alí, by every mean.

The "marathon" one was just a cheap metaphore from me, just to picture a guy's fall from grace: if Alí had spent the energy he has burnt to pull out all those rhymes and jokes (which weren't half-bad, and he was a huge guy, and he obviously practiced the noble art, which technically is an utter sport, baby, and "The Louisville Lip" was no professional poet...), to train better, he might have predictably earned a spot in the all-time p4p top-5 or so... but he didn't: he probably felt he didn't need all that athletic glory, and he preferred pulling out some good jokes... I'm not of the same advice, but it's not my problem more than it was his problem, so I wouldn't mess with him, anyway.
The champ himself once said: "I hated every minute of training..."; top-notch all-timers don't hate training... it's the other way around..! Ask Cammarelle, Olympic boxer all-timer: he declared that training was never hard work to him by any means (about the "hard work-issue", we could speak later, if you need it, I might have some pebble in my shoe, about that).
All that considered, and arguably more, if someone has it, you could agree that Alí's work-ethics didn't bring him farther than Marciano, at least not in my eyes: It's just, like... my opiynnion, mayn...
So, I don't think I'm speaking madness, here. :-)

BTW I agree, I don't rate Ali at the top either, but when you evaluate a fighter's whole career you have to evaluate the results relevant to where he was at that moment in his career. To survive and then defeat Foreman in Zaire is one of the 'greatest' achievements the game has ever seen. Then for 'the old man' to drop a decision to Neon Leon, and then come back and out spar the kid, certainly doesn't make him any greater, but it also doesn't diminish him either. -- What happens if Marciano comes back and loses to Johannson, (sp) after all he almost did come back, does he then slip five notches on your list?

Marciano, as far as I'm concerned, could have by far had great chances to beat Ingemar Johansson... why not? With Rocky's usual work-ethics, that would have been veritable (dude was a freaking monk: you probably haven't heard the stories I have heard, about Rocky's usual training routines, and I could picture them... seek Google...); not with someone like Alí's work-ethics, as far as I'm concerned, with all due respect. What goes around, comes around. I guess you wouldn't scowl at me, now, woud ya?

As far as Rocky goes (vs. Johansson) I was offering a 'what if' how would you then rate him - they say every great fighter has one great fight left in him (so watch out) and I think it is likely had Rocky stayed for one more fight Patterson or Johansson, there was a good chance he wins either. -- Patterson's speed would have given him much trouble, but we all now know that Patterson had a 'dimple in his chin' and it seems likely IMO that Patterson would go the way of Walcott I, out boxing the Rock until he got caught. Johansson would have been an even easier fight for Marciano. He would have stood in front of Rocky and traded, and lost.

ThfshfsthatwasIwastryinatellyou (trying to sound like Floyd Sr.)!

[Ambling Alp II]

Sometimes it's hard to say if someone is trolling or clueless.

Well, you know, I might be clueless, but when it comes to ratings, I must consider a boxer's whole career span. It's no fantasy fights, dude; if not, it would go all the way like this, arguably: "prime Tyson beats anyone period", or so. It's not like this... a boxer that achieves great results in his prime, but loses his skills later in his career, due to loss of explosive power and speed, gets rated lower than a boxer who's maybe a little less talented, but trained well enough to stay fit until the end: imagine a marathoner, taking the lead for 41 kilometres, then losing it right before the 42nd; he doesn't win the race anyway, if he faces somebody, even less-fast, but who has saved his energies for the last mile.

I can't picture how you guys can't understand all this, for it looks just obvious, to me: Alí was hugely talented, even the most talented boxer ever, but lacked Marciano's work-ethics, that's why I would rate the latter higher... simple as this.

You should put a lot more stock in fights when a fighter (and his opponents for that matter) were close to their prime than when they are clearly past it.
Ali's fight with Trevor Berbick is not as important as his fight with say Sonny Liston,. Surely you can see that.
If you don't then you have to give Trevor Berbick a ton of credit for beating Ali since you are discounting the stages of fighter's career. Are you really going to do that?

And clearly you are selectively considering the stages of their careers with Duran and Armstrong. You made a big deal about Ali having late career losses and then you rated Armstrong and Duran ahead of him. They each had a lot more losses than Ali.

You have to be consistent in how you rate fighters, whether you like them or not.

[oogiebe]

Sometimes it's hard to say if someone is trolling or clueless.

Well, you know, I might be clueless, but when it comes to ratings, I must consider a boxer's whole career span. It's no fantasy fights, dude; if not, it would go all the way like this, arguably: "prime Tyson beats anyone period", or so. It's not like this... a boxer that achieves great results in his prime, but loses his skills later in his career, due to loss of explosive power and speed, gets rated lower than a boxer who's maybe a little less talented, but trained well enough to stay fit until the end: imagine a marathoner, taking the lead for 41 kilometres, then losing it right before the 42nd; he doesn't win the race anyway, if he faces somebody, even less-fast, but who has saved his energies for the last mile.

I can't picture how you guys can't understand all this, for it looks just obvious, to me: Alí was hugely talented, even the most talented boxer ever, but lacked Marciano's work-ethics, that's why I would rate the latter higher... simple as this.

You should put a lot more stock in fights when a fighter (and his opponents for that matter) were close to their prime than when they are clearly past it.
Ali's fight with Trevor Berbick is not as important as his fight with say Sonny Liston,. Surely you can see that.
If you don't then you have to give Trevor Berbick a ton of credit for beating Ali since you are discounting the stages of fighter's career. Are you really going to do that?

And clearly you are selectively considering the stages of their careers with Duran and Armstrong. You made a big deal about Ali having late career losses and then you rated Armstrong and Duran ahead of him. They each had a lot more losses than Ali.

You have to be consistent in how you rate fighters, whether you like them or not.

I agree on the bold. Ranking fighters by their peak is where I leverage more of their performance, then I'll look at sustainability.

[Jacopodb]

Sometimes it's hard to say if someone is trolling or clueless.

Well, you know, I might be clueless, but when it comes to ratings, I must consider a boxer's whole career span. It's no fantasy fights, dude; if not, it would go all the way like this, arguably: "prime Tyson beats anyone period", or so. It's not like this... a boxer that achieves great results in his prime, but loses his skills later in his career, due to loss of explosive power and speed, gets rated lower than a boxer who's maybe a little less talented, but trained well enough to stay fit until the end: imagine a marathoner, taking the lead for 41 kilometres, then losing it right before the 42nd; he doesn't win the race anyway, if he faces somebody, even less-fast, but who has saved his energies for the last mile.

I can't picture how you guys can't understand all this, for it looks just obvious, to me: Alí was hugely talented, even the most talented boxer ever, but lacked Marciano's work-ethics, that's why I would rate the latter higher... simple as this.

You should put a lot more stock in fights when a fighter (and his opponents for that matter) were close to their prime than when they are clearly past it.
Ali's fight with Trevor Berbick is not as important as his fight with say Sonny Liston,. Surely you can see that.
If you don't then you have to give Trevor Berbick a ton of credit for beating Ali since you are discounting the stages of fighter's career. Are you really going to do that?

And clearly you are selectively considering the stages of their careers with Duran and Armstrong. You made a big deal about Ali having late career losses and then you rated Armstrong and Duran ahead of him. They each had a lot more losses than Ali.

You have to be consistent in how you rate fighters, whether you like them or not.

I can picture your points, honey, but Duran and Armstrong had like double and triple Alí's number of fights...

Alí summed up 56 victories, against great fighters all you want, phantom punch or less, but what could you tell me about the phantom punch-issue, for example..? I don't know myself, but you can tell I don't like Alí more than a bit. Not everyone can like me.

Duran has got 103 victories, 70 coming by way of knockout, Armstrong even 152 with 10 KOs (all according to boxrec, of course)... and they fought in the US, not in Bulgaria, with all due respect. And I'm sure you know some of their respective opponents.
Armstrong had triple Alí's fights and only 2 KO losses..? Alí had 1 KO loss...
They lost just a little bit of them, so... shìt happens. They're both very different from Alí, in terms of work-ethics.

What a fighter has achieved, before and past his prime, makes no difference to me.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are calling me "honey", really?
All you are doing is playing around with numbers so that they favor the guys that you like better.
Yes Armstrong was stopped only twice. So you say he was stopped a lower% of the time than Ali.

Then you point out that Duran and Armstrong had more ko's than Ali.

Well guess what? Duran was stopped 4 times, so he was stopped a higher% of the time than Ali. Funny how you didn't mention that.

Also guess what?
Ali had a higher KO% than both Duran and Armstrong. Funny how you didn't mention that.

Boxing stats can very deceiving. Duran and Armstrong each fought a lot of good-great fighters. They also fought an awful lot of total stiffs than nobody has heard of. A fighter can pad his win/loss record, and ko's with easy wins against opponents that have virtually no chance of beating them.

Ali didn't do that nearly as much as Duran and Armstrong.

I can come up with other fighters who had more wins and knockouts than Duran that weren't as good as Duran and Armstrong.

This isn't like soccer, basketball, baseball etc. where you have schedule of opponents that you have to go against.
The quality of opponents can vary wildly in boxing. Stats like KOs, KO%, Wins, and win/loss % have to taken with a grain of salt.

And again, you can't just pick and choose stuff which favors the guys you like and ignore what favors the guys that you don't like.

[Jacopodb]

You are calling me "honey", really?
All you are doing is playing around with numbers so that they favor the guys that you like better.
Yes Armstrong was stopped only twice. So you say he was stopped a lower% of the time than Ali.

Then you point out that Duran and Armstrong had more ko's than Ali.

Well guess what? Duran was stopped 4 times, so he was stopped a higher% of the time than Ali. Funny how you didn't mention that.

Also guess what?
Ali had a higher KO% than both Duran and Armstrong. Funny how you didn't mention that.

Boxing stats can very deceiving. Duran and Armstrong each fought a lot of good-great fighters. They also fought an awful lot of total stiffs than nobody has heard of. A fighter can pad his win/loss record, and ko's with easy wins against opponents that have virtually no chance of beating them.

Ali didn't do that nearly as much as Duran and Armstrong.

I can come up with other fighters who had more wins and knockouts than Duran that weren't as good as Duran and Armstrong.

This isn't like soccer, basketball, baseball etc. where you have schedule of opponents that you have to go against.
The quality of opponents can vary wildly in boxing. Stats like KOs, KO%, Wins, and win/loss % have to taken with a grain of salt.

And again, you can't just pick and choose stuff which favors the guys you like and ignore what favors the guys that you don't like.

Of course that "honey" was ironic, baby, but percentages don't matter more than absolute numbers. I might like Armstrong and Duran better, as professionals, obviously, because I haven't met them, but a guy that has fought 1 professional match in his career, might have 100% KO-percentage because he KO'd a guy in the last round, but not because of that he will be considered better than a guy who has 50% KO-percentage, but has beaten better opposition...

...Armstrong beat 10 motherfùckin' hall-of-famers, and managed to KO roughly 100 guys... Duran fought guys fùckin' twice his size, what do you think I care about percentages, dude?
Boxrec ludicrously rates Armstrong below the 100th p4p boxer ever... that's what statistics matter.
Watching some of Armstrong's brilliant defensive skills, and Duran's thunderous all-out powerpunching, is already enough to consider them better fighters.

Fighting even less-known boxers, increases your ring smarts and IQ, overall experience, and conditioning anyway, if you can show up fit for every fight, so why bothering to remark that Duran and Armstrong have fought also less-known fighters, when Alí has fought quite some bums too, and both my boys have met more dangerous opposition than Alí anyway?

The Louisville Lip was one hell of a guy, and I respect his pain, but there's no way he has achieved more than the other two above named, as I see it: defeating high-class fighters in different weight classes, fighting top-notch opposition past his 40-years-old, are things Alí has never done, with all due respect. Less agonistic longevity and experience, more technical flaws, and less-proficient work-ethics, lead to make me rate Alí lower than Hank and Duran.

[elmersalsa]

You are calling me "honey", really?
All you are doing is playing around with numbers so that they favor the guys that you like better.
Yes Armstrong was stopped only twice. So you say he was stopped a lower% of the time than Ali.

Then you point out that Duran and Armstrong had more ko's than Ali.

Well guess what? Duran was stopped 4 times, so he was stopped a higher% of the time than Ali. Funny how you didn't mention that.

Also guess what?
Ali had a higher KO% than both Duran and Armstrong. Funny how you didn't mention that.

Boxing stats can very deceiving. Duran and Armstrong each fought a lot of good-great fighters. They also fought an awful lot of total stiffs than nobody has heard of. A fighter can pad his win/loss record, and ko's with easy wins against opponents that have virtually no chance of beating them.

Ali didn't do that nearly as much as Duran and Armstrong.

I can come up with other fighters who had more wins and knockouts than Duran that weren't as good as Duran and Armstrong.

This isn't like soccer, basketball, baseball etc. where you have schedule of opponents that you have to go against.
The quality of opponents can vary wildly in boxing. Stats like KOs, KO%, Wins, and win/loss % have to taken with a grain of salt.

And again, you can't just pick and choose stuff which favors the guys you like and ignore what favors the guys that you don't like.

Of course that "honey" was ironic, baby, but percentages don't matter more than absolute numbers. I might like Armstrong and Duran better, as professionals, obviously, because I haven't met them, but a guy that has fought 1 professional match in his career, might have 100% KO-percentage because he KO'd a guy in the last round, but not because of that he will be considered better than a guy who has 50% KO-percentage, but has beaten better opposition...

...Armstrong beat 10 motherfùckin' hall-of-famers, and managed to KO roughly 100 guys... Duran fought guys fùckin' twice his size, what do you think I care about percentages, dude?
Boxrec ludicrously rates Armstrong below the 100th p4p boxer ever... that's what statistics matter.
Watching some of Armstrong's brilliant defensive skills, and Duran's thunderous all-out powerpunching, is already enough to consider them better fighters.

Fighting even less-known boxers, increases your ring smarts and IQ, overall experience, and conditioning anyway, if you can show up fit for every fight, so why bothering to remark that Duran and Armstrong have fought also less-known fighters, when Alí has fought quite some bums too, and both my boys have met more dangerous opposition than Alí anyway?

The Louisville Lip was one hell of a guy, and I respect his pain, but there's no way he has achieved more than the other two above named, as I see it: defeating high-class fighters in different weight classes, fighting top-notch opposition past his 40-years-old, are things Alí has never done, with all due respect. Less agonistic longevity and experience, more technical flaws, and less-proficient work-ethics, lead to make me rate Alí lower than Hank and Duran.

Well said, baby!

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes it was very eloquent. Guess we are moving the goalposts again. Armstrong beat more Hall of Famers than Ali. But wait, Ali beat more than Duran. That part was strangely left out.
Also didn't realize that Duran was beating guys twice his size.

[Jacopodb]

Yes it was very eloquent. Guess we are moving the goalposts again. Armstrong beat more Hall of Famers than Ali. But wait, Ali beat more than Duran. That part was strangely left out.
Also didn't realize that Duran was beating guys twice his size.

Well, dude: from lightweight to super-middleweight, is quite some fukkin trip.

Duran went also on to fight 11-years-younger Camacho in 2001... Camacho had started at 130, was out of his weight but was still quite dangerous at the time, went on to fight for 9 more years, and knocked people out... Duran lost to a mere decision, and was 50 years old... then he arguably smelled danger, and retired for good: that's how you do it.

I'd rate poor Alí awfully low... he's dramatically overrated, because of his witty sense of humour and humanitarian battles... he was a great champion nevertheless, but there's great and greater... now, I don't wanna deal with bloodthirsty nerds, and there's no way I'm gonna read all those books, watch all that footage, and check all those records as nerds do, baby, I got a life: friendship, love, 60s/70s music & movies, a little gym, life en plain air... I don't have all the time in the world. I'll never prove a nerd wrong... nerds are always right, it's like an incontrovertible axiom.

Nevertheless, I respect more "Big George" Foreman than Alí, as a fighter... beating a then-undefeated Michael Moorer at 45 years old, man..?
Or Bernard Hopkins... but I'll never say it loud, man, I fear nerds.

[Onetimeonly]

Armstrong clearly rates over both IMO. Duran and Ali are virtually interchangeable. I'd probably side with Duran, but no argument the other way. Roberto was the greatest talent of the 3 in my eyes.

[Jacopodb]

Armstrong clearly rates over both IMO. Duran and Ali are virtually interchangeable. I'd probably side with Duran, but no argument the other way. Roberto was the greatest talent of the 3 in my eyes.

Now that's talking some sense.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, here: Duran and Alí were roughly equal, in terms of sheer, raw talent, as I see it: Duran sold his own skin at a higher price, overall, than Alí, IMHO: what's the use of jumping on the ring with Spinks when you are in such poor in those conditions, man..? With all due respect, shame on Alí, his handlers and his promoters: it's not a responsible job when you got family, showing up like that... it's technically licit, but it's on the verge of pathologic ego-issues, if you can dig deep enough, you might reckon too: it's an utter attempt to your own health, and everything that comes with it, including your family's nerve and pain. Alí didn't respect his own pain, nor his family's: if you're in trouble, you better raise funds, than getting beaten down like that... Alí had a lot of friends rich enough to help him out, and sure could save a couple of bucks for a rainy day.

Hank was just out of this world, too much for both Duran and Alí: there's a lot of fighting footage of Armstrong, everyone can see for oneself.

I would even rate Pacquiao higher than Alí... not bad for a poor Filipino guy that gets beaten with a stick in training: he's not any Floyd work-ethics, but he's not even Alí.

I rate Alí unbelievably low, you don't even wanna know about that: I don't care for legend, I care about history, merely, dude.
I don't mean to rage on poor Alí, I'm just speaking my mind, awkwardly enough.

[Onetimeonly]

Spinks was past the point where anything can be held against Ali. The rematch was icing on the cake. Right about the same point as Duran after benitez. I only rate on resumes and Ali's is fantastic. No disputing that.

[oogiebe]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

[Jacopodb]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Alí's makings were beyond imagination, but I just don't feel like rating him too high for what he did to himself: maybe I just use my own "peculiar" criteria to rate any fighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Don't see how Duran took more chances than Armstrong and Ali. Duran moved up in weight, but Armstrong did as well. Obviously Ali couldn't. Almost ever fighter that begins his career in the smaller weight classes moves up.

Duran beat impressive overall competition, but Armstrong and Ali beat better overall competition than Duran. Armstrong and Ali are rock solid Top fighters of all time. Duran is borderline Top 10.

[oogiebe]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Don't see how Duran took more chances than Armstrong and Ali. Duran moved up in weight, but Armstrong did as well. Obviously Ali couldn't. Almost ever fighter that begins his career in the smaller weight classes moves up.

Duran beat impressive overall competition, but Armstrong and Ali beat better overall competition than Duran. Armstrong and Ali are rock solid Top fighters of all time. Duran is borderline Top 10.

Again, I rate Armstrong over both. The rest is arguable, as it can go either way. Duran is top 10 in my books.

[Jacopodb]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Don't see how Duran took more chances than Armstrong and Ali. Duran moved up in weight, but Armstrong did as well. Obviously Ali couldn't. Almost ever fighter that begins his career in the smaller weight classes moves up.

Duran beat impressive overall competition, but Armstrong and Ali beat better overall competition than Duran. Armstrong and Ali are rock solid Top fighters of all time. Duran is borderline Top 10.

Again, I rate Armstrong over both. The rest is arguable, as it can go either way. Duran is top 10 in my books.

Top-10 for sure, also in mine: other sure top-10 inductees, for me, would be Sugar Ray Robinson, of course, and Hank too, Floyd Jr., Joe Louis and Monzon. Only problem is that I'm not sure about the order I would place them.

We might be a little off-topic with this, but just a little bit.

[oogiebe]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Don't see how Duran took more chances than Armstrong and Ali. Duran moved up in weight, but Armstrong did as well. Obviously Ali couldn't. Almost ever fighter that begins his career in the smaller weight classes moves up.

Duran beat impressive overall competition, but Armstrong and Ali beat better overall competition than Duran. Armstrong and Ali are rock solid Top fighters of all time. Duran is borderline Top 10.

Again, I rate Armstrong over both. The rest is arguable, as it can go either way. Duran is top 10 in my books.

Top-10 for sure, also in mine: other sure top-10 inductees, for me, would be Sugar Ray Robinson, of course, and Hank too, Floyd Jr., Joe Louis and Monzon. Only problem is that I'm not sure about the order I would place them.

We might be a little off-topic with this, but just a little bit.

Any day I can put one over another and then back again. Sometimes I'll favor one because I had recently watched some of his fights, so it's fresh in my mind. I'm like oh yeah, that's why he was so great!

[Jacopodb]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Don't see how Duran took more chances than Armstrong and Ali. Duran moved up in weight, but Armstrong did as well. Obviously Ali couldn't. Almost ever fighter that begins his career in the smaller weight classes moves up.

Duran beat impressive overall competition, but Armstrong and Ali beat better overall competition than Duran. Armstrong and Ali are rock solid Top fighters of all time. Duran is borderline Top 10.

Again, I rate Armstrong over both. The rest is arguable, as it can go either way. Duran is top 10 in my books.

Top-10 for sure, also in mine: other sure top-10 inductees, for me, would be Sugar Ray Robinson, of course, and Hank too, Floyd Jr., Joe Louis and Monzon. Only problem is that I'm not sure about the order I would place them.

We might be a little off-topic with this, but just a little bit.

Any day I can put one over another and then back again. Sometimes I'll favor one because I had recently watched some of his fights, so it's fresh in my mind. I'm like oh yeah, that's why he was so great!

That's some good observation.

[elmersalsa]

Duran was one of my all-time favs and for good reason. His resume is remarkable, remembering he started out as arguably the scariest lightweight in history to winning world titles in several divisions above that. He took more chances than the other two, and his losses were for the same reasons he made some amazing victories; he took chances, albeit with confidence. Regardless of the losses, his resume reads as a HOF listing, as he fought in one of, if not the greatest era in history. (Hearns/Hagler/Leonard/Duran, etc.). Any one of them would dominate an era if not for the other three.

I rate Duran over Ali, but not Armstrong (top 4/5 P4P ever). Ali was special in so many ways, and despite his ill fated comebacks, he is still one of the greatest P4P of all-time. I have to admit that it's difficult to imagine what would have been with Ali had he not been banned for 3 1/2 years of his prime. Three GOAT'ers. Oh shvt...I broke my paragraph rule.

Don't see how Duran took more chances than Armstrong and Ali. Duran moved up in weight, but Armstrong did as well. Obviously Ali couldn't. Almost ever fighter that begins his career in the smaller weight classes moves up.

Duran beat impressive overall competition, but Armstrong and Ali beat better overall competition than Duran. Armstrong and Ali are rock solid Top fighters of all time. Duran is borderline Top 10.

[Jacopodb]

Duran should be a stable top-10 p4p ever in any respectable list, you don't need to be Bert Sugar to recognise this, unless you know some obscure, formidable boxers from 18th century or so...

[TheLeprechaun]

The great Muhammad Ali best win?
Easily, WKO8 George Foreman.... October 30, 1974....."Ali Bomaye!"

Best knockout? WKO8 George Foreman.

Best performance? WTKO3 Cleveland Williams. It was Ali display of all his physical and technical skills. His speed of hands and feet was unbelievable.

Best opponent? The great Joe Frazier in The Fight of the Century. I have never seen a heavyweight that fought that great. Ali was magnificent also. Great fight.

The Cleveland Williams performance was Ali at his absolute utter prime. His reflexes were exceptional. I watch this fight on youtube quite regularly. This was a really really really good performance. In this fight I don't think any heavyweight in history had a chance against him.

[APerno]

Too good not to repost

[Onetimeonly]

The great Muhammad Ali best win?
Easily, WKO8 George Foreman.... October 30, 1974....."Ali Bomaye!"

Best knockout? WKO8 George Foreman.

Best performance? WTKO3 Cleveland Williams. It was Ali display of all his physical and technical skills. His speed of hands and feet was unbelievable.

Best opponent? The great Joe Frazier in The Fight of the Century. I have never seen a heavyweight that fought that great. Ali was magnificent also. Great fight.

The Cleveland Williams performance was Ali at his absolute utter prime. His reflexes were exceptional. I watch this fight on youtube quite regularly. This was a really really really good performance. In this fight I don't think any heavyweight in history had a chance against him.

I don't think that's in his top 20.

[Ambling Alp II]

The great Muhammad Ali best win?
Easily, WKO8 George Foreman.... October 30, 1974....."Ali Bomaye!"

Best knockout? WKO8 George Foreman.

Best performance? WTKO3 Cleveland Williams. It was Ali display of all his physical and technical skills. His speed of hands and feet was unbelievable.

Best opponent? The great Joe Frazier in The Fight of the Century. I have never seen a heavyweight that fought that great. Ali was magnificent also. Great fight.

The Cleveland Williams performance was Ali at his absolute utter prime. His reflexes were exceptional. I watch this fight on youtube quite regularly. This was a really really really good performance. In this fight I don't think any heavyweight in history had a chance against him.

Hard to pick just one, but that may be it. He looked great from Liston to Folley.