Is Muhammad Ali in Everybody's 'Top 10'

[gilgamesh]

I would argue that Ali beat better opponents in non title fights than the others did in their title fights..

I would agree with you

[Duch]

Il Duce is pretty quiet in that topic... A lot of valuable information left him speechless?

[BoxBuzz]

How did his cigar smell?

[hhascup]

Don't get me wrong, Dempsey doesn't get enough credit with most of today's boxing people. Last year I had the honor of making the Presentation and Inducting him into the New York State Boxing Hall of Fame. The year before I did the same for SRR and Jake LaMotta among others.

Bert Sugar use to have Dempsey at #1 followed by Louis and then Ali. Then he changed it to Louis at #1 followed by Ali and then Dempsey. I asked him why the change and he said because he listens to what others, meaning boxing experts that really know what there talking about, had to say.

Mr. H Has Cup,

I used to live near Burt Sugar in Chappaqua, New York. I also rode with him on the Metro-North Train.

We talked all the time about Boxing.

Mr. Sugar had Jack Dempsey at #1 in his heart, as the best Heavyweight.

I knew him pretty well. Every time he saw me he would give me a trivia question on either boxing or baseball, when he died they asked me to give the Bell Count at his funeral. By the way, he never stumped me of any of his questions.

[No Tomorrow]

You do realize Il Douchebe Mumtumbo is a pathological liar ..

[DaveyMac]

Davey Mc,

A Spanish Phrase............... Alfredo Evangelista...........Muhammad Ali at his best......

Here's some phrases, Willie Meehan,(twice) Fireman Jim Flynn, Jack Downey, and of course Gene Tunney twice.

How can you possible call someone the greatest HW ever that lost a fight to a Fireman.

[DaveyMac]

Don't get me wrong, Dempsey doesn't get enough credit with most of today's boxing people. Last year I had the honor of making the Presentation and Inducting him into the New York State Boxing Hall of Fame. The year before I did the same for SRR and Jake LaMotta among others.

Bert Sugar use to have Dempsey at #1 followed by Louis and then Ali. Then he changed it to Louis at #1 followed by Ali and then Dempsey. I asked him why the change and he said because he listens to what others, meaning boxing experts that really know what there talking about, had to say.

Mr. H Has Cup,

I used to live near Burt Sugar in Chappaqua, New York. I also rode with him on the Metro-North Train.

We talked all the time about Boxing.

Mr. Sugar had Jack Dempsey at #1 in his heart, as the best Heavyweight.

Bullshit. Bert Sugar would have blown his head off before he listened to your tripe on the train every day.

[hhascup]

How did his cigar smell?

Much like Monica Lewinsky........

I believe you would have to ask former President - Bill Clinton to confirm that.

Yes, he lived near me as well in Chappaqua, on House Lane off of Route 120.

Here's his address as we use to send things to each other.

Bert R. Sugar
6 Southview Road
Chappaqua, N.Y. 10514

https://www.google.com/maps/place/6+Sou ... 5cb1f9a3b2

https://www.google.com/maps/place/6+Sou ... b2!6m1!1e1

[DaveyMac]

Duce, I could buy and sell you hundred times over.

[BoxBuzz]

uh...hmmm You could buy him possibly. But finding someone to sell him to?

Not even the world's greatest salesman would take that on.

[Bobbyptsd]

uh...hmmm You could buy him possibly. But finding someone to sell him to?

Not even the world's greatest salesman would take that on.

That's the problem, it's like buying a house in Detroit.

[Syntax Error]

Top 10 HW - Yes; absolute brainer.

Top 10 P4P - A bit more difficult, but would never argue with his inclusion there either.

[Cholo_cws]

As a Heavyweight he has the best resume of anyone.

Ali fought 38 different opponents 49 times in 61 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 80.3279%

Louis fought 43 different Opponents 54 times in 71 (or 72) bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 76.056%

Rocky fought 13 different Opponents 16 times in 49 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 32.653%

Ali fought 37 out of 61 opponents while they were in the top 10. He beat 32 of them 52.459%

Louis fought 35 out of 71 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat 32 of them 45.07%

Rocky fought 11 out of 49 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat all 11 of them 22.44898%

Ali fought boxers that had an average pro record of 33-5-1 when he fought them.

Louis fought boxers that had an average pro record of 38-10-2.5 when he fought them.

Rocky fought boxers that had an average pro record of 29.7-10.16-1.78 when he fought them.

Just compare the list of Opponents that each fought, you can't tell me that Ali didn't box the better opponents.

Ali beat Foreman, Frazier 2 out of 3 times, Liston twice, Norton 2 out of 3 times, Patterson twice, Quarry twice, Bonavena, Ellis, Folley, Terrell, Chuvalo twice, Lyle & Shavers. I can go on, BUT I think you know what I mean.
Louis beat Greats like Baer, Schmeling, Walcott twice, Conn twice, Braddock, Carnera & Sharkey.

Compare them at the time they fought Ali or Louis, not just their overall record, and you will see what I am talking about.

Both of these Great boxers are among the best ever, I rate them 1-2. When I was a kid, most experts would say that it was Dempsey who was the Greatest, as time went on the experts would say it was Louis, now for many years, they say it's Ali. No one knows for sure and everyone has his or her opinions.

Just match up Ali's opponents with Louis's that they beat.

1. Foreman 40 (37 KO)-0-0 vs. Max Baer 50 (31 KO) -6-0
2. Frazier 30 (25 KO) -1-0 & 32 (27 KO) -2-0 vs. Schmeling 52 (37 KO) -7-4
3. Liston 35 (25 KO) -1-0 & 35 (25 KO)-2-0 vs. Braddock 50 (26 KO) -25-7
4. Norton 30 (23 KO) -1-0 & 37 (30 KO) -3-0 vs. Walcott 44 (27 KO) -11-2 & 44 (27 KO) -12-2
5. Patterson 43 (32 KO) -4-0 & 55 (40 KO) -7-1 vs. Conn 59 (13 KO) -10-1 & 62 (13 KO) -11-1
6. Quarry 37 (23 KO) -4-4 & 43 (25 KO) -5-4 vs. Nova 26 (17 KO) -2-4
7. Bonavena 46 (36 KO) -6-1 vs. Galento 76 (53 KO) -23-5
8. Ellis 30 (14 KO) -6-0 vs. Sharkey 38 (13 KO) -13-3
9. Folley 74 (40 KO) -7-4 vs. Farr 66 (18 KO) -20-13
10. Terrell 38 (18 KO) -4-0 vs. Carnera 82 (66 KO) -7-0
11. Chuvalo 34 (27 KO) -11-2 & 66 (57 KO)-17-2 vs. Godoy 53 (30) -8-7 & 53 (30 KO) -9-7
12. Lyle 30 (21 KO) -2-1 vs. Simon 34 (23 KO) -7-0 & 36 (25 KO) -9-1
13. Shavers 55 (53 KO) -5-1 vs. Buddy Baer 50 (47 KO) -5-0 & 50 (47 KO) -6-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs.
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs.
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs.
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3
18. Moore 184-22-11
19. Young 17-4-2
20. Williams 65-5-1
21. Jones 21-3-1
22. Cooper 27-8-1 & 33-11-1
23. L. Spinks 7-0-1

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also switch them around if you want; just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents that Ali boxed against the top opponents of Louis.

That’s 31 wins against 23 different opponents. All 23 opponents were rated #3 or better in the World at one time or another by Ring Magazine.


Lets do it with Tyson:

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Holmes 48-2-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. M. Spinks 31-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. P. Thomas 29-1-1
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Berbick 32-4-1
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Tubbs 24-1-0
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 19-5-0
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Tucker 35-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Biggs 15-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Bruno 32-2-0 & 40-4-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. C. Williams 22-2-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Tillis 31-8-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Ruddock 24-1-1 & 24-2-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Botha 39-1-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. M. Green 16-1-1
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. M. Frazier 16-1-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Tillman 20-4-0
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. Stewart 26-1-0
18. Moore 184-22-11 vs.
19. Young 17-4-2 vs.
20. Williams 65-5-1 vs.
21. Jones 21-3-1 vs.
22. Cooper 27-8-1 & 33-11-1 vs.
23. L. Spinks 7-0-1 vs.


How about Rocky:

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Walcott 51-16-2 & 51-17-2
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Charles 80-10-1 & 80-11-1
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Moore 148-19-9
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. LaStarza 37-0-0 & 53-3-0
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Cockell 66-11-1
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. Matthews 81-3-5
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Louis 69-2-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Layne 34-1-2
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Savold 93-39-3
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. Muscato 56-20-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Shkor 29-18-2
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Beshore 30-12-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Reynolds 51-9-2
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs.
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs.
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs.
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs.
18. Moore 184-22-11 vs.
19. Young 17-4-2 vs.
20. Williams 65-5-1 vs.
21. Jones 21-3-1 vs.
22. Cooper 27-8-1 & 33-11-1 vs.
23. L. Spinks 7-0-1 vs.


Ali vs. Holmes

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Cooney 25-0-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Mercer 18-0-0
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Witherspoon 15-0-0
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Norton 40-4-0
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Berbick 18-1-1
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. J. Smith 14-1-0 & 44-16-1
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Bey 14-0-0
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Snipes 22-0-0
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. M. Frazier 10-0-0
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. L. Jones 24-0-1
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Cobb 21-2-0
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Weaver 19-8-0 & 41-17-1
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Shavers 54-6-1 & 59-7-1
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs. Carl Williams 16-0-0
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs. Ocasio 13-0-0
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs. Butterbean 65-2-3
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3 vs. LeDoux 26-8-4
18. Moore 184-22-11 vs. Zanon 25-4-2
19. Young 17-4-2 vs. Evangelista 23-2-1
20. Cleveland Williams 65-5-1 vs. L. Rodriguez 35-7-1
21. Jones 21-3-1 vs. Ferguson 20-12-0
22. Cooper 27-8-1 & 33-11-1 vs. S. Frank 21-0-1
23. L. Spinks 7-0-1 vs. L. Spinks 10-2-2

Because some Heavyweight Champions beat the same opponent more then once, try matching Ali's Top Opponents against any other Heavyweight Champion.

Boxers that Ali fought & beat that were rated #3 or above at one time or another:
1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs.
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs.
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs.
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs.
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs.
6. Ken Norton (1-CH) 30-1-0 vs.
7. Ken Norton (1-CH) 37-3-0 vs.
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs.
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs.
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs.
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs.
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs.
13. Jimmy Ellis (2-CH) 30-6-0 vs.
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs.
15. Ernie Terrell (1-CH) 38-4-0 vs.
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs.
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (LH-CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) - (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

The rating behind the names indicate the last monthly rating before the fight: Muhammad Ali’s top 10 rated opponents

1962
Alejandro Lavorante - # 10
Archie Moore - # 5

1963
Doug Jones - # 3
Henry Cooper - # 9

1964
Sonny Liston - World Heavyweight Champion

1965
Sonny Liston - # 1
Floyd Patterson - # 1

1966
George Chuvalo - # 9
Henry Cooper - # 4
Karl Mildenberger - # 3
Cleveland Williams - # 3

1967
Ernie Terell - # 1
Zora Folley - # 2

1970
Jerry Quarry - # 1
Oscar Bonavena - # 3

1971
Joe Frazier - World Heavyweight Champion - LOSS
Jimmy Ellis - # 7

1972
Mac Foster - # 6
Jerry Quarry - # 2
Floyd Patterson - # 3
Bob Foster - World Light-Heavyweight Champion

1973
Joe Bugner - # 8
Ken Norton - # 9 - LOSS
Ken Norton - # 2

1974
Joe Frazier - # 1
George Foreman - World Heavyweight Champion

1975
Chuck Wepner - # 9
Ron Lyle - # 8
Joe Bugner - # 4
Joe Frazier - # 2

1976
Jimmy Young - # 3
Ken Norton - # 2

1977
Ernie Shavers - # 5

1978
Leon Spinks - # 9 - LOSS
Leon Spinks - World Heavyweight Champion

1980
Larry Holmes - Wolrd Heavyweight Champion - LOSS

1981
Trevor Berbick - # 7 - LOSS

Overall record: 56-5
Record vs. top 10 rated opponents (incl. Light-Heavyweight Champion): 32-5

Here's a list of the only contenders that Ali didn't box at one time or another. This does not count the time he was out of boxing or not the Champion. This is from 1964 to 1967 and 1973 to 1978, a total of 10 years:

Thad Spencer (3)
Duane Bobick (4)
Kallie Knoetze (6)
Amos Lincoln (6)
Howard Smith (7)
Johnny Boudreaux (8)
Eduardo Corletti (8)
Gerry Coetzee (8)
Roger Rischer (8)
Eddie Machen (9)
Henry Clark (9)
Ozzie Ocasio (9)
Stan Ward (9)
Hubert Hilton (9)
Johnny Persol (9)
Larry Middleton (10)
Randy Neumann (10)

One of the finest and most interesting posts I've ever seen on Boxrec
The ratings of Ali's opponents shines a light on the shortage of fights in the current era between those at/near the top (in any division.)

[mjaco]

Fair and Balanced Top 5

#1...... Jack Dempsey
#2...... Joe Louis
#3...... Larry Holmes
#4...... James J. Jeffries
#5...... Rocky Marciano

No way Muhammad Ali moves ahead of these Gentleman.

Up until the mid 1960's most boxing experts had Dempsey #1. In the Associated Press Mid-Century Poll in 1950, Dempsey was voted the Greatest fighter, not just the Greatest heavyweight BUT the Greatest fighter. He received 251 points, followed by Louis with 104, Armstrong 16, Tunney 6, Benny Leonard 5, Jack Johnson 4 and Jim Jeffries with 2.

He was also voted the 3rd Greatest Male Athlete, behind Jim Thorpe and Babe Ruth.

The people that I talked too many years ago that actually saw him fight, all said he was the best.

With that said, this poll was done before Ali. I respect everyone's opinion and several boxing people still rate Dempsey and the others you have listed very high, But not to list Ali in the top 10 as a heavyweight is going some.

Just to let you know, I went over every Boxing Historian and Boxing expert’s list of their top Heavyweight Champions and none of them rated Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes or George Foreman over Muhammad Ali.

Most of them had Ali and Louis as #1 and #2. I Have 46 boxing Historian or Expert rating and here's what they came out with:

1. Ali 26 Louis 13 Dempsey 2 Marciano 2 (Duva & Certo) Tyson, Jeffries & Johnson 1
2. Ali 9 Louis 22
3. Ali 5 Louis 3
4. Ali 3 Louis 4
5. Ali 2 Louis 0
6. Ali 0 Louis 4
7. Ali 0 Louis 0
8. Ali 0 Louis 0
9. Ali 1 Louis 0
10. Ali 0 Louis 0

OTHER OPINIONS ON GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT: Some of these are counted in my totals BUT some aren't because I don't have their full Top 10.
INTERNATIONAL BOXING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION (IBRO): Joe Louis (USA)
JIM AMATO (Amato Boxing): Muhammad Ali (USA)
TRACY CALLIS (Historian, Great Fighters of the Past): Jim Jeffries (USA)
DAN CUOCO (Historian, Director of IBRO): Joe Louis (USA)
BARRY DESKINS (Historian, Cyber Boxing Zone and BoxRec): Muhammad Ali (USA)
STEPHEN GORDON (Cyber Boxing Zone): Muhammad Ali (USA)
MIKE HUNNICUT (Historian, Writer, Film Collector): Jack Dempsey (USA)
ERIC JORGENSEN (Historian): Muhammad Ali (USA)
Alan Sugar (Historian, Former Fighter and Referee): Joe Louis (USA)
CURTIS NARIMATSU (Writer and Historian): Muhammad Ali (USA)

I don't know whether to be frightened anyone put in that much time doing research on a topic like this or awed by how impressive your posts were. Maybe both. But that's the kind of fact-based analysis that's too often missing from these kind of historical debates and I applaud it.

As for the opinions of various experts, old guys tend to like old guys. When I was a little kid first becoming interested in boxing, Ali was toward the end of his career but all the old time boxing writers and historians were still arguing he was overrated and would have been knocked out in one round by Dempsey or Marciano. Now that people of my generation are telling the stories, Ali is a god and Tyson Fury wouldn't last one round with him. Forty or fifty years from now, the writers and historians will be saying how none of these new fangled fighters could hold a candle to the great Tyson Fury while kids will be saying "Muhammad Who?" That's the nature of sporting history.

One other thing is that a lot of people just listen to the voices of old timers or casually glance at records without putting any historical context to it. Jim Jeffries fought in an era when boxing was entirely confined to the English speaking world. There were no boxers outside of the U.S., Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. That's a pretty small talent pool. Likewise, Dempsey's talent pool of opponents was a little smaller than in later eras and he made it smaller by never fighting a leading black contender. I know that wasn't entirely his fault but still, if he'd had to make 3 or 4 title defenses against fighters like Wills, Langford, etc. his reign may very well have been a lot shorter and he'd never be in this conversation. I think common sense says you have to give the edge to the big fish in the big pond over the big fish in the little pond.

Looking at it objectively, I find it hard to rate anyone besides Ali and Louis as the top two, with Ali getting the nod as number one based in part on the kind of numbers hhascup demonstrated.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Up until the mid 1960's most boxing experts had Dempsey #1. In the Associated Press Mid-Century Poll in 1950, Dempsey was voted the Greatest fighter, not just the Greatest heavyweight BUT the Greatest fighter. He received 251 points, followed by Louis with 104, Armstrong 16, Tunney 6, Benny Leonard 5, Jack Johnson 4 and Jim Jeffries with 2.

He was also voted the 3rd Greatest Male Athlete, behind Jim Thorpe and Babe Ruth.

The people that I talked too many years ago that actually saw him fight, all said he was the best.

With that said, this poll was done before Ali. I respect everyone's opinion and several boxing people still rate Dempsey and the others you have listed very high, But not to list Ali in the top 10 as a heavyweight is going some.

Just to let you know, I went over every Boxing Historian and Boxing expert’s list of their top Heavyweight Champions and none of them rated Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes or George Foreman over Muhammad Ali.

Most of them had Ali and Louis as #1 and #2. I Have 46 boxing Historian or Expert rating and here's what they came out with:

1. Ali 26 Louis 13 Dempsey 2 Marciano 2 (Duva & Certo) Tyson, Jeffries & Johnson 1
2. Ali 9 Louis 22
3. Ali 5 Louis 3
4. Ali 3 Louis 4
5. Ali 2 Louis 0
6. Ali 0 Louis 4
7. Ali 0 Louis 0
8. Ali 0 Louis 0
9. Ali 1 Louis 0
10. Ali 0 Louis 0

OTHER OPINIONS ON GREATEST HEAVYWEIGHT: Some of these are counted in my totals BUT some aren't because I don't have their full Top 10.
INTERNATIONAL BOXING RESEARCH ORGANIZATION (IBRO): Joe Louis (USA)
JIM AMATO (Amato Boxing): Muhammad Ali (USA)
TRACY CALLIS (Historian, Great Fighters of the Past): Jim Jeffries (USA)
DAN CUOCO (Historian, Director of IBRO): Joe Louis (USA)
BARRY DESKINS (Historian, Cyber Boxing Zone and BoxRec): Muhammad Ali (USA)
STEPHEN GORDON (Cyber Boxing Zone): Muhammad Ali (USA)
MIKE HUNNICUT (Historian, Writer, Film Collector): Jack Dempsey (USA)
ERIC JORGENSEN (Historian): Muhammad Ali (USA)
Alan Sugar (Historian, Former Fighter and Referee): Joe Louis (USA)
CURTIS NARIMATSU (Writer and Historian): Muhammad Ali (USA)

I don't know whether to be frightened anyone put in that much time doing research on a topic like this or awed by how impressive your posts were. Maybe both. But that's the kind of fact-based analysis that's too often missing from these kind of historical debates and I applaud it.

As for the opinions of various experts, old guys tend to like old guys. When I was a little kid first becoming interested in boxing, Ali was toward the end of his career but all the old time boxing writers and historians were still arguing he was overrated and would have been knocked out in one round by Dempsey or Marciano. Now that people of my generation are telling the stories, Ali is a god and Tyson Fury wouldn't last one round with him. Forty or fifty years from now, the writers and historians will be saying how none of these new fangled fighters could hold a candle to the great Tyson Fury while kids will be saying "Muhammad Who?" That's the nature of sporting history.

One other thing is that a lot of people just listen to the voices of old timers or casually glance at records without putting any historical context to it. Jim Jeffries fought in an era when boxing was entirely confined to the English speaking world. There were no boxers outside of the U.S., Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. That's a pretty small talent pool. Likewise, Dempsey's talent pool of opponents was a little smaller than in later eras and he made it smaller by never fighting a leading black contender. I know that wasn't entirely his fault but still, if he'd had to make 3 or 4 title defenses against fighters like Wills, Langford, etc. his reign may very well have been a lot shorter and he'd never be in this conversation. I think common sense says you have to give the edge to the big fish in the big pond over the big fish in the little pond.

Looking at it objectively, I find it hard to rate anyone besides Ali and Louis as the top two, with Ali getting the nod as number one based in part on the kind of numbers hhascup demonstrated.

- Not bad, kid, but...

1. Henry a rare gentleman savant that I had the pleasure of fencing over these issues prior to his use of an algorithm by 2014. He's not of any era mentality, but rather makes best use if his considerably unique Brain power. Them were the days.

2. JJOHNSON would've had more problems with prime Langford, Jeannette, and Wills than Dempsey. Wills the only contender left standing in Dempsey era, and maybe a half dozen attempts to make that fight were made with contracts being signed.

3. Ali's big prob is he don't pass the stink test in too many fights to mention that numbers can't smell, and I've seen just about every fight by now. As a kid seeing him in his prime during training camp, he was the first guy I ever entertained that might be able to whoop my ol'man, so when Frazier beat him, I refused to believe until many years later when I saw the fight. Joe tore him a new one, no ifs, ands, and buts about it.

* A few years back we had a boxrec top 10 competition you might be able to find that was most interesting at heavyweight if you want serious discussion.

[mjaco]

I don't know whether to be frightened anyone put in that much time doing research on a topic like this or awed by how impressive your posts were. Maybe both. But that's the kind of fact-based analysis that's too often missing from these kind of historical debates and I applaud it.

As for the opinions of various experts, old guys tend to like old guys. When I was a little kid first becoming interested in boxing, Ali was toward the end of his career but all the old time boxing writers and historians were still arguing he was overrated and would have been knocked out in one round by Dempsey or Marciano. Now that people of my generation are telling the stories, Ali is a god and Tyson Fury wouldn't last one round with him. Forty or fifty years from now, the writers and historians will be saying how none of these new fangled fighters could hold a candle to the great Tyson Fury while kids will be saying "Muhammad Who?" That's the nature of sporting history.

One other thing is that a lot of people just listen to the voices of old timers or casually glance at records without putting any historical context to it. Jim Jeffries fought in an era when boxing was entirely confined to the English speaking world. There were no boxers outside of the U.S., Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. That's a pretty small talent pool. Likewise, Dempsey's talent pool of opponents was a little smaller than in later eras and he made it smaller by never fighting a leading black contender. I know that wasn't entirely his fault but still, if he'd had to make 3 or 4 title defenses against fighters like Wills, Langford, etc. his reign may very well have been a lot shorter and he'd never be in this conversation. I think common sense says you have to give the edge to the big fish in the big pond over the big fish in the little pond.

Looking at it objectively, I find it hard to rate anyone besides Ali and Louis as the top two, with Ali getting the nod as number one based in part on the kind of numbers hhascup demonstrated.

- Not bad, kid, but...

1. Henry a rare gentleman savant that I had the pleasure of fencing over these issues prior to his use of an algorithm by 2014. He's not of any era mentality, but rather makes best use if his considerably unique Brain power. Them were the days.

2. JJOHNSON would've had more problems with prime Langford, Jeannette, and Wills than Dempsey. Wills the only contender left standing in Dempsey era, and maybe a half dozen attempts to make that fight were made with contracts being signed.

3. Ali's big prob is he don't pass the stink test in too many fights to mention that numbers can't smell, and I've seen just about every fight by now. As a kid seeing him in his prime during training camp, he was the first guy I ever entertained that might be able to whoop my ol'man, so when Frazier beat him, I refused to believe until many years later when I saw the fight. Joe tore him a new one, no ifs, ands, and buts about it.

* A few years back we had a boxrec top 10 competition you might be able to find that was most interesting at heavyweight if you want serious discussion.

All fair points but a few things I'd mention in reply:

1. I assume Henry is hhascup and I certainly wasn't implying his opinions were biased toward any era. I actually applaud what he seems to be doing.

2. I'd say it's highly debatable that Johnson would have had more problems with those fighters in their prime than Dempsey would have. Also, besides Harry Wills, Langford and Jeannette were still pretty good up to at least the beginning of Dempsey's reign. George Godfrey was a hall of fame heavyweight who was very good in the latter part of Dempsey's reign. Plus Kid Norfolk, though a light heavyweight, fought successfully up at heavyweight during that era. The bottom line is that, regardless of when he fought them, Johnson did fight (and beat) a number of elite black fighters as well as white fighters. Dempsey never fought any of the top black fighters of his era. Granted, Dempsey may have been willing to fight those guys and he might even have beaten them all if he'd been allowed to fight them. But the fact is he never did fight any of them. If Ali had failed to meet nearly half the top heavyweights of his era, I doubt he'd be in this discussion for the best ever.

3. I think you have to distinguish between Ali before his exile and after his exile. During his first title reign, he was probably as unbeatable as any heavyweight ever. After the exile he was clearly not the same fighter but still good enough to win the title twice more. Yes, he lost to Frazier but he also beat Frazier twice. And as hhascup already mentioned, you can pick apart anyone's record to point out individual losses or weak performances. That's why you have to examine a career in total. Ali's level of competition was simply higher than any other heavyweight and he beat most of them. While I'd put him number one, there probably is a case to be made for putting Louis one and Ali two. But I'd say there's a gap between those two and the rest of the field.

Thanks for the recommendation on the other discussion. I'll take a look for it.

[Controversial]

You can't not have him in a top 10, too many big wins.

[elmersalsa]

I have rated The Greatest at 1 at heavyweight
HE is #7 at pound per pound ATG in my view

[gilgamesh]

You can't not have him in a top 10, too many big wins.

It's hard not to have him in the Top 10 even in a P4P sense. Impossible not to have him in the Top 10 in the Heavyweight division.

[oogiebe]

I have rated The Greatest at 1 at heavyweight
HE is #7 at pound per pound ATG in my view

Don't give away your thread bruh. You're only at #84 or abouts.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Not bad, kid, but...

1. Henry a rare gentleman savant that I had the pleasure of fencing over these issues prior to his use of an algorithm by 2014. He's not of any era mentality, but rather makes best use if his considerably unique Brain power. Them were the days.

2. JJOHNSON would've had more problems with prime Langford, Jeannette, and Wills than Dempsey. Wills the only contender left standing in Dempsey era, and maybe a half dozen attempts to make that fight were made with contracts being signed.

3. Ali's big prob is he don't pass the stink test in too many fights to mention that numbers can't smell, and I've seen just about every fight by now. As a kid seeing him in his prime during training camp, he was the first guy I ever entertained that might be able to whoop my ol'man, so when Frazier beat him, I refused to believe until many years later when I saw the fight. Joe tore him a new one, no ifs, ands, and buts about it.

* A few years back we had a boxrec top 10 competition you might be able to find that was most interesting at heavyweight if you want serious discussion.

All fair points but a few things I'd mention in reply:

1. I assume Henry is hhascup and I certainly wasn't implying his opinions were biased toward any era. I actually applaud what he seems to be doing.

2. I'd say it's highly debatable that Johnson would have had more problems with those fighters in their prime than Dempsey would have. Also, besides Harry Wills, Langford and Jeannette were still pretty good up to at least the beginning of Dempsey's reign. George Godfrey was a hall of fame heavyweight who was very good in the latter part of Dempsey's reign. Plus Kid Norfolk, though a light heavyweight, fought successfully up at heavyweight during that era. The bottom line is that, regardless of when he fought them, Johnson did fight (and beat) a number of elite black fighters as well as white fighters. Dempsey never fought any of the top black fighters of his era. Granted, Dempsey may have been willing to fight those guys and he might even have beaten them all if he'd been allowed to fight them. But the fact is he never did fight any of them. If Ali had failed to meet nearly half the top heavyweights of his era, I doubt he'd be in this discussion for the best ever.

3. I think you have to distinguish between Ali before his exile and after his exile. During his first title reign, he was probably as unbeatable as any heavyweight ever. After the exile he was clearly not the same fighter but still good enough to win the title twice more. Yes, he lost to Frazier but he also beat Frazier twice. And as hhascup already mentioned, you can pick apart anyone's record to point out individual losses or weak performances. That's why you have to examine a career in total. Ali's level of competition was simply higher than any other heavyweight and he beat most of them. While I'd put him number one, there probably is a case to be made for putting Louis one and Ali two. But I'd say there's a gap between those two and the rest of the field.

Thanks for the recommendation on the other discussion. I'll take a look for it.

- Thus far you've discussed the mythology of legend, not factual content.

Henry Hascup is all encompassing and was up for HOF inclusion in 2019, but boxing being boxing chose the Compufraud creators.

Boxrec is your friend starting with the JJOHNSON link where the ages and novice records of McVea, Langford and Jeannette are spelled out when he faced them. The first contender types Johnson faced either KOed him or won decisions.

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/001187

Eventually Johnson won and defended the colored title, but when the press clamored for his title shot, he lost to Hart and Jeanette, so Jeff retired with no credible contenders left and Hart assumed the title.

Re Dempsey: Click those links and you can see Jeannette/retired, and Langford/dropping fights to Wills by 1920.

Godfrey/Dempsey spar partner busy getting KOed by Langford while Big Bill Tate/Dempsey spar mate was also nicking Langford for decisions. Only Wills left standing as I mentioned.

Oh, extra credit for comparing the first half of JJ Jeffries' opponents with JJOHNSON results. Jeff dominated the guys who were KOing and winning against JJOHNSON.

And checkout December 1913 when Langford dominated Jeannette in Paris for the world title after the French strip JJOHNSON for lack of credible opponents and performance.

Just the facts, ma'am.

[mjaco]

All fair points but a few things I'd mention in reply:

1. I assume Henry is hhascup and I certainly wasn't implying his opinions were biased toward any era. I actually applaud what he seems to be doing.

2. I'd say it's highly debatable that Johnson would have had more problems with those fighters in their prime than Dempsey would have. Also, besides Harry Wills, Langford and Jeannette were still pretty good up to at least the beginning of Dempsey's reign. George Godfrey was a hall of fame heavyweight who was very good in the latter part of Dempsey's reign. Plus Kid Norfolk, though a light heavyweight, fought successfully up at heavyweight during that era. The bottom line is that, regardless of when he fought them, Johnson did fight (and beat) a number of elite black fighters as well as white fighters. Dempsey never fought any of the top black fighters of his era. Granted, Dempsey may have been willing to fight those guys and he might even have beaten them all if he'd been allowed to fight them. But the fact is he never did fight any of them. If Ali had failed to meet nearly half the top heavyweights of his era, I doubt he'd be in this discussion for the best ever.

3. I think you have to distinguish between Ali before his exile and after his exile. During his first title reign, he was probably as unbeatable as any heavyweight ever. After the exile he was clearly not the same fighter but still good enough to win the title twice more. Yes, he lost to Frazier but he also beat Frazier twice. And as hhascup already mentioned, you can pick apart anyone's record to point out individual losses or weak performances. That's why you have to examine a career in total. Ali's level of competition was simply higher than any other heavyweight and he beat most of them. While I'd put him number one, there probably is a case to be made for putting Louis one and Ali two. But I'd say there's a gap between those two and the rest of the field.

Thanks for the recommendation on the other discussion. I'll take a look for it.

- Thus far you've discussed the mythology of legend, not factual content.

Henry Hascup is all encompassing and was up for HOF inclusion in 2019, but boxing being boxing chose the Compufraud creators.

Boxrec is your friend starting with the JJOHNSON link where the ages and novice records of McVea, Langford and Jeannette are spelled out when he faced them. The first contender types Johnson faced either KOed him or won decisions.

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/001187

Eventually Johnson won and defended the colored title, but when the press clamored for his title shot, he lost to Hart and Jeanette, so Jeff retired with no credible contenders left and Hart assumed the title.

Re Dempsey: Click those links and you can see Jeannette/retired, and Langford/dropping fights to Wills by 1920.

Godfrey/Dempsey spar partner busy getting KOed by Langford while Big Bill Tate/Dempsey spar mate was also nicking Langford for decisions. Only Wills left standing as I mentioned.

Oh, extra credit for comparing the first half of JJ Jeffries' opponents with JJOHNSON results. Jeff dominated the guys who were KOing and winning against JJOHNSON.

And checkout December 1913 when Langford dominated Jeannette in Paris for the world title after the French strip JJOHNSON for lack of credible opponents and performance.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Your "facts" are a little misleading.

1. What I wrote was "regardless of when he fought them" on Johnson fighting and defeating other good black fighters. I never said he beat any of them in their prime. But as I pointed out, the simple truth is in his career he fought both good black and white fighters. Dempsey, with, as far as I know, only two exceptions against little known black fighters years before he became champion, fought only white boxers.

2. Jeanette fought twice in 1919 after Dempsey beat Willard and actually had his final bout three years after Dempsey won the title, though I'd agree he was almost certainly past it by then. Of course Dempsey could have fought him at any time prior to his winning the championship, but did not. Excluding his losses to Wills, whom almost every heavyweight of that time (possibly even Dempsey) would have lost to, Langford, in the two years after Dempsey won the title, was 30-2-7 counting newspaper decisions according to Boxrec, so certainly still a more than capable fighter. Also I explicitly mentioned Godfrey as a credible contender toward the latter part of Dempsey's reign, not at the beginning when he was a novice fighter, though admittedly he probably didn't hit his peak until after Dempsey lost the title. The fact Godfrey served as a sparring partner is also not that relevant as Larry Holmes was a one time sparring partner of Ali. And you conveniently ignored all mention of Kid Norfolk who was certainly an elite fighter during Dempsey's reign and had fought successfully against heavyweights.

3. I don't know where you're getting the discussion of Jeffries opponents vs Johnson's opponents from. I never mentioned Jeffries at all in my previous post. And all I said about him in my initial post was that the talent pool he fought in was notably weaker than later eras because boxing was almost entirely confined to the English speaking world in his era. That was also true of the era Johnson fought in.

My primary point was never that Jack Johnson was a better heavyweight than Jack Dempsey (though in my opinion he does rate higher). But rather that if you're going to rate people historically, you need to consider the entire picture and the context of the times they fought in. Too many boxing fans grew up reading the old scribes like Nat Fleischer and taking their word that Jim Jeffries and Jack Dempsey were unconquerable gods. Thus their greatness becomes emotionally carved in stone for some and questioning how good they were becomes heresy.

Dempsey was a historically great fighter and a sports icon. He certainly doesn't need me or you to defend his career. He may have been willing to fight all those fighters I named but was prevented from doing so by the circumstances of the times. But the fact he never, at any point, met many of his potentially toughest opponents should lower our estimation of his historical ranking a little bit in any fair and logical analysis of his career.

[Ambling Alp II]

A lot to chew on.
Without a doubt, some people are biased toward fighters from way back while others are biased toward modern fighters. Some people think the sport began the day they got interested in boxing and dismiss everyone before them without thinking much about it. Others (though not nearly as many) worship the fighters from way back.

As for Jeffries, he is without a doubt a great fighter. How great, you can spin it how you want to.
Dempsey was great as well. Would have been nice if he would have made more title defenses. 3 years without a title defense was ridiculous. Wills was the big one that would have been nice to see him fight. To be fair, most of the contenders were white. However, he should have fighting somebody.

Godfrey was a contender near the end of Dempsey's title reign, but he never stood out. Langford, Wills, Jeannette were past it by the time Dempsey was the champion.

Both Jeffries and Dempsey fought a lot of good competition before they ever won a title. They are borderline Top 10 of all time. I have Dempsey just in and Jeffries just out.

[mjaco]

A lot to chew on.
Without a doubt, some people are biased toward fighters from way back while others are biased toward modern fighters. Some people think the sport began the day they got interested in boxing and dismiss everyone before them without thinking much about it. Others (though not nearly as many) worship the fighters from way back.

As for Jeffries, he is without a doubt a great fighter. How great, you can spin it how you want to.
Dempsey was great as well. Would have been nice if he would have made more title defenses. 3 years without a title defense was ridiculous. Wills was the big one that would have been nice to see him fight. To be fair, most of the contenders were white. However, he should have fighting somebody.

Godfrey was a contender near the end of Dempsey's title reign, but he never stood out. Langford, Wills, Jeannette were past it by the time Dempsey was the champion.

Both Jeffries and Dempsey fought a lot of good competition before they ever won a title. They are borderline Top 10 of all time. I have Dempsey just in and Jeffries just out.

Agreed, for what they did within their eras I'd have Dempsey and Jeffries top 10 all time (I assume you mean heavyweights, not pound for pound) and I'd have Johnson in there as well. No debate from me that all were great for their eras.

[oogiebe]

CORRECTION