dr_devious wrote:DoubleM wrote: I'm talking about your strange retort, where, in an argumentative reply, you stated: "He [Armstrong] beat more ranked contenders because he had more fights." Well, yea, we know that. I don't care if Ali fought more contenders to his number of fights, or if he potentially would have fought more of them if he was around in the '30s - the fact is, he didn't beat as many contenders as Armstrong, and that's one of the reasons Armstrong should rate higher.
This doesnt mean that the level of the competition he beat was better than Ali's.
It does. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Take this into account - Ali beats Bonavena, a solid heavyweight. Armstrong beats Garcia, a solid welterweight. However, Ali has the size advantage over Bonavena - Armstrong fights at a size disadvantage against Garcia. Clearly, Armstrong's win is more of an achievement (if we say Garcia and Bonavena are fairly equal in pound-for-pound ability).
A past prime Barney Ross (who was better as a lightweight) was, for my money, about as good as Ken Norton in a pound-for-pound sense.
Lou Ambers was about as good as Joe Frazier, remembering that heavyweights, at least by my own way of thinking, aren't quite as good on the pound-for-pound scale of things.
Chalky Wright, I'd probably put him on par with a '64 Sonny Liston. There's Lew Jenkins as well, probably another equal to Norton. Fritzie Zivic, the same.
There are more, but I don't want to type too much.
Bear in mind that Armstrong beat a few more contenders than Ali, and half the contenders he beat were bigger than him, which enhances the reward for beating them in my eyes. Ali beating a contender of similar weight to himself should be rated level with Armstrong beating a contender ten pounds heavier.
How is pointing out a statistical fact a strange retort?
The names you mentioned arent top 10 of all time in their weight division, Barney Ross excepted, who was past his prime as you admitted.
Liston, Foreman and Frazier are top 10 heavyweights, although Liston also probably past his prime when Ali beat him.
Therefore Armstrong's competition (that he won against) is no better than Ali's, if as good. The size argument doesnt really come into it - George Foreman was 5 pounds bigger than Ali, who did Armstrong beat that is P4P as good as the peak George Foreman (consensus top 5 or 6 heavyweight)?
How is pointing out a statistical fact a strange retort?
Don't worry. It seems you won't understand even if I carried on explaining. But it was like you were excusing Ali for not having more fights, or justifying why he didn't when there was no need.
The names you mentioned arent top 10 of all time in their weight division
Lou Ambers has a place in many peoples' top ten lightweights, usually around 9th or 10th. Wright, say about 15th. Zivic & Jenkins, anywhere between about 17 and 23 in their respective divisions.
Let's say Ali beat one or two better singular opponents than Armstrong did - does that mean Ali beat better opposition? No, not necessarily. Armstrong beat a greater depth of challengers.
Barney Ross excepted, who was past his prime as you admitted.
There's no 'admitting' about it. I'm trying to be as objective and open-minded as possible.
Therefore
Wait a minute - you need to actually make a solid argument before you can use that word. No offense, but you haven't given me anything yet.
The size argument doesnt really come into it - George Foreman was 5 pounds bigger than Ali
Hmm...
... I think you'll find that five pounds at heavyweight means a lot less than the same at a lower weight. You'll see Jack Dempsey beating Jess Willard, but you won't catch Ricardo Lopez beating Steve Collins.
The size argument does come into it - whereas Ali was beating challengers who he roughly equalled in weight, Armstrong beat many who significantly outweighed him. It's a greater achievement to beat someone bigger than you, I'm sure you won't deny that.
who did Armstrong beat that is P4P as good as the peak George Foreman
As I've said before, I believe heavyweights are a step behind on the pound-for-pound scale of things. I would put Lou Ambers and a past prime Barney Ross on par with George Foreman, definitely.
But again, singularly better opponents (if any) do not make up a greater resume than Armstrong's, just like Ray Leonard doesn't have a better resume than Ray Robinson.
George Foreman (consensus top 5 or 6 heavyweight)?
I'm skeptical as to whether that really is the consensus, but if it is, I vehemently disagree with it. George Foreman is terribly overrated.
