BoxRec

I'm not confusing a thing. Either you don't know what popular means, you jumped on my statement without thinking it through, or your Ali love has you so spellbound that you can't bring yourself to admit that the entire population isn't as in love with him as you are.

And still you ignore the difference in time. Dempsey would have been on everyone's Mount Rushmore of Sports in 1935. What is so difficult about that to grasp? I can't tell if it's stubbornness, stupidity, or a combination of both.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not confusing a thing. Either you don't know what popular means, you jumped on my statement without thinking it through, or your Ali love has you so spellbound that you can't bring yourself to admit that the entire population isn't as in love with him as you are.

And still you ignore the difference in time. Dempsey would have been on everyone's Mount Rushmore of Sports in 1935. What is so difficult about that to grasp? I can't tell if it's stubbornness, stupidity, or a combination of both.

Reading must no be your forte. I said several times no mass celebrity is universally admired. You have attached a specific meaning to "popular" and even using the specific meaning you attached to "popular" he isn't as popular as you suggest.

That's why you are getting frustrated and calling me names. That's o.k. It's a great deflective mechanism.

Interstingly enough athletes like Jim Thorpe and Babe Ruth appear at the top of these current "Mount Rushmore" surveys which have been beat to death in their thread and they are products of the same era that produced Dempsey. In fact Ruth was born the same year.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw= ... 2.4.6l12l0


Perhaps your own cultural reference is boxing. There's a whole world out there.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not confusing a thing. Either you don't know what popular means, you jumped on my statement without thinking it through, or your Ali love has you so spellbound that you can't bring yourself to admit that the entire population isn't as in love with him as you are.

And still you ignore the difference in time. Dempsey would have been on everyone's Mount Rushmore of Sports in 1935. What is so difficult about that to grasp? I can't tell if it's stubbornness, stupidity, or a combination of both.

Reading must no be your forte.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not confusing a thing. Either you don't know what popular means, you jumped on my statement without thinking it through, or your Ali love has you so spellbound that you can't bring yourself to admit that the entire population isn't as in love with him as you are.

And still you ignore the difference in time. Dempsey would have been on everyone's Mount Rushmore of Sports in 1935. What is so difficult about that to grasp? I can't tell if it's stubbornness, stupidity, or a combination of both.

Reading must no be your forte.

Why is Jim Thorpe, Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, and Babe Didrickson at the top of the list of the greatest and most popular athletes of the twentieth century?

They certainly are not of this generation or even the last one.

Didn't you just argue that the only reason Dempsey's popularity has waned is because of the passage of time?

And it's a boxing thread my love struck little buddy. I actually clicked on one of your links. I can;t say I'm shocked that it had nothing to do with what we are talking about. Greatest isn't popularity either.

Let me see if I can help you. Forgive me for using Boxing.

Arturo Gatti was popular. Bernard Hopkins is great. You wont find Gatti on any greatest fighter lists. But he was more popular than most of his contemporaries.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And it's a boxing thread my love struck little buddy. I actually clicked on one of your links. I can;t say I'm shocked that it had nothing to do with what we are talking about. Greatest isn't popularity either.

Let me see if I can help you. Forgive me for using Boxing.

Arturo Gatti was popular. Bernard Hopkins is great. You wont find Gatti on any greatest fighter lists. But he was more popular than most of his contemporaries.

Well, the way you define popularity it is so narrow as to be worthless... Mr. X is known is known by one hundred people and they all like him. Mr. Y is known by three hundred million people and two hundred million people like him. Employing your logic Mr. X is more popular. Employing your logic most of the people on this board are more popular than Jesus.

You did define popularity as being a function of how many people that know of you , know you, or have acces to you, like you.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And it's a boxing thread my love struck little buddy. I actually clicked on one of your links. I can;t say I'm shocked that it had nothing to do with what we are talking about. Greatest isn't popularity either.

Let me see if I can help you. Forgive me for using Boxing.

Arturo Gatti was popular. Bernard Hopkins is great. You wont find Gatti on any greatest fighter lists. But he was more popular than most of his contemporaries.

Well, the way you define popularity it is so narrow as to be worthless... Mr. X is known is known by one hundred people and they all like him. Mr. Y is known by three hundred million people and two hundred million people like him. Employing your logic Mr. Y is more popular. Employing your logic most of the people on this board are more popular than Jesus.

Good one, you're pulling my leg, right? I refuse to believe that you're this stupid. I knew what popular meant when I was five.

Well, thanks for the retarded discussion. Maybe you should dig up another 8 year old thread that besmirches your main man. I've had enough of this one. Not much more to say, you appear to be brain dead.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And it's a boxing thread my love struck little buddy. I actually clicked on one of your links. I can;t say I'm shocked that it had nothing to do with what we are talking about. Greatest isn't popularity either.

Let me see if I can help you. Forgive me for using Boxing.

Arturo Gatti was popular. Bernard Hopkins is great. You wont find Gatti on any greatest fighter lists. But he was more popular than most of his contemporaries.

Well, the way you define popularity it is so narrow as to be worthless... Mr. X is known is known by one hundred people and they all like him. Mr. Y is known by three hundred million people and two hundred million people like him. Employing your logic Mr. Y is more popular. Employing your logic most of the people on this board are more popular than Jesus.

Good one, you're pulling my leg, right? I refuse to believe that you're this stupid. I knew what popular meant when I was five.

Then why have you been getting it wrong these past seven years.

go in any bookstore in the world and 9 out of ten times they'll be a book about ali, 99 out of hundred times you'll have to ask for dempsey book to be orderd in. and dont think i wont be back in 40 years when the world is still in love with ali, just to let you know i was right.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Well, thanks for the retarded discussion. Maybe you should dig up another 8 year old thread that besmirches your main man. I've had enough of this one. Not much more to say, you appear to be brain dead.

I was bored. If you noticed I took a year long hiatus from the board. Thanks for entertaining me though.

Danny Green would of wiped the floor with Ali

boxheadtrinidad wrote:Danny Green would of wiped the floor with Ali

Absolutely, as would Julius Francis have too!

Karl/cooper/joe made ali struggle, the average guy in the 80s-'90s was way more advanced at those styles so yea ali was very outdated based on fighting outdated skills

No.

Pretty much every fighter of the past eras are overrated.

Not Ali though

He’s both really. Overrated by those who don’t know boxing I guess. He wasn’t superman and got some decisions in the 70s. Norton 3 is a big example. He’s also underrated by many as his era has passed long enough for people to think Tyson round have beaten him. In these best of debates it’s always the people of people’s youth that come out on top.

He's probably overrated as a boxer, but underrated as a cultural icon.

You can't really question his resume, he fought everyone there was to fight. If he retired after the Shavers fight (when arguably he should have) his record would've been 55-2 (37 KOS) with both losses avenged. But technically he was flawed, he rarely punched to the body and wasn't always great to watch, plus he was lucky to the get the nod in some fights.

Controversial wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 09:13 You can't really question his resume, he fought everyone there was to fight. If he retired after the Shavers fight (when arguably he should have) his record would've been 55-2 (37 KOS) with both losses avenged. But technically he was flawed, he rarely punched to the body and wasn't always great to watch, plus he was lucky to the get the nod in some fights.

Oh yes his resume is the best amongst heavys. Wish he’d have retired after shavers or even after Manila.

He was clearly the best hw. Not even Joe Louis can match him. Yes, he "got the nod in some fights". Should be mentioned that they were when he was past this best, and were considered close at the time. over time they became bad robberies.
He didn't punch to the body because it made no sense for him to do so with the talents that he had. Not all of his fights were great to watch. Many were.

Many younger fans just can't comprehend that a guy before there time was the GOAT. They think the sport magically got better the day they became a fan.

But what do we mean by overrated? Many people just say that a guy they didn't like is overrated. No other fighter has got anywhere close the criticism that he had on this Forum over the years. Even Tyson (some of it deserved) or Leonard do compare.
Of course, a lot of people have a very opinion of him. Does that make him overrated?





.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024, 17:34 Of course, a lot of people have a very opinion of him. Does that make him overrated?

Well, basically yes.

bob foster said that muhammad ali was the smartest guy he ever fought.

Tyson KTFO 3 Times wrote: ↑20 Jun 2003, 11:23Is Muhammad Ali Overrated?

I hesitate to say yes, because he is one of the greatest fighters of his weight division.
But he does seem to get a massively disproportionate amount of attention and praise compared to his peers. It could be argued strongly that Joe Louis has a better and more dominant boxing record...