BoxRec

Jesus wrote:no scenario? not even the fact he was the youngest ever heavyweight world champion at that time? the first guy to become a 3 time world champ, the fact he beat everyone worth fighting in the "golden era" of heavyweight boxing,

The question was "Where do you rank Ali pound for pound" not "at heavy weight"

Jesus wrote: the guy who was still a cut above the rest despite being way past his prime, i will even throw in that fact he was involved in the biggest fights in boxing history,

And Frazier kicked his ass in the biggest of them all.

Jesus wrote: oh and lets not forget the olympic gold medal of course....it seems ali's outspoken ways and political views upset people even to this day....i mean what else could it be to make someone rank ali outside top 10p4p of all time? and if you walked down the street and say those names you mentioned to people 95% wouldnt know who they are....how many would know ali???

It's not about popularity. Everybody knows Ali is the best known boxer of all time but imo he is not the best boxer of all time. Some people get all bent out of shape when someone dear to rank anyone ahead of Ali or pick a prime Frazier to beat him on his best day

Jesus wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jesus wrote:im sorry but i think this is going to have to be one of them agree to disagree situations.....altough im glad some people are being slightly more realistic and putting him in top 10........personally i think he is a shoe-in for the top 5 (even possibly number 1, i would defo have him number 1 hw of all time). first time 3 time world champ says it all.....won his first world title a few days after his 22 birthday...the guy caused two of the biggest upsets in boxing history for god sake...i just think anybody who ranks him outside top 30 is taking the piss....anyway like i said agree to disagree...

It's not a big deal, like I said he is in my top15. But top 5 is a tough sell for me. Robinson, Charles, Greb, Armstrong & Langford just for an example. I don't see any possible scenario where he rates over any of those guys.

no scenario? not even the fact he was the youngest ever heavyweight world champion at that time? the first guy to become a 3 time world champ, the fact he beat everyone worth fighting in the "golden era" of heavyweight boxing, the guy who was still a cut above the rest despite being way past his prime, i will even throw in that fact he was involved in the biggest fights in boxing history, oh and lets not forget the olympic gold medal of course....it seems ali's outspoken ways and political views upset people even to this day....i mean what else could it be to make someone rank ali outside top 10p4p of all time? and if you walked down the street and say those names you mentioned to people 95% wouldnt know who they are....how many would know ali???

You seem to be talking about popularity while I'm talking about ring accomplishments. Wilfred Benitez was a world champion at 17, not sure why you keep bringing that up. It's a nice feather in his cap, but it doesn't trump 200 wins.

I don't understand how fame to casual Boxing fans equates to the greatest fighter. You're digging far too deep. i grew up loving Ali, no hatred at all for him. I just think there are ten greater fighters. Those five I listed are clearly greater imo, no scenario sums it up.

Ali doesn't rank in the top thousand.hhaehre nailed it.

I think those 5 are certainly a realistic top 5. I don't have a problem with any of them. However, they are not clearly better than Ali. Some of it hard to compare because they fought in different times and different weight classes. However, how much more could ali really have done? Sure he could have beat Frazier after the layoff and Norton the first time. He did avenge thsoe losses.

Even Robinson, Greb, Langford, Charles, and Armstrong had losses and close calls. If you want to pick them ahead of Ali, fine. However, they are not clearly better than Ali.

As for the 200 wins, I also don't think the sheer amount of wins means you are better than someone else. This is boxing. There are always guys around that you can beat.
Quality trumps quantitiy. A win over a Foreman or a Frazier means a lot more than 50 wins over someone no names. of. Of course the guy that mentioned all had several quality wins. However, how many more fighters had the quality wins that Ali had and had few losses?

the haters will always hate FACT! ali is the greatest of all time FACT! who gives a crap if some guy has 200 wins...i could go out and fight 200 women and be undefeated get what im saying? its not quantity of opponents but the quality of opponents!! ali resume has some very impressive names on it...2 wins over liston, 2 wins over frazier, first guy to ko foreman, also with wins over cooper, chuvalo, norton etc. it would be very difficult to find a better resume then that....holmes and berbick couldnt even ko an old parkinsons disease riddled version of ali!! i honestly dont see how people can rank him outside top 5 let alone top 10!!

Ambling Alp wrote:I think those 5 are certainly a realistic top 5. I don't have a problem with any of them. However, they are not clearly better than Ali. Some of it hard to compare because they fought in different times and different weight classes. However, how much more could ali really have done? Sure he could have beat Frazier after the layoff and Norton the first time. He did avenge thsoe losses.

Even Robinson, Greb, Langford, Charles, and Armstrong had losses and close calls. If you want to pick them ahead of Ali, fine. However, they are not clearly better than Ali.

As for the 200 wins, I also don't think the sheer amount of wins means you are better than someone else. This is boxing. There are always guys around that you can beat.
Quality trumps quantitiy. A win over a Foreman or a Frazier means a lot more than 50 wins over someone no names. of. Of course the guy that mentioned all had several quality wins. However, how many more fighters had the quality wins that Ali had and had few losses?

They are all clearly better than Ali, you talk about hating but you're not really being objective either. Ray Robinson wasn't clearly better than Ali? You know he was.

200 wins isn't everything, but if you look at the names who have done it they tend to have a ton of quality in them. I'm not talking about Buck Smith and that was just in reference to the someone claiming popularity and youth as a means for ranking greatness.

As for how much more could he have done. Ali did plenty, I have him in the top15 of all time. Not sure what you want from me. That isn't a slight, I don't hate him. Even if I did hate him, it wouldn't change where I put him. I think those fighters CLEARLY did more. Not in the same ballpark for me. It doesn't get much simpler.

Jesus wrote:the haters will always hate FACT! ali is the greatest of all time FACT! who gives a crap if some guy has 200 wins...i could go out and fight 200 women and be undefeated get what im saying? its not quantity of opponents but the quality of opponents!! ali resume has some very impressive names on it...2 wins over liston, 2 wins over frazier, first guy to ko foreman, also with wins over cooper, chuvalo, norton etc. it would be very difficult to find a better resume then that....holmes and berbick couldnt even ko an old parkinsons disease riddled version of ali!! i honestly dont see how people can rank him outside top 5 let alone top 10!!

He doesn't belong in the top 5. If you think Sam Langford and Harry Greb fought a bunch of women than I don't know what to tell you.

Again, 200 wins isn't the end all. But it means a hell of a lot more than who is more recognized on the street. It's not hard at all to find a better resume than Ali's. What is your top 10?

Jesus wrote:
no scenario? not even the fact he was the youngest ever heavyweight world champion at that time?

I thought that was Patterson?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jesus wrote:the haters will always hate FACT! ali is the greatest of all time FACT! who gives a crap if some guy has 200 wins...i could go out and fight 200 women and be undefeated get what im saying? its not quantity of opponents but the quality of opponents!! ali resume has some very impressive names on it...2 wins over liston, 2 wins over frazier, first guy to ko foreman, also with wins over cooper, chuvalo, norton etc. it would be very difficult to find a better resume then that....holmes and berbick couldnt even ko an old parkinsons disease riddled version of ali!! i honestly dont see how people can rank him outside top 5 let alone top 10!!

He doesn't belong in the top 5. If you think Sam Langford and Harry Greb fought a bunch of women than I don't know what to tell you.

Again, 200 wins isn't the end all. But it means a hell of a lot more than who is more recognized on the street. It's not hard at all to find a better resume than Ali's. What is your top 10?

1. muhammed ali
2. sugar ray robinson
3. joe louis
4. rocky marciano
5. sugar ray leonard
6. willie pep
7. roberto duran
8. jack dempsey
9. henry armstrong
10 marvin hagler

only people who have boxed will know what im talking about here.........when you have laced up a pair of gloves you know what makes a truely great fighter..........

That's a joke of the highest order. You don't have to have done something to be well versed in it. History professors aren't required to have taken part in a war to know what they are talking about.

I've been in a ring anyway, but that statement is pure ignorance. As for people in the ring, Ali would tell you that SRR was greater than he was.

Seeing your list makes things clearer to me. You love Heavyweights above anything else. At least you have the greatest Heavyweight of all time ranked 3rd. I'll give you that much.

Jesus wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Jesus wrote:the haters will always hate FACT! ali is the greatest of all time FACT! who gives a crap if some guy has 200 wins...i could go out and fight 200 women and be undefeated get what im saying? its not quantity of opponents but the quality of opponents!! ali resume has some very impressive names on it...2 wins over liston, 2 wins over frazier, first guy to ko foreman, also with wins over cooper, chuvalo, norton etc. it would be very difficult to find a better resume then that....holmes and berbick couldnt even ko an old parkinsons disease riddled version of ali!! i honestly dont see how people can rank him outside top 5 let alone top 10!!

He doesn't belong in the top 5. If you think Sam Langford and Harry Greb fought a bunch of women than I don't know what to tell you.

Again, 200 wins isn't the end all. But it means a hell of a lot more than who is more recognized on the street. It's not hard at all to find a better resume than Ali's. What is your top 10?

1. muhammed ali
2. sugar ray robinson
3. joe louis
4. rocky marciano
5. sugar ray leonard
6. willie pep
7. roberto duran
8. jack dempsey
9. henry armstrong
10 marvin hagler

If this were a real forum in an actual room, I would've ducked for cover. Saad would shoot you on-sight for number-8

Not that you shouldn't be shot for the list as a whole, mind. You should.

personally i have Ali somewhere 8-12

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Jesus wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
He doesn't belong in the top 5. If you think Sam Langford and Harry Greb fought a bunch of women than I don't know what to tell you.

Again, 200 wins isn't the end all. But it means a hell of a lot more than who is more recognized on the street. It's not hard at all to find a better resume than Ali's. What is your top 10?

1. muhammed ali
2. sugar ray robinson
3. joe louis
4. rocky marciano
5. sugar ray leonard
6. willie pep
7. roberto duran
8. jack dempsey
9. henry armstrong
10 marvin hagler

If this were a real forum in an actual room, I would've ducked for cover. Saad would shoot you on-sight for number-8

Not that you shouldn't be shot for the list as a whole, mind. You should.

I had already stroked out by that time. Ali at #1 is silly, but I expected that. Marciano & Leonard was a savage poke to my eyes.

Jesus wrote: 1. muhammed ali
2. sugar ray robinson
3. joe louis
4. rocky marciano
5. sugar ray leonard
6. willie pep
7. roberto duran
8. jack dempsey
9. henry armstrong
10 marvin hagler

So, 4 heavy weights in a top ten pound for pound and Leonard in at no 5!
Maybe you should just go back to Current Scene and continue to develop that marvel of a post of yours, you know the one where you delve into the sexual preferences of Mikkel Kessler.

hhaehre wrote:

Jesus wrote: 1. muhammed ali
2. sugar ray robinson
3. joe louis
4. rocky marciano
5. sugar ray leonard
6. willie pep
7. roberto duran
8. jack dempsey
9. henry armstrong
10 marvin hagler

So, 4 heavy weights in a top ten pound for pound and Leonard in at no 5!
Maybe you should just go back to Current Scene and continue to develop that marvel of a post of yours, you know the one where you delve into the sexual preferences of Mikkel Kessler.

well heavyweight is known as the "glamour division" and has history and prestige more so than the other divisions hense why i included so many heavyweights....i also have sugar ray leonard at number 5 because he is from arguably the best middle divisions era in history and his resume speaks for itself....hagler, hearns, duran, benitez but to name a few....i would have him over some guy who beat up 200 tomato cans that dont punch back......

Jesus wrote:well heavyweight is known as the "glamour division" and has history and prestige more so than the other divisions hense why i included so many heavyweights....

Glamorous yes, deep no. The heavy weight division has never been very deep since there are fewer of the big boys that middles, welters and lightweights.

Sugar Ray Leonard at #5? He was great, but not a top 10 in any circumstance. Heck, he barely makes it in the top 5 welterweights.

elmersalsa wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard at #5? He was great, but not a top 10 in any circumstance. Heck, he barely makes it in the top 5 welterweights.

like i said you have to have boxed to know whats going on here....i explained my reasons why he is there and i think they are valid reasons....

Saad who are ten that that easily have better "resumes" than Ali?

I said I can see him at the end of the top 10. Now you're going to move on to twisting words?

Edit: And why would you even bother to ask? Robinson, Greb, Langford & Armstrong aren't clearly better in your eyes. So I doubt mentioning Pep is going to change anything.

i'd rate Holyfield higher in the p4p rankings than Ali.

If you compared the level of opposition they both faced. I would put Holyfield as beating the better opposition without doubt.

tonyevs wrote:i'd rate Holyfield higher in the p4p rankings than Ali.

If you compared the level of opposition they both faced. I would put Holyfield as beating the better opposition without doubt.

At heavy weight? You have got to be joking, Holyfield is way overrated as a heavy weight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I said I can see him at the end of the top 10. Now you're going to move on to twisting words?

Edit: And why would you even bother to ask? Robinson, Greb, Langford & Armstrong aren't clearly better in your eyes. So I doubt mentioning Pep is going to change anything.

Don't mean to be picky, but in one spot you said that you have him in your top 15, and in another you said you don't have a problem with him being in the Top 10, which implies you don't think he is quite there.

I think Robinson, Greb,Langford, and Armstrong are very close. Certainly not "clearly" better.

Willie Pep? Ok, how about we compare their resumes?


Willie Pep beat Sandy Saddler, a great featherweight. He also beat Manuel Ortiz, a great fighter. Then there is a huge drop off. Who would you even say was the thrid best fighter that Pep beat? Chalky Wright? An awful lot of people beat him.

Ali beat Frazier and Foreman which is roughly equal to beating Saddler and Ortiz. (Saddler was probably a little better pound4pound than Foreman or Frazier, and Ortiz a little worse.)
Ali beat Liston, Patterson and Norton who were all much better than anyone else that Pep ever beat.
In fact, Ellis,Terrell, Quarry,Shavers,Lyle, and others were all better than any other fighter that Pep ever beat.

You also have to factor in that Pep got stopped three out of four times by Saddler. Imagine if that would have happened to Ali?
Obviously Pep was a great fighter. However, his "resume" clearly is not as impressive as Ali.