anyone not rate muhammed ali in the top 2 heavyweights????

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 08 Sep 2005, 19:07

it was asked for in another thread so i deliver.... i think it is crazy to not have ali in the top 2 but thats just my opinion i guess.... i think louis and ali have earned the right to say they have solidified 1-2 EASY... holmes jackson and marciano and dempsey and all them are a step below the 2.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 08 Sep 2005, 19:11

Rory McCloskey wrote:it was asked for in another thread so i deliver.... i think it is crazy to not have ali in the top 2 but thats just my opinion i guess.... i think louis and ali have earned the right to say they have solidified 1-2 EASY... holmes jackson and marciano and dempsey and all them are a step below the 2.

Them sounds like fightin' words...

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 08 Sep 2005, 20:03

I do not have Ali in the top two, the top five or the top ten.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 08 Sep 2005, 23:24

well tiredoldngray i sure hope your joking..there fighting words? not ment to be

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 09 Sep 2005, 02:19

I have Ali as my #3. With only Joe Louis and Jack Johnson above him. As for you thinking it's crazy not having Ali top 2... you have your opinions, and I have mine.

jyuza · Post by **jyuza** » 09 Sep 2005, 02:59

Ali is my 1st and Louis my 2nd. I'm still amazed when i see Ali at his peak (around 60s). He was so fast and so beautiful to see... definitely my number one.
My 3rd is Marciano.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 09 Sep 2005, 05:45

As long as Joe Louis gets the top spot it doesn`t really matter who comes in second...because the second place is still a good mile behind Joe Louis

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 09 Sep 2005, 12:47

He's 3rd behind Louis and Johnson on my list . . .

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 09 Sep 2005, 14:29

He's third on mine, behind Johnson and Louis.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Sep 2005, 11:49

i dont see why people rate jack johnson over muhammad ali.

ali defeated better competetion, he dominated more than johnson, and when past his prime he still managed to dominate the toughes era of heavyweigthts the 70s.

who knows how many of johnsons fights were fixed, not to mention he fought a lot of middleweights and super middleweights by todays standards.

i rate johnson at 4th. i just can see anyone rating ali behind him.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 10 Sep 2005, 12:31

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i dont see why people rate jack johnson over muhammad ali.

ali defeated better competetion, he dominated more than johnson, and when past his prime he still managed to dominate the toughes era of heavyweigthts the 70s.

who knows how many of johnsons fights were fixed, not to mention he fought a lot of middleweights and super middleweights by todays standards.

i rate johnson at 4th. i just can see anyone rating ali behind him.

By the time Johnson got a shot at the title he was thirty. His best wins came before he won the title, over guys like McVea, Langford, Jeannette, Flynn, Ed Martin, Black Bill. They were solid guys. He beat Burns to a pulp, beat Hart despite the decision going against him, and a still dangerous Fitzsimmons. Battered Jeffries, though returning he showed good skills. He was beating Willard for 20 rounds till he tired. Look at the Ketchel fight, how many heavies can you think of who could put a guy away that quickly, even having a 30 pound advantage. I can't think of one. he even beat tough Tom Cowler when he was over 40.

Though Johnson's resume isn't as star studded as Ali, he thoroughly proved himself better against his era. He beat his opponents up with no trouble.

And where do you get the assumption Johnson's fights were fixed? Maybe a few in Mexico near the end were more like exhibitions and the Ketchel fight was made to make him look good against Johnson, (not fixed, Johnson carried him. I'd like to know.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 10 Sep 2005, 12:42

im gonna have to agree with BB.... Ali fought Lyle,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, all of these guys when he was past his prime, and he managed to dominate the division like he had when he was in his prime. he was one of the smartest toughest fastest and most accurate boxers ever, and i will take him over ANY fighter that ever boxed. i dont think anyone on this planet could of asked for more out of ali, there was really nothing for him to do that he hadnt, he was the most successful heavyweight ever, IMO, and i couldnt really ever understand why someeone would rate him above first.

if ali didnt miss those prescious years because of the war.. we wouldnt even be having this discussion, ali came back after a 3 year layoff basically, and he adapted, he wasnt the same fighter, but he was smarter and knew how to win fights.

i would like to see someone here fight a heavyweight that is more successful then Ali.... i dont think there is one out ther.

anyone not rate muhammed ali in the top 2 heavyweights????

anyone not rate muhammed ali in the top 2 heavyweights????

Re: anyone not rate muhammed ali in the top 2 heavyweights??