BoxRec

i was just thinking about Ali, and i just watched his fight with oscar..his first test since the major layoff he had. And i have decided that IMO Ali is the greatest boxer P4P that ever lived.

the major problem that faces Ali is that he only dominated 1 weight class, instead of several like other greats such a tunney armstrong walker and ezzard did. to no fault of his own, ali has hurt the chances of boxing experts ranking him the greatest p4p fighter of all time.

but if u really think about it, i wouldnt hesitate to call the 1970's heavyweight division the richest division in any decade in any weightclass in the history of boxing. of course u have the lightweights of the 30's n such but the 70's hw era must be high on this list.


now for ali to dominate this division when he was essentially past his physical prime, is even more astonishing. So lets rank a 1967/68 Ali on his skills as a fighter. IMO and ive said this before, this is the closest thing to unbeatable that i know of in boxing.

i think that its unfair to leave out Ali in the discussion of the best p4p fighter, only because he was limited to 1 division. Ali easily could have dominated any division that he could make weight in at the time, i dont think that is desputable, so why shoudl this hurt him. does anyone here agree that Ali is the greatest BOXER of all time, not just heavyweight?

as for the poll..im just curious if my arguement made any difference in anyones oppinions. thanks for your time guys.

Id still go with Sugar Ray Robinson and Sam Langford 1 and 2. Ali could considerably be in the top 5, but his lack of weightclass movement has to put him behind at least the best of the lighter guys.

joe louis knocks out ali IMO(not for the count )

Look Ali was a heavyweight, he competed in the premier division of the sport and some people are using this as a reason to say he does not deserve the title of p4p greatest, ridiculous....bottom line is no mater ho great Ray Robinson or Langford or Monzon or Armstrong etc were, there were still dozens of men in their time who would have wiped the floor with them. Do you really expect a heavy to drop his weight so he can be considered the greatest fighter ever??

walshb wrote:Look Ali was a heavyweight, he competed in the premier division of the sport and some people are using this as a reason to say he does not deserve the title of p4p greatest, ridiculous....bottom line is no mater ho great Ray Robinson or Langford or Monzon or Armstrong etc were, there were still dozens of men in their time who would have wiped the floor with them. Do you really expect a heavy to drop his weight so he can be considered the greatest fighter ever??

no, for them to win the HW championship is enough. The title P4P champ was created to reward those fighters who displayed dominance in several classes. No knock on Ali, but hes not even the greatest HW ever, Joe Louis!

Ali was a great fighter, but is overrated by most.

I'd say Roberto Duran was a better p4p fighter than Ali, for starters.

And this 'so called' title of p4p has and always will be ficticious, the one thing that is not fictitious is that the heavyweight champ of the world in his time was the greatesT fighter on the PLANET!!!.....That is FACT!!, the rest is pure speculation...they should not even be considered in the fictitious p4p debate......As for Duran, well he was magnificent I agree but does not compare to the Ali's or Joe Louis's of the ring. Just because nature created them as 6ft + and 15 stones of pure speed, power, accuracy, movement, style and grace.....Now there's real real talent. Duran was a great Ligtweight' fighter, Ali was the greatest in the greatest division...

Ali does not need justification... just look at the mans record... a guy who stayed at the top even when he had lost most of his skills... a man who did great things despite having the best years of his career stolen from him.... its easy now for some to say Ali is 'overrated' because he is such an icon, such a legend, so there is nothing new in praising him, ...but the truth is if any fighter deserves being idolised to extremes it is Ali because at the end of the day, he gave boxing and the public far more than they could ever give him in return.....

Ali, in terms of sheer boxing skill, is way below the very best boxers of all time. WAY too many flaws that he made up for by his natural speed and athleticism, as well as heart and amazing recuperative abilities.

1970s deepest era in boxing? A rich era but definetly not. This was an era in which Duane Bobick and Jurgen Blin were in the Ring top 10, and the 1970s Bob Satterfield Earnie Shavers got multiple title shots.

Look at the welterweights and middleweights of the 40s-60s, and the lightweights of the teens-40s. Absolutely no contest. Hell, the light HWs of the 30s were much deeper.

And with all that said, Ali didn't DOMINATE the 70s. He lost to Frazier (with the 2nd fight possibly a draw and a real stink-fest), Norton twice, Young, and Spinks. He side-stepped a Foreman rematch and a 4th fight with Norton. That's not dominance.

dempseyfire wrote:Ali, in terms of sheer boxing skill, is way below the very best boxers of all time. WAY too many flaws that he made up for by his natural speed and athleticism, as well as heart and amazing recuperative abilities.

1970s deepest era in boxing? A rich era but definetly not. This was an era in which Duane Bobick and Jurgen Blin were in the Ring top 10, and the 1970s Bob Satterfield Earnie Shavers got multiple title shots.

Look at the welterweights and middleweights of the 40s-60s, and the lightweights of the teens-40s. Absolutely no contest. Hell, the light HWs of the 30s were much deeper.

And with all that said, Ali didn't DOMINATE the 70s. He lost to Frazier (with the 2nd fight possibly a draw and a real stink-fest), Norton twice, Young, and Spinks. He side-stepped a Foreman rematch and a 4th fight with Norton. That's not dominance.

Don't agree with a lot of that... how can you say that the Heavies of the 30s were deeper than the heavies of the 70s????..... thats madness....

silkov wrote:Don't agree with a lot of that... how can you say that the Heavies of the 30s were deeper than the heavies of the 70s????..... thats madness....

If you read agian I think he said <b>Light</b> Heaviyweights of the 1930s.

walshb wrote:bottom line is no mater ho great Ray Robinson or Langford or Monzon or Armstrong etc were, there were still dozens of men in their time who would have wiped the floor with them. Do you really expect a heavy to drop his weight so he can be considered the greatest fighter ever??

Who are the dozens of men who would have wiped the floor with sugar ray robinson? He lost 1 of his first 132 fights and fought great opposition.

I agree that a heavyweight should not be excluded from consideration as the greatest fighter ever because of the fact that they only fought in one weight division. The idea that you have to be a multi division champion to be considered an all time great seems to be based on two assumptions

1) If a fighter moves through the weight classes they will face better opposition.

However some of the weight hopping fighters of today seem to show that the opposite can be true.

2) If a fighter fights and beats someone who is naturaly larger and wins they must be a great fighter.

In some cases yes, but this can be misleading because so many variables can have an effect, each fight needs to be looked at on it's merits.

As far as the original arguement goes ali is a hero and I love to watch him but I feel that there we fighters who were the equal to or even better than the prime Ali.

throughtout history the heavyweight division is never the deepest division. There are more people in the 130-175 range then the big men and thus a bigger pool of talent.

The middleweight division has traditionally been the deepest, but that has changed over the past 10-15 years.

JC, by dozens of men I meant the crop of light heavies and heavies around Ray's time.....Robison was a great middle, but so what.....there were tons of men on the planet in Ray's time that would have KO'd him had they fought. Yes they were heavyweights, but that's not their fault is it and why should we dismiss the heavies when talking of P4P great fighters....I say leave them out of it as they were the greatest fighters in the world in their time

silkov wrote:A man who did great things despite having the best years of his career stolen from him

So did Joe Louis. He lost three years. Louis's weren't technically stolen from him as he enlisted, but if he didn't he would have lost all respect and fanfare. How many defenses could Louis have made between 1942-1946, as there were no challengers that could even think of beating Joe Louis? Probably at least 10, and maybe even as much as 15, making about 40 defenses of his title! Ali can be argued as the greatest heavyweight, though I and many believe Joe Louis should be ahead of him. Ali made too many amateur mistakes, like pulling straight back that look good on highlight films, but the fact is he got hit many times when doing that and would be knocked out by a textbook fighter like Louis. And what's with this ALi of 67 beats anybody, who did he beat in 67 that is a hall of famer? He looked good because he fought an old Folley and an underachiever in Terrell, and before that a washed up Cleveland Williams.

Ali is at least top three heavyweight, but is nowhere near the top ten greatest fighters, he should be around 20-25 when you take into account the achievements of Harry Greb, Robinson, Leonard (both Benny and Ray), Armstrong, etc. who fought better opposition but never get mentioned because of the Ali monopoly in boxing talk.

Sherlock you obviously have a personal dislike of the greatest fighter of all time, especially when you are nit picking on the fact the guy took a shot or two, who didn't I ask. At his absolute peak he did as a heavy what Welters couldn't do, he moved like a ballerina and had faster hands than most Lightweights. Ali really was a freak of nature with that talent. Louis in comparison possessed the better punch, not close on speed of foot or hand on style on Chin and even stamina. Ali was unique as a heavy. There was nothing like him before or after...to say he was top 3 is an insult to the man, Ali was second to nobody.....

dempseyfire wrote:Ali, in terms of sheer boxing skill, is way below the very best boxers of all time. WAY too many flaws that he made up for by his natural speed and athleticism, as well as heart and amazing recuperative abilities.

1970s deepest era in boxing? A rich era but definetly not. This was an era in which Duane Bobick and Jurgen Blin were in the Ring top 10, and the 1970s Bob Satterfield Earnie Shavers got multiple title shots.

Look at the welterweights and middleweights of the 40s-60s, and the lightweights of the teens-40s. Absolutely no contest. Hell, the light HWs of the 30s were much deeper.

And with all that said, Ali didn't DOMINATE the 70s. He lost to Frazier (with the 2nd fight possibly a draw and a real stink-fest), Norton twice, Young, and Spinks. He side-stepped a Foreman rematch and a 4th fight with Norton. That's not dominance.

First of all Bob Satterfield didn't fight in the 1970's and never got a title shot. He was a contender in the 1950's who wouldn't have made it anywhere close to the top 10 in the 1970's.
2nd, just becasue Earnie Shavers got a couple of title shots the era wasn't the best? He would have been a contender in any era.
3rd, The 2nd Ali-Frazier wasn't nearly close enough to be a draw. Ali won fairly easily. It wasn't a "stink fest" It was a good fight, just not as good as the other two they had.
4th Ali didn't sidestep a rematch with Foreman. Foreman quit the the sport for over a year after he lost to Ali.

The fights with Young, Spinks and the 3rd with Norton were when Ali was clearly past his prime. Even, they were close fights.

Ali was the best heavyweight of the 1960s and early-mid 1970's. This was clearly a time with the most depth in the heavweight dvisdion. Obvioulsy it's hard to compare fighter from different eras and weight classes, but Ali certainly has to be atleast on the short list considered as the best pound per pound ever.

Ambling Alp wrote:First of all Bob Satterfield didn't fight in the 1970's and never got a title shot.

You misunderstood him. He was calling Shavers the Bob Stterfield of the 1970s. He didn't say that Satterfield fought in the 70s.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:First of all Bob Satterfield didn't fight in the 1970's and never got a title shot.

You misunderstood him. He was calling Shavers the Bob Stterfield of the 1970s. He didn't say that Satterfield fought in the 70s.

Shavers was better than Sattefield by some way. I can't imagine Satterfield going 15 with Ali or giving Larry Holmes two hard fights.... Satterfield was at his best at 175.

Sherlock wrote:

silkov wrote:A man who did great things despite having the best years of his career stolen from him

So did Joe Louis. He lost three years. Louis's weren't technically stolen from him as he enlisted, but if he didn't he would have lost all respect and fanfare. How many defenses could Louis have made between 1942-1946, as there were no challengers that could even think of beating Joe Louis? Probably at least 10, and maybe even as much as 15, making about 40 defenses of his title! Ali can be argued as the greatest heavyweight, though I and many believe Joe Louis should be ahead of him. Ali made too many amateur mistakes, like pulling straight back that look good on highlight films, but the fact is he got hit many times when doing that and would be knocked out by a textbook fighter like Louis. And what's with this ALi of 67 beats anybody, who did he beat in 67 that is a hall of famer? He looked good because he fought an old Folley and an underachiever in Terrell, and before that a washed up Cleveland Williams.

Ali is at least top three heavyweight, but is nowhere near the top ten greatest fighters, he should be around 20-25 when you take into account the achievements of Harry Greb, Robinson, Leonard (both Benny and Ray), Armstrong, etc. who fought better opposition but never get mentioned because of the Ali monopoly in boxing talk.

The difference is that Louis had already reached his peak by the time he had his lay off... he was 28 and 'mature' athletically... while Ali was just 25 when he was banned and still visibly getting better with every fight.
To rank Ali at only 20 all time is very wrong I feel, and I don;t agree that the likes of Armstrong etc fought much better opposition... Ali fought in the best heavyweight era that has ever been seen and was around at the top for 15 years.... very few fighters can match him in terms of his opposition, talent, impact and longevity. In fact taking these all in account I think only the likes of Armstrong, Greb, Louis, Robinson, Duran get a look in... and Ali beats Greb and Armstrong by some way on longevity.

walshb wrote:Sherlock you obviously have a personal dislike of the greatest fighter of all time, especially when you are nit picking on the fact the guy took a shot or two, who didn't I ask. At his absolute peak he did as a heavy what Welters couldn't do, he moved like a ballerina and had faster hands than most Lightweights. Ali really was a freak of nature with that talent. Louis in comparison possessed the better punch, not close on speed of foot or hand on style on Chin and even stamina. Ali was unique as a heavy. There was nothing like him before or after...to say he was top 3 is an insult to the man, Ali was second to nobody.....

I agree... at heavyweight Ali is the best without a doubt.... a league above the rest...

silkov wrote:

walshb wrote:Sherlock you obviously have a personal dislike of the greatest fighter of all time, especially when you are nit picking on the fact the guy took a shot or two, who didn't I ask. At his absolute peak he did as a heavy what Welters couldn't do, he moved like a ballerina and had faster hands than most Lightweights. Ali really was a freak of nature with that talent. Louis in comparison possessed the better punch, not close on speed of foot or hand on style on Chin and even stamina. Ali was unique as a heavy. There was nothing like him before or after...to say he was top 3 is an insult to the man, Ali was second to nobody.....

I agree... at heavyweight Ali is the best without a doubt.... a league above the rest...

An entire League above Joe Louis? No way, Louis was the champ for 5 years going through 25 straight men until he lost it. To say Ali is a league above any other HW besides Joe Louis is debatable, but Louis is not deserving of that.

Ali was not very dominant over his foes whereas Joe Louis annihilated his oppossition. Guys who fought Louis were always knocked out in rematches whereas this was not the case with Ali.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Ali was not very dominant over his foes whereas Joe Louis annihilated his oppossition. Guys who fought Louis were always knocked out in rematches whereas this was not the case with Ali.

Ali's opposition was far better than Louis for one thing and Ali was certainly dominant in his '60s prime..... Louis was taken distance by Simon, Farr, floored by Braddock, Baer, Galento, Walcott... almost outpointed by Conn in his 'prime'..... Ali was far more dominant than Louis in his prime!...

walshb wrote:Sherlock you obviously have a personal dislike of the greatest fighter of all time, especially when you are nit picking on the fact the guy took a shot or two, who didn't I ask. At his absolute peak he did as a heavy what Welters couldn't do, he moved like a ballerina and had faster hands than most Lightweights. Ali really was a freak of nature with that talent. Louis in comparison possessed the better punch, not close on speed of foot or hand on style on Chin and even stamina. Ali was unique as a heavy. There was nothing like him before or after...to say he was top 3 is an insult to the man, Ali was second to nobody.....

I know everybody takes a shot, but to listen to Ali fanatics and they make it seem like he never took a shot and say nobody could touch him because he was so fast, which is bull. Ali was great but not the greatest. Louis was far more accomplished-25 defenses is all that needs to be said. Louis was more talented and, if he did struggle, as Silkov pointed out but didn't finish was that he destroyed the majority of them in a one sided rematch, many times in one round. He could have added 10-15 more defenses between 42-46, but couldn't because of the war.

So WalshB, I disagree with you on Ali, so that makes me dislike him? I have nothing against him, I love that he is a man of peace and spoke out against the Vietnam war openly, but I don't think he was the greatest heavyweight nor a top ten P-4-P fighter of all time. Ali is underrated as a man, but overrated as a fighter. I feel that the Ali of the 70's was the better Ali because he lost that speed and was a more stand-up boxer puncher and I'd pick that Ali over most heavyweight's, including Ali of 67 or what ever year you want to say he was in his prime.

And Silkov, Louis was 28 when he took leave of boxing, but look how good he still was when he came back. It took great fighters like Walcott and Charles and Marciano to beat him. I'd say he was still in his "prime" when he left. Louis only lost once in his "prime", and avenged in savagely in one of the worst beatings in heavyweight history, probably only second to Dempsey-Willard. Ali never really proved himself dominant against his greatest foes, Frazier and Norton.