BoxRec

Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

Nicolai Valuev has an unbeaten record that looks in paper similar to Marciano's and hes far from a great fighter. Unbeaten records are not a sign of greatness.

In my personal opinion Joe Louis has a legit claim at being the greatest but Ali had the full package. He was beyond boxing and his influence over the whole world makes him one special character. Hes the kind of character that can be mentioned among all that people we read about in school books.

Not only that, he dominated the heavyweight division in an era packed with fighters that could unify todays division. He had his first loss after a 2 year layoff. People talk about pre and post jail Tyson how abut Ali during his exile from boxing? Even with that setback he went on to be the champ back when there was only one champ.

So like i said an argument could be made about Louis, it all depend on how you rate both era's (i think Ali's was tuffer) but no athlete has left his mark in world history like Ali has and it makes him the greatest

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

WOW! Are you really serious? So in your opinion Valuev should be considered one of the greatest of all time because he has an undefeated record? All of the great ones have loses on their records: Sugar Ray Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Armstrong, Greb, Pep, Sanchez, and so on and on... Don't judge Ali on his record, just look at who he defeated and how.

yeah.....I remember when I had my first beer........started asking really goofy questions and the whole nine yards. We'll get old lightin' here sobered up and I'm sure things'll turn out just fine.

Borinken25 wrote:

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

WOW! Are you really serious? So in your opinion Valuev should be considered one of the greatest of all time because he has an undefeated record? All of the great ones have loses on their records: Sugar Ray Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Armstrong, Greb, Pep, Sanchez, and so on and on... Don't judge Ali on his record, just look at who he defeated and how.

I wasnt implying that he wasnt "the greatest". I was just curious on other peoples opinion. The "undefeated record" part was merely an example of why some would say he is not. I for one believe that he is because of the talent and tuffness of the fighters back then......just want to hear other peoples opinion. And for the record...Yes Valuev will be one of the greatest...That was a joke.

I would say there are numerous reasons. The most important is that he was a heavyweight and the title of heavyweight champion of the world is or at least was the greatest prize in sport. He was the best fighter on the planet in possibly the toughest era the division had ever seen. I suppose after this you would have to take his whole charisma and personality into account. He was the most colorfol athlete the world had and has ever seen.
Nobody comes close. Then there are his amazing physical attributes, his grace, style and unbelievable speed and footwork for such a big man. He was punching faster and moving quicker than most Welters. That's incredible. His chin, heart and will to win were also what made him so very special. Clay/Ali is the greatest for so many reasons!!!!

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

I really don't know. I rate Ali about 13th on the whole pound-for-pound list thing. Some people even have the cheek to laugh when I say I rate Ezzard Charles seven places above him

DoubleM wrote:

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

I really don't know. I rate Ali about 13th on the whole pound-for-pound list thing. Some people even have the cheek to laugh when I say I rate Ezzard Charles seven places above him

ali was not even greatest HW, so he surely doesnt make #20 alltime P4P!!

his self-promotion convinced the superficial fan he was the "greatest", but hardcore fans know his gift decisions over ken norton & jimmy young are not the stuff of substance for an alltime top 20 P4P!!

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

You're way off beam.

Audley Harrison is the greatest HW of all time.

He has just slaughtered Danny Williams & he is going to rule the world in 2007, or maybe 2008 or 2009 or whenever!!!

Syntax Error wrote:

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

You're way off beam.

Audley Harrison is the greatest HW of all time.

He has just slaughtered Danny Williams & he is going to rule the world in 2007, or maybe 2008 or 2009 or whenever!!!

well finally someone has brought the conversation around to sanity

boltlightning20 wrote:Why do so many people STILL consider Muhammad Ali the greatest. What makes him so great? He doesnt have an undefeated record, so why does he get that type of credit?

Moore
Cooper
Jones
Liston
Foley
Williams
Terrell
Patterson
Quarry
Bonavena
Frazier
Chuvalo
Ellis
Mathis
Bugner
Foster
Norton
Foreman
Lyle
Shavers
Young

Get it?

Why is it everytime someone brings this fictitious p4p scenario when discussing great fighters. It can never be proved and is extremely futile.
Would Ezzard Charles have beat Clay/Ali?, absolute not and so what if Charles was a LH, is that Ali's fault. No it is not and no it not his fault Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Duran etc etc were smaller and weaker men.
So to diss his greatness by attempting to bring the p4p debate into the equation is plain silly. Does anyone believe Ray Robinson would carry his skills if he were 3-4 stone heavier, could he move as fast or punch as fast as a prime Ali? I say no, but it's so fictitious it's just not worth discussing.

Fact is that in his era, Ali was the best fighter in the world and no LH, Middle, Welter etc etc would have touched him. Leave the p4p crap out of it and certainly do not state it as FACT. You choose to use the p4p scenario, use it as a mere guide.

walshb wrote:Why is it everytime someone brings this fictitious p4p scenario when discussing great fighters. It can never be proved and is extremely futile.
Would Ezzard Charles have beat Clay/Ali?, absolute not and so what if Charles was a LH, is that Ali's fault. No it is not and no it not his fault Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Duran etc etc were smaller and weaker men.
So to diss his greatness by attempting to bring the p4p debate into the equation is plain silly. Does anyone believe Ray Robinson would carry his skills if he were 3-4 stone heavier, could he move as fast or punch as fast as a prime Ali? I say no, but it's so fictitious it's just not worth discussing.

Fact is that in his era, Ali was the best fighter in the world and no LH, Middle, Welter etc etc would have touched him. Leave the p4p crap out of it and certainly do not state it as FACT. You choose to use the p4p scenario, use it as a mere guide.

When I talk 'pound-for-pound' I don't even think about would a 205lbs Robinson have schooled Frazier?... No - I think how good was Robinson compared to Frazier within their respective divisions?

When Ali was in his prime (1964-1967) he never came remotely close to losing. (He was 10-0 against good competition with 8 ko's and 2 lopsided decisons.) He had a far more dominaint title reign than any other heavyweight champion. Very few other champions in other weight classes come close to having a title reign like that. Pound for Pound ratings are tricky, but you certainly can make a case for Ali being Pound for Pound the best boxer ever.

Ambling Alp wrote:When Ali was in his prime (1964-1967) he never came remotely close to losing. (He was 10-0 against good competition with 8 ko's and 2 lopsided decisons.) He had a far more dominaint title reign than any other heavyweight champion. Very few other champions in other weight classes come close to having a title reign like that. Pound for Pound ratings are tricky, but you certainly can make a case for Ali being Pound for Pound the best boxer ever.

I can't see the 1964-1967 version of Ali ever beating Frazier, Foreman or the 70s Ali.

wouter wrote:I can't see the 1964-1967 version of Ali ever beating Frazier, Foreman or the 70s Ali.

That’s an interesting comment that you will probably get some flack for making, but not from me. The 1967 Ali probably had better (slightly) physical skills than the early 70’s Ali, but he didn’t have the same experience and guile of the older Ali. I still think the younger Ali would have befuddled any version of Foreman, but I’m open to other possibilities. I think Ali learned an awful lot in his struggles with Frazier, Bonavena and Norton, and while natural gifts are great to have, there’s no substitute for experience.

walshb wrote:I would say there are numerous reasons. The most important is that he was a heavyweight and the title of heavyweight champion of the world is or at least was the greatest prize in sport. He was the best fighter on the planet in possibly the toughest era the division had ever seen. I suppose after this you would have to take his whole charisma and personality into account. He was the most colorfol athlete the world had and has ever seen.
Nobody comes close. Then there are his amazing physical attributes, his grace, style and unbelievable speed and footwork for such a big man. He was punching faster and moving quicker than most Welters. That's incredible. His chin, heart and will to win were also what made him so very special. Clay/Ali is the greatest for so many reasons!!!!

Now thats what Im talking about....GOOD STUFF!!!

I think Clay/Ali did not actually have a peak. The older version from 70 onwards I think had the extra experience and maybe even strength, whereas the Clay version had the ridiculous speed of hand anfd foot. A combo of the two would have been invincible. I still think the Clay/Ali that beat Liston would have beat Foreman Norton an Frazier. Too quick and also fitter than the 70's Ali.