Is Ali Entitled to a Top TEN spot?

First topic message reminder :

It is not unusual in many cases to see Ali rated as high as the second best fighter of all time. I have even seen cases made for him to be the greatest fighter ever. Whilst acknowledging him as a fantastic fighter, I cant find room for him in my top ten and would have him in the 10-20 bracket. I certainly couldnt support an argument for him to be a top five all time fighter. I feel that his personality and his involvement in political causes at a time of grat civil movement, whilst no doubt transcended the sport, has pushed him well beyond the scope of his capacity as fighter. The legend that is Ali is greater than the fighter Ali. Whilst not wanting to take anything away from Ali, I cant help feel there are many less celebrated fighters that didnt quite have the same stage as him which often causes them to be overlooked. Most people argue that Ali is an automatic in any top ten list but finding no room for him in my own I was compelled to write an article on it to see what others opinions are. My own top ten for what its worth is: Ali comes in at about 15th.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Ezzard Charles
5. Gene Tunney
6. Roberto Duran
7. Sam Langford
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Eder Jofre

Then again Ali was quite openly racist and the NOI were attempting to disrupt the respect that had built up for black people in general, in simple terms Ali was a vile person. He could probably have got away with it against anyone else but not many in boxing have ever been as respected as Patterson.

Of course he had a chip on his shoulder, and resentment towards white people because I assume he saw alot of it coming his way and his people's way when he was young. He comes across as a much more mellowed person with age (post 2nd title reign) as he, like anybody, by then had seen more of the world and met more people and grown up. So when he was a high school drop out in his twenties with memories of segregation he was suceptible to the NOI? It's not the dumbest thing any young man has ever done, and it drove him to truly great things.

If he was outright racist I can't see how Angelo Dundee got the job.

Doesn't alter his achievements but i'm not going to ignore the fact he was a thoroughly distasteful person for much of his career

That goes back to opinion.

As I said I like Patterson and he seems a really honest and proud guy from what I know, but I still can't stand the whole patriotic "winning the title for america" attitude in the first Ali fight. Although he was unfortunate on the night to have a back problem and be facing what many would call the greatest heavyweight of all time at his best. A tall order.

You could debate Ali's personality and beliefs all day and probably never get to the bottom of it. Its much too black and white to declare him either vile or innocent. He was guilty of saying and doing things that were unpleasant of course, but its hard to know what level of criticism to apply and what to put down to hype and so on.

The problem Ali faced was that as a young man he was thrust onto a stage far beyond his ability, understanding and capacity to deal with. Its difficult to fully comprehend and evaluate the circumstances of the time but as a young man with such a platform as being the heavyweight champion of the world he was used as a tool by others with far greater influence as a mouthpeice for their cause. He himself was only an impressionable youngster in a time of political and social unrest and due to his status he was forced to give an opinion on everything often in the heat of the moment and usually with far more reaching consequences than he could imagine. Ali was not an intellectual or a politician but he was expected to answer questions as such and in truth he just didnt have the capacity at such a young age.

It would be harsh to judge him as such as he was then in the circumstances. Many young people were drawn to various political causes back then for right or wrong reasons but the diference was Ali's status meant he was put under the spotlight and used as a symbol/mouthpeice which he lacked the intellect or maturity to deal with. It doesnt excuse him entirely for his often unpleasant behaviour such as how he treated Frazier but it does make allowances for other matters.

JBW - I'm sure Ali did have some mitigating reasons for any racist sentiment he may have displayed, but so then did Joe Louis, and indeed any other black boxer you may care to name up to the same time. Jack Johnson is another example, but neither he nor Louis are on record as having the same vitriolic outbursts as Ali did. It's fine to give him an excuse, but when others in his situation didn't need to make use of that same excuse, it kind of draws Ali's character into question.

The problem for people who degrade Ali and label him racist is that they have no idea what kind of society America was back in the fifties/sixties and seventies....

In the South the KKK ran rampant and even though they knew the murderers/instigators they often went unpunished....Black people forced into menial jobs which were just as bad as slavery, patronised, given second classed schooling... I can understand any young black man from Louisville to be resentful I'm sure if the tables were turned anybody would be..

However a vile man that has raised interminable amount of money for charities black and white..regularly visits black and white hospitals spreading joy and visiting both black and white troops to bring some cheer...

A principled man who no doubt was impressionable at an impressionable age....

As for Top 10 status he is and will always be my number 1 .........

Boxing's biggest figurehead...16 years at or around the top...Had the best fighters on his record of any heavyweight.....

Also considering he was a heavyweight would BEAT any of his fellow p4p top 10ers making him with his height and weight advantages the BEST fighter in the list anyway..

Let's face it Ali beats Robinson doesn't he..I know it's an unusual take but he does beat Pep etc doesn't he!!!!

So he is the best if there weren't any weight classes !!!!!!!

Go easy on the guy he's done alot for the World and Boxing....

For me he's a hero..

Er...Truss, Valuev would probably beat a whole slew of the smaller, lighter P4Pers, so that part of what you said is a little skewed, to say the least. I'm assuming you were making a joke...

Plus, again: any racist sentiment from whites toward blacks that Ali experienced would also have been in existence when Louis and Johnson were alive and active. Neither are reported to have used the race card in the same manner as did Ali.

All I'm saying is that he could have achieved all the same things he has without saying some of the vile things he said.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:But in the context of the post it's clearly being used in a deragatory way.

Was Frazier making a valiant underdog fightback? Nah, Ali was just rudey poo!

I feel I need to say at this point - ALI WAS NOT Poopie.

Anyone who suggests that he was, is talking nonsense or on the windup.

Its not quite the right reflection of what I think, either. I am and always will be suspicious of Liston 2. Liston 1 was a great win. Re: Norton - I reckoned Norton beat him AT LEAST twice. Arguably 3 times. And in terms of Frazier - Frazier in his prime beat Ali. That's just the way it was. Foreman was an incredible, all time, awesome win. No argument there.

So Ali is clearly p4p. But does that push above Greb's record? Or Burley? Or Charles? Or Pep?

I would be on the windup if I refused to accept that Ali was an American icon or an American hero.

I would also be on the windup if I refused to accept that Ali had reason to be bitter about his upbringing.

But in terms of people who had a right to be bitter - what about Johnson, Louis, Ike Williams, Burley; hell even Holyfield - they all suffered due to southern racism. None of them came out with the same disrespectful remarks and anti-white racism as Ali. Nor did any of them speak to the KKK. Truss - you made an excellent point about the bigotry and murders that the Klan perpertrated in the south. However - if that was the reason for his dislike - then why did Ali actually attend and speak to a Klan meet?

Ali is definitely an icon.

However, in many ways - a bit of a distasteful character. He could do magic in the ring and is still one of my sporting icons.

Interesting debate. Just to throw a bone into it somewhat and non boxing related (apologies). Manypeople view Winston Churchill as a great british hero. But look and read some of his speaches, you will see a vile and overt racist who thought non white were not human enough. Look at the great Mahatma Ghandi. Another absolute racist whose time in south africa displayed such breath-taking racism it would make Jan Smuts blush.

What did Ali do and say? He said it as it was. For him and for many black americans, whites in the 1940s, 50s and 1960s were indeed thin lipped, blue eyed devils. Those are simple facts. Why didn't Louis et al come out as forceably as Ali did? Different times. There was a revolution going on in the 1960s. People lost their fear of white america, Black people didn't "know their place" anymore. Ali wasn't playing the American apple pie game. For that I applaud a true hero. As for Patterson. Nice guy but will always be an Uncle Tom to me. He searched and yearned for acceptance on another term. Ali wanted it on his terms and he got it. "What's his name" As the poet Sonia Sanchez said "called the brother by his name Floyd". He didn't and got a lesson for it Too bad. Apparently his adopted son didn't want to know him in later years also.

So Ali gets credit for being a vile human being while Patterson gets pathetic insults for being good and decent

Az, I think you should probably drop the 'uncle Tom' c_rap. As for all this fuss about Ali's name-Cassius wasn't his 'slave' name, it was the name his bloody parents gave him! I hate the fact that he created this whole pseudo mythical persona around the premise of his so-called 'slave name'.

If he was so bloody proud of his roots, why didn't he trace his actual lineage and adopt an African name? Because at the time he was an angry, impressionable and not-too-smart young man, in a time of civil unrest and racially-instigated tension. No, what happened was a gullible and angry young man who knew he was angry, but little else, was suckered into associating himself with the NOI-no more than a different type of militant group.

Islam wasn't Ali's 'true' religion any more than Clay was his true surname, but one suited his needs more than the other.

[quote="BALTIMORA"]Az, I think you should probably drop the 'uncle Tom' c_rap. As for all this fuss about Ali's name-Cassius wasn't his 'slave' name, it was the name his bloody parents gave him! I hate the fact that he created this whole pseudo mythical persona around the premise of his so-called 'slave name'.

If he was so bloody proud of his roots, why didn't he trace his actual lineage and adopt an African name? Because at the time he was an angry, impressionable and not-too-smart young man, in a time of civil unrest and racially-instigated tension. No, what happened was a gullible and angry young man who knew he was angry, but little else, was suckered into associating himself with the NOI-no more than a different type of militant group.

Islam wasn't Ali's 'true' religion any more than Clay was his true surname, but one suited his needs more than the other.[/quote

Cassius wasnt his slave name. Clay was the slave name. Ever wondered why African Americans don't have African names? He became Cassius X. X being the maths unknown. He then was named Muhammed Ali by Elijah Muhammed (then head of the NoI). Why should he adopt an african name when he didn't know his ancestral name? Clay was a name given by slave owners. His religion he chose for himself. After leaving the NoI he became an orthodox sunni muslim. His choice again. The name Clay was never his choice or the choice of any of his ancestors dragged away from Africa,

He was angry and justifiably so. He was a product of the anger directed towards black people. You cannot expect every black person who reaches a level of promonence to be always dignified. Some will be resentful and who can blame them. Unless you can walk a mile in their shoes no one has any right to say how anyone should react to incredible hatred directed towards them.

My opinion of Patterson is noted. He played the game he was expected to play and was used to take digs at Ali. He was a pawn and paid the price. Nice guy as always.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Ali gets credit for being a vile human being while Patterson gets pathetic insults for being good and decent

Your opinions are not fact. Patterson was a decent guy. But for me he is what I described him above.

Ali had hatred. Hate produces hate. But I dont recall him ever firing Dundee or insulting Cossell or Mailer, Vidal or not raising money for non black charities as Truss mentioned previously. Patterson was an establishment figure used by certain people to say certain things. A good "christian" whose adopted son wanted nothing to do with him. Perhaps Tracey Floyd Patterson knows more.

When did I ever say that Clay wasn't his 'slave name'?

No, I've never wondered why African-Americans don't have African surnames. That's because it's painfully obvious. The fact you're attempting to take the intellectual high ground is pretty galling, to be perfectly honest.

The fact you say: "You cannot expect every black person who reaches a level of promonence (sic) to be always dignified." is also incredibly patronizing, not to mention more than a little short-sighted.

Again, I didn't say he had no right to be angry. What I said was that others who DID have at least the same right, and sometimes more, still managed to refrain from the sort of vulgar behaviour for which Ali is seemingly excused.

Am I to assume then that if Ali had received a battering similar to the one he dealt Patterson, perhaps from an opponent he'd called an 'Uncle Tom', or a 'gorilla', that he'd have been every bit as deserving as you deem Patterson to have been?

Fact of it is he didn't follow the NOI through any intellectual reason, but more because they saw a use for this angry black celebrity.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Ali gets credit for being a vile human being while Patterson gets pathetic insults for being good and decent

Your opinions are not fact. Patterson was a decent guy. But for me he is what I described him above.

Ali had hatred. Hate produces hate. But I dont recall him ever firing Dundee or insulting Cossell or Mailer, Vidal or not raising money for non black charities as Truss mentioned previously. Patterson was an establishment figure used by certain people to say certain things. A good "christian" whose adopted son wanted nothing to do with him. Perhaps Tracey Floyd Patterson knows more.

Why are personal, family-based issues being used in your daft argument to praise Ali and degrade Patterson now? Tell you what, I'll use Ali's divorces and numerous marital misdemeanours to argue the exact opposite then, if that's what this once-quality article has crumbled in to.

This is the last i'm going to say on the subject because i'm too comfortable with the racial undertones

Louis, Patterson, Frazier, Armstrong, Moore, Robinson etc. all had as much right to be angry as Ali did but did they go about it in distasteful degrading ways? No they didn't, they got on with things and proved they were above all the vitriol going around, banding about 'uncle tom' comments like Ali did just proves someone to be lacking in common sense, intelligence and basic respect. I'm sure many on here enjoyed watching Ali getting taken apart by Frazier but don't feel the need to broadcast such feelings.

The Mighty Atom wrote:This is the last i'm going to say on the subject because i'm too comfortable with the racial undertones

Louis, Patterson, Frazier, Armstrong, Moore, Robinson etc. all had as much right to be angry as Ali did but did they go about it in distasteful degrading ways? No they didn't, they got on with things and proved they were above all the vitriol going around, banding about 'uncle tom' comments like Ali did just proves someone to be lacking in common sense, intelligence and basic respect. I'm sure many on here enjoyed watching Ali getting taken apart by Frazier but don't feel the need to broadcast such feelings.

oxring wrote:So Ali is clearly p4p. But does that push above Greb's record? Or Burley? Or Charles? Or Pep?

You made lots of good points and thanks for the response, but this is the one I'm most interested inreplying to.

Greb's record.
Well they're hard to compare with Greb being from a time of constant fights and honestly I give no reason for him to be ahead of Greb. I have them both top 5.

Burley was beaten by the best of his era decisively twice and sometimes dropped decisions on off days. This, for me seperates him from the top 5-10 elite of all time.

Charles was great and I have him in the top 5, no arguments with those who have him ahead of Ali.

Pep lost to his closest rival, what? 1-3? I know that's an overly simple way of looking at it but Ali has every right to be among the elite. The era he fought in was incredible and he was untouchable at his best. He came back from adversity to become the champ once more with deminished skills against truly fierce opposition. He had longeivty, quality of opposition, a great fighter in his prime and out of it. Prime Frazier beat him yes, but it was close and Ali wasn't even close to prime. Also the first 3x champ ever and with so many FOTY's he was doing something right. He is, in my view worthy of any place in the top 5...apart from maybe #1.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

oxring wrote:So Ali is clearly p4p. But does that push above Greb's record? Or Burley? Or Charles? Or Pep?

You made lots of good points and thanks for the response, but this is the one I'm most interested inreplying to.

Greb's record.
Well they're hard to compare with Greb being from a time of constant fights and honestly I give no reason for him to be ahead of Greb. I have them both top 5.

Burley was beaten by the best of his era decisively twice and sometimes dropped decisions on off days. This, for me seperates him from the top 5-10 elite of all time.

Charles was great and I have him in the top 5, no arguments with those who have him ahead of Ali.

Pep lost to his closest rival, what? 1-3? I know that's an overly simple way of looking at it but Ali has every right to be among the elite. The era he fought in was incredible and he was untouchable at his best. He came back from adversity to become the champ once more with deminished skills against truly fierce opposition. He had longeivty, quality of opposition, a great fighter in his prime and out of it. Prime Frazier beat him yes, but it was close and Ali wasn't even close to prime. Also the first 3x champ ever and with so many FOTY's he was doing something right. He is, in my view worthy of any place in the top 5...apart from maybe #1.

Greb's record is outstanding - and it is hard to rate in comparison with him in fairness as, like you mention, people fought more frequently back then. Re: Burley and Pep - you make excellent points - and for Burley, the best reason to rate him there is perhaps stylistic, and arguably - who chose not to fight him (although, before you mention it, just because Cerdan, laMotta and Robinson chose not to fight him is no reason to rate him...)

I sometimes wonder whether Ali does well from how exciting his fights were. Simply - because he tended to always put on a show, because he created so many FOTY he does better in the all time lists than a champion like Louis - who was beating more people in a more dominant fashion. That said - the contestants in Louis' era were probably worse than in the 70s, although it is hard to compare.

We could look at it a different way - and say there's: SRR, SRL, Greb, Charles, Fitzsimmons, Pep, Armstrong, Duran, Monzon (+ a few more). Does Ali deserve to be in this company? Of course.

Does Ali deserve to be above this company? Harder to say. I think second behind SRR is too high; but ranking different boxers across eras is so hard to do effectively and well - that its perhaps not worth doing. They are all in an elite.

Azania - the uncle tom nonsense has really gone too far, you should give it a rest. As Chris said - if you're bringing up Floyd's family troubles - why not then lets use Ali's marriages and how he treated his wife as a stick to beat him.

azania wrote: I wont argue that Fitz couldn't punch. But to think that a 151lb fighter would have a chance against any active heavyweight today, let alone the chamption, is laughable. Can you imagine Martinez having a chance against Haye? I use Haye deliberately as he has been decked and put on queer street by a SMW. It just wont happen. RJJ had to bulk up to 200lbs against Ruiz. If he came in at 168 he would lost. Similarly Spinks came in at 195 against Holmes. Any lighter and he would have lost.

~ Oh dear, the most dire Ali fan alive dying on the vine of knowledge with nary a refreshing rain to replenish his wilting flower.

No Sir, Mr. Fitz hovered around the 170 mark in his latter career as a heavyweight. The only thing laughable is your propensity for commenting on topics you would be better served studying rather than waste the time of more studied enthusiasts for whom knowledge and historical context is everything.

And, yes sir, Mr. Sergio is a lightning fast, tricky, highly experienced and professional southpaw who enters the ring around the 175 mark. I doubt the plodding, one dimensional aspiring legend in his own mind could come close to laying a glove on Mr. Sergio and would be so gassed by round three it would be an easy money KO for the counterpunching lefty.

These are exactly the types of bouts Mr. Fitz used to specialize in that we are deprived of in your new and improved boxing sandbox, but so what if he wouldn't be a heavyweight today?

He was hardly restricted to the heavy division in his day which is precisely the point of the article, a comparison of Mr. Ali to true P4P fighters that he comes off looking poorly in since he was almost always bigger, stronger, and younger than everyone he faced with only few exceptions.

Why dear sir, Mr. RJJ could've beat Mr. Quiet Man at any weight he wanted, and since Mr. Larry could land nary a few grazing jabs on Mr. Spinks in the first fight, same deal.

Sorta like you trying to lay a glove on The Truth. Ain't a gonna happen, sir, no sirree!

Very eloquently put dear sir

The Mighty Atom wrote:Very eloquently put dear sir

I concur entirely.

Fitz is the original p4per - a man who's style was successful across the weights. At a time when there were more boxers around than today. True legend of the sport.

oxring wrote:At a time when there were more boxers around than today.

My stats showed that isn't true.

What stats?

The stats on the number of active boxers today that I posted on a previous thread. Can't remember which thread but goalposts were moved afterwards.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:At a time when there were more boxers around than today.

My stats showed that isn't true.

Nah matey - you're going to have to try harder than that.

I've had another look at the stats - and that list of "pro boxers" in 1950 encompassed ONLY THE USA.

Furthermore, Harry Otty claims that at the height of Jacobs' reign; the sport held over 60,000 registered fighters (REF: Charley Burley and the Black Murderers row, Intro, from the Subcomittee into antitrust and monopoly, 1960).

Afraid that puts a torpedo into your statistics, somewhat.

Must confess i've yet to see conclusive statistics one way or another, the majority of statistics i've seen from the first half of the 20th century only encompasses american boxers which obviously doesn't account for the sheer number of profressional in the UK yet alone worldwide.

oxring wrote:Nah matey - you're going to have to try harder than that.

I've had another look at the stats - and that list of "pro boxers" in 1950 encompassed ONLY THE USA.

Nah matey - you will have to try harder.

The Arc of Boxing, pg. 203. "In the 1950s, there were approximately 5,000 fighters worldwide." Direct quote and doesn't seem to be only the USA to me.

Harry Otty's book actually says it was big enough to support 60k, not that there were that many. That aside, it also says it's nigh on impossible to substantiate the figures with any level of accuracy, which seems to be the case when his figures differ so wildly from Mike Silver's. Unless there was a very drastic drop from the 30s to the 50s, which doesn't seem to be the theme of the book, and would mean they chose a strange decade to use to prove the point they were making. I'm also not sure given the context of that chapter if he is referring solely to professional boxers.

That is guesswork, and my figures for modern participation aren't. I'm happy to accept either modern or historic boxing having more participants, but not without figures which amount to more than guesswork. Noone had a problem with the figures in The Arc of Boxing when they supported the points the author was trying to make.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Must confess i've yet to see conclusive statistics one way or another, the majority of statistics i've seen from the first half of the 20th century only encompasses american boxers which obviously doesn't account for the sheer number of profressional in the UK yet alone worldwide.

The 60,000 "registered fighters" was quite a shock when I read that - sounded quite a lot.

I have previously argued that the numbers of new boxers in former communist nations should more than make up for the loss of US boxers. However; if the 60,000 figure is to be believed, they don't even come close.

Furthermore - we should start to worry a great deal about the future of boxing if the decline to around 11,000 participants from 60,000 as seen in Scott's stats is to be believed.

Scottrf wrote:Nah matey - you will have to try harder.

Hmm. Perhaps my torpedo was a dud.

The direct quote from Otty, ppV. is:

"Because live gates were still substantial, the sport was big enough to accomodate and support close to 60,000 registered fighters, although it is difficult to pinpoint the actual numbers with any degree of accuracy"

That seems not like a claim of a possibility of 60,000 fighters, but rather a statement of a number.

Furthermore, I have read elsewhere (think it was in a biog of Frankie Carbo) a claim that in 1935 (or so) that there were 11,000 in the USA ALONE.

As such, I do question the arc of boxing's figures.

Although, I do note that I didn't question the figures before when they supported my position. This will sound like hypocrisy; but what the hell - in fairness to me, I wasn't reading Otty's book at the time that I was debating. And Otty's figures "felt right". Entirely unscientific, I know, but given the decline in both number of gyms and fight-nights - I'd find it hard to believe there are more than twice as many fighting now as before.

I was only really arguing a technicality with his wording, the rest of the paragraph was my thoughts. All these seem to be approximations, guesswork etc. If two books can't get within ballparks of each other I'd need more to be convinced either way.

I don't find it difficult to believe that there were more, certainly in the USA due to the decline in gyms etc there. Fewer fight nights will be heavily linked to activity of boxers though. I do think there is globalisation of the sport though and it would be interesting to have accurate figures worldwide by country.

Maybe the 60k is correct (think that is for the 30s) but again, TAOB states 8-10k in the USA for the 20s and 30s which you would think is the majority of worldwide boxing at that time (around 1k peak in England [second most participants at that time] up until the 50s). The USA certainly accounted for almost all the champions.

I just don't think we should pick and choose the figures which suit, especially when many of the arguments are put forward by a book we are now happy to regard as inaccurate.

Scott the Arc is a little misleading as a source. On Page 35 it says the following "During the 1920's and 1930's approximately 8000 to 10000 professional boxers were licenced in the US. In the 1950's the numbers averaged between 5,000 and 6000 every year. In 2006 the number was 2,850"

As others have said it is probably nigh on impossible to have accurate figures but my personal instinct is very much that participation has very much decreased.