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

And of all the people one would enjoy to see taking a beating Patterson is last on the list. Now Margarito on the other hand

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's your wording that disturbed me

Enjoying a performance is far different from enjoying seeing some take a beating

I enjoyed both when I saw the fight and from my opinion of Floyd. I make no apologies.

rowley wrote:And of all the people one would enjoy to see taking a beating Patterson is last on the list. Now Margarito on the other hand

That depends from what angle you are coming from. Agreed on Marg though.

What is your dislike of Patterson based on?

The Mighty Atom wrote:What is your dislike of Patterson based on?

Its answered on the previous page.

You haven't answered it in any way

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:What is your dislike of Patterson based on?

Its answered on the previous page.

What that you see him as an Uncle Tom ? Unless you're a > 60 year old African American you're out of line.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You haven't answered it in any way

I wont go into it as it will completely derail this thread. But I gave an indication on the previous page.

Unless your going to go into depth you should probably stop bringing it up

For the record Ali was a far more distastesful human being than Patterson who was patriotic to the end, respectful and very articulate. Everything that Ali was not.

I would just add to this that I have absolutely no problem with Ali being rated as a top ten (although top five is a little too high for me). I am just suggesting with the wealth of quality fighters out there that are often overlooked - and I think Eder Jofre is an example given some of the views on this thread - is Alis inclusion automatic?

I have only five fighters I would consider automatics for top ten berth with the rest being open to discussion.

Armstrong, Robinson, Greb, Charles and Tunney I consider almost impossible not to be top ten worthy but anything outside that is fair game.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Unless your going to go into depth you should probably stop bringing it up

For the record Ali was a far more distastesful human being than Patterson who was patriotic to the end, respectful and very articulate. Everything that Ali was not.

I haven't brought anything up. I said I liked the beating because I disliked Patterson. I also said I was not going to go into any details.

Once again if you do not like your opinions challenged, dont state them as fact. If you think Patterson was a better person that Ali, fine. I dont agree. Patriotism? What is that? Love your country even though your country hates your guts and treats you like a second class citizen?

Anyway, this is a boxing board. I'll start deleting posts (mine included) if it deviates further.

Colonial Lion wrote:I would just add to this that I have absolutely no problem with Ali being rated as a top ten (although top five is a little too high for me). I am just suggesting with the wealth of quality fighters out there that are often overlooked - and I think Eder Jofre is an example given some of the views on this thread - is Alis inclusion automatic?

I have only five fighters I would consider automatics for top ten berth with the rest being open to discussion.

Armstrong, Robinson, Greb, Charles and Tunney I consider almost impossible not to be top ten worthy but anything outside that is fair game.

Why wouldn't you include SR Leonard in your top 10? p4p in terms of talent, he's a shoe in. In terms of achievement he's also a shoe in. Beat the very best in his era.

Possibly shouldn't bring it up in the first place then and if your involved in a debate try leaving it to others to delete the posts or you end up looking more of a fool than you already do.

Comments saying you enjoyed seeing given a beating aren't really welcome on a forum without explanation

Leonard is in my personal top ten but he loses out more than any other because he has zero longevity, was only ever involved in 6 fights of any note of which he did of course win 4.

Can you for just one day come on this board and not insult someone? Good grief. You seem to want civility yet feel free to hurl childish insults.

Could you for one day not act like a fool perhaps?

Using the classic 'i'm a mod so i'll start deleting posts' is hardly mature now is it son?

Constant name calling derails the thread and spoils debate. I see no reason why you are under the impression that it does not apply to yourself.

Opinions should be debated free from insults. Kindly keep to the TOS. Further insults posted by you or anyone else will be deleted.

But its ok for you post distasteful comments for no reason?

The Mighty Atom wrote:But its ok for you post distasteful comments for no reason?

Distatseful is subjective. Insults are not.

Everything is subjective based upon ones own opinion

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fitz shouldn't be anywhere near there. Langford also. Most fighters prior to 1940 should not be on any p4p list. Certainly those pre ww1 should have their own list as their sport only resembles boxing in name only. I wouldn't call circus acts which many of them practically were a sport as I wouldn't call a trapeze artist a sportsman.

You should know about the circus, since your comments here are those of a clown.

You've nailed that for me Windy.

1. Patterson was a great man. First person to come back and win the title. Did an huge amount for civil rights in america. It appears that you have no grasp of subtlety. He didn't have the dubious charm and youth appeal of the Louisville lip. However he personally lobbied the president several times - and was a large part of the reason behind the civil rights reforms of the 60s. Which PREDATED Ali.

2. Fitzsimmons was a great champion. This "didn't know what a jab was" nonsense is ridiculous. He won the middleweight, LHW and heavyweight titles. Weight 150 pounds. In the days where EVERYONE boxed. That's pretty impressive.

3. Ali gets away with a lot. His first run at a title included beating Liston in "dubious" fashion, an appalling run of title defences against no-marks, followed by a lay off. He comes back, tunes himself up and betrays Frazier. Prime Frazier, the only time the 2 met, beats 10 shades out of him. He then loses 3 times to Norton. Robs Norton twice. Beats an exhausted Foreman in an admittedly great performance. Goes life and death with a 1-eyed Frazier in Manila - a fight he was seconds from losing. And yet, you have that above the likes of Duran - the greatest LW ever, who stepped up to WW to beat an all time top 10 fighter in SRL. Beats Barkley aged 38.

Nice article Colonial Lion. I do tend to agree. Ali great - but he's nowhere near number 2. I'd throw Burley a long way up the list as well.

oxring wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fitz shouldn't be anywhere near there. Langford also. Most fighters prior to 1940 should not be on any p4p list. Certainly those pre ww1 should have their own list as their sport only resembles boxing in name only. I wouldn't call circus acts which many of them practically were a sport as I wouldn't call a trapeze artist a sportsman.

You should know about the circus, since your comments here are those of a clown.

You've nailed that for me Windy.

1. Patterson was a great man. First person to come back and win the title. Did an huge amount for civil rights in america. It appears that you have no grasp of subtlety. He didn't have the dubious charm and youth appeal of the Louisville lip. However he personally lobbied the president several times - and was a large part of the reason behind the civil rights reforms of the 60s. Which PREDATED Ali.

2. Fitzsimmons was a great champion. This "didn't know what a jab was" nonsense is ridiculous. He won the middleweight, LHW and heavyweight titles. Weight 150 pounds. In the days where EVERYONE boxed. That's pretty impressive.

3. Ali gets away with a lot. His first run at a title included beating Liston in "dubious" fashion, an appalling run of title defences against no-marks, followed by a lay off. He comes back, tunes himself up and betrays Frazier. Prime Frazier, the only time the 2 met, beats 10 shades out of him. He then loses 3 times to Norton. Robs Norton twice. Beats an exhausted Foreman in an admittedly great performance. Goes life and death with a 1-eyed Frazier in Manila - a fight he was seconds from losing. And yet, you have that above the likes of Duran - the greatest LW ever, who stepped up to WW to beat an all time top 10 fighter in SRL. Beats Barkley aged 38.

Nice article Colonial Lion. I do tend to agree. Ali great - but he's nowhere near number 2. I'd throw Burley a long way up the list as well.

Patterson - went life and death with a man making his pro debut. Played yo yo with a very average swede. Got hammered twice by a real heavyweight in double quick time (a second seperating both KOs). An establishment figure when the civil rights movement required someone more pro-active to bring the issues to a wider audience.

Fitz - 150lbs. Says a lot about the state of boxing right there. Its like Mayweather winning the HW title.

Ali - nothing dubious about beating Liston 1. Beat everyone who faces him out of sight. Had the biggest social impact of any sportsman in history (Jack Johnson notwithstanding). Stripped of his title for his political belief. After 3 years out fought life and death with Frazier winnng 2 out of 3 fights. The most memorable and known fight rivalry in history. As a huge underdog took on and beat the seemingly unbeatable Foreman. Exhausted Foreman? Maybe he should have applied intelligence which is part and parcel of any sportsman. He didn't and got KO'd.

Duran? Great fighter and no big argument ranking him high. But lost to slick boxers. Dejesus, Benitez, Laing, destroyed by Hearns and no shame in sharing the spoils with SRL (discounting their 3rd fight). But above Ali? Nope. Benny Leonard should be above him.

azania wrote: Patterson - An establishment figure when the civil rights movement required someone more pro-active to bring the issues to a wider audience.

It is evident that you know little about history. I'm pretty sure if you were American you were aware of the civil rights movement. There was this coloured guy, predated Ali, called Martin Luther King or something...MLK pushed things to a massive audience. Praising Ali's civil rights effort over the peaceful but more effective methods of the MLKs and Pattersons is plain ignorant. Civil rights progress in terms of legislation slowed after 1967/8. MLK died in 1968. How much difference did Ali make then?

azania wrote:Fitz - 150lbs. Says a lot about the state of boxing right there. Its like Mayweather winning the HW title.

No its not. Stop being ignorant or childish. Basically - there's little point debating you on "old timers" - you merely ignore what anyone else has to say. Obviously - must have been easy to win a world title back then - that's why so many people did it. Unlike now, where you have to be elite to be a champion, like Maskaev...or Ruiz...

azania wrote: Ali - Beat everyone who faces him out of sight. Had the biggest social impact of any sportsman in history.

Well both of those are subjective. 1 - beat everyone who faces him out of sight - what about Norton and prime Frazier then? And as for your beat Frazier 2/3 - sure he did. But Frazier had 1 eye and was shot to hell at the time. So given that you slate Patterson on the 1 hand for Rademacher, who was at least Olympic champ, but then give credit to Ali for going to hell and back with a 1-eyed shot fighter is beyond me.

Secondly - social impact? Yeah, he went on talk shows. Yeah, he was charismatic. Yeah, he lost his title because he wouldn't fight for his country. But what did it all ACTUALLY achieve? He also spoke to a KKK meet. Funny this tends to be "forgotten". Social impact? Compared with, say Joe Louis - the people's champion and the Schmeling fight in 1938? Compared with "lord what a morning" after Johnson-Jeffries? Hell compared with Pacquiao's fights that stop wars?

azania wrote: Duran? But lost to slick boxers

He destroyed dejesus twice. He lost once. In 10 years at lightweight he destroyed everyone he came up against. This notion that he "lost to slick boxers" is just that - a notion. Buchanan and Palermo were both as slick as they come - but he brutalised them. Yes - as a fat old man, he began to struggle to slip a jab. Comes with slowing down really. Which is why he struggled with Hearns and Benitez.

The only thing I liked about that post was that you rated Benny Leonard - who definitely predated colour TVs. There's hope for you yet.

azania, for any boxing fan to belittle the achievements of a man like Patterson amazes me.He wasn't big by today's standards,his gold medal in the 1952 Olympics was for middle weight,but he could certainly punch,ask Ingemar and our own Henry Cooper who says he was hit by the sweetest punch of his career.He was a perfect gentleman and one of my heroes.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote: Patterson - An establishment figure when the civil rights movement required someone more pro-active to bring the issues to a wider audience.

It is evident that you know little about history. I'm pretty sure if you were American you were aware of the civil rights movement. There was this coloured guy, predated Ali, called Martin Luther King or something...MLK pushed things to a massive audience. Praising Ali's civil rights effort over the peaceful but more effective methods of the MLKs and Pattersons is plain ignorant. Civil rights progress in terms of legislation slowed after 1967/8. MLK died in 1968. How much difference did Ali make then?

azania wrote:Fitz - 150lbs. Says a lot about the state of boxing right there. Its like Mayweather winning the HW title.

No its not. Stop being ignorant or childish. Basically - there's little point debating you on "old timers" - you merely ignore what anyone else has to say. Obviously - must have been easy to win a world title back then - that's why so many people did it. Unlike now, where you have to be elite to be a champion, like Maskaev...or Ruiz...

azania wrote: Ali - Beat everyone who faces him out of sight. Had the biggest social impact of any sportsman in history.

Well both of those are subjective. 1 - beat everyone who faces him out of sight - what about Norton and prime Frazier then? And as for your beat Frazier 2/3 - sure he did. But Frazier had 1 eye and was shot to hell at the time. So given that you slate Patterson on the 1 hand for Rademacher, who was at least Olympic champ, but then give credit to Ali for going to hell and back with a 1-eyed shot fighter is beyond me.

Secondly - social impact? Yeah, he went on talk shows. Yeah, he was charismatic. Yeah, he lost his title because he wouldn't fight for his country. But what did it all ACTUALLY achieve? He also spoke to a KKK meet. Funny this tends to be "forgotten". Social impact? Compared with, say Joe Louis - the people's champion and the Schmeling fight in 1938? Compared with "lord what a morning" after Johnson-Jeffries? Hell compared with Pacquiao's fights that stop wars?

azania wrote: Duran? But lost to slick boxers

He destroyed dejesus twice. He lost once. In 10 years at lightweight he destroyed everyone he came up against. This notion that he "lost to slick boxers" is just that - a notion. Buchanan and Palermo were both as slick as they come - but he brutalised them. Yes - as a fat old man, he began to struggle to slip a jab. Comes with slowing down really. Which is why he struggled with Hearns and Benitez.

The only thing I liked about that post was that you rated Benny Leonard - who definitely predated colour TVs. There's hope for you yet.

Its very debeatable if the words of MLK or the actions of Malcolm X, the BPP, the 5%ers or the NoI. My take is that they all played a very major role. Moreover, the emancipation movement started long before MLK. Booket T Washington, Marcus Garvey, WEB DuBois etc played a very pivital role each with varying degree of emphasis of active resistance or passive resistance. The BPP with direct action and extreme millitancy, together with the rejectionism of Ali played a very pivital in empowering individuals, creating self help groups and so much more. Legislation meant jack when the powers that be did zip unless their very actions were directly threatened. The role played by Ali in galvanisation to the Nam war can never be under-estimated. "No VC ever called me a N" highlighted exactly there the war really was for african americans. As for me, from where I come from, passive resistance was met with active aggression. I suggest you look into the social impact Ali achieved in the US civil rights. A good read is "Eyes on the Prize" which was also a very good documentary. Yes he spoke with the Klan. Louis was ised by the US govt which was no different from the Klan. Could Louis live wherever he wanted to in USA? But....this is boxing not politics although sometimes I think boxing is safer.

Can you imagine a light MW fighting for the HW title? Or even the CW division? It simply will not happen. Not even with such poor champions such as Maskaev and whatever eastern euro plodder (K bros the exception). Regardless how hard they punch, they wont win. RJJ had to bulk up to compete (dubiously I hear).

I'm never going to rubbish Duran to boost Ali's p4p standing. I loved the bloke, his style and his attitude. Their respective records speak for themselves. Who knows what Ali would have achieved if those 3 years weren't stolen from him because of his ethnicity? Lets not mince issues here. It wasn't for his political views. It was simply because he was viewed as being too uppity. He fought them and won. His greatest victory.

Benny Leonard was very good. I give credit where its due. Ali for me is #3 behind the 2 Sugar Rays.

rapidringsroad wrote:azania, for any boxing fan to belittle the achievements of a man like Patterson amazes me.He wasn't big by today's standards,his gold medal in the 1952 Olympics was for middle weight,but he could certainly punch,ask Ingemar and our own Henry Cooper who says he was hit by the sweetest punch of his career.He was a perfect gentleman and one of my heroes.

As a HW boxer and champ, he was not that good and was amazed to see him 90something on that top 100 list. I think the board by now know how I rate Rocky. I'd pick Rocky to destroy him in less that a round. His record as champ was nothing to wrote home about. Yes he could punch and punch hard. I am not denying that. He was also very fast and athletic. No chin though and was easy to hit.

As for being a perfect gent. Maybe so. I wont comment further.

azania wrote:Maybe so. I wont comment further.

The most sensible thing you've said thus far.

Yes, the civil rights movement consisted of more than MLK. But the stance of the nation of Islam, Malcolm X etc did as much harm as good. Ali's stance upon Vietnam was great as far as the anti-war movement went. But in terms of ending the Jim Crow laws? 1964. Civil Rights act. 1965. Voting rights act. 1965 - prosecution of Klansmen for murder of Viola Liuzzo. 1967, Thurgood Marshall to the supreme court.

This is landmark stuff. Where's the landmark rulings of the 1970s? You can argue that Ali made the nation "aware" of the issue. But if you were growing up in the south - you were pretty aware of the issues anyway. And are you suggesting that the US public weren't aware? Have you ever seen the poor people's marches, the march on Washington?

You can argue that Ali was a huge figure in the anti-war movement. He was, its true. But as important as Calley? As important as "I'm standing in Saigon and the firing is very close"? He was part of a whole and emblomatic of youth US culture at the time. But this notion that he single handedly made a realm of difference? Is false.

As mentioned before - Patterson's petitioning of JFK probably helped far more. And you call Patterson an Uncle Tom - which, frankly, is out of line.

Ali will always be rated highly. As much of that, however, is due to his mouth as his fists.

That's not how a top 10 list should be made.

And you're point about Fitzsimmons is plain wrong. As we've pointed out, and can point out time and time again - it was not "easy" to win a title back then, as it is now. You had more fights, more experience. Fitzsimmons had one of the hardest punches in history. He was hard to hit and could cut a man to shreds with strafing straight rights and lefts.

Your opinion on old time fighters, once again, is ignorant.

Course, if Fitzsimmons was around today - he'd definitely struggle. What with great champions like Sturm. And Pascal. And Braehmer. And 11 fight Shumenov...

With the real old timers you have to consider both sides of the argument and not simply confine it to the modern standards of 12 round fights.

Jeffries for instance was very much a 1890's fighter, over 25 rounds I dont see many if any of the post war fighters beating him, he was in my opinion the perfect fighter over that distance and in those conditions- strength, power, stamina and durability all second to none. Over 12 rounds he probably gets outboxed with relative ease but always has a chance of scoring a KO at any time although it's unlikely. Fitzsimmons was the original hard punching ring general, he always knew his opponents weakness, adapted very well and was deceptively tough and strong. But for me Joe Gans was the guy who started a progression from the early days to what we see nowadays, before him it's hard to judge how their style would transfer but achievement wise you cannot dismiss Fitzsimmons, Langford, Corbett, Dixon, Jeffries, Choynski and many more.

The rejectionism of the NoI was vital to the civil rights movements. In fact they didn't refer to it as civil but as a human rights movement. Their role albeit extreme and seperatist played a counter balancing act to the mainstream MLK and SNIC movement. In short what they provided was to tell white America that if they didn't deal fairly with MLK etc they will have to contend with the NoI. As for doing more harm that good, I reject that. In his autobiography, X said, you dont ask for the doors of freedom to be opened for you, you kick it open. He used the US war or independance as an example. Much like in S.Africa, the ANC combined passive resistance with active resistance. You had smaller off-shoots of rejectionists like the PAC and Azaplo (Azania people liberatioon Organisation) whose motto was "one settler, one bullet". That put the fear of god into the boers especially in the transvaal and KwaZulu. It worked, especially after the Bop incident in which that motto was played out in front of world wide cameras.

In short without the NoI et al, it is highly debateable if the civil rights acts, voting acts, ending Jim Crow laws etc would have happened when it did. Patterson#s lobbying of JFK and Johnson had little to no effect on the outcome. Ali's stance on the other hand did as it gained massive world wide interest and brought to the fore the issues. Moreover people in the south may have been aware of it, but when the microscope was on them it made them change faster. Many white S.Africans were not aware of the poverty in townships. Those who were shrugged their shoulders. Saying that you were aware if you lived in the south is not entirely accurate.

I haven't claimed Ali single handedly led the anti war movement. Once again he popularised it. Spoke in colleges, community centres, marches etc. Yes there were more players in there. Ali was a part of it. A large part of it.

Back to boxing. Why is Patterson rated highly. Other than regain the title (which he shouldn't have lost in the first place) what did he do to rank him so highly? Not only was that list skewered unfairly towards heavyweights, Patterson is simply not good enough as a fighter to be ranked in the top 100 ATGs.

When you have welterweights fighting for the HW title, its either the HW scene was simply not that good or the WW being exceptionally good. It couldn't happen in any other era except for when boxing was in its infancy as a sport with rules and regulations.

The Mighty Atom wrote:With the real old timers you have to consider both sides of the argument and not simply confine it to the modern standards of 12 round fights.

Jeffries for instance was very much a 1890's fighter, over 25 rounds I dont see many if any of the post war fighters beating him, he was in my opinion the perfect fighter over that distance and in those conditions- strength, power, stamina and durability all second to none. Over 12 rounds he probably gets outboxed with relative ease but always has a chance of scoring a KO at any time although it's unlikely. Fitzsimmons was the original hard punching ring general, he always knew his opponents weakness, adapted very well and was deceptively tough and strong. But for me Joe Gans was the guy who started a progression from the early days to what we see nowadays, before him it's hard to judge how their style would transfer but achievement wise you cannot dismiss Fitzsimmons, Langford, Corbett, Dixon, Jeffries, Choynski and many more.

Excellent post. For once I agree. There are sufficient riders in there which puts them into perspective. Its about transfering of styles. imo their styles wouldn't transfer very well in the post war years. That is not to say they were not good. As they say, styles make fights. Their styles then wouldn't last long in the post war game.

To be fair Azania, Ali played little to no part in the civil rights reform by the time the nation of islam started to play a more vocal role the wheels were already very much in motion.

With the the real old timers what they will always have is an incomparable punch to their latter day counterparts. Walcott, Choynski, Fitzsimmons, Langford all had punch power that far exceeds anything that their modern counterparts have. The four of them weighed around 130-160lbs but were more than capable of beating the top contenders of their day when outweighed by 2/3 stone, this would always transfer and a reason they can be dismissed as having no chance.

The Mighty Atom wrote:To be fair Azania, Ali played little to no part in the civil rights reform by the time the nation of islam started to play a more vocal role the wheels were already very much in motion.

With the the real old timers what they will always have is an incomparable punch to their latter day counterparts. Walcott, Choynski, Fitzsimmons, Langford all had punch power that far exceeds anything that their modern counterparts have. The four of them weighed around 130-160lbs but were more than capable of beating the top contenders of their day when outweighed by 2/3 stone, this would always transfer and a reason they can be dismissed as having no chance.

Many historians who have studied that era will strongly disagree with you. Read up on Cornel West and Maya Angelou on what they have to say about Ali's role in the civil rights movement. I could list a series of eminent philosophers, academics and current civil rights activists who would laugh at your statement.

As for the old timers, many of them had punch power. 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.

The emphasis you put "on their day" is correct imo. But not today. That is not to say today's guys are better. No. Its just different times and different skills.

They may laugh at it but I don't really care, the timeline is simply wrong for Ali to have played a significant difference on the reforms of 1965, he may have played a more significant social role but politically his importance is often overplayed.

Jones had to bulk up because of changes in the heavyweight limit I believe, you can no longer weigh within the cruiserweight limit for a title fight. Fitzsimmons generally didn't outbox heavyweights he blew them away with his power, which is why he could win weighing 164lbs and the other names you mentioned would probably not. Martinez does not have the power to KO Haye whereas i'd wager Fitzsimmons, Langford or Choynski would. Whether they caught up with him is a different matter but that doesn't alter the achievement of Fitzsimmons which has never been matched.

The Mighty Atom wrote:They may laugh at it but I don't really care, the timeline is simply wrong for Ali to have played a significant difference on the reforms of 1965, he may have played a more significant social role but politically his importance is often overplayed.

Jones had to bulk up because of changes in the heavyweight limit I believe, you can no longer weigh within the cruiserweight limit for a title fight. Fitzsimmons generally didn't outbox heavyweights he blew them away with his power, which is why he could win weighing 164lbs and the other names you mentioned would probably not. Martinez does not have the power to KO Haye whereas i'd wager Fitzsimmons, Langford or Choynski would. Whether they caught up with him is a different matter but that doesn't alter the achievement of Fitzsimmons which has never been matched.

Well I suppose the academics et al were wrong. The civil rights movement did not stop in 1965. Also in the period, social and political were intertwined as the BPP discovered.

Spinks also had to bulk up. Ditto Bob Foster when he fought at heavy. Martinez is no pillow puncher as Williams discovered and Haye has been downed by a SMW. Once again I am not denying Fitz achievement. In an era of a singlular recognised champ his avhievement will never be repeated (I dont consider RJJ a genuine HW champ, likewise I dont consider Holy a 5 time HW champ).

During the real significant changes of the civil rights movement Ali played no part, once it had started snowballing he then got involved. The thing with Ali it's fashionable to involve him because he was so well known, include his name and people are going to take notice.

Martinez knocked out a career Welterweight in Williams which doesn't transfer to knocking out a heavyweight, Mock was Hayes 7th fight since the Thompson fight Haye has shown a far better chin, knocked down by Mormeck but kept his composure.

The Mighty Atom wrote:During the real significant changes of the civil rights movement Ali played no part, once it had started snowballing he then got involved. The thing with Ali it's fashionable to involve him because he was so well known, include his name and people are going to take notice.

Martinez knocked out a career Welterweight in Williams which doesn't transfer to knocking out a heavyweight, Mock was Hayes 7th fight since the Thompson fight Haye has shown a far better chin, knocked down by Mormeck but kept his composure.

Absolutely. His name was all important. It gave the movement greater publicity and brought it to a much bigger audience. I am not over playing or down playing his involvement. Only an idiot would say the CV movement wouldn't get anywhere without Ali. But there is no denying that he was an important figure.

OK, can you imagine Froch fighting for the HW title? What chance would he have against Haye? (ignore the K bros as they are super heavywieghts).

Morning all, wish I'd got in on this debate a little earlier. Will try to keep this as short as I can, as I reckon a few of my points will have been covered by others at some stage.

Personally, I'd consider Ali a shoe-in for a top ten spot. In fact, he usually figures somehwere around the number four or five spot for me. I'll be the first to admit that Heavyweight, in general, has not been the greatest, most competitive or most talent-filled division over the eras, with Light-Heavyweight, Middleweight, Welterweight and Lightweight leaving it trailing for the most part. But that said, the Heavyweight era of the sixties and, more importantly, the seventies, would stand reasonable comparison to just about any other division seen at any one time in history. Given that Ali was clearly the dominant force in it, he instantly has to be considered at the very least.

It's general consensus that Ali is a top two Heavyweight of all time, or at the very least top three. Comparable, then, to Duran at Lightweight, Monzon at Middleweight or Moore at Light-Heavyweight (interestingly, all three of the latter would make mine, and I suspect a few others, top twenty-five all-time pound for pound list, so that gives you an idea of the quality I'm comparing Ali to here). Now, in Liston, Frazier and Foreman, Ali beat three men who are, without a shadow of a doubt, all top fifteen Heavyweights of all time. It says something, then, that not even the likes of Duran, Monzon or Moore can make a similar claim in their respective divisions, despite those weight classes, in general, being superior to Heavyweight. Now obviously, Duran won titles at other weights too, but as a general yard stick I don't think that's a bad starting point.

I see that some comments have moved over to Ali's social impact, his notoriety and the 'hype' which surrounded his career. Some argue that this makes his legend greater than his actual in-the-ring exploits warrant, however I'm not so sure. To put a simple question to everyone, how many fighters in history actually achieved more than Ali? Forget styles, forget media attention, forget social impact. Are there ten or more fighters who beat a better level of opposition, came out on the right end of head-to-head records against their nearest world-class rivals and had as much longevity at the highest level as Ali did? Rolling in all three factors together, I would argue that there aren't.

In fact, I read an article by good ol' Monte Cox arguing that only five men can lay claim to have the best record in the history of professional boxing; he named Ali amongst that elite five.

I don't need to go in to details about Ali's technical abilities in the ring - they're well known to any serious boxing fans, as are his slight weaknesses. If we go on ability, too, then I believe he ranks with the very best. He certainly gave Heavyweight boxing a speed and grace which had been missing for a long, long time - but for me, what clinches Ali's guaranteed top ten spot is his comeback after the three year lay-off between 1967 and 1970.

It's commonly accepted that much of Ali's incredible speed had vanished come 1970, that his reflexes, while still better than most Heavyweights, had lessened (and he took a lot more punishment as a result) and that he was now incapable of 'dancing' his way through an entire fight, as he did time and time agains during his 'first incarnation.' And yet, in that second chapter of his career, he still compiled a record which would, on its own, make him an automatic selection for a top four Heavyweight spot of all time, even forgetting his glorious sixties pomp. Of course, this is merely speculation, but I reckon there are plenty of other truly great fighters who wouldn't have been capable of such a feat had they had their greatest strength taken away or, at least, reduced greatly.

All things considered, I see no reason why Ali shouldn't be a nailed-on top ten pound for pound boxer of all time.

Again Froch doesn't have the power of Fitzsimmons which was his equalizer, he had genuine heavyweight power whereas no one below Heavyweight does. Froch wouldn't be able to rip Jeffries face apart like Ruby Rob did.

88Chris05

Great response and as good an argument as I have seen for Ali's case in a long time.

However there are other factors which I would consider telling , many of which you have alluded to yourself.

The heavyweight division as you say has never been as a talent rich as many of the other divisions. Perhaps subconciously this plays a part in my mind as I can find no room for any heavyweight in my top ten. Compare this to a talent rich division historically like light heavyweight and this is a factor for me.

However as you also correctly say, Ali was the best heavy of the best era of heavyweights. But even accounting for this and his wins over top divisional rivals, the traditional lack of depth in the division has made this task more impressive on the surface because he has relatively few rivals compared to the more talent rich divisions.

When you consider the phenomenal talent beaten by men like Tunney, Charles, Langford, Moore in the much more talent rich light heavyweight division then I think it begs the question is it better to be top of a (relatively) weak division or third, fourth or fifith in a more competitive division? Moore for instance doesnt even make my top two lightheavies, yet if one was inclined I think they could make a case for him being ahead of Ali considering his magnificent career.

I am in agreement that record wise alone Ali still has a compelling argument for a top ten spot. But the heavweight division rightly or wrongly has always been considered the flagship bearer of boxing and thus being the heavyweight champion has always been a bigger deal. I feel this principal (along with cultural, social and media developments) has pushed Ali beyond what equally or more talented contempories can hope to compete with giving him a luxury that less heralded (but equally talented) fighters dont have.

It would probably be too arduos a task to individually go through each person on my list and present my argument for why they rank ahead of Ali as I would need a seperate article for each! As I mention above I consider Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Charles and Tunney to be the only untouchables on the list as their records, acheivements and talents leave almost no room for doubt to me.

The likes of Duran and Jofre are similar to Ali in respect to they have definate claims to the top spot and it would be hard to rank them lower than third in their divisions. But Duran and Jofres dominance of their own divisions (something Ali cant claim for me - best in the division? Yes, but dominate? Not for me) in addition to their acheivements at other weights push them ahead.

You make a compelling case for Ali and certainly nobody could dispute he at the very least has a mighty strong claim for top ten berth. I just feel he hasnt done enough to give himself "untouchable" status.

Azania,

As someone who believes men like Corbett and Fitzsimmons were far more skillful than you generally represent it often pains me to see you dismiss them so readily as rather crude, underdeveloped fighters in todays terms.

The battle between Fitzsimmons and Corbett for instance was almost universally reported as a high skilled encounter between two excellent fighters. Not the crude, face first brawl that you believe happened routinely.

The mere fact somebody like Fitzsimmons is even rated at heavy at all is a remarkeable acheivement. If he were fighting today in the middleweight division I would have very little problem believing he would be a world champion. Even if you resolutely stick to seeing is believing, then I cant see how top rated middleweights like Williams or Martinez feel you with such overwhelming confidence of a superior breed? The ungainly swarming style of Williams is like a drunken spider and if he was levelled out in two rounds by Martinez then its genuinely worrying what Fitzsimmons could do to him. Martinez is flavour of the month these days but his low hands and reliance on counterpunching would see him playing a deadly game of cat and mouse with Fitzsimmons and again one which I have no trouble believing Fitzsimmons wins.

Even if you are inclined to match him at heavyweight, then history suggests that at the very least durability is essential to beating Fitzsimmons. Haye doesnt have it and Fitzsimmons has it in abundance. I am disinclined to call the fight, but I cetainly believe its not going to be some kind of one sided massacre and with Fitzsimmons frightning power, even if Haye managed to outbox him then he will nonetheles always potentially one mistake or punch away from defeat as men like Corbett found out.

Azania - you always threaten to "name a list of philosophers". Stop threatening; do it. It will, no doubt, be as valid and inciteful as your "50 heavies who beat Rocky".

The huge leaps forward in civil rights in America predated Ali. That is a fact.

Your disdain for old timers is ludicrous.

Wonderful fighters like Pascal, Pavlik, Haye, Martinez and Williams. Oh and 13 fight Pirog. Can you honestly see them troubling Fitzsimmons?

Colonial Lion wrote:88Chris05

Great response and as good an argument as I have seen for Ali's case in a long time.

You make a compelling case for Ali and certainly nobody could dispute he at the very least has a mighty strong claim for top ten berth. I just feel he hasnt done enough to give himself "untouchable" status.

Cheers Colonial, and you make an equally good argument against Ali's inclusion. Would be boring if we all agreed on everything, though!

Colonial I see what your saying with regards to the Heavyweight division but Liston, Frazier and Foreman were great fighters irrespective of weight or era. Overall Duran has a better series of wins than Ali but do his top three wins of De Jesus, Buchanan and Leonard really compare to that of Liston, Frazier and Foreman? For me they do not and this isn't taking into account the best wins of either Monzon or Moore which again fall well short of Ali's, he also has wins over many many top ranked contenders of his day which again are comparable to the aforementioned.

Below Duran potentially but well ahead of both Monzon and Moore

The Mighty Atom wrote:Unless your going to go into depth you should probably stop bringing it up

For the record Ali was a far more distastesful human being than Patterson who was patriotic to the end, respectful and very articulate. Everything that Ali was not.

Spot on. I'm not a big fan of Ali the person. Seems he's given a lot of slack for being a pretty vile person at times. I'm also not 100% sold on his refusal to serve during Vietnam. Other celebrities before and since have served their country, and his 'moral' objections seem to be based as much on his opinion of white society as anything else.

As has been said; referring to Patterson as an 'Uncle Tom' is just plain uncalled for.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Colonial I see what your saying with regards to the Heavyweight division but Liston, Frazier and Foreman were great fighters irrespective of weight or era. Overall Duran has a better series of wins than Ali but do his top three wins of De Jesus, Buchanan and Leonard really compare to that of Liston, Frazier and Foreman? For me they do not and this isn't taking into account the best wins of either Monzon or Moore which again fall well short of Ali's, he also has wins over many many top ranked contenders of his day which again are comparable to the aforementioned.

Below Duran potentially but well ahead of both Monzon and Moore

I personally would rate Ali above Monzon and Moore, but I could entertain arguments as to why Moore at least could be ranked ahead of Ali potentially. Harder to make a case Monzon, although I do consider middleweight a stronger division than heavyweight in general.

In viewing big wins alone I think its subjective. I would probably agree that Liston, Frazier, Foreman are better names. However I think Duran stepping up to welterweight to beat a then unbeaten Ray Leonard (who I rate as a top ten of all time) is a better win than any of Ali's.

I also factor other elements in such as Duran being the dominant lightweight of his time, his remarkeable longetivity, his acheivements in other weight classes which I think push him ahead of Ali.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Unless your going to go into depth you should probably stop bringing it up

For the record Ali was a far more distastesful human being than Patterson who was patriotic to the end, respectful and very articulate. Everything that Ali was not.

Nothing personal, just leaping to the defense of my hero here.

That's rubbish, Ali was as articulate as he was fast-handed and I don't see why blind patriotism is automatically a good thing. Patterson said Ali's religion were a menace, how respectful is that? and I like Patterson, but ripping Ali to shreds just to win another pointless argument with Az ain't on.

oxring wrote:3. Ali gets away with a lot. His first run at a title included beating Liston in "dubious" fashion, an appalling run of title defences against no-marks, followed by a lay off. He comes back, tunes himself up and betrays Frazier. Prime Frazier, the only time the 2 met, beats 10 shades out of him. He then loses 3 times to Norton. Robs Norton twice. Beats an exhausted Foreman in an admittedly great performance. Goes life and death with a 1-eyed Frazier in Manila - a fight he was seconds from losing. And yet, you have that above the likes of Duran - the greatest LW ever, who stepped up to WW to beat an all time top 10 fighter in SRL. Beats Barkley aged 38.

He beat Sonny Liston, however he did it, he beat a great heavyweight whom he already beaten fair and square once before. He beat all the top contenders available, what more can you ask? He looked GREAT doing it too. He was exiled because of his beliefs and to say the Ali Frazier 1 was prime v prime is beyond ignorant. Beat ten shades out of him? Frazier was in hospital for weeks and was never the same. Ali also evenged it twice.

To sum up his wins over Norton as robbing him twice is again, plain ignorant. Joe Frazier hated Ali and scored the third a draw, so don't bring it up like it's a fact Norton was robbed. You make KO'ing Foreman sound like an insult, Foreman wasnt exhausted before the fight started.

And then you use the Thrilla in Manilla, one of the greatest fights and displays of hear in will from both sides in boxing history to put a guy down? I don't know what Ali did to you in your life but your perception of what's a great performence is skewed if genuinely beleive what you've written.

JBW - I believe the point being made about Ali-Frazier 3 is that a fight Ali was expected to win with relative ease turned out to be a very closely fought contest.

Ali came up with some funny rhymes but he wasn't very articulate, his outwardly brash nature covered up the immaturity of much of what he said, that's my opinion on it. Patterson believed in unity and equality which is the polar opposite of what the nation of islam stood for, they were an equivalent of the KKK in that they wanted segregation at which point it becomes obvious why someone like Patterson or anyone for that matter would consider them in the way he did.

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!

The Mighty Atom wrote:Ali came up with some funny rhymes but he wasn't very articulate, his outwardly brash nature covered up the immaturity of much of what he said, that's my opinion on it. Patterson believed in unity and equality which is the polar opposite of what the nation of islam stood for, they were an equivalent of the KKK in that they wanted segregation at which point it becomes obvious why someone like Patterson or anyone for that matter would consider them in the way he did.

Well as far articuation that's a matter of opinion.

But Patterson believed Ali didn't deserve to be champion because of his religion, what does that have to do with equality and unity? Having differing beliefs to someone isn't a free pass to declare anti-american and a menace. A black kid growing up in the 1940's probably had every right to be angry with the white establishment. The NOI certainly didn't lynch anybody as far as I know.