Why Muhammad Ali should rate above Sugar Ray Robinson....

Always had Muhammad Ali higher than Robinson......Both 1 and 2 mind......Talent wise you can have Robinson higher but that is evened out by Impact on the sport......Achievements you can maybe have Robinson higher but for me the greatest prize in sports is the Heavyweight title so we can argue there......Opposition generally perhaps Robbo fought more skilled and he did dominate more than one weight......

On those criteria alone you can maybe have Robbo number 1......But for me the difference was Ali beat MONSTERS.....

No one gave him a chance at the ultimate destroyer Liston....6-1....Patterson cr*pped his load twice as did others but Ali not only had the bollox to fight his own fight but tamed the Monster easily......A superb mentally strong performance Robbo never had to endure...

Same with the killer Foreman.....Norton sprayed fertilizer when he fought him...Frazier was destroyed and a past it Ali tamed the Beast again.....Amazing mental strength.....

Frazier 2 and 3...

You can beat past it Armstrong's......Go life and death with Fullmer and Basilio.....Have great fights with the raging bull..Beat the impressive Gavilan...Pull off a great comeback win against Turpin..

But the mental fortitude it takes to get in with Monsters and tame them........Ali was a one off....

Well I've said plenty of times that I think Robinson's position as pound for pound number one is too readily given, as if there's no debate at all about it, and that those who dissent are shouted down unnecessarily, Truss. So I'm all for people presenting a compelling case for someone being above him, which you've certainly done.

Personally, though, I couldn't make the case for Ali, and in fact I tend to rate Ali just a shade lower these days than I used to. It's been ages since I tried ranking a top ten, twenty or whatever, but back in the day I'd usually have Ali around the #5 or #6 spot. Maybe, just maybe, I'd have to move him a few slots lower these days if I really thought about it.

Still easily the greatest Heavyweight based on accomplishments, opposition and memorable performances at the highest level, mind you. For me some of the shine of his second reign 1974-78 has lessened just a little in the last few years, the more I think about it. His career after Frazier III in 1975 was pretty much smoke and mirrors, and there are a couple of big wins in there, namely Norton III and Shavers, that he didn't really deserve in my eyes (some might chuck Young in there as well, although I'm not moved by that one as Young didn't fight like a man who wanted to become champion). He also stunk the place out on a couple of occasions.

That's not a knock on Ali really, because he could have walked away after Frazier III with nothing to prove and still the best Heavyweight of all time - his career was outstanding and I can obviously cut him some slack for what came after, because he was past his best. But hey, you need to be harsh with your standards when you're comparing amongst the all time greats.

For me, the most outstanding candidate to rate ahead of Robinson is Armstrong.

88Chris05 wrote:Well I've said plenty of times that I think Robinson's position as pound for pound number one is too readily given, as if there's no debate at all about it, and that those who dissent are shouted down unnecessarily, Truss. So I'm all for people presenting a compelling case for someone being above him, which you've certainly done.

Personally, though, I couldn't make the case for Ali, and in fact I tend to rate Ali just a shade lower these days than I used to. It's been ages since I tried ranking a top ten, twenty or whatever, but back in the day I'd usually have Ali around the #5 or #6 spot. Maybe, just maybe, I'd have to move him a few slots lower these days if I really thought about it.

Still easily the greatest Heavyweight based on accomplishments, opposition and memorable performances at the highest level, mind you. For me some of the shine of his second reign 1974-78 has lessened just a little in the last few years, the more I think about it. His career after Frazier III in 1975 was pretty much smoke and mirrors, and there are a couple of big wins in there, namely Norton III and Shavers, that he didn't really deserve in my eyes (some might chuck Young in there as well, although I'm not moved by that one as Young didn't fight like a man who wanted to become champion). He also stunk the place out on a couple of occasions.

That's not a knock on Ali really, because he could have walked away after Frazier III with nothing to prove and still the best Heavyweight of all time - his career was outstanding and I can obviously cut him some slack for what came after, because he was past his best. But hey, you need to be harsh with your standards when you're comparing amongst the all time greats.

For me, the most outstanding candidate to rate ahead of Robinson is Armstrong.

There was a robbery at the 1981 Mr Olympia one year when Danny Padilla was the stand out performer....But he didn't finish top 3 because he was barely over 5ft......

Part of the problem with Armstrong is that a lot of people don't want a 5ft 5in Feather being Boxing's greatest Man....

Not that he is for me because......Ali cut down two unstoppable....Nasty...Vicious beasts that scared the C**p out of most observers and other fighters..

Robbo and Hank never had to worry about mental hurdles like that....But I can't really argue too much it is subjective......I see the reasons for other views...just as valid.

Interesting take, Truss. I don’t actually go along with the notion that being a great man who transcended the sport is particularly relevant with the rankings game although many do, including the great Bert Sugar.

Ali does just about justify being the ‘heavy’ number one, but i struggle to put a heavy as the goat simply because the skill set at this division is the least dependent on “silky” pugilistic skills.

Boringly it’s Robinson for me, but if you look at Armstrong or even Wilde you’re on a hiding to nowhere if you think that anyone was better than them, to me the fine margins are so very fine that it’s just darn impossible to make a comprehensive case for one fighter that sits easily.

Some thoughts. In nature there are no weight classes. Professional heavyweight is the only category with no upper weight limit. The heavyweight division is surely the most dangerous category with regard the power generated in the punches. Going down the weight classes the power generated is less but they tend to be faster and throw more punches. If Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson both in their prime fought each other, ignoring the weight class, I assume Ali would win. Back to weight classes.

Derek Smalls wrote:Interesting take, Truss. I don’t actually go along with the notion that being a great man who transcended the sport is particularly relevant with the rankings game although many do, including the great Bert Sugar.

It's a fair enough take.....But surely when you rank people from different professions their impact is taken in to it....

Presidential wise..... Andrew Jackson the pro-slaver and Indian land staealer was basically loved in the South and nowhere else but he is a top six President in all the lists due to being a huge personality and having a controversial impact......Whereas as a more subdued William McKinley helped ease the US through the recession which did for the unfortunate Grover Cleveland doesn't impact many lists....

Huge personalities get rewarded.....Ali had one..but i get your point.

Sugar ray Robinson is the greatest due to his achievements at different weight divisions. I suggest you listen to what Ali said himself about Ray. Almost 98% of boxing writers and historians have Ray as the p4p number 1.

PPVxHOTTY wrote:Sugar ray Robinson is the greatest due to his achievements at different weight divisions. I suggest you listen to what Ali said himself about Ray. Almost 98% of boxing writers and historians have Ray as the p4p number 1.

Fighters pretend to be humble don't they......Foreman has said he would be scared of fighting certain opponents we all know he knocks out...

Robbo never had to beat monsters.....Ali beat plenty.

Even Ali agreed that Sugar Ray was the best ever. I don't agree with Truss that Ali should be number one because of what he did for boxing out of the Ring, that should have nothing to do with his rating. Robinson was a bit of a womanizer as was Jack Johnson and many other champions but it shouldn't detract from what they did in the ring.

rapidringsroad wrote:Even Ali agreed that Sugar Ray was the best ever. I don't agree with Truss that Ali should be number one because of what he did for boxing out of the Ring, that should have nothing to do with his rating. Robinson was a bit of a womanizer as was Jack Johnson and many other champions but it shouldn't detract from what they did in the ring.

If you asked O'sullivan the snooker player he'd probably say Hendry was the best player ever and yet he is...It's what sportsman do....

Ali beat unbeatable monsters......Liston was considered a monster.....Foreman was.......

Who did Robinson beat that wasn't considered beatable....