Is Muhammad Ali the #1 Heavyweight of all time?

[BennyST]

I disagree kinda,, maybe H2H isnt the best way if the guys are from different eras and never fought, but i do put H2H as a good form of criteria when discussing 2 fighters that actually fought in their prime against one another.. Obviously it doesnt help if its tyson-holmes, or something like that when one guy is faded, then no it shouldnt be used, but if its something like hopkins-roy or toney-mccallum, then i think its a very applicable measure when ranking guys... Cant be used for any scenario, but certain ones i find it useful
Resumes dont win you fights, its skill level..

Resume tells you even more than skill does though. Skill can sometimes only go a certain way. Resume tells you everything. It tells you the styles the guys skill can overcome, the adversity he could beat, the opponents skill level he could beat, everything.

Without it skill is much too abstract. There have been way too many guys that have shown incredible, seemingly ATG skills, only to have them fall apart under certain styles, or at a certain level. Conversely there have been guys that you would think couldn't possibly beat highly skilled his, and yet we see them win all their best fights, despite being supposedly less skilled.

Skill is helpful, but it simply can't tell the picture that resume can. For instance, if we went solely on skills in fantasy land, Duran would never beat Leonard (if, for instance, they didn't fight and he didn't move past lightweight) and people would have laughed at the thought. By his resume, we know he not only beat Leonard, but he also eventually moved up and beat a huge middleweight who was a three division champ himself. Without those fights happening, no one in their right mind would have previously thought it possible or given it any serious thought.

Resume tells us with 100% certainty what skill alone cannot.

There have just been too many fighters that are amazingly skilled, but couldn't cut it against certain styles or levels to rate it on the same level as resume. Without the resume telling us, and if we only went by skill, it's so abstract. We could say just about anything. Look at Vitali and his most emphatic fans for example; they will literally tell you he is skilled enough to beat every HW in history. He has the size, power, stamina, and skill. But, we simply don't know. Well, we do actually. Without the Lewis fight, people would say it with even more certainty. The best, and only great fighter he fought, beat him. Without that loss people might very well say he could beat Lewis on his skills alone. We know it's not true.

Skill just seems too subjective and abstract in comparison. When it goes hand in hand with a great, full resume, that's when it helps most.

[greeh]

the slo mo demonstrated how good he was to be able to set the counter up and how precise the margin for error was during the counter...this takes a tremendous amount of skill.

I already know this. You are covering old ground.

Well.....YOU DID!!

Im not particularly partial to Floyd...But credit where Credit is due. My point about Louis was very general....your sacred cow is safe

Of course he should get credit. I don't dispute that. It’s just that you bring Mayweather up very often, so you leave the impression of being somewhat partial.

Anyway, who is my sacred cow? Louis? Curry?

Because for the sake of my comparison....vis a vis technical skill on the higher order of a certain calibre, its just not relevant. I will take a look because I like to learn about fighers but its another issue entirely.

It’s not an entirely different issue.

You dismissed my comparison without actually ever having seen Donald Curry fight.

Well, that’s just brilliant, isn't it?

I think his athletic ability is overrated...LIVE WITH IT! Your rants into obscurity are fun....but we all have our rants no wat I meen sport?

You can think so if you want, no problem. The only problem I’ve had has been that you have seemed to neglect it altogether.

I don’t understand the last sentence. Do you mean that you should stick to your Japanese Martial Art of snail gymnastics for middle-aged persons? That’s probably right.

You equate improv with the opposite of technical proficiency why is that? nd while mayweather is relaxed he is by no means "loose." whats damatta with ju?

Nothing is wrong with me.

I just think we have different definition of loose here. I could have miswritten/chosen the wrong word, because in this case by saying loosely I meant not doing everything strictly textbook – largely because of his athletic ability.

I didn’t imply he did it all the time, just a bit.

Anyway, you get my point.

I was contrasting fighters with impeccable technical skills versus impeccable athletic abilities to contrast Ali versus Louis

Again, I’m probably just a little bothered by all the “Mayweather this, Mayweather that”.

Couldn’t you just have taken Harold Johnson?

another rant into abscurity here here!!! I like the rants and I am sure you are right....Judah was **** just had a lot of natural ability and speed

It’s wasn't a rant. It was just meant to say that Zab wasn’t some kind of semi-god creature that is sometimes suggested.

He is woefully overrated.

I agree....again he has natural talent and little else

He has good athletic ability, but his technical prowess and mental strength isn’t exactly impressive.

You don’t question that, do you?

Anyway, it feels a little pointless to go on back and forth, because we will probably never agree.

[BattlingNelson]

I already know this. You are covering old ground.







Of course he should get credit. I don't dispute that. It’s just that you bring Mayweather up very often, so you leave the impression of being somewhat partial.

Anyway, who is my sacred cow? Louis? Curry?



It’s not an entirely different issue.

You dismissed my comparison without actually ever having seen Donald Curry fight.

Well, that’s just brilliant, isn't it?



You can think so if you want, no problem. The only problem I’ve had has been that you have seemed to neglect it altogether.

I don’t understand the last sentence. Do you mean that you should stick to your Japanese Martial Art of snail gymnastics for middle-aged persons? That’s probably right.



Nothing is wrong with me.

I just think we have different definition of loose here. I could have miswritten/chosen the wrong word, because in this case by saying loosely I meant not doing everything strictly textbook – largely because of his athletic ability.

I didn’t imply he did it all the time, just a bit.

Anyway, you get my point.



Again, I’m probably just a little bothered by all the “Mayweather this, Mayweather that”.

Couldn’t you just have taken Harold Johnson?



It’s wasn't a rant. It was just meant to say that Zab wasn’t some kind of semi-god creature that is sometimes suggested.

He is woefully overrated.



He has good athletic ability, but his technical prowess and mental strength isn’t exactly impressive.

You don’t question that, do you?

Anyway, it feels a little pointless to go on back and forth, because we will probably never agree.

What happened to Kalule?

[Suckmedry]

Did you guys know its possible to be both naturally gifted and technically skilled? Crazy i know!

[New England]

yes. i used to have louis out front, but that was just ******ed.


ali's resume is scary good. i think it will take 10 years after he dies for people to start to recognize that he's one of the best [top 5] of all time in any weight class.

[New England]

Again, I don't see how people discredit either technical skills or physical gifts. Neither is better because they both get the job done depending on the fighters.

it's not about discrediting one or the other, but recognizing that there's a distinction between the two.

skills you learn, gifts you don't.

[BKM-2010]

it's not about discrediting one or the other, but recognizing that there's a distinction between the two.

skills you learn, gifts you don't.

Actually you must learn how to use your gifts to your best advantage, which is another skill in of itself. There have been many, many very gifted fighters who never amounted to anything.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Resume tells you even more than skill does though. Skill can sometimes only go a certain way. Resume tells you everything. It tells you the styles the guys skill can overcome, the adversity he could beat, the opponents skill level he could beat, everything.

Without it skill is much too abstract. There have been way too many guys that have shown incredible, seemingly ATG skills, only to have them fall apart under certain styles, or at a certain level. Conversely there have been guys that you would think couldn't possibly beat highly skilled his, and yet we see them win all their best fights, despite being supposedly less skilled.

Skill is helpful, but it simply can't tell the picture that resume can. For instance, if we went solely on skills in fantasy land, Duran would never beat Leonard (if, for instance, they didn't fight and he didn't move past lightweight) and people would have laughed at the thought. By his resume, we know he not only beat Leonard, but he also eventually moved up and beat a huge middleweight who was a three division champ himself. Without those fights happening, no one in their right mind would have previously thought it possible or given it any serious thought.

Resume tells us with 100% certainty what skill alone cannot.

There have just been too many fighters that are amazingly skilled, but couldn't cut it against certain styles or levels to rate it on the same level as resume. Without the resume telling us, and if we only went by skill, it's so abstract. We could say just about anything. Look at Vitali and his most emphatic fans for example; they will literally tell you he is skilled enough to beat every HW in history. He has the size, power, stamina, and skill. But, we simply don't know. Well, we do actually. Without the Lewis fight, people would say it with even more certainty. The best, and only great fighter he fought, beat him. Without that loss people might very well say he could beat Lewis on his skills alone. We know it's not true.

Skill just seems too subjective and abstract in comparison. When it goes hand in hand with a great, full resume, that's when it helps most.

I agree with a lot your saying... Don't get me wrong, resumes are the main thing to base a guys career off of.. But I also think h2h is also a good measure in comparing 2 guys with similar resumes and skill levels..
Take foreman and Frazier for example,, very close in skill, ability, resume, but we all know that foreman crushed Frazier, so I think it's fair to use that when determining rankings...

Resumes are a must, when talking about ATG rankings.. But when everyone has a terrific resume, I think skills, and h2h comparisons are effective when trying to rank guys with all great resumes..

And resumes don't win you fights.. Not one fighter has ever won a fight based on resume. They tell the story of your career but never wins you any fights

[billeau2]

I already know this. You are covering old ground.







Of course he should get credit. I don't dispute that. It’s just that you bring Mayweather up very often, so you leave the impression of being somewhat partial.

Anyway, who is my sacred cow? Louis? Curry?



It’s not an entirely different issue.

You dismissed my comparison without actually ever having seen Donald Curry fight.

Well, that’s just brilliant, isn't it?



You can think so if you want, no problem. The only problem I’ve had has been that you have seemed to neglect it altogether.

I don’t understand the last sentence. Do you mean that you should stick to your Japanese Martial Art of snail gymnastics for middle-aged persons? That’s probably right.



Nothing is wrong with me.

I just think we have different definition of loose here. I could have miswritten/chosen the wrong word, because in this case by saying loosely I meant not doing everything strictly textbook – largely because of his athletic ability.

I didn’t imply he did it all the time, just a bit.

Anyway, you get my point.



Again, I’m probably just a little bothered by all the “Mayweather this, Mayweather that”.

Couldn’t you just have taken Harold Johnson?



It’s wasn't a rant. It was just meant to say that Zab wasn’t some kind of semi-god creature that is sometimes suggested.

He is woefully overrated.



He has good athletic ability, but his technical prowess and mental strength isn’t exactly impressive.

You don’t question that, do you?

Anyway, it feels a little pointless to go on back and forth, because we will probably never agree.

Since when is "agreeing" the point of these tit tats? Anyhow you perhaps give yourself too little credit here....I can be swayed by certain arguments.

Snail athletics is a good one!! Touche!!!!

Actually we agree on Judah. Perhaps you misunderstood my point about the spaz (Zab)....He has been on the whole incredibly overrated. Hes just a damn fine example of a guy who found a place for himself as a gatekeeper...as a gatekeeper now-a-days I don't think people overrate him anymore. But yeah he is one dimensional as they come...his dad never helped him in that regard.

Frankly regarding loose and Mayweather I thought you slipped a bit on that one....I mean you are careful about your arguments sport and Mayweather is by no definition "Loose"...so yeah on this one we have to disagree....Mayweather is about as careful as you are when selecting a fighter who was not heralded as he/(she?) should have been by the unwashed masses...Sheesh!!!

Your seem to imply I have a limited vocabulary of fighters to draw upon to make a point....guilty as charged. Again my understanding sort of crosses a weird swath between snail training, MMA talent coming up in the Bay Area, more than a few fighters not on the fairweather fan map, and the usual suspects.

The reason I dismissed your comparison is because I felt Mayweather was adequate to make a point of comparison. I am interested in the fighters you speak of (in this case Curry) but the fact that he might make that point better does not help my point. There are many fighters who are able technically in a way that makes me rememember...in presnail days, when being attacked and attacking, how hard it was to exerscize technique under great duress. Then I see a guy like Tunney, who seemed to keep his head and technique in tact under amazing circumstances and just shake my head.

But seriously my intention here is not to tit for tat....

[billeau2]

Resume tells you even more than skill does though. Skill can sometimes only go a certain way. Resume tells you everything. It tells you the styles the guys skill can overcome, the adversity he could beat, the opponents skill level he could beat, everything.

Without it skill is much too abstract. There have been way too many guys that have shown incredible, seemingly ATG skills, only to have them fall apart under certain styles, or at a certain level. Conversely there have been guys that you would think couldn't possibly beat highly skilled his, and yet we see them win all their best fights, despite being supposedly less skilled.

Skill is helpful, but it simply can't tell the picture that resume can. For instance, if we went solely on skills in fantasy land, Duran would never beat Leonard (if, for instance, they didn't fight and he didn't move past lightweight) and people would have laughed at the thought. By his resume, we know he not only beat Leonard, but he also eventually moved up and beat a huge middleweight who was a three division champ himself. Without those fights happening, no one in their right mind would have previously thought it possible or given it any serious thought.

Resume tells us with 100% certainty what skill alone cannot.

There have just been too many fighters that are amazingly skilled, but couldn't cut it against certain styles or levels to rate it on the same level as resume. Without the resume telling us, and if we only went by skill, it's so abstract. We could say just about anything. Look at Vitali and his most emphatic fans for example; they will literally tell you he is skilled enough to beat every HW in history. He has the size, power, stamina, and skill. But, we simply don't know. Well, we do actually. Without the Lewis fight, people would say it with even more certainty. The best, and only great fighter he fought, beat him. Without that loss people might very well say he could beat Lewis on his skills alone. We know it's not true.

Skill just seems too subjective and abstract in comparison. When it goes hand in hand with a great, full resume, that's when it helps most.

Your example using the Duran Leonard fight brings this point home IMO.