Is Muhammad Ali the #1 Heavyweight of all time?

[TBear]

All I said was that basically I though Muhammad wasn't the greatest because he'd be a bit small and wasn't really dominant.

Sorry man, I wasn't really trying to be offensive here

I just got here man, I can assure you I mean no disrespect, and I am certainly not anybody's other you can check all you like.

Think your a little quick to judge mate. If you want to drop it fine, if you wanna discuss it that's fine too!

The 'ol' last line of defense for fans of large fighters is size. Ali was too small, blah blah.

All due respect to the Klitschko's and Lewis who were all fine champs, but they were not good because they were big. Their chins were not any better because their size because no matter how big you are the human chin can still absorb so much impact. Guys like McCall and Brewster were too small to compete at only 6'2", which by the way was a full inch shorter than Ali.

Wlad and Lennox were good because their skills not their height or weight. Ali was also skilled, enough so, comparisons are often unfair.

[Elroy1]

I was not, and would never, assume that size was the factor that made the later champions more successful. Otherwise there'd be no point to boxing if the bigger guy always won.

But I do think at HW size plays a profound role, not so much in individual events (although it still can) but more evidently over a career worth of fights.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you put Muhammad up against LEwis or Wlad's career worth of opponents I don't think he'd have fared so well and the reverse, against Muhammad's opponents I believe Lenny and Wlad would have had an unfair advantage.

But you are right TBear, skills still do ***** size no doubt, otherwise training would consist of how many hamburgers one can eat LOL.

[BKM-2010]

Elroy1 seems like a troll to me, otherwise he's one of the most ill-informed and ******est theorists I've seen here. Size argument against Ali? Who stood over 6'3 but actually around 6'5 to 6'7 when he was bouncing on his toes for 15 rounds in his prime. On top of that he had a reach of 78 inches and used every bit of it. He would never lose because of an overstated size disadvantage.

[Suckmedry]

Elroy1 seems like a troll to me, otherwise he's one of the most ill-informed and ******est theorists I've seen here. Size argument against Ali? Who stood over 6'3 but actually around 6'5 to 6'7 when he was bouncing on his toes for 15 rounds in his prime. On top of that he had a reach of 78 inches and used every bit of it. He would never lose because of an overstated size disadvantage.

I've seen Ali listed at a little over 6"3 and I'm pretty sure his reach was 80". So he gives up like what, two inches reach to Vitali. Not sure what wlads is exactly but I assume it's very similar.

That's what these idiots don't understand is that Ali was a bigger man than guys like Louis, Holyfield etc. he was 6"3 and 210-15 of lean, superbly conditioned muscle. The guy carried no fat at all when he was in fighting shape, and with weight training (the only aspect of the sport that has changed since Ali's time) he would have easily been a ripped 220-25 with the same athletic abilities.

[StarshipTrooper]

Jerry Quarry > Anybody on either Klitschko's resume.

I join LacedUp in welcoming back HWBlogger.

Someone bust out the ban hammer.....

[Elroy1]

You know I really resent that, comparing me to that guy on that blog.

I really respect all boxers past and present and hold guys like Muhammad in high esteem. But I simply think a lot of his competition wouldn't really cut the mustard, that's it.

Nobody asked any of you to agree, Muhammad can be number 1 forever and win every fantasy match up if you like.

I think I would not be alone in arguing that maybe he doesn't deserve to be number 1 based on another angle as well.

He struggled badly with Frazier who Foreman easily beat. Some argue he should have lost atleast 1 other of their fights.

Same with Norton, some might view that he lost all 3 (although I think he lost just 2 of those, the second was close but Ali's)

Then there was the Young fight which I had him losing.

He definitely got a few gifts did he not?

This isn't hating on Muhammad, this is putting him in the spotlight, both pros and cons.

Lighten up ey!

[LacedUp]

I was not, and would never, assume that size was the factor that made the later champions more successful. Otherwise there'd be no point to boxing if the bigger guy always won.

But I do think at HW size plays a profound role, not so much in individual events (although it still can) but more evidently over a career worth of fights.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you put Muhammad up against LEwis or Wlad's career worth of opponents I don't think he'd have fared so well and the reverse, against Muhammad's opponents I believe Lenny and Wlad would have had an unfair advantage.

But you are right TBear, skills still do ***** size no doubt, otherwise training would consist of how many hamburgers one can eat LOL.

OK so here we go with the size again.

Right, so which of Lewis' and Wlad's opponents were so monstrously big that Ali would have an unfair disadvantage?

[LacedUp]

You know I really resent that, comparing me to that guy on that blog.

I really respect all boxers past and present and hold guys like Muhammad in high esteem. But I simply think a lot of his competition wouldn't really cut the mustard, that's it.

Nobody asked any of you to agree, Muhammad can be number 1 forever and win every fantasy match up if you like.

I think I would not be alone in arguing that maybe he doesn't deserve to be number 1 based on another angle as well.

He struggled badly with Frazier who Foreman easily beat. Some argue he should have lost atleast 1 other of their fights.

Same with Norton, some might view that he lost all 3 (although I think he lost just 2 of those, the second was close but Ali's)

Then there was the Young fight which I had him losing.

He definitely got a few gifts did he not?

This isn't hating on Muhammad, this is putting him in the spotlight, both pros and cons.

Lighten up ey!

We know it's you.

Why try and hide it? You've made a million alts and you're trying to get the same ****** point across every time - and every time it's shot down.

[Weltschmerz]

No.

Ali wouldn't fair too well in today's era, he would probably be a cruiser weight in this day and age. He was great back then when HW fighters were generally smaller guys.

[LacedUp]

No.

Ali wouldn't fair too well in today's era, he would probably be a cruiser weight in this day and age. He was great back then when HW fighters were generally smaller guys.

Who I ask are those huge guys in todays division?

Just a look over the top 10 tells me that:

a 6'2" guy is ranked #2 in Povetkin. Pulev 6'4, Jennings 6'2, Perez 6', Arreola, 6'1, Stiverne 6'2, Chisora 6', Adamek 6'1.

And Ali at 6'3 is too small?