Do you hold Ali's 5 losses against his legacy?

[sentax]

Does the fact he has 5 losses hurt his claim as the undisputed GOAT or is he one of the few or only fighters who's greatness can cause that to be overlooked?

[BKM-]

He shouldn't have even been allowed to fight in his last 2 losses, so if you count his other losses he could still say he beat every man he ever faced when it mattered.

Avenging losses are the best ways to stop people from holding losses against your legacy.

[SheenLantern]

Ali probably would have been undefeated for a long time if he never got suspended for 3 years

[Scopedog]

No, in fact I think the losses are part of what made him great, in a way. There've been hundreds of fighters over the years who proclaim that they're the greatest and then go all quiet when they lose for the first time - for Ali to come off of bruising, painful defeats to the likes of Frazier and Norton and still have the same ****sure, extravagant personality and be the same brilliant fighter is part of his mystique. Plus it made his fights more exciting - do you think the Rumble in the Jungle would have been the same kind of dramatic underdog shock if Ali had still been undefeated?

What made Ali the Greatest had less to do with the numbers and names on his record than his legend, honestly.

[GhostofDempsey]

No, but I hold the gifts and fixed fights in his favor against his legacy.

[DreamFighter]

Does the fact he has 5 losses hurt his claim as the undisputed GOAT or is he one of the few or only fighters who's greatness can cause that to be overlooked?

the one to frazier is the definitive one, the Norton one proved to be a really bad matchup for alis style. Since they were both avenged, its hard to pick at him about them, the Norton one is the most devaluing since he wasnt able to adjust to Ken dominantly in any of their bouts.

I think only a fool would hold his three losses during his Parkinsonians slide against him.

[HOUDINI563]

None of Ali’s fights were fixed. You need definitive proof for statements such as this.

Ali in fact is a greater fighter by coming back x2 against top opposition after losing vs Frazier and Norton. It’s a mark of ATG status.

He should not have been in the ring for his last THREE losses. Ali was showing visible effects of neurological issues by the late 70’s.

[QueensburyRules]

the one to frazier is the definitive one, the Norton one proved to be a really bad matchup for alis style. Since they were both avenged, its hard to pick at him about them, the Norton one is the most devaluing since he wasnt able to adjust to Ken dominantly in any of their bouts.

I think only a fool would hold his three losses during his Parkinsonians slide against him.

--- To properly rate Ali, we have to separate with merciless eyes the boxer from the legend.

Ali starts a terrible slide after Foreman from a boxing standpoint. He starts eating punches like candy as his KO ratio drops. He just can't keep guys off and ropadope is good strategy for certain situations, but not for taking beatings for most of 15 rds.

Prob the most global boxers in history were Dempsey thru the press, and then Louis who benefited from global radio and then Ali from global tv broadcasts.

Then the Kbros who expanded the vast soviet potential.

Now Manny Pacquiao who exploded boxing self awareness of the vast Asian population, what, 3 billion?

As to Ali the boxer, are we to also fluff his record with dubious results by the suits and his team who only wanted to milk every oz from their cash cow before releasing him as a broken whisper of a great fighter needing caretakers for most of the rest of his life?

Even the dramatic moment of him lighting the Olympic flame had me in tears fearing for his safety. I'll give him that in spades. He nailed his last, and greatest victory of all, yet again the suits put him in a dicy situation just to market a derelict Olympic Games falling in disgrace these many years.

[Granath]

No.

He lost the prime 3 1/2 years of his career, March '67 to Oct '70 from 25 to 28 years old. I can't think of many athletes who lost over 3 years of not being allowed to compete in their absolute prime and still were as good as he was in the 70s.

There's really only two losses pre-Parkinsons. The loss to Frazier was nothing to be sad about. Frazier was something like 26-0 and was a wrecking ball - then Ali then beat him in two other legendary fights. Norton was just a difference in styles and Norton was no slouch at 29-1. Heck, if a 35 year old Norton could push a peak Holmes to the limit, how good was a prime Norton. Then there were the other two Ali victories (disputed I know but wins on the record books) against Norton. So two losses but he got revenge against both and won the career series 2-1 against each.

The other 3 losses are Ali after he should have stopped fighting. Losses after Ferdie Pacheco refused to be in Ali's corner because of the damage that was already done. I don't care about those losses any more than I care about the losses RJJ sustained late in his career after his quickness was gone. I just wish those fights never happened because of the additional damage done to Ali.

[DreamFighter]

--- To properly rate Ali, we have to separate with merciless eyes the boxer from the legend.

Ali starts a terrible slide after Foreman from a boxing standpoint..

and even if your argument held water, you'd still need to ignore his awesome resume prior to Foreman.