BEST POUND 4 POUND CHAMP EVER? and top 10

[Lubutheimmortal]

Opinions and statistics, while they should remain exclulsive (as an opinion is supposed to be a drawn conclusion with personal preference included; while statistics are numbers), statements like, "Louis KO'd more people, so he's better," or, "Ali's opponents had a higher win % at the time he fought them, so he's better," etc., are conclusions poorly drawn.

Why isn't it considered that Ali fought a lot of guys who were young in the division at the time he faced them, thus accounting for their low loss totals in their average record at the time he faced them? For example: Leon Spinks, may have been 7-0 when they fought, but he finished 26-17-3. That alone is a drastic misrepresentation of Ali's competition as champion, and only one of the many potential examples.

Conn may have weighed that of a present-day light heavyweight, but that would generally make him lighter, more agile, and quicker than someone 40 pounds heavier. As swift as Ali was, he would probably be a pinch easier to chase down with the extra weight, and he would present himself a much larger target; who often left the right side of his face completely open when he threw a punch. If Louis could make a simple calculation such as this when preparing for their fight, he'd make Ali pay.

All that I'm trying to say is that, in a vacuum, Louis was the greater champion.

12 year reign, 25 successful defenses (with a 4 year layoff in between), avenging his only loss during his youth (while green) in brutal, convincing fashion, better overall record, comparable competition, higher KO percentage, more longevity, suffered less damage and didn't struggle with subpar competitors nearly as much as Ali did, etc.

vs.

6 year reign, 11 successful defenses (with a 3 year layoff in between), avenging his first prime loss by decision, and then again when they were both beyond their best in a 14 rd. stoppage, losing again to Norton, and then taking two controversial decisions (one of which should have gone to Norton), then losing to someone who was only 7-0, but hey, his name is next to many all-time greats in the ring, and perhaps the most historically bias era in all of sports, so he's given his self-proclaimed title of "The Greatest" by some people today.

Also, I still hear more people say that Joe Louis was the greatest today than I hear of Muhammad Ali. Even ESPN's list picked Louis above Ali. Muhammad Ali can only be realistically selected above Joe Louis when the eras are taken in bias, (ie: the 70's were so much better than the 30's and 40's, etc.) which is relative and not absolute anyway. Furthermore, there are fewer people alive today who remember Louis' prime era, and it wasn't broadcast on national television (because it didn't exist yet), thus unable to make as big of a household impact. More people are generally familiar with Ali's name than Louis' because of things like this, thus there are those among the commonfolk who will utter "Ali" when speaking of the greatest. Even seasoned and respected critics fall subject to this because they lived Ali and not Louis.

Analyze them in a vacuum. Take away their eras, the feel of those eras, and remember that the greats they were surrounded by and scoring wins (or losses) against are only considered as such because of the level of competition they provided one another. Joe Frazier, for example, while my favorite fighter (and #6 or #7 on my all-time HW list), may not really be that good were he in any other era. He just looked good because he beat a bunch of slouches and knew how to give Ali fits. Ali's greatness, meanwhile, is almost rooted entirely in his upset wins against a very old and under-prepared Sonny Liston, and a take-a-beating-but-outlasted the "I can't handle the heat or a poor style matchup" George Foreman.

This could really go on and on to show the other side of the coin, but I think it's redundant; plus I lost focus a while ago in this post, and I apologize for that. Anywho, I'm going to go jogging.

When the vacuum seal is removed

Good post Brass! No way I could of said it better myself. You know how I look at things given the eariler "debate" in the thread. The way I see Ali vs Louis is that Ali being so flawed as a boxer the genious Louis was would expose Ali with great tactical boxing. Joe could block a jab (Ali main weapon) and Joe could execute swift combinations to all parts of the body accurately. About Conn I was about to meantion that myself. I figure Ali himself would create a plan for Louis aswell. Itd be a good fight and it could go either way but my hat is tipped toward Louis.

[LondonRingRules]

Sorry for the delay BUT I just got back from the Amateur bouts in Trenton, were I Had to introduce James Scott, Sammy Goss among others.

As far as Nat Fleischer goes, he never liked the modern boxers, just look at his all-time ratings:

Nat Fleischer, Founder of Ring Magazine, 1958, 1971. [FONT=&quot]

1.Jack Johnson
2.Jim Jeffries
3.Bob Fitzsimmons
4.Jack Dempsey
5.Jim Corbett
6.Joe Louis
7.Sam Langford
8.Gene Tunney
9.Max Schemling
10.Rocky Marciano

People wanted him to rate Ali but he wouldn't do it. He actually waited until they retired about he rated them,so maybe that's why.

I've seen a list of Fleischers where he ranks Ali in his 11-20 rankings at very least, but I thought I'd include this article by Nat. Very interesting.

[[[[[[[[By Nat Fleischer

As I have had it listed in The Ring Record Book for some years, my all-time rating of heavyweights is as follows: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis, 7. Sam Langford, 8. Gene Tunney, 9. Max Schmeling, 10. Rocky Marciano.

I started the annual ranking of heavyweights in the 1953 with only six listed: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis.

In later years I found it necessary to expand the ratings in all classes to top 10, with these top listings: heavyweights, Jack Johnson; light heavies, Kid McCoy; middleweights, Stan Ketchel; welters, Joe Walcott; lightweights, Joe Gans; feathers, Terry McGovern; bantams, George Dixon; flyweights, Jimmy Wilde.

For some time now I have been under great pressure from some readers of The Ring magazine and of The Ring Record Book, as well, to revise my ratings, especially in the heavyweight division.

Here is a strange facet to this pressure move. It has concerned, chiefly, Cassius Clay.

Never before in the history of the ratings did I find myself pressured to revise the listing of a heavyweight, right on top of a defeat.

There was considerable pressure to include Clay among the Top 10 during his 3 1/2-year interlude of inactivity.

But the campaign became stronger after Clay had returned with knockout victories over Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena. The demand on behalf of Clay became strongest after he had been beaten by world champion Joe Frazier in a 15-round contest that saw Cassius decked in the final heat.

Clay’s fight with Frazier left thousands of his admirers, who had seen the contest over television, protesting that Clay had won and that the unanimous decision of referee Arthur Mercante and judges Artie Aidala and Bill Recht, was a hoax, or worse.

Before we go any farther, let us dispose of this point. Frazier was declared the winner without a dissenting vote because he was the winner with unanimous force and unbiased conviction.

Clay never hurt Frazier. He messed up Joe’s left eye and made it look as if there had been an indecisive result, or a definite verdict in favor of Clay. Clay’s gloves reached Frazier more often than Frazier’s punches reached Clay. But Cassius lacked force.

Clay was hurt, especially in the 11th and 15th rounds. Clay came near being knocked out in the play-acting 11th. Clay’s constant retreat to the ropes was the tipoff on the fight.

I sat in the first press row in the Garden and emphatically saw Clay beaten. However, we have thousands of Clay backers insisting that he had established himself as one of the all time Top 10.

I did not regard Ali as a member of the leading 10 before he got into his argument with the Federal Courts. I did not see, in the Clay record as it stood after his seven-round knockout of Zora Folley in New York on March 22, 1967, any reason for my revising the heavyweight listing to include Cassius among the all-time 10. Nor did the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights impress me to the point at which I found myself considering ousting one of my Great 10 to make room for Clay.

Suppose I suffered an aberration and decided to include Clay among the top 10. This would mean ousting Marciano to make room for Ali as my all-time number l0. That would be farcical. Clay never could have beaten Marciano. Clay’s record is not the superior of the one the tragic Rocky left behind him when he retired from boxing unbeaten.

I even had something to do with Clay’s winning the Olympic light heavyweight championship in Rome in 1960. I spotted him for a likely Gold Medal, but I did not like the way he was training—or rather, not training. Cassius was entertaining the gals of the Italian capital, with gags and harmonica playing, and forgetting what he had been entered for.

I gave him a lecture and a warning. Maybe it had something to do with his victory. Maybe he would have won just the same. But I doubt if my talk did any harm.

After Cassius had won the title I felt that we had another Floyd Patterson in the making. He did not have Patterson’s speed of hands at that time, but he had more speed of foot. And more animation, which, of course, is an understatement. Floyd never has been a paragon of vivacity.

As Clay left the Olympic ring a champion, I saw him growing fast into a heavyweight. And I treated myself to a dream. I said to myself, “This kid could go far. It all depends on his attitude, his ability to tackle his job earnestly and seriously. Some of his laughter could be a real asset.” Ultimately it was.

Neither animus nor bias, neither bigotry nor misjudgment, can be cited against me in my relations with Cassius Clay. After he had been found guilty of a felony by a Federal jury in Houston, and Judge Joe Ingraham had sentenced Ali to five years in a penitentiary and a fine of $10,000, there was a rush to take the title from the draft-refusing champion.

The Ring magazine refused to join in the campaign against Clay, a stand now thoroughly vindicated. The Ring insisted that Cassius was entitled to his day in court, and that his title could be taken from him only if he lost it in the ring, or he retired from boxing, as Marciano, Tunney, and Jeffries had done before him.

Pressure on The Ring was tremendous. But this magazine would not recede one iota from its never relaxed policy of fighting for Law and Order.

Only when Muhammad Ali announced that he would fight no more and asked permission to give The Ring world championship belt to the winner of the Frazier-Jimmy Ellis fight, did The Ring declare the title vacated and drop Clay from the ratings.

With Clay’s return to the ring, The Ring revived his rating among the top 10 heavyweights. Not until Frazier knocked out Ellis in five rounds did The Ring allocate the vacant world title to Joe.

I do not mean to derogate Clay as a boxer. I am thoroughly cognizant of every fistic attribute he throws into the arena, every impressive quality he displayed on his way to the title and in fighting off the challenges of Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, Cleveland Williams, Ernie Terrell, and Zora Folley.

When Ali went into his 3 1/2-year retirement, he had not yet achieved his personal crest. Nor did the fights with Quarry, Bonavena and Frazier, which marked his return to action, send him any farther in the direction of fulfillment of claims of his loyal supporters.

The way Cassius Clay stands, he does not qualify for rating with the greatest heavyweights of all time. Nor, the way the future shapes up for him, is he likely to qualify. Now his hands are quick. His footwork is quick. His punch is not the type that is calculated to stop a man forthwith, no matter what he did to Sonny Liston in their second encounter, at Lewiston, Maine.

Cassius has got to wear down his opponent. He has got to flick his glove into the eyes of the opposition, the way he did against Frazier. He has a style all his own. But its sui generis quality does not make him one of the top 10.

I want to give credit to Clay for punching boxing out of the doldrums into which it fell with the rise of Liston to the championship. Liston could not get a license in New York. Liston had a bad personal record. Liston was emphatically not good for boxing. Into the midst of this title situation came the effervescent kid from Louisville, favored by conditions, by his potential, by his personality and his clean personal record.

The situation called for a Clay and, fortunately, the situation was favored with one. He was the counterpart, in boxing, of Babe Ruth in baseball, after the Black Sox Scandal.

Through superior punching power, Frazier is Clay’s current better as a ringster. But Frazier has yet to develop the overall influence that Clay exercised. Nor does it appear likely that Joe will ever be to boxing what Cassius was when he became the world champion and when he stirred up world boxing with his exploits against the best opposition available pending the development of Frazier, another Olympic hero.

I have the utmost admiration for Cassius Clay as a ring technician. Certainly not for his attitude toward the United States and its armed forces. Of that mess he is legally clear.

I do not see Cassius Clay as a candidate for a place among the top 10 heavyweights. Nor may Frazier, his conqueror, eventually force me to revise my all-time heavyweight ratings.]]]]]]

[hhascup]

Yes, I read something like that before, BUT would you honestly list some of these boxers in your all-time top 10. Even if you go back to the early 1970's I still would have rated Ali above a lot of these boxers.

1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James J. Corbett
6. Joe Louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Rocky Marciano

Like I stated before, I honestly respect Nat Fleischer, BUT I don't agree with some of his ratings.

[LondonRingRules]

Like I stated before, I honestly respect Nat Fleischer, BUT I don't agree with some of his ratings.

** Agreed completely with above. Nat is no longer here to explain, defend, or qualify, so it falls on us to advance what was his life's passion.

I respect Nat greatly for buying up a broken Jack Johnson's bio when he left prison and then burying in his safe because it was fiction.

I like how he ranks Langford up there but am mystified over his Corbett, Fitz, and Schmeling ratings. As I recall also he criticized Jeffries for not fighting the "dusky 4," Langford, Jeannette, Johnson, and McVey, ignoring that only Johnson was a credible contender in that time. Johnson had lost critical bouts against Griffin and Hart before Jeffries retired, so Hart was drafted to fight Root. Yet Nat ranks Jeffries 2nd.

I tend to think Nat was influenced by the name and status, which would put Corbett and Fitz really up there. Schmeling is still a mystery when you also have Liston, Patterson, and even Baer. I guess Schmeling's domination of Louis in the first bout was big in his thinking.

Anyway, I like Ali as a talent and personality, but see weaknesses in his style and record when taken against other greats. Of course all the greats have some weakness in style and record which makes the excercise of comparision so interesting and even overly passionate at times.

Just me:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Foreman
5. Jeffries
6. Lewis
7. Langford
8. Rocky
9. Tyson
10 Frazier

I could easily swing Dempsey past Ali had the Wills fight not fallen through resulting in Jack wasting 3 yrs in Hollywood. Most excellent for his pocketbook however, and he should not be criticized for his choice given his situation and background.

Jeffries dominated his era from day one and fought anyone regardless of what the history books may bleat.

Sam is hard to rank because of his size, but was the dominant fighter and became the dominant heavy of his era and is probably the greatest, most fearless fighter ever, though some other greats may be better p4p fighters.

Rocky....Rocky!

Tyson, the youngest and most dominant and destructive heavy in history when in training with his original team. A tragedy too great for even Shakesphere to create for the stage.

Johnson would fall into the next tier. Just read the NYTimes report on the Jeffries fight. Jack says no way he's fighting Langford. John L picked Johnson BTW and I guess won some money. He say's he couldn't believe Jeffries could come back after so much time away and weight loss. Interesting character, John L.

[sterling]

wow london ring u sure write alot maybe to much cause some people dont have time to read that much lol.

[StarshipTrooper]

wow london ring u sure write alot maybe to much cause some people dont have time to read that much lol.

Of course it would help if he had something worthwhile to say. But hell, the dudes senile so we shoudn't expect too much.

Poet

[LondonRingRules]

Of course it would help if he had something worthwhile to say. But hell, the dudes senile so we shoudn't expect too much.Poet

** Of course it would help if the Poet wasn't in denial over being so puerile and penile, don't you know it?

[SABBATH]

** Of course it would help if the Poet wasn't in denial over being so puerile and penile, don't you know it?

Take your Zoloft Miss Rat-****.

[Brassangel]

Woah...we're not trying to sell tickets, guys.

[butterfly1964]

Woah...we're not trying to sell tickets, guys.

....