KlinsmannicWhat are you talking about? When did I say entertainment had anything to do with being great? I've told you why I thought Ali was the greatest, and it had nothing to do with the number of fans he had. Why can't you get that? Stop willy-waving your boxing knowledge and stick to the script, i.e. the content of my posts. This is an Internet forum, everything I've posted is recorded, so please quote where I have said, or even implied, entertainment makes a fighter great. Why do I have to keep clarifying this point to you each time? The word for your behaviour is 'blinkered'.
You said: ''How many fights you won, how many you lost, more importantly WHO you fought and how you beat them etc.'' Well Ali was the greatest because of WHO he beat, the plans he thought-up to work out how he could beat them, the way he beat them, and his great record- Ali had a better win percentage, winning 91% of his career fights compared to Robinson's 86%. You also have to consider his extraordinary speed for a big heavyweight which was unprecedented before and after his time. The likes of Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Liston et al would probably have been considered on a par with Ali had they all been born in different eras, but Ali came back to beat all of them after such adversity. None of the others could claim to be the best of the greatest era in boxing history because they couldn't beat all the other contenders like Ali managed to do, and the way he did it. This is why I think Ali was the greatest. Respect to Robinson though, technically the best.
I've seen the list and it's for the 80 best fighters in the last 80 years, based on absolute number of KOs, consecutive KOs, percentage KOs, who they KO'd, and who they didn't KO. It's not a measure of who was the greatest (it's a magazine by the way, written by some journos in 2002, not an electronic measuring device). It's a list that only deals in KOs.. therefore it's not the best barometer. Furthermore, the inclusion of 'absolute number of KOs' is biased against heavyweights or those that didn't have as many fights so it's a rubbish measure of pound-for-pound (because pound-for-pound should be judged across divisions and career lengths, as you should know)...Sugar Ray Leonard is in 9th place ffs, because he only had 40 fights in his short career. Heavyweights tend to have less fights over their careers, so they're already marked-down on the number of absolute KOs. Rocky Marciano is in 12th lol. Also your mate Salvador Sanchez is 24th lol. How you can claim this to be the greatest pound for pound list is laughable, it's an absolute list biased in favour of those that had long careers.
Secondly lists are subjective, and there is no method of deciding who was the greatest ever in a fair objective way, which is why we love to watch boxing, and why we have numerous discussions on TSR. The fact that you can criticise my opinion is unlike a true boxing fan, because it's a game of opinions, and there wouldn't be the hundreds of different all-time lists that there are today if everything was black and white. The fact that you use boxing lists as 'evidence' just shows you are unable to deal with my reasoning. It's like a kid arguing with his mate about something, then calling in another mate with a similar opinion to back him up.