Please don't school me on boxing. I never said that technical proficiency was all there was. That said, any usage of fame to gauge someone's position as the greatest fighter ever is nonsense.
(Original post by Klinsmannic)
'Greatest' doesn't imply technical proficiency, there's more to it than that.
It's what you did in the ring that mattered. How many fights you won, how many you lost, more importantly WHO you fought and how you beat them etc. Being loved by the average Joe Bloggs just means you have crossover appeal.
If it was based on technical proficiency, there are probably ten fighters ahead of both Ali AND Robinson as technical geniuses, more ahead of Ali even. If anyone knows about Salvador Sanchez for instance and has seen him fight, they'll knwo what I mean.
Last edited by Alan Smithee; 17-05-2007 at 10:26.
I love it when people change the implication of their post to suit their argument. The word for that kind of behaviour is tendentious.
(Original post by Klinsmannic)
I wasn't talking to you directly, it was a general statement. And no, entertainment/having fans is not a component of being great. As purists should know, there are things other than technique, such as heart, stamina etc. Ali also had to deal with his ban from boxing, which he came back from with a bang.
I never said anything about fame being a constituent of a great fighter.
My justification for regarding him as the greatest was ''During the greatest era of boxing Ali was the only one to defeat all the other major contenders at the time...none of the other heavyweights managed that feat'' which should have answered your point (and what I've written above). lol again, I never said having lots of fans means your a great fighter. Please read my posts.
Once again, if you read my last post you would have seen: ''Technically, the Sugar Rays were superior (and many others), no doubt.'' You just agreed with me.
You have to remember that this is a vehicle for opinion and debate...it is in my opinion that Ali was the greatest ever, which you obviously disagree with. If I thought entertainment played a part I would have used the word ''charismatic'' instead of ''greatest''. Would also help if you read my posts and responded to them, rather than reading what you want to hear.
At the end of the day, very few knowledgeable boxing fans put Ali as the greatest boxer ever. Sugar Ray Robinson did exactly the same feat as Ali i.e. beat all of the competition except he did it 20-30 years earlier. That, plus his far superior record, skills and heart make him better than Ali, simple as that. I know it's your opinion, and I respect that, but I suspect it's an opinion formed from knowing very little about the history of non-heavyweight boxing before Ali's time. If you knew that then you wouldn't have said Ali was the best.
In a list of the greatest fighters in the last 80 years, Ring Magazine had Ali at number three behind Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson, I suppose they're wrong?
EDIT: I forgot to mention lol, Ali himself said Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all time!
Last edited by Alan Smithee; 18-05-2007 at 06:46.
The only people I hear say Ali was the greatest boxer ever are armchair boxing fans. His name never comes up in discussions with people who actually know the sport of boxing.
(Original post by Klinsmannic)
What 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.
In relation to Sanchez, he died at 23 years old. I never said he was pound for pound, I merely said that technically he was streets ahead of Ali.
Last edited by Alan Smithee; 18-05-2007 at 17:05.