WAS Muhammad Ali truly the greatest of all time?

Muhammad Ali Boxing Legend wrote:

I can't help but wonder if Ali WAS really the greatest. Don't get me wrong, he's got insane boxing skills, good size, and the best speed. However, I wonder if someone like Holyfield or Lewis who were later tot he scene would have given Ali real trouble. Even a guy like (don't laugh) Vitali Klitschko could have given Ali real troubles. Though I do believe Ali would have beaten Tyson pretty soundly.

I sort of equate Ali to a Henry Rono, running crazy times and dominating his competition, but then some EL G 3:26 guys come along later with better training/nutrition/supplements.

You must be seriously delusional fellow. Ali was the greatest of his era and prior, but MT at his prime would have pounded Ali into oblivion along with the rest. MT in '88/'89 was the most dominant boxer we have seen in the history of the sport. There is no comparison.

I've seen all the great heavyweights fight and I have to agree. I don't think anyone could have hung in there with Tyson circa 1989.

The reason Ali fought some slightly over the hill guys like Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley was because Floyd Patterson, as champion, didn't fight them. Patterson dodged all the best American heavyweights until public pressure finally forced him to go against Liston. At least Ali got decent paydays for those guys.

Tyson was quite a force, but look at his best wins and there is a lot of weak opposition.

Tyson's single best win in his entire career was probably Tony Tucker. After that probably a near 40 Holmes who hadn't fought in several years.

That pretty much puts it in perspective. And Tucker gave him a real fight.

And don't forget that Tyson's handlers wouldn't let a young Holyfield anywhere near him.

Good fighters with iron chins and good all around skills would always give Mike problems. He had a lot of spectacular knockouts, but that alone does not make a great fighter.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Vitali Klitschko would have beaten any of those 60's and 70's guys including Foreman. He was murdering Lennox Lewis when he got robbed by the doctor. He boxes perfectly, is nearly impossible to attack and can default to winning on points if necessary. Not entertaining, maybe no ko's, but he would win.

If he ever becomes president of Ukraine then he will be President Ironfist.

A peak Ali would have cut Vitali to pieces. Lewis was too slow to challenge Ali and what stopped Lewis knocking out Klitschko. All knowledgeable boxing commentators have been remarking on how the heavyweight division has gone down over the past decade or so. The best modern boxers have been at the middle weights

this thread is hilarious. yeah klitchko would have beaten ali...lol.

Floyd Mayweather will go down as a greatest boxer who has ever lived, he's a living legend like Haile! Like Haile he has dominated every weight class he has been in. Naturally he's a 140 pounder, but he has beat a lot of big guys, just like Haile dominated everything from indoors to marathon. In tactical races Haile would still be a contender ,but that's not the nature of the marathon anymore, Floyd can use a lot of his experience in ring and he still got enough speed, anyone who thinks Floyd is not best pound for pound ever isn't into boxing... Nice finish to Floyd career would be going up to 160 and get a title from Golovkin or Ward!

Kipying gabby wrote:

Ummm... Ever heard of Gerry Clooney?

No! I've heard of Gerry Cooney and George Clooney.

Ali was the greatest heavyweight period. In regards to more recent heavyweights. Tyson, though dangerous, would have been KO'd by Ali in the middle to late rounds. Buster Douglas knocked Tyson out, he had a similar skill set to Ali. Bigger than Tyson, could tie him up, and had a good jab. Oh except Ali was 10 times better. Lewis size could give him trouble, but Ali handled a bigger Foreman and Lewis had a suspect chin. Klitchko? No chance. He's just not athletic enough, Ali would use movement to change angles and use his hand speed to pound him. Probably stopped on cuts or a lopsided decision. Here's the rankings:

1. Ali

2. Joe Louis (the greatest reign ever, but competition wasn't the best.

3. Foreman -quite honestly, you look at the damage he did in the late 80's & early 90's, you don't think a young George KO's most of the others?

This is subjective, but ali = the best. His defence was the difference. You couldn't hit him in his younger years. Doesn't matter how powerful you are. If you can't hit a guy flush, you're done. He should have retired after Manila though.

exthrower wrote:

He boxed in the Olympics at 175 and became one of the first steroid cheaters, going up to a hard 220. The guy was also a serious A-hole and disliked by most of the country. I know, I lived through those times.

You can´t "cheat" if something is legal. Steroids were not banned until the 1970s, idiot.

What about Rocky Marciano?

Ali wasn't just talker, he could back it up.

some sage advice:

When you win, say little

When you lose, say less

Of course Ali/Clay did neither

He was cruel, abusive and obnoxious

While a good boxer his personality soured me - a lot

Ali was a great self-promoter. And, the fact that before today's pay-per view for boxing, Ali's fights were on regular CBS on Saturday nights. He became a national figure in the late 60's and 70's when blacks were talking about equality and racism everywhere.

Ali stood for more than just boxing. He was the opposite of Sonny Liston and George Foreman. He was loud and funny. He had banter with Cossell.

He became an idol like Namath. Like Namath, He may not have been the best ever, but many after him owe many open doors to him.

Marciano is tough to rank. You have to give him credit for retiring undefeated, it's never been done at that level. But his resume' isn't that impressive. His biggest wins were over older fighters (Walcott/Louis/Charles) and he fought at 185ls, he wouldn't stand a chance against any of the good heavyweights starting with Ali.

WWRD wrote:

Ali was the greatest heavyweight period. In regards to more recent heavyweights. Tyson, though dangerous, would have been KO'd by Ali in the middle to late rounds. Buster Douglas knocked Tyson out, he had a similar skill set to Ali. Bigger than Tyson, could tie him up, and had a good jab. Oh except Ali was 10 times better. Lewis size could give him trouble, but Ali handled a bigger Foreman and Lewis had a suspect chin. Klitchko? No chance. He's just not athletic enough, Ali would use movement to change angles and use his hand speed to pound him. Probably stopped on cuts or a lopsided decision. Here's the rankings:

Not a chance in this century or the last. Tyson at his peak would have pummeled Ali at his best. Not even a contest. Buster Douglas beat Tyson once MT was already in decline. No way BD would have beaten MT at his peak. For about two years, MT was the most dominant fighter the sport has ever seen.

As for Ali beating the best modern day Heavyweights. My feeling is that any Modern day athlete in any sport could dominate the greats of yesteryear just off the pure physical superiority of today's athletes if not with skills. In today's modern economy athletes are generally able to train year round starting at an early age. The knowledge base of knowing how best to train is far better than decades ago.

For example Bill Russell would get manhandled by most NBA Centers today. Mean Joe Green would be an average Dlineman at best in today's NFL.

With that in mind I don't necessarily have an argument that Ali would lose Klischko or Lennox Lewis. But all things considered I believe Ali would do well. I would sort of compare Ali to Jim Ryun as a middle distance runner. Centro at his best today could probably beat Ryun at this best. But would you really say with a straight face that Centro is greater than Ryun?

douglas burke wrote:

ali really loast to jimmy young, and norton should have gotten all 3 against ali, leon spinks beat ali in spinks 7th pro fight, berbick beat ali every round, holmes made ali quit.

ali retired at 38 or 39, so he was always in his prime, if you look at the heavyweight rankings wladimer klitchko is late 30's, his brother was champion when he gave up the belt to concentrate on politics is 42.

heavyweights tend to be older than other weight divisions, yet welterweight mayweather is 37, middleweight champion sergio martinez is 39 and light heavyweight champion bernard hopkins is 49.

so no one can honestly say ali was old when he lost those fights, and the fact he was a devout muslim who never smoked, did illegal drugs or alcohol and was a super hard trainer kept him young for his age.

A boxer's isn't measured in years, its the number of hard fights.

douglas burke wrote:

ali really loast to jimmy young, and norton should have gotten all 3 against ali, leon spinks beat ali in spinks 7th pro fight, berbick beat ali every round, holmes made ali quit.

ali retired at 38 or 39, so he was always in his prime, if you look at the heavyweight rankings wladimer klitchko is late 30's, his brother was champion when he gave up the belt to concentrate on politics is 42.

heavyweights tend to be older than other weight divisions, yet welterweight mayweather is 37, middleweight champion sergio martinez is 39 and light heavyweight champion bernard hopkins is 49.

so no one can honestly say ali was old when he lost those fights, and the fact he was a devout muslim who never smoked, did illegal drugs or alcohol and was a super hard trainer kept him young for his age.

Some good points but I remember watching (not at the time on YouTube) an interview with Ali before the Holmes fight, and it was evident he was already suffering from Parkinsons.

I'm not sure if it has always been true that heavyweights had longer 'primes' than lighter weights. It's true in boxing and the UFC in recent years, but that might be because both heavyweight divisions are so thin (and that might be due to most talented 'big men' prefering other sports these days). There were many examples in earlier boxing history of heavyweight greats continuing on into their mid 30s and getting pasted by younger guys who were probably no more talented (and it being no surprise to anyone). Joe Louis was still only 37 when he fought Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes 'only' 38 when he fought Tyson. The Klitschkos were tremendously hard working fighters who kept themselves in amazing shape right to the end. Not sure a younger Vladimir would have lost to Fury or Joshua.