Just watched Muhammad Ali vs Oscar Bonavena,Ali was close to losing!

Well I have a top 3 which are ALMOST inseperable and then there is everyone else.

1. Joe Louis - 25 successful title defenses, HOLDS A RECORD
2. Rocky Marciano - never defeated, HOLDS A RECORD
3. Muhammad Ali - the top of one of the greatest heavyweight eras, WAS LUCKY TO FIGHT IN A CERTAIN ERA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well I have a top 3 which are ALMOST inseperable and then there is everyone else.

1. Joe Louis - 25 successful title defenses, HOLDS A RECORD
2. Rocky Marciano - never defeated, HOLDS A RECORD
3. Muhammad Ali - the top of one of the greatest heavyweight eras, WAS LUCKY TO FIGHT IN A CERTAIN ERA

---

That era being one with potentially the best heavyweights in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well I have a top 3 which are ALMOST inseperable and then there is everyone else.

1. Joe Louis - 25 successful title defenses, HOLDS A RECORD
2. Rocky Marciano - never defeated, HOLDS A RECORD
3. Muhammad Ali - the top of one of the greatest heavyweight eras, WAS LUCKY TO FIGHT IN A CERTAIN ERA

---

Could you elaborate on that last part about Ali?

Well fighters can PERSONALLY affect a lot of things but they cannot pick and choose which era they are in...Ali got a deep era and ended up at the top of it and on account of that his record is very flashy, loads of big names on there, hall of famers. Who is to say someone like Larry Holmes couldn't have done that, if he was given that level of competition?

Also Ali had big personality....meanwhile Joe Louis was VERY restricted in what he could and could not do, otherwise he might have had a bit more charismatic. Ali earned "cultural icon" status for his brashness and his political views...and I think calling him the greatest based on his success in the ring paired with how adored he is, is doing a great disservice to the likes of Louis, Marciano, and a load of others

I just really can't see the argument for Louis being number 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OumaFan

I just really can't see the argument for Louis being number 1.

---

That's fine, but see that's the deal with opinions, you see things a certain way and I see them different, I see tangible records and accomplishments vs celebrity, politics, and being lucky enough to have a division graced with other great fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well fighters can PERSONALLY affect a lot of things but they cannot pick and choose which era they are in...Ali got a deep era and ended up at the top of it and on account of that his record is very flashy, loads of big names on there, hall of famers. Who is to say someone like Larry Holmes couldn't have done that, if he was given that level of competition?

Also Ali had big personality....meanwhile Joe Louis was VERY restricted in what he could and could not do, otherwise he might have had a bit more charismatic. Ali earned "cultural icon" status for his brashness and his political views...and I think calling him the greatest based on his success in the ring paired with how adored he is, is doing a great disservice to the likes of Louis, Marciano, and a load of others

---

No you are doing a dis-service to the feats of Ali in the ring and we are not dis-respecting Louis and others by stating what Ali did in coming out top in the 60's and 70's.

I don't disservice Ali, he was great, but he didn't accomplish what Louis and Rocky did

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

I don't disservice Ali, he was great, but he didn't accomplish what Louis and Rocky did

---

I agree that you should punish a fighter for something he couldnt control eg his era. Louis and Marciano did awesome in a weak era, whats to say they wouldnt of been around the top in the 70s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

I don't disservice Ali, he was great, but he didn't accomplish what Louis and Rocky did

---

I agree that you should punish a fighter for something he couldnt control eg his era. Louis and Marciano did awesome in a weak era, whats to say they wouldnt of been around the top in the 70s?

---

With all due respect Louis and Marciano would not have accomplished what Ali did in the ring in the 60's and 70's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

With all due respect Louis and Marciano would not have accomplished what Ali did in the ring in the 60's and 70's.

---

Yes but see I disagree with that and you take offense like I just slapped your mama and you post this and expect us to say "Oh well that makes perfect sense, very well then"

I see it the way I see it, I have perfectly valid reasons for it and that's that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

With all due respect Louis and Marciano would not have accomplished what Ali did in the ring in the 60's and 70's.

---

Yes but see I disagree with that and you take offense like I just slapped your mama and you post this and expect us to say "Oh well that makes perfect sense, very well then"

I see it the way I see it, I have perfectly valid reasons for it and that's that

---

You are the one taking offence and not providing any perfectly valid reason for it. :)

You can't even compare marciano with heavyweights nowadays because he is way too small to be considered anywhere near heavyweight. You would have to give him the average heavyweight of today's body statistics to make any comparison acceptable. If marciano was at least 6 foot with a 76" wingspan and a career fighting weight of around 225 pounds, then you could make a comparison. But using rocky's physical stats from yesteryear is meaningless. He is listed as 5'10", with a wingspan of 67 inches and fought most of his fights at or around 185 pounds.