Quote Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote Originally Posted by undefeated
i bring this up because people view surgar ray robonson as the all time best fighter -with 173-19-6....absolutily amazing,

compared to ALI's 56-5

both really didnt lose fights till they were "old men"

if u go strictly by records then sugar ray is greater,but if u go by quality of opponents ali is greater
lets face it ali had the greatest oppostion and beat the biggest names 2 me that makes him the greatest
well robinson was unbeatable --tru but b4 ali's exile...ali was unbeatable when he came back he was never the same
Quality of opponents matters more, although like anything, you have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. Records are deceiving because they hurt fighters who stay around too long, and most great fighters stay around too long.
You have to remove losses that fighters suffer way after their skills have left them. I don't penalize Holyfield for losing to James Toney, or Tyson for losing to McBride, Ali to Berbick, Chavez to Tszyu, Duran to Pazienza, etc. etc. Because those guys were so past their prime that they didn't even resemble the guys they were at a younger age.
Robinson's 19 losses don't matter. What matters is that he was something like 135-1 at one point.

thats very true--just as i wouldnt count ali's last 2. i think ali is the best because he beat 2 indestructable fighters sonny liston and george foreman.

plus i consider the 60's ali b4 his retirement the true ali. he lost so much, when he came back that --he was a shadow of the float and sting ali.

look at ali vs folley.....then ali vs quarry, bonevana and frazier---not the same guy
ali never had his prime--
i think if he had a prime he woulda shattered marciano's record and louis title defense record

has robinson beat anyfighter who was looked at as invincible, like ali?
plus ali was a heavyweight and was faster then robinson.
ali was great he made good fighters look bad and would even play around with them.