Was Ali Overrated as a Boxer?

The Game Room
1

He was clearly one of the great heavyweights of his era. That’s not in question. But declaring him to be the greatest seems like too much to me.

[By coincidence I had been watching some of his great fights (i.e. Frazier I & III, and the Foreman fight) a couple of months ago, and this thought occurred to me then, but it became more topical with his passing.]

If you look at his record against some of the other top heavyweights of his era he won more than he lost. However:

[ul]
[li]He seemed to cheat a lot. Most notably, he would consistently, when in close quarters and/or leaning on the ropes, to reach an arm around the back of his opponent’s head and press down on his head/neck. This kind of thing is wearying for the opponent, and as Ali won most of his major fights by attrition has to have been a major factor in his victories. For some reason the refs rarely if ever called him on this. (The ringside announcers commented that “he’s getting away with it”.) In addition, there have been allegations that the ropes were deliberately loosened in the Foreman fight, which allowed Ali to lean his upper body further away from Foreman. Whether or not Ali’s people loosened them, they were clearly looser than the standard, and this played into his strategy.[/li][li]His W-L record was enhanced by a lot of close calls and questionable decisions (e.g. the Norton fight decisions, the stoppage of the Foreman fight, Frazier’s guy throwing in the towel when Ali himself was ready to quit). (Leaving aside allegations that Liston might have thrown one or both fights.) While winning the close ones is sometimes the mark of a champion, this is less true of boxing than of other sports, since boxing depends a lot on judges’ decisions.[/li][/ul]
If you compare his record against Norton and Frazier - 4-2 record in 6 hard fought battles with some questionable decisions thrown in - compared to Foreman’s record - 4-0 with 4 dominating performances - ISTM that you could argue that Foreman was the better of the two, head-to-head notwithstanding. As above, Ali used devious techniques, benefited from a questionable stoppage, and - per Wikipedia - refused to fight Foreman thereafter, which does not suggest he had a whole lot confidence he could pull it off again.

2

Forman’s better except for the fact that he lost? Rather strained logic there. But Foreman lost because Ali outsmarted him with better tactics, and tactics is a big part of boxing.

Ali boxed in ways that defied conventional wisdom and tactics, and was massively successful with it. Watch the fights and note how he holds his hands. Most boxers hold them up, in front of their face. Ali held them at his waist. Why? Because Ali had a particularly long reach (i.e. the length of his arms). He could touch his gloves to his opponent’s waist and know he could lean back and not be touched. It allowed him to tire out his opponents throwing punches that they couldn’t land. He had that advantage over both Foreman and Frazier (Liston had the advantage, but Ali used different tactics).

He also packed a devastating punch. The second Liston fight shows that (as did others of that time). The knockout punch (and yes, there was one) traveled only a few inches, but it put Liston on the floor.

He was also a master of strategy in the ring and was incredibly fast.

In his prime (and remember, for a good part of his prime years were lost to his suspension), he was untouchable. He was seven years older than Foreman, yet still managed to defeat him.

3

I don’t know if it was a lot, but when Ali fought, everyone was watching him, not his opponent. And that worked to his benefit. I thought Norton won all three of their fights, and I didn’t think the third fight was particularly close. And Jimmy Young outboxed him pretty clearly, although Young couldn’t break an egg and so you couldn’t argue that Ali didn’t land the better punches. Even when Spinks beat him, one of the judges went for him.

I rank Ali as the second-best heavyweight of all time, after Joe Louis, but that comes more from a comparison of each in relation to his era and not necessarily head-to-head.

Ali beat Foreman, and Liston the first time, because he out-psyched them. And he beat Liston the second time, and Frazier in Manila, because they had burned themselves out faster than Ali.

Regards,
Shodan

4

I assume you also think that Douglas was a better fighter than Tyson. Or else you subscribe to the same “strained logic”, i.e. that one head-to-head fight is a big part of the equation but not the only part of it. I provided some reasons - though you did not quote them - for that fight not being representative.

I think it’s pretty much accepted that Ali was not a particularly hard puncher. (That’s one reason many people thought Liston threw that fight.) His skill was in having lightning reflexes, great hand speed, and a very good chin.

Hard to reconcile that with your own opinion that Norton beat him in all 3 fights.

You can make that case with Frazier, but Liston went down on one punch midway through the first round. (Leaving aside the questionable refereeing.)

5

Ali was certainly the most intelligent of the great heavyweight champion, he would always go into a fight with a game plan based on an opponents style and fight to his strengths,

6

I would not say that Ali was over rated. I believe that Frazier and Foreman are being under rated. These three men are amongst the top 10 heavyweights of all time ( I did a google search and the top three results had all them AND Larry Holmes on the list ) and Ali tangled with all of them. When else has something like that happened before? It’s no crime that he would fight 3 of the top 10 off all time and not win them all. Overall, he ended up with a winning record amongst the three. That’s good enough for me.

7

Buster Douglas successfully defended his title zero times. He was knocked out by Evander Holyfield later that year and then stopped training and didn’t fight again for five years. Prior to that he was not exactly the greatest contender ever to face a champion; he’d lost four times. He had the greatest fight of his life against Tyson, totally deserved to win, and he was certainly the better boxer that night, but there is nothing else to suggest was was truly an A-list champion.

Ali PRIOR to the Rumble on the Jungle had after all already won the championship againstt Liston and then defended it nine times in three years, including against some pretty tough hombres like Floyd Patterson and George Chuvalo. If Ali had never come back from suspension he would still have been a greater boxer than Douglas; 29-0, world champion defended nine times. That right there is one hell of a career.

AFTER the suspension comes all the super famous stuff; a long list of fights against mostly tremendous boxers, culminating in the Rumble in the Jungle, which was then followed by ten successful title defenses. Between the suspension and his loss to Leon Spinks Ali was 26-2, his two losses being against Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, and of course he also beat those men, plus he beat Patterson and Chuvalo again, and a lot of other good boxers. That right there, controversy or not, is a hell of a career. And he won the title back from Spinks for what that’s worth. So Ali had two careers, both impressive as hell.

And I think he do have to bear in mind Ali spent three years in the wilderness for political and unfair reasons; we do not know how he would have done in those three years but as he was on a hell of a roll I see no reason to believe he would not have continued to pile up more wins.

8

Of course. That was exactly my point. That a lesser fighter can defeat a greater fighter in any one fight. That’s (one reason) why you can’t settle the issue by pointing to Ali winning over Foreman.

Agreed.

Again, agreed. As I said in the first sentences of this OP, “He was clearly one of the great heavyweights of his era. That’s not in question.”

But in context of the above, it is worth noting again that he refused to fight Foreman a second time. (Had Frazier and Norton done that to him, he would not have achieved that level of greatness.)

9

Well, okay; if your position is that he was not the greatest, who in his era was greater?

You’re going to have difficulty making a convincing case for anyone else. Foreman? Well, Foreman did lose to Ali, and his record after that is not impressive; six fights, one elite win agaisnt Frazier but then his career was effectively ended for awhile by Jimmy Young. Then we’ve got his kind of weird second career when he mostly beat up inferior boxers (and had some damn favourable decisions in his favour, too) and I am not sure what to make of that.

It’s very hard to make a case for Ken Norton if one looks at the overall record, nor Joe Frazier, whose first loss, to Foreman, was followed by high profile bouts in which he went 3-3 and his career ended.

Yeah, Ali refused to fight Foreman again, but putting two two head to head, I’ve got to say Ali’s record is generally more impressive. His knocking out Foreman has to count for something, and again I have to give Ali credit for being forced to lose three years of prime career to political oppression; had he been fighting then I’ve not a doubt in my mind we wouldn’t be having a debate.

Of course, we cannot compare Ali straight up to Joe Louis, Mike Tyson, or Rocky Marciano. So we’re only guessing with those comparisons. But I’d have to point out that in defining who the “greatest” is, you have to get beyond W-L and who beat whom; it’s also about overall skill, adaptability, and impact on the sport. It’s impossible to deny Ali’s wide range of skills and ability to adapt to the needs of fight, and as for impact on the sport, well, here were are.

10

I would have loved to see Ali fight Lennox Lewis. Everyone else, Marciano, Tyson, Holyfield, Joe Louis, I think he would have beaten, and if he fought Larry Holmes in his prime, I would suspect he would have beaten him too.

Lewis is the only guy I think he might have had real trouble beating.

11

I believe he was the best heavyweight ever. That includes Joe Louis. Louis was so respected that people won’t say it, but Ali was better. He revolutionized boxing, in another thread someone mentioned how an old Ali was able to show Michael Dokes a thing or too. On Saturday on HBO boxing Roy Jones told how an old Ali got in the ring with him and as Jones said “Got in front of him”, meaning he was anticipating Jones and keeping him from doing what he wanted. That was an old Ali and a young Roy Jones who turn out the light and get in bed before the room got dark. Ali was no ordinary great boxer, he had skills beyond punching, a knowledge of the art so complex that none of his many imitators has come close to it. He wasn’t perfect as a boxer, but the heights of his career surpassed those of all others.

12

I don’t know if you could definitively say anyone else was greater. (Perhaps Foreman.) But if you take Ali, Frazier, Norton, Foreman, and Holmes, ISTM that they’re all pretty much in the same mix.

I don’t think it’s fair to say his career was “effectively ended” by Young. He decided to step away from the sport.

I don’t know, Norton arguably won all three fights against Ali. And I don’t know what you mean about Frazier. Frazier lost all of 4 fights in his career, 2 to Ali and 2 to Foreman. That’s it.

I think that’s arguable. Ali lost three years in his prime, but that also saved his body for later. I agree he would probably have done extremely well had he fought in those three years, but then he might not have been as successful later either. Net-net the enforced layoff was likely a loss for his career, but not as big as you suggest.

I think those come into play if you’re comparing two guys who similarly dominated their eras and you need a tiebreaker. Not otherwise.

13

Not AFAICT. I think Jersey Joe Walcott beat Louis in their first fight too. And Ali was on his downswing when he fought Norton the last two times. It’s related to what you say about Foreman being (possibly) better than Ali - no one is invincible.

Liston didn’t know exactly how old he was - he was one of a sharecropper’s 25 children, ran away from home, and spent a lot of time in prison. And then he was rated No. 1 contender for the better part of three years, because Cus D’Amato, who trained Floyd Patterson to the heavyweight title, was scared shitless of Liston. And rightly so - Liston steamrolled Patterson twice, in less than five minutes total. But Liston spent the prior three years beating guys like Bob Satterfield and Cleveland Williams and Wayne Bethea and Roy Harris and Zora Folley and Eddie Machen for short money. Then he faced Ali in their first fight, under-trained and over-confident, and wore himself out chasing a shadow, and quit.

Then Liston over-trained for the rematch (it was postponed when Ali got a hernia). That happens to old fighters sometimes - they can’t build themselves up to peak performance over and over. Liston’s mind just wasn’t right, and he walked into a shot he didn’t see. Liston in his prime stood up under Cleveland Williams’ left hook without even blinking. But after spending all that time in prison, and after Ali had humiliated him - he was old, and he was done.

Don’t get me wrong - Ali would probably have beaten Liston at any time in either’s career. But Liston was no carefully handled Olympic champion who was brought along wisely and matched intelligently - he was a black guy under Jim Crow, in an era where black criminals weren’t misunderstood - they were bad. And he had been fighting one way or other all his life - he was a headbreaker for the mob-controlled unions before his start as a pro boxer. His drop off was a hell of a lot steeper than Ali’s.

The heavyweight title changed hands twice in a row, because the loser was psyched out by the winner. First, because Patterson’s spirit was broken like a Saltine by Liston’s “I Am Your Worst Nightmare” eyes leading up to their fights, and because Liston fell for the “I’m Fucking Crazy” act of Ali before theirs.

Ali pissed blood for a week after Zaire, but I don’t think that was why he didn’t fight Foreman again. Foreman got outboxed and retired by Young before Ali was done with the other contenders.

And I don’t think it would have mattered - Foreman would still have lost again. Al would have frustrated Foreman into flailing away and made him run out of gas again.

If somehow, you could transplant Foreman’s brain after his comeback, when he was old and fat and relaxed, into the killing machine he was against Norton or Frazier, Foreman would have beat Ali into a pulp. But he was too much in a hurry in their fight.

Regards,
Shodan

14

Ali always had a strategy. I think in the case of Liston and Foreman, knowing what brutal punchers they were, he treated them like bullies–and started immediately tagging them left and right. Once the bully starts getting tagged, it can have a bad psychological effect. I think the same thing happened with Buster Douglas and Mike Tyson.

15

Another bad effect of the Foreman fight was that Ali decided that lying on the ropes taking a beating was a viable strategy. It worked against Foreman, but it meant he could win without dancing. And that meant he would not have much of a life after boxing.

He should have quit after Manila. Maybe he could have gone down to his grave smiling, instead of that frozen face of Parkinsonianism.

Regards,
Shodan

16

It wasn’t the Rope-a-Dope that did him in, much earlier in his career he trained himself to withstand punches to the head and keep his opponents from knowing how hurt he was. The first Frazier fight was an example of that, many in the boxing world still can’t understand how Ali got up from the left hook he took in the 15th round. Shots like that over a long career damaged his brain stem allegedly leading to the Parkinson’s syndrome. He was a guy considered to have a glass jaw early in his career (largely based on getting knocked down by Henry Cooper) but it was the mental preparation for those punches that made him unique, and led to his suffering.

I still believe as Ali has said, and those who knew him say, he would have done it all over again knowing what the result would be. If he wasn’t standing up for more important principles I’d say he was crazy, but he set out to change the world, and he did it, and I have to respect and admire that.

ETA: I cannot disagree that if he lost to Foreman his career would have ended sooner and he might not have been so physically damaged. But losing to Foreman may not have stopped him anyway.

17

That’s true but it’s more true of one fight than of three.

Ali, Norton, and Frazier were all about the same age. Ali was a year or two older, but had also taken a lot of time off from boxing.

OK, so when you said he “burned [himself] out faster than Ali” you mean that his career burned out faster than Ali’s career? I thought you were saying in that fight he had less gas, which could not be said of Liston.

FWIW, I also don’t think old age in boxers tends to manifest itself in the form of susceptibility to one-punch knockouts.

I don’t think so Ali avoided Foreman for 3 years, during which time he fought such luminaries as Chuck Wepner, Joe Bugner, Richard Dunn, Jean Pierre Coopman, and Alfredo Evangelista (in addition to Frazier, Norton, Lyle and Young).

18

Also that “styles make fights”. Norton gave Ali lots of trouble, as he did most boxers. Against a big puncher, like Foreman or Shavers or Cooney (or Jose Roman earlier in his career) he folded like a cheap suit. Against pure boxers like Ali or Young or Holmes, he did much better.

Liston’s career certainly burned out faster than Ali, but I meant he burned out physically and mentally faster as well. Plus he was (probably) much older than Ali to begin with.

Overtraining, and the inability to get oneself mentally into a fight or physically warmed up, are traditional signs that a boxer has lost it. But if Ali and Liston had fought when they originally were supposed to, and Liston was properly prepared and paced himself, he probably would have dropped a decision or been stopped on cuts in the late rounds. Ali, as noted, was not a big puncher. He just caught Liston cold.

Well, to be fair, Foreman did the fiasco in 1975 where he fought five guys in one night, the year after he lost to Ali. In 1976 and 1977, he fought Ron Lyle (and got floored twice) and rematched with Frazier, clobbering him. Then the Young match and retirement for ten years.

Regards,
Shodan

19

It’s obviously difficult to compare boxers across generations, but what I think I probably can say is that the 1960s and 1970s had a pretty talented and loaded heavyweight division.

In my view, Ali was certainly one of the greatest of all time, but it’s certainly debatable as to whether he was the greatest. Ali did win the title three times, and he regained the title after three years of inactivity, which is no small feat. Ali’s hand speed, his footwork, and his mental approach to boxing were a sight to behold. As shodan said, he probably beat some fighters like Foreman and Liston more with his mind than with his boxing skills.

I’ve felt for a while that in some ways the most remarkable heavyweight was Evander Holyfield. He never really cleaned out the division and some fighters like Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis were physically bigger boxers with more power. However, let’s not forget that Evander started out at 175 pounds.

20

In sports, people tend to be drawn to the loudmouths and the self promoters. Hence Ali is regarded as the “greatest” (by himself, most of all). Joe Louis, meanwhile, quietly went about his career dominating in a classy, business-like manner. I’ll take Louis over Ali any day. And that’s just in the heavyweight division.

Sugar Ray Robinson is the best pound-for-pound boxer that ever lived. Easy call.