Legacy of Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones

[Primadonna Kool]

Excuse me

Can somebody break down, Muhammad Ali's legacy for me. His best achievements, and why he is the greatest Heavyweight of all-time. I want to become more educated on the actual ring achievments and how they ranked against other great heavyweights.

Also i would appreciate if somebody could break down the achievements/legacy of Roy Jones Junior.

Thank You Very Much.

[Dempsey1238]

Easy. Ali is God. You must worshipped 3 times a day and hold a feast in his honor. You must kiss the ground Ali walks on. And if you are on the ground Ali walks on, you must take off your shoes.

Dont be shock when they make Ali a saint.

[Stonehands89]

Excuse me

Can somebody break down, Muhammad Ali's legacy for me. His best achievements, and why he is the greatest Heavyweight of all-time. I want to become more educated on the actual ring achievments and how they ranked against other great heavyweights.

Also i would appreciate if somebody could break down the achievements/legacy of Roy Jones Junior.

Thank You Very Much.

Ali is beloved today more for nostagia among the aging baby-boomers, his wit, his beauty, his uplifting a downtrodden people at the same time that Malcolm was doing the same, and his stance on the Vietnam war. He is a world figure. Ali's presence is akin to the Dalai Lama's. For those of us who know better, that is curious.

As for his legacy in the ring, he faced monsters like Liston and Foreman and destroyed them both. He beat many quality fighters in the 60s including Cooper, Patterson, Folley, Chuvalo, Terrell, Williams, et al. The beauty of him in that decade was not so much his conquests as his savage grace, speed, and mobility. He was a true phenomenon in terms of natural talent/athleticism.

In the 70s, his conquests were more formidable -Quarry, Bonavena, Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, etc. and it was more incredible because the first thing to go on a boxer is speed and reflexes. Ali was not the same... but even sans the demon speed, Ali's heart was exposed and it was three sizes too big.

The world watched as age sapped his youthful powers and found in his latter struggles and triumphs the stuff of inspiration. The sagging pectorals and the graying hair in their mirrors were not so lamentable because Ali showed them ....age and guile can defeat youth and speed.

Ali is a legend.

Jones, though a great fighter, is comparatively a midget.

My apologies to Jones' many fans out here. I readily acknowledge that Jones' natural abilities damn near matched Ali's. They were enough to see him overcome two (that's TWO in career that was as long as Ali's) truly formidable challenges in Hopkins and Toney -but he had neither the heart, nor the will, nor the conquests, nor the fearlessness of Ali.

[Primadonna Kool]

Ali is beloved today more for nostagia among the aging baby-boomers, his wit, his beauty, his uplifting a downtrodden people at the same time that Malcolm was doing the same, and his stance on the Vietnam war. He is a world figure. Ali's presence is akin to the Dalai Lama's. For those of us who know better, that is curious.

As for his legacy in the ring, he faced monsters like Liston and Foreman and destroyed them both. He beat many quality fighters in the 60s including Cooper, Patterson, Folley, Chuvalo, Terrell, Williams, et al. The beauty of him in that decade was not so much his conquests as his savage grace, speed, and mobility. He was a true phenomenon in terms of natural talent/athleticism.

In the 70s, his conquests were more formidable -Quarry, Bonavena, Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, etc. and it was more incredible because the first thing to go on a boxer is speed and reflexes. Ali was not the same... but even sans the demon speed, Ali's heart was exposed and it was three sizes too big.

The world watched as age sapped his youthful powers and found in his latter struggles and triumphs the stuff of inspiration. The sagging pectorals and the graying hair in their mirrors were not so lamentable because Ali showed them ....age and guile can defeat youth and speed.

Ali is a legend.

Jones, though a great fighter, is comparatively a midget.

My apologies to Jones' many fans out here. I readily acknowledge that Jones' natural abilities damn near matched Ali's. They were enough to see him overcome two (that's TWO in career that was as long as Ali's) truly formidable challenges in Hopkins and Toney -but he had neither the heart, nor the will, nor the conquests, nor the fearlessness of Ali.


Thank You

How does Muhammad Ali's legacy compare to Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield.

Muhammad Ali has beaten more all-time greats than any other heavyweight in history?

Carry on and feel free to educate me with more facts, because i am going to compile it all together, and totally set afew people right elsewhere.

[Senya13]

You are thanking him for misinforming you about "quality" and "formidable" opposition of Ali? His opposition was mediocre or plain bad most of the time (some of his title defenses were against tomato cans), and even the quality opponents he beat were past their prime.
Such as, Cooper was a European bum (Ali's own words), Patterson had a sore back, Chuvalo was a journeyman, Terrell was one-eyed, Williams was a shell of a good fighter after having been shot to the abdomen, Quarry was a journeyman, same for Bonavena, Norton was a "safe" pick trying to build up another title shot, Frazier was good the 1st time, but was past or far past his prime the 2nd and 3rd times respectively, Foreman hadn't achieved anything outside of two wins over past his prime Frazier, and was a perfect example of padded record both the 1st and the 2nd parts of his career, Shavers was a journeyman with not skills, chin or stamina, only a big punch, and Lyle was a fringe contender.

[Street Lethal]

How about a reality-based approach, Senya? Your post is complete crap.

[Senya13]

How about actually looking at the condition and achievements of each fighter at the time of the fight, instead of just listing popular names? Otherwise it's like saying Tommy Tibbs, Victor Leon and Calvin Woodland were great fighters, 'coz they beat Willie Pep, or Stan Harrington was great because he beat Sugar Ray Robinson twice.

[Stonehands89]

You are thanking him for misinforming you about "quality" and "formidable" opposition of Ali? His opposition was mediocre or plain bad most of the time (some of his title defenses were against tomato cans), and even the quality opponents he beat were past their prime.
Such as, Cooper was a European bum (Ali's own words), Patterson had a sore back, Chuvalo was a journeyman, Terrell was one-eyed, Williams was a shell of a good fighter after having been shot to the abdomen, Quarry was a journeyman, same for Bonavena, Norton was a "safe" pick trying to build up another title shot, Frazier was good the 1st time, but was past or far past his prime the 2nd and 3rd times respectively, Foreman hadn't achieved anything outside of two wins over past his prime Frazier, and was a perfect example of padded record both the 1st and the 2nd parts of his career, Shavers was a journeyman with not skills, chin or stamina, only a big punch, and Lyle was a fringe contender.

That may be the silliest post I've seen in months.

Senya can be expected to post a masturbatory bonanza of Jones' record any hour now -and it would be more ridiculous than this one. .

[Stonehands89]

I'd say physically Jones was better than Ali actually, but otherwise agree.

I might agree with you here... but Ali's size made him a rarer item, and no one outdoes his rythym. Jones's combination of fast-twitch speed and power rival Tyson's but it is a damn shame that we never saw how far it would take him against challenges. Pazmanians prove nothing.

[Senya13]

The silliest posts come from Ali's nut-huggers, not from me. Such as Ali "destroying" (past his prime) Liston, in two obviously fixed fights, first being evenly contested and the second a disgrace to the sport. Or claiming Williams was a quality fighter when Ali beat him. That was the most stupid claim in that post.

[Mendoza]

How about actually looking at the condition and achievements of each fighter at the time of the fight, instead of just listing popular names? Otherwise it's like saying Tommy Tibbs, Victor Leon and Calvin Woodland were great fighters, 'coz they beat Willie Pep, or Stan Harrington was great because he beat Sugar Ray Robinson twice.

Some of what you say is true, but the way I see it, Ali beat prime or near prime versions of Liston, Foreman, Quarry, Norton, Frazier, and Lyle. Maybe not Frazier, but still this is a great legacy. You can't say the entire lot of Ali's opponents were soft touches. Guys like Copper and Wepner, ok, but not the above names

[Senya13]

Liston fights were fixed, not a "beat him" kind of fights. Foreman had a grat potential, but had no significant achievements outside of Frazier win. Quarry was a mediocre contender, Ken Norton was a journeyman (who was a safe pick, like I said, Ali was building up his confidence at the time, TV didn't even want to buy that fight, so meaningless it was considered to be). Frazier in 2nd and 3rd fights was far from his prime. Lyle was a fringe contender, slightly above mediocre fighter with little achievements.

[rydersonthestorm]

Ali was a great fighter and to doubt his record is stupid, if his record is weak what fighters have got good records???

[Senya13]

Ali was a great fighter, but compared to other weights' great fighters, his record is very weak and overrated.

[JohnThomas1]

Ali is beloved today more for nostagia among the aging baby-boomers, his wit, his beauty, his uplifting a downtrodden people at the same time that Malcolm was doing the same, and his stance on the Vietnam war. He is a world figure. Ali's presence is akin to the Dalai Lama's. For those of us who know better, that is curious.

As for his legacy in the ring, he faced monsters like Liston and Foreman and destroyed them both. He beat many quality fighters in the 60s including Cooper, Patterson, Folley, Chuvalo, Terrell, Williams, et al. The beauty of him in that decade was not so much his conquests as his savage grace, speed, and mobility. He was a true phenomenon in terms of natural talent/athleticism.

In the 70s, his conquests were more formidable -Quarry, Bonavena, Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Lyle, etc. and it was more incredible because the first thing to go on a boxer is speed and reflexes. Ali was not the same... but even sans the demon speed, Ali's heart was exposed and it was three sizes too big.

The world watched as age sapped his youthful powers and found in his latter struggles and triumphs the stuff of inspiration. The sagging pectorals and the graying hair in their mirrors were not so lamentable because Ali showed them ....age and guile can defeat youth and speed.

Ali is a legend.

Jones, though a great fighter, is comparatively a midget.

My apologies to Jones' many fans out here. I readily acknowledge that Jones' natural abilities damn near matched Ali's. They were enough to see him overcome two (that's TWO in career that was as long as Ali's) truly formidable challenges in Hopkins and Toney -but he had neither the heart, nor the will, nor the conquests, nor the fearlessness of Ali.

That was a treat to read mate, great post.

[groove]

Senya - stop acting like a clown. Ali was undefeated til exile. The first fight with Liston was not a fix you muppet. He gave Patterson a good whupping, Cleveland Williams couldn't even hit him, Terrell would've been lucky to win one round outta 15. He defended his title like 7 times in one year. How many heavies do that? Yeah he deserves the odd bad performance if he fights that often. He is banned and comes back nearly 4 years later more flat footed and beats up the next generation of heavies. Most of these guys are at their peak whilst Ali is great but he's not peak which was just before exile. Liston x2, Frazier x2, Patterson x2, Norton x2, Quarry x2, Chuvalu x2, Bugner x2, Foreman, Folley, Lyle, Shavers, Ellis, Foster, Young, the list goes on.

[ron u.k.]

Excuse me

Can somebody break down, Muhammad Ali's legacy for me. His best achievements, and why he is the greatest Heavyweight of all-time. I want to become more educated on the actual ring achievments and how they ranked against other great heavyweights.

Also i would appreciate if somebody could break down the achievements/legacy of Roy Jones Junior.

Thank You Very Much.you'll find on here that there are revisionists mostly who weren't around at the time who will downgrade and even dismiss his achievments.ali fought every and i mean every top heavyweight there was possible to fight in the sixties and seventies and beat them all sometimes twice,he ducked no one.from the early sixties until 1980 thats something like 18 years.sure he benefitted from a dodgy decision or two but over such a long stretch thats bound to happen.put it this way if a young twenty year old heavyweight appeared and stopped vitali klitschko and up to the year 2025 had fought and beaten every top contender there was to fight ducking none,i think you'd say he was pretty good.

[JohnThomas1]

you'll find on here that there are revisionists mostly who weren't around at the time who will downgrade and even dismiss his achievments.ali fought every and i mean every top heavyweight there was possible to fight in the sixties and seventies and beat them all sometimes twice,he ducked no one.from the early sixties until 1980 thats something like 18 years.sure he benefitted from a dodgy decision or two but over such a long stretch thats bound to happen.put it this way if a young twenty year old heavyweight appeared and stopped vitali klitschko and up to the year 2025 had fought and beaten every top contender there was to fight ducking none,i think you'd say he was pretty good.

What would you say to claims Ali ducked a Foreman rematch then?

[Jbuz]

Wow this place hasn't changed at all.

[JohnThomas1]

Wow this place hasn't changed at all.

Only "the names have been changed" :lol:

Well, some of em lol

[ron u.k.]

What would you say to claims Ali ducked a Foreman rematch then?wow you've managed to drag one up?big george wasn't exactly chomping at the bit for it.

[JohnThomas1]

wow you've managed to drag one up?big george wasn't exactly chomping at the bit for it.

Actually i think MDWC said recently that Foreman even stormed an Ali press conference. Much to the contrary, i think Foreman was absolutely salivating for this match, and a chance at redemption.

Dinner educated me on this one, and further inspection told me he is prolly very very right. I'd hate to take on the task of disputing it i think.

[Senya13]

The first fight with Liston was not a fix you muppet.
Right, Liston was throwing left hands till the very end, yet he quits with supposedly injured shoulder.

He gave Patterson a good whupping,
Patterson who had a sore back, which made any upper body movements very painful. Patterson that was shot by this time anyway.

Cleveland Williams couldn't even hit him,
Williams was an invalid, literally. He should have never been allowed to fight in the first place.

Terrell would've been lucky to win one round outta 15.
He was fighting one-eye from second round on.

you'll find on here that there are revisionists mostly who weren't around at the time who will downgrade and even dismiss his achievments
Very true. There are many revisionist on this forum, who praise fighters who were considered mediocrities and journeymen in the 1960-1970's, or even early 1980's, such as Quarry, Norton, Ellis, Terrell, Young, etc.

[JohnThomas1]

Right, Liston was throwing left hands till the very end, yet he quits with supposedly injured shoulder.


Yes, but is it a quit, or a fix??

:smoke

[Senya13]

When a fighter, who had gone the distance before while fighting with broken jaw, keeps throwing left jabs in bunches, then suddenly claims he had an injured left shoulder from 2nd round on (if I remember correctly) as an excuse for quitting, then takes an obvious dive in rematch, there should be little doubt about the fix.

[Robbi]

Just watched Ali v Spinks II.

One of the most under appreciated performances in his entire career. Not only did Ali win the fight comfortably, but he looked pretty damn good while doing so as well. Considering his age, and how badly he had looked in previous fights after the "Thrilla in Manila".

Ali's jab was back, and he threw some nice power shots as well to convince the judges. During the late rounds he was up on his toes. Not sure where the hell he got the stamina.

[JohnThomas1]

When a fighter, who had gone the distance before while fighting with broken jaw, keeps throwing left jabs in bunches, then suddenly claims he had an injured left shoulder from 2nd round on (if I remember correctly) as an excuse for quitting, then takes an obvious dive in rematch, there should be little doubt about the fix.

Rubbish. It was a mental quit, not a physical one. Who would be stupid enough to tank (fix) a fight by quitting in this way. If you're going to go the fix you aren't going to arouse suspicion by quitting on your stool. When Ali was blinded Liston was throwing punches in bunches that would have felled a damn rhino.

First fight IMO = mental quit

Second fight IMO = fix

Shame, i think Liston would have been in superb shape for the rematch and it would have been a better fight.

[prime]

An Olympic gold medalist, Ali had 19 successful heavyweight title defenses, the third most in history. He became the first three-time heavyweight champion. He dethroned two all-time greats in Sonny Liston and George Foreman. Not counting W.B.A. titlist Ernie Terrell and anointed champ Ken Norton, he beat four other heavyweight champions. He was the most dominant champion since the most illustrious reign of Joe Louis, and would have accomplished much more had he not been banned from boxing for 3 years. In the process, he truly ushered in the era of million-dollar paydays for
athletes.

On facts alone, Ali looks impressive. But, of course, his legacy goes well beyond raw stats. Ali used boxing to "serve God" as he understood it. This resulted in the unprecedented happening of a boxer, and a black boxer at that, using sport as a platform for political commentary and elevating the self-image of, primarily his own race, but certainly also human beings of every stripe and circumstance.

By simply saying "Black is beautiful", and "Why should I fight for another people's freedom when my own people ain't free?", by crying, "Who's the heavyweight champion of the world?", he compelled responses from an unjust society and young hearts the world over. No matter your opinion of Ali, he walked the talk and gave up all he had for his convictions.

He knew he had a gift and he tried to use it to help others. To me, that's Ali's true legacy.

[cuchulain]

Thank You

How does Muhammad Ali's legacy compare to Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield.

Muhammad Ali has beaten more all-time greats than any other heavyweight in history?

Carry on and feel free to educate me with more facts, because i am going to compile it all together, and totally set afew people right elsewhere.

Stonehands gives you a pretty good overview.

(Re: Senya's wisdom: Some things to bear in mind:

Senya wasn't around for ANY of Ali's career. One can be a boxing historian and do lots of research and such but it's not the same as actually being there.

(Consider the political landscape today in the US: Bush, Cheney, Hilary, the war in Iraq, the weakening dollar, the race issues, Oprah, etc.

Or if you're British: Tony Blair's decline, his legacy, the rise of yob culture, the London subway bombings, multiculturism and immigration, Roy Keane and Beckham, etc.

If someone born five or ten years from now were to research all this stuff some 30 or 40 years from now, they would get a general sense of things and find out lots of facts and dates, etc.

But they wouldn't have the same sense of the times as one who had lived through it.

Same with boxing. I can read about Dempsey and Tunney, even watch their fights in old grainy movies, but I can never get the same sense and flavour of the era as one who lived in the first half of the 20th century.)


Ali was NOT a popular figure in the mid-sixties. His anti-war position made him a hated figure in many quarters. He lost 3.5 years of his prime and was never the same after. But he defeated many great fighters and his record of accomplishment is IMO, unmatched in heavywt history.

In the mid sixties, his speed and flair were unmatched at that wt, and he was nearly invincible

Senya believes that George Foreman (on nearly everyon's top ten list) should never have gotten his shot at Frazier's title and had little or nothing by way of accomplishment.

Senya also believes that prime Roy Jones would beat prime Ali.

I rest my case.

[ron u.k.]

Ali was a great fighter, but compared to other weights' great fighters, his record is very weak and overrated.i could be falling into your trap here but do you actually know what your talking about?going off your posts you could easily write down your total boxing knowledge on the back of a postage stamp.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Ali was the one and only Worlds Champion.
Jones was never more than a belt holder...who refused to fight Tiger....
A man full of hot air...Everytime there was a big fight schedualed, Jones would mouth off about going to fight a living body....never did.
Never unified at any wiehgt, at Middle and super middle never fought another Champion in his weight class.
After losing got Montel Griffen, Jones mouths off he was willing to fight the 3 belt and then recognised "undesputed champion" Tiger, for 4 million dollars in GERMANY. Hill had just his best payday and the biggest payday then in Germany of 2 Million.
As soon as Jones got one of the titles unfairly stripped from the Tiger, he had put in his HBO contract that HBO was not allowed to even mention Tiger's name...... two of the three titles he got were not his...
Grochachinne.....know the name...he's the guy who beat Nunn for the Title that Jones gave up because he'd signed to fight a heavier weight fighter for his title, which he never did....so the belt factory invented a brand new term....Interum Champion....inspite of Grochachinne having won the Vacant title inthe ring.....well Grochachinne thought he deserved more than 30% too.....12 million won in court...6 million pay off of $200,000 a year till it's paid up....

picked Ruiz not a real champ...Avoided his manditories Tua and Vittili....running back to Lt. Heavy to fight Tavar because of "Bad Blood." Tavar the man he'd ignored the whole of his life....suddenly because the first thing Tavar said was yep...he'd fight the Tiger.....Tavar was a real champion, even if not the absoute best Champion...a real one.

Jones the man who avoided the best of his time....never unified, never tired.

I belive it was the right shoulder of Liston..in that they showed back inthe Black and White days, an arrow on a later replay of Clay landing a punch to it.... Might even had a photo in Life...but it's been a long time. I was always under the impression it was the right shoulder.

[fg2227]

Anybody who thinks that the first liston fight was fixed is a idiot. Zero evidence that it was fixed.

[Senya13]

i could be falling into your trap here but do you actually know what your talking about?
Off the top of my head. Compare Ali's resume with that of Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Tony Canzoneri, Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Kid Gavilan. That's just 10 names, I could give many more.

[rydersonthestorm]

What a joke you are, some of those guys,'note' some have a better resume than ali but none of them are heavyweight and to compare him to great fighters for lighter weights hardly tarnish's the legacy of somone who is a top 3 heavyweight of all time and possibly number one.

[ron u.k.]

Off the top of my head. Compare Ali's resume with that of Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Tony Canzoneri, Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Kid Gavilan. That's just 10 names, I could give many more.who's arguing with their resumes and legacy?although i'm sure if i really got down to it i could pick them apart.however by whatever criteria you put on it ali's resume and legacy is exempliary.you can certainly bring up any heavyweight in history and they would still fall short on legacy and opposition in comparison.

[Senya13]

who's arguing with their resumes and legacy?
You did by claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, when I said precisely this statement, which should be accepted as true by consensus of opinions:
Ali was a great fighter, but compared to other weights' great fighters, his record is very weak and overrated.i could be falling into your trap here but do you actually know what your talking about?

[cuchulain]

You are thanking him for misinforming you about "quality" and "formidable" opposition of Ali?
His opposition was mediocre or plain bad most of the time

His opposition consisted of the best heavywts in the world during his era. He avoided no-one. Of course not all of his opposition was tip-top, but anybody who was anybody got their chance, through both of his championships. He took on ALL comes, and prevailed.


(some of his title defenses were against tomato cans), and even the quality opponents he beat were past their prime.

Such as, Cooper was a European bum (Ali's own words),

Cooper was a British, European and Commonwealth champion. What Ali called him (in his usual prefight fight-hyping style) means nothing more than prefight hype. Was he supposed to avoid him?


Patterson had a sore back,

Patterson developed a sore back in the early rounds of the fight. Ali danced rings around the most skilled boxer of the day. He could have put him away lots of times but made him suffer for his insulting remarks about winning back the title for America.

Chuvalo was a journeyman,

True, but a damned tough one who was never knocked off his feet. Was he supposed to avoid him too?

Terrell was one-eyed,

It didn't seem to bother him in the 15 fights leading up to Ali, where he had a 15-0-0 record against opponents that included Doug Jones, george Chuvalo, Eddie Machen Bob Foster, Zora Foley and a pre-gunshot Cleveland Williams.


Williams was a shell of a good fighter after having been shot to the abdomen,

Williams was on a nine fight winning streak, four of them after his gunshot.

Quarry was a journeyman,

No, he wasn't. He was a serious contender who had won his four previous fights, three by stoppage, including his KO of previously unbeaten Mac Foster. Ali, after a 3.5 year lay-off, stopped Quarry in 3.

same for Bonavena,

Oscar had not been beaten in his previous 10 fights. His most recent loss was a close decision to Frazier. Ali ended his streak by way of late stoppage.

Norton was a "safe" pick trying to build up another title shot,

with a safe 29-1-0 record.

Frazier was good the 1st time, but was past or far past his prime the 2nd and 3rd times respectively,

No further past prime than Ali was. He was younger, had much fewer fights and had suffered no lay-off.

Foreman hadn't achieved anything outside of two wins over past his prime Frazier, and was a perfect example of padded record both the 1st and the 2nd parts of his career,

Your singularly most dim-witted and imbecilic remark so far. Aside from a complete demolition of prime Frazier ? He was 34-0-0 (31 KO's) and was the most feared boxer on the planet.

Shavers was a journeyman with not skills, chin or stamina, only a big punch, and Lyle was a fringe contender.

Ali beat SIX World Heavyweight champions (including Liston, Frazier and Foreman ) and two lightheavyweight champions.

Fron 1964 to 67, he was arguably the greatest exponent of heavyweight boxing ever. From 1970- 1975 he was still the best of his era.

In 1978, at age 36 and suffering from Parkinsons syndrome, he was able to dig deep one last time and recapture his title from a much younger man.

If you want to be taken seriously by onyone on here, you'll have to do better than this.

[cuchulain]

You did by claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, when I said precisely this statement,

Ali was a great fighter, but compared to other weights' great fighters, his record is very weak and overrated.

which should be accepted as true by consensus of opinions:

Are you having fun here or are you completeley deluded?

Where are you going to find a consensus of opinion on that statement?

Maybe in the same place where you got consensus on Foreman being undeserving of his title shot against Frazier, and on your opinion that a prime Roy Jones would beat a prime Ali.

The general consensus among boxing fans, writers and commentators would be that all three statements are complete and utter nonesense.

[Senya13]

You are missing the point. A fighter can take on all that is available to him, but still have a poor level of opposition.

European heavyweights at that time were extremely poor, so having all those titles meant absolutely nothing at world level. Look up some European ratings in the Ring for that time, they are laughable.

Patterson had problems with his back prior to the fight, and whatever Ali wanted to prove by punishing him, doesn't make that win any more credible. Patterson wasn't just shot, he was not ready phisically for the fight.

Great chin doesn't make a fighter good opponent. There have been many tough fighters, who were poor boxers, and a win over which meant little at world level.

Whatever didn't bother Terrell prior to the fight is irrelevant, when he was fighting one-eyed for 14 rounds, and had it at least been his right eye that was damaged, an orthodox stance could deal with that, but when you have your left eye damaged, you stop seeing right hand punches completely.

Williams was on a winning streak against four tomato cans. He was knocked down by Mel Turnbow, that's how bad it had been.

Mac Foster had a carefully padded record for his undefeatedness. He achieved nothing in his career for a win over him to have any significance for Quarry. Quarry fits the definition of journeyman perfectly.

Get your facts correct about Bonavena with your 10-fights w/o a loss claim.

Norton did not face a single fighter rated in Top 10 t the time of the fight, before he met Ali.

However past his prime Ali was, that doesn't cancel out the fact that Frazier was shot, and more so than Ali himself, based on their performances at the time.

Foreman faced two ranked fighter prior to beating Frazier, 2 and 3 years prior to their fight, despite having the record you gave him. Lou Savarese also had a similar record when he met Foreman of the 2nd coming (who didn't beat a single ranked fighter to get a shot at the title or after winning the title).

Ali should have never lost his title to someone as bad as Leon Spinks, in the first place. That wasn't an achievement, that was a disgrace that luckly got corrected.

[Senya13]

The general consensus among boxing fans, writers and commentators would be that all three statements are complete and utter nonesense.
Make a poll of who had stronger/deeper resumes, Ali or the ten fighters who's names I listed. It should be obvious to anyone with even little knowledge of history, that all ten are far ahead of Ali resume-wise.

[Luigi1985]

IMO Senya13 overacts a bit, but in general, he´s right. Ali´s resume is overrated, some of his opponents only have a real legacy and are considered as great/ very good because they fought Ali...


PS: That Ali was great is death sure, no doubt about that...

[Stonehands89]

The silliest posts come from Ali's nut-huggers, not from me. Such as Ali "destroying" (past his prime) Liston, in two obviously fixed fights, first being evenly contested and the second a disgrace to the sport. Or claiming Williams was a quality fighter when Ali beat him. That was the most stupid claim in that post.

Insinuating that I am an Ali "nut-hugger" only further confirms your learning disabilities. I was never a fan of Ali. Not only that, but I believe that the casual boxing fan dreadfully overrates him -he was not the greatest fighter who ever lived -far from it- and is on tape admitting that.

You are a not only a study in logical fallacies, you are also a literalist. Williams was a name fighter. He was a quality fighter -like or not. He was ten times more of a threat to Ali than Paz was to your wet dream.

The fact is, Ali utterly "destroyed" the career of Liston and the first career of Foreman. He made Liston quit in the first fight. And although, I'm the first to bring up the fact that Liston barely trainined, it doesn't remove the fact that Liston lost by TKO. The second fight saw Liston throw it, but it was Ali that was the catalyst for the period put on his career for all intents and purposes. Foreman's aura of invincibility, financed by Frazier and Norton's destruction was shattered after Zaire. His confidence was also shattered and his career path after 1974 shows this....

Get it? If not, ask a friend who at least got his GED to read this and explain it for you.

[Stonehands89]

Shame, i think Liston would have been in superb shape for the rematch and it would have been a better fight.

Liston was training like a fiend for the second fight. Dundee stopped by and saw it. Suddenly, Ali pulled out and postponed it. Liston, disgusted, lost his momentum and hit the booze. Then the call came.

This stuff is shadowy but it fits.

By the way, Foreman was clamoring for a rematch -you and Conteh are correct. Ali was -smart- enough not to bite. I always beleived and always will that Ali got lucky in Zaire. The stars smiled on him and Foreman played the dope. Of course, anyone with more than three brain cells must acknowledge that brilliant psyche-job that Ali did on Foreman during the fight. It wouldn't have worked twice.

[Luigi1985]

With Ali it´s a bit nerved, some nut huggers totally overact with him, and prosecute a for Ali for free propaganda, and some haters label Ali as a mediocre at the best good fighter. IMO only a few are realistic when it comes to him...

[Stonehands89]

Make a poll of who had stronger/deeper resumes, Ali or the ten fighters who's names I listed. It should be obvious to anyone with even little knowledge of history, that all ten are far ahead of Ali resume-wise.

Two questions for Senya:

1. I would like to see your argument that Robinson's conquests were more considerable than Ali's. Go for it.

2. Who's resume is better, Ali's or Jones'?

[Robbi]

Ali's resume is far better than Jones'.

Stonehands, because your backing up Ali doesn't mean your a nuthugger by any means. Your only viewing your opinion with your head, not your heart.

And for anyone to pick apart Ali's career is nothing short of ridiculous. If any poster can pick apart Ali's career and take the shine off it, it scares me to what they would do to Tyson's resume. Infact, not just Tyson's but any other fighter in history.

[Robbi]

You are missing the point. A fighter can take on all that is available to him, but still have a poor level of opposition.

European heavyweights at that time were extremely poor, so having all those titles meant absolutely nothing at world level. Look up some European ratings in the Ring for that time, they are laughable.

Patterson had problems with his back prior to the fight, and whatever Ali wanted to prove by punishing him, doesn't make that win any more credible. Patterson wasn't just shot, he was not ready phisically for the fight.

Great chin doesn't make a fighter good opponent. There have been many tough fighters, who were poor boxers, and a win over which meant little at world level.

Whatever didn't bother Terrell prior to the fight is irrelevant, when he was fighting one-eyed for 14 rounds, and had it at least been his right eye that was damaged, an orthodox stance could deal with that, but when you have your left eye damaged, you stop seeing right hand punches completely.

Williams was on a winning streak against four tomato cans. He was knocked down by Mel Turnbow, that's how bad it had been.

Mac Foster had a carefully padded record for his undefeatedness. He achieved nothing in his career for a win over him to have any significance for Quarry. Quarry fits the definition of journeyman perfectly.

Get your facts correct about Bonavena with your 10-fights w/o a loss claim.

Norton did not face a single fighter rated in Top 10 t the time of the fight, before he met Ali.

However past his prime Ali was, that doesn't cancel out the fact that Frazier was shot, and more so than Ali himself, based on their performances at the time.

Foreman faced two ranked fighter prior to beating Frazier, 2 and 3 years prior to their fight, despite having the record you gave him. Lou Savarese also had a similar record when he met Foreman of the 2nd coming (who didn't beat a single ranked fighter to get a shot at the title or after winning the title).

Ali should have never lost his title to someone as bad as Leon Spinks, in the first place. That wasn't an achievement, that was a disgrace that luckly got corrected.

I'll give you a tip. Look through the microscope, but don't zoom in too much. Your critisism sucks beyond belief.

[cuchulain]

You are missing the point. A fighter can take on all that is available to him, but still have a poor level of opposition.

I'm afraid it's you who misses the point here, Senya. If a fighter fights the 10 best opponents of his era and 40 'tomato cans' as you call them, then of his 50 fights, most were tomato cans. That doesn't alter the fact that he fought the best of his era. When you take on all that is available and prevail, it means youy are the best of the era. to say otherwise, shifts the blame to the era, and says: there were no good fighters in that era. Now the decade from 64-75 was one of the richer eras ever in the heavywt division. And Ali was , by a good measure, the best of that period, both by resume, and head-to head.


European heavyweights at that time were extremely poor, so having all those titles meant absolutely nothing at world level. Look up some European ratings in the Ring for that time, they are laughable.

Irrelevant point. The best European had to be given a shot, or Ali could have been accused of ducking.


Patterson had problems with his back prior to the fight, and whatever Ali wanted to prove by punishing him, doesn't make that win any more credible. Patterson wasn't just shot, he was not ready phisically for the fight.

He was the very best pure boxer in the division at the time. And Ali toyed with him. I have seen nothing that suggests a bad back prior vto his fight .

Great chin doesn't make a fighter good opponent.

Actually, it does. By definition. That's one of the measures we judge opponents by. Not the only one, but a very significant one.

There have been many tough fighters, who were poor boxers, and a win over which meant little at world level.

Whatever didn't bother Terrell prior to the fight is irrelevant, when he was fighting one-eyed for 14 rounds,

No, it's VERY relevant. What was the source of Ernies' vision problem? Could it have been that Ali fractured a bone under his left eye and damaged his retina?

By your reasoning, Vitali had the disadvantage of fighting Lewis with a badly cut eyelid, and should therefore be excused his loss.

Ali totally outclassed Ernie, danced rings around him and punished him for his refusal to accept Ali's new name.

Williams was on a winning streak against four tomato cans.

No,. He was on a twenty -plus fight winning streak with the sole exception of Terrell, with whom he split a pair. He had four consecutive wins AFTER his gunshot incident, which played little , if any, role in his career. You toss around the term 'tomato can'. You have NO IDEA what that term means.


He was knocked down by Mel Turnbow, that's how bad it had been.

So what ? Now I see the extent of your historical boxing scholarship, It appears that it all derives from Boxrec.com.

He was knocked down but he won a unanimous decision. How many times has Tito been KD'd and went on to win the fight? Was Peter's KD of Wlad (three times) significant to their fight's outcome?

Mac Foster had a carefully padded record for his undefeatedness. He achieved nothing in his career for a win over him to have any significance for Quarry. Quarry fits the definition of journeyman perfectly.

Tripe. Mac Foster was undefeated, whether or not you chose to denigrate his opposition, and Jerry Quary was a serious contender, who KO'd Foster.


Get your facts correct about Bonavena with your 10-fights w/o a loss claim.

What's bothering you here? The fact that he had a DQ on his previous 10.

Now you're grasping. I considered Roy undefeated, prior th his bout with Tarver. Same idea.

Norton did not face a single fighter rated in Top 10 t the time of the fight, before he met Ali.

However past his prime Ali was, that doesn't cancel out the fact that Frazier was shot, and more so than Ali himself, based on their performances at the time.


This rivals your George Foreman and Roy Jones claims in terms of pure unadulterated horseshit. I know English is not your mother tongue, so I'm not correcting your grammar or style, but I DO have to correct your definitions. the word SHOT does not in any way, shape or form apply to Frazier in New York or Manilla. Slightly past prime, perhaps, but FAR from shot. Ali-Frazier 3 was one of the greatest fights at any weight ever televised.


Foreman faced two ranked fighter prior to beating Frazier, 2 and 3 years prior to their fight, despite having the record you gave him. Lou Savarese also had a similar record when he met Foreman of the 2nd coming (who didn't beat a single ranked fighter to get a shot at the title or after winning the title).

Ali should have never lost his title to someone as bad as Leon Spinks, in the first place. That wasn't an achievement, that was a disgrace that luckly got corrected.

What is a disgrace is the analysis in your post.

Ali was finished after the thrilla. ANYTHING he did after that was icing on the cake. He stayed on too long (addicted to the limelight) and so most observers don't count his resume much after Frazier 3.

Similarly, I don't put much stock in Roy's post Ruiz fights. He should have retired after capturing a slice of the heavywt title. It doesn't hurt his legacy in my eyes that things went sour shortly after that.

Was Jones' KO loss to Tarver (at 34, not 36) a disgrace ?



As I mentioned before, you have many facts at your fingertips but have a hopelessly incomplete grasp of the bigger picture, the flavour of the times and the factor that make fighters and fights great.

This is evident to most on here who read your posts.

[My dinner with Conteh]

How about a reality-based approach, Senya? Your post is complete crap.




It is staggering how much crap that idiot talks, it really is. I seldom click on a thread when I see his name.

[Senya13]

Insinuating that I am an Ali "nut-hugger" only further confirms your learning disabilities.
Anyone who claims Ali destroyed Liston, or his career (as you tried to find an excuse for your original ridiculous claim), and not the mafia, may claim himself not a nut-hugger as much as they want, that won't change that they are exactly that based on their posts. Same with Williams being a quality fighter. Williams wasn't even ranked at the time of the fight, and rightfully so. He might have been a threat to tomato cans, but he was no longer a world-class fighter anymore. As for name fighter, I pointed out an example of the silliness of that logic. Stan Harrington twice beat Sugar Ray Robinson. Do these wins hold any significance? Obviously not.

[Senya13]

When you take on all that is available and prevail, it means youy are the best of the era. to say otherwise, shifts the blame to the era, and says: there were no good fighters in that era.

Exactly what I have said. And when we are evaluating fighter's achievements, we compare him to achievements of other best fighters in history.

Now the decade from 64-75 was one of the richer eras ever in the heavywt division.

According to whom? How about posting some quotes from contemporary sources that claim it was that good?

Irrelevant point. The best European had to be given a shot, or Ali could have been accused of ducking.
Best Latin American, best Australian, best Asian, best African? What would that do to a fighter's career, if the quality opposition was all in USA at the time? Cooper was not ranked in Top10 by the Ring at the time of the fight.

He was the very best pure boxer in the division at the time.
We have different understanding of what a pure boxer type is. Patterson's best years were in the 1950's. His style requires young fighter, to have the right coordination and balance, it doesn't age well.

Actually, it does. By definition. That's one of the measures we judge opponents by. Not the only one, but a very significant one.
Where did you see such definition, that a chin alone makes a fighter a good one? It requires other qualities and/or achievements. Chuvalo was a mediocre boxer with no really significant achivements in his career, other than upset win over the same Quarry.

No, it's VERY relevant. What was the source of Ernies' vision problem? Could it have been that Ali fractured a bone under his left eye and damaged his retina?
Yes it was that. It wasn't anybody's fault that it happened, but it did have major effect on the course of the fight. When you can't see properly with left eye, you have no defense against right hands and you can't use left jab effectively, because you lose 3-D orientation, you can't measure the distance right anymore. Try closing your left eye and extending your arm to touch something in front of you, you won't be able to measure the distance that is left for your hand to go before it touches the object. With both eyes open you will be able to estimate the distance between your fingertips and the object without much problem.

By your reasoning, Vitali had the disadvantage of fighting Lewis with a badly cut eyelid, and should therefore be excused his loss.
For the result - yes. For not going all out in the last round - no.

No,. He was on a twenty -plus fight winning streak with the sole exception of Terrell, with whom he split a pair. He had four consecutive wins AFTER his gunshot incident, which played little , if any, role in his career. You toss around the term 'tomato can'. You have NO IDEA what that term means.
What had been prior to the incident doesn't mean anything. Williams was a criple, he was out of the ring, he wasn't even a shell of his former self, he was a nobody as a fighter by this point. After the gunshot he had no serious achievements whatsoever.

He was knocked down but he won a unanimous decision.
He was knocked down twice (in the 2nd and 3rd rounds) by a tomato can who was never known for having a punch. That's how low he was as a fighter at that point.

Tripe. Mac Foster was undefeated, whether or not you chose to denigrate his opposition, and Jerry Quary was a serious contender, who KO'd Foster.
When the best wins of a fighter are over crippled Cleveland Williams, that speaks for itself. Foster didn't face a single ranked fighter prior to meeting Quarry (yet somehow he climbed up to #1 in the Ring rankings, I don't know what they were thinking, really).

What's bothering you here? The fact that he had a DQ on his previous 10.
This is called getting your facts straight. Bonavena lost on a low blow, that's a fact. Jones wasn't undefeated prior to Tarver either.

the word SHOT does not in any way, shape or form apply to Frazier in New York or Manilla. Slightly past prime, perhaps, but FAR from shot. Ali-Frazier 3 was one of the greatest fights at any weight ever televised.
A great fight, but Frazier was shot by that point. Frazier was at his prime in 1971, he was slightly past his prime for Foreman, past his prime for Ali rematch and was shot (far past his prime) for Ali rubber and Foreman rematch.

What is a disgrace is the analysis in your post.
Ali was finished after the thrilla. ANYTHING he did after that was icing on the cake. He stayed on too long (addicted to the limelight) and so most observers don't count his resume much after Frazier 3.
Ali's choice of Spinks for a defense was bad enough, but his loss was a disgrace. As you already have said Ali "was able to dig deep one last time", he should have done so in the first fight, or not come out to the ring at all. A loss of a world champion title to a newbie (who only fought as a pro for 1 year) was a disgrace. Tarver wasn't a newbie, but was 2nd best light heavyweight in the world at that point.

[rydersonthestorm]

Your a joke.

[Stonehands89]

Anyone who claims Ali destroyed Liston, or his career (as you tried to find an excuse for your original ridiculous claim), and not the mafia, may claim himself not a nut-hugger as much as they want, that won't change that they are exactly that based on their posts. Same with Williams being a quality fighter. Williams wasn't even ranked at the time of the fight, and rightfully so. He might have been a threat to tomato cans, but he was no longer a world-class fighter anymore. As for name fighter, I pointed out an example of the silliness of that logic. Stan Harrington twice beat Sugar Ray Robinson. Do these wins hold any significance? Obviously not.

You continue to twist logic to your own biased ends and avoid questions.

I can take some satisifaction in being a part of the charge against you on this forum. You have been exposed, indicted, convicted, and after this thread -executed.

Why don't you change your name and join another forum? It can be a new beginning... elsewhere.

[Senya13]

Don't flatter yourself, exposer :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Stonehands89]

Yikes!!! It's a ghost!!!

[Senya13]

Nice degradation of a post. Starting from a list of titles and fights and ending with a retard. :) Shows level of discussion very well.

[rydersonthestorm]

No he is just stating facts in every bit of his statement, and you have still not named a heavyweight with a better resume than ali.

[Senya13]

6 round demolition of Sonny Liston
You calling this a fact?

If you paid attention to what I was saying, I didn't compare Ali with other heavyweights. I compared him with greater fighters from other weights, who have better and deeper resumes.

[rydersonthestorm]

That doesn't matter compare ali with any heavyweight and his resume is good and perhaps the best of all time, you are trying to degrade this by using fighters that fought in a lower weight class so how is that a fair comparison. Sam langford and some of the other don't have better resume's, obviously some of the other's do but ali isn't regarded as the best boxer ever just one of the top 2 heavyweights of all time.

[Senya13]

Comparison of greatness of fighters is not limited to one weight only. People often claim how his opposition was great, well it wasn't that great compared to many other great fighters, why call his opposition that then? Ali was a great fighter, but his resume is overrated, to try to make almost every opponent he faced as a quality fighter, even though the film and the contemporary sources don't show it as high quality as Ali's defendants like to claim.
Sam Langford fought a much tougher line of opponents than Ali could dream of.

[cuchulain]

Comparison of greatness of fighters is not limited to one weight only. People often claim how his opposition was great, well it wasn't that great compared to many other great fighters, why call his opposition that then? Ali was a great fighter, but his resume is overrated, to try to make almost every opponent he faced as a quality fighter, even though the film and the contemporary sources don't show it as high quality as Ali's defendants like to claim.
Sam Langford fought a much tougher line of opponents than Ali could dream of.

It was arguably the best ever faced overall by a heavy wt. Therefore comparisons to other weights is hardly revevant. Heavywts tend to be slower and more lumbering and throw fewer punches. They are sufficiently different from smaller fighters as to make cross-comparisons not vey useful or meaningful..

Remember the original thread question was: Can somebody break down, Muhammad Ali's legacy for me. His best achievements, and why he is the greatest Heavyweight of all-time. I want to become more educated on the actual ring achievments and how they ranked against other great heavyweights.

Note, the question asks about heavyweights.

when you post Ali was a great fighter, but compared to other weights' great fighters, his record is very weak and overrated., You're already straying outside of the realm of the question. The only reason to do such a thing when it doesn't relate to the posed question is some kind of problem with Ali.

Assuming what you say was true (which it isn't: Ali's competition measures favourably against fighters at any weight) , that still makes him arguably the greatest of all time.

The division of fighters into weight categories is an arbitrary choice, devised to allow smaller men to compete at ALL.

We don't do it in tennis or golf or track and field. if we were to strictly seek the best man at any one time, we would usually only be considering heavyweights. The heavyweight champion is the overall champion in that he, presumably, can beat any other man alive in the ring. That we have other divisions is a concession to smaller guys to allow them to compete at all. This is made more evident by the arbitrariness of the divisions. At one time three, then seven, and now lots.

The concept of pound-for -pound is all very nice, but it cannot be measured directly in a head-to-head contest, only estimated and reached by consensus, which holds no firm basis, other than opinion.

The Ali of 64-67, IMO was the greatest exponent of heavywt boxing ever, and by extension of my foregoing points, therefore the greatest boxer ever. (If we define greatest boxer as the one most likely to win a head-to-head matchup with ANY other boxer.)


All that said, At the present time I am more entertained by fighters between light and middlwt and the skill level there seems generally higher.

Still, no-one has any doubts about the result of a Floyd /Wlad match-up.

[cuchulain]

Anyone who claims Ali destroyed Liston, or his career (as you tried to find an excuse for your original ridiculous claim), and not the mafia, may claim himself not a nut-hugger as much as they want, that won't change that they are exactly that based on their posts. Same with Williams being a quality fighter. Williams wasn't even ranked at the time of the fight, and rightfully so. He might have been a threat to tomato cans, but he was no longer a world-class fighter anymore. As for name fighter, I pointed out an example of the silliness of that logic. Stan Harrington twice beat Sugar Ray Robinson. Do these wins hold any significance? Obviously not.

That Ali ended Liston's career is almost self-evident. You state that it's obvious that both fights were fixed. (Again your English is letting you down. Recheck the definition of OBVIOUS) There is not a shred of solid evidence that the first fight was fixed. Watch it again. you see a champion trying hard until he becomes frustrated. When the liniament clears from Ali's eye and it becomes evident to Liston that Clay was much faster of hand and foot , that he can land nearly nothing and that Clay can land more or less at will, he begins to get embarrassed, and he decides to quit. ( there was probably fuck all wrong with his shoulder.)

Second fight was a different story. liston wasn't in shape, it started out pretty much where the other one finished and this time he took a dive. Ali yelled at him to get up and quit faking. That is NOT a fix, anymore than Duran quitting indicated a fix.

Regarding your other inanity on the quality of Clays opposition,

Who SHOULD he have fought that he didn't?

[ron u.k.]

You did by claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, when I said precisely this statement, which should be accepted as true by consensus of opinions:i said you don't know what your talking about from your post regarding ali's resume.you later posted regarding the resumes of greb,canzaneri,leanord etc.dickhead.

[cuchulain]

Make a poll of who had stronger/deeper resumes, Ali or the ten fighters who's names I listed. It should be obvious to anyone with even little knowledge of history, that all ten are far ahead of Ali resume-wise.



and


Ali was a great fighter, but compared to other weights' great fighters, his record is very weak and overrated.



this should be accepted as true by consensus of opinions

Maybe you think it should be accepted, but it isn't.

In 2002, the writers of Ring Magazine (Boxing's Bible) published a ranking of the 80 best fighters of the previous 80 years. Now the writers of Ring are reputed to know a thing or two about boxing. Here's their list:


1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Joe Louis
5. Roberto Duran
6. Willie Pep
7. Harry Greb
8. Benny Leonard
9. Sugar Ray Leonard
10. Pernell Whitaker

Who's the highest ranked heavy and third highest of all weights?

In 2007, ESPN.com listed their 50 greatest boxers of all-time.

Their list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7 Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford

Once again, the CONSENSUS of their boxing staff is that Ali was the greatest Heavywt ever and second only to SRR at ANY weught.

In fact, if you get any serious group of boxing writers or commentators together and poll them, Ali will usually end up at the top of the heavywt list (sometimes it's Louis) and usually in the top three or four at any weight.

[Dempsey1238]

Ali is over rated in pound for pound imo. He is behind Greb, Robinson, Armstrong, Canzi, Fitz Ross, Walker, and a few of thsos other weight jumpers.

[Senya13]

It was arguably the best ever faced overall by a heavy wt.
Exactly, it's very argueable.

Note, the question asks about heavyweights.
All discussions evolve with time. Now, my first post was about view of some of the achievements being overrated, in that they don't consider the details of what the situation was in this or that fight. Which was relevant to the original question of this thread. Argueably Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis faced better opposition between themselves, than Ali.

The concept of pound-for -pound is all very nice, but it cannot be measured directly in a head-to-head contest,
I didn't even get to discussion of head-to-head comparison, I compared only achievements (resumes of fighters), as the original question of the thread didn't ask for P4P comparison.

[Senya13]

That Ali ended Liston's career is almost self-evident.
It's not evident at all. Liston fought 5 more years, gradually again climbing up to the status of top contender.

There is not a shred of solid evidence that the first fight was fixed.
You have to look at the whole picture, not just at fight details. It's well known that Liston was connected with criminals, it's well known that this had kept him from fighting for the title for quite some time, it kept him from regaining his status of top contender sooner too. It had forced him to throw up the rematch with Ali. There's no other logical reason why he'd throw the 2nd fight like that. It's very obvious.

[Senya13]

i said you don't know what your talking about from your post regarding ali's resume.you later posted regarding the resumes of greb,canzaneri,leanord etc.dickhead.
You quoted my post that you were answering to. If you were actually answering to a different point, you would have never quoted the post about comparison of ten other great resumes with Ali's. You can try to cover up all you want now.

[Senya13]

In 2002, the writers of Ring Magazine (Boxing's Bible) published a ranking of the 80 best fighters of the previous 80 years. Now the writers of Ring are reputed to know a thing or two about boxing.
Why not take rankings that were compiled in Ali's time or shortly after his finished his career, by people who had a better idea about him and his resume? 2002 and 2007 mean the historical revisionism has had a lot of time to do its work.

[cuchulain]

Why not take rankings that were compiled in Ali's time or shortly after his finished his career, by people who had a better idea about him and his resume? 2002 and 2007 mean the historical revisionism has had a lot of time to do its work.

What you're suggesting here would lend credence to the notion that my opinion is more valuable in this issue than yours since I was there, so to speak, and would have had a better idea about him, while you were not.

I alluded to that concept in an earlier post.

And any arguments about revisionism have even stronger counter-arguments against making judgments in the heat of the moment without sufficient time for sober reflection and perspective.

At any rate, taking a poll right after his retirement would not have made a whole lot of difference. I don't recall there being much argument at the time regarding Ali's overall position in the boxing firmament.

The more recent poll had Holmes Lennox, and Tyson (possibly Holyfield and Bowe too) to add to the mix and still, Ali kept his standing.

Ali/Clay was Ring's fighter of the year in 1963, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978.

That's FIVE times spanning 15 years (He was denied the honour for political reasons in 1966 when no award was given out). No othe fighter was ever so honoured by this esteemed publication, and these accolades were bestowed when Ali was still fighting (no revisionism there ! )

[Senya13]

You may have been there at the time, but your memory clearly fails you if you don't remember how little respect some of Ali's opponents had from experts, even by early 1980's. You don't check your memories against primary sources, and our memory fails us often about events that had taken place that far in the past. Give it another 10 years, and Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis, as well as some of their opponents will have their all-time status improved considerably too.

[cuchulain]

You may have been there at the time, but your memory clearly fails you if you don't remember how little respect some of Ali's opponents had from experts, even by early 1980's. You don't check your memories against primary sources,

I don't need to check against 'primary sources (this comment perfectly illustrates your fetish for 'research' and sources over actual life experience) as I AM one of my primary sources and not at an age where dementia has yet set in. Ali was considered at roughly the same position then a s now by the boxing establishment and boxing enthusiasts.

Again:

Ali/Clay was Ring's fighter of the year in 1963, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978.
Ring Magazine was a contemperory primary source.


.

[cuchulain]

You may have been there at the time, but your memory clearly fails you if you don't remember how little respect some of Ali's opponents had from experts, even by early 1980's. You don't check your memories against primary sources,

I don't need to check against 'primary' sources (this comment perfectly illustrates your fetish for 'research' and sources over actual life experience) and I AM one of my primary sources and not at an age where dementia has yet set in. Ali was considered at roughly the same position then as now by the boxing establishment and boxing enthusiasts.

Again:

Ali/Clay was Ring's fighter of the year in 1963, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978.

Ring Magazine was a contemperory primary source.


.

[Senya13]

You are not a primary source any longer. Check the definition of primary source - it's something that was done about the time the event took place, not something that is said or written long time after.

And you are again not reading what I said. I'm talking about Ali's opponents, not about Ali himself. Ali was a great fighter, I never expressed any doubts in that here.

And it's not about dementia or anything of that kind. If you studied psychology, you would know that human memory has certain mechanisms that affect our memories about the past.

[cuchulain]

You are not a primary source any longer. Check the definition of primary source - it's something that was done about the time the event took place, not something that is said or written long time after.


A primary source is very much like a witness, and if you are a primary source in relation to something, you are ALWAYS a primary source.

A Primary source is NOT something that was done. Rather, it is a person or thing to be consulted in regard to an event or events.

One who was present and followed the sport in general, and Ali's career in particular, IS a primary source regarding how Ali was viewed during his career. Primary means first hand, as opposed to secondary which means discovered the views or informatin from a secondary source such as reading about events much later.

And you are again not reading what I said. I'm talking about Ali's opponents, not about Ali himself. Ali was a great fighter, I never expressed any doubts in that here.

Au contraire, I am reading you clearly. You are now agreeing that Ali was a great fighter which is what the original post of stonehands stated.

He is a great fighter,

BECAUSE of how he measured up against the best heavywts of his lengthy era (proven fact as per the record)

and because he would have prevailed in the division in any part of the modern era (opinion, but opinion in which I have reasonable confidence)



Whatever your position has evolved to, your original posts conveyed the clear impression that Ali was hugely over-retaed and didn't merit his position near the pinnacle of heavyweight boxing.

[Senya13]

I again suggest you check the definition of primary source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). It's different from first-hand as you seem to view it.

Of course, I did agree that Ali was a great fighter. For example, my yesterday post:
Ali was a great fighter
What I'm argueing is that the heavyweight epoch in which he fought wasn't as great as many people here claim it to be.
I have Ali the 2nd best heavyweight of all time, behind only Lennox Lewis, as I wrote several times in threads where all-time ratings of heavyweights were being discussed.

[cuchulain]

I again suggest you check the definition of primary source ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). It's different from first-hand as you seem to view it.

According to Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English:

primary source

Definition:

an original fundamental and authoritative document pertaining to an event or subject of inquiry;

a firsthand or eyewitness account of an event.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the English language knows that a winess to an event is considered a primary source.[/COLOR]

Of course, I did agree that Ali was a great fighter. For example, my yesterday post:

What I'm argueing is that the heavyweight epoch in which he fought wasn't as great as many people here claim it to be.
I have Ali the 2nd best heavyweight of all time, behind only Lennox Lewis, as I wrote several times in threads where all-time ratings of heavyweights were being discussed.


So you say now. But initial reading of your first post in this thread gives no such indication. Indeed, quite the reverse. It paints a picture of a much over-rated champion in Ali and is littered with YOUR OWN PERSONAL estimations of fighters (which in some cases is right off the wall) rather than the more widely accepted opinions.

The sheer lack of logic in mentioning a Terrell vision problem which Ali inflicted on Terrell near the beginning part of the fight, , as an axcuse for Terrell's performance, is inane.

The general consensus among boxing historians does not support your position regarding the weakness the heavyweight division in in Ali's time.

[Senya13]

The definition in that dictionary you quoted is general, it is not specialized to historical research. As I mentioned, it is because of certain psychological mechanisms that affect our memories, distorting them with time. Account written at the time when the event had taken place is a LOT more reliable than account written on the same subject many years after.

My first post and all that followed only discussed Ali's opposition, none of them doubted Ali's greatness. If I wanted to say Ali was not great, I'd say so explicitly. The opinions I voiced in my posts were mostly shared by boxing writers at the time the fighters mentioned were still fighting or some time after. I previously quoted Ring magazine from May 1981, rating worst champions in history:

heavyweight:
John Tate (WBA, 1979-80 ) 19.5
Primo Carnera (1933-34 ) 14
Marvin Hart (1905-06 ) 8
Leon Spinks (1978 ) 8
Ken Norton (WBC, 1978 ) 4
Ingemar Johansson (1959-60 ) 3.5
Jimmy Ellis (WBA, 1968-70 ) 2
Ernie Terrell (WBA, 1965-67 ) 1
Jess Willard (1915-19 ) 1


My logic about Terrell fight was clear from the very beginning, Terrell was fighting one-eyed most rounds of the fight, and that didn't allow him to fight at his best, which degrades the significance of Ali's victory over him.

Consensus of today's historians means little in this situation due to historical revisionism, you have to quote opinions of contemporary historians of that epoch instead.

[dmt]

Ring Magazine has Norton up there which is pretty stupid, he was a good fighter

[ron u.k.]

You quoted my post that you were answering to. If you were actually answering to a different point, you would have never quoted the post about comparison of ten other great resumes with Ali's. You can try to cover up all you want now.i questioned your knowledge in regard to your post on ali,which i still rate as zero.the other names came up in a post after.do you still not get it?:roll:

[cuchulain]

The definition in that dictionary you quoted is general, it is not specialized to historical research.


It is an unqualified definition of a primary source in an authoratitive dictionary , more authoratative than wikipaedia (which you suggested I check).

Had I written down my impressions in a journal, that too would be a primary source.


Account written at the time when the event had taken place is a LOT more reliable than account written on the same subject many years after.

Sometimes, and sometimes not.

If we're talking about a traffic accident or a robbery, the closer to the event the accout is taken, generally the more reliable it is.

If we're talking about someone's body of work or accomplishment in a given field, generally some time must pass for perspective to be gained.

(Van Gogh was not much heralded during his lifetime. A century later, he has become a master.

Bizet's CARMEN was a flop when it first opened. A century later, it's regarded as a masterpiece.

Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin will probably be more reliably judged in the historical context, some years from now, rather than when they lived.

A boxer's career is closer to being part of my second set of examples than to being like a single event; and so time passage generally provides a better and more balanced view.


You have dodged and avoided my questions up to this point and dragged in points of semantics (dangerous for you, if, as you claim, English is your second language and you're arguing with an academic whose first language IS English).

Please respond:

Do you believe that George Foreman should never have gotten his title shot against Frazier?

Do you believe that prime Roy Jones would have beaten prime Ali?


My first post and all that followed only discussed Ali's opposition, none of them doubted Ali's greatness. If I wanted to say Ali was not great, I'd say so explicitly. The opinions I voiced in my posts were mostly shared by boxing writers at the time the fighters mentioned were still fighting or some time after

No. That is simply not the case.

Liston, Frazier and Foreman were ALWAYS considered formidable opponents for Ali. That was the consensus of boxing writers BEFORE the fights, SHORTLT AFTER the fights and TODAY.

Other opponents, while not as formidable as the aforementioned three, were still considered good opposition, then and now.


As I've already mentioned Ali/Clay was Ring's fighter of the year in 1963, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978.

In addition, he was in Ring's six Fight of the Year six times: Doug Jones, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier (twice), George Foreman and Leon Spinks.

When a fighter has that record, it points not only to his greatness but ALSO to some great opponents.




My logic about Terrell fight was clear from the very beginning, Terrell was fighting one-eyed most rounds of the fight, and that didn't allow him to fight at his best, which degrades the significance of Ali's victory over him.


You STILL don't grasp the irony (unintended, I'm sure) of your position here. The reason he was nearly one-eyed for most of the fight is that his opponent, Ali, inflicted that damage on him at the beginning of the fight.

If a boxer breaks another boxer's ribs with a body shot early on, and goes on to a dominant win, it is laughable to detract from his victory by saying: "But so-and-so had to fight with broken ribs and therefore wasn't his best."

Let me add this extension of your point, all the way to it's logical conclusion.

If a fighter, say Tyson , inflicts damage, say unconsciousness, on an opponent, say Spinks, in the first round, no-one (but you, perhaps) would argue that Tyson's victory is lessened because Spinks was unconscious from the middle of the first round, and was therefore without his eyesight (both eyes !) his hearing, his sense of smell, taste and touch.

If you can't grasp this point, which is so elementary, I'm afraid you don't belong in any kind of exchange or dialogue that requires reasoning or logic of any sort.





Consensus of today's historians means little in this situation due to historical revisionism,

You have failed to show evidence of this phantom revisionism

you have to quote opinions of contemporary historians of that epoch instead.
I've dealt with that at, at length



.

[My dinner with Conteh]

My logic about Terrell fight was clear from the very beginning, Terrell was fighting one-eyed most rounds of the fight, and that didn't allow him to fight at his best, which degrades the significance of Ali's victory over him.


:lol: :lol:




:dead

[JohnThomas1]

:lol: :lol:




:dead

Terrell was in a narrow frame of mind that fight

:lol:

[cuchulain]

Excuse me

Can somebody break down, Muhammad Ali's legacy for me. His best achievements, and why he is the greatest Heavyweight of all-time. I want to become more educated on the actual ring achievments and how they ranked against other great heavyweights.

Also i would appreciate if somebody could break down the achievements/legacy of Roy Jones Junior.

Thank You Very Much.

Mr. Kool, this is a busy time at work and a chunk of my time on here has been consumed by Mr. Senya. (You can see the results if you've followed the thread.)

You also asked about Roy Jones jnr.

Senya's estimation of Roy's greatness is almost on a par with his denigration of Ali's. (It's not easy to overstate Roy's position, but he occasionally (frequently?) does).

Roy is quite simply, the most-naturally talented boxer of his era. ( With the exception of Sugar Ray Robinson, I would argue any era, but that might be a bit much)

He had great athleticism, speed and reflexes which allowed him to ignore some of the fundamentals of the sport and get away with it. (Ali did the same thing).

He was as invincible during his peak as any othe rboxer could ever claim to be. He began in the amateurs and was ROBBED (little debate on that) of a gold medal in Seoul in 1988.

After turning pro, he went undefeated in the middlewt division until inflicting on Bernard Hopkins (a future Hall of famer), his first defeat at that weight and captured the title.

He moved up to 168 and remained undefeated. His notable wins there included James Toney ( a man who is occassionally somewhat over-rated nowadays, but who was at the time a superb boxer with great defensive movement and skills). He totally outclassed Toney, scoring a knockdown, and won by a wide margin.

He moved to 175 and remained undefeated there to, capturing most of the belts there too .

(Note: He was disqualified in his bout with Montel Griffin when he followed up a little aggressively on Griffin after knocking him down. Technically, this counts as a loss, but in most eyes, he was still 'undefeated')

The one name dug up to denigrate his light-heavy career is Dariusz Michalczewski, whom many claim he ducked. (It was no more Roy's fault than Dariusz's that the fight never happened and Roy would most likely have won it anyway. Roy virtually shut out Gonzalez, who defeated Dariusz a couple of years later).

During all this time, he not only won, but utterly dominated his opposition, losing very few rounds. He demonstrated one-punch KO power on more than one occasion, and generally made contenders look foolish in the ring.

In 2003, he moved up to heavyweight and defeated John Ruiz for a piece of the title.

To put this into perspective, Ruiz, often pooh-poohed for his boring style, has victories over heavywt champions Evander Holyfield, Kirk Johnson and Hassim Rahman, as well as ranked contenders Andrew Golota and Fres Oquendo.
He outweighed Roy by 33 lbs and Roy was another 33 lbs above where he began his pro career. The fight was competitive, but not close. Roy became the first middlewt in a century to capture the WBA heavywt title.

This was probably his crowning achievement and would have been a good spot to retire. He would have been (for practical purposes) undefeated in 48 fights, would have been the champion at 160, 168, 175 and heavyweight, and his legacy would have been truly astounding.

However, he was goaded by Antonio Tarver ( a good but unexceptional fighter) into dropping back to 175 and fighting for a lightheavywt title again. This he did successfully, winning the decision, but it was close. (one judge had it a draw.)

(Even this would have been a good spot to hang them up.)

At 35, he decided to give Tarver a rematch and was TKO'd by a devastating left hook in the second round. A comeback attempt some months later resulted in another devastating KO to another good, but unexceptional boxer, Glen Johnson.

Most observers considered him 'shot' by this stage. ( He still plans a comeback).

What is his legacy?

That is much debated on account of the many detractors who criticized him all the way through his career despite his unrivalled accomplishments.

Personally, I put much greater emphasis on his 15 year career that took him up to 2004. The level of accomplishment there is truly formidable.

But people usually remember your last performance, something Marciano was aware of.

IMO, he was an ATG. He will be a sure bet for the hall of fame and he was the most talented boxer of his generation, including Floyd Mayweather.

(He would not, however, have stood any serious chance against a prime Ali, nor should he be expected to.)

[Senya13]

It is an unqualified definition of a primary source in an authoratitive dictionary , more authoratative than wikipaedia (which you suggested I check).
The wikipedia quotes the definition of primary source from a book on historical method, which is a specialized literature on the science of historiography. Specialized literature is more authorative source than general dictionaries. I provided a link in the historian tool's thread to several books on historiography, you can check them if you are not satisfied with wikipedia link.

Van Gogh was not much heralded during his lifetime. A century later, he has become a master.
This is a completely different thing. Antiquities, art, fashion, they are judged by different rules.

A boxer's career is closer to being part of my second set of examples than to being like a single event; and so time passage generally provides a better and more balanced view.
Yes, but what makes us change our opinion about an epoch that was considered rather mediocre in its own time to Golden Age of heavyweights all a sudden? Nostalgia. It's a distorted view, basically. If a fighter is really that good, he'll be praised in his own time (as is the case with Liston, Ali, Frazier or even Foreman for a short time). If the rest are considered mediocrities by their contemporaries, that means they are not that special from a broader historical point of view either.

You have dodged and avoided my questions up to this point and dragged in points of semantics (dangerous for you, if, as you claim, English is your second language and you're arguing with an academic whose first language IS English).
You are argueing with a person who's hobbies for many years have been theory of knowledge, theory of argumentation and psychology, I've read a lot of specialized literature on these subjects, so I know what I'm talking about regardless of my first language.

Do you believe that George Foreman should never have gotten his title shot against Frazier?
His ranking at the time he got a shot was not fully deserved.

Do you believe that prime Roy Jones would have beaten prime Ali?
Irrelevant question.

Liston, Frazier and Foreman were ALWAYS considered formidable opponents for Ali. That was the consensus of boxing writers BEFORE the fights, SHORTLT AFTER the fights and TODAY.
I didn't argue with that.

Other opponents, while not as formidable as the aforementioned three, were still considered good opposition, then and now.
The view on them has changed significantly. No contemporary experts were calling that heavyweight division a Golden Age of heavyweights, as far as I know, nobody praised Norton or Quarry as some special fighters, for example, they were considered journeymen basically (except if you listen to totally stupid claim of George Foreman about Quarry).

When a fighter has that record, it points not only to his greatness but ALSO to some great opponents.
The only reason of that is because he was special in grabbing everyone's attention AND because he was a heavyweight. Heavyweights are often judged by different set of rules, than the rest of weight divisions. Doug Jones, Sonny Liston, Leon Spinks fights were nothing special by what was happening in the ring.

You STILL don't grasp the irony (unintended, I'm sure) of your position here. The reason he was nearly one-eyed for most of the fight is that his opponent, Ali, inflicted that damage on him at the beginning of the fight.
It was an accidental injury. Which did not allow one of the fighters fight on the best of his abilities. It took away Terrell's best weapon (jab). There's a difference between scoring a clear victory over healthy opponent, and scoring a victory over injured (accidental injury that is) opponent, the first is a more significant achievement than the second.
To draw an analogy you will understand better, a victory over prime fighter at the best of his abilities is a more significant achievement than a victory over green or past his prime fighter. Frazier's win over Ali was a more significant achievement than Holmes victory over Ali, for example.
You analogy with Tyson-Spinks is invalid, because that would not be something extremely rare, as that eye injury. What's the frequency of a fighter getting his facial bone broken and thus losing vision in one eye for the rest of the fight? It is extremely low. I.e. it's a very rare accident that didn't allow one fighter fight on the level. A fighter knocking an opponent unconscious and thus not allowing him to fight on the level, is a very frequent thing, not an accident.

I've dealt with that at, at length
You haven't quoted a single expert from 1960's or 1970's who praised Ali's opponents whom I criticized.

[rydersonthestorm]

In regards to the roy jones legacy i only really count upto 2004 as he was obviously past it when he lost to tarver and jonson. Also he didn't inflict hopkins first loss but his second as he lost in his first fight.

[cuchulain]

In regards to the roy jones legacy i only really count upto 2004 as he was obviously past it when he lost to tarver and jonson. Also he didn't inflict hopkins first loss but his second as he lost in his first fight.


"...inflicting on Bernard Hopkins (a future Hall of famer), his first defeat at that weight and captured the title."


That was Bernard's first loss at 160. He lost his first pro fight at 175.

[rydersonthestorm]

Sorry didn't read that properly so good points about jones though, a great fighter who gets somewhat underated by many now.

[cuchulain]

Sorry didn't read that properly so good points about jones though, a great fighter who gets somewhat underated by many now.

He was one of a kind !

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ali/Clay was Ring's fighter of the year in 1963, 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978.



How Clay won in 1963 and 1978 is beyond me. In the former, he received a razor-thin duke over Doug Jones and knocked down by Cooper and in the latter he won and long against a geezer with 8 fights. Ridiculous, arse-licking of the highest order. Lucky The Ring didn't judge in Jesus Christ's time, they'd have probably awarded Judas Iscariot 'Apostle of The Year' AD 30-33.

[dmt]

How Clay won in 1963 and 1978 is beyond me. In the former, he received a razor-thin duke over Doug Jones and knocked down by Cooper and in the latter he won and long against a geezer with 8 fights. Ridiculous, arse-licking of the highest order. Lucky The Ring didn't judge in Jesus Christ's time, they'd have probably awarded Judas Iscariot 'Apostle of The Year' AD 30-33.yeah the 78 award was rubbish. And i like Ali, he was an amazing fighter but no way he deserved to win in 78.

[cuchulain]

.

[MJRJJ23]

Excuse me

Can somebody break down, Muhammad Ali's legacy for me. His best achievements, and why he is the greatest Heavyweight of all-time. I want to become more educated on the actual ring achievments and how they ranked against other great heavyweights.

Also i would appreciate if somebody could break down the achievements/legacy of Roy Jones Junior.

Thank You Very Much.

The bottom line is you'll never ever get to see any other fighters like these two again. Ali was as much as a legend outside the ring as he was inside the ring. Ali done things at heavyweight that heavyweights weren't supposed to do, beat alot of great boxers and was probably the smartest boxer to ever live. just stayed around to long.

Jones Jr. is probably the most physically gifted Boxer you will ever see. First boxer in over 100 years to win a heavyweight title starting his career as a middleweight. Jones went a decade and absolutely without question dominated probably losing 50 or so rounds in around 40 fights While Jones don;t have the Huge names on his list as Ali he does have 2 ATG's and few other HOF's. Jones resume is not nearly as bad as others say. For personal curiousity I done some statistics of Jones and outa of Jones, Hearns, Hagler, and ray Leonard. At the time of the fight Jones opponents had the highest winning percentage.

[Blacc Jesus]

It is staggering how much crap that idiot talks, it really is. I seldom click on a thread when I see his name.
Agreed.

[cuchulain]

It is an unqualified definition of a primary source in an authoratitive dictionary , more so than wikipaedia (which you suggested I check).

The wikipedia quotes the definition of primary source from a book on historical method, which is a specialized literature on the science of historiography. Specialized literature is more authorative ( no such word. The word you seek is authoritative) source than general dictionaries. I provided a link in the historian tool's thread to several books on historiography, you can check them if you are not satisfied with wikipedia link.

No Need. I am as aware of what constitutes a primary source as you seem to be unaware. A witness to an event or era is a primary source. Period !



Van Gogh was not much heralded during his lifetime. A century later, he has become a master.

This is a completely different thing. Antiquities, art, fashion, they are judged by different rules.

Every time you get cornered, be it on a definition or an illustrative example, you try to change the terms or deny the parallelism of the example. The point I was making here is that in making merit judgments on a body of work or an era, some time passage often provides greater perspective. Obviously, different enterprises and activities are judged by different rules, but the principle I outlined still remains true.



A boxer's career is closer to being part of my second set of examples than to being like a single event; so time passage generally provides a better and more balanced view.

Yes, but what makes us change our opinion about an epoch that was considered rather mediocre in its own time to Golden Age of heavyweights all a sudden? Nostalgia.

In the matter under discussion, there was no sudden change of opinion by those present. This is an illusion, existing mainly in your mind. Ali's opponents were considered strong to varying degress, at the time, and ever since.


It's a distorted view, basically. If a fighter is really that good, he'll be praised in his own time (as is the case with Liston, Ali, Frazier or even Foreman for a short time). Here, you make some concession to the obvious. Earlier you refused to concede even this much.


If the rest are considered mediocrities by their contemporaries, that means they are not that special from a broader historical point of view either.

The rest (Terell, Quary, Foley etc.) were, for the most part considered deserving contenders (admittedly less so that Liston, Frazier and Foreman) by their contemporaries.




You have dodged and avoided my questions up to this point and dragged in points of semantics (dangerous for you, if, as you claim, English is your second language and you're arguing with an academic whose first language IS English).

You are argueing (that's ARGUING )with a person who's ( that's WHOSE)hobbies for many years have been theory of knowledge, theory of argumentation and psychology, I've read a lot of specialized literature on these subjects, so I know what I'm talking about regardless of my first language.

You may know something about these subjects, but in this thread you have failed to demonstrate much acumen in their APPLIED PRACTICE. My points regarding your first language are twofold:

(i) You have demonstrated lack of, or narrowly limited comprehension of terms you've introduced.

(ii) Last time we debated (re: MAyweather and Duran) you bowed out of the argument after stating that you were not expressing yourself properly on account of English not being your first language.



Do you believe that George Foreman should never have gotten his title shot against Frazier?

His ranking at the time he got a shot was not fully deserved.

Again, a retreat from earlier posts where you stated flatly that he should not have been given a title shot against Frazier (despite being an Olympic gold medal holder at heavywt, and having a record of 310-0, with over 90% KO record, and being Frazier's choice for title defence)




Do you believe that prime Roy Jones would have beaten prime Ali?

Irrelevant question.

Again, you duck the question, despite making that rather farfetched assertion in other posts. It's purpose was to demonstrate your overall judgment in the sport.



Liston, Frazier and Foreman were ALWAYS considered formidable opponents for Ali. That was the consensus of boxing writers BEFORE the fights, SHORTLT AFTER the fights and TODAY.

I didn't argue with that.

Yes you did:


"...even the quality opponents he beat were past their prime."

"Foreman had a grat potential, but had no significant achievements outside of Frazier win."

"Frazier was shot, and more so than Ali himself, based on their performances at the time."


These statements are definitely not in accord with the statement you claimed to have never disputed.



Other opponents, while not as formidable as the aforementioned three, were still considered good opposition, then and now.

The view on them has changed significantly. No contemporary experts were calling that heavyweight division a Golden Age of heavyweights, as far as I know, nobody praised Norton or Quarry as some special fighters, for example, they were considered journeymen basically (except if you listen to totally stupid claim of George Foreman about Quarry).

Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977

Ken Norton is a hall of fame inductee.

Ten years ago, Ring Magazine ranke Norton the # 22 all time heavyweight boxer.


Jerry Quarry is also a hall of fame inductee and was a ranked contender in the 60's and 70's.




When a fighter has that record, it points not only to his greatness but ALSO to some great opponents.

The only reason of that is because he was special in grabbing everyone's attention.

So YOU say. That is not the general consensus, and is an insult to Ring Magazine.

AND because he was a heavyweight. Heavyweights are often judged by different set of rules, than the rest of weight divisions.


I've already explained that the heavywt division is the marquee division . The mere existence of other divisions is a concession to smaller men. In addition, the heavywt division IS different. One does not expect the same speed and agility and one does expect more power.


Doug Jones, Sonny Liston, Leon Spinks fights were nothing special by what was happening in the ring.

That was not the opinion of the experts at the time, especially the writers at Ring.



You STILL don't grasp the irony (unintended, I'm sure) of your position here. The reason he was nearly one-eyed for most of the fight is that his opponent, Ali, inflicted that damage on him at the beginning of the fight.

It was an accidental injury. Which did not allow one of the fighters fight on the best of his abilities. It took away Terrell's best weapon (jab). There's a difference between scoring a clear victory over healthy opponent, and scoring a victory over injured (accidental injury that is) opponent, the first is a more significant achievement than the second.

If Terrell was healthy at the beginning of the fight, and was injured by a legeal blow from Ali, that is not an accidental injury, that is PART of the fight.

To draw an analogy you will understand better, a victory over prime fighter at the best of his abilities is a more significant achievement than a victory over green or past his prime fighter. Frazier's win over Ali was a more significant achievement than Holmes victory over Ali, for example.

No, this is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a parallel analogy, (and you presenting it as such calls your reasoning skills into serious question).

Frazier's win over Ali was a more significant achievement than Holmes victory over Ali, because TIME, not anything Holmes did in his fight, but rather TIME, made Ali a weaker opponent.

You analogy with Tyson-Spinks is invalid, because that would not be something extremely rare, as that eye injury.

Rarity has nothing to do with this. The CAUSE of the opponent's problem is what is salient here. In Spink's case, it was blows from Tyson, just as in Terrell's case, it was blows from Ali. In both cases, the winner was trying to inflict damage on the loser and there was nothing accidental about it.

What's the frequency of a fighter getting his facial bone broken and thus losing vision in one eye for the rest of the fight? It is extremely low. I.e. it's a very rare accident that didn't allow one fighter fight on the level. A fighter knocking an opponent unconscious and thus not allowing him to fight on the level, is a very frequent thing, not an accident.

As I pointed out, frequency is irrelevant, it is the cause of the handicap that is germane here.



I've dealt with that at, at length

You haven't quoted a single expert from 1960's or 1970's who praised Ali's opponents whom I criticized.

How about:

Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977" ( This is a collection of experts' opinions) .

[Senya13]

No Need. I am as aware of what constitutes a primary source as you seem to be unaware. A witness to an event or era is a primary source. Period !
When we are discussing significance and type of historical sources, we should use historical standards and terminology. It has prevalence over general sources.

Obviously, different enterprises and activities are judged by different rules, but the principle I outlined still remains true.
The principles of how art (fashion, antiquities) is judged are very much different than in sporting. Bad analogy.

In the matter under discussion, there was no sudden change of opinion by those present. This is an illusion, existing mainly in your mind. Ali's opponents were considered strong to varying degress, at the time, and ever since.
First, you have answered to a different point than what I said. "Considered strong to varying degrees" is different from an epoch being called the golden age of heavyweights, which I was talking about in the passage you quoted. Second, you have answered in very broad and fuzzy terms here that can mean anything, from "strong tomato can" to "strong ATG".

Here, you make some concession to the obvious. Earlier you refused to concede even this much.
I was consistent from the very beginning, that Ali himself, and Liston, Frazier and Foreman were special fighters, compared to the rest. I never conceded anything on this point, because there was no need to. I admitted the obvious from the very beginning and has kept it that way for the whole time.

The rest (Terell, Quary, Foley etc.) were, for the most part considered deserving contenders (admittedly less so that Liston, Frazier and Foreman) by their contemporaries.
Again, fuzzy terms "for the most part" and "deserving contenders". You are avoiding any specifics here, not offering any actual points on the matter.

You may know something about these subjects, but in this thread you have failed to demonstrate much acumen in their APPLIED PRACTICE. My points regarding your first language are twofold:
In this thread I've been consistent with the points I expressed (keeping the context intact), I've spoken almost exclusively on the matter and not on personal qualities of my opponents, I've been preserving the relevancy of discussion (not letting it slip away to other subjects than the original ones), I haven't used any dishonest methods of discussion.


(i) You have demonstrated lack of, or narrowly limited comprehension of terms you've introduced.
Such as?

(ii) Last time we debated (re: MAyweather and Duran) you bowed out of the argument after stating that you were not expressing yourself properly on account of English not being your first language.
Link, please? I'm usually not noting the names of persons I debated to, and this debate you talking about, probably happened a while ago?

Again, a retreat from earlier posts where you stated flatly that he should not have been given a title shot against Frazier
Where did I say that and flatly? I've looked at all of my posts in this thread, and didn't find anything like that.

Again, you duck the question, despite making that rather farfetched assertion in other posts. It's purpose was to demonstrate your overall judgment in the sport.
I'm not ducking anything, I'm preserving the relevancy of discussion. Argument about Jones will move us away from discussion of Ali's opposition. Sticking to relevant points is the proper way of argumentation in debate.

Yes you did:
These statements are definitely not in accord with the statement you claimed to have never disputed.
Beating a fighter with great potential (even with not so many significant achievements) clearly implies formidable opponent.
Tha Frazier quote refered to the 3rd fight between them, not to Frazier in general. For the 3rd fight Frazier was shot, not just my view, but the view of many contemporary writers from that time.
I see no discrepancy between my statements and my denial of having argued with the statement I quoted in that post.

Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977
He was also listed among the worst world champions of all time by several Ring magazine's experts in 1981.

Ken Norton is a hall of fame inductee.
IBHOF has put up rather low standard for induction of fighters, according to oponion of a lot of today's boxing fans and experts.


Ten years ago, Ring Magazine ranke Norton the # 22 all time heavyweight boxer.
Ten years ago is a long time after Norton finished his career, for historical revisionism to do its work. Quote more contemporary sources instead.

Jerry Quarry is also a hall of fame inductee and was a ranked contender in the 60's and 70's.
Which hall of fame are you talking about here? Quarry is not in IBHOF, thankfully. Being a ranked contender doesn't mean much. Journeymen often become ranked contenders, the guys who are good at their profession, but who almost always fall short against the best fighters of their time.

So YOU say. That is not the general consensus, and is an insult to Ring Magazine.
That's what he was known for, for grabbing everyone's attention. Take that away and his all-time status would fade somewhat.

I've already explained that the heavywt division is the marquee division .
And I already explained, that compared to some fighters from lower weights Ali is not that special, same as his opponents. As an example of specialness of heavyweights, one just has to look at how few world heavyweight champions are not in IBHOF, compared to other weight divisions.
We disagree on our views at specialness of heavyweight division, ok then. It's a subjective thing.

That was not the opinion of the experts at the time, especially the writers at Ring.
Compared to most other fights of the year these fights lacked some exciting action or drama.

If Terrell was healthy at the beginning of the fight, and was injured by a legeal blow from Ali, that is not an accidental injury, that is PART of the fight.
As I said, you'll be hard pressed to find many more examples when a fighter gets his facial bone broken by a punch. That's why I consider it absolutely proper to call it an accident, something that happens only once in tens of thousands of fights.

No, this is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a parallel analogy, (and you presenting it as such calls your reasoning skills into serious question).
This is a proper analogy that compares a win over a fighter at the best or near best of his abilities to a win over a fighter who's not at his best. Terrell was not at his best most rounds of the fight, his performance was very heavily affected by that injury.

Definition of accident - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
2 b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious

How about:

Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977" ( This is a collection of experts' opinions)
That's an award you receive for an achievement in that year, it's not an evaluation of strength of that fighter. As an example, I can quote you several "fighter of the month" awards from the Ring magazine, where those fighters are not even heard anymore, because they weren't anything special all-time-wise.

[cuchulain]

[QUOTE=Senya13]
When we are discussing significance and type of historical sources, we should use historical standards and terminology. It has prevalence over general sources.


It is in no way debatable that one who lived through an era is not a primary source for the events and the zeitgeist of that era.





The principles of how art (fashion, antiquities) is judged are very much different than in sporting. Bad analogy.

We're not talking about the principles of how art (I never cited fashion) is judged. rather we are talking about the principle tahat time usually provides perspective on a body of work or an era, regardless of the nature of the enterprise. Hence the expression, letting history be the judge.


In the matter under discussion, there was no sudden change of opinion by those present. This is an illusion, existing mainly in your mind. Ali's opponents were considered strong to varying degress, at the time, and ever since.

First, you have answered to a different point than what I said.

No. That's not the case. You asked:

what makes us change our opinion about an epoch that was considered rather mediocre in its own time to Golden Age of heavyweights all a sudden?

I pointed out the sudden change of opinion you asked about never took place, other than in your mind.


"Considered strong to varying degrees" is different from an epoch being called the golden age of heavyweights, which I was talking about in the passage you quoted.

Second, you have answered in very broad and fuzzy terms here that can mean anything, from "strong tomato can" to "strong ATG".

Again, no. Strong to varying degrees means exactly waht it says. Strong. Obviously some are stronger than others.

(Churchill, Einstein and Picasso are accomplished to varying degrees. But they're ALL accomplished)


I was consistent from the very beginning, that Ali himself, and Liston, Frazier and Foreman were special fighters, compared to the rest. I never conceded anything on this point, because there was no need to. I admitted the obvious from the very beginning and has kept it that way for the whole time.

The rest (Terell, Quary, Foley etc.) were, for the most part considered deserving contenders (admittedly less so that Liston, Frazier and Foreman) by their contemporaries.

Again, fuzzy terms "for the most part" and "deserving contenders". You are avoiding any specifics here, not offering any actual points on the matter.

Utter nonesense. When I talk about the rest of his opponents (Those other than Liston, Frazier and Foreman), I say 'for the most part' to indicate a mjority, but not all of them. Nothing fuzzy about that. (Meaning guys like Norton, Quarry, Terrell, as opposed to Evangelista, Dunn and Lewis. )






In this thread I've been consistent with the points I expressed (keeping the context intact), I've spoken almost exclusively on the matter and not on personal qualities of my opponents, I've been preserving the relevancy of discussion (not letting it slip away to other subjects than the original ones), I haven't used any dishonest methods of discussion.[/COLOR]

(i) You have demonstrated lack of, or narrowly limited comprehension of terms you've introduced.
Such as?

primary source

(ii) Last time we debated (re: MAyweather and Duran) you bowed out of the argument after stating that you were not expressing yourself properly on account of English not being your first language.
Link, please? I'm usually not noting the names of persons I debated to, and this debate you talking about, probably happened a while ago?

The ESB server crashed in June, so a link is not possible. The discussion we had concerned Mayweather, Duran and Leonard (among others and was between Jan 06 and Jan 13 of this year (My first week on this forum).



Again, a retreat from earlier posts where you stated flatly that he should not have been given a title shot against FrazierWhere did I say that and flatly? I've looked at all of my posts in this thread, and didn't find anything like that.

You didn't say it in this thread. It was some months ago. The dbase only goes back 500 posts.

Again, you duck the question, despite making that rather farfetched assertion in other posts. It's purpose was to demonstrate your overall judgment in the sport.
I'm not ducking anything, I'm preserving the relevancy of discussion. Argument about Jones will move us away from discussion of Ali's opposition. Sticking only to relevant points is the proper way of argumentation in debate.

Your overall quality of judgment is relevant in that it informs the present discussion to the degree that your judgment can be trusted.

You must be well aware that you at least once picked Roy over Ali on this forum. Perhaps you now find the recollection embarrasing.



Beating a fighter with great potential (even with not so many significant achievements) clearly implies formidable opponent.

Yet you stated (in this thread):

[COLOR="Magenta"]His opposition was mediocre or plain bad most of the time (some of his title defenses were against tomato cans), and even the quality opponents he beat were past their prime.


You are NOW saying that Foreman was formidable. Yet in the quote above you say that the quality opponents he beat were past their prime.


Tha Frazier quote refered to the 3rd fight between them, not to Frazier in general. For the 3rd fight Frazier was shot, not just my view, but the view of many contemporary writers from that time.

Again wrong.

As with Foreman in 1974 (and Liston in 1964), Frazier was pretty shot after, and as a result of, his bout with Ali in Manilla. At the time, no-one was calling any of the three shot GOING INTO THEIR FIGHTS. The famous quote re: Liston was (paraphrasing) that he grew old suddenly in the ring.


I see no discrepancy between my statements and my denial of having argued with the statement I quoted in that post.

I have just laid out the discrepencies for you.

[cuchulain]

continued from post #99


Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977

He was also listed among the worst world champions of all time by several Ring magazine's experts in 1981.

No contradiction here. Champions (at least then, before we got four governing bodies) were few and far between. One could be a good boxer
( e.g. fighter of the year) and not be a great champion. One standard measured fighters in general over a year and the other measured champions over all time.

That you would attempt to counter point with this shows either poor reasoning or dishonesty.


Ken Norton is a hall of fame inductee.
IBHOF has put up rather low standard for induction of fighters, according to oponion of a lot of today's boxing fans and experts.

Now you're shifting from your beloved standards of the era to today's opinions. More intellectual dishonesty !

Ten years ago, Ring Magazine ranke Norton the # 22 all time heavyweight boxer.
Ten years ago is a long time after Norton finished his career, for historical revisionism to do its work. Quote more contemporary sources instead.

And now you've once again flipped back to wanting contemporary sources.
Do you not see the sheer hypocricy of your ever-changing standards, even within the same post?



It usually means you're seen as one of the ten best opponents for the champion.



So YOU say. That is not the general consensus, and is an insult to Ring Magazine.

That's what he was known for, for grabbing everyone's attention. Take that away and his all-time status would fade somewhat.

Now you're grasping. Either Ring is authoritative or it isn't. This is another example of being so when it suits your argument and not so when it doesn't.

I've already explained that the heavywt division is the marquee division .

And I already explained, that compared to some fighters from lower weights Ali is not that special, same as his opponents. As an example of specialness of heavyweight opponent, one just has to look at how few world heavyweight champions are not in there, compared to other weight divisions.
We disagree on our views at specialness of heavyweight division, ok then. It's a subjective thing.

But without the concession of arbitrary weight divisions, none of the little fellas would be in there at all. We'll leave that one.



That was not the opinion of the experts at the time, especially the writers at Ring.

Compared to most other fights of the year these fights lacked some exciting action or drama.

Not according to many fans I know, and many writers, including those of Ring.

If Terrell was healthy at the beginning of the fight, and was injured by a legeal blow from Ali, that is not an accidental injury, that is PART of the fight.
As I said, you'll be hard pressed to find many more examples when a fighter gets his facial bone broken by a punch. That's why I consider it absolutely proper to call it an accident, something that happens only once in tens of thousands of fights.

And as I said, that is irrelevant. He entered the fight healthy and Ali rendered him unhealthy by way of combat. That is part of the sport and its spurious to suggest that this renders the victory tainted.

This truly illustrates serious logical deficiencies in your thinking.

No, this is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a parallel analogy, (and you presenting it as such calls your reasoning skills into serious question).
[COLOR=#ffffcc]

This is a proper analogy that compares a win over a fighter at the best or near best of his abilities to a win over a fighter who's not at his best. Terrell was not at his best most rounds of the fight, his performance was very heavily affected by that injury.

You still don't get it. The analogy is totally inappropriate in that in one case, the victor RENDERED the victim handicapped by delivering lawful offence to him within the rules of boxing, whereas in the other case, the victim entered the ring handicapped by the ravages of time.

All your reading on argumentation seems to have been for naught.

(Reading your responses, I starting to conclude that you've not studied 'argumentation' but rather argumentativeness'. )

Definition of accident - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
2 b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious

Irrelevant (and humorous really). During the course of a fight, one boxer tries to inflict pressure, pain, damage and injury as means to victory. Regardless of the specificity of intention, none of the resulting damage can be considered accidental.

How about:

Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977" ( This is a collection of experts' opinions)
That's an award you receive for an achievement in that year, it's not an evaluation of strength of that fighter.

It is contemporary measure of the Magazine's esteem of the fighter for taht year.

[/QUOTE]

To summarize:

You have introduced terms and refused to accept their authentic meaning (primary source.)

You have gradually shifted from your original position incrementally while denying that you are doing so.

You have called for specific examples and when provided with such, have (without evidence other than opinion) pooh-poohed the citations with unsupported statements regarding the judgment of the sources, contemporary and modern.

You have flip-flopped between the utility of contemporary and modern sources (several times!)

You have refused to acknowledge things you said in previous threads.

Every time you are refuted, you resort to argumentativeness rather than argumentation.

You have copious smmounts of data at your disposal. Your problem is not lack of boxing knowledge. Rather, it is lack of ability to make cogent and logical conclusions and inferences from the facts of record.

Your reasoning is quite weak (as evidenced by your failure to grasp your error regarding the Terrell fight.)

And finally you have demonstrated intellectuall dishonesty on several occasions.

Ali was a great champion who fought the best opposition available to him, opposition that was acknowledged as formidable both then and now.

I must cease wasting time on one who clearly relishes the argument more than the subject matter.

Regards.

[Senya13]

This is getting really tiresome and time consuming with such long posts. So I'll skip some points.
1) From a historian's point of view primary source is what I said. The sources that were written at the time of the event are usually more factual and error-proof, later sources are more subjective.
2) There's a contradiction when you say "time usually provides perspective" and "sudden change of opinion happened only in your mind". I ask again, quote me some contemporary sources from that time that claimed that epoch to be special, or, especially, "Golden Age of heavyweights".
3) Theory of argumentation teaches the proper and honest way to debate things is to address the points expressed by your opponent, not the opponent himself.
4) "Most of the time" and "quality opponents were past their prime" in the same statement are connected. If you misunderstood that, I'm sorry for not wording it properly the first time, I clarified what I meant in my consequent posts.
5) Frazier was considered a shot fighter prior to his rubber with Ali, by contemporary writers. Do you dispute this?
6) A fighter of the year (or month) award is not an award that evaluates the placement of a fighter in history, or even his career as a whole. Thus it should not be used as a proof that a fighter was overall considered something special, high quality fighter/opponent.
7) I cannot quote you opinions dated 1992 when Norton was inducted into IBHOF, so that I can only quote a tendency that has been noticed by a lot of people in the recent years, about IBHOF turning into literally what it says - 'hall of fame', not 'hall of quality fighters'. The standards applied now hardly have changed, as can be seen from some of the earlier inductees from that time: Gene Fullmer (1991), Rocky Graziano (1991), Billy Graham (1992), Carmen Basilio (1990), Beau Jack (1991), Max Schemling (1992), Tony Zale (1991), Fritzie Zivic (1993).
8) Ring's magazine being an authoritative source has nothing to do with a tendency (that goes back to bareknuckles epoch) to pay more attention to charismatic persons in general and to heavyweights in particular (if you look at that statement which you quoted, I intentionally capitalized word 'AND' there).
9) I'd like to see some ratings of writers or fans who have the aforementioned three fights in Top 35 (considering there are 67 fights of the year in total so far) for excitement and drama of the action in the ring.
10) It's a terminology thing with Terrell's fight, and the definitions I quoted from a dictionary are not humorous. But I'll leave it at that.
11) Boxing writers of America is not a magazine. But in any case, a fighter of the year award is not a sign of strong all-time fighter, it's merely a tribute to something a fighter has done in that year.

[My dinner with Conteh]

This is getting really tiresome.

You don't say. :roll:


5) Frazier was considered a shot fighter prior to his rubber with Ali, by contemporary writers. Do you dispute this?[/quote]


I do. So much in fact that Boxing News predicted a Frazier points win. :good

[Senya13]

One doesn't exclude the other, you don't think, when both fighters are considered shot?

[My dinner with Conteh]

One doesn't exclude the other, you don't think, when both fighters are considered shot?


I don't think Ali was generally considered 'shot' before Manila, no.

[Senya13]

So what does Boxing News tell about both of them then, what stage of their careers both are at? :)

[mr. magoo]

(Senya) what makes us change our opinion about an epoch that was considered rather mediocre in its own time to Golden Age of heavyweights all a sudden? Nostalgia. It's a distorted view, basically. If a fighter is really that good, he'll be praised in his own time (as is the case with Liston, Ali, Frazier or even Foreman for a short time). If the rest are considered mediocrities by their contemporaries, that means they are not that special from a broader historical point of view either.

I strongly disagree with this.

The advantage that historians have over contemporary critics of a given time period is that of hindsite. An athlete, artist, politician, musician or what have you, can't be fairly judged or evaluated until after his or her entire career has been completed, and enough time has passed for experts to effectively compare his/her accomplishments to those of their predecessors and successors. In order to determine the level of significance of a fighter's career, we have to look at every performance he's ever had along with every accomplishment and statistic. We also have to evaluate the circumstances of his career and the barriers or challenges that he had to overcome. This is not easily done while a person's career is still in progress. Then we compare this data to members of other eras. Effective comparrisons can't be made by looking at a biased critic's article that was written the day after a fighter had a flat performance. This simply is way too inconclusive.

Lastly Senya,

You often make reference to what you call " contemporary sources", which I guess means the critics of the day. You point out the negative attitudes that sports writers of that particular time said about say Ali or Frazier. You don't however, address the fact that there were also a lot of people back then who thought very highly of those fighters. What's more, you don't acknowledge the simple historical fact that every champion in history had critics who belittled his accomplishments. Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, Tyson, Holyfield and yes even Lennox Lewis ( your #1 guy ) all had contemporary critics.

[cuchulain]

This is getting really tiresome and time consuming with such long posts. So I'll skip some points.
1) From a historian's point of view primary source is what I said. The sources that were written at the time of the event are usually more factual and error-proof, later sources are more subjective.

As I mentioned earlier, a primary source is one who witnessed the era and events firsthand. Case closed.




2) There's a contradiction when you say "time usually provides perspective" and "sudden change of opinion happened only in your mind". I ask again, quote me some contemporary sources from that time that claimed that epoch to be special, or, especially, "Golden Age of heavyweights".

I never stated that the era was viewed as a golden age of heavyweights at the time. What I DID state was that many of Ali's opponents were considered formidable at the time. I was there. That was the consensus opinion of that time. Since you are disputing that , it is up to YOU to show that that was not the case.



3) Theory of argumentation teaches the proper and honest way to debate things is to address the points expressed by your opponent, not the opponent himself.



I have countered the points you have raised individually and have refrained from attacking you personally (as some on this forum have done).

In fact, I have conceded that you have a good, broad knowledge of the facts, etc. But I have taken issue with your logic and ability to interpret those facts, and have thus called into question your judgment. In such a line of attack, it is perfectly valid to highlight what nearly every student of the sport would agree is poor judgment on your part in stating that prime Jones would have defeated prime Ali.


4) "Most of the time" and "quality opponents were past their prime" in the same statement are connected. If you misunderstood that, I'm sorry for not wording it properly the first time, I clarified what I meant in my consequent posts.

In your first post, you stated:

His opposition was mediocre or plain bad most of the time (some of his title defenses were against tomato cans), and even the quality opponents he beat were past their prime.

The clear meaning of this statement is that the quality opponents he beat were past prime. It is a stretch, even for a non-English speaker, to try to connect "most of the time" to the second half of the sentence.
A more likely explanation is a retreat from the position in subsequent posts., something I have maintained in my last post.




5) Frazier was considered a shot fighter prior to his rubber with Ali, by contemporary writers. Do you dispute this?

Of course I dispute this (as have others on here who were around at the time). He was past prime, but not shot. Something similar to Tyson going into Holyfield (1) or Hopkins going up against Taylor. Past best, but still very formidable and a top-raked fighter.


6) A fighter of the year (or month) award is not an award that evaluates the placement of a fighter in history, or even his career as a whole. Thus it should not be used as a proof that a fighter was overall considered something special, high quality fighter/opponent.

This was not cited for that purpose but rather to show that Norton was considered a strong and worthy opponent in the era when he fought Ali



7) I cannot quote you opinions dated 1992 when Norton was inducted into IBHOF, so that I can only quote a tendency that has been noticed by a lot of people in the recent years, about IBHOF turning into literally what it says - 'hall of fame', not 'hall of quality fighters'. The standards applied now hardly have changed, as can be seen from some of the earlier inductees from that time: Gene Fullmer (1991), Rocky Graziano (1991), Billy Graham (1992), Carmen Basilio (1990), Beau Jack (1991), Max Schemling (1992), Tony Zale (1991), Fritzie Zivic (1993).

Again this is a case of calling for evidence and then cavalierly dismissing expert judgment when it is not in accord with your position.

And what could be fuzier than : " has been noticed by a lot of people in the recent years" ?

8) Ring's magazine being an authoritative source has nothing to do with a tendency (that goes back to bareknuckles epoch) to pay more attention to charismatic persons in general and to heavyweights in particular (if you look at that statement which you quoted, I intentionally capitalized word 'AND' there).

Again, so YOU say. And what your saying implies that the experts at RING are insufficiently sophisticated to factor in such variable in their assessment of fights and fighters. Still insulting.




9) I'd like to see some ratings of writers or fans who have the aforementioned three fights in Top 35 (considering there are 67 fights of the year in total so far) for excitement and drama of the action in the ring.

Straying from the point in question. You aske for evidence. It was supplied. Now you want MORE evidence from writers and fans. You present a constantly moving target in this debate.



10) It's a terminology thing with Terrell's fight, and the definitions I quoted from a dictionary are not humorous. But I'll leave it at that.

The definitions are not what was humorous. Rather, it was humorous to consider damage inflicted by one fighter (legally and within the rules), to another during the course of a fight as accidental. Your argument here is totally without merit.

11) Boxing writers of America is not a magazine.

In response to:

You haven't quoted a single expert from 1960's or 1970's who praised Ali's opponents whom I criticized.

I stated:

Norton received the Boxing Writers Association of America J. Niel Trophy for "Fighter of the Year" in 1977" ( This is a collection of experts' opinions)

Magazine ???

Enough said here.




.

You start out by saying you will skip some points.

Among those you skipped were those on the intellectual dishonesty of flip-flopping between an emphasis on contemporary and current sources, your retreat from some wild assertions on earlier threads, and your ever-evolving position on what you first said.

Combining all of what you subsequently stated , even in this thread, don't you think that your first post on this thread conveyed a disparaging view of Ali and his resume that was simply not warranted?

And that without your changes of position (or clarification, if you prefer), you left an unfair impression of Ali with the thread starter?