Legacy of Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones

[cuchulain]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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.]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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

Originally Posted by Senya13

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]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

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]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

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]

Originally Posted by ron u.k.

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]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

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]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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]

Originally Posted by 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,

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]

Originally Posted by 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,

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]

Originally Posted by 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.


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.