Legacy of Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones

[dmt]

Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh

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]

Originally Posted by MR 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.

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]

Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh

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]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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:

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.

[URL="***********.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident"]Definition of accident - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[/URL]
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.

[color="DeepSkyBlue"]Yet you stated (in this thread):

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

[color=#ff00ff]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).


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'. )

[URL="***********.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident"]Definition of accident - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[/URL]

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).
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]

Originally Posted by Senya13

This is getting really tiresome.

You don't say.


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.

[Senya13]

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

[My dinner with Conteh]

Originally Posted by Senya13

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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" ?

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?