I thought they preached racial separatism and self-defence but haven't heard anything of them having an "army". They had a bodyguard. There was never much hint of them seeking to be terrorists or insurgents. They preached self-determination and black capitalism. There were criminals among them and ex-criminals but most were law abiding. They were a very profitable religious cult for the leadership Elijah Muhammad and his immediate family. He prophesised that God would destroy white man's America, rather than promote revolution or war. They were very conservative in that respect, they were a religious movement rather than a poltical group, hence why Malcolm X fell out with the leadership. The Black Liberation Army, The Weather Underground, The Symbionese Liberation Army and elements of the Black Panther Party sound more like what you describe. J Edgar Hoover would have completely destroyed them if they were as militarized and dangerous as what you imply.
The NOI? They were a murderous cult. Ali had a healthy dose of fear of what they were capable of and what they were willing to do to any "hypocrite". Hence his treatment of Malcom near the end. He had to do that. Ali loved Malcom but he wasn't stupid. What they did at Kareem Abdul Jabbar's house in 1973 was beyond shocking. To murder babies over a letter written. Well it may not be Paramilitary but they were certainly trained killers. The Philadelphia Black Mafia and the Nation were one and the same. Ali being transferred to Temple 12 in Philadelphia was no accident. That was the thug Temple. Jeremiah Shabazz was a ruthless enforcer. Sam Christian, Bo Baines. You can Google these names. Dubrows Furniture Store Philadelphia Pa.
Sonny had to know Ali was with the NOI. That many guys standing around in bow ties. Malcom was asked to leave by Harold Conrad prefight because his presence alone put the fight in jeopardy. He cameback the nite of the fight. Liston did try to win the 1st fight. He was in woeful shape for a kid he thought he would do away with inside 2 rounds. The blinding was a desperation move.
Sonny Liston would have a fight on his hands but Sonny would win, it would not look pretty. Liston would beat Wlad like a man that tried to steal from his former employers, the underworld. Sonny was a former debt collector and he usually owned the prison yard over his fellow inmates.
I see 'consistency' and 'longevity' as intrinsically linked. I don't so much consider one to be an extra string to one's bow, alongside the other. If Wlad's prime is much stronger than I am giving him credit for, then in what way is it "much stronger"? How deep was the division he competed in? What defining fights did he have? Why did he not achieve the status of being undisputed heavyweight champ? When you stated that... ...I thought you actually had some idea of what that case would be. Obviously not.
Liston was a mental midget that would be intimidated by Wlad. You people keep forgetting what happens when the intimidator becomes the intimidated. It never ends well. We have several examples of this throughout boxing history.
You'll be waiting a good while then. What makes you think I'm going to be drawn into qualifying my own question to you, before you've even made a reasonable attempt at an answer, yourself? Again - You categorically stated "Wladimir has very strong case for top 10". If there is a case, as your sweeping statement unequivocally declares, then please explain it. If you can't support your statement with a reasonable explanation then that's fine. We can just agree that you don't know how a strong case can actually be made and, for you, it's an opinion, based more on a feeling than facts. You decide. What is for sure is that the onus isn't on me to make the case for you, one way or the other.
I already explained it - Wladimir has one of the best longevities ever, he's remarkably consistent at the highest level and he has a lot of wins over ranked contenders. He lacks the highest level wins, but names like Povetkin or Byrd aren't bad at all and he has tons of depth in his resume.
I picked Liston I think with his tremendous reach and great jab would be able to get to Klitschko. Liston had a pretty good chin and I think would be able to take a few big shots from Wlad and ultimately would reach him with his jab follow up with his power punches and get Wlad out of there in the mid rounds.
Right. So, I've asked you, on what basis do you think Wlad has a strong case for a top-10 rating, "other than the longevity of his title run?" ...and, your response begins: "Wladimir has one of the best longevities ever". Quite the circular discussion, this. It doesn't surprise me, because longevity is the most prominent aspect of Wlad's record, by some margin, with there being little else to talk about. I also questioned the depth of the division, during Wlad's reign; not the depth of Wlad's resume. But even when considering the latter, there's not a lot there, really (because the division itself was at a low point). Wlad has no defining win. If Byrd and that travesty of a display against Povetkin are about as good as it gets for him then you're not really explaining why Wlad has a strong case for a place in the Top-10 of All Time. Quite oppositely, if these are the best examples you have, then you're illustrating why he doesn't belong there.
