Legacy of Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones

I again suggest you check the definition of primary source. 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:

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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:

 

.

 

:dead

 

Terrell was in a narrow frame of mind that fight

 

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.)

 

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Irrelevant question.

This content is protected

I didn't argue with that.

This content is protected

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).

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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.

This content is protected

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

 

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.

 

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 !

 

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.