Louis was having some difficulty against Conn but he knocked Conn out in the 13th round and removed all doubt as to who the winner was.
The Walcott fights occurred when Louis was past his prime.
If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
70s era
I don't see how Ali's era was the best in history. The 70s fighters did not do terribly well in crossover matchups.
Jimmy Young lost to Ocasio, Dokes and Cooney.
Lyle was kayoed by Lynn Ball
Bonavena lost to an old Patterson who fought evenly with Quarry and Ellis.
Chuvalo beat Quarry.
Shavers did not do well when he stepped up in competition.
Jimmy Young lost to Ocasio, Dokes and Cooney.
Lyle was kayoed by Lynn Ball
Bonavena lost to an old Patterson who fought evenly with Quarry and Ellis.
Chuvalo beat Quarry.
Shavers did not do well when he stepped up in competition.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I think its common knowledge that Young was finished by then. Its very convenient how you gloss over Foreman considering what he did two decades later. That was sort of the mother of all crossovers.
Patterson and Chuvalo are part of the 70s, and Ali beat them in the 60's as well. Either way, regardless of what one thinks of the 70's, and most rank it as the best era in the history of the division, it was still better than Louis' era.
I think you sort of make my point when you say that Louis was past his prime when he fought Walcott. If you gloss over the bad performances that came at the end of Louis' career, you would have to do the same for Ali.
Patterson and Chuvalo are part of the 70s, and Ali beat them in the 60's as well. Either way, regardless of what one thinks of the 70's, and most rank it as the best era in the history of the division, it was still better than Louis' era.
I think you sort of make my point when you say that Louis was past his prime when he fought Walcott. If you gloss over the bad performances that came at the end of Louis' career, you would have to do the same for Ali.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
"...Up until age 34, Louis was not more dominant than Ali..." - I Feel Fine
It was a pretty strong post to be fair, but I had to make an exception to this line. Louis turned pro at twenty, & by the age of thirty-four, had spent eleven of those fourteen years in the ring as Heavyweight champion of the world. When his career ended for good, Louis had clocked up twelve of his seventeen years in the ring as the best Heavyweight on the planet.
Ali, pro at eighteen & retired for good at thirty-nine, enjoyed seven years --- barely half as long --- at the top of the pile. That's seven years out of a possible (subtracting the exile years of '68 & '69) seventeen as champ, compared with Louis' twelve from seventeen. The natural counter to this is Ali faced much greater competition overall & I concur with that, but, certainly as a result of that, he did not have anywhere near Louis' sustained dominance.
That aside, I liked the contents of your post. Well-argued.
It was a pretty strong post to be fair, but I had to make an exception to this line. Louis turned pro at twenty, & by the age of thirty-four, had spent eleven of those fourteen years in the ring as Heavyweight champion of the world. When his career ended for good, Louis had clocked up twelve of his seventeen years in the ring as the best Heavyweight on the planet.
Ali, pro at eighteen & retired for good at thirty-nine, enjoyed seven years --- barely half as long --- at the top of the pile. That's seven years out of a possible (subtracting the exile years of '68 & '69) seventeen as champ, compared with Louis' twelve from seventeen. The natural counter to this is Ali faced much greater competition overall & I concur with that, but, certainly as a result of that, he did not have anywhere near Louis' sustained dominance.
That aside, I liked the contents of your post. Well-argued.
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
once again
If the 70s fighters were so great they would have done better in crossover matchups. I don't see how it was stronger than Louis's era. If Young was past it by the time he fought Ocasio than his legacy is hurt by a lack of longevity.
Floyd Patterson and Chuvalo had some fights in the 70s but they were from an earlier era than the heavyweights of Ali's era yet had considerabe success showing that the era is overrated.
Floyd Patterson and Chuvalo had some fights in the 70s but they were from an earlier era than the heavyweights of Ali's era yet had considerabe success showing that the era is overrated.
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
accomplishments
Louis did have some bad performances later in his career but his accomplishments in the period prior to these bad performances may exceed Ali's.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Coj... your "crossover" argument is weak. Especially since most of the 70's fighters you name were at a disadvantage. You're also ignoring Frazier, who beat Machen, Jones, Chuvalo in the 60's. You're ignoring Foreman, who had the mother of all crossovers. And you're ignoring that Ali beat Patterson and Chuvalo in both of those era's, so it hardly hurts Ali to say that Patterson and Chuvalo were great in "crossover" matches. All you're doing is giving more credence to the 60's era, where he happened to be champion as well. The fact is, Patterson and Chuvalo still had something left in the 70s and scored some nice wins there; they were 70's fighters, just like Foreman was also a 80's and 90's Heavyweight as well as a 70's Heavyweight... whatever era you're in you're in.
And, again, even if one argued that the 70's weren't the best era, and most say that it was, that doesn't somehow make Louis' era better.
Goodnight... I just think the circumstances were different. If Ali hadn't been exiled perhaps he could have had the same number of defenses as Louis. I wouldn't argue that Ali is more dominant than Louis because Ali could have had more defenses, but I think that it at least allows us to look at the circumstances a little more. For example, Ali wasn't champion for all those years, but he was always facing top opposition. They both had two losses by the age of 34, official and unnoficial, which they would avenge. So even if they weren't both fighting in the same number of title fights, they were both facing the best of their eras, and had about the same level of success. As to the question of title fights, Louis in terms of pure numbers in title fights is the most dominant champion in boxing history. But when we go past the numbers, Ali had greater quality in his title challengers. And while Louis had more defenses, Ali had quite a lot, next to Louis and Holmes, Ali had more defenses than any other Heavyweight champion, so when you count quality along with quantity I don't see that Louis was more dominant than Ali.
Either way, I can understand your argument. Even if I did concede the "dominance" argument, I think we would agree that more dominance does not necessarily mean more greatness. As I said here or in another thread, Hopkins had more defenses than Hagler, but I would say Hagler's reign was more impressive (though, obviously I'm not comparing the level of Louis' opposition to Hopkins'.) And I'm sure we would agree that a regular fight sometimes means more than a title fight. Look at Liston and compare him to Tommy Burns, Burns was a way more dominant champion in terms of numbers, nine successful title defenses to Liston's one, but I think most would rank Liston ahead of him when looking at their careers as a whole.
Obviously this is a debate that will go on and on for as long as people discuss boxing, so its JMO.
And, again, even if one argued that the 70's weren't the best era, and most say that it was, that doesn't somehow make Louis' era better.
Goodnight... I just think the circumstances were different. If Ali hadn't been exiled perhaps he could have had the same number of defenses as Louis. I wouldn't argue that Ali is more dominant than Louis because Ali could have had more defenses, but I think that it at least allows us to look at the circumstances a little more. For example, Ali wasn't champion for all those years, but he was always facing top opposition. They both had two losses by the age of 34, official and unnoficial, which they would avenge. So even if they weren't both fighting in the same number of title fights, they were both facing the best of their eras, and had about the same level of success. As to the question of title fights, Louis in terms of pure numbers in title fights is the most dominant champion in boxing history. But when we go past the numbers, Ali had greater quality in his title challengers. And while Louis had more defenses, Ali had quite a lot, next to Louis and Holmes, Ali had more defenses than any other Heavyweight champion, so when you count quality along with quantity I don't see that Louis was more dominant than Ali.
Either way, I can understand your argument. Even if I did concede the "dominance" argument, I think we would agree that more dominance does not necessarily mean more greatness. As I said here or in another thread, Hopkins had more defenses than Hagler, but I would say Hagler's reign was more impressive (though, obviously I'm not comparing the level of Louis' opposition to Hopkins'.) And I'm sure we would agree that a regular fight sometimes means more than a title fight. Look at Liston and compare him to Tommy Burns, Burns was a way more dominant champion in terms of numbers, nine successful title defenses to Liston's one, but I think most would rank Liston ahead of him when looking at their careers as a whole.
Obviously this is a debate that will go on and on for as long as people discuss boxing, so its JMO.
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
best era
Patterson and Chuvalo were both born in the 1930s and turned pro in the 1950s so I would consider them to be from an earlier era. Crossover matchups are a bit dicey but I think one can get some idea of what era was better from them.
Where is the evidence that Joe Louis's era was not a good era?
Where is the evidence that Joe Louis's era was not a good era?
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
Ali
Ali was more consistent than Patterson or Chuvalo and accomplished more than these guys so he would be expected to beat them even if we do assume the eras are equal.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
"...Goodnight... I just think the circumstances were different. If Ali hadn't been exiled perhaps he could have had the same number of defenses as Louis. I wouldn't argue that Ali is more dominant than Louis because Ali could have had more defenses, but I think that it at least allows us to look at the circumstances a little more. For example, Ali wasn't champion for all those years, but he was always facing top opposition. They both had two losses by the age of 34, official and unnoficial, which they would avenge. So even if they weren't both fighting in the same number of title fights, they were both facing the best of their eras, and had about the same level of success. As to the question of title fights, Louis in terms of pure numbers in title fights is the most dominant champion in boxing history. But when we go past the numbers, Ali had greater quality in his title challengers. And while Louis had more defenses, Ali had quite a lot, next to Louis and Holmes, Ali had more defenses than any other Heavyweight champion, so when you count quality along with quantity I don't see that Louis was more dominant than Ali.
Either way, I can understand your argument. Even if I did concede the "dominance" argument, I think we would agree that more dominance does not necessarily mean more greatness. As I said here or in another thread, Hopkins had more defenses than Hagler, but I would say Hagler's reign was more impressive (though, obviously I'm not comparing the level of Louis' opposition to Hopkins'.) And I'm sure we would agree that a regular fight sometimes means more than a title fight. Look at Liston and compare him to Tommy Burns, Burns was a way more dominant champion in terms of numbers, nine successful title defenses to Liston's one, but I think most would rank Liston ahead of him when looking at their careers as a whole.
Obviously this is a debate that will go on and on for as long as people discuss boxing, so its JMO." - I Feel Fine
Agreed with that. OK, I think we are just interpreting the term, "dominance" differently. You are saying Ali was beating almost all of the world-class Heavyweights while he wasn't champion (say, between 1970-1973) with the exception being Frazier. That's true. I'm thinking more along the lines of dominance being reserved for the champ only, in the context of who officially is the best in the world.
Like you said, Louis has the numbers. Ali has the competition. I agree with your point that numbers alone don't register one fighter superior. The only thing I would add is that the reverse should also apply. Less sustained dominance over superior competition doesn't mandate a fighter being superior, either. Personally, with his occasional lapses in fitness & concentration, I don't think Ali would quite have lasted twelve years at the top, even facing Louis' weaker (but by no means was it a weak era) competition. Ali also didn't have a big punch to pull out a victory when he was shot the way Louis did against Walcott. I guess I'm saying Ali would last most of those twelve years, but by thirty-four or thirty-five, I don't think the Ali who lost to Young & Norton would have beaten a prime Walcott. Louis was losing the second fight with him too, but he had a knockout punch to pull it out, whereas Ali didn't. I also tend to think of Ali's three title reigns as separate, whereas you are (fairly) combining his collective title defenses. That's fair enough. Just two different ways of interpreting the same thing. I got to give Ali his due --- he said he would be an active champion after beating Liston, & he kept his word on that with nine defenses in three years.
In any case, I myself slightly favour Ali's career-list of accomplishments over Louis'. I don't think Ali would've made it all twelve years as champion between 1937-49 (although he probably would have made it to Walcott in 1948, which would be almost as long.) But to be fair to Ali, I don't see a 22-year-old Louis beating the ageing Sonny Liston Ali did (though, maybe?). I don't see a 32-year-old Louis beating a prime Foreman either, so you can make arguments any which way, which I think is why, as you rightly point out, the debate has been spinning long before you & I spoke of it, & probably will long after we're gone. Barry Tompkins was saying this debate will rage forever in about 1980 or '81, & I wasn't even born then.
It's probably an argument that will continue without end. What a genuine shame Louis & Ali didn't share one era
Either way, I can understand your argument. Even if I did concede the "dominance" argument, I think we would agree that more dominance does not necessarily mean more greatness. As I said here or in another thread, Hopkins had more defenses than Hagler, but I would say Hagler's reign was more impressive (though, obviously I'm not comparing the level of Louis' opposition to Hopkins'.) And I'm sure we would agree that a regular fight sometimes means more than a title fight. Look at Liston and compare him to Tommy Burns, Burns was a way more dominant champion in terms of numbers, nine successful title defenses to Liston's one, but I think most would rank Liston ahead of him when looking at their careers as a whole.
Obviously this is a debate that will go on and on for as long as people discuss boxing, so its JMO." - I Feel Fine
Agreed with that. OK, I think we are just interpreting the term, "dominance" differently. You are saying Ali was beating almost all of the world-class Heavyweights while he wasn't champion (say, between 1970-1973) with the exception being Frazier. That's true. I'm thinking more along the lines of dominance being reserved for the champ only, in the context of who officially is the best in the world.
Like you said, Louis has the numbers. Ali has the competition. I agree with your point that numbers alone don't register one fighter superior. The only thing I would add is that the reverse should also apply. Less sustained dominance over superior competition doesn't mandate a fighter being superior, either. Personally, with his occasional lapses in fitness & concentration, I don't think Ali would quite have lasted twelve years at the top, even facing Louis' weaker (but by no means was it a weak era) competition. Ali also didn't have a big punch to pull out a victory when he was shot the way Louis did against Walcott. I guess I'm saying Ali would last most of those twelve years, but by thirty-four or thirty-five, I don't think the Ali who lost to Young & Norton would have beaten a prime Walcott. Louis was losing the second fight with him too, but he had a knockout punch to pull it out, whereas Ali didn't. I also tend to think of Ali's three title reigns as separate, whereas you are (fairly) combining his collective title defenses. That's fair enough. Just two different ways of interpreting the same thing. I got to give Ali his due --- he said he would be an active champion after beating Liston, & he kept his word on that with nine defenses in three years.
In any case, I myself slightly favour Ali's career-list of accomplishments over Louis'. I don't think Ali would've made it all twelve years as champion between 1937-49 (although he probably would have made it to Walcott in 1948, which would be almost as long.) But to be fair to Ali, I don't see a 22-year-old Louis beating the ageing Sonny Liston Ali did (though, maybe?). I don't see a 32-year-old Louis beating a prime Foreman either, so you can make arguments any which way, which I think is why, as you rightly point out, the debate has been spinning long before you & I spoke of it, & probably will long after we're gone. Barry Tompkins was saying this debate will rage forever in about 1980 or '81, & I wasn't even born then.
It's probably an argument that will continue without end. What a genuine shame Louis & Ali didn't share one era
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I agree that Louis' punching power allowed him to have more longevity than Ali. Power is the last thing to go, and Louis was still tearing people up into old age, just look at his fight with Savold. Still, I do think that if Ali had fought in Louis' era that he would have had less wear and tear by the ages of 33 and 34 than he did in his real life career by that time, and that this would have allowed him to have had enough left to beat Walcott. Though most fighters start to slip around that age anyway, I think Frazier was the main reason why Ali was finished by 34.
I guess its open to opinion whether or not Ali could have made 25 defenses, whether hypothetically in Louis' era or in his own if there had been no layoff. I tend to think that you can make a strong case for it, but obviously we'll never know.
Anyway, yeah, I do think we agree more than we disagree. As I've said in the past, I rank Louis a top 10 P4P all time fighter, so clearly I recognize his greatness, I simply rank Ali a little higher.
I guess its open to opinion whether or not Ali could have made 25 defenses, whether hypothetically in Louis' era or in his own if there had been no layoff. I tend to think that you can make a strong case for it, but obviously we'll never know.
Anyway, yeah, I do think we agree more than we disagree. As I've said in the past, I rank Louis a top 10 P4P all time fighter, so clearly I recognize his greatness, I simply rank Ali a little higher.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
"...Anyway, yeah, I do think we agree more than we disagree. As I've said in the past, I rank Louis a top 10 P4P all time fighter, so clearly I recognize his greatness, I simply rank Ali a little higher." - I Feel Fine
& a good indication of that (your healthy respect for Louis) is that I don't have Louis anywhere near my top 10 pound-for-pound.
& a good indication of that (your healthy respect for Louis) is that I don't have Louis anywhere near my top 10 pound-for-pound.
-
Cojimar 1945
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 482
- Joined: 07 Oct 2003, 15:15
opponnents
There is nothing wrong with having personal preferences regarding fighters but I think it is possible to say which fighter accomplished more in their era. One factor is how many highly rated contenders the men beat. I recall that Ali beat somewhere around 17 guys that were rated in the top 9 when he fought them but I might have missed some.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Where do you rank Louis P4P all time goodnight?
Coj... I remember someone posting a thread about who fought the most top 10 Heavyweight contenders in their career, from what I remember it was 1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Charles.
--------
In regards to an earlier conversation in this thread, I re-watched Ali-Norton II tonight and had Ali beating Norton 6-5-1, and the even round probably could have gone to Ali. Not sure how anyone could call that a robbery, though it was a razor thin fight. Another example of people going a bit over board in their anti-Ali-ism
This fight deserves a mention in that "most beautiful fights" thread, by the way.
Coj... I remember someone posting a thread about who fought the most top 10 Heavyweight contenders in their career, from what I remember it was 1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Charles.
--------
In regards to an earlier conversation in this thread, I re-watched Ali-Norton II tonight and had Ali beating Norton 6-5-1, and the even round probably could have gone to Ali. Not sure how anyone could call that a robbery, though it was a razor thin fight. Another example of people going a bit over board in their anti-Ali-ism
This fight deserves a mention in that "most beautiful fights" thread, by the way.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
I would have to place Louis no higher than the mid-section of the top 30. From what I have seen here, not many think he belongs outside the top 10, but there have just been too many fighters just as good or better than he was, but who would enjoy a clear stylistic match-up that would prove the difference. Fighters like Willie Pep & Benny Leonard, amongst quite a few others. I think if all fighters were the same size i.e. pound-for-pound, Louis would beat most, but not nearly all.I Feel Fine wrote:Where do you rank Louis P4P all time goodnight?
Coj... I remember someone posting a thread about who fought the most top 10 Heavyweight contenders in their career, from what I remember it was 1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Charles.
--------
In regards to an earlier conversation in this thread, I re-watched Ali-Norton II tonight and had Ali beating Norton 6-5-1, and the even round probably could have gone to Ali. Not sure how anyone could call that a robbery, though it was a razor thin fight. Another example of people going a bit over board in their anti-Ali-ism
This fight deserves a mention in that "most beautiful fights" thread, by the way.
Where we do have common ground is on our scorecards. I had it 6-5-1 for Ali as well. It's not a robbery, but it is one of those, "touch-&-go" bouts where, while the winner deserves it, the loser is justified in feeling blue, since on another night with other judges, the result could easily have been different. No robbery, a very close fight that can be justified for either guy (Which is how I feel about De La Hoya-Quartey, but that's another kettle of fish entirely isn't it ;))
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Yeah, the vast majority of people who I've encountered had Ali winning the second fight.
As for the fight itself, I think that 12th round should be one of those enshrined rounds for Ali. I remembered him winning that round, which he needed to win the fight, but I had forgotten just how hard he had fought to win it. Quite impressive.
As for the fight itself, I think that 12th round should be one of those enshrined rounds for Ali. I remembered him winning that round, which he needed to win the fight, but I had forgotten just how hard he had fought to win it. Quite impressive.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Al Bernstein scored for Norton & I have a lot of respect for his opinion, so it was a close fight, but then, the first fight was very close as well. It was no cakewalk on the cards for Norton. I actually had it even, though that was quite a while ago & I probably should make a little time to re-visit that fight.
I have heard Futch say Norton wasted the first four rounds in the re-match trying to fight like Joe Frazier instead of Ken Norton, & Futch said it took him four wasted rounds to get Norton on the track. I don't really see that in the first four rounds, how about you? In any case, I think a lot of people seem to agree there was something of a change in round five, & from that point on Norton started doing better & closing the gap on Ali, but not enough, as it turned out.
I have heard Futch say Norton wasted the first four rounds in the re-match trying to fight like Joe Frazier instead of Ken Norton, & Futch said it took him four wasted rounds to get Norton on the track. I don't really see that in the first four rounds, how about you? In any case, I think a lot of people seem to agree there was something of a change in round five, & from that point on Norton started doing better & closing the gap on Ali, but not enough, as it turned out.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I think Futch was right. Norton didn't throw any jabs in those rounds, for example, which helped him in the first fight and in the later rounds of the second. He seemed to be doing a bit of a Frazier imitation, bobbing his head and looking for body shots. He really didn't do much in those early rounds. I also think that by the 5th and 6th Ali started to slow down from the pace he had set. He wasn't going to be able to move like that for all 12 rounds. I had Norton winning the 6th and I thought he won all but one of the rounds from then on, the exception being the 8th which I had even, until the 12th which I had for Ali.
I agree that other fighters were alos built up by the media. That doesn't make the accusation against Ali wrong.I Feel Fine wrote:One could say the same of Louis or Marciano. As for the media, as we mentioned earlier in the thread, they abused Ali for half his career, it was only later that they started to praise him. Lets just call it even, or at least lets recognize that there are two sides to the story.Ezzard wrote:I agree that Ali has been built up to mythical proportions. I also agree that the media pushed Ali as hero (rightly or wrongly). That's how the media works.
Wasn't Louis booed during his defeat to Schmeling?
The only straw that I can clutch is the fact that I've heard many writers suggest that both Ali-Liston fights were fixed....Collins2000 wrote:Ezzard, if you take time to read through the threads you will see people have countered granberry's comments. Repeatedly. And usually without rancour until granberry replies with abuse.Ezzard wrote:Ali was a great fighter. I have him as number 1 at HW.
BUT Granberry makes some good points. I agree that Ali has been built up to mythical proportions. I also agree that the media pushed Ali as hero (rightly or wrongly). That's how the media works. They want a story and a money-maker (they don't really care for who was the greatest in a sporting sense.). Ali also profitted from his persona outside of the ring with decisions going his way at the end of his career. If you are a ticket seller then boxing will breaks its rules and bend over backwards to accomodate you.
Granberry might be a bit rude but he offers a fresh perspective on boxing history and obviously has been around the sport enough to have some authority. If you're an Ali fan then stand up and make your argument don't just throw insults around.
As for Mailer he was a key figure in what is now considered to be the New Journalism movement. He tried to bring some of the machismo back to the intellectual in a similar way to Hemingway. Mailer's an interesting writer but his work doesn't really reach out to me in the way that other American greats do.
You say granberry makes some good points. Can I assume you consider the following to be among the good points:
Doug Jones beat Ali clearly but the judges had been bribed to give the decision to Ali.
The Ali victory over Moore was of no importance.
Ali's gloves were changed in the first fight with Cooper.
Both the Ali - Liston fights were fixed.
Patterson's back was so damaged prior to the first fight with Ali that he should have been in hospital. Therefore another meaningless win for Ali.
The Ali win over Terrell was not clear cut.
And that's just his views on 60's Ali.
Which of those do you consider good points?
I'm really just trying to get at the fact that there is very little critique of Ali's career in the media. Granberry is prepared to ask questions which makes it interesting...
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Ali was the best so he naturally isn't going to get criticized an awful lot. Still, he gets some. For example, Al Bernstien and Bert Sugar have made numerous subtle jabs at him. Ring Magazine wouldn't name him as the Boxer of the Year in 1966, even though he was the obvious choice. Instead there was no award that year.
How much criticism does Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan,Pele,Tiger Woods,and Wayne Gretzky get? Very little.
If you go on a website forum in other sports do the best guys get ripped constantly like Ali does on this forum?
As I have mentioned before, the #1 guy in almost any sport always gets 10 times as much praise as the #2 guy, even though obviously he isn't 10 times as great.
How much criticism does Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan,Pele,Tiger Woods,and Wayne Gretzky get? Very little.
If you go on a website forum in other sports do the best guys get ripped constantly like Ali does on this forum?
As I have mentioned before, the #1 guy in almost any sport always gets 10 times as much praise as the #2 guy, even though obviously he isn't 10 times as great.
Perhaps but that's because of the nature of the media rather than say the academy. The media want to sell you something the academy want to assess and nothing else.Ambling Alp wrote:Ali was the best so he naturally isn't going to get criticized an awful lot. Still, he gets some. For example, Al Bernstien and Bert Sugar have made numerous subtle jabs at him. Ring Magazine wouldn't name him as the Boxer of the Year in 1966, even though he was the obvious choice. Instead there was no award that year.
How much criticism does Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan,Pele,Tiger Woods,and Wayne Gretzky get? Very little.
If you go on a website forum in other sports do the best guys get ripped constantly like Ali does on this forum?
I get your point, Alp, but when reading great art critics there is always room to point out the failings of the greatest of artists.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
So why do so many people in this forum get upset (that Ali gets so much praise) when in other sports most people don't seem to mind that the #1 guy gets so much praise?
Can't we just talk about the other great fighters more instead of constantly ripping Ali?
I have heard other people as well complain that the media is trying to "sell Ali" I don't understand this at all.
First, there is little benefit to "selling Ali", at least anymore. He hasn't had a fight in more than 26 years. I don't see the why the media would be selling him.
2nd, the media isn't just one group of people. There are countless, newpapers, Magazines, TV Networks, Websites throughout the world. They don't all meet to agree on how to "sell Ali" to the public.
I agree with your point that even the best "artists" aren't perfect and their failings should be pointed out. However, the criticisms should be legitimate and be in accurrate proportion to the praise he gets. I think what irks myself and some others is that Ali gets so much criticism and very little of it is justified. In any one day, it isn't uncommon to see 3 threads on this forum with comments ripping him. Many of us just think enough is enough.
If I was going to poke holes in Ali's career, I would bring up the 1st Norton fight when he looked very lethargic, and to a lesser extent the Lyle fight. There is very little else that is legitimate to criticize. He had a phenomenal career.
However mostly what we get is the constant comments about fights when he was obviously past his prime. There is much more talk about Ali's fights from 1976-1978 then 1964-1967; which is ridiculaus. What other fighter gets remotely as much attention paid to the post prime part of his career rather than his prime?
From time to you will also hear about the supposed "controversies" concerning the Jones fight or the Cooper fight when in reality there should be no controversy at all.
I will go this far :I challenge anyone to pick any other fighter that is considered an All Time Great, and I will criticize him in similar ways that Ali gets criticized.
Can't we just talk about the other great fighters more instead of constantly ripping Ali?
I have heard other people as well complain that the media is trying to "sell Ali" I don't understand this at all.
First, there is little benefit to "selling Ali", at least anymore. He hasn't had a fight in more than 26 years. I don't see the why the media would be selling him.
2nd, the media isn't just one group of people. There are countless, newpapers, Magazines, TV Networks, Websites throughout the world. They don't all meet to agree on how to "sell Ali" to the public.
I agree with your point that even the best "artists" aren't perfect and their failings should be pointed out. However, the criticisms should be legitimate and be in accurrate proportion to the praise he gets. I think what irks myself and some others is that Ali gets so much criticism and very little of it is justified. In any one day, it isn't uncommon to see 3 threads on this forum with comments ripping him. Many of us just think enough is enough.
If I was going to poke holes in Ali's career, I would bring up the 1st Norton fight when he looked very lethargic, and to a lesser extent the Lyle fight. There is very little else that is legitimate to criticize. He had a phenomenal career.
However mostly what we get is the constant comments about fights when he was obviously past his prime. There is much more talk about Ali's fights from 1976-1978 then 1964-1967; which is ridiculaus. What other fighter gets remotely as much attention paid to the post prime part of his career rather than his prime?
From time to you will also hear about the supposed "controversies" concerning the Jones fight or the Cooper fight when in reality there should be no controversy at all.
I will go this far :I challenge anyone to pick any other fighter that is considered an All Time Great, and I will criticize him in similar ways that Ali gets criticized.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43