If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years

[I Feel Fine]

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...

I think there's a clear difference between legitimate criticism and what granberry does.

Honestly, its harder to name a fighter who doesn't have bad performances early and late in their career. Just looking up Arguello's record, without having seen the fights, you see Arguello lost his first fight by first round KO, lost a decision in his fifth fight, and then 25 fights into his career he had a loss to some guy named Jorge Reyes who was 3-6. That's way the hell worse than having tough but winning performances against Jones and Cooper. We all know he lost twice to Pryor, and quit in the rematch. Sure, he was in his 4th weight class and was late into his career, but those are just excuses created by the Arguello industry.

I move that Arguello be kicked out of the Hall of Fame.

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.

Ali was going to be named Fighter of the Year in '66 but because of the draft controversy Ring Magazine said they would not give him the award because they didn't believe he was a proper role model. I've always felt Ring Magazine should remedy that and give him the award now; better late than never. Either that or they should take away Monzon and Tyson's Ring Magazine awards.

[Ezzard]

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.

Well, when I say that Ali was lucky to get decisions in Norton III, Shavers and Young I'm not knocking the fighter... Ali meant dollars to the sport and its promoters...

Holmes could have easily lost the decision to Williams late on in his career too.

I don't think the controversy surrounding Jones is unfounded. It was a close fight, the kind which always brings about controversy.

[Ezzard]

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...

I think there's a clear difference between legitimate criticism and what granberry does.

Honestly, its harder to name a fighter who doesn't have bad performances early and late in their career. Just looking up Arguello's record, without having seen the fights, you see Arguello lost his first fight by first round KO, lost a decision in his fifth fight, and then 25 fights into his career he had a loss to some guy named Jorge Reyes who was 3-6. That's way the hell worse than having tough but winning performances against Jones and Cooper. We all know he lost twice to Pryor, and quit in the rematch. Sure, he was in his 4th weight class and was late into his career, but those are just excuses created by the Arguello industry.

I move that Arguello be kicked out of the Hall of Fame.

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.

Ali was going to be named Fighter of the Year in '66 but because of the draft controversy Ring Magazine said they would not give him the award because they didn't believe he was a proper role model. I've always felt Ring Magazine should remedy that and give him the award now; better late than never. Either that or they should take away Monzon and Tyson's Ring Magazine awards.

Not sure I did write the second quote...

I agree that whilst Monzon and Tyson's awards stand that it's a harsh double standard. Ali should get that award. I wonder if there was any political pressure... Maybe we should write to The Ring.

The difference between people's perceptions of Arguello and Ali is vast. Pick against Arguello in a fantasy match up and people will debate it. Pick against Ali (with anyone other than Louis) and the whole board comes down on you.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, I Feel Fine beat me to some of the criticisms that you could make about Arguello.
You could also add that he he got knocked down and won a close decision against Jose Torres. (Obviosly not the lightheavyweight champ Jose Torres).
Arguello also got knocked down by Jose Luis Ramirez and won a close decision in that fight.
Arguello was also knocked down by Andy Ganigan.

How often do we hear about these fights on this forum? Almost never.

If in a fantasy fight between a prime Ali and someone else, and you picked the other guy it shouldn't surprise you that the "forum should come on you." Ali was clearly the best.

Arguello while a great fighter, he wasn't the best. There are a handful of fighters that you could legitimately say would probably have beaten him.

As for Ali not getting the award for 1966, it's just more proof that things often weren't in Ali's favor.

Lets not also forget that the WBA stripped his title twice.
and he had his boxing license revoked.

[Ezzard]

Well, I Feel Fine beat me to some of the criticisms that you could make about Arguello.
You could also add that he he got knocked down and won a close decision against Jose Torres. (Obviosly not the lightheavyweight champ Jose Torres).
Arguello also got knocked down by Jose Luis Ramirez and won a close decision in that fight.
Arguello was also knocked down by Andy Ganigan.

How often do we hear about these fights on this forum? Almost never.

If in a fantasy fight between a prime Ali and someone else, and you picked the other guy it shouldn't surprise you that the "forum should come on you." Ali was clearly the best.

Arguello while a great fighter, he wasn't the best. There are a handful of fighters that you could legitimately say would probably have beaten him.

As for Ali not getting the award for 1966, it's just more proof that things often weren't in Ali's favor.

Lets not also forget that the WBA stripped his title twice.
and he had his boxing license revoked.

My point is this... All the top fighters could beat one another on a given night. If Ali, Louis, or anyone fought the top 50 HWs they'd lose some. You can't always tell how styles mesh until they fight, but speculating is great as long as it's not the old 'if Mike hadn't gone to prison etc...'

Anyway, I'm in danger of being overly critical now.

[Ambling Alp]

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.

Well, when I say that Ali was lucky to get decisions in Norton III, Shavers and Young I'm not knocking the fighter... Ali meant dollars to the sport and its promoters...

Holmes could have easily lost the decision to Williams late on in his career too.

I don't think the controversy surrounding Jones is unfounded. It was a close fight, the kind which always brings about controversy.

You might not be knocking Ali the fighter when bringing up these decsions but some people are.
Btw, the Norton, and Young fights were close fights that could have been scored either way. They weren't "robberies". There were several close rounds. They were nothing like Holmes-Williams, which Williams should have won easily.

The Jones fight is unfounded. Yes it was a close fight. However, it was also pretty clear that Ali won. Ali clearly won atleast 6 out of the 10 rounds. This is the classic case of of when an Ali fight is remotely close, you will find the anti-Ali pointing to it like it was the Holy Grail. This is supposed to be some sort of proof that Ali wasn't that good. Only Ali could win the Fight of the Year, and be criticized.

Virtually any fight of Ali's that he didn't win almost every round easily, is now disputed.

The majority of the fights that he won by decision from the Jones fight on have been disputed by someone on this forum.
I had heard a lot about the Jones,Norton, and Young fights before, but now many more have been added.
8 of the 15 fights that he won by decision from the Jones fight on have been complained about.
This includes:
- the 2nd Norton fight, a close fight but one ali deserved the decision.
-the Earnie Shavers fight, close but most pople thought Ali won. Now this also considered a robbery.
- The 2nd Joe Frazier fight. Ali won atleast 8 of the 12 rounds.
- The Alfredo Evangelista fight. Ali didn't look good, but clearly won.
- And recently even the 2nd Leon Spinks fight This fight wasn't even remotely close.
I have not heard people complain about these decisions before, but now they somehow are "controversial".

That Ali was 10-0 in title fights from 1964-1967, with 8 KO's and 2 easy decisions is almost never mentioned.

Willie Pep won 164 fights by decision, and how often are any of them disputed?
Ray Robinson in his prime, had close decision wins over not only Kid Gavilan, Jake LaMotta and Carmen Basilio, but also Marty Servo,Georgie Abrams,Rocky Castellani, and the great Johnny Lombardo.
How often are these decisions ever brought up?

We constantly hear decisions (some that weren't close and mostly when Ali was over the hill anyway) being used against him. However, other fighters don't even get close fights in their primes barely even mentioned.

To put it eloquently, some of us are sick of this crap.

[Ezzard]

I think Shavers should have got the decision.
Norton II was close enough for people to argue over I don't have a problem with that.

The others you list are definitely obvious Ali wins.

The Jones fight??? Well if one guy wins 6-4 then generally there will be some debate and I think that's fair enough especially as when it comes to it Ali got the victory.

I think I get the message anyway. I think you're arguing with someone who is essentially in agreement on the merits of the fighter.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Did you really mean to say Robinson was in his prime during those fights with Basilio? He was also at Middleweight for his stoushes with LaMotta, not his best division.

In any case, Basilio & LaMotta are not the same as Young, Norton & Shavers. However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

I disagree about Young & Norton III, though. Ali, as Ezzard clarified, was a cash-cow & duly protected. I haven't seen the Ali-Shavers fight, but I only occasionally see disputes about that. What you don't see enough criticism of, conversely, is Ali-Lyle. Another suspect call, IMO. No one criticises Ali for that, though. But that is as much a criticism of the powers that be as it is an ageing Ali.

In any case, I agree there should be more emphasis that those fights came well-past Ali's peak.

[BoxBuzz]

Did you really mean to say Robinson was in his prime during those fights with Basilio? He was also at Middleweight for his stoushes with LaMotta, not his best division.

In any case, Basilio & LaMotta are not the same as Young, Norton & Shavers. However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

I disagree about Young & Norton III, though. Ali, as Ezzard clarified, was a cash-cow & duly protected. I haven't seen the Ali-Shavers fight, but I only occasionally see disputes about that. What you don't see enough criticism of, conversely, is Ali-Lyle. Another suspect call, IMO. No one criticises Ali for that, though. But that is as much a criticism of the powers that be as it is an ageing Ali.

In any case, I agree there should be more emphasis that those fights came well-past Ali's peak.

You do know that they re-showed the third Ali Norton fight on prime time a week or two after the fight and the new judges scored it a draw.....However Joe Frazier only gave it to Norton by 1 round. The original outcome was not outrageous though the score was a bit skewed in Ali's favor more than it probably should have been. You can make a case for either fighter winning that fight.....somebody had to win it....if it went the other way people would be whining just as badly.

It was just the way the cookie crumbled.

[BoxBuzz]

Did you really mean to say Robinson was in his prime during those fights with Basilio? He was also at Middleweight for his stoushes with LaMotta, not his best division.

In any case, Basilio & LaMotta are not the same as Young, Norton & Shavers. However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

I disagree about Young & Norton III, though. Ali, as Ezzard clarified, was a cash-cow & duly protected. I haven't seen the Ali-Shavers fight, but I only occasionally see disputes about that. What you don't see enough criticism of, conversely, is Ali-Lyle. Another suspect call, IMO. No one criticises Ali for that, though. But that is as much a criticism of the powers that be as it is an ageing Ali.

In any case, I agree there should be more emphasis that those fights came well-past Ali's peak.

You do know that they re-showed the third Ali Norton fight on prime time a week or two after the fight and the new judges scored it a draw.....However Joe Frazier only gave it to Norton by 1 round. The original outcome was not outrageous though the score was a bit skewed in Ali's favor more than it probably should have been. You can make a case for either fighter winning that fight.....somebody had to win it....if it went the other way people would be whining just as badly.

It was just the way the cookie crumbled.

[BoxBuzz]

Did you really mean to say Robinson was in his prime during those fights with Basilio? He was also at Middleweight for his stoushes with LaMotta, not his best division.

In any case, Basilio & LaMotta are not the same as Young, Norton & Shavers. However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

I disagree about Young & Norton III, though. Ali, as Ezzard clarified, was a cash-cow & duly protected. I haven't seen the Ali-Shavers fight, but I only occasionally see disputes about that. What you don't see enough criticism of, conversely, is Ali-Lyle. Another suspect call, IMO. No one criticises Ali for that, though. But that is as much a criticism of the powers that be as it is an ageing Ali.

In any case, I agree there should be more emphasis that those fights came well-past Ali's peak.

You do know that they re-showed the third Ali Norton fight on prime time a week or two after the fight and the new judges scored it a draw.....However Joe Frazier only gave it to Norton by 1 round. The original outcome was not outrageous though the score was a bit skewed in Ali's favor more than it probably should have been. You can make a case for either fighter winning that fight.....somebody had to win it....if it went the other way people would be whining just as badly.

It was just the way the cookie crumbled.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Could have been scored either way? Ali disagrees with you.

[theone]

However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

Definitely respect the opinion Robinson was p4p better, but i don't believe its that clear cut.
Quality of competition is just about a deadlock as is accomplishments in my opinion. As for overall skills and attributes, I think its alot closer than some people believe.
Chin, stamina and heart are about equal. Robinson gets the nod for technical boxing skills and power(p4p of course). Ali, in his prime, had a better defense and was remarkable the faster fighter.
Not too much to help pick one over the other.

[I Feel Fine]

Not sure I did write the second quote...

Yes, my apologies, that was obviously alp's quote.

Anyway, as I've said in the past, I agree with you that anyone can lose a fight on any given night.

---------------------

As for some of the other points made in this thread, I'll just say that I thought Ali should have lost the Young and third Norton fights, and I would call them robberies. I thought Shavers beat Ali, but I wouldn't call that a robbery. Doug Jones, on the other hand, should not be a controversial fight, certainly not one of the most controversial in boxing history as some make it out to be. Clay was the clear winner in my view. But, as I said earlier, its harder to name a fighter who didn't have tough fights early and late in his career.

I agree that Robinson is the greatest fighter of all time.

On that note, also, Robinson had some tough, close fights early in his career, particularly the first LaMotta loss. And he had a far more disastrous ending to his career than the one Ali had.

[dagosd2000]

Did you really mean to say Robinson was in his prime during those fights with Basilio? He was also at Middleweight for his stoushes with LaMotta, not his best division.

In any case, Basilio & LaMotta are not the same as Young, Norton & Shavers. However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

I disagree about Young & Norton III, though. Ali, as Ezzard clarified, was a cash-cow & duly protected. I haven't seen the Ali-Shavers fight, but I only occasionally see disputes about that. What you don't see enough criticism of, conversely, is Ali-Lyle. Another suspect call, IMO. No one criticises Ali for that, though. But that is as much a criticism of the powers that be as it is an ageing Ali.

In any case, I agree there should be more emphasis that those fights came well-past Ali's peak.

You do know that they re-showed the third Ali Norton fight on prime time a week or two after the fight and the new judges scored it a draw.....However Joe Frazier only gave it to Norton by 1 round. The original outcome was not outrageous though the score was a bit skewed in Ali's favor more than it probably should have been. You can make a case for either fighter winning that fight.....somebody had to win it....if it went the other way people would be whining just as badly.

It was just the way the cookie crumbled.

Joe Louis had it scored for Ali also. I've posted some stuff on here about how Ali grabbed behind the head and was involved in some controversial decisions. But any criticism that can levied on Ali was after the layoff. And besides judges and referees aren't punching at each other. When I was pinned down(I think by Collins)about where I would rank Ali(this is after my posts on why I thought Ali got some favoritism)I didn't blink an eye. It was Muhammad.

This is what bothers me though. There was a guy on here that accused Ali of being a coward against Larry Holmes and that his purse should have been withheld. If you want to talk about some of the decisions or the holding you can make an argument. But to accuse Ali of being a coward says something about a poster like this. He claims to be an expert on the sport. I'd like to see him walk into any reputable boxing gym and say something like that. He'd be lucky if they just ignored him. I do on this forum.

[I Feel Fine]

I agree dagos. But, on one point, you would agree that Ali wasn't the only champion to bend the rules, wouldn't you? Ali wasn't even in the top 5 of Heavyweight champions who bent the rules the most. What about Marciano or Dempsey or Tyson or Holyfield, for example. Lewis and Holmes also did some of the things Ali did. Aside from holding behind the head and those kind of things, Ali was a pretty clean fighter.

One thing I would say for Louis is he was maybe the cleanest Heavyweight champion.

[Marlin]

Marciano didn't bend the rules.

He made his own.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Marciano didn't bend the rules.

He made his own.

[I Feel Fine]

He made his own.

Yep.

It was interesting, I was watching Marciano-Louis once and they had Marciano doing the commentary, discussing what was happening during the fight. And Marciano actually admitted to butting Louis, and simply said of it "this isn't a card game."

[dagosd2000]

I agree dagos. But, on one point, you would agree that Ali wasn't the only champion to bend the rules, wouldn't you? Ali wasn't even in the top 5 of Heavyweight champions who bent the rules the most. What about Marciano or Dempsey or Tyson or Holyfield, for example. Lewis and Holmes also did some of the things Ali did. Aside from holding behind the head and those kind of things, Ali was a pretty clean fighter.

One thing I would say for Louis is he was maybe the cleanest Heavyweight champion.

Of course. But sometimes I don't even think half of the stuff these guys did was intentional,more of a reflex(that was against the rules)
Example:Baer's pivot punching(using back of the hand)
Marciano catching a guy on his follow through with his elbow
Foreman shoving an opponent away with the heal of his gloves
None of what these fighters did will in anyway diminish what I think of them as fighters. Great . Now if you're trying to bite someone's ear off that's different.

About your comment about Joe Louis,this is one of the great class acts in sport history. His first match with Conn,the Brown Bomber is having his difficulties. He's losing the fight and even starting to get the shit punched out of him by The Irishman. I didn't have to say that. We all know the story. But that sets this next thing up. In one of the later rounds Conn gets his arm tangled in the ring rope losing his balance. Louis sees Conn's in trouble. Joe could have gone in and finished him off. The rules said nothing about hitting a guy on the ropes like that. Joe Louis stepped back until Conn gathered himself . Then continued to fight. You could hear the crowd applauding Joe's sportsmanship. Over 60 years later I can still hear the applause.

[I Feel Fine]

No offense, but I think its a bit naive to say that those guys weren't doing those things intentionally.

As for Louis not hitting Conn when he was off balance, I agree, but having seen most of Ali's fights I can also say there were quite a few instances where an opponent leaped after Ali trying to hit him, missed, and found themselves off balance, and Ali would always hold back rather than hit them when they were in that position. Same situation.

[dagosd2000]

No offense, but I think its a bit naive to say that those guys weren't doing those things intentionally.

As for Louis not hitting Conn when he was off balance, I agree, but having seen most of Ali's fights I can also say there were quite a few instances where an opponent leaped after Ali trying to hit him, missed, and found themselves off balance, and Ali would always hold back rather than hit them when they were in that position. Same situation.

I agree with you about Ali. He could have legally hit Foreman again on his way down,but didn't. I don't think I ever saw a referee have to struggle to pull him off on opponent when the end was just seconds away.

If Ali intentionally or unintentionally broke a rule,it was never a cruel act. Not in the act of punching or an offenive action. He didn't head butt or use his thumb. His punches were above the belt. Boxing is an easy sport to get caught up with in the action. I remember when Duran hit Buchanan low after the bell. I'm sure Duran's animal instincts were dominating his decision when he threw that punch. Good thing that fight wasn't in Glasgow

[Ambling Alp]

Did you really mean to say Robinson was in his prime during those fights with Basilio? He was also at Middleweight for his stoushes with LaMotta, not his best division.

In any case, Basilio & LaMotta are not the same as Young, Norton & Shavers. However, Robinson was just a better fighter than Ali period, so maybe that's fair enough.

I disagree about Young & Norton III, though. Ali, as Ezzard clarified, was a cash-cow & duly protected. I haven't seen the Ali-Shavers fight, but I only occasionally see disputes about that. What you don't see enough criticism of, conversely, is Ali-Lyle. Another suspect call, IMO. No one criticises Ali for that, though. But that is as much a criticism of the powers that be as it is an ageing Ali.

In any case, I agree there should be more emphasis that those fights came well-past Ali's peak.

You are right about the Basilio fight, Robinson was past his prime by then. I shouldn't have included that with all the close fights that he had in his prime. Still, he did have close decsions go his way against Servo,Abrams,Castnelli,Gavilan and Lombardo in his prime.

I know that he wasn't a middlewight when he fought LaMotta. I have said on other threads that Robinson was at a disadvantage when he fought La Motta in most of their fights. My main point is that I was just showing that Robinson had close decisions as well (actually many more than Ali) and no one hardly ever mentions it.

I don't agree that Robinson is better than Ali, period. You could argue it either way. You are selling Ali way short if you don't atleast acknowledge that it's pretty close. They were both All-Time Greats. It's extremely difficult to judge fighters that are in different weight divisions.

That you would bring up the Lyle controversy is yet another example of people try to taint Ali's wins. It has been mentioned on this forum several times. Watch the tape. The fact is that Lyle wasn't punching back. It wasn't strange at all for this fight to be stopped. If it wasn't Ali, hardly anyone would give this a second thought.

[The Great John L]

I agree with you about Ali. He could have legally hit Foreman again on his way down,but didn't. I don't think I ever saw a referee have to struggle to pull him off on opponent when the end was just seconds away.

You might want to watch the Ali-Bonavena fight.

[dagosd2000]

I agree with you about Ali. He could have legally hit Foreman again on his way down,but didn't. I don't think I ever saw a referee have to struggle to pull him off on opponent when the end was just seconds away.

You might want to watch the Ali-Bonavena fight.

The Ali/Bonavena fight was the first time the world saw how Ali had to change his style in order to continue fighting.(Ali/Quarry fight didn't last long enough to give us that insight) I remember Cosell doing the commentary during the Bonavena fight. He was flabbergasted like the rest of us. We had never seen Ali fight like that before. Cosell kept asking if he was sick or injured. Ali realized that he was despsrate. He grabbed,wouldn't break clinches. Ali was breaking the rules. He got a few warnings,but nothing was deducted. By the time Ali caught Bonavena with a left hook,the judges had Ali way ahead.(I believe one had him ahead 10 rds.)

The way the public,the media,and officials viewed Ali's fights started with that fight. What can I say? As long as he knew he could get away with that stuff,he continued to do it. I made a post a little while back on why I think that happened. I got into a description of what the country was going through and how Ali was an anti hero representing that period.(I caught some flack for that) But I firmly believe Ali's generation wanted him to win.

I also said that if Robinson or Louis would have resorted to what Ali did at the end of their careers,they would have been penalized and their public would have lost favor with them. When Tom Brokaw called that generation"Our Best Generation" he was wrong. That generation was our last"Good Generation"

In a recent thread I expressed what Joe Louis said to me on the steps of the Thunderbird Hotel when I asked him who the best fighter was today. He said Muhammad Ali. Louis was of that older generation,but I think he knew what Ali was as a fighter and what influence he had on young people. I'm sure all the defenders of Muhammad Ali on this forum(and I'm one of them)grew up watching Muhammad Ali.