ali over rated

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2007, 17:31

your obsession compulsion does not persuede.....you can absolutely do what you are doing to any fighter or any athlete. I am becoming more convinced that YOU believe what you are saying. You would like us to believe that he is the most over rated fighter of all time....and you know what? He may be because SO MUCH has been attached to his persona. HOWEVER even after factoring in ALL of your "factoids" he would still likely beat any of the folks you named WITHOUT your excuses for them. Or as you will surely say these "Facts".

Did you really see the Terrell fight? That's the one that has me laughing the hardest....he was brutal to him and it was my impression he wanted him concious throughout the beating and REFUSED to offer the novocaine of a KO or the reprise of the KD.

Your spouting that virtually every win was a conspiracy or that every good show had an "excuse" by the other fighter or that every decision was a "gift" has no legs with many (make that most) objective viewers. I was slow to come to appreciate this guy because he put down my hero Archie Moore.

And now that you know that I have an appreciation of Archie's career I'm sure your going to educate me as to how his career was also a house of cards built on fluke moments. Your "Factoids" do not have wings granberry. But your bitterness or compulsion does seem to have smoked your lens.

IMHO.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 24 Mar 2007, 17:36

BoxBuzz wrote:your obsession compulsion does not persuede.....you can absolutely do what you are doing to any fighter or any athlete. I am becoming more convinced that YOU believe what you are saying. You would like us to believe that he is the most over rated fighter of all time....and you know what? He may be because SO MUCH has been attached to his persona. HOWEVER even after factoring in ALL of your "factoids" he would still likely beat any of the folks you named WITHOUT your excuses for them. Or as you will surely say these "Facts".

Did you really see the Terrell fight? That's the one that has me laughing the hardest....he was brutal to him and it was my impression he wanted him concious throughout the beating and REFUSED to offer the novocaine of a KO or the reprise of the KD.

Your spouting that virtually every win was a conspiracy or that every good show had an "excuse" by the other fighter or that every decision was a "gift" has no legs with many (make that most) objective viewers. I was slow to come to appreciate this guy because he put down my hero Archie Moore.

And now that you know that I have an appreciation of Archie's career I'm sure your going to educate me as to how his career was also a house of cards built on fluke moments. Your "Factoids" do not have wings granberry. But your bitterness or compulsion does seem to have smoked your lens.

IMHO.

Buzz,

Just as I said you would,

you refused to answer my direct questions to you,

For the THIRD time.

But you offer insults.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 17:37

ffs....THIS IS BOXING, and as with life, WHO SAID ANYTHING WAS EVER GOING TO BE FAIR ALL THE TIME?!

Shit Happens. Build a bridge and get ova it.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2007, 17:50

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:your obsession compulsion does not persuede.....you can absolutely do what you are doing to any fighter or any athlete. I am becoming more convinced that YOU believe what you are saying. You would like us to believe that he is the most over rated fighter of all time....and you know what? He may be because SO MUCH has been attached to his persona. HOWEVER even after factoring in ALL of your "factoids" he would still likely beat any of the folks you named WITHOUT your excuses for them. Or as you will surely say these "Facts".

Did you really see the Terrell fight? That's the one that has me laughing the hardest....he was brutal to him and it was my impression he wanted him concious throughout the beating and REFUSED to offer the novocaine of a KO or the reprise of the KD.

Your spouting that virtually every win was a conspiracy or that every good show had an "excuse" by the other fighter or that every decision was a "gift" has no legs with many (make that most) objective viewers. I was slow to come to appreciate this guy because he put down my hero Archie Moore.

And now that you know that I have an appreciation of Archie's career I'm sure your going to educate me as to how his career was also a house of cards built on fluke moments. Your "Factoids" do not have wings granberry. But your bitterness or compulsion does seem to have smoked your lens.

IMHO.
Buzz,

Just as I said you would,

you refused to answer my direct questions to you,

For the THIRD time.

But you offer insults.

No insults just opinions.....as for answering your questions they are somewhat rhetorical and to the wind since you have believed every excuse you have ever heard for an ali opponent. Some of which leaves us wondering just how effective could they have been after being shot. or haveing a bad back, or being blind (Joe Frazier) ..........and in your mind these resulted in making each of these fighters mere infants and without defence and poor poor victims of the Lamar Clark Type Fighter that Ali surely was. Or was Lamar the real deal? Let me know on that.

You questions can not be answered but my guess is you have a pat answer for each question you have posed thought I doubt anyone other than the individual themselves could answer it.... and some already have in books or interviews. Some have even answered both ways....if you have read then you of what I speak here. So it's anyones guess....except the keeper of the flame or the akashik record......your good friends I assume.

Anyway I disagree but you have right to your unusual perspective and in fact if gives color and diversity to the forum...so I applaude your tenacity.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 24 Mar 2007, 18:01

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:for as many "facts" as you have at your disposal I'm often surprised at your "assessments". But that's what makes a baseball such a great sport.
Buzz,

You haven't answered me when I posed two posts of direct questions to you.

Are you hiding from my direct questions to you, Buzz?

And I am sure you agree wholeheartedly with the posters here who sob that Ali was "past his best" when he fought certain opponents.

Of course, you will not be able to answer this:

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Cleveland Williams in when he fought Ali?

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Zora Folley in when he fought Ali?

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Floyd Patterson in when he fought Ali the first time?

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Leon Spinks in when he fought Ali in their second fight?

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Archie Moore in when he fought Ali?

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Doug Jones in when he fought Ali?
What did Ali say at the weigh in about the shape Jones was in?

Here are the answers for poor Buzz, who hides behind his attempts at insults while he refuses repeatedly to answer my direct questions to him.

HERE YOU GO, Buzz:

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Cleveland Williams in when he fought Ali?

Cleveland Williams was missing one kidney, ten feet of his small intestine, and had a shriveled left leg above the knee from nerve damage from the bullet he was shot with at point blank range by a Texas State trooper a year and a half before his fight with Ali.

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Zora Folley in when he fought Ali?

Folley was ten years past his best.

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Floyd Patterson in when he fought Ali the first time?

Patterson had a sore back and should not have been approved to fight by the Las Vegas commission doctor.
During the fight, between rounds Patterson's cornerman Dan Florio tried to give Patterson chiropractic adjustments to his back in the corner.
Fighting a fighter in this condition, it took Ali (who had just supposedly knocked out Sonny Liston with a single punch in the first round) twelve rounds to beat the sore backed Patterson.

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Leon Spinks in when he fought Ali in their second fight?

Spinks took cocaine earlier in the evening that the fight took place, according to his bodyguard, Mr. T. Mr. T. wrote that in a book, and Spinks has never sued him
Spinks left for the ring without his basic equipment on.
He had to return to the dressing room and borrow a sweaty low blow protector from lightheavyweight Mike Rossman, who had just fought.

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Archie Moore in when he fought Ali?

He was very very very very very very very very very very very old.

WHAT PHYSICAL CONDITION was Doug Jones in when he fought Ali?
What did Ali say at the weigh in about the shape Jones was in?

Jones was so fat at 188 3/4 that at the weigh in Ali made up a 'poem' about how fat he was.

Just for you Buzz.

Enjoy.

Does anyone here sob for the above fighters? Of course not.

But tell me again how Ali was "past his best" in certain fights.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2007, 19:05

Well you didnt' tell me a thing that hasnt been passed around the table over and over again....and it appears you gobbled it all up without asking for salt...shows you got a good appetite. Now as to the actual extent and truth of each and every "fact" that has been out there I can tell you in no uncertain terms that much of what you say is pure baloney. Either in actual detail or in assumed consequence.

I'm sure your going to feel insulted by what I have said so I'll apologize in advance for all the insults you will find in those words.

And I continue to welcome your belief that you have all the facts and their obvious assumed consequences in clear perspective. I just won't think much of your ability to discern or your judgment in these matters. Not an insult simply my take on this.

Furthermore I think our give and take has had quite a few readers....good for our sponsors....so if you wish you are welcome to continue.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 24 Mar 2007, 21:56

BoxBuzz wrote:Well you didnt' tell me a thing that hasnt been passed around the table over and over again....and it appears you gobbled it all up without asking for salt...shows you got a good appetite. Now as to the actual extent and truth of each and every "fact" that has been out there I can tell you in no uncertain terms that much of what you say is pure baloney. Either in actual detail or in assumed consequence.

I'm sure your going to feel insulted by what I have said so I'll apologize in advance for all the insults you will find in those words.

And I continue to welcome your belief that you have all the facts and their obvious assumed consequences in clear perspective. I just won't think much of your ability to discern or your judgment in these matters. Not an insult simply my take on this.

Furthermore I think our give and take has had quite a few readers....good for our sponsors....so if you wish you are welcome to continue.

Buzzy, with this turkey around you look almost knowledgable. I said, almost.

That makes me wonder. "Granberry" isn't you in disguise it it? I mean, no one can be as daft as 'him' and you are the one keeping this thread alive with all your shallow posts.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:08

BoxBuzz wrote: Now as to the actual extent and truth of each and every "fact" that has been out there I can tell you in no uncertain terms that much of what you say is pure baloney.

.

You are unable to answer anything, buzz.

Instead you offer generalities like the above.

Do you know better than Cleveland Williams' doctors what the condition of his kidneys, small intestine, and left leg were?

Are you saying Dan Florio DID NOT try to give Patterson chiropractic adjustments to his back between rounds of his title fight with Ali?

Are you saying Zora Folley was at his peak when he fought Ali?

Are you saying Archie Moore was at his peak when he fought Ali?

Are you saying that Mr. T DID NOT write that Spinks took cocaine several hours before his second fight with Ali?

Keep hiding from my questions, buzz.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:14

Are you saying Archie Moore was at his peak when he fought Ali?

This is probably the only Q I somewhat agree with. I have made the argument before that nobody ever seems to discredit Ali for fighting a nearly 50 year old Archie Moore, but always jump on Marciano's back for fighting a late 30's Archie.

But, as others always 'fire back' at me is that, it would be a different story had Ali not fought as many greats (Frazier, Norton, Foreman etc) and that Moore been one of the more 'better' opponents of his career, as he was for Marciano's.

But I do get the jist of what you are saying at that, but then again, you have to realise that Moore only had his title stripped of him a year or two before (LHW title) and was ranked pretty high still for a HW despite his age and 'ability', when he fought Ali. But I have to admit, he was more than a 'safe' opponent, a name opponent at that time.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:16

Collins we all read a bit, do a little research bounce it off others who have done some research and the try to make sense of it all, and we have a choice as to what we accept and what we think might be contrivances sorting through chaff to get to some wheat. It's always fun to banter some of this stuff around and the most eccentric of opinions are always the most entertaining.

Shallow? well I suppose sports in all dimensions fits that script though it is subjective I suppose. What deep waters can you lead us into with your particular brand of absolutes and blinding intelligence today?

Everything granberry has read has stuck in his head as absolute fact....one thing about a truly open mind is that you can throw anything into it and there it stays......they say being non discriminate is a good thing...maybe it is.

If you have already formed your opinion all one needs to do is gather info that supports it and you can crown yourself an "expert"...works for global warming or cooling.....and that Ali was great or a charleton. However the REALITY remains a constant throughout all the drama and the information "blow back".

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:36

BoxBuzz wrote:Collins we all read a bit, do a little research bounce it off others who have done some research and the try to make sense of it all, and we have a choice as to what we accept and what we think might be contrivances sorting through chaff to get to some wheat. It's always fun to banter some of this stuff around and the most eccentric of opinions are always the most entertaining.

Shallow? well I suppose sports in all dimensions fits that script though it is subjective I suppose. What deep waters can you lead us into with your particular brand of absolutes and blinding intelligence today?

Everything granberry has read has stuck in his head as absolute fact....one thing about a truly open mind is that you can throw anything into it and there it stays......they say being non discriminate is a good thing...maybe it is.

If you have already formed your opinion all one needs to do is gather info that supports it and you can crown yourself an "expert"...works for global warming or cooling.....and that Ali was great or a charleton. However the REALITY remains a constant throughout all the drama and the information "blow back".

Do you? It certainly doesn't show.

Or a boxing historian

Anyway, one day you'll write an honest post. I can sense it.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2007, 22:43

I think I know what your getting at, I'm not like barry or you when it comes to the details and I sort of enjoy the "pop" topics more than the obscure....However I read the obscure with a voracious appetite but rarely comment on them deferring to the more compulsive on these subjects. Partly because my memory is not strong and I'm not a "detail" person. I prefer the "spirit" of the discussion...but are you insinuating I'm insincere? I like a good joke, don't take myself (or others for that fact) all that seriously I suppose. But I try to stay true to the things I believe.

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 24 Mar 2007, 23:03

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote: Now as to the actual extent and truth of each and every "fact" that has been out there I can tell you in no uncertain terms that much of what you say is pure baloney.

.
You are unable to answer anything, buzz.

Instead you offer generalities like the above.

Do you know better than Cleveland Williams' doctors what the condition of his kidneys, small intestine, and left leg were?

Are you saying Dan Florio DID NOT try to give Patterson chiropractic adjustments to his back between rounds of his title fight with Ali?

Are you saying Zora Folley was at his peak when he fought Ali?

Are you saying Archie Moore was at his peak when he fought Ali?

Are you saying that Mr. T DID NOT write that Spinks took cocaine several hours before his second fight with Ali?

Keep hiding from my questions, buzz.

All these fighters may have the problems you are talking about but,
Ali is remembered for beating the likes of a prime Foreman and his 3 fights with Frazier and his beating of Liston.
His legacy isn't built on beating guys like Spinks and Williams as they are nothing in the heavy weight division and wouldn't even make an all time top 100.
Patterson was past his best but so was Ali when he fought half the guys you talk about.
Every fighters resume can be broken down and made to look bad and you are being rather pathetic in your assesment of one of the top 5 heavyweights of alltime.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 23:12

Iono what anyone is talking about when they say Patterson was 'past his best' when he fought Ali twice; in my own personal opinion the man was a far better fighter and beat far better opponents than he did as a champion AND was robbed when he fought for the vacant WBA title, which would have made him the first 3x heavyweight champion.

But concerning the physical well being he was when he fought Ali (whichever fight Gran is talking about with the back and all) that I can't judge on, but Patterson clearly was a better fighter after losing the title.

Don't believe it look at his record and it screams out for its self.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Mar 2007, 23:26

I would agree with that regarding Patterson.

I like that granberry is offering up food for thought and has taken every negative fact, rumour, assumption and inuendo to construct a theory that Ali was perhaps a bum. It does not stand up well to scrutiny but offers up some interesting moments.

Problem still left to be solved is why Ali was so damn lucky, so highly regarded, considered so valuable, so immensely appreciated and mistakenly assumed to be so damn good by so many "experts". Something in the Kool Aid we were all drinking? Or perhaps mysterious KI power? Evidence that the Borg have indeed assimilated us?

Ok time to grab another Sam Adams.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 24 Mar 2007, 23:49

When someone not only becomes champion in such a dazzling way, but becomes truly a champion of the people---he becomes something larger than life, he can do no wrong, he's 'invincible'. Its oh so easy to cheer for those who win, and oh so easy to boo for those who lose.

When Sullivan was champion, he beat every man the Police Gazette could throw at him and knocked the majority of them out, thus becoming the first real star of the gloved era. When Johnson beat Burns and Jefferies and others, he became a hero to blacks the world over. When Dempsey blew away Willard and started making more money than other sports stars like Babe Ruth, he was forever immortalised.

There's no difference in this for Ali. He was a hero to blacks, to those against war, against conformity; a hero to rebels and to the younger generations. He was not just a boxer, but a symbol of them and was an entertainer anyone would envy---he was just as big as The Beatles, just as well known as Jesus (that's a fact, though sadly for the religion).

The man transcended boxing, just like Sullivan, Dempsey, Johnson, and Louis did before him; except he took it another notch...he became part legend and part myth.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 25 Mar 2007, 06:56

granberry wrote:except to offer juvenile name calling.

How can you complain about that when you called me pathetic yesterday on the Hagler - Jones thread?

You also mocked my 'username' of all things?

If you can't take a shot, don't throw one.

You also failed to reply to my polite questions, something you are complaing about on this thread.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 10:12

granberry has no real point, other than "general disgruntledness" he's a curmudgeon with "history envy" and has decided to swallow all the facts that will support his revisionist thinking rather than take in the lessons of actual manifest realities. Or at least that is my take.

He views anyone who takes Ali's career seriously as "drinkers of the Kool Aide" who don't have the intellect to understand just what a ride they were all taken on. I can enjoy the laugh of how it re defines the cliche of

"The Sixties...if you can remember them, then you weren't there".

I like the entertainment aspect so much I almost want to go along with him. But his overall case don't hold water.

Sometimes garden variety "conventional wisdom" or "popular notions" manifest simply because they are so.....and not due to conspiracy, media manipulation, dark secrets, lemming mentality or unfortunate happenstance. I obviously enjoy his contributions or I wouldnt comment....but I'm often drawn to fiction ESPECIALLY when it is cleverly peppered with doses of truth and actual events. And in this come SOME of his information is true and even the assumed consequences can be safely assumed. But it does not have overall integrity enough to lead one safely to the promised land of the overall premise.

OK...I now retire from this bit of give and take. We will let the readers decide if granberry has struck gold and we may now safely relegate this once thought of great champion to whom Joe Louis said (on at least one occasion) would be "Another bum on the tour".

However from what I have seen Joe himself might be considered in that company as well from our resident cynic...er I mean enlightened and courageous critical thinker.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 25 Mar 2007, 10:27

Boxbuzz.

Thank you for using the word curmudgeon. It's a word I would like to hear more often.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 25 Mar 2007, 11:13

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
When Sullivan was champion, he beat every man the Police Gazette could throw at him and knocked the majority of them out, thus becoming the first real star of the gloved era.

Another winner from Rufus.

You never heard of Peter Jackson, did you Rufus.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 25 Mar 2007, 12:19

I didn't say Sullivan 'fought them all' Granberry, I said 'fought all the POLICE GAZETTE could throw at Sullivan'.

The Police Gazette lined up the Mitchell fights, Slade fights, and the Kilrain bout. And really, outside of Jem Mace and Peter Jackson, who else was there that Sullivan hadn't fought?

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 25 Mar 2007, 13:13

granberry wrote:Are you saying that Mr. T DID NOT write that Spinks took cocaine several hours before his second fight with Ali?

Bringing in B.A. Baracus to prove a point is akin to admitting defeat.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 13:50

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I didn't say Sullivan 'fought them all' Granberry, I said 'fought all the POLICE GAZETTE could throw at Sullivan'.

The Police Gazette lined up the Mitchell fights, Slade fights, and the Kilrain bout. And really, outside of Jem Mace and Peter Jackson, who else was there that Sullivan hadn't fought?

Help me as I gain new critical thinking skills Irish......Wouldnt the very fact that Peter Jackson did not fight John Sullivan make him better than Sullivan beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or might I possibly be prone to error if I carry that line of thinking too far?

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 25 Mar 2007, 14:16

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Mar 2007, 14:32

DaveV17 wrote:BoxBuzz wrote, "Help me as I gain new critical thinking skills Irish......Wouldnt the very fact that Peter Jackson did not fight John Sullivan make him better than Sullivan beyond a shadow of a doubt?"

No, that fact wouldn't indicate that Jackson was better than Sullivan.

But the fact that Jackson wanted to fight Sullivan and Sullivan didn't want to fight Jackson indicates that Sullivan thought that Jackson was better.

Don't you mean that IF TRUE...(and I think it is) it MAY indicate that Sullivan thought that? Could the perception of the times, peer or social pressures, or other considerations possibly monetary play into this? The most negative of course being racism. Their are a myriad of other less scandalous options as well. Not every champion has faced every available opponent and when this has happened it has not always been for fear of being bested.

Based on the veritable plethra of information on this subject why is personal fear the one that is assumed front and center? Is the preponderance of evidence available on this question highly indicative that this was the case? I've sort of suspected societal pressure of one nature or another, but not personal racism or fear.