ALI's BEST YEARS--(fighting mediocrities?)

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 23 Oct 2003, 21:42

The 'slugs' Dempsey defended against weren't any better...and some of THEM weighed under 180 ponuds, one knocked Jack clean out of the ring...

Joe Louis' 'bum of the month club' wasn't any better either...After 169 pound Billy Conn, they were all low on talent or over the hill...

Rocky Marciano didn't exactly go through an "A List" either...unless beating up 42 year old Archie Moore or 35 year old Ezzard Charles, or 39 year old Jersey Joe Walcott counts as top level contenders...

But, of course, were talking about Ali here, the scourge of the earth, a no good , loud mouthed, draft dodging, S.O.B., right?

A fighter can only fight who's available...

At least Ali never got KO'd by a 5'9", 38 year old, two years before winning the title like Dempsey...At least he didn't fail to beat the same guy four times in two years...right before winning the title like Dempsey...

Terap's basic premise: Ali fought untalented opponents so he sucks...
But, other champions who fought untalented contenders are GREAT!

What utter nonsense...how unfair and unobjective can you get...

COMING SOON TO THIS FORUM: MORE TERAP B.S.
Not all of us are fooled by your distorted B.S.

Dave1armedTua · Post by **Dave1armedTua** » 24 Oct 2003, 01:20

So ali and Leonard sucked, and the old guys were great. So what? 90% of the world doesn't know that, and another 8% doesn't care.

Rhinoceros · Post by **Rhinoceros** » 24 Oct 2003, 17:30

Dave1armedTua wrote:So ali and Leonard sucked, and the old guys were great. So what? 90% of the world doesn't know that, and another 8% doesn't care.

If that's true I think I'd rather be in the 2% who are neither ignorant nor apathetic.

Just a thought. :)

Vetteguy99 · Post by **Vetteguy99** » 25 Oct 2003, 01:00

Will you ever give it a break, the only guy left for Ali
to fight in ther sixties was Wilt Chamberlan, who Ali
refered to as the billiegoat.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 25 Oct 2003, 14:11

terap wrote:So now Jess Willard (6' 6 1/2"--243 lb) was a 180 pounder.

And so was Fred Fulton (6'5" 220).

And so was Carl Morris (6' 4"---235 lb)

And so was Luis Firpo (6' 3" 225 lb).

I love it when modern media shills and those who parrot them take time out from shilling for Ali and Leonard to demonstrate their "expertise' in the past history of boxing.

"The 'slugs' Dempsey defended against weren't any better...and some of THEM weighed under 180 ponuds, one knocked Jack clean out of the ring... "

More "boxing history" from the "experts."

And you better not disagree with theiir horsesh*t or they will get hysterical.

ANOTHER DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH BY TERAP "THE DISTORTER"

Dempsey DEFENDED against Miske (187), Brennan (194), Carpentier (172), Gibbons (175), and Firpo (THE ONLY GUY OVER 200#!!! AT 216). Dempsey then LOST to Tunney (189) as opposed to 'defended against'.

Don't we all just love how the Dempsey shill Terap manipulates facts to put his fighter in a better light. Isn't that what he accuses others of doing?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Oct 2003, 10:15

Oh dear oh dear! another Ali bashing post!..... ofcourse it's okay to bash Ali and everything he did, perhaps somepeople actually think that it's cool to be anti Ali..... these are wise original men these Anti Alis..... They can spout all manner of insults and nonsense in the name of honesty and originalty (they would even have us believe that Ali never existed at all if they could) but watch out if you try to defend Ali!!!.... that's not allowed!!!.... a big nono.... a big boo boo.... if you defend Ali you are a shill!.... a media mannequin... probably in league with Bin laden and Saddam!!!..... .....we (the shills) are evil, corrupt and debased!!!!!!!........
so let us bow down to the great Terap for only he knows the true way!!!...
and only he can possibly save us!!!!!!!.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Oct 2003, 10:25

Also we should not forget that the great Jack Dempsey gave a whole new meaning to the phrase 'knocking out stiffs' when he 'defended' his title against poor Billy Misk who was dying of kidney disease.
Cleveland Williams may have been past his best when he fought Ali (although he went on to have quite a few more fights including a good one with George Chuvalo) but I think you have to admit that he had rather more life left in him (literally) than Misk.
It's always said that Dempsey done sick Misk a favour by giving him a shot at the title but surely it would have been kinder for Dempsey to give Misk a handout without knocking him out in the bargin!!!????.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 26 Oct 2003, 16:50

Terap,

I realise you don't have a very high opinion of Ali, I too think he was over-rated but I think it's difficult to find ANY boxer who hasn't fought dubious opposition. You talk of the great Ali punch missing but I don't ever recall anyone saying that Ali was a big puncher? OK he had a some what controversial KO of Liston but I don't think he has ever been rated as a great puncher just because of this.

I don't know who you rate as a great fighter but I bet who ever you name there will be fighters on his record who beat him, knocked him down or lost a controversial decision too. It's impossible for a fighter to not fight dubious opposition or fighters past their best at some point in their career.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Oct 2003, 17:37

Thanks for worrying about my diet Terap but my foot really insn't in my mouth as I already ate earlier. Contrary to what you think my point was never to run down Billy Misk, or Jack Dempsey for that matter, rather I m trying to point out that you are critticizing Ali for fighting Williams due to Williams shotgun injuries (which I know all about) when Dempsey fought a man with a debilitating and ultimately fatal illness. This is fact.
That Misk went on to fight 24 more times does not change this fact, but only underlines how brave Billy was. And like I said I am not running Misk down, ....I leave the running down of fighters to others.
Williams had another 19 fights after his match with Ali. Including fights with Chuvalo, Foster. Not bad considering the injuries he had suffered.
My point is that he was still a brave capable fighter when he fought Ali not a helpless cripple as you try to make out.
Ali fought everyone there was to fight in both the 60s and 70s ....he never ducked anyone. It was not his fault that Folley and Williams were well past their best when he fought them. They were still capable fighters.
Would you criticise Dempsey if he had given a title shot to a over the hill Sam Langford???...... or Jeannette....... or Mcvey???.... I think not!..... but then you do not have that problem as Dempsey never fought either of these men, nor Harry Wills either!..... (Wills by the way beat a certain Meehan who Dempsey could never get the hang of).
Again I say this not to run down Dempsey but rather point out facts. And the facts are that Dempsey avoided these guys as skillfully as he ever dodged any punches. Harry Wills was wrongly denied his shot at the title yet you don't seem interested in this. I'd be interested to know why.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 26 Oct 2003, 18:17

If you're asking for Terap to be objective & unbiased...you may as well forget it. Terap's knowledge of boxing is 'contaminated' by his lack of objectivity, not to mention his obsession with 'media mantras & conspiracy theories'. What a waste...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Oct 2003, 18:55

Terap, my whole point is that Williams was not suffering a fatal illness like Misk was. You knocked ALI for fighting Williams cause Williams had suffered such terrible injuries at the hands (or rather gun) of a mad cop yet don't seem to want to admit that Dempsey fought an at least equally past his best Misk ...who was actually suffering from a fatal illness!!!.
This is fact. I never said that Misk never faught again. Are you saying that Misk was in much better shape than Williams when he fought Dempsey?. Williams won fights after losing to Ali, just as Misk won fights after losing to Dempsey.
So why is my foot in my mouth?.
I'm sorry that after interesting conversations in past you have chosen to try and use insults against me. I am simply putting my opinons on a post that you made and you seem unable to accept that someone can disagree with you and perhaps may even be right rather than wrong.
I notice that you choose to ignore my points about Dempsey never fighting Langford, Mcvey, Jeannette, or Wills (or Jim Johnson to name just one other). As you have been criticising Ali's opponents my points about Dempsey are very valid. So why do you, who obviously must appreciate the abilities that these men had ignore my point?.
Many other champs have ducked opposition, Ali never did, this is one of the reasons I admire him.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 27 Oct 2003, 04:23

All we ever hear is that Ali's performance against Williams was the greatest performance ever by a Heavyweight.

If Williams was 10 years younger and Ali beat him like he did, then it may have been a great performance.

As it is, Ali beat a guy eight to ten years past his prime, who had serious physical handicaps and who had forgot how to get out of the way of punches. (Look at the tape).

Ali looked good to the general sports fan, but that was the whole point of the exercise. Williams should not have been in the ring that night and I reckon there are at least half a dozen HW champs who could have beaten him equally as easy as Ali did.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 27 Oct 2003, 14:54

terap wrote:Silkov,

You are showing me the utter hopelessness of dealing with many on this form.

You DON'T KNOW WHO

So you have NO WAY of comprehending

you have no way of comprehending

And similarly, you obviously never saw
and have no idea what he was in his prime---

I would assume anyone would know that---but I assume wrong.

You lack of knowledge is your refuge.

As far as you know,

You are unaware

You also fail to comprehend

Those of us who are familiar with the topic can see

Joe Louis told me

Since you are totally and completely ignorant

But since you don't have a clue who those people are---you swim in a confusion

Hopeless is the word.
"

I took the liberty of removing most of the text, which just leaves the ridicule, arrogance, AND a little 'name dropping' as well...typical Terap post...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Oct 2003, 16:04

Actually Terap I have read extensively about Billy Misk, Tommy and Mike Gibbons, Fred Fulton, Willie Meehan, Harry Wills, Sam Langford, JOE jeannette, Sam MCvey, Jim Johnson, Kid Norfolk.... etc... and I notice that you still have not answered my questions concerning Dempseys ducking of black opponents (especially Langford, Wills and Mcvey).
My whole point all along has been that Misk was well past his best when he fought Dempsey just as Williams was against Ali. Furthermore Misk was sick when he fought Dempsey. In you're wish to always be right are you now claiming that Misk was not suffering from Kidney disease when he faced Dempsey?. I have boxing mags dating back to the 30s and have read much on these men. Are you now saying that the media conspiricy of which Ali is part dates back to the 30s when Ali wasn't even alive???. You still haven't answered my points on Dempsey ducking these men. Is it because these points don't fit in with your doctrine.
I have about 5 fights of Williams including his fights with Liston, so I know exactly what sort of fighter he was.
Also, Ali's greatness is not due to just one fight but his whole career, just like any other fighter. As a boxing expert I would have expected you to know that.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Oct 2003, 16:20

Terap, I am afraid that you are befuddled by bitterness. You still haven't answered my points about Dempsey ducking all those great fighters due to the colour of their skin. Instead you hide behind put downs and insults and twist facts and history around to suit you're purpose. Now according to you all boxing writing since the 30s is wrong! and you alone are right.
Your lack of objectivity is truly astonishing.
And ultimately saddening.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Oct 2003, 16:38

Yet again Terap you hide behind meaningless and repetitive put downs. I know all about those fighters you mentioned, probably more than you do as you seem to shirk all written evidence of such fighters. Were you by perchance a cornerman of Dempsey, or Fulton or Meehan perhaps?.
I would like to know (in the absence of honest media accounts since the great conspiricy started in the late 20s) where you manage to get your goldplated pearls of wisdom?.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Oct 2003, 17:20

Terap as you obviously don't read boxing mags I had better inform you that Bert Randolph Sugar and Stanley Weston were not involved in the publishing of various boxing papers and mags in the 30s to 50s. Nat Fleisher was though and I was (until now) under the impression that you had read and appreciated his work in the Ring and his various books.
Also you still seem afraid to mention my point about Dempsey not wanting to fight you-know-who!!! (Wills, Langford, Mcvey, Jeanette etc...etc....etc...).
Please tell me why???.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Oct 2003, 19:43

Still you avoid answering my valid points as regarding Dempsey ducking dangerman Harry Wills, to name just one. Perhaps you should use Boxing Rec yourself and look up Wills record and see just why Dempsey decided to avoid him. Surely that would be more interesting than hiding behind a fog of repetitive put downs like you are now.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Oct 2003, 09:33

Thats true, I have a copy of that photo, also a photo of the tickets which were printed and never used. There was a public clamour for Dempsey to meet Wills, and the New York State commision tried to force the fight to take place (which is probably why Rickard half-heartedly attempted to make the fight a number of times before allowing it to 'fall through') and eventually banned Dempsey from fighting in the state when it became clear that the Wills fight would never take place.
I'm sure that the main reason Rickard didn't want the fight to take place is that he didn't think Dempsey would beat Wills. Dempsey and Rickard were very close friends.
Despite the Wills factor I still admire Dempsey and consider him a great champion.... nobody is perfect, even Boxing champions.... but the Wills thing is still a blot on his record. Looking at Wills record you have to say that he would have been the most formidable opponent of Dempseys career had they fought.
The same goes for Langford, Mcvey and Jeannette.
Dempsey avoided these men before he was champ too, when beating them would really have underlined his status as a top contender.
My underlying point is that Ali by contrast fought all available opposition.
Surely that acheievement by any champion should be worthy of praise or acknowledgement, even if one is not a fan of the aforementioned champion.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 28 Oct 2003, 10:10

terap wrote:"A boxer's record (if correct) tells a huge amount to those who are well educated in the subject."

TRANSLATION: Only I, Terap, am able to perceive this.

"The study of records leads to further and further knowledge."

TRANSLATION: Only I, Terap, study boxing.

"Put down your Bert Sugar and Stanley Weston "Boxing Magazines" sometime and try it."

TRANSLATION: Only I, Terap, can be trusted to supply you with boxing information.

"The riches on boxrec for those of us who know this are amazing."

TRANSLATION: Only I,Terap, am capable of using these riches.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Oct 2003, 16:16

If Fulton fought Langford why didn't Dempsey?.... he could have if he wanted, the fact that Jeannette, Langford and Mcvey were all well past their best (of which I'm well aware) when Dempsey was on the rise makes it even more strange that Dempsey managed to avoid facing any of them in his rise to the top. Harry Wills though was definately not past it during the early part of Dempseys reign, although he was getting on a bit by 1924 when the most 'serious' attempt was made to make the fight. The fact that Dempsey didnot fight these men even when they were past their primes says how good they were even during their later years.
Langford used to look for the 'shadow' before him and aim to the point beside it as he had learnt that that was where his opponent would be. Even at the end of his career Langford could ko an opponent with one punch.
As for Johnson, I ve never said that he did not duck Langford, Mcvey, and Jeannette when he won the title.... he certainly did. However you seem to avoid the fact that he fought all of them and many others of the great Black contenders before he won the title ....when they were all in their primes!. I ve read Johnson's biography and he stated that there was no way that he could get any promoter to promote a defence of his title in America against another black fighter. All the money was to be made against 'white hopes'.
Johnson did defend his title against one black fighter.... that was against Jim Johnson.... but it was in Paris.
Its interesting that Johnson only fought Langford once.... I think he found him his most formidable opponent... he should have given him a title shot without a doubt. They would probably have made a fortune fighting in Paris.
But like I said earlier Johnson did fight ...and beat, all these men before he won the title.
This point underlines once again what I ve been saying about Ali..... he fought them all, before and after he was champion. He ducked noone.
The only other heavyweight champion who didn't duck any outstanding challengers other than Ali was Joe Louis.
I hope we can continue this interesting discussion without resorting to personal attacks about things such as lack of time sense.
I have about a 25 watches and they are all in working order.
My time sense is therefore rather good!.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Oct 2003, 17:29

Alas once again Terap you resort to insults in order to try and shore up a losing argument. I did say in my last post (I 'm presuming that you had the grace to read what I wrote) that Jack Johnson should have given Langford a title shot!. It's right here on wonderful Boxing -rec for you to read again if you missed it before!. Since when has saying Johnson should have given Langford a title shot amounted to condoning Johnson not giving Langford a shot???????. I agree, I state again for your personal benifit that Johnson should have given Langford a shot.
But as I also stated earlier, at least Johnson fought Langford Before he won the title. Indeed the opponents that Johnson faced before he won the title form many peoples opinion of how good he was. He faced everyone including all the top black heavies that hardly any of the white fighters would face.
Nat fleisher rated Johnson the best ever Heavyweight which says a lot as to how he regarded him.
Have you read Johnsons biography? ...it is far from self seving, in my opinion but I quoted it as I thought you may be interested in the reason Johnson gave as to why he didn't face Langford, Mcvey or Jeannette once he had won the title.
As for Johnsons ducking of Langford after he won the title being the sickest thing action in boxing history I think it is rivalled and beaten in sickness by......
1. John l Sullivans refusal to fight the great Peter Jackson.
2. Jack Dempsey refusing to fight Harry Wills.
3. Joe Louis having to sign over 10% of his future career earnings to James Braddock in order to get title shot.
4. Joe Louis donating a number of his purses during the WW2 to the war effort then being chased by the government for the taxes on these purses.
5. Rocky Marciano ducking Nino Valdez.
6. Archie Moore being ducked for over 10 years during his whole middleweight career and only getting title shot when aged either 36 or 39.
7. Ali being banned in 1967 for his refusal to fight in Vietnam and consequently losing over 3 and a half years of his career, including his prime.
Like I said earlier Johnsons avoidence of Langford after he won the championship is offset slightly by the fact that he DID fight and beat him earlier in his career. Johnsons point that he couldn't get a title defence against another black man promoted in America should not be dismissed.
You must know the sort of climate Johnson was living under, he was like a hunted animal.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Oct 2003, 18:51

My point all along has been to illustrate that Ali whom you constantly criticise beyond all reason faced all his top challengers and contenders unlike many other champs including Dempsey who Ducked Harry Wills both before and after he won the title.
My point has never been to actually run down or insult Dempsey merely point out the facts.
You are however completely unable to see any viewpoint other than your own and so have completely twisted things around and are now making me out to be a Dempsey basher.
That Dempsey Ducked Wills is agreed by most people with any considerable Boxing knowledge.
Saying this does not make me Anti Dempsey.
I am just stating a historical fact.
Dempsey did not avoid Wills Before he won title because he was afraid of riots.
How can you be so damning of Johnson ducking Langford yet just try to brush away Dempseys avoidance of Wills or Sullivans ducking of Jackson!!!???.
You're viewpoint is totally biased to your own ends.
Ultimately this is a very sad fact.

Dave1armedTua · Post by **Dave1armedTua** » 28 Oct 2003, 19:50

Your posts are repetitive. You have said the same things repeatedly despite their being proved incorrect.

Hmmmm, that reminds me of someone else

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 28 Oct 2003, 20:17

terap wrote:
Your posts are repetitive. You have said the same things repeatedly despite their being proved incorrect.

Now, THAT'S CHOICE!!!!!!!

Somebody give this guy a drug test....