BoxRec

In tearing down Holmes,

Mike Casey wrote that Ali could adjust

The Young fight showed Ali had no ability to adjust--even when he desperately needed to.

granberry wrote:In tearing down Holmes,

Mike Casey wrote that Ali could adjust

The Young fight showed Ali had no ability to adjust--even when he desperately needed to.

The fact that you refuse to even entertain the notion that Ali was essentially washed up as a fighter and all he really had left at that point in his career was guts and guile shows you are incapable of critical thinking.

What really kills you is that outside of boxing circles nobody know who Jimmy Young was but I can go to a shantytown in Johanessberg, a slum in Manila, or an exotic resort in Dubai and most people will know about the great Muhammad Ali. That's something you and his reactionary coterie of detractors can never take away from him. He was one of the seminal historical figures of the twentieth century. The fact he was a great boxer is almost incidental.

ThatOne wrote:
He was one of the seminal historical figures of the twentieth century. The fact he was a great boxer is almost incidental.

The above posting by TheOne spells out clearly how deranged The Religion of Ali members can be.

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It's a pretty solid take, for the most part.

What's interesting is that the Tyson-Holmes debacle is looked at in a new light. The conventional argument is that Larry was shot and it's unfair to infer anything from that fight. The revisionist argument is that Larry went on to fight successfully for another decade or so and maybe folks can infer more from the Tyson fight than they normally do. Maybe it was just a bad match up.

I still tend not to read too much into that fight.

It's a combination of all of those things. Tyson's speed and stature would always be difficult for larry. But he definitely was in terrible condition for that fight and while he went on to compete later he did it with a slew of tuneups to build his cardio and timing.

It would be an interesting fight with both in there prime. I think Holmes jab is the difference, but I imagine he would have to climb off the deck along the way.

As for the case made at the top. theonly thing laughable is Dempsey troubling Larry. That would be a whitewashing.

granberry wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
He was one of the seminal historical figures of the twentieth century. The fact he was a great boxer is almost incidental.

The above posting by TheOne spells out clearly how deranged The Religion of Ali members can be.

Here's a link to an article about Ali who was chosen by TIME MAGAZINE as one of the TIME 100 Heroes and Icons Of The Twentieth Century:

http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/her ... ali01.html

ThatOne wrote:

granberry wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
He was one of the seminal historical figures of the twentieth century. The fact he was a great boxer is almost incidental.

The above posting by TheOne spells out clearly how deranged The Religion of Ali members can be.

Here's a link to an article about Ali who was chosen by TIME MAGAZINE as one of the TIME 100 Heroes and Icons Of The Twentieth Century:

http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/her ... ali01.html

Yep, TIME magazine is certainly the authority when it comes to boxing.

LOL

TheOne has finally admitted that he and his kind (fellow members of The Religion of Ali)
have no interest in boxing at all.

granberry wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

granberry wrote: The above posting by TheOne spells out clearly how deranged The Religion of Ali members can be.

Here's a link to an article about Ali who was chosen by TIME MAGAZINE as one of the TIME 100 Heroes and Icons Of The Twentieth Century:

http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/her ... ali01.html

Yep, TIME magazine is certainly the authority when it comes to boxing.

LOL

TheOne has finally admitted that he and his kind (fellow members of The Religion of Ali)
have no interest in boxing at all.

We were discussing Muhammad Ali as a seminal historical figure of the twentieth century.


As to a boxer I will defer to Ring Magazine, SI, and the IBHOF:


Muhammad Ali defeated every top heavyweight in his era, which has been called the golden age of heavyweight boxing. Ali was named "Fighter of the Year" by Ring Magazine more times than any other fighter, and was involved in more Ring Magazine "Fight of the Year" bouts than any other fighter. He is an inductee into the International Boxing Hall of Fame and holds wins over seven other Hall of Fame inductees. He is also one of only three boxers to be named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

ThatOne wrote:
He is also one of only three boxers to be named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

Whoopee. I'm convinced.

If Farts Illustrated says it and wikipedia reports that then you have absoulute "proof."

No question.

TheOne demonstrates that he is an enthusiastic swallower of whatever his "news" media shovels at him.

granberry wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
He is also one of only three boxers to be named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali

Whoopee. I'm convinced.

If Farts Illustrated says it and wikipedia reports that then you have absoulute "proof."

No question.

TheOne demonstrates that he is an enthusiastic swallower of whatever his "news" media shovels at him.

You are the only octogenerian I know who refers to Sports Illustrated as "Farts Illustrated". Now that we have dispensed with your puerile nonsense I see you conveniently ignored this:



Muhammad Ali defeated every top heavyweight in his era, which has been called the golden age of heavyweight boxing. Ali was named "Fighter of the Year" by Ring Magazine more times than any other fighter, and was involved in more Ring Magazine "Fight of the Year" bouts than any other fighter. He is an inductee into the International Boxing Hall of Fame and holds wins over seven other Hall of Fame inductees

I near fell off my chair laughing at that article by Casey when he mentioned "Historian Eric Jorgensen".

Only at the bizarre CBZ would someone write that with a straight face.

Collins2000 wrote:I near fell off my chair laughing at that article by Casey when he mentioned "Historian Eric Jorgensen".

Only at the bizarre CBZ would someone write that with a straight face.

Historian is not a limited title. Anyone can set up shop and call themselves that. There is no "license" to hold this post.
you or bazza could hold this title....if someone like me refers to you as such.

For example "BoxBuzz stated that Collins2000 had shown himself to be quite the boxing historian."

Now that it has been said, it can never be taken back.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:It's a pretty solid take, for the most part.

What's interesting is that the Tyson-Holmes debacle is looked at in a new light. The conventional argument is that Larry was shot and it's unfair to infer anything from that fight. The revisionist argument is that Larry went on to fight successfully for another decade or so and maybe folks can infer more from the Tyson fight than they normally do. Maybe it was just a bad match up.

I still tend not to read too much into that fight.

It's a combination of all of those things. Tyson's speed and stature would always be difficult for larry. But he definitely was in terrible condition for that fight and while he went on to compete later he did it with a slew of tuneups to build his cardio and timing.

It would be an interesting fight with both in there prime. I think Holmes jab is the difference, but I imagine he would have to climb off the deck along the way.

As for the case made at the top. theonly thing laughable is Dempsey troubling Larry. That would be a whitewashing.

Another no-brainer?

Everyone white-washes Dempsey. Even a guy almost KO'ed by Renaldo Snipes & Earnie Shavers.

granberry wrote:Yes, the legend of Ali is VERY different from reality.

As Jimmy Young demonstrated for fifteen agonizing rounds for Ali and his walking army of worshippers.

Is this guy Jimmy Youngs son???

Muhammad Ali's one-time spit bucket boy, I'm led to believe.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:I near fell off my chair laughing at that article by Casey when he mentioned "Historian Eric Jorgensen".

Only at the bizarre CBZ would someone write that with a straight face.

Historian is not a limited title. Anyone can set up shop and call themselves that. There is no "license" to hold this post.
you or bazza could hold this title....if someone like me refers to you as such.

For example "BoxBuzz stated that Collins2000 had shown himself to be quite the boxing historian."

Now that it has been said, it can never be taken back.

I seem to recall you were calling yourself a historian for a while. Now THAT was funny.



So if you confer a title on someone it is can never be taken back? But when I gave Jaclem the title of irrelevant old clown he wouldn't accept it!

& that's rich, singling out Buzz (again) for historical knowledge. Pot? Kettle? Black? Kid? Azteca?

I like Mike Casey personally, I respect his boxing acumen, and I think he's a GREAT writer. However, I think he underrates Holmes a little. Well maybe a lot.

I believe I claimed to have "hysterical" knowledge, not historical. Let's get our facts in order.

Its just another article written on a great man by one not so great.

If you throw a jab a lot, you are off course open to right hands.