Goodnight, Irene wrote:Well, its like this to me --- the guy accomplished quite a bit in his career, and he would beat the majority of HW champs who ever drew breath. That, to me, makes a guy qualified, and to ignore his claim based on impropriety (assuming if Liston threw the first bout, it was his own choice, and for personal gain --- I suspect neither was the case, so believing he was strong-armed into the 1964 result makes forgiveness much easier) would be undeniably noble, but in a case of such a great fighter as Liston, equally-unrealistic.
I also have Holyfield in my top-10 HW's of all-time (#9) and you KNOW the guy was popping steroids like candy for years --- its still hard to deny how great he was. Jones, Jr, Toney, Mosley, Pryor, Trinidad...all good or great boxers who all cheated with enhancers. Hopkins, Saddler, Duran, Pedroza...all filthy, downright disgusting in the way they fought, turning some affairs into street rule encounters. You gonna preclude all them, too?
I dont see how you wouldnt, if you put the brakes on Liston.
No, I wouldn't preclude anyone based on their style or the way they fought. Two reasons: (1) If a dirty fighter is allowed to fight dirty, then half the blame goes to the referee (this is where it truly takes two to tango), and (2) they didn't defraud any fan who paid a ticket to the fight.
And I would not have anyone in my top ten who is shown to use illegal/banned performance enhancing drugs.
But I guess it's according to the criteria one uses in making a top ten ranking. Maybe is not a negative if the ranking is purely about its purely about ability, or win-loss, or the speculated outcome of those head-to-head, cross-era match ups some of the folks on this forum are so fond of. But I think it has to have a negative effect if you're making your top ten selections on total career considerations. If you are right about Sonny, then he was a fraud, or a coward, or both. Not top-ten material in my book, if one is making the selection based on total career considerations.
To clarify, had Ali had his career as it was, but then laid down in round one against Spinks, Holmes or Berbick, youd run him right out of your top-10? Thats your logic, applied to Ali.
Id also say your line about dirty fighting is a major cop-out to me. Firstly, cheating is not a, "style." Its cheating, black and white. Secondly, boxers make the choice to cheat with elbows, forearms, headbutts, etc...excusing that because the ref isnt stopping it is tantamount to suggesting boxers on the gear only deserve half the blame because the commission isnt halting it and their trainers probably put them on it in the first place.
Suit yourself. I don't know what "on the gear" means - maybe its an Aussie expression.
You've asserted that Liston quit against Clay/Ali because - as you put it - the fights weren't "on the level." If Ali had lost any of the fights you mention because they weren't "on the level," then, yeah, he'd be off my top ten (if I had one).
Well, youre consistent, I'll give you that on throwing bouts --- but again, youre saying dirty boxers only deserve half the blame because ref's arent stopping it, but how is that different to saying a boxer on enhancers (who you apparently fully blame) only deserve half the blame because the commission isnt stopping that?
Goodnight, Irene wrote:On the gear means using PEDs.
Well, youre consistent, I'll give you that on throwing bouts --- but again, youre saying dirty boxers only deserve half the blame because ref's arent stopping it, but how is that different to saying a boxer on enhancers (who you apparently fully blame) only deserve half the blame because the commission isnt stopping that?
Cheating is cheating, surely?
I've boxed. I know that you can get caught up in the heat of the moment. That is an entirely different thing than than taking drugs. I've never taken drugs, and don't think I ever would have because I had a rational choice. But I fouled other guys when boxing (and felt bad about it afterward . . . most of the time. ) One analogy might be the difference between "premeditated" murder and "heat of passion" manslaughter. In the states, premeditated murder than get you the death penalty or life without possibility of parole in many states. Heat of passion manslaughter generally carries a term of years as punishment.
I can understand that, but Im not talking about a foul here or there when under the pump --- Im talking about guys with an established, consistent history of fouling, including at times when they are under no duress whatsoever --- your Hopkins', Duran's, Zivic's, etc --- these guys are very much in the range of pre-meditated.
They arent as culpable as a boxer on PEDs? It is facile to say their blame is diminished if the ref isnt stopping their behaviour --- Im still not clear how thats different to somebody saying PED boxers deserve less blame because the testers are failing to pick it up.
Goodnight, Irene wrote:I can understand that, but Im not talking about a foul here or there when under the pump --- Im talking about guys with an established, consistent history of fouling, including at times when they are under no duress whatsoever --- you're Hopkins', Duran's, Zivic's, etc --- these guys are very much in the range of pre-meditated.
They arent as culpable as a boxer on PEDs? It is facile to say their blame is diminished if the ref isnt stopping their behaviour --- Im still not clear how thats different to somebody saying PED boxers deserve less blame because the testers are failing to pick it up.
Wouldnt you agree that is analogous?
Suit yourself. We aren't ever going to agree on this.
I was only trying to understand why one is partly excusable on the basis that the relevant authority isnt policing it effectively, and the other lies squarely at the feet of the guilty party, even though there is an authority there also failing to police the cheating.
Goodnight, Irene wrote:I understand, Im not asking for that.
I was only trying to understand why one is partly excusable on the basis that the relevant authority isnt policing it effectively, and the other lies squarely at the feet of the guilty party, even though there is an authority there also failing to police the cheating.
Sometimes, you just have to admit a guy is great even if its unpalatable --- and Liston was a GREAT boxer --- participating in worked fights, if he did, doesnt take away that jab. It doesnt take away his almost complete cleaning of a very good house, or his power, chin, under-rated craftsmanship, and so on.
Lots of good-to-great boxers with serious blemishes to their name, Ray...
Trinidad
Pryor
Holyfield
Marciano
Pedroza
Jones, Jr
Vargas
Zivic
Duran
Casamayor
Toney
Hopkins
LaMotta
Mosley
Saddler
Greb
Hell, the HOF would be nigh-on empty if we excluded every guy guilty of illegal wraps, PEDs, dirty tactics, or participation in fixed bouts or bouts where they quit in obviously-unnecessary fashion.
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Sometimes, you just have to admit a guy is great even if its unpalatable --- and Liston was a GREAT boxer --- participating in worked fights, if he did, doesnt take away that jab. It doesnt take away his almost complete cleaning of a very good house, or his power, chin, under-rated craftsmanship, and so on.
Lots of good-to-great boxers with serious blemishes to their name, Ray...
Trinidad
Pryor
Holyfield
Marciano
Pedroza
Jones, Jr
Vargas
Zivic
Duran
Casamayor
Toney
Hopkins
LaMotta
Mosley
Saddler
Greb
Hell, the HOF would be nigh-on empty if we excluded every guy guilty of illegal wraps, PEDs, dirty tactics, or participation in fixed bouts or bouts where they quit in obviously-unnecessary fashion.
) One analogy might be the difference between "premeditated" murder and "heat of passion" manslaughter. In the states, premeditated murder than get you the death penalty or life without possibility of parole in many states. Heat of passion manslaughter generally carries a term of years as punishment.