Was ALI lucky ?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:32

Exactly, the "over reaction" goes both ways his devout are certain every break should be given to him and his detractors think everything should swing the other way.

I have said for the record earlier that Ali was the Best and perhaps Holyfield was second in exhuding confidence at the end of each round and at the end of fights. I know this can influence a judge when things are close. If the round may be a draw and you see a "winning" look on someones face, and I'm thinking this can make a difference on judges card. Holyfield may have even had an edge on Ali in terms of "arrogant confidence" Using psyche on judges can make a difference over the span of an entire career especially if it can pull a win from draws or draws from losses on occasion. How about the first Lewis/Holyfield fight?
We know one judge later retracted their judgement, another a woman has stuck with her opinion.

Another dynamic of what it is to be a "champion". "Persuasion"

Maciano was another who would never appear to believe he lost a single round.

If Sugar Shane had that "winning look" on his face at the end of the DLH Mosely II, there would have been a lot less finger pointing, IMHO.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:41

BoxBuzz wrote:Exactly, the "over reaction" goes both ways his devout are certain every break should be given to him and his detractors think everything should swing the other way.

I have said for the record earlier that Ali was the Best and perhaps Holyfield was second in exhuding confidence at the end of each round and at the end of fights. I know this can influence a judge when things are close. If the round may be a draw and you see a "winning" look on someones face, and I'm thinking this can make a difference on judges card. Holyfield may have even had an edge on Ali in terms of "arrogant confidence" Using psyche on judges can make a difference over the span of an entire career especially if it can pull a win from draws or draws from losses on occasion. How about the first Lewis/Holyfield fight?
We know one judge later retracted their judgement, another a woman has stuck with her opinion.

Another dynamic of what it is to be a "champion". "Persuasion"

Maciano was another who would never appear to believe he lost a single round.

If Sugar Shane had that "winning look" on his face at the end of the DLH Mosely II, there would have been a lot less finger pointing, IMHO.

What is also worth mentioning is that it has always been frowned upon generally for a champion to lose his title on a narrow points verdict... especially where the Heavyweight title is concerned. Disputed verdicts go right back to Louis vs Walcott 1... when a champion loses a close decision as has heppened recently with Bernard Hopkins it leaves a sour taste. Generally if a champion is to be beaten on points he needs to be beaten clearly.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:51

silkov wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:Exactly, the "over reaction" goes both ways his devout are certain every break should be given to him and his detractors think everything should swing the other way.

I have said for the record earlier that Ali was the Best and perhaps Holyfield was second in exhuding confidence at the end of each round and at the end of fights. I know this can influence a judge when things are close. If the round may be a draw and you see a "winning" look on someones face, and I'm thinking this can make a difference on judges card. Holyfield may have even had an edge on Ali in terms of "arrogant confidence" Using psyche on judges can make a difference over the span of an entire career especially if it can pull a win from draws or draws from losses on occasion. How about the first Lewis/Holyfield fight?
We know one judge later retracted their judgement, another a woman has stuck with her opinion.

Another dynamic of what it is to be a "champion". "Persuasion"

Maciano was another who would never appear to believe he lost a single round.

If Sugar Shane had that "winning look" on his face at the end of the DLH Mosely II, there would have been a lot less finger pointing, IMHO.
What is also worth mentioning is that it has always been frowned upon generally for a champion to lose his title on a narrow points verdict... especially where the Heavyweight title is concerned. Disputed verdicts go right back to Louis vs Walcott 1... when a champion loses a close decision as has heppened recently with Bernard Hopkins it leaves a sour taste. Generally if a champion is to be beaten on points he needs to be beaten clearly.

Agree completely with you here -

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:54

BoxBuzz wrote:I think you can add to this that there is a natural subjectivity to judging a fight. The only reasonable voice I have in some of these arguments (and I have not heard it in this thread) is that when a fight is close....it's close. So no one gets robbed it's just the best decision that those judges could have handed down on those days. DLH is a walking example of someone who won the "chaos" lottery of life. About the only thing that brings justice in his case is that in the end the numbers probably work out about right for him. But I would love to "adjust" the record.

For the record I thought the judges got it honestly correct (in terms of outcome) in the Ali Norton Trilogy. The Jimmy Young fights with both of them were more controversial in my mind. Norton Holmes was a tough one to judge as well.

Monday morning quarterbacking in boxing is always interesting.

Agree completely with the setiment of this post - (hell Norton probably had more of a bitch in his loss to Holmes then even with Ali)

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 25 Aug 2005, 14:03

silkov wrote:If Ali vs Liston2 was fixed then it was the worse fix in history. The simple fact is Liston went down and their was a messup over the count. Liston was hit by a quick punch that came over his blind side as he was moving in. Nat Fleischer the editor of the RING mag whose integrity was never questioned said himself that the fight was not a fix and incidentailly it was he who told Walcott that Liston had been counted out... even though he had no right to have any control over the fight.
Yes, it was a shambles but not a fix... imo.

Who do you think is the best Heavyweight ever then Sherlock?...

Liston, agruably with Ali for having the greatest chin in heavyweight history, stopped by a light uppercut by a man, even later when he was more muscular, was never a one punch knockout fighter. I don't have the fight on tape to watch and rewatch, but I have seen it many times and Liston was not glossy eyed or stumbling and got right up when the count was reaching ten. I don't question Ali's involvement, but the prefight was amidst in rumours of a fix from what I have read of the fights circumstances. The Black Muslims prescence, which at that time had some dangerous men in it, which Malcolm X can now attest to, can make the fix believable. That fight has the most evidence to support a fix than any fight that are still rumoured today, like Johnson-Willard and Ali-Liston 1 for example.

And Nat Flesicher's integrity, who blasted Ali in his articles and never ranked Ali in his top ten heavyweights...

My top three goes:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Muhammed Ali

I take heat from my placement of Johnson as #1 and will probably take more now from you, but thats my own view of his accomplishments and talents. But in my opinion Ali should never be rated ahead of Joe Louis, but I can see if you would rate Ali as 2nd, which most lists I see do.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 14:57

Sherlock wrote:
silkov wrote:If Ali vs Liston2 was fixed then it was the worse fix in history. The simple fact is Liston went down and their was a messup over the count. Liston was hit by a quick punch that came over his blind side as he was moving in. Nat Fleischer the editor of the RING mag whose integrity was never questioned said himself that the fight was not a fix and incidentailly it was he who told Walcott that Liston had been counted out... even though he had no right to have any control over the fight.
Yes, it was a shambles but not a fix... imo.

Who do you think is the best Heavyweight ever then Sherlock?...
Liston, agruably with Ali for having the greatest chin in heavyweight history, stopped by a light uppercut by a man, even later when he was more muscular, was never a one punch knockout fighter. I don't have the fight on tape to watch and rewatch, but I have seen it many times and Liston was not glossy eyed or stumbling and got right up when the count was reaching ten. I don't question Ali's involvement, but the prefight was amidst in rumours of a fix from what I have read of the fights circumstances. The Black Muslims prescence, which at that time had some dangerous men in it, which Malcolm X can now attest to, can make the fix believable. That fight has the most evidence to support a fix than any fight that are still rumoured today, like Johnson-Willard and Ali-Liston 1 for example.

And Nat Flesicher's integrity, who blasted Ali in his articles and never ranked Ali in his top ten heavyweights...

My top three goes:
1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Muhammed Ali

I take heat from my placement of Johnson as #1 and will probably take more now from you, but thats my own view of his accomplishments and talents. But in my opinion Ali should never be rated ahead of Joe Louis, but I can see if you would rate Ali as 2nd, which most lists I see do.

I think Johnson merits a high spot myself but consider Ali the best Heavy of all time... he had the speed, the chin, the heart and more than anything else the mental strength and guile to beat any of the other champions imo... just Ali's opposition tells us how good he was, I don't think many would disagree that of all the heavyweight champions Ali fought the best opposition. And he fought the majority of these fights in the 70s when he was past his best physically.
I think Louis would have been made for Ali really, he was a great champion but he always had trouble with movers and with respect wasn't the best of thinkers in the ring. I think Ali would have had more trouble with Johnson but his speed would be too much for Johnson too.
I'd rate them...

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jack Johnson
3. Larry Holmes
4. Joe Louis
5. George Foreman
6. JOE Frazier
7. Sonny Liston
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Rocky Marciano

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Aug 2005, 15:18

theres no question ali was at his peak against williams and terrell. i felt ali was still not far out of his prime when he faced frazier because he was 29 and did well in both tuneup fights and had the time to get his stuff back., i just felt he wasnt the peak ali because he didnt have his same speed anymore and that made the difference in the lost to frazier. had the fight taken place in 68, ali could have outpointed frazier. ali really lost it after the foreman fight, he had lost a little going into the foreman fight, but he was completely aged ater that fight. the fact is thought ali was but the 66 ali was at his best.

my hevayweight list

1. Joe Louis- i think anywhere but the top 2 is a misplacement.
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Johnson- regarding jack johnson, i studied him more over the past 2 months, reading up on him, watching fights in slow motion and trying to really study him. i became more impresssed and realized how good of a defensive fighter he was. he also had a very good right uppercut and was exceptionally strong. had he fought in modern day, he could have easily switched his style by just keeping his hands higher and developing his underated offense more. too bad he never faced a great heavyweight or jeffries in his prime. his competetion hurt him in placement.
5. Larry Holmes
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson - i moved him down cause in an all time list, u need to prove urself over a course of a career. but he deserves to be on based on at his peak, he was the most destructive heavyweight of all time since joe louis.
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sonny Liston

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 25 Aug 2005, 15:51

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:theres no question ali was at his peak against williams and terrell. i felt ali was still not far out of his prime when he faced frazier because he was 29 and did well in both tuneup fights and had the time to get his stuff back., i just felt he wasnt the peak ali because he didnt have his same speed anymore and that made the difference in the lost to frazier. had the fight taken place in 68, ali could have outpointed frazier. ali really lost it after the foreman fight, he had lost a little going into the foreman fight, but he was completely aged ater that fight. the fact is thought ali was but the 66 ali was at his best.

my hevayweight list

1. Joe Louis- i think anywhere but the top 2 is a misplacement.
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Johnson- regarding jack johnson, i studied him more over the past 2 months, reading up on him, watching fights in slow motion and trying to really study him. i became more impresssed and realized how good of a defensive fighter he was. he also had a very good right uppercut and was exceptionally strong. had he fought in modern day, he could have easily switched his style by just keeping his hands higher and developing his underated offense more. too bad he never faced a great heavyweight or jeffries in his prime. his competetion hurt him in placement.
5. Larry Holmes
6. George Foreman
7. Mike Tyson - i moved him down cause in an all time list, u need to prove urself over a course of a career. but he deserves to be on based on at his peak, he was the most destructive heavyweight of all time since joe louis.
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sonny Liston

Ali had lost about 50% of his leg speed and movement after his exile... look at how static he was vs Bornavena and Frazier (in their first fight) Ali actually became a little more mobile in his later fights as he regained his fitness more and learned to adapt to his loss of speed and legmovement etc. Ali was a long way from his prime against Frazier.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 25 Aug 2005, 20:29

Just found a copy of Ali-Liston 2, the pnch was a counter right cross that caught Liston on the cheekbone. I now change my assertion it was a weak punch, it was enough to floor him for maybe 4 seconds. Liston was faling forward and his knees then hit the ground. But there was not enough power to make him roll over and lay on his back, as Ali had his back foot off the ground which weakens the power.

I still think this fight was fixed, not that Sonny was paid to lay down or Ali was aware of it, but that Liston was told to lay or lose his life. I have heard that the Nation threatened him and I believe it. And Liston's demeanor as a fighter is misleading, as Liston was somewhat of a coward, not negatively implied, as he was afraid of needles, etc.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2005, 20:58

Still think the "truth is out there" do ya Sherlock?

You may have a chunk of the truth, but I think it was an "internal" fix. For whatever reason Liston was fine with not returning to the fight. Maybe the embarassment of the KD maybe "scary people" or it could be that he really thought that the fight was not going to go his way in the end, (Which I would agree with) For whatever reason my opinion is that it was an internal Liston decision even though it seemed he could have beat the count.

It was Liston that said something like this about the Patterson fight "all the Ref is going to need to do is count to 10" . Sort of came back to haunt him didnt it? Joe counted and the rest is history.

The Puzzle regarding this is in Liston the man not in anything "out there"

IMHO.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 25 Aug 2005, 22:34

BoxBuzz wrote:Still think the "truth is out there" do ya Sherlock?

You may have a chunk of the truth, but I think it was an "internal" fix. For whatever reason Liston was fine with not returning to the fight. Maybe the embarassment of the KD maybe the "scary muslims" or it could be that he really thought that the fight was not going to go his way in the end, (Which I would agree with) For whatever reason my opinion is that it was an internal Liston decision even though it seemed he could have beat the count.

It was Liston that said something like this about the Patterson fight "all the Ref is going to need to do is count to 10" . Sort of came back to haunt him didnt it? Joe counted and the rest is history.

The Puzzle regarding this is in Liston the man not in anything "out there"

IMHO.

This isn't the X-Files. Point blank: There isn't enough evidence to prove it was fixed, but there are questions, and they will never be answered fully by anybody. No side is right, no side is wrong.

And I do take offense to the use of "scary muslims" in your post. I in know disrespected Islam or people of the Muslim faith by using any sterotypical remarks. You are the one purporting the sterotype. I only said there was a radical and violent faction (every religion and political faction have one) and some were present at that fight. Malcolm X was gunned down point blank by the faction and people feared an all out war at this fight between opposing violent factions. They were violent not because they were Muslims but because they were murderers, regardless of what religion. The Nation of Islam is a great organization for people of the Muslim faith and is beneficial to the United States and its society.

Ali was given death threats, people believe it, but when Liston's people say it, its false. Its hypocritical.

I hope that in your response religion is left out. I don't want my name here smeared by you putting words in my mouth. The point of the forum is to debate civilly, not to attack others opinions that differ.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 25 Aug 2005, 22:55

silkov wrote:Ali won the second and third Norton fights clearly... it is a myth that Norton was robbed... same as the myths saying that the Liston fights were fixed. People can't knock Ali's record or the quality of his opposition or say that he ducked anyone so they come out with these myths imo.

I think Norton WON ALL OF THE 3 FIGHTS if you ask me. That was not the Ali of th 60s though. He was much better around 1965-67. He was TOO FAST

sharkeysboy · Post by **sharkeysboy** » 25 Aug 2005, 23:53

I definitely feel Liston 1 was legit. He stayed on the stool because he was humiliated. When I was younger I was suspicious of Liston 2 but through the years I've seen alot of six inch punches put guys down. I'm not so sure now it wasn't also legit. If there was something fishy, I think it was Liston's heart. And the Foreman fight was the real thing too although if I remember right (I haven't seen it for awhile) I thought George beat the count.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Aug 2005, 06:10

I think Norton won his fights versus Ali but I appreciate the comments made here. Ken just didn't really press on and make it convincing. I think if he'd have upped the pace a little more that the older Ali (certainly by the third fight) would have been unable to keep up with him.

I think Ali is the greatest HW and at the same time I think he is overrated. In defeating all-time greats Liston and Foreman he met 2 guys perfectly made for him. Frazier on the other hand was his worst nigthmare and guys like Frazier, Marciano and Dempey would give him problems stylewise. I also think he would struggle with a defensive boxer with a good jab (Holmes and Johnson, possibly Tunney). Saying this I'd pick him to beat all of them. His chin and stamina were virtually beyond comprehension, as was his will to win.

So many people have heard of him that the legend and the man are almost inseparable. He could be very mean and nasty to opponents (interestingly enough never to white opponents, only to the black guys).

My top 5

1. Ali
2. Johnson
3. Louis
4. Holmes
5. Dempsey

Johnson and Dempsey didn't have great title reigns but that's the way things were back then. What they did do was decimate the division before finally winning the title. Styles make fights but in a series all top 5 could beat one another.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 26 Aug 2005, 07:16

I think Ali-Liston was legit. Liston just didn't take as serious as he should have. And in the Norton-Ali fights, it depends on your what your empthasis on scoring is. I can see why people see Ali winning, but I see Norton edging him in the 3rd fight. As for doing enough to win, I do think he won the majority of the rounds but probably should have been more agressive. In saying this, Ali was way past his prime and was competitive with a great fighter in Norton. But I think guys like Norton would have given him trouble in his prime. Norton's not buying Ali's tricks allowed him to not be intimidated or angry in the ring, allowing him to be at his best.

And I apoligize to the forum for my comments yesterday. Many may have been misinterpreted and my comments extreme. I apoligize.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Aug 2005, 07:41

Sherlock wrote:I think Ali-Liston was legit. Liston just didn't take as serious as he should have. And in the Norton-Ali fights, it depends on your what your empthasis on scoring is. I can see why people see Ali winning, but I see Norton edging him in the 3rd fight. As for doing enough to win, I do think he won the majority of the rounds but probably should have been more agressive. In saying this, Ali was way past his prime and was competitive with a great fighter in Norton. But I think guys like Norton would have given him trouble in his prime. Norton's not buying Ali's tricks allowed him to not be intimidated or angry in the ring, allowing him to be at his best.

And I apoligize to the forum for my comments yesterday. Many may have been misinterpreted and my comments extreme. I apoligize.

As you say yourself Sherlock the punch caught Liston on the cheekbone as he was moving in. Now punches on the cheekbone can have a decisive effect, Louis was particularly vulnerble in this area not the chin as some think. Its very like being hit on the temple and causes a loss of balance. I've no doubt that Liston knew where he was when he went down but his legs definately 'went'... the punch knocked out his equilibrium this is why he rolled over rather than got straight back up.
When Ali was eventually moved away and the count 'taken up' Liston did beat Walcotts count and was ready to fight but then Nat Fleisher told Walcott that the timekeeper had counted Liston out.
As I've said earlier a shambles but not a fix.

The reason Norton gave Ali and indeed Holmes so much trouble is the knack he had for blocking the left jab. He would give any mover a lot of trouble but at the same time he was not half as good if he was forced backwards.

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 26 Aug 2005, 08:28

silkov wrote:As you say yourself Sherlock the punch caught Liston on the cheekbone as he was moving in. Now punches on the cheekbone can have a decisive effect, Louis was particularly vulnerble in this area not the chin as some think. Its very like being hit on the temple and causes a loss of balance. I've no doubt that Liston knew where he was when he went down but his legs definately 'went'... the punch knocked out his equilibrium this is why he rolled over rather than got straight back up.
When Ali was eventually moved away and the count 'taken up' Liston did beat Walcotts count and was ready to fight but then Nat Fleisher told Walcott that the timekeeper had counted Liston out.
As I've said earlier a shambles but not a fix.

I think we now all agree that the punch was legit. And that Liston should and could have, and indeed did, beat the count. The main controversy is (as BoxBuzz stated) is why Liston stayed down so long and mostly gave up and why doesn't he react angrily after the stoppage. Any fighter would have been angry at the stoppage, Liston didn't even look surprised, he just walked to his corner. Whether he didn't care anymore, threw the fight, or was told to lose is up for debate. That can never be solved.

I have absolutely nothing against Ali in the fight or his career, he landed the punch and most likely would have won if it continued and had a stellar career. My dislike of Ali comes from his treatment of opponents, especially in calling Frazier an "Uncle Tom", as a fighter he was great but his attitude towards fighters was beyond prefight hype and bordering hatred of them. I don't hate the fighter nor the man, I just dislike his attitude.

I think we made real progress in the discussion, one of the best I've had here.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Aug 2005, 08:42

silkov wrote:
The reason Norton gave Ali and indeed Holmes so much trouble is the knack he had for blocking the left jab. He would give any mover a lot of trouble but at the same time he was not half as good if he was forced backwards.

spot on

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Aug 2005, 10:16

Hey Sherlock,

I will change my "offensive" statement to more clearly define my point. I put my original thought in quotes so as not to be misunderstood but apparently my benign intent was not "sleuthed" by you.

It's sad that we have become so politically correct that even gentle language stirs thoughts of hatespeech. For those offended please know I believe it is our "humanity" or "humanness" that make us odd. Not our religions or politics nationality, or cultural heritage. And in fact it was my point though apparently clumsily stated.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 26 Aug 2005, 10:45

Sherlock wrote:
silkov wrote:As you say yourself Sherlock the punch caught Liston on the cheekbone as he was moving in. Now punches on the cheekbone can have a decisive effect, Louis was particularly vulnerble in this area not the chin as some think. Its very like being hit on the temple and causes a loss of balance. I've no doubt that Liston knew where he was when he went down but his legs definately 'went'... the punch knocked out his equilibrium this is why he rolled over rather than got straight back up.
When Ali was eventually moved away and the count 'taken up' Liston did beat Walcotts count and was ready to fight but then Nat Fleisher told Walcott that the timekeeper had counted Liston out.
As I've said earlier a shambles but not a fix.
I think we now all agree that the punch was legit. And that Liston should and could have, and indeed did, beat the count. The main controversy is (as BoxBuzz stated) is why Liston stayed down so long and mostly gave up and why doesn't he react angrily after the stoppage. Any fighter would have been angry at the stoppage, Liston didn't even look surprised, he just walked to his corner. Whether he didn't care anymore, threw the fight, or was told to lose is up for debate. That can never be solved.

I have absolutely nothing against Ali in the fight or his career, he landed the punch and most likely would have won if it continued and had a stellar career. My dislike of Ali comes from his treatment of opponents, especially in calling Frazier an "Uncle Tom", as a fighter he was great but his attitude towards fighters was beyond prefight hype and bordering hatred of them. I don't hate the fighter nor the man, I just dislike his attitude.

I think we made real progress in the discussion, one of the best I've had here.

Regarding why Liston didn't protest much when the fight was stopped I think he already had resigned himself to defeat (he'd just been knocked down after all) ...also I think he hadn't fully recovered and if you look at the peiece where Liston gets up and they get ready to go again before its called off I think you'll see that Listons legs were stiff and unbalanced.
As for Ali hating his opponents I think you are being unfair really Sherlock. Certainly there was a dislike towards Patterson and Terrell... this was because Terrell refused to call Ali anything other than Clay, and with Patterson it was a simular thing and Floyd also made the remark that he was going to 'bring the title back to America'.
With Frazier it was mostly hype that got out of control and Ali has apologised publicly a number of times for what happened with Frazier which I think says a lot for the man, certainly after some of the things Frazier has said about him. Generally Ali's name calling of his opponents was just hype and tongue in cheek and was accepted by most of his opponents as such.