BoxRec

its still not embarrassing even if was a shock result. in getting in the ring mr irene a fighter shows he has some bottle. a first round KO is not embarrassing for the loser as anything can happen over those 10 or 12 or 8 rounds from the first bell to the last punches are going to be thrown that can knock a man off his feet. a pretty good version of ali did well to compete with a peak ken norton, just the kind of man he always found things tough against. leon was in shape, came forward and was rugged enough and young enough to unsettle an old man who was badly outta shape and not totally focused on the job. it was a shock because of ali's status in the world of sport, but not embarrassing. its only embarrassing if you wish to humiliate the guy, which you and your hero granberry obviously do. i respect boxers young and old alike. ive been around too many to even begin taking the piss out of fellas who have risked their health providing me with so much pleasure over the years.

i think everyone understands it takes a man and a unique toughness to get into the ring. but i don't think that should shut down all debates etc over bums, chickens, quitters, frauds etc. otherwise we wouldn't have much to talk about.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...It was no great shock that Spinks won." - Zelley

Astonishing. It is simply astonishing the level of denial to which Muhammad Ali's fanbase will go to soothe themselves in the face of any criticism.

My friend, this was ONE OF THE MOST MONUMENTAL UPSETS OF ALL-TIME. Spinks was garbage, with experience. He didn't even have that when he met Ali.

...& people wonder why Ali receives so much criticism. When you have delusional statements like this rolling around (& there are plenty), it's gonna happen.

"It was no great shock that Spinks won" is not just an all-time classic for Ali-sheltering revisionist propaganda. It's a flat-out lie. People were frankly stunned by the result.

Like I said, it was no great shock for Ali to be defeated by Leon Spinks.
For many, it was a shock, but not so different from a James J Corbett
defeating John L Sullivan, or James J Braddock defeating Max Baer.
Likely, some will not make this comparison as it may appear
to be Ali sheltering D now that is funny " D DD D Ali sheltering" D

Spinks is just another boxer that some folks like to throw mud at!
Not unlike that cast of characters that were screaming in the movie
"The Harder They Fall".

Zelley wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...It was no great shock that Spinks won." - Zelley

Astonishing. It is simply astonishing the level of denial to which Muhammad Ali's fanbase will go to soothe themselves in the face of any criticism.

My friend, this was ONE OF THE MOST MONUMENTAL UPSETS OF ALL-TIME. Spinks was garbage, with experience. He didn't even have that when he met Ali.

...& people wonder why Ali receives so much criticism. When you have delusional statements like this rolling around (& there are plenty), it's gonna happen.

"It was no great shock that Spinks won" is not just an all-time classic for Ali-sheltering revisionist propaganda. It's a flat-out lie. People were frankly stunned by the result.

Like I said, it was no great shock for Ali to be defeated by Leon Spinks.
For many, it was a shock, but not so different from a James J Corbett
defeating John L Sullivan, or James J Braddock defeating Max Baer.
Likely, some will not make this comparison as it may appear
to be Ali sheltering D now that is funny " D DD D Ali sheltering" D

Spinks is just another boxer that some folks like to throw mud at!
Not unlike that cast of characters that were screaming in the movie
"The Harder They Fall".

i'll agree to Goodnight on this one. watching the fight unfold, people were in shock. dumbfounded. ali, although faded, was still able to trick audiences. hell he did it for the holmes fight. and every minute of every round we were like "he's going to start coming on NOW!" but it just didn't happen. spinks just kept going and going. hurting ali at points. spinks before hand was viewed as a handed-picked opponent. and ali never met a hand-picked opponent he didn't like at this point in his career. ali was adequately humbled after the fight for a few moments in time.

No offense Zelley but your argument is pretty weak. Especially when you say it was a shock on par with Braddock-Baer as a means of saying it wasnt a shock. Braddock-Baer was the biggest upset in heavyweight history prior to Douglas-Tyson, a record it held for more than 50 years, so by your own example it definately was a major shock.

To understand why is was not a shock, it is necessary to go back to Vancouver, BC in 1972.

So, I still stand by my position that it was not a shock that Leon Spinks defeated Muhammed Ali.
The majority may disagree, but sometimes the majority are wrong.

klompton wrote:No offense Zelley but your argument is pretty weak. Especially when you say it was a shock on par with Braddock-Baer as a means of saying it wasnt a shock. Braddock-Baer was the biggest upset in heavyweight history prior to Douglas-Tyson, a record it held for more than 50 years, so by your own example it definately was a major shock.

I didn't say it was a shock, I said many felt it was a shock not unlike
Braddock - Baer.

If you think about it, was the Braddock - Baer fight a shock :??
It was an upset, but a shock :??

I think it was a shock. Baer was a terrific natural athlete with one of the hardest punches in history and he was facing a guy who couldnt box for shit and had lost several times and more than once to bums. I definately think it was shocking. Whats more shocking is that Baer looked like he could have done much more in the film but just gave the title away by not taking the fight even marginally seriously (thats shocking to me as well). That being said Im in the minority of people who think it was a close fight.

"i'll agree to Goodnight on this one. watching the fight unfold, people were in shock. dumbfounded. ali, although faded, was still able to trick audiences. hell he did it for the holmes fight. and every minute of every round we were like "he's going to start coming on NOW!" but it just didn't happen. spinks just kept going and going. hurting ali at points. spinks before hand was viewed as a handed-picked opponent. and ali never met a hand-picked opponent he didn't like at this point in his career. ali was adequately humbled after the fight for a few moments in time." -T2S

...But that's not what someone like Zelley would have us all believe. He lived in the era of Ali, & was apparently around to see Ali-Spinks I, as were many men on this board. This is what lights my fire --- for someone to have lived it first-hand, & state, "it was no great shock Spinks won" isn't a simple matter of opinion --- it's a case of flat-out, flagrant lying to protect your favourite fighter. It's beyond the point of revisionism.

LOL @ Baer-Braddock not being a shocking result...& Zelley, had he been around, would have cleaned up betting on Robinson-Turpin I, too, I'm sure.

It's statements like these which have occasionally led to people here labelling me, "Anti-Ali." I'm not anti-Ali, I'm anti-starry-eyed-bullshit, of which there is more aimed in Ali's direction than any other fighter (including Tyson & his juvenile fanatics). This results in my making more criticismd of Ali than praisings, so, while I can understand how a perception exists I'm anti-Ali, I'm honestly not --- it's simply a case of people going way overboard, & in such heavy volume, I can't help but respond.

Sorry, but you can't just pretend Spinks was something he wasn't. He was a seven-fight greenhorn with limited ability, no experience, & produced what turned out to be a very ordinary career. If we're to acknowledge Ali's shop-worn state (&, yes, I'll be the first to say Ali was a terribly old thirty-six), it's not right to pretend he didn't have a unique background of championship experience in his favour. Like I said, I can't think of an instance where a bigger gulf in both ability & big-fight know-how so drastically, ridiculously favoured the losing man, as in the case of Ali-Spinks I.

People, everywhere, were shocked. That's a fact.

It was an enormous, all-time upset. Another fact.

Those aren't opinions, & you can't shelter Ali by saying, "we'll agree to disagree." I don't know how you can (if that's the case, mind) truly convince yourself you're not going to certain lengths to shield the man from criticism.

actually nowhere i repeat nowhere does zelley state that ali is his favourite boxer. those are your words, not his. zelley made a case which i do not go with ie the shock thing, but he is well qualified - in fact more qualified than you - to make it thru being there. i too was around at that time but i lost interest in ali's career after the last frazier fight.

plus, i dont care whether you are anti-ali or not and i'd guess very few other posters lose sleep over that question too. and lastly, youre not a patch on gran when it comes to stirring up the shite. he's gifted.

harrygreb wrote:actually nowhere i repeat nowhere does zelley state that ali is his favourite boxer. those are your words, not his. zelley made a case which i do not go with ie the shock thing, but he is well qualified - in fact more qualified than you - to make it thru being there. i too was around at that time but i lost interest in ali's career after the last frazier fight.

plus, i dont care whether you are anti-ali or not and i'd guess very few other posters lose sleep over that question too. and lastly, youre not a patch on gran when it comes to stirring up the shite. he's gifted.

I think Zelley has made clear he's a big fan of Ali since his arrival through a few different threads. I don't think he'll say I'm wrong. Let's see, shall we?

I'm not stirring shit. Granberry stirs shit, & you're only jutting your nose in because of a disagreement in a prior thread, not because you care in the least about Zelley's statements or standpoint, so why carry a pretense of agreeing with him, when it's patently obvious you're only trying to push my buttons?

youre right. but i did make it clear i DISAGREED with zelleys point. although he does have the right to make it whether i agree or not.

ok. its time to stop "pushing buttons". your last post was very reasonable, fair and perfectly correct.

Well, as obvious as it was, at least you admitted that was your motive. Most people wouldn't be decent enough to even say so, I'll give you credit for that.

klompton wrote:I think it was a shock. Baer was a terrific natural athlete with one of the hardest punches in history and he was facing a guy who couldnt box for shit and had lost several times and more than once to bums. I definately think it was shocking. Whats more shocking is that Baer looked like he could have done much more in the film but just gave the title away by not taking the fight even marginally seriously (thats shocking to me as well). That being said Im in the minority of people who think it was a close fight.

Well now, I can't agree with you that James Braddock couldn't box. One could fertilize
the Sahara desert with that logic. Now I would think that any boxer that could go
15 rounds with Tommy Loughran and stop Jim Slattery would have enough skills
to dance with the likes of the "Livermore Larruper". Even Max Baer lost to the likes
of Tommy Loughran and Johnny Risko. Also, you should be very frugal with the term "bums".

Most people at the time considered the Spink's fight was a walk in the park for Ali. I was also around when Clay shocked the world in the first Liston fight. I remember screaming at my radio at the time "keep moving Clay don't mix it with this guy"


The Spinks who beat Holmes was a turn up for the book as Holmes was still a decent fighter at the time. but no one was as shocked as at the Ali loss. Of course its easy to be wise after the events

Moving on the Braddock v Baer fight it was a big shock, in my opinion Max should have blown him away.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

harrygreb wrote:actually nowhere i repeat nowhere does zelley state that ali is his favourite boxer. those are your words, not his. zelley made a case which i do not go with ie the shock thing, but he is well qualified - in fact more qualified than you - to make it thru being there. i too was around at that time but i lost interest in ali's career after the last frazier fight.

plus, i dont care whether you are anti-ali or not and i'd guess very few other posters lose sleep over that question too. and lastly, youre not a patch on gran when it comes to stirring up the shite. he's gifted.

I think Zelley has made clear he's a big fan of Ali since his arrival through a few different threads. I don't think he'll say I'm wrong. Let's see, shall we?

I'm not stirring shit. Granberry stirs shit, & you're only jutting your nose in because of a disagreement in a prior thread, not because you care in the least about Zelley's statements or standpoint, so why carry a pretense of agreeing with him, when it's patently obvious you're only trying to push my buttons?

harrygreb, you are correct I didn't say Ali was one of my favorites
My favorites include Floyd Patterson, Archie Moore, Eddie Cotton, Al Sparks,
Emile Griffith and Eder Jofre and others.

My position is Ali was a great boxer, but falls short of being in the top ten best of all time.
I'm sure to switch a few names from time to time, but some include:
Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep, Archie Moore,
Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Eder Jofre and Jimmy Wilde. One could easily add
Joe Louis, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Joe Gans and George Dixon,
Not to mention some of the great uncrowned champions such as Sam Langford
or undefeated champs like Rocky Marciano & Joe Calzaghe.

Hopefully, no buttons will be pushed as a result of this post :idea:
Folks, this is not some love-in of the late Sixties with folks singing and dancing
to "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" while smoking funny cigarettes and agreeing
It is a boxing thread where folks are expected to spar and take a few shots
and not rush for the white towel in the corner. - slip the jab -

Zelley wrote:harrygreb, you are correct I didn't say Ali was one of my favorites
My favorites include Floyd Patterson, Archie Moore, Eddie Cotton, Al Sparks,
Emile Griffith and Eder Jofre and others.

My position is Ali was a great boxer, but falls short of being in the top ten best of all time.
I'm sure to switch a few names from time to time, but some include:
Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Roberto Duran, Willie Pep, Archie Moore,
Barney Ross, Tony Canzoneri, Eder Jofre and Jimmy Wilde. One could easily add
Joe Louis, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Joe Gans and George Dixon,
Not to mention some of the great uncrowned champions such as Sam Langford
or undefeated champs like Rocky Marciano & Joe Calazaghe.

Hopefully, no buttons will be pushed as a result of this post :idea:
Folks, this is not some love-in of the late Sixties with folks singing and dancing
to "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" while smoking funny cigarettes and agreeing
It is a boxing thread where folks are expected to spar and take a few shots
and not rush for the white towel in the corner. - slip the jab -

i respect your opinions about all these great fighters listed but mentioning calzaghe's name along side them is a disgrace to the history of the sport.

Have you seen the Loughran-Braddock fight??? Braddock puts up the worst exhibition of boxing "skill" Ive ever seen in a challenger. He looked clueless. And yeah he knocked out Slattery when Slattery was a derelict alcoholic which he had been since at least 1927, and lets not forget its not like Slattery was unbeatable. Hed already been stopped by a welterweight in Dave Shade as well as Paul Berlenbach and hed been beaten on points by Greb, Stribling, and Eagen and Loughran. Since losing to Loughran Slattery hadnt faced anyone worth noting.

yea, at first i baulked at calzaghe's inclusion in that elite list but the poster does make it clear that it is because of joes unbeaten status. so not quite as contentious as i had thought.

harrygreb wrote:yea, at first i baulked at calzaghe's inclusion in that elite list but the poster does make it clear that it is because of joes unbeaten status. so not quite as contentious as i had thought.

Good point! There is always a reason for a name being dropped.

The important point is Joe could be considered at some later date for consideration in some
top ten or 25 list. If he decides to make a comeback and stumbles, then his future chances
for top anything status is limited.

Maybe, we could have a list of 25 boxers that made comebacks that failed.
Or call it "25 dumb decisions".

klompton wrote:Have you seen the Loughran-Braddock fight??? Braddock puts up the worst exhibition of boxing "skill" Ive ever seen in a challenger. He looked clueless. And yeah he knocked out Slattery when Slattery was a derelict alcoholic which he had been since at least 1927, and lets not forget its not like Slattery was unbeatable. Hed already been stopped by a welterweight in Dave Shade as well as Paul Berlenbach and hed been beaten on points by Greb, Stribling, and Eagen and Loughran. Since losing to Loughran Slattery hadnt faced anyone worth noting.

Well klompton, I don't care if Braddock lost a few bouts along the rocky road of boxing.
Braddock did have the right stuff to outfox Baer. It's being called smart.

Now in order to trash Braddock why is it necessary to trash Slattery.
Following that logic every boxer except Rocky Marciano & Joe Calzaghe
could be trashed likely by folks that have not stepped into the
bright lights to the sound of the roaring crowd and thrown jabs in competition.

But even Rocky & Joe are trashed by some to make some stupid point.
So by trashing and slamming one, you smear them all.
I would hope that anyone that has boxed, even a novice amateur,
would appreciate and respect all boxers.

For those that are just fans, welcome to the game,
but talking about boxing doesn't win a berth into
the boxing hall of fame.

harrygreb wrote:yea, at first i baulked at calzaghe's inclusion in that elite list but the poster does make it clear that it is because of joes unbeaten status. so not quite as contentious as i had thought.

An undefeated record is more a red herring than a ticket to the HOF, in Calzaghe's case. Don't get me wrong --- I think Calzaghe was a genuinely wonderful fighter, & I do believe him to be HOF material, but his record is more impressive than he is. Ten years of insulated WBO title defenses?

That hurts a man. Not insignificantly.

Im not trashing Slattery, Im stating fact. He was a horrible alcoholic and it ended up basically ruining his life and especially his career. Braddock was a bum. Period. He was a guy who fell into a pile of shit and came out smelling like a rose when he managed to get a shot at Baer and miraculously won (thats why it was such a huge upset). Irene is right to say that its ridiculous you are trying to pretend that Baer-Braddock and Ali-Spinks 1 werent both shocking and huge upsets. Im amazed anyone would even try to argue that point.

surely you mean he - joe - is more impressive than his record. 10 years of insulated WBO defences.
by the way, GI, we are moving away from the original point of the thread and youre still posting!!! (and posting well). see, it can be worth it.

Holmes losing, although I didn't think he lost either of them.
Ali was well past it anyway, didn't train etc etc.