BoxRec

Expug wrote:Ali lost to Spinks.
Hell, he got out hustled. No big deal. It happens and it happens to guys who get older and arent big punchers.
He squared it in the rematch.
That Feb night in 1978 I had just one a Chicago Golden Gloves match. There was a buzz around St Andrews gym in Chicago that Ali lost to Spinks.
For the most part , trainers , other fighters glovin up waiting to fight, fans etc, the reaction was , oh well, hes gettin on in years and slowing up. They will fight again and Ali will win it.
Nobody in boxing I think figured someone was gonna walk in and knockout Muhamad, but I think people figured he could be outworked. Its what happened with Leon.

That's how I recall it too, expug.

But there is litle point argueing with people like BRR (son of terap) who weren't around at the time and live in a fantasy world where Ali wasn't really much good and was just a media creation.

Jan wrote:Could we please sum up which of Alis wins were disputed or even just wrong?

What about these ones ( for example) :
Doug Jones
KEn Norton 3

Ali himself said he lost to Norton, but on the other hand he stated, he won the first fight against frazier.

Granberry-Terap has 20 fights on his list that Ali didn't deserve the decision in. He also claimed he had several TKO wins that were 'just wrong' too, including the Foreman fight and Frazier (3). The funniest thing was he had a couple of blokes following him around who agreed with his nonsense.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:More cushioning for Ali's completely unforeseen & unprecedented fall from grace.

Let's see how many ringside reporters, fight-writers & analysts you can come up with who foretold Spinks besting Ali, Zelley. YouR post mentions, "some" who were not surprised at the outcome.

Now, let's have some names...

It wasn't an unforseen fall from Grace. I believe I have provided enough evidence so I rest my case. Let's take it to the jury.

Without looking at every fight:
First Joe Frazier fight
1972 fight with George Chuvalo
the first Ken Norton fight

Now how many of those fights did you watch when they happened? :??

I don't believe we need a front row of sports reporters to support
the case, based on my observations of his pre-1970 fights,
the live Ali-Chuvalo fight, and the other fights. I was not shocked
at the defeat of ALI by SPINKS.

All of your spinning won"t change my position DD :geek2:

Collins2000 wrote:

Expug wrote:Ali lost to Spinks.
Hell, he got out hustled. No big deal. It happens and it happens to guys who get older and arent big punchers.
He squared it in the rematch.
That Feb night in 1978 I had just one a Chicago Golden Gloves match. There was a buzz around St Andrews gym in Chicago that Ali lost to Spinks.
For the most part , trainers , other fighters glovin up waiting to fight, fans etc, the reaction was , oh well, hes gettin on in years and slowing up. They will fight again and Ali will win it.
Nobody in boxing I think figured someone was gonna walk in and knockout Muhamad, but I think people figured he could be outworked. Its what happened with Leon.

That's how I recall it too, expug.

But there is litle point argueing with people like BRR (son of terap) who weren't around at the time and live in a fantasy world where Ali wasn't really much good and was just a media creation.

That's why this thread includes the words facts, fantasy and fiction.

I figured there would be some that would deal in fantasy world when it came to Muhammed Ali. It's like a trip back in time with the old
"Sound Off" columns in the boxing magazines of the Seventies.
As one wise scribe once pointed, we could fertilize a forest with
all the "stuff" being shoveled,

Zelley wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:More cushioning for Ali's completely unforeseen & unprecedented fall from grace.

Let's see how many ringside reporters, fight-writers & analysts you can come up with who foretold Spinks besting Ali, Zelley. YouR post mentions, "some" who were not surprised at the outcome.

Now, let's have some names...

It wasn't an unforseen fall from Grace. I believe I have provided enough evidence so I rest my case. Let's take it to the jury.

Without looking at every fight:
First Joe Frazier fight
1972 fight with George Chuvalo
the first Ken Norton fight

Now how many of those fights did you watch when they happened? :??

I don't believe we need a front row of sports reporters to support
the case, based on my observations of his pre-1970 fights,
the live Ali-Chuvalo fight, and the other fights. I was not shocked
at the defeat of ALI by SPINKS.

All of your spinning won"t change my position DD :geek2:

Not a name to be had then? Not a one? Oh, well.

Amazing, given it was, "no great shock."

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Zelley wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:More cushioning for Ali's completely unforeseen & unprecedented fall from grace.

Let's see how many ringside reporters, fight-writers & analysts you can come up with who foretold Spinks besting Ali, Zelley. YouR post mentions, "some" who were not surprised at the outcome.

Now, let's have some names...

It wasn't an unforseen fall from Grace. I believe I have provided enough evidence so I rest my case. Let's take it to the jury.

Without looking at every fight:
First Joe Frazier fight
1972 fight with George Chuvalo
the first Ken Norton fight

Now how many of those fights did you watch when they happened? :??

I don't believe we need a front row of sports reporters to support
the case, based on my observations of his pre-1970 fights,
the live Ali-Chuvalo fight, and the other fights. I was not shocked
at the defeat of ALI by SPINKS.

All of your spinning won"t change my position DD :geek2:

Not a name to be had then? Not a one? Oh, well.

Amazing, given it was, "no great shock."

From one who was actually alive and active in boxing at the time:

1. Following the "Thrilla in Manila" - and maybe a bit before - everybody could see that Ali's skills were eroding and the inevitable would happen. So his defeat was not "completely unforeseen." Folks expected it to happen sooner rather than later.

2. But most people didn't think Neon Leon would be the one to pull the trigger. With only a handful of pro fights, most put Leon in the catagory of Coopman, Evangelista, et al.

So, while I wouldn't have picked Leon to win going into the fight, I wasn't surprised that Ali lost. And I certainly wasn't "shocked."

...okay..here's one name---rolly schwartz. he was involved with amateur boxing for over sixty years and also knew about pro boxing...it was with rolly's involment that i helped train amateure boxers and also judged some amateur fights. rolly was the one who was quoted nationwide as saying that "clay" would beat liston in their first fight. he was quoted in that fight the first t ime by the announcers who thought he was foolish---and then as the fight went on he became much less foolish.

i suggest all of you to google rolly schwartz to read about him. his resume is more than i can cover here.

when told rolly i thought the spinks fight was nothing more than an exhibition and ali would stop him whenever he felt like it, he said, "Spinks will win. tell people that and after the fight and then gloat afterwards because everybody thought you were nuts."
some newspapers printed his prediction, largely based on his clay-liston predictiion.

jaclem2 wrote:...okay..here's one name---rolly schwartz. he was involved with amateur boxing for over sixty years and also knew about pro boxing...it was with rolly's involment that i helped train amateure boxers and also judged some amateur fights. rolly was the one who was quoted nationwide as saying that "clay" would beat liston in their first fight. he was quoted in that fight the first t ime by the announcers who thought he was foolish---and then as the fight went on he became much less foolish.

i suggest all of you to google rolly schwartz to read about him. his resume is more than i can cover here.

when told rolly i thought the spinks fight was nothing more than an exhibition and ali would stop him whenever he felt like it, he said, "Spinks will win. tell people that and after the fight and then gloat afterwards because everybody thought you were nuts."
some newspapers printed his prediction, largely based on his clay-liston predictiion.

It's the same old story, some of the naysayers
are quick to criticize.

Rolly. Schwartz, now isn't that a blast from the past!!

Zelley wrote: Some say Muhammad Ali (aka Cassius Cla y) is the greatest!

Without a doubt, Muhammad Ali has had the greatest influence in the understanding,
and appreciation of our great sport over the last fifty or so years. But when it comes to discussing Ali, the boxer, emotional intelligence is often left in the cookie jar, and raw emotion clouds the real effective and objective analysis of Muhammad Ali.

Although we haven't completed this story of ALI, the opening paragraph to this threads sets the stage. As expected, the "cookie jar" of some is still
full. and objective analysis is on the front burner
for others :> Positive facts :> without the fantasy & fiction

When all is said and done Muhammed Ali must rate as the most important boxer in the last 70 years! :??

I do not really want to get into another Ali debate. I would simply say that I think he rates higher than Griffith as a '60s fighter. I have not seen enough of Joffre, sadly, so I cannot comment on him.
I would also say that I think Ali is sometimes over-analyzed. I think he has had his fair share of scrutiny. There are plenty of legends who do not get half the criticism that Ali does for rather minor things in his career. I think the reason for that may have to do with the fact of his being the most famous fighter of the '60s, and his being rather symbolic of that era. If Ali had been a quiet, conservative Christian who never got mixed up with the draft, he would receive a whole hell of a lot less criticism for his career.
No disrespect to Louis and others, but Ali is clearly the greatest Heavyweight of all time, in my opinion. I do not see it as particularly debatable. And, along with Louis, I think Ali is top ten pound for pound, all time, though not top six.
Just my opinion, of course. People are free to comment, but I think I would rather watch paint dry at this point than get into another Ali debate.

I Feel Fine wrote:I do not really want to get into another Ali debate. I would simply say that I think he rates higher than Griffith as a '60s fighter. I have not seen enough of Joffre, sadly, so I cannot comment on him.
I would also say that I think Ali is sometimes over-analyzed. I think he has had his fair share of scrutiny. There are plenty of legends who do not get half the criticism that Ali does for rather minor things in his career. I think the reason for that may have to do with the fact of his being the most famous fighter of the '60s, and his being rather symbolic of that era. If Ali had been a quiet, conservative Christian who never got mixed up with the draft, he would receive a whole hell of a lot less criticism for his career.
No disrespect to Louis and others, but Ali is clearly the greatest Heavyweight of all time, in my opinion. I do not see it as particularly debatable. And, along with Louis, I think Ali is top ten pound for pound, all time, though not top six.
Just my opinion, of course. People are free to comment, but I think I would rather watch paint dry at this point than get into another Ali debate.

I agree with "Boxing Illustrated" in early 1970 that Emile was the best of the Sixties.

I think I have given my reasons elsewhere, but Ali is one of the most significant fighters of all time, but I don't rate him in my top ten p4p. But when I met him in 1972, it was a greater thrill than meeting Rocky Marciano in 1967. And, Rocky is not in my top ten either, but still they
are two of the all time greats in boxing.

Your ability to put together a well stated opinion that I disagee with deserves kudos. Your thoughts are well constructed. and invites review of certain assumptions. I remember this thread well and perhaps disagree with you even more now than I did then


But I appreciate your style to the enth degree..and truly admire the total absence of emotive reactivity in you delivery.

I hope you have returned with the intention of contributing on an ongoing basis.

I don't know about Australia but the United States Supreme Court recognizes conscientious objector status as does the United Nations Commission on Civil Rights.

Somebody said practicing a certain religion doesn't relieve you of the obligation to pay taxes. I suggest paying taxes is different than killing people.

Back to the Viet Nam War , conscientious objector status was one of the many ways one could avoid active service. One could go to college and get a deferment as Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney famously or infamously did with the latter getting six deferments. One could go to a doctor, get a medical exemption,and be classified 4F as did Rush Limbaugh with a anal cyst. One could join the relatively safe Coast Guard. Or one could join the National Guard,where at least during the Viet Nam War your chance of seeing active combat was quite small. In fact the Dallas National Guard unit during the Viet Nam War was called the Champagne Unit for it's politically connected recruits which included George Bush, Lloyd Bentsen Jr., son of Lloyd Bentsen, John Connally III, son of John Connally Jr, the son of John Tower, and seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.

IMHO, the true heros of the Viet Nam War were those who went to Viet Nam and were willing to risk their lives for their country and those who claimed conscientious objector and were willing to risk their livelihoods for their beliefs. Those who sat out the war in college, gamed the system to find doctors who said they had maladies that prevented them from being drafted, and joined the Guard to avoid active service, their decisions are clouded by moral ambiguity.

As Pacific war hero and thirty fifth president , John F. Kennedy said " War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today ..."

ThatOne wrote:I don't know about Australia but the United States Supreme Court recognizes conscientious objector status as does the United Nations Commission on Civil Rights.

Somebody said practicing a certain religion doesn't relieve you of the obligation to pay taxes. I suggest paying taxes is different than killing people.

Back to the Viet Nam War , conscientious objector status was one of the many ways one could avoid active service. One could go to college and get a deferment as Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney famously or infamously did with the latter getting six deferments. One could go to a doctor, get a medical exemption,and be classified 4F as did Rush Limbaugh with a anal cyst. One could join the relatively safe Coast Guard. Or one could join the National Guard,where at least during the Viet Nam War your chance of seeing active combat was quite small. In fact the Dallas National Guard unit during the Viet Nam War was called the Champagne Unit for it's politically connected recruits which included George Bush, Lloyd Bentsen Jr., son of Lloyd Bentsen, John Connally III, son of John Connally Jr, the son of John Tower, and seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.

IMHO, the true heros of the Viet Nam War were those who went to Viet Nam and were willing to risk their lives for their country and those who claimed conscientious objector and were willing to risk their livelihoods for their beliefs. Those who sat out the war in college, gamed the system to find doctors who said they had maladies that prevented them from being drafted, and joined the Guard to avoid active service, their decisions are clouded by moral ambiguity.

As Pacific war hero and thirty fifth president , John F. Kennedy said " War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today ..."

With all due respect, you need to get your facts straight about the "relatively safe Coast Guard." My Dad served in the Coast Guard during World War II. His ship spent extensive time in the Philippines, survived attempted torpedoing and Kamikaze attacks by the Japanese, and supported the USMC in the invasion of Okinawa. They were in the first wave behind the Marines, bring in equipment after the Marines had established a beach head.

In Vietnam, the Coast Guard assisted in extensive patrols on inland Vietnamese waterways, and bombardment operations along the Vietnam coast. (Ever hear of the "brown water" Navy? It was augmented largely by Coast Guard Point class cutters.)

In peace time, it's the Coast Guard that protects us from seafaring drug cartels and rescues citizens lost at sea - often in treacherous weather conditions. "Relatively safe," indeed . . .

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I don't know about Australia but the United States Supreme Court recognizes conscientious objector status as does the United Nations Commission on Civil Rights.

Somebody said practicing a certain religion doesn't relieve you of the obligation to pay taxes. I suggest paying taxes is different than killing people.

Back to the Viet Nam War , conscientious objector status was one of the many ways one could avoid active service. One could go to college and get a deferment as Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney famously or infamously did with the latter getting six deferments. One could go to a doctor, get a medical exemption,and be classified 4F as did Rush Limbaugh with a anal cyst. One could join the relatively safe Coast Guard. Or one could join the National Guard,where at least during the Viet Nam War your chance of seeing active combat was quite small. In fact the Dallas National Guard unit during the Viet Nam War was called the Champagne Unit for it's politically connected recruits which included George Bush, Lloyd Bentsen Jr., son of Lloyd Bentsen, John Connally III, son of John Connally Jr, the son of John Tower, and seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.

IMHO, the true heros of the Viet Nam War were those who went to Viet Nam and were willing to risk their lives for their country and those who claimed conscientious objector and were willing to risk their livelihoods for their beliefs. Those who sat out the war in college, gamed the system to find doctors who said they had maladies that prevented them from being drafted, and joined the Guard to avoid active service, their decisions are clouded by moral ambiguity.

As Pacific war hero and thirty fifth president , John F. Kennedy said " War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today ..."

With all due respect, you need to get your facts straight about the "relatively safe Coast Guard." My Dad served in the Coast Guard during World War II. His ship spent extensive time in the Philippines, survived attempted torpedoing and Kamikaze attacks by the Japanese, and supported the USMC in the invasion of Okinawa. They were in the first wave behind the Marines, bring in equipment after the Marines had established a beach head.

In Vietnam, the Coast Guard assisted in extensive patrols on inland Vietnamese waterways, and bombardment operations along the Vietnam coast. (Ever hear of the "brown water" Navy? It was augmented largely by Coast Guard Point class cutters.)

In peace time, it's the Coast Guard that protects us from seafaring drug cartels and rescues citizens lost at sea - often in treacherous weather conditions. "Relatively safe," indeed . . .

Thank you for pointing that out. I need to educate myself further about the Coast Guard. Maybe they need better publicists. But I think my remarks about the other ways of avoiding service are born out by the facts. I also know today's Nat'l Guard is is very different than the Nat'l Guard of the Viet Nam era. Now, joining the Nat'l Guard is dangerous and you can find yourself in a combat zone. During the Viet Nam Wart not so much.

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I don't know about Australia but the United States Supreme Court recognizes conscientious objector status as does the United Nations Commission on Civil Rights.

Somebody said practicing a certain religion doesn't relieve you of the obligation to pay taxes. I suggest paying taxes is different than killing people.

Back to the Viet Nam War , conscientious objector status was one of the many ways one could avoid active service. One could go to college and get a deferment as Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney famously or infamously did with the latter getting six deferments. One could go to a doctor, get a medical exemption,and be classified 4F as did Rush Limbaugh with a anal cyst. One could join the relatively safe Coast Guard. Or one could join the National Guard,where at least during the Viet Nam War your chance of seeing active combat was quite small. In fact the Dallas National Guard unit during the Viet Nam War was called the Champagne Unit for it's politically connected recruits which included George Bush, Lloyd Bentsen Jr., son of Lloyd Bentsen, John Connally III, son of John Connally Jr, the son of John Tower, and seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.

IMHO, the true heros of the Viet Nam War were those who went to Viet Nam and were willing to risk their lives for their country and those who claimed conscientious objector and were willing to risk their livelihoods for their beliefs. Those who sat out the war in college, gamed the system to find doctors who said they had maladies that prevented them from being drafted, and joined the Guard to avoid active service, their decisions are clouded by moral ambiguity.

As Pacific war hero and thirty fifth president , John F. Kennedy said " War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today ..."

With all due respect, you need to get your facts straight about the "relatively safe Coast Guard." My Dad served in the Coast Guard during World War II. His ship spent extensive time in the Philippines, survived attempted torpedoing and Kamikaze attacks by the Japanese, and supported the USMC in the invasion of Okinawa. They were in the first wave behind the Marines, bring in equipment after the Marines had established a beach head.

In Vietnam, the Coast Guard assisted in extensive patrols on inland Vietnamese waterways, and bombardment operations along the Vietnam coast. (Ever hear of the "brown water" Navy? It was augmented largely by Coast Guard Point class cutters.)

In peace time, it's the Coast Guard that protects us from seafaring drug cartels and rescues citizens lost at sea - often in treacherous weather conditions. "Relatively safe," indeed . . .

Thank you for pointing that out. I need to educate myself further about the Coast Guard. Maybe they need better publicists. But I think my remarks about the other ways of avoiding service are born out by the facts. I also know today's Nat'l Guard is is very different than the Nat'l Guard of the Viet Nam era. Now, joining the Nat'l Guard is dangerous and you can find yourself in a combat zone. During the Viet Nam Wart not so much.

I would never denigrate service in the National Guard, even in the Vietnam era. First, a few units did go to Vietnam. Second, even if you avoided Vietnam, you were still in harm's way here in the states. I recall that the worst prison riot in the 1970s (and the worst up until that time) was at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary outside McAlester, Oklahoma. It was quelled by - you guessed it - the Oklahoma National Guard.

Reactions to the Vietnam war are interesting. Although I was part of the March, 1973 lottery, the men in my birth year (1954) were never drafted. I had a relatively high number (252 - funny how I remember that after all these years), so I probably wouldn't have gone anyway. Looking back, though, I always tell myself that I would have gone if drafted.

Interesting, though, many years after the fact, I was talking about Vietnam with my Dad and Grandfather, and we discussed the draft. My Dad surprised me by saying "If you had been drafted, I'd have bought a plane ticket for you to Canada." I was even more surprised when my Grandpa added, "And I would have helped pack your suitcase." My Dad and Granddad were real patriots and both pretty conservative; I would have never imagined they felt that way.

No service is without risk. My point and I don't think it's a unfair one is that many men during the Viet Nam War, including older cousins of mine, chose the National Guard (and it wasn't easy to get into) to reduce their exposure to active combat. Again, it doesn't mean service in the Guard was without risk, just that the risk wasn't nearly as great.

I know the Guard was sent in to quell the riots after the assasaination of Dr. King but even that service wasn't nearly as dangerous as serving in Viet Nam. I think a cursory review of casualties by branch bears that out. I also know there were Nat'l Guard units that served in Viet Nam but were a small percentage of the active force.

I will admit it. I didn't have the stomach for active combat or c.o status. I turned eighteen in 76 so it wasn't an issue. I would have chosen the branch of service and role in that branch that put me the furthest from harm's way. My dad was blinded in one eye by shrapnel and contacted malaria in the Battle of North Africa during the "good war". I doubt he actually enjoyed his service or volunteered for it.

ThatOne wrote:No service is without risk. My point and I don't think it's a unfair one is that many men during the Viet Nam War, including older cousins of mine, chose the National Guard (and it wasn't easy to get into) to reduce their exposure to active combat. Again, it doesn't mean service in the Guard was without risk, just that the risk wasn't nearly as great.

I know the Guard was sent in to quell the riots after the assasaination of Dr. King but even that service wasn't nearly as dangerous as serving in Viet Nam. I think a cursory review of casualties by branch bears that out. I also know there were Nat'l Guard units that served in Viet Nam but were a small percentage of the active force.

I will admit it. I didn't have the stomach for active combat or c.o status. I turned eighteen in 76 so it wasn't an issue. I would have chosen the branch of service and role in that branch that put me the furthest from harm's way. My dad was blinded in one eye by shrapnel and contacted malaria in the Battle of North Africa during the "good war". I doubt he actually enjoyed his service or volunteered for it.

"No service is without risk." That's my point. The NG guys at McAlester and in the King riots were in harm's way. . . and they were certainly more at risk than some regular Army guys who were drafted during Vietnam yet never left the country, or were assigned to non-combat positions. My point is . . . they served. They put themselves at risk not knowing if they would actually be at risk. And we have no right to denigrate their service - especially those of us who've never been in uniform.

Now the conscientious objectors? That's a whole different issue, IMO.

THE ALI ISSUE REVISITED

I have always said we need to analyze the legacy of Ali into various
components. Aside from his greatness in and out of boxing, when we
analyze Ali the boxer. His position among the best boxers of all time
fluctuates. But, his ranking has a top ten heavyweight champion has
been under the spotlight since he won the title when he was plain old
CASSIUS (The Louisville Lip) CLAY.

My feeling is, as one of the best, his best years were betweeen 1964 and 1967.
On his return to the ring, his victories over Bonavena and Quarry, and his loss
to Frazier, would not elevate his status. The victory over GEORGE FOREMAN
was an upset, but in many ways big George was beat before he ever entered the
ring. He should never of taken the match in Africa where Ali was treated like
Royalty while George was treated like some domestic servant without respect.

So, in all fairness to all the other heavyweight champions, or all divisions for the
best of the best vying for a top ten spot. The years 1964 to 1967 should determine
how Ali should be rated in the heavyweight and top boxers of all time categories.
But, regardless of our respect for Ali and appreciation of his entertainment value,
we need to sort through the FACT, FANTASY and FICTION.

So, going back to 1971 after his comeback and first fight with Frazier how should he
be rated with the best of the Heavyweights. For, old guys like NAT FLEISCHER
of The RING magazine, Muhammad does not make the top ten or the top five.
Nat's top six in 1971 were Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries, Bob Fitzsimmons, James J. Corbett and Joe Louis. The next four were Langford, Tunney, Schmeling and Marciano. i would rate Louis and Marciano higher than 6th and 10th. Also, pleased to see Nat rate SAM LANGFORD in his top ten list.

jaclem2 wrote:..regardless of how we feel about certain issues, i think we should all agree that zelley backs up his ideas very well and his use of the language is excellent..

Looking at the thread, this comment is cool.

Jan wrote:Could we please sum up which of Alis wins were disputed or even just wrong?

What about these ones ( for example) :
Doug Jones
KEn Norton 3

Ali himself said he lost to Norton, but on the other hand he stated, he won the first fight against frazier.

i watched the first ALI - FRAZIER fight, and no way did ali win, Frazier sewed it up in the 11th round and the last round and knockdown were just icing on the Frazier cake.

Re. Strange and tricky events,
the first HENRY COOPER fight and the split glove trick in the corner to buy Cassius
time to clear his foggy head.
Re. JIMMY YOUNG, a bigger robbery than the Great Train Robbery.

Jan wrote:Could we please sum up which of Alis wins were disputed or even just wrong?

What about these ones ( for example) :
Doug Jones
KEn Norton 3

Ali himself said he lost to Norton, but on the other hand he stated, he won the first fight against frazier.

i watched the first ALI - FRAZIER fight, and no way did ali win, Frazier sewed it up in the 11th round and the last round and knockdown were just icing on the Frazier cake. D

Re. Strange and tricky events,
the first HENRY COOPER fight and the split glove trick in the corner to buy Cassius
time to clear his foggy head.
Re. JIMMY YOUNG, a bigger robbery than the Great Train Robbery.

BoxBuzz wrote:Your ability to put together a well stated opinion that I disagee with deserves kudos. Your thoughts are well constructed. and invites review of certain assumptions. I remember this thread well and perhaps disagree with you even more now than I did then


But I appreciate your style to the enth degree..and truly admire the total absence of emotive reactivity in you delivery.

I hope you have returned with the intention of contributing on an ongoing basis.

The whole purpose of discussion is to be able to present our arguments without
any emotional baggage, and respect the views of others that may not agree. But,
a small slice of sarcasm tossed at a few helps fuel the debate, but that is okay because
debate sometimes helps with the discussion if it is done in small doses.

Not sure what points that you are disagreeing with, I am just serving as a message boy
trying to deliver the facts, and sometimes a wee bit of fantasy or fiction gets tossed in.