BoxRec

The weekend was one that I had dreaded for a long time as, like many other boxing fans I bet, the man I had literally hero worshiped, studied, watched, read about, dreamed about reached the end of his days on earth. I spent Saturday watching news stations and reading websites to catch all the various tributes to the great man. So was utterly disgusted with the amount of TV stations who got facts wrong. Gave incorrect fight results, attributed things incorrectly. Sky news had someone talking about him beating Sonny Liston in 1963. CNN had someone say that he was the first four-time heavyweight champion and so it went on.

I would have hoped that dedicated boxing sites would be trusted at least, so came across this segment on fightnews.com

"When did I become aware of Ali? Probably when I was roughly ten years old. He had just regained the heavyweight crown from George Foreman in the “Rumble In The Jungle.” From that point on, he was everywhere, in the news, on TV shows, cartoons, in the comic books versus Superman, in stores as an action figure. At first, as a kid I was obviously drawn to the aura, the sensationalism of it all. Eventually, like with the loudmouth at school, I grew bored, almost annoyed with Ali. Two years later in April of 1974, I was attending my step-father’s bowling championships at the local lanes. It was the night of the Ali-Jimmy Young fight."

Complete link here - http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/reflect ... est-340521

Christ alive, these are historical events, every decent fan should know that Ali fought Foreman in 1974 whereas this article puts it in 1972 by virtue of saying the Ali v Young fight was April 1974 which was actually 1976

Does no one actually proof read these articles?!

Sorry to rant but feck, it is Ali, if you are a journalist, do not make such a stupid mistake.

I don't think largely irrelevant details such as the dates of fights really matter much in all honesty, with the thousands of colums and blogs there are bound to be some and you're wasting your time getting annoyed by it.

I did find David Haye's interview on Sky a little strange though. He spoke about Ali being his idol and Ali's influence being the very reason he became a boxer... Yet he wore a "Clay vs Liston" t-shirt and said he had named his son "Cassius", when there wasn't much things that offended Ali more than being called by his previous name.

tobyh5 wrote:The CNN had someone say that he was the first four-time heavyweight champion and so it went on.

Ali actually won the WBA title four times (if that counts)
1. Sonny Liston
2. Ernie Terrell
3. George Foreman
4. Leon Spinks

nigel benn was on sky talking about Ali vs dokes ...i must of missed that one

stevedoc wrote:nigel benn was on sky talking about Ali vs dokes ...i must of missed that one

That was an exhibition

tobyh5 wrote:

stevedoc wrote:nigel benn was on sky talking about Ali vs dokes ...i must of missed that one

That was an exhibition

ok i just thought benn had got it wrong

I saw a lot of people on FB writing RIP Clay, if they new anything about the man they wouldn't have written that.

Nightmare Roy wrote:I saw a lot of people on FB writing RIP Clay, if they new anything about the man they wouldn't have written that.

i guy i know was in hospital and very sick when he was about 18 and Ali came to see him and they talked and and kieth the sick guy got an autograph from Ali and then told him his dad was a massive fan and could he sign it again as cassius clay he said Ali laughed and said no at first then said yes and he turned away and signed it clay without looking as he didn't want to see his old name . the guy keith told me the story a couple of years back and said it would be worth a lot when he died,it must be a rare autograph

Ali himself showed a lot of disrespect to Joe Public by associating with those Nation of Islam nutters.

Showed a lot of disrespect to opponents as well.

Ricky_ wrote:I don't think largely irrelevant details such as the dates of fights really matter much in all honesty, with the thousands of colums and blogs there are bound to be some and you're wasting your time getting annoyed by it.

I did find David Haye's interview on Sky a little strange though. He spoke about Ali being his idol and Ali's influence being the very reason he became a boxer... Yet he wore a "Clay vs Liston" t-shirt and said he had named his son "Cassius", when there wasn't much things that offended Ali more than being called by his previous name.

Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Not to get in a debate about the Nation of Islam, but they are hardly "nutters". They have some beliefs that have been very helpful to their members. Their record with ex-cons is tremendous. Very low rate of recidivism among ex-cons who join the NOI.
They believe things that most white people can't fathom because we have the bias of believing that everyone wants to be near us, to be like us. That doesn't make them nuts.

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:I don't think largely irrelevant details such as the dates of fights really matter much in all honesty, with the thousands of colums and blogs there are bound to be some and you're wasting your time getting annoyed by it.

I did find David Haye's interview on Sky a little strange though. He spoke about Ali being his idol and Ali's influence being the very reason he became a boxer... Yet he wore a "Clay vs Liston" t-shirt and said he had named his son "Cassius", when there wasn't much things that offended Ali more than being called by his previous name.

Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Clay wasn't his name. It was the name of his family's slave masters.

CaptainSpacerod wrote:Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Anybody is entitled to change their name legally if they want.

Ali understandably got mad when people refused to honor his decision to take on a new name.

But I seriously doubt that the later Ali (post- Nation of Islam) would have been upset with someone like Haye, naming his son Cassius. He became much less rigid about that stuff.

ldlamb wrote:Ali understandably got mad when people refused to honor his decision to take on a new name.

But I seriously doubt that the later Ali (post- Nation of Islam) would have been upset with someone like Haye, naming his son Cassius. He became much less rigid about at stuff.

My point is more to do with why Haye, as a supposed Ali fan, would want to call his son that.

Ricky_ wrote:

ldlamb wrote:Ali understandably got mad when people refused to honor his decision to take on a new name.

But I seriously doubt that the later Ali (post- Nation of Islam) would have been upset with someone like Haye, naming his son Cassius. He became much less rigid about at stuff.

My point is more to do with why Haye, as a supposed Ali fan, would want to call his son that.

would cassius have been chosen by his parents and clay was the slave owners surname ?

Ricky_ wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:I don't think largely irrelevant details such as the dates of fights really matter much in all honesty, with the thousands of colums and blogs there are bound to be some and you're wasting your time getting annoyed by it.

I did find David Haye's interview on Sky a little strange though. He spoke about Ali being his idol and Ali's influence being the very reason he became a boxer... Yet he wore a "Clay vs Liston" t-shirt and said he had named his son "Cassius", when there wasn't much things that offended Ali more than being called by his previous name.

Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Clay wasn't his name. It was the name of his family's slave masters.

Technically I don't think you're right. Slavemasters may have given his ancestors that name but generations of his family had I presume lived quite happily with that name after Emancipation which in my book makes it his name. I don't think many black people in America followed suit and changed their name as the civil rights movement took it's course.

Ricky_ wrote:I don't think largely irrelevant details such as the dates of fights really matter much in all honesty, with the thousands of colums and blogs there are bound to be some and you're wasting your time getting annoyed by it.

I did find David Haye's interview on Sky a little strange though. He spoke about Ali being his idol and Ali's influence being the very reason he became a boxer... Yet he wore a "Clay vs Liston" t-shirt and said he had named his son "Cassius", when there wasn't much things that offended Ali more than being called by his previous name.

He certainly wasn't offended by beating Sonny Liston. That's the fight, he was Clay then.

SteveO wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Anybody is entitled to change their name legally if they want.

I'm no fan of his religion, but an adult can get their name changed for whatever reason they desire. If there is an exception to this, I don't know what it is.

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:
Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Clay wasn't his name. It was the name of his family's slave masters.

Technically I don't think you're right. Slavemasters may have given his ancestors that name but generations of his family had I presume lived quite happily with that name after Emancipation which in my book makes it his name. I don't think many black people in America followed suit and changed their name as the civil rights movement took it's course.

The wierd thing to me isn't Ali changing his name but that more African American's didn't. Maybe self-identity is more important to some people than others. I can trace my own name back through my grandfathers to the 1500's, it's gaelic from a Scottish clan that supported Mary Queen of Scots. African Americans do the same and they get back 150 years to the name of a rich white Brit that probably looked like Colonol Sanders with a monacle that owned a plantation in America. Typical African names are names like Kone, Onobanjo, Oyenusi, Okacho. Ali's great grandfather or perhaps great great grandfather would have had his native name stolen from him when he sold into slavery and been given a name like 'Herman Clay' by his white slave masters. Why the hell would he or any descendant of a slave want to retain the name and identity of his ancestors slavemaster?

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:
Clay was his name whether he liked it or not. Some invented islamic name given to him by a headcase doesn't change that fact.

Clay wasn't his name. It was the name of his family's slave masters.

Technically I don't think you're right. Slavemasters may have given his ancestors that name but generations of his family had I presume lived quite happily with that name after Emancipation which in my book makes it his name. I don't think many black people in America followed suit and changed their name as the civil rights movement took it's course.

Don't expect that book to go flying off the shelves any time soon.

[

Ricky_ wrote:Why the hell would he or any descendant of a slave want to retain the name and identity of his ancestors slavemaster?

Maybe a lot of them didn't keep it... When the slaves were freed a lot of slaves discarded their slave owner's name and took more a more distinguished person's name. Such as: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Johnson, and Jackson... But it's kind of hard to change your name when your ancestors, parents, and siblings go by that name and don't want to change it. Everything they've ever accomplished is in that name.

Let's say a person found out their great grandfather was John Wilkes Booth or their grand father was John Dillinger.. That means you have an ancestor who was a real bad person. You're not responsible for anything he did so it's no skin off your nose. You don't have to go changing your surname just to renounce and disown a disreputable individual who's nothing but dust in the ground. Anyone can get their name legally changed if they felt that strongly. Most people wouldn't bother. If your surname was Hitler most people would change it. If it's Parker, maybe not.

As long as we are talking about the history of names----

Cassius Clay, the original, was the leader of the Kentucky Abolitionist Movement.

After Slavery there was no law saying what Surname African Americans had to have. Most simply took the name of their ex masters to have a last name for legal reasons.
Ali's Great Grandmother. Abe Grady was 100% Irish. She immigrated from Ennis. Ireland to Kentucky in the late 1860s and married a freed slave.
Ali also had Scottish Blood.

One thing that gets me is how Cassius clay was a slave name but if people really knew history they would know that Muslims enslaved more Africans than any white Christian nation ever did. They also were a big source of where European nations bought slaves from.