The Dark And Ugly Side Of The Muhammad Ali Life Story
ciceroii
counter-culture icon deserving mainly the disapproval and contempt
of mainstream American, both black and white.
First it should be observed that the biased movie "Ali" ends
about 1973 when Ali was at the pinnacle of his career with his
rematch victory over George Foreman in Africa. The ugly and disastrous
part of
Ali's boxing career has been excised. This is analogous to a
biographical
movie on the late Marilyn Monroe ending with her marriage to Joe
Dimaggio.
After his win in Zaire it was all downhill for
Ali when with decaying skills he continued to
fight in the ring and subject himself to horrific punishment
by opponents. The result was irreparable brain damage. Today, it
is said that Ali is suffering from Parkinson's disease but that
most likely is a fiction to cover-up the real reason for his mental
slowness
and slurred speech. Let's face it, today Ali is the classic example of
the punchy or punch-drunk ex-prize fighter.
Ali's moment in the sun
was short-lived. Today he is a pathetic almost
tragic figure. As the Greek
tragedian Sophocles once wrote: "Count no man happy until he carries
that
happiness with him to the grave". And we are inclined to look at Ali
today and
say, "There but for the grace of God go I".
Was Ali overrated as a fighter even during his prime? While in his
heyday
Ali's heavyweight opponents were not of the first tier: Sonny Liston,
Floyd
Patterson, etc. And Ali was never a
hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
he have fared against these fighters in
their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
But it is Ali as a political commentator and
anti-hero role model where he was both foolish and
despicable by embracing Mohammedanism and anti-US
positions. These are are strongly
criticized in the following article, "Let's not
pretend Ali was Gandhi" by Michael Sheldon:
Norm
ciceroii wrote:
This man is no American patriot or hero. He is only a
counter-culture icon deserving mainly the disapproval and contempt
of mainstream American, both black and white.First it should be observed that the biased movie "Ali" ends
about 1973 when Ali was at the pinnacle of his career with his
rematch victory over George Foreman in Africa.
The author doesn't know what he is talking about. This was not a rematch between Ali and Foreman. Frazier had taken the title from Ali and Foreman had taken the title from Frazier. Ali took the Heavy Weight Title for the second time from Foreman.
The ugly and disastrous
part of
Ali's boxing career has been excised. This is analogous to a
biographical
movie on the late Marilyn Monroe ending with her marriage to Joe
Dimaggio.After his win in Zaire it was all downhill for
Ali when with decaying skills he continued to
fight in the ring and subject himself to horrific punishment
Ali later redemmed himself against Joe Frasier in the
famous "Guerilla in Manilla" fight. Ali won the heavy weight title 3 times
in his career. Other boxers who have lost the Heavy Weight Title have never
been able to regain the title. The author of this article is full of shit.
Frasier and Foreman are superb fighters in their
own right.
John LaVoy
ciceroii wrote:
<snip a bunch of absurd, racist envy designed to fabricate negative feelings toward one of the greatest sports figures of all time>
This is where you really lose your marbles.
>
> Was Ali overrated as a fighter even during his prime?
No, not at all.
> While in his
> heyday
> Ali's heavyweight opponents were not of the first tier: Sonny Liston,
> Floyd
> Patterson, etc.
Leaving out George Foreman, Joe Frazier, etc.
> And Ali was never a
> hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
Lennox Lewis?
> Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
> he have fared against these fighters in
> their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
"We"? Just who is this mythical "we"? I have never accepted any sports figure as the "greatest" in any sport, but Ali is undeniably among the greatest fighters of all
time. Tyson and Lewis are not even to be included in the list. No knowledgeable boxing mind would agree with your claim. No heavyweight fighter, ever, could match
his hand speed or his foot speed. Few had his tactical sense and most were a fair bit smaller. But I understnad why you say this, becuase the rest of your blather is
irrelevant unless you can claim, somehow, that was wasn't a great fighter.
> But it is Ali as a political commentator and
> anti-hero role model where he was both foolish and
> despicable by embracing Mohammedanism and anti-US
> positions. These are are strongly
> criticized in the following article, "Let's not
> pretend Ali was Gandhi" by Michael Sheldon:
Old news, old history. The article trashes Ali for his involvement with Elijah Muhammed, but completely ignores his change of heart and equally declines to describe in
any detail teh circumstnaces surrounding his opposition to teh Viet Nam war. Nothing but a piece of minless, racist character assasination.
Kurt Sims
ciceroii <cice...@rogers.com> wrote:
> The result was irreparable brain damage. Today, it
> is said that Ali is suffering from Parkinson's disease but that
> most likely is a fiction to cover-up the real reason for his mental
> slowness
No where near the fiction that you spew on a daily basis around here.
--
To reply by email remove the 2 copies of spam in my reply address.
Buck
"John LaVoy" <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3C3B3867...@pobox.upenn.edu...
Setting aside your schizoid spelling, "teh circumstnaces surrounding his
opposition to teh Viet Nam war" started out as "I ain't got no personal
quarrel with them Viet Congs.", and "I'm too pretty." Then, in the same news
event, "I pay enough in taxes to buy one of them B-52 bomber planes."
I watched it on the tube as it happened.
Cassius Clay was opposed to HIS participation in the Viet Nam War.
He was, and is, a self-cenrtered, egotistical punk and semi-literate.
I reveled the day I saw Ken Norton break his jaw.
He deserves EVERYTHING He's gotten.
Thanks for playing.
Buck
frank sloan
Yes Yes, I was there too. (So was the world) He was an asshole who suddenly found
the name Muhammad convent.
David Deilley
>
> > This man is no American patriot or hero. He is only a
> > counter-culture icon deserving mainly the disapproval and contempt
> > of mainstream American, both black and white.
> >
> > First it should be observed that the biased movie "Ali" ends
> > about 1973 when Ali was at the pinnacle of his career with his
> > rematch victory over George Foreman in Africa.
>
> The author doesn't know what he is talking about.
You got that right. The author ("ciceroii") is well known in Canadian
newsgroups as a liar and a blowhard who has never spent a minute in
his entire life checking facts. He either makes things up or repeats
bullshit he heard in the bar, presents this nonesense as "fact," and
bleats the words "communist" or "terrorist" at anyone who takes the
trouble to point out he has his "facts" wrong.
I believe he has won the "Internet Blowhard of the Year" award more
time than Ali won the heavyweight crown.
> This was not a rematch
> between Ali and Foreman. Frazier had taken the title from Ali and Foreman had
> taken the title from Frazier. Ali took the Heavy Weight Title for the second
> time from Foreman.
Don't bother to confuse "ciceroii" (one of 27 fake net.names used by
this kook) with facts. He isn't interested in facts - in fact he
doesn't understand the concept of a fact.
> > The ugly and disastrous
> > part of
> > Ali's boxing career has been excised. This is analogous to a
> > biographical
> > movie on the late Marilyn Monroe ending with her marriage to Joe
> > Dimaggio.
> >
> > After his win in Zaire it was all downhill for
> > Ali when with decaying skills he continued to
> > fight in the ring and subject himself to horrific punishment
>
> Ali later redemmed himself against Joe Frasier in the famous "Guerilla in
> Manilla" fight. Ali won the heavy weight title 3 times in his career. Other
> boxers who have lost the Heavy Weight Title have never been able to regain
> the title. The author of this article is full of shit.
Bingo!
Everyone has met two-bit boors who become instant experts after
reading one article in the paper or overhearing a couple of drunks
arguing at the next bar stool. "Ciceroii" is one of these people.
> --
David Deilley
> ciceroii wrote:
>
> <snip a bunch of absurd, racist envy designed to fabricate negative feelings
> toward one of the greatest sports figures of all time>
>
> This is where you really lose your marbles.
That happened a long time ago.
> > And Ali was never a
> > hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
> > Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
> > he have fared against these fighters in
> > their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
>
> "We"? Just who is this mythical "we"?
It's just "ciceroii" being a pompous ass. He does this all the time
-- trying to pretend his lonely, marginalized little voice actually
represents a crowd.
neil tupper
"frank sloan" <fs...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C3B5D72...@sympatico.ca...
>
> Yes Yes, I was there too. (So was the world) He was an asshole who
suddenly found
> the name Muhammad convent.
>
I was there too, and saw a considerably different picture, as did millions
of our contemporaries. We saw an exceptionally talented athlete with the
moral courage of his convictions.
Neil
ciceroii
John LaVoy wrote:
>
> ciceroii wrote:
>
> <snip a bunch of absurd, racist envy designed to fabricate negative feelings toward one of the greatest sports figures of all time>
>
> This is where you really lose your marbles.
>
> >
> > Was Ali overrated as a fighter even during his prime?
>
> No, not at all.
>
> > While in his
> > heyday
> > Ali's heavyweight opponents were not of the first tier: Sonny Liston,
> > Floyd
> > Patterson, etc.
>
> Leaving out George Foreman, Joe Frazier, etc.
Both Foreman ands Frazier defeated Ali in at least one fight. They and
Ken Norton who defeated Ali were just as good as the braggart.
>
> > And Ali was never a
> > hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
>
> Lennox Lewis?
Lewis has got careless a couple of times. But he has defeated every
opponent he
has faced. He does not get the recognition he deserves because he is not
American.
>
> > Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
> > he have fared against these fighters in
> > their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
>
> "We"? Just who is this mythical "we"? I have never accepted any sports figure as the "greatest" in any sport, but Ali is undeniably among the greatest fighters of all
> time. Tyson and Lewis are not even to be included in the list. No knowledgeable boxing mind would agree with your claim. No heavyweight fighter, ever, could match
> his hand speed or his foot speed.
What bullshit.
He had a big mouth and he became a symbol and icon for the Left when he
dodged the draft and refused to fight for his country.
Few had his tactical sense and most were a fair bit smaller. But I
understand why you say this, because the rest of your blather is
> irrelevant unless you can claim, somehow, that was wasn't a great fighter.
He was a good fighter, but was not great. Both Gene Tunney and Rocky
Marciano were
heavyweight champions who retired undefeated and unscathed. Ali was
defeated many times,
and in his last fights the pummeling he took was obscene. It was cruel
and unusual
punishment. Any boxer like Ali who ends up being punch drunk, i.e. brain
damaged, cannot be considered
a great fighter. Today Ali should be kept off TV. He is an embarrassment
and bad publicity
for the sport of boxing
> > But it is Ali as a political commentator and
> > anti-hero role model where he was both foolish and
> > despicable by embracing Mohammedanism and anti-US
> > positions. These are are strongly
> > criticized in the following article, "Let's not
> > pretend Ali was Gandhi" by Michael Sheldon:
>
> Old news, old history. The article trashes Ali for his involvement with Elijah Muhammed, but completely ignores his change of heart and equally declines to describe in
> any detail teh (sic) circumstnaces (sic) surrounding his opposition to teh (sic) Viet Nam war. Nothing but a piece of minless (sic), (sic)racist character assasination (sic).
You make more technical errors than the illiterate moron David Reilley.
What change of heart? If there was one it was too little and too late.
Ali whose refrain was "I'm the greatest" was definitely not the greatest
heavyweight
fighter. He was, however, the darling of the liberal and leftist media
at the time.
And how am I racist when I claim that Joe Louis and Lennox Lewis, both
blacks, were
greater fighters than Ali?
classicliberal2
wrote:
>>> While in his heyday Ali's heavyweight opponents
>>> were not of the first tier: Sonny Liston, Floyd
>>> Patterson, etc.
>>
>> Leaving out George Foreman, Joe Frazier, etc.
>
> Both Foreman ands Frazier defeated Ali in at
> least one fight. They and Ken Norton who
> defeated Ali were just as good as the braggart.
___
Is the operating theory here that, because you
haven't gotten one damn thing right yet, you
aren't going to start now? George Foreman
fought Ali once and lost once--Ali is one of only
four guys who ever beat Foreman. Joe Frazier
did, indeed, stomp Ali in their first match--Ali won
both of their rematches, and this is after you
say he was washed up. Ditto with Ken Norton,
who beat Ali in their first match, then was beaten
in both of their subsequent bouts. This period,
far from being some forgettable era, is widely
regarded by fight fans as one of the greatest in
the history of heavyweight boxing.
Now hit the showers.
___
>>> And Ali was never a
>>> hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
>>
>> Lennox Lewis?
>
> Lewis has got careless a couple of times. But he
> has defeated every opponent he has faced. He
> does not get the recognition he deserves because
> he is not American.
___
Though blessed with the devil's own luck, Lewis
is what might be kindly referred to as an "HBO
stuffed-shirt"--a perfect example of the kind of fluff
that floats to the top during an actual down period
in a given division.
___
> He was a good fighter, but was not great. Both
> Gene Tunney and Rocky Marciano were
> heavyweight champions who retired undefeated
> and unscathed. Ali was defeated many times,
___
He took the heavyweight championship of the
world three times. His final record was 56 Wins
and only 5 Losses with 37 KOs, and he earned
it at the head of a division in its prime. That
hardly describes the career of some journeyman.
___
> and in his last fights the pummeling he took was
> obscene. It was cruel and unusual punishment.
___
There's not a doubt in the world that he stayed in
the ring too long. The beating he took at the hands
of Larry Holmes, for example, was as painful to
watch as it must have been to experience.
___
> Any boxer like Ali who ends up being punch
> drunk, i.e. brain damaged, cannot be
> considered a great fighter.
___
By that standard, Bobby Cyz was a greater
fighter than Muhammad Ali. Care to try to
make a case for that one?
___
> And how am I racist when I claim that Joe Louis
> and Lennox Lewis, both blacks, were greater
> fighters than Ali?
___
No, just an idiot. (The Louis question is fair game--the
Lewis comparison a real joke)
J.N.
1) The word rematch is not mentioned in the story. Ciceroii used the
word, not the author.
2) Ali had an IQ of 70, and was deemed too stupid to join the US Armed
forces. Only after the standards were later lowered did he qualify for
service.
Norm wrote:
>> jhtml;$sessionid$GSYVNOAAAAXIFQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/arts/2002/01/04/bfali04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/01/04/ixport.html
>
Norm
"J.N." wrote:
> A couple of points.
>
> 1) The word rematch is not mentioned in the story. Ciceroii used the
> word, not the author.
Ok.
>
> 2) Ali had an IQ of 70, and was deemed too stupid to join the US Armed
> forces. Only after the standards were later lowered did he qualify for
> service.
Interesting. Now prove it!
Rick
wrote:
>First it should be observed that the biased movie "Ali" ends
>about 1973 when Ali was at the pinnacle of his career with his
>rematch victory over George Foreman in Africa. The ugly and disastrous
>part of
>Ali's boxing career has been excised. This is analogous to a
>biographical
>movie on the late Marilyn Monroe ending with her marriage to Joe
>Dimaggio.
Actually, no, it isn't. You may want to study the concept of dramatic
arc to figure out why Mann set the film when he did.
>After his win in Zaire it was all downhill for
>Ali when with decaying skills he continued to
>fight in the ring and subject himself to horrific punishment
>by opponents.
Perhaps you have been smoking crack. Ali, as well as everyone else in
the world, freely acknowledges that his Parkinson's disease was at
least accelerated, and possibly caused, by his boxing career.
>Was Ali overrated as a fighter even during his prime? While in his
>heyday
>Ali's heavyweight opponents were not of the first tier: Sonny Liston,
>Floyd
>Patterson, etc. And Ali was never a
>hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
>Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
>he have fared against these fighters in
>their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
Who's "we"? Are you smoking so much crack that you think you're two
people, John?
Never mind, of course, that Sonny Liston was directly comparable to
Mike Tyson, and that Ali DID beat Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Ken
Norton, and fought far more often than today's leading heavyweights
do; you don't see Lennox Lewis defending his title four or five times
a year. Put down the crack pipe. Next you'll be telling us Willie
Mays wasn't as good a ballplayer as Shane Spencer.
ciceroii
Rick wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:13:24 GMT, ciceroii <cice...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >First it should be observed that the biased movie "Ali" ends
> >about 1973 when Ali was at the pinnacle of his career with his
> >rematch victory over George Foreman in Africa. The ugly and disastrous
> >part of
> >Ali's boxing career has been excised. This is analogous to a
> >biographical
> >movie on the late Marilyn Monroe ending with her marriage to Joe
> >Dimaggio.
>
> Actually, no, it isn't. You may want to study the concept of dramatic
> arc to figure out why Mann set the film when he did.
I know enough about dramatic art and biography that that there should be
a beginning, middle and end. This film was terminated (for political
reasons to
preserve the Leftist Ali's over-hyped positive image) in the middle.
He stopped the biographical film prematurely in order to exclude all the
negative and tragic stuff in Ali's life. This was a deliberate
distortion.
>
> >After his win in Zaire it was all downhill for
> >Ali when with decaying skills he continued to
> >fight in the ring and subject himself to horrific punishment
> >by opponents.
>
> Perhaps you have been smoking crack. Ali, as well as everyone else in
> the world, freely acknowledges that his Parkinson's disease was at
> least accelerated, and possibly caused, by his boxing career.
Knock it off. Now you are implying that Ali is an expert in diagnosing
the
causes of Parkinson's disease. The Parkinson's disease is just a screen
to
hide the fact that Ali is a victim of brain damage caused by the awful
defeats
he subjected himself to at the end of his career.
>
> >Was Ali overrated as a fighter even during his prime? While in his
> >heyday
> >Ali's heavyweight opponents were not of the first tier: Sonny Liston,
> >Floyd
> >Patterson, etc. And Ali was never a
> >hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
> >Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
> >he have fared against these fighters in
> >their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
>
> Who's "we"? Are you smoking so much crack that you think you're two
> people, John?
>
> Never mind, of course, that Sonny Liston was directly comparable to
> Mike Tyson
It was speculated at the time that Sonny Liston took a dive. At the
least
he was very much out of shape and ill-prepared for the fight.
If Ali and Mike Tyson could have fought each other in the primes, Tyson,
an awesome puncher, would have pulverized Ali. You cannot compare Liston
to Tyson.
and that Ali DID beat Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Ken
> Norton,
But they also beat Ali.
and fought far more often than today's leading heavyweights
> do; you don't see Lennox Lewis defending his title four or five times
> a year.
Two fights a year should be the maximum for any boxer.
John LaVoy
ciceroii wrote:
>
> >
> > Leaving out George Foreman, Joe Frazier, etc.
>
> Both Foreman ands Frazier defeated Ali in at least one fight.
Your command of facts is staggeringly small. Foreman didn't defeat Ali.
> They and
> Ken Norton who defeated Ali were just as good as the braggart.
An argument can be made regarding Frazier, and one can dream about Foreman. Norton? Not a chance. It seems pretty clear you don't actually know anything about boxing.
> > > And Ali was never a
> > > hard hitter such as Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis,
> >
> > Lennox Lewis?
>
> Lewis has got careless a couple of times. But he has defeated every
> opponent he
> has faced. He does not get the recognition he deserves because he is not
> American.
He doesn't get the recognition becuase he is pretty haphazard about his fights. Besides the question was whether he was a devastating puncher a la Liston or Tyson. What would make
you think he was?
> > > Joe Lewis or Rocky Marciano . How would
> > > he have fared against these fighters in
> > > their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
> >
> > "We"? Just who is this mythical "we"? I have never accepted any sports figure as the "greatest" in any sport, but Ali is undeniably among the greatest fighters of all
> > time. Tyson and Lewis are not even to be included in the list. No knowledgeable boxing mind would agree with your claim. No heavyweight fighter, ever, could match
> > his hand speed or his foot speed.
>
> What bullshit.
No, bullshit is where you ignore the issue and then try to shift the topic to something else when your pea brain either can't understand the question at hand or can't formulate an
answer. If you can name a heavyweight who could match Ali's handspeed, go ahead.
> He had a big mouth and he became a symbol and icon for the Left when he
> dodged the draft and refused to fight for his country.
He became a symbol for a lot of people regardign the status of black Americans and the idiocy of the Viet Nam war. Even if he had been a medicore fighter, his political stance
alone would have made him a great American.
> Few had his tactical sense and most were a fair bit smaller. But I
> understand why you say this, because the rest of your blather is
> > irrelevant unless you can claim, somehow, that was wasn't a great fighter.
>
> He was a good fighter, but was not great.
CAn you find a single knowledgeable boxing analyst, commentator, or historian who agrees with you? Maybe you could just shut up until you find one.
> Both Gene Tunney and Rocky
> Marciano were
> heavyweight champions who retired undefeated and unscathed. Ali was
> defeated many times,
5. And he fought more often than almost any heavyweight champion in history.
>
> and in his last fights the pummeling he took was obscene. It was cruel
> and unusual
> punishment. Any boxer like Ali who ends up being punch drunk, i.e. brain
> damaged, cannot be considered
> a great fighter.
Why the hell would that be the case. Dozens of great starrs have stayed too long in thier sports. Wilt Chamberlain was shadow of himself in his last years, Kareem Jabbar could
barely get up the court at the end, Bill Walton ended up a 6 minute guy who could barely walk. Were they not great basketball players? You are so far out of your league in this
conversation that you end up sounding like a whining child.
> Today Ali should be kept off TV. He is an embarrassment
> and bad publicity
> for the sport of boxing
Then why have his endorsement contracts been INCREASING?
>
> > > But it is Ali as a political commentator and
> > > anti-hero role model where he was both foolish and
> > > despicable by embracing Mohammedanism and anti-US
> > > positions. These are are strongly
> > > criticized in the following article, "Let's not
> > > pretend Ali was Gandhi" by Michael Sheldon:
> >
> > Old news, old history. The article trashes Ali for his involvement with Elijah Muhammed, but completely ignores his change of heart and equally declines to describe in
> > any detail teh (sic) circumstnaces (sic) surrounding his opposition to teh (sic) Viet Nam war. Nothing but a piece of minless (sic), (sic)racist character assasination (sic).
>
> You make more technical errors than the illiterate moron David Reilley.
Oooooh, a typo slam. Who gives a shit. If you spent more time focusing on what you are sayign rather than your spelling, maybe you'd make more sense. By the way, it should be
illiterate moron "," DAvid Reilley.
John LaVoy
"J.N." wrote:
> A couple of points.
>
> 1) The word rematch is not mentioned in the story. Ciceroii used the
> word, not the author.
And that was the point.
>
> 2) Ali had an IQ of 70, and was deemed too stupid to join the US Armed
> forces. Only after the standards were later lowered did he qualify for
> service.
You got this factoid from
a) Urban Legends.com
b) some unnamed source that you are unlikely to ever cite.
Norm
his profession and very witty. You don't get that from a man that possesses
an I.Q. of 70. Some people like to spread false rumors.
A teacher friend of mine has had two of Ali's grandchildren in school.
She reported that they are exceptionally bright and very well behaved. I am
not making this up.
Norm
ciceroii wrote:
I see you are a great fan of convicted rapist Mike Tyson. Tyson was such
a superb fighter he resorted biting the ears off Evander Hollyfield. You must
also love how Tyson can articulate, charm and entertain the sports audience.
Tyson is your sports hero for your kids.
Don
If anyone has an IQ of 70, it's Mike Tyson.
Rick
wrote:
>> Actually, no, it isn't. You may want to study the concept of dramatic
>> arc to figure out why Mann set the film when he did.
>
>I know enough about dramatic art and biography that that there should be
>a beginning, middle and end. This film was terminated (for political
>reasons to
>preserve the Leftist Ali's over-hyped positive image) in the middle.
The film ended at the end, unless you're telling me they had anout two
hours of film they didn't use. The truth is, of course, that Mann
chose to portray the events he did because it made the best movie.
Everything after the Foreman fight would have been anticlimactic, and
is unnecessry in terms of resolving the central conflict of the movie.
>> Perhaps you have been smoking crack. Ali, as well as everyone else in
>> the world, freely acknowledges that his Parkinson's disease was at
>> least accelerated, and possibly caused, by his boxing career.
>
>Knock it off. Now you are implying that Ali is an expert in diagnosing
>the
>causes of Parkinson's disease.
No, but his doctors certainly are. You, on the other hand, are not.
I'll take a doctor's word over the word of Usenet twit who can't tell
the difference between a singular and a plural pronoun.
>> Who's "we"? Are you smoking so much crack that you think you're two
>> people, John?
>>
>> Never mind, of course, that Sonny Liston was directly comparable to
>> Mike Tyson
>
>It was speculated at the time that Sonny Liston took a dive.
It has also been speculated that there are alien spacecraft hidden in
a secret air force base in Nevada. Do you believe that, too?
>At the
>least
>he was very much out of shape and ill-prepared for the fight.
He most certainly was not. It was the universal opinion of almost
every boxing expert in the world that Liston would win the fight; he
was in great shape and was only 32 years old, younger than many World
Champions. I would not expect you to know much about boxing; in your
last post you claimed Lennox Lewis had never been beaten. Lewis lost
just nine months ago.
>If Ali and Mike Tyson could have fought each other in the primes, Tyson,
>an awesome puncher, would have pulverized Ali.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Tyson is hardly the
greatest boxer of all time. I'm more impressed with someone who lost
to Joe Frazier in his prime than with someone who lost to Buster
Douglas in his.
> and that Ali DID beat Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Ken
>> Norton,
>
>But they also beat Ali.
And Ali beat Frazier... twice. And he beat Ken Norton twice. Like it
or not, Ali came out ahead. George Foreman did NOT beat Ali, unless
of course you are referring to some crack-addled dream you had; the
Rumble in the Jungle was the only time they ever fought.
So you've told us Lennix Lewis has never lost, even though he's lost
twice, (to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman) and you've also told use
George Foreman beat Ali, though the Rumble in the Jungle was the only
time they fought and it sure looked to me like Ali won. Do you know
ANYTHING about boxing? Or are you making this stuff up as you go?
David Deilley
> John "ciceroii" Lambourn <binLade...@jihad.com> wrote:
>
> > How would
> > he have fared against these fighters in
> > their prime? Not very well, we suspect.
>
> Who's "we"? Are you smoking so much crack that you think you're two
> people, John?
He sctually thinks he is TWENTY SEVEN people (or at least, that's how
many times he has changed his fake net.name). The crack theory is
interesting - I had always chalked up his use of "we" to the
intersection of his insanity and his smug pomposity... but drug abuse
could also be the explanation.
How can HE take himslef seriously when nobody else does.
E. Barry Bruyea
> In addition, Ali was charismatic, charming, the most articulate boxer of
>his profession and very witty.
His 'wittiness' was scripted and his little poetic comments orginated
with one of his long time hangers-on; not by Ali.
E. Barry Bruyea
Great appetite, though.
David Deilley
> John "ciceroii" Lambourn <binlade...@alqaeda.com>
> >
> >But they also beat Ali.
>
>
> So you've told us Lennix Lewis has never lost, even though he's lost
> twice, (to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman) and you've also told use
> George Foreman beat Ali, though the Rumble in the Jungle was the only
> time they fought and it sure looked to me like Ali won. Do you know
> ANYTHING about boxing? Or are you making this stuff up as you go?
Of course he's making things up. That's how he "argues" - he is a
phoney "instant expert" who is pathologically unable to distinguish
between what IS true, and what he wants to be true. (His family life
must have been REALLY wierd.) He doesn't just do this in discussions
about boxing - pick any topic under the sun, and he combines a
know-ot-all blowhardness with a complete lack of interest in the
facts.
In this case, his is making up all sorts of shit about Ali's boxing
career because he figures that's the best way to attack the man's
politics.
Ciceroii Lambourn is the laughing stock of any newsgroup where he is a
regular contributor. Occasinally he gets someone who takes him
seriously, but after they have read two or three of his posts, they
back away from him entirely.
J.N.
Here ya go:
http://www.dartreview.com/issues/12.15.98/pugilism.html
snip
Ali had an IQ of 78, which was too low to be drafted into the United States Military (they lowered the bar during Vietnam). The
fundamental flaw (really, the only flaw) in Remnick's book is his insistence that Ali is a more interesting person than he really
was. As a metaphor, as Young Black Charisma, as a ring-bound champion, he was brilliant, but when Remnick follows him outside of
the ring he loses most of his charm, and the book (in its last 100 pages) loses most of its momentum.
snip
Norm
Dave Remnick's book on Ali received 54 reviews on Amazon.com with ratings averaging 4 & 1/2 stars out of five which is very good
indeed. In the only review that mentions Ali's IQ has his IQ at 87. I had never imagined Ali with a low IQ. I still have great
respect for the man.
In any case, Ali was an over achiever and you get to that point from the many reviews about the book. "King of the World :
Muhammad Ali and the Rise of an American Hero" looks like very good reading. I'm tempted to buy it.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0375702296/customer-reviews/5/ref=cm_rev_next/102-3635454-2779346?show=-submittime
David Deilley
household where the children never learned to
distinguish improvised "lies of convenience"
from the truth. (Decades later still insisting
that there was no such thing as "reality.")
- severe multiple personality disorder
- chronic alcoholism
- acute, recurring blowhardism
- early onset alzheimers
John LaVoy
"J.N." wrote:
> Sorry, I was mistaken, it was 78, not 70:
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.dartreview.com/issues/12.15.98/pugilism.html
Aaah, so referencing a book review with an unattributed reference counts for you? The request was for you to prove it, not to repeat
an urban legend.
John LaVoy
dnc in tennessee wrote:
> An IQ of 87 is "low"?
>
> I have read that an IQ around 90 was suppose to be the
> Average IQ.
>
> I would consider IQ's below 80 to be low.
An IQ of 100 is, by definition, average. There is no evidence that Ali's IQ
is low, or high for that matter. Claiming it is low is just a personal attack
that is groundless for more than one reason.
ciceroii
Rick wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2002 14:09:48 GMT, ciceroii <cice...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> (Snipped)
Muhammad Ali cannot be considered a great fighter because he has
ended up a pathetic punch drunk zombie. He is now a kind of sub-human
vegetable.
He also cannot be considered a great fighter because he was beaten too
many times.
Also he had his jaw broken by Ken Norton. No fighter can
brag that "I am the greatest" when he
has suffered the humiliation of having his jaw broken. The undefeated
Gene Tunney
and Rocky Marciano never had their jaws broken.
Another under acclaimed heavyweight boxer who was as good or better than
Ali is Larry Holmes.
Ali surpassed Holmes in one respect, however, he had a bigger ego and
mouth. But Ali has
paid a heavy price for his hubris.
I did not say that Lennox Lewis never lost a fight. He has been knocked
out twice.
But he has come back. And he has never had his jaw broken. And so far,
he apparently has
not become punchy like the over-rated Ali.
John LaVoy
ciceroii drooled::
> Muhammad Ali cannot be considered a great fighter because he has
> ended up a pathetic punch drunk zombie. He is now a kind of sub-human
> vegetable.
> He also cannot be considered a great fighter because he was beaten too
> many times.
None of these things have anything to do with Ali's ability as a fighter.
That you try to pretend they were appears to be an attempt at misdirect the
discussion into meaningless issues.
> Also he had his jaw broken by Ken Norton. No fighter can
> brag that "I am the greatest" when he
> has suffered the humiliation of having his jaw broken.
Having a broken jaw is not humiliating. This is liek saying Michael Jordan
wasn't a great basketball player because he sprained his ankle. Greatness
does not depend on being unharmed in the ring.
> The undefeated
> Gene Tunney
> and Rocky Marciano never had their jaws broken.
So what?
> Another under acclaimed heavyweight boxer who was as good or better than
> Ali is Larry Holmes.
THis is another wet dream of yours.
> Ali surpassed Holmes in one respect, however, he had a bigger ego and
> mouth. But Ali has
> paid a heavy price for his hubris.
>
> I did not say that Lennox Lewis never lost a fight. He has been knocked
> out twice.
> But he has come back. And he has never had his jaw broken. And so far,
> he apparently has
> not become punchy like the over-rated Ali.
Yer a moron, and you probably always will be. Even in his present state,
Ali makes more sense than you do.
John LaVoy
chronologival age. Thus if your Intellectual age is 12 and your Chronological
age is 12, you have an Intelligence Quotient of 1.00 or 100. If your
intellectual development at age 12 is only a 10 then you have an IQ of a 10/12,
or 83. Do any search on IQ and you'll find more than you want to know.
dnc in tennessee wrote:
> On The Date Of Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:11:17 -0500, John LaVoy
> <jla...@pobox.upenn.edu> Wrote The Followng:
>
> ->An IQ of 100 is, by definition, average. There is no
> evidence that Ali's IQ
> ->is low, or high for that matter.
>
> I always viewed ALI as a great boxer and never cared about
> it any more than that.
>
> Do you have a site/cite for you average IQ claim?
> I don't doubt you, I just wanted to do some reading on it
> myself.
>
> thanks,
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dnc_tn/
>
> COMCAST@HOME User
> My Speed is 250Kbits/sec now. I remember when it used to be 1,500kbits/sec.
>
> http://www.dubyareport.com/
>
> ``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary
> common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you
> automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real
> way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In
> practice, `he that is not with me is against me.'''
> -- George Orwell --------------------------
classicliberal2
wrote:
> He also cannot be considered a great fighter
> because he was beaten too many times.
___
He fought 61 times in his career and was only
beaten 5 times. Not by a bunch of bums, either,
unless you now want to make the case that
Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, etc. were a bunch of
bums.
Idiot.
ciceroii
John LaVoy wrote:
>
> ciceroii drooled::
>
> > Muhammad Ali cannot be considered a great fighter because he has
> > ended up a pathetic punch drunk zombie. He is now a kind of sub-human
> > vegetable.
> > He also cannot be considered a great fighter because he was beaten too
> > many times.
>
> None of these things have anything to do with Ali's ability as a fighter.
> That you try to pretend they were appears to be an attempt at misdirect the
> discussion into meaningless issues.
>
> > Also he had his jaw broken by Ken Norton. No fighter can
> > brag that "I am the greatest" when he
> > has suffered the humiliation of having his jaw broken.
>
> Having a broken jaw is not humiliating. This is liek saying Michael Jordan
> wasn't a great basketball player because he sprained his ankle.
What a ludicrous analogy. Jordan's spraining an ankle would be an
accident.
When Ali was demolished by Norton it was the direct result of the action
and superior
fighting skills of an opponent.
Norton proved to be the superior boxer and puncher in that bout. After
that humiliation,
which was conveniently left out of the movie, Ali could no long brag, "I
am the greatest".
But he did continue doing just that, and we still have "liberal" fools
like you
claiming Ali was the greatest heavyweight boxer ever. He wasn't.
Ali was a victim of hubris: "Whom the gods would destroy they first make
mad" i.e. insane.
Ali did experience triumph in his career; however, his career
and life ended in tragedy. This tragedy, for
political purposes, was omitted from the movie.
Greatness
> does not depend on being unharmed in the ring.
>
> > The undefeated
> > Gene Tunney
> > and Rocky Marciano never had their jaws broken.
>
> So what?
>
> > Another under acclaimed heavyweight boxer who was as good or better than
> > Ali is Larry Holmes.
>
> THis is another wet dream of yours.
>
> > Ali surpassed Holmes in one respect, however, he had a bigger ego and
> > mouth. But Ali has
> > paid a heavy price for his hubris.
> >
> > I did not say that Lennox Lewis never lost a fight. He has been knocked
> > out twice.
> > But he has come back. And he has never had his jaw broken. And so far,
> > he apparently has
> > not become punchy like the over-rated Ali.
>
> Yer a moron, and you probably always will be. Even in his present state,
> Ali makes more sense than you do.
Your resorting to personal invective is a clear indication that you have
lost
the debate.
Let me conclude, Ali was a good fighter. I suppose we could say that
about every
heavyweight champion. But he was not a great fighter. He took too many
punches, suffered
too much punishment and lost too many humiliating fights. He was flawed.
No great fighter who ends up punch drunk can ever be called great.
And let's face it, the Parkinson's disease claim is bogus. It is just a
ploy to disguise
poor Ali's brain damage.
John LaVoy
ciceroii wrote:
>
> >
> > Having a broken jaw is not humiliating. This is liek saying Michael Jordan
> > wasn't a great basketball player because he sprained his ankle.
>
> What a ludicrous analogy. Jordan's spraining an ankle would be an
> accident.
It would be part of the game, part of the risk. It's all part of the game.
> When Ali was demolished by Norton it was the direct result of the action
> and superior
> fighting skills of an opponent.
Think you can find a single person in the boxing world who agrees with you?
Norton was a tough fighter who won one fight against Ali because he caught Ali
with big punch and broke his jaw. That Ali lasted out that fight is actually
testimony to his courrage and skill.
> Norton proved to be the superior boxer and puncher in that bout. After
> that humiliation,
> which was conveniently left out of the movie, Ali could no long brag, "I
> am the greatest".
> But he did continue doing just that, and we still have "liberal" fools
> like you
> claiming Ali was the greatest heavyweight boxer ever. He wasn't.
If you could read, which has always been a big issue, you would remember that I
said that no sports figure can be called the greatest in any sport. That isn't
the issue.
> Ali was a victim of hubris: "Whom the gods would destroy they first make
> mad" i.e. insane.
Hey, it worked on you.
> Ali did experience triumph in his career; however, his career
> and life ended in tragedy.
You would have to ask him about that. It is not for you to decide.
> This tragedy, for
> political purposes, was omitted from the movie.
The movie wasn't a biography: it is at most a biopic about about Ali at a certain
time and in certain circumstances. It's like watching PT 109 and claiming they
should have included Kennedy's assassination.
> > Yer a moron, and you probably always will be. Even in his present state,
> > Ali makes more sense than you do.
>
> Your resorting to personal invective is a clear indication that you have
> lost
> the debate.
Nope. it's a clear indication that you have stopped making sense and the only
possible response is to call you what you are: a moron.
> Let me conclude, Ali was a good fighter. I suppose we could say that
> about every
> heavyweight champion. But he was not a great fighter.
This is where you go off the deep end. While it may not be possible to identify
anyone as the greatest anything, to claim that ALi was not a great fighter
destroys any shred of credibility you might have had. It is too subtle a thing
for you to realize that your need to trash ALi is based more on your political
stance rather than your boxing acumen, exactly the same thing about which you
complain.
> He took too many
> punches,
One mark of a great fighter is the ability to take a punch. Ali's ability to do
so was always underrated.
> suffered
> too much punishment and lost too many humiliating fights. He was flawed.
> No great fighter who ends up punch drunk can ever be called great.
Huh? Whatever you said.
I would suggest that the greatest all round athlete in American History was Jim
Thorpe. He ended up in pretty pathetic circumstances. Hell, even his bones are
being humilitated. But that has NOTHING to do with his status as an athlete.
Gayle Sayers ended up barely able to walk, but only a loon would suggest he
wasnt' among the greatest running backs of all time. How one ends up has nothing
to do with one's status in one's prime.
> And let's face it, the Parkinson's disease claim is bogus. It is just a
> ploy to disguise
> poor Ali's brain damage.
Is it possible to off the deep end when you are already off the deep end. I
guess it means the shit you're spewing is really deep now. Ali has every symptom
of PArkinsons and it has been diagnosed by qualified medical personnel. You have
a political need to somehow deny that, which says a whole lot more about your
obsession than about Ali.
classicliberal2
<bruce.r...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Having a broken jaw is not humiliating. This
>> is liek saying Michael Jordan wasn't a great
>> basketball player because he sprained his
>> ankle.
>
> What a ludicrous analogy.
___
Agreed, but it was drawn by you.
___
> Jordan's spraining an ankle would be an
> accident. When Ali was demolished by
> Norton it was the direct result of the action
> and superior fighting skills of an opponent.
> Norton proved to be the superior boxer and
> puncher in that bout. After that humiliation,
> which was conveniently left out of the movie,
> Ali could no long brag, "I am the greatest".
___
Subsequent to that first bout, Ali beat Norton
in no less than two rematches, idiot.
David Deilley
> Your resorting to personal invective is a clear indication that you have
> lost the debate.
Classic "ciceroii" hypocracy: Suddenly you - the champion of the
cheap-shop insult - are a champion for sticking to the subject. You
are the most dishonest person on the internet.
> And let's face it, the Parkinson's disease claim is bogus. It is just a
> ploy to disguise poor Ali's brain damage.
Let me throw your own words back at you:
"Whom the gods would destroy they
first make mad" i.e. insane.
And you, as I am sure that your doctor and your family have told you
many times, are insane.
David Deilley
> John "ciceroii" Lambourn wrote:
>
> > And let's face it, the Parkinson's disease claim is bogus. It is just a
> > ploy to disguise poor Ali's brain damage.
>
> Ali has every
> symptom of PArkinsons and it has been diagnosed by qualified medical
> personnel. You have a political need to somehow deny that, which says a
> whole lot more about your obsession than about Ali.
Ciceroii is the closest thing in this newsgroup to a perfect
Stalinist. He is like a character study from a Solzhenitsyn novel...
the demented "party official" who twisted every word, every fact,
every reality to fit his sick political mind.
doggfest2020
Actually, I believe reading that his IQ was around 76.
Do I think he's slow functioning? hell no!
This just shows you how biased the IQ test (I'd like to know which one
in particular)were, and how they were used to denigrate other races
and ethnic groups (pollacks, for example).
The other posibility is that Ali was probably trying to score low on
purpose to avoid being drafted. Unfortunately, the borderline IQ for
admittance was lowered.
Ali was a boxing genius. If there was a boxing IQ, Ali's would be
around 200. He was almost always smarter than his oponents.
-doggy
Jay
taunted Frazier, whom I always thought was quite dignified outside the
ring, was quite disturbing.
William Barwell
>I have always respected Joe Frazier much more than Ali. The way Ali
>taunted Frazier, whom I always thought was quite dignified outside the
>ring, was quite disturbing.
He had no class.
When he started training young fighters, they all did this shit too.
Ali taught them to do it.
No class at all.
I remember watching a bout with one of Ali's young louts
and watching him get beat soundly. I laughed my ass off.
No class at all.
I never like Ali for this reason.
Leave trash talk in 'sports' to wrestling.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!