05.10.05 – By Barry Green: In Woody Allen’s 1979 movie Manhattan, the mains characters are involved in a discussion of noted geniuses who are not worthy of the praise bestowed upon them. They refer to such artists as belonging to the Academy of the Overrated. Any walk of life, whether it be art or sport, has members of which, while fine exponents of their trade, are not quite as good as the media and fans make out. On the other hand, there’s always those practitioners who are thought of as less talented, regardless of their achievements, they never quite get their full due.
Take for example the band REM. In the 1980s they released a slew of excellent albums, then went all ‘radio friendly’, sold by the bucketful and became bland and uninteresting. The record that made them world famous: Out Of Time is rock music’s most overrated work, while pure gems like Murmur or Document often go largely unnoticed. Likewise, The Beatles Sgt.Pepper album is to often praised higher than its superior predecessor Revolver. The list is endless and is a feature in boxing history every bit as much as any other form of entertainment.
The overrated section here, features some great fighters naturally, as one must have some talent to be rated so highly by so many (so no place for Biagio Chianese then) and all were world champions to boot. For my underrated section I omitted the likes of Ezzard Charles and Mike McCallum as they are two fighters who are so eternally labelled with that prefix before their name, that I felt there needn’t be any more comment on them. The other criterion was that fighters had to be retired (permanently or temporarily) as it’s far easier to evaluate a career. once it is over.
The great British writer Graham Greene once stated that while many of his books were of a serious vein, he deliberately wrote some that were less so. He dubbed these his ‘entertainments’. That is basically what this piece is. My last article on ESB concerned the death of Johnny Owen; this piece is far more of the ‘popcorn’ ilk and is designed for discussion and opinion. It features ten fighters, five in each category that fit the billing of ‘over’ and ‘under’ rated (although one or two of the participants where once in the ‘other’ category to what they are now). This area in rating said fighters is a most subjective issue, and I don’t think anybody will agree with me 100% but let’s face it, we love a good debate here at Eastside. Prior warning, it’s a long one, so get your cup of tea or coffee ready to go the full championship distance (or skip by the flotsam and jetsam and just read about which fighters you like or dislike) and then tell me how clueless I am.
Here’s your ammunition, fire away.
Overrated
Chris Eubank
I always thought of the UK as by far the fairest place for a foreigner to fight without the fear that they’d be jobbed out of the decision. The English sense of ‘fair play’ was the best in the world…until Chris Eubank came along that is. It was then that some of the most ludicrous decisions I have ever seen took place, as the WBO could seemingly not afford to let one of its ‘few’ name fighters lose his crown in its attempt to gain some credibility. It was then I realised that every country had hometown decisions if the fighter was marketable (McCallum and Kalambay got the nod against Herol Graham but wouldn’t have if they’d fought Eubank in my opinion).
Despite this, I really liked Eubank, he was great for the sport in the UK and was such an eccentric character that fans and writers alike often forgot about the numerous gifts that he was awarded during his tenure as WBO champion. Eubank’s problem was with slick, tidy movers who tied him in knots. He was way behind against Dan Sherry and hugely frustrated when he decided he’d throw a Kirkby kiss (a headbutt) onto the Canadian challenger. Although Sherry made more than a trifle out of the incident, he was surely still ahead on the scorecards, especially Eubank was deducted two points for said use of his noggin. However, voodoo economics came into play and Eubank retained his title. Indeed, there was worse to come.
In 1994 Eubank embarked on a so called ‘world tour’ which saw fight around the continent and also in South Africa. He did in fact defend his title six times during the year, but two of those fights were ridiculous robberies in his favour. Three of the others could have easily gone the other way too (if contested between Fighter A and Fighter B that is). His decision win over Mauricio Amaral was the worst decision I have ever seen in a boxing ring- with the sole exception of Rocky Lockridge-Wilfredo Gomez. My scorecard (and that was as a Eubank fan) read 117-110. Yes, that does mean even worse than Whitaker-Chavez!
His fight with Dan Schommer too, in which he threw fewer punches in 12 rounds than Bernard Hopkins did in the first half of the Jermain Taylor fight, ended in victory. Even Eubank’s promoter Barry Hearn admitted how bad a decision it was, saying he thought “Schommer won the fight by six or seven rounds.” Fair play to Hearn for being so realistic but I felt this was plain incompetence and tantamount to sheer dishonesty, thus denying a deserved fighter the big payday he would never receive.
Eubank was always befuddled by swift, pretty movers and looked clueless and cumbersome at times and was often susceptible to body shots. Eubank’s strength was his defence, counter-punching skills and a beard that could match Charles Darwin’s. I find it laughable when British fans claim Eubank would have a chance against Roy Jones (safe in the knowledge that many Americans may have only seen Eubank in his big fights with Benn and Watson), when in reality he would not stand a prayer and Jones would have won virtually every round. The likes of Micheal Nunn, Herol Graham and James Toney also, possessed too many boxing smarts and skills to have any real trouble with Eubank who was only comfortable when counter-punching opponents. In his defence I would definitely favour Eubank over the likes of Julian Jackson and Gerald McClellan, and fighters of their ilk, any day, as his granite chin could withstand obscene amounts of punishment but he was, without a doubt, one of the most overrated fighters in the past twenty years and his legacy far outweighs his talent, that’s why he’s collecting his pink slip and being selected for this awards ceremony.
The reason many rate him so highly: Eubank was a shot in the arm for British boxing and his eccentric personality made him a ‘must-see’ television star.
Why he belongs here: His workrate in many fights was very minimal and was given the benefit of the doubt too many times.
Tony Tucker
The captain of the ‘overrated’ team (on the account that Eubank did look good on occasions) Tucker gained his credibility from his losing effort against Mike Tyson in 1987. Tucker accounted himself well and never looked in danger of being stopped…but never looked like winning either…he hardly ever did regardless of who he was against. This fight largely overlooks the fact that ‘TNT’ never convincingly beat any heavyweight contender of note throughout his whole career. His #1 ranking with the IBF in 1987 was achieved purely through connections and in reality barely deserved a ranking in the Top 10, never mind as the top contender! His opponent for the vacant title, Buster Douglas, was in control of proceedings until he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory to allow Tucker back into the fight and surrendered it as meekly as he would in his fight with Evander Holyfield.
Tucker had all the makings of a top level heavyweight. At 6ft 5 and weighing 220+ pounds, nobody took him lightly. He displayed fine boxing skills and did have some real talent. However, too often he laboured to victory against carefully selected opponents and when pitted against the best, he was too willing to merely last the distance without every really going flat out to secure victory.
Often labelled, by the great writer, Hugh McIlvanney with the prefix “invariably boring”, Tucker ‘earned’ his shot at the IBF crown by outpointing the limited James Broad (who had been sparked in two rounds by Tim Witherspoon only the year before). Tucker accounted himself well when pitted against Tyson, and later Lennox Lewis, without ever threatening to win either of these fights. Indeed, in his whole professional career, his only wins of note were disputed split decisions over Orlin Norris and Oliver McCall. Still some fans often talk of Tucker in over-complimentary terms, with no substantial evidence as to why. Tucker was a durable and awkward opponent but he was no more than a tall, black Joe Bugner. A ‘just glad to be here’ fighter if there ever was one…and that’s why he’s also here today.
The reason many rate him so highly: He took a peak Tyson the distance and never looked like being knocked out.
Why he belong here: Never convincingly defeated a Top 10 heavyweight.
Oscar De La Hoya:
Yep, I know you’re think “how predictable” and I was going to include Felix Trinidad at ‘Golden Boy’s’ expense but my absolute ‘bugbear’ of all modern day pro boxing is this phoney ‘titles at different weights’ malarkey, which fighters of Oscar’s ilk get such a buzz out of achieving to become part of the Guinness Book of Records or something (far easier than trying to spit a cherry pip a hundred yards, mind). De La Hoya is the David Beckham of the boxing world- clean cut, handsome and a good practitioner of his chosen sport. The fawning praise, especially from the TV networks, that these couple of media whores in enough to make one vomit on their eiderdown.
No denying Oscar is a very, very good fighter, and excellent one even, but three of De La Hoya’s six separate weight ‘titles’ are tainted. The first and last were of the much-weaker WBO variety, the latter a disgraceful and unfair verdict against Felix Sturm. Also, the welterweight crown he annexed from a badly faded Pernell Whitaker was a bad decision in which the more marketable guy won. In fairness to Oscar he was jobbed out of the decision against Trinidad and the Moseley rematch verdict against him was harsh. But Sugar Shane was damaged goods when they fought the second time and, when on equal terms, comfortably outpointed De la Hoya in their first fight, regardless of how close the scorecards were. His ‘sixth’ world title came at middleweight, against a German on D-DAY!!! (I think we knew which way that decision was going to go). In reality, Oscar would not beat a legitimate middleweight while he has a hole in his butt. However, between 130 and 140 he was an excellent fighter. Just nowhere near worthy of the gushing praise and phoney label of ‘six time world champion”. Pass me the sick bucket, my warm napped fabric is a mess.
De La Hoya was fabulous at Super-Featherweight and, especially, at lightweight. No denying his ‘class’ whatever division he fought in (below 160), but from welterweight-above he never really dominated a top-notch opponent. Oscar was given the benefit of the doubt against Ike Quartey and struggled for a while vs. Fernando Vargas before scoring a fine KO. Much more talented than the previous two entrants but still not deserving of six separate weight world titles, no matter how bogus they were. On accepting his inauguration to the academy Oscar smiled to the cameras and called it an ‘honour’ to win another title.
The reason many rate him so highly: A television star so badly needed in the days of pay-per-view. A modern-day Sugar Ray Leonard, but nowhere near as good a fighter.
Why he belongs here: In his three biggest ‘pick ‘em’ fights (Hopkins, Moseley, Trinidad)- he lost them all.
Sven Ottke
When holidaying in Turkey last year I met a German boxing fan and we spoke of our favourite fights and fighters, etc and his lone basis for regarding Sven Ottke so highly is the fact he retired remained undefeated, bringing comparisons with Rocky Marciano into play. My closing gambit was that if Ottke is one of the greats then so is Terry Marsh, another undefeated world champion. Heinz, for that t’was his name, merely shrugged at my suggestion and told me I was lying on his sunbed and would I please go elsewhere.
It seems that your average German, who admittedly are just about the most honest people you could ever meet, are blinded when it comes to top level boxing. They accepted the garbage that Ottke regularly served up for years and always came back for seconds. The IBF champ was a pretty good boxer and did have some fine skills, albeit of the awkward variety, but was the recipient of so many bad decisions, yet still retained huge popularity with his fans. I didn’t know Germans had such a good sense of humour.
Statistics is the main reason for Ottke’s entry here- an unblemished record and 21 successful title defences. He also owns a resume that features some decent names, so why is he in this list, you may ask? If you do, you never saw him fight!!! He was the John Ruiz-lite of boxing but no one cared that much because the super-middleweight division was then boxing’s weakest.
That undefeated record appeared to gloss over any deficiencies, which is often the case in this day and age and his ‘six’ knockouts in 34 wins makes Niccolino Locche look like George Foreman.
A Sven Ottke fight was very difficult to score because of his ugly jab-and-grab style, constantly in and out and employing ‘spoiler’ tactics, which were highly effective…to German-based judges that is. In his credit, almost 2/3 of his professional career took place at world championship level. That’s fair going in anyone’s book. But his no-risk policy and many of the same names re-appear on the judging panel at his fights (if they vote for him they get re-hired of course).
Americans may feel puzzled to why Ottke is ranked here as they probably don’t rate him at all but many Europeans do, and believe me, he does not deserve the accolades he receives. A right place, right time fighter if there ever was one. His nomination here is generally due to what the records will say about him- 34-0 is still not enough to keep him out of this
award ceremony.
The reason many rate him so highly: An undefeated record, which can fool some of the people all of the time.
Why he belongs here: A homeboy par excellence, opponents often felt defeated even before they entered the ring.
Muhammad Ali (1970s version)
I had to include one ‘sacred’ cow’ and I’m going for the later version of Ali. Still probably the best heavyweight of the 1970s, but a very beatable one. Many felt Jimmy Young won his fight with Ali and Ken Norton almost certainly did in Yankee Stadium. This version of Ali merely showed what fantastic heart he had but some most of his fights were snoozers: Bugner, Spinks, Evangelista, Wepner, even his trilogy with Norton was almost totally devoid of any decent action too.
Ali deserves eternal credit for his wins in Zaire and the Philippines, but they were the only two truly legendary fights he had in the entire decade. The opposition was tougher this time round many say, true…and that‘s why some of them beat him. The only time Ali met Frazier when either was ‘near’ to their respective peaks was 1971 and he lost (although Ali, was of course, not the dancing master of five years previous, a version that would have surely seen of Frazier with a wide unanimous decision).
Following the Frazier was in Manila, Ali embarked on perhaps the most boring heavyweight title reign of all-time. Okay, he needed some easy paydays after going in with Frazier a third time but that’s when ‘The Greatest’ should have called it a day. His contests with the likes of Richard Dunn and Alfredo Evangelist were only of interest because of his showmanship. The hagiography that follows Ali should be saved for the 1960s version, who features later. That’s not to say this Ali couldn’t fight. Indeed, if any fighter in heavyweight history had to go the distance to save your life it would be the Ali that fought in Manila. Joe Frazier could have had Foreman, Tyson, Lewis AND Shavers in with him that night and they still wouldn’t have knocked him out!!!
Too much has been written about this version of Ali to add any more nuances. In a nutshell, if the 1970s Muhammad Ali fought the 1960s version, the younger model would comprehensively outbox this version, winning at least 12 of the 15 rounds. However, when the decision was announced the 70s Ali would receive the nod. Welcome aboard champ!
The reason many rate him so highly: He’s Muhammad Ali- the greatest heavyweight that ever lived, of course.
Why he belongs here: He was beatable in this incarnation and was lucky to survive as long as he did. Never the same fighter after Manila.
Underrated
Dick Tiger
It is such a shame that to modern day boxing fans Dick Tiger is best remembered for his spectacular KO loss to Bob Foster, in one of those knockouts that has been wearing out VCRs for over 20 years. But this looks over the fact that this great Nigerian was one of the best fighters of the 1960s. Indeed, if one looks at Tigers resume the middleweight names he beat looks like a who’s who of boxing in the 1960s: Gene Fullmer, Nino Benvenuti, Terry Downes, Joey Giardello, Ruben Carter, Henry Hank, etc, etc, Tiger took on them all and beat most of them convincingly. The only greats he didn’t score a victory over were Emile Griffith and Joey Archer, who both received gift decisions over Tiger. Tiger could confidently say he was the best of the lot.
Tiger was a relentless powerful boxer with a low centre of gravity that would willingly trade blows with any man in the world. Tiger’s main attributes were constant pressure and massive body strength. Imagine a miniature Samuel Peter that threw 50% more punches, could box better and had more dimensions…and you’re still not even close. and you’re nearly there. He became champion when he went toe-to-toe with the great Gene Fullmer. This would set up a trilogy which was one of the most exciting in boxing history. Their second match was a draw, with the rubber being in Tiger’s homeland of Nigeria. Tiger punished Gene badly that night making the ‘unquitable’ quit on his stool. When referee Jack Hart asked Fullmer wanted to continue despite not being able to see out of one eye, Gene quipped: “I can’t even beat him with two eyes.”
Tiger lost his title in a close decision to the crafty Joey Giardello but soon regained it with an easy points win. In between these bouts he annihilated ‘Hurricane’ Cater, flooring the ‘Hurricane’ three times en-route to a unanimous decision. When Tiger did lose his title again it was to a terrible decision at the hands of Emile Griffith. Almost all of 22 sports writers at ringside that day had Tiger in front and the verdict went down as one of the robberies of the year.
Still not convinced? Tiger then best the great Jose Torres for the light-heavyweight championship of the world, thus becoming only the second man in history to win both ‘undisputed’ middleweight and light-heavyweight crowns. Some going for a guy who stood just 5ft 8in tall. Dick Tiger died following a battle with cancer in 1971 while still regarded as ‘active’ in the ring, throughout the 1960s the only man to convincingly defeat him was Bob Foster, and it is his achievements alone that demand utmost respect. Therefore, Dick Tiger is the captain of the underrated team.
Why he deserves more recognition: He was probably the best middleweight of the 1960s.
The reason people underrate him: The knockout loss to Bob Foster is one of those KOs that have been played to death and is often the first memory fans have of Tiger.
Mike Tyson
If I had written this article 10 years ago then Iron Mike would probably been ranked in the ‘overrated’ column. However, in recent times bashing Tyson has been something of a hobby for many a hardcore fan. Put it this way, Tyson in his four years as champ (over two reigns) was as dominant as Jack Dempsey or Rocky Maricano were in theirs and deserves to mentioned
in the same breath as those two legends. If they are in the all-time Top 10- so is he. Marciano retired before two stern tests could have taken place- Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson, while Dempsey avoided the best black fighters of his day, while, Tyson took on all comers in his prime. The Tyson that beat Michael Spinks would have been dangerous in ANY era (at least for six rounds anyway). Other fine displays came against Tony Tubbs and Trevor Berbick, both of whom fell in two rounds, and remember that Tubbs gave a near-prime Riddick Bowe all he could handle and may felt was robbed of the verdict, while Berbick was nothing if not very durable.
Last month Ring magazine even questioned Tyson’s place in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, although answering in the affirmative, the subject matter should never have been brought up, even Barry McGuigan was accepted!!! Anyone who destroys ANY version of Larry Holmes in the manner that Tyson did back in 1988 must have been a great fighter. Hell, even a 55-year-old Larry would probably go the distance with most of the current top 10. If I’m honest, I would have to say that the 1980 version of Holmes would have probably beaten Tyson but, as Marciano and Dempsey fans will tell you, “you can only beat what’s in front of you” (I apologise if it sounds like I‘m taking shots at Rocky and Jack, but I‘m not questioning their place in history, just saying Mike perhaps deserves to be on an even keel with these two, as their styles were not a million miles apart). Tyson was a more dominant champion than say, Evander Holyfield was and possibly the better heavyweight, although perhaps Evander may have always been his nemesis whenever they had fought.
So, where does Tyson rank in history? Past champions such as Dempsey, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton were made to measure for Tyson. Dempsey was not big enough to take this kind of power; Frazier, vulnerable early, wouldn’t be allowed to engage in a 15-round punch-a-thon that he often enjoyed and Norton was always easy meat for the murderous punchers and would likely fall
in one.
Because of the way his career petered out some find it hard to rank Tyson in the all-time heavyweight list. Put it this way, if the great heavies were judged on a ’league table’ basis whereabouts the Top 15 or so all faced each other at least once; at the end of the season Tyson, while maybe not top 5, would certainly rank in the top 10. Tyson, while still overrated by the casual fan, is now becoming criminally underrated by the hardcore.
Why he deserves more recognition: He was boxing’s most dominant champion for over three years and at his best was a dangerous opponent for any heavyweight.
The reason people underrate him: He never really won a 50/50 fight and would have likely been beaten by one of two of the superior skilled, less intimidated heavyweights if he had fought in the previous decade.
John Conteh
Some may accuse of Liverpool bias here but John Conteh was a superb fighter who let his love for the high life get in the way of being a world champion. Just last year Conteh was hailed as one of 100 Greatest Black Britons, and with his exciting boxer-puncher style and undoubted charisma, no one argued with his admission. Oh, and he could fight too. Conteh came to the fore by beating the best that the UK and Europe put before him, usually dispatched with ease. His best wins before his world title challenge came against former WBA champ Vincente Rondon and his countryman Chris Finnegan, thus securing his place as mandatory challenger for Bob Foster’s WBC title. With Foster retiring in 1974 Conteh took on a tough Argentinian who had just fought the great Foster to a draw- Jorge Ahumada.
He dominated the very capable Ahumada in winning the WBC version of the crown and comfortably defended against highly rated Americans Lonnie Bennett and Len Hutchins and also the very dangerous Yaqui Lopez. Inactivity and a playboy lifestyle prevented saw John being stripped by the WBC for failure to defend his crown. Throughout his championship days the inability to keep his trousers up outweighed his ability to throw a left jab. Pity, as Conteh could have become one of the great light heavyweights of al-time. He even won on BBC television’s Superstars, a programme in which boxers were famous for being as much use as a chocolate kettle.
Conteh is best remembered in the states for his two fights with Matthew Saad Muhammad. The first in Atlantic City, John was ahead on all cards in the fourteenth rounds when the reigning champion knocked him down three times. Conteh survived to the final bell and looked like he had enough early rounds in the bag to secure victory. Alas, it was not to be but the WBC ordered a rematch because of an illegal substance applied to Muhammad cut eyes when John looked on the verge of stopping the champion. A faded version of Conteh was hammered in four and would retire later that year.
Always full of good copy and with a self-deprecating sense of humour, his quote: “I’m going down so often these days you’d think I was making a blue movie,” following the aforementioned defeat to Saad Muhammad suggested that his didn’t take his boxing career quite as seriously as he might have done. Conteh was a better fighter than the likes of Eubank and Benn and could have achieved so much more but for his lack of self-discipline. Still, many fans will agree that he was one of Britain’s best of all-time.
Why he deserves more recognition: Was past his best when he fought a peak Matthew Saad Muhammad and was perhaps unlucky not to receive the nod. Had they met at their respective peaks, Conteh would likely have won comfortably.
The reason people underrate him: Plagued by injury and motivation problems, he defended his light-heavyweight title just three times in three years.
Sumbu Kalambay
There may be more deserving African champions to write of here (Azumah Neslon, Ike Quartey) but Sumbu Kalambay at his best is just about the most underrated fighter I can think of. at this present tim. Far too many (American) fans remember Kalambay as the man who was knocked out by feather-fisted Michael Nunn. But Nunn was a fair hitter when he decided to plant his feet. Writers and fans alike should remember Sumbu Kalambay as a fine boxer that outthought and outfought Mike McCallum, Herol Graham and Steve Collins.
Kalambay was a defensive wizard with supreme boxing skills, who was rarely hit flush. His CV is most impressive. Easily defeated brawlers like Iran Barkley, Robbie Sims and Doug De Witt. Tough fighters like Steve Collins and Buster Drayton were also no match, but Sumbu‘s best wins came against Mike McCallum and Herol Graham, when BOTH of these fighters were at their best. But the African is best remembered for an 88 second KO blowout to Nunn, which unfortunately came on his US debut.
Kalambay, based in Italy, was underrated even by Europeans and hardly got a mention in the American boxing press, who were too busy praising the woefully over-hyped Michael Olajide. In the aforementioned Nunn fight. Kalambay was merely caught cold, albeit by a once-in-a-lifetime punch from Nunn. Kalambay at his best split two fights with Mike McCallum, a fighter so perennially referred to as ‘underrated’, it’s as if he changed his name to such, ala Marvellous Marvin Hagler. Of the 24 rounds these fine warriors completed, Kalmbay undoubtedly won more of them. Their first fight was the only decisive one, which Kalambay won by a wide margin.
Sumbu Kalambay has never received the credit he deserved for being one of the best middleweights of the 1980s and for a couple of years was ranked in most boxing magazines, Top 10 pound-for-pound list. He deserves to be remembered as a man who beat most of the best they put in front of him and not for one freak KO loss.
Why he deserves more recognition: Dominated Mike McCallum and Herol Graham when both were at their peaks
The reason people underrate him: The freak KO loss to light punching Michael Nunn.
Muhammad Ali (1960s version)
Now there was a fighter. This version of Ali was, in my opinion, the greatest heavyweight of all-time and one of the Top 3 pound-for-pound fighters in boxing history (Robinson and Armstrong being the top two). But far too often Ali’s outside activities glossed over his title defences. His stand against the Vietnam War and his advocating of Black Muslims were front page news around the globe during the 1960s. Ali at his absolute best lasted just two fights: Cleveland Williams and Zora Folley before being stripped of his heavyweight crown, It was in these fights were the full repertoire of ‘The Lip’ was displayed for the world to see. What a pity that was though.
The young Ali barely lost a round in his tenure as heavyweight champion throughout nine successful defences of his crown. Okay, the competition was not as fierce as it was in the 1970s but there were still excellent opposition: Liston, Patterson, the anvil-headed George Chuvalo the prototype of the Klitschko brothers- Ernie Terrell, not forgetting ‘Our Enery’ Cooper. If one takes the two Floyd Patterson fights as a barometer (in 1965 & 1972) you can see how comprehensively outclassed Floyd is in their first encounter, while the rematch was a fairly close fight until the referee’s intervention in the seventh round. Ali’s fantastic hand-speed was bettered only by his phenomenal foot-work, which were his trademark together with a penchant for predicting the round in which vanquished opponents would fall.
Critics may point to the fights with Doug Jones and Henry Cooper as evidence of the then Cassius Clay’s vulnerability, but Clay was a mere boy at then and not as developed as, say Floyd Patterson or Mike Tyson were at that age. Despite those setbacks, Clay deserved the verdict against Jones (which was largely controversial due to the fact that Jones was supposed to be totally outclassed) and many forget that ‘Cassius’ was up at the count of two in the Cooper bout, stopping him in the very next stanza. It was in the Sonny Liston fight where the boy became a man and from there on in, looked like the best heavyweight there ever was.
Again, way too much copy has been written about Ali to say anything new about him, but when your friends and work colleagues talk of the best fighters of all-time and someone mentions Muhammad Ali, try to remember this version of ‘The Greatest’ when considering your verdict and not the clinch-master who held Frazier for 12 rounds in Madison Square Garden or the former dancing master who waltzed through 30 rounds with Leon Spinks. If the 1967 Muhammad Ali had met the 1971 Joe Frazier there never would be that legendary trilogy, because the fight would have probably been too one-sided to warrant one. Ali was a product of the swinging sixties in the same way that The Beatles and JFK were, and should be remembered as such.
The reason people underrate him: Events outside the ring overshadowed those inside during his first tenure as champion.
Why he deserves more recognition: Because he was a much better fighter in this first reign. Ali between 1965 and 1967 was the best heavyweight of all-time.
While our society in general is influenced by certain media outlets and broadcasters, we will always have a sports world in which marketability outweighs talent; where ’spin’ is used to create an illusion of which boxers are better than others. There will always be ‘overrated’ individuals and teams in sport. In English football, Liverpool are yet again touted as potential champions when I, and many others, could have told them otherwise before a balled was kicked in August. Fighters are no exception, some get the breaks and others never quite get the credit they deserve. Discussions will forever take place of who should be ranked where and what people get their just desserts in the eyes of you, the consumer.
…and the movie Manhattan? Definitely a member of the Academy of the Overrated. Give me Sleeper or Bananas any day.