A Letter To Ali

[Yogi]

Baumgartner is another story. The Bomber was loved here in Toronto and was a true blue collar player. I met him on his way to a Players Union meeting a few years back and he was personable and dressed up real well. I would never have known that the lanky clean cut and polite guy was a hockey enforcer.

Loved in Toronto, you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HkXQaCUCJQ

Geez, I wonder why.

Nah, whether it be on or off the ice, Baumer was always very popular when we were growing up (with his friends, coaches, and teachers alike) and had a type of personality that allowed him to get along with pretty much anyone. A fairly soft spoken & low key kind of guy off the ice like you kind of alluded to, and is also one of more intelligent hockey players I've ever known or known of...

Not your stereotypical hockey enforcer, that's for sure, but then again most of those enforcers upset the stereotypes of that profession.

[brownpimp88]

Loved in Toronto, you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HkXQaCUCJQ

Geez, I wonder why.

Nah, whether it be on or off the ice, Baumer was always very popular when we were growing up (with his friends, coaches, and teachers alike) and had a type of personality that allowed him to get along with pretty much anyone. A fairly soft spoken & low key kind of guy off the ice like you kind of alluded to, and is also one of more intelligent hockey players I've ever known or known of...

Not your stereotypical hockey enforcer, that's for sure, but then again most of those enforcers upset the stereotypes of that profession.

dude, i dont like the way you underrated spinks. You say it wasnt a big deal that he beat larry holmes. Well, was it really a big deal when tunney beat an inactive, lesser heavyweight like jack dempsey. Or when ezzard beat an inactive joe louis. I guarantee archie moorer would have lost to the 85 holmes.

By the way, Surrey is like the fastest growing city in the country. In the last 15 years, we tripled our population. I guess the drug dealers like what they see here, lol.

[Yogi]

dude, i dont like the way you underrated spinks. You say it wasnt a big deal that he beat larry holmes. Well, was it really a big deal when tunney beat an inactive, lesser heavyweight like jack dempsey. Or when ezzard beat an inactive joe louis. I guarantee archie moorer would have lost to the 85 holmes.

Hey, I know you're a big Spinks fan, Pimp, but I think you may have misinterpreted my "no big deal" comment regarding Spinks win over Holmes...

In and of itself, of course it was a big deal, as it is when anybody wins the true championship...especially the heavyweight title. But in the context of a former light heavyweight defeating a (or "the") top ranking heavyweight, that's been done on NUMEROUS occasions previous to when Spinks accomplished the feat (and without all the controversy, I might add), and I'm still not convinced that Spinks even defeated Holmes in their first meeting (close though, so...) to say nothing of the second fight, which I am convinced on who should've won the decision.

Also, at the time and still to this day, I thought Holmes was there for the taking by that time as evident in some of his previous fights, most notably the Carl Williams in the year previous, which again was a very close fight that could have very well gone either way in the scoring (I had Williams by a point)...At heavyweight, Carl Williams proved himself no less than equal with Spinks, if going by the results and performances against common opponents, and Spinks' few heavyweight fights really have no bearing on how I view him as a light heavyweight, nor should they, in my opinion because Spinks wasn't fighting that fight at 175 pounds or below. He was fighting a heavyweight at heavyweight while weighing in as a heavyweight, so...

And just so you know for future references, I don't use faulty "head-to-head" logic in deciding greatness, so whether Archie Moore could defeat that version of Holmes or not is meaningless to me. These guys didn't need to fight guys from other eras to prove their worth as fighters and only needed to fight who was around at the time, so forgive me if I think it's silly to say "Fighter A is greater than Fighter B because I think he could beat him" or something along those lines...What I try to do when I do rate fighters in a historical sense is try to get a feel for the era, what a particular fighter accomplished in that era, and how highly they were thought of in their respective eras by both their peers & press alike. I also have a saying that I've repeated a number of times over the course of my posting days on various sites, and that's simply "a great fighter for his time is a great fighter for all-time", which is something I believe in very strongly no matter if a past fighter could compete in today's game or vice versa...

I threw this out there a few weeks ago, but does a guy like Abraham Lincoln lose his distiction of being one of the greatest presidents just because he'd be out to lunch arguing modern politics with even a high school kid?

Or taking it to a another sports related topic, do the undefeated '72 Dolphins lose out on being considered a great team just because a modern NFL team out weighs them on the line by about an average of 50 pounds and likely make it very difficult for those Dolphins both on offense and defense?

Or, seeing as how you're Canadian, how about the Montreal Canadiens from the late 70's (60-8-12 or something like that at their best), when they were winning the cup four or five times in a row with their brand of wide-open fire wagon hockey? Taking it as it is, that style of hockey likely would have been shut down to a great extent by a more modern defensive team like the Devils, or anybody other team for that matter that employed the trap on a consistent basis (nearly all of them over the last ten years), but I'll be ****ed if I'm going to consider one of these modern NHL teams "greater" than a team who was as dominant as the Canadiens were during that very special time for that team.

Getting back to Spinks, I generally rate him in the top 6 or 7 at light heavyweight in the historcial sense, which, even though you may view him a couple of spots higher than that, does illustrate that I have a hell of a lot of respect for him and what he accomplished during his stay at 175...He wouldn't have made such a list if I thought otherwise.

[butterfly1964]

Or taking it to a another sports related topic, do the undefeated '72 Dolphins lose out on being considered a great team just because a modern NFL team out weighs them on the line by about an average of 50 pounds and likely make it very difficult for those Dolphins both on offense and defense?

The '72 Dolphins is one of the most overrated sports teams ever. They were undefeated, but their dividion was the weakest in the league, and all their playoff games were close. Their like the Marciano of football teams.

[brownpimp88]

Hey, I know you're a big Spinks fan, Pimp, but I think you may have misinterpreted my "no big deal" comment regarding Spinks win over Holmes...

In and of itself, of course it was a big deal, as it is when anybody wins the true championship...especially the heavyweight title. But in the context of a former light heavyweight defeating a (or "the") top ranking heavyweight, that's been done on NUMEROUS occasions previous to when Spinks accomplished the feat (and without all the controversy, I might add), and I'm still not convinced that Spinks even defeated Holmes in their first meeting (close though, so...) to say nothing of the second fight, which I am convinced on who should've won the decision.

Also, at the time and still to this day, I thought Holmes was there for the taking by that time as evident in some of his previous fights, most notably the Carl Williams in the year previous, which again was a very close fight that could have very well gone either way in the scoring (I had Williams by a point)...At heavyweight, Carl Williams proved himself no less than equal with Spinks, if going by the results and performances against common opponents, and Spinks' few heavyweight fights really have no bearing on how I view him as a light heavyweight, nor should they, in my opinion because Spinks wasn't fighting that fight at 175 pounds or below. He was fighting a heavyweight at heavyweight while weighing in as a heavyweight, so...

And just so you know for future references, I don't use faulty "head-to-head" logic in deciding greatness, so whether Archie Moore could defeat that version of Holmes or not is meaningless to me. These guys didn't need to fight guys from other eras to prove their worth as fighters and only needed to fight who was around at the time, so forgive me if I think it's silly to say "Fighter A is greater than Fighter B because I think he could beat him" or something along those lines...What I try to do when I do rate fighters in a historical sense is try to get a feel for the era, what a particular fighter accomplished in that era, and how highly they were thought of in their respective eras by both their peers & press alike. I also have a saying that I've repeated a number of times over the course of my posting days on various sites, and that's simply "a great fighter for his time is a great fighter for all-time", which is something I believe in very strongly no matter if a past fighter could compete in today's game or vice versa...

I threw this out there a few weeks ago, but does a guy like Abraham Lincoln lose his distiction of being one of the greatest presidents just because he'd be out to lunch arguing modern politics with even a high school kid?

Or taking it to a another sports related topic, do the undefeated '72 Dolphins lose out on being considered a great team just because a modern NFL team out weighs them on the line by about an average of 50 pounds and likely make it very difficult for those Dolphins both on offense and defense?

Or, seeing as how you're Canadian, how about the Montreal Canadiens from the late 70's (60-8-12 or something like that at their best), when they were winning the cup four or five times in a row with their brand of wide-open fire wagon hockey? Taking it as it is, that style of hockey likely would have been shut down to a great extent by a more modern defensive team like the Devils, or anybody other team for that matter that employed the trap on a consistent basis (nearly all of them over the last ten years), but I'll be ****ed if I'm going to consider one of these modern NHL teams "greater" than a team who was as dominant as the Canadiens were during that very special time for that team.

Getting back to Spinks, I generally rate him in the top 6 or 7 at light heavyweight in the historcial sense, which, even though you may view him a couple of spots higher than that, does illustrate that I have a hell of a lot of respect for him and what he accomplished during his stay at 175...He wouldn't have made such a list if I thought otherwise.

Ezzard, Tunney and Archie are the only guys that i will accept as being ranked higher than spinks. Conn, foster and loughran do not deserve to be ranked higher.

Some people say spinks didn't fight galindez or saad. Well correct me if i'm mistaken. Wasn't marvin johnson the guy that took galindez off the map. Didn't qawi brutally destroy saad and end his career as a legit threat. Wasn't eddie mustafa muhammad the guy that also holds wins over saad and marvin. Michael Spinks beat eddie, qawi and marvin, THE 3 best guys available for him to fight. He also holds a win over mustafa wassaja, the guy that ended bob foster's comeback and holds a win over future champ denis andries.

Spinks moved up to fight larry cuz there was no one left for him to fight at 175. I dont think he needed to waste his time fighting b-level guys like andries, prince charles williams, jeff harding and bobby cycz.

[Yogi]

Butterfly, I had a fairly lengthy reply to you, but unfortunately it got lost somewhere in cyberspace when I tried submitting it, and I'm too lazy & burnt out to type it all out again.

[Yogi]

Some people say spinks didn't fight galindez or saad. Well correct me if i'm mistaken. Wasn't marvin johnson the guy that took galindez off the map. Didn't qawi brutally destroy saad and end his career as a legit threat. Wasn't eddie mustafa muhammad the guy that also holds wins over saad and marvin. Michael Spinks beat eddie, qawi and marvin, THE 3 best guys available for him to fight. He also holds a win over mustafa wassaja, the guy that ended bob foster's comeback and holds a win over future champ denis andries.

I don't think a Galindez fight for Spinks would have been all that viable an option, as I don't think I (and others) would have seen it as anything more than a primed fighter adding another "name" on his ledger when he hit championship contender status...More than a couple years apart there when talking about each of their respective best at that weight.

The Spinks/Saad fight was a little different, but at the time that fight was seriously being talked about as a unification fight (Michael Stinks vs. Sad Muhammad...nickname each fighter gave to one another, to illustrate some of the bad blood between them), I think it would have again been one primed fighter facing off with another who had seen better days...Qawi had the honour of finishing off Saad's run with that title, but having watched that fight just about a month ago, I thought I saw a much depleted version of a Saad entering the ring on that night when comparisions are made to his earlier version of himself. Granted Qawi's relentless performance certainly had something to do with how Saad looked in that one, but I thought there was plenty enough difference in how Saad looked in that one to say it wasn't all Qawi's doing...Saad's timing, punch output & selection, accuracy, confidence, balance, etc., were all off in that fight from what I saw, and I thought quite noticable right from the get-go, although I have plenty of doubts if any version of Saad could have handled Qawi on that night.

If Saad had somehow gotten past Qawi, him and Spinks is the fight that was going to take place, but...In Eddie & Qawi, yes, I agree that Spinks beat the two best light heavyweights that were around during his time as champion, with Marvin Johnson another one of his better opponents at that weight (I haven't seen it since I saw it live on tv, but that hybrid left hook/uppercut is still one of the standout memories from that whole era). Being much more of a crowd pleaser than was Eddie Mustafa, Saad seems to have the higher standing of the two Muhammads nowadays. But if you had that same opinion 25 years ago when both were holding the titles, you're very likely in the minority with that opinion. Not a huge difference between the two from the boxing public, but by virtue of his win over Saad, as well as his generally percieved to be better overall skills at the time, Eddie was given slightly more credit in the boxing mags (and on tv) as the better light heavyweight of the two during that time.

[brownpimp88]

I don't think a Galindez fight for Spinks would have been all that viable an option, as I don't think I (and others) would have seen it as anything more than a primed fighter adding another "name" on his ledger when he hit championship contender status...More than a couple years apart there when talking about each of their respective best at that weight.

The Spinks/Saad fight was a little different, but at the time that fight was seriously being talked about as a unification fight (Michael Stinks vs. Sad Muhammad...nickname each fighter gave to one another, to illustrate some of the bad blood between them), I think it would have again been one primed fighter facing off with another who had seen better days...Qawi had the honour of finishing off Saad's run with that title, but having watched that fight just about a month ago, I thought I saw a much depleted version of a Saad entering the ring on that night when comparisions are made to his earlier version of himself. Granted Qawi's relentless performance certainly had something to do with how Saad looked in that one, but I thought there was plenty enough difference in how Saad looked in that one to say it wasn't all Qawi's doing...Saad's timing, punch output & selection, accuracy, confidence, balance, etc., were all off in that fight from what I saw, and I thought quite noticable right from the get-go, although I have plenty of doubts if any version of Saad could have handled Qawi on that night.

If Saad had somehow gotten past Qawi, him and Spinks is the fight that was going to take place, but...In Eddie & Qawi, yes, I agree that Spinks beat the two best light heavyweights that were around during his time as champion, with Marvin Johnson another one of his better opponents at that weight (I haven't seen it since I saw it live on tv, but that hybrid left hook/uppercut is still one of the standout memories from that whole era). Being much more of a crowd pleaser than was Eddie Mustafa, Saad seems to have the higher standing of the two Muhammads nowadays. But if you had that same opinion 25 years ago when both were holding the titles, you're very likely in the minority with that opinion. Not a huge difference between the two from the boxing public, but by virtue of his win over Saad, as well as his generally percieved to be better overall skills at the time, Eddie was given slightly more credit in the boxing mags (and on tv) as the better light heavyweight of the two during that time.

Dude i have the tapes and i remember the enitre buildup between spinks and saad. It looked to me like saad wasnt too comfortable fighting spinks, he was the one that kinda held back. Maybe he remembers that sparring session they had from 1977.

[brownpimp88]

Yo yogi, would u admit that mustafa hamsho was pretty good. I mean he has to be one of the best middleweights to never win the belt. This guy beat a 24 year old benitez, an undefeated bobby cycz, former linear champ alan minter, he beat a prime bobby watts. He also beat contenders like scypion, parker twice, rocky mosley jr, saenz and rudy robles.

[Yogi]

Yo yogi, would u admit that mustafa hamsho was pretty good. I mean he has to be one of the best middleweights to never win the belt. This guy beat a 24 year old benitez, an undefeated bobby cycz, former linear champ alan minter, he beat a prime bobby watts. He also beat contenders like scypion, parker twice, rocky mosley jr, saenz and rudy robles.

Yeah, by my definition of "pretty good" I can admit Mustafa Hamsho was pretty good, and I'd say he was more than that. Obviously not the prettiest fighter one will ever see, but the way he got in there on you, roughed you up when neccessary with his strength & "tactics" (hey, if you ain't cheatin', you ain't trying), and dared you to fight his type of tough back alley brawl, well...he obviously made it work well for him and had the durability & tenacity to make it work well for him. Just a solid and tough ass mother ****er to fight for a lot of middleweights at that time, and during much of Hagler's reign, Hamsho solidified the number one contender spot by defeating other proven contenders and up-and-comers alike, as you alluded to (you pick up any random boxing mag from the early 80's, odds are great that Hamsho is listed right under Hagler's name in the monthly ratings)...

Actually, if I was being honest, guys like Hamsho are my type of fighter, as I've always kind of had a tendency to root for those guys who, maybe despite their natural athletic gifts, found ways and had the means to still consistently overcome those who maybe had more natural or visible talent.

Speaking of that type of fighter, and as a response to your other post...

Spinks vs. Qawi/Braxton

That's the fight I wanted to see in the division at that time and that's the fight we were "lucky"(quoted only because it didn't live up to expectations as really being close to a great action fight) enough to see. That's also the fight that, for me, Spinks put his stamp on the division as the very best around, which is something that wouldn't have been answered for me had Spinks fought Saad instead of Braxton fighting him(Saad) first. Honestly, having followed Braxton & Spinks through their climb leading up to that fight, I thought the fight was 50/50 pick 'em going in. I had no clue who I thought was going to win, only knowing that I wanted to find out the answer to that very question...

I know you know all about Spinks because you're obviously an admittedly big fan of his, but do you remember when Braxton was coming up through as a contender, and eventual successor to Saad's thrown?

I mean, come one...To steal a line from an old friend of mine from another site with hopes that he doesn't mind, that was some rip snortin' delicious **** right there, and the high level poise & ability he showed from someone of so few pro fights (and no amateur fights either...Braxton learned his craft the hard way) is quite rare in any age of boxing. Just a tough, hardnosed, and well schooled fighter, who'd just as soon bust you up with a jab from long distance as he would the hooks & uppercuts in close, and all the while doing so with what seemed to be a snarl of immense pleasure as he went about his business of busting up and walking through a very solid collection of light heavyweights in Rossman, Superman Scott, Saad, Martin, and Davis (both if you want)...

I was impressed as hell with Braxton right from the time I saw him absolutely destroy what was still a good light heavyweight in Mike Rossman, and it was in that fight when I saw something special in him and had already started envisioning the eventual showdown between him & Spinks for supremity of the early 80's light heavyweight era. That was a "bad man", I thought when I saw that Rossman fight live on tv, and that was only confirmed when he made the tough, tireless, and still highly thought of, James Scott appear not so "bad" afterall in his next big fight...It was no suprise to me at all to see Braxton end Saad's reign (although the dominant manner was a little suprising), and in fact I expected it, as I hope I alluded to...

Spinks vs. Braxton?

Yeah, that's the fight I wanted to see to find out the better light heavyweight of that era, and I got my answer...

Spinks was better.