Interesting questions: What are your opinions on boxing historian Monte Cox?

[kendom]

I happen to like him a lot, a lot of my boxing knowledge comes from completely combing his website. But I hear varying opinions on him especially about his view that the 71 Ali was the best Version of Ali. Just like to see what most people in this section thought about him. Is he a credible boxing historian?

[BigStereotype]

His site is an excellent primer on old-timers. It's a good place to visit but not to stay, as it were. There's a LOT more to learn about those guys. Read his articles, copy all the names he mentions, google those guys for more stories about them.

[kendom]

His site is an excellent primer on old-timers. It's a good place to visit but not to stay, as it were. There's a LOT more to learn about those guys. Read his articles, copy all the names he mentions, google those guys for more stories about them.

THanks I've been looking for a way to increase my boxing knowledge lately

[BigStereotype]

THanks I've been looking for a way to increase my boxing knowledge lately

I'm ALWAYS looking for that, man. It's good to not think you know everything. Keep yourself on your toes.

[kendom]

I'm ALWAYS looking for that, man. It's good to not think you know everything. Keep yourself on your toes.

yeah its true my knowledge needs to expand especially in light heavyweight and the lower weight divisions

[StarshipTrooper]

I happen to like him a lot, a lot of my boxing knowledge comes from completely combing his website. But I hear varying opinions on him especially about his view that the 71 Ali was the best Version of Ali. Just like to see what most people in this section thought about him. Is he a credible boxing historian?

He's a VERY credible historian. And he has the easiest access to his work: I've posted a number of articles here that I've gotten from his website. I don't always agree with some of his conclusions but there's no doubt he knows his stuff and should be given serious consideration whether you end up agreeing with him or not.

Poet

[kendom]

He's a VERY credible historian. And he has the easiest access to his work: I've posted a number of articles here that I've gotten from his website. I don't always agree with some of his conclusions but there's no doubt he knows his stuff and should be given serious consideration whether you end up agreeing with him or not.

Poet

So what do you say about his assertion that the best version of Ali was the one that lost to Frazier

[StarshipTrooper]

So what do you say about his assertion that the best version of Ali was the one that lost to Frazier

That's one of the conclusions of his I respectfully disagree with. After due consideration of his argument of course. The thing with boxing historians is that they aren't, as individuals, going to be correct in their conclusions 100% of the time. I give due consideration to the ones who have legitimacy (such as Monte Cox), but I look to the consensus of those historians for the bottom line.

Poet

[Barn]

I think Monte Cox is a very good historian and he has expanded my knowledge.

Put it this way, if Bert Sugar is "credible" then Monte Cox is very great.

[StarshipTrooper]

if Bert Sugar is "credible"

He isn't. At all.