DizRotus Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 I vote for Ali in his prime against anyone else in his prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MORE KLIPSCH PLEASE Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 I would go with Tyson, in his prime he was devastating. Yea..... I'm with Tyson We will never know.... Both Great boxers.... MKP :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 One was a better biter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Ali was a much smarter fighter than Tyson and faster. If Ali could have stayed away and pummeled him with jabs, I think Ali would have worn him down. However, if Tyson would have caught him with that big left upper cut or overhand right? I would have paid very good money to see that fight! Edited June 5, 2016 by Bonzo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) I don't think so. He was completely right about the Vietnam War. I have my feelings as well about right or wrong in the 'police action' you refer. That is not my point. If you choose to assume a trait as a convenience to avoid responsibility than you have no right to gain benefit from the entity you chose to abandon. edit: let me add that I feel the same way about the 'reservists' that drill for 8 hours on Saturday and 8 hours on Sunday and THAT counts for 32 hours of pay (4 drill periods) year after year and THEN refuse to respond to a call up of their unit because they have XX or I'm an XX or best yet, I wasn't here for this only for the retirement. Apologies for my reaction but I will not retract; back to Mr. Clay The Vietnam war was not a "Police Action." The Korean War was rightly called a United Nations "Police Action." Vietnam was an undeclared, but tragic, war. Edited June 5, 2016 by garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted June 5, 2016 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2016 Conscientious Objectors have been long recognized in this country. He was only vilified because of his color and religion. One of the greatest Americans to have lived in the 60's. How few could ever stand by their beliefs through all the trials society put him through? He took his own path. That amount of courage is rarely seen. B.S.Edit: I vilify him because he was born an United States citizen and THAT requires that a male of legal age serve THEIR country as called upon. Once he made the decision that he did not want to honor that 'commitment' and left he should have had ZERO opportunity to make income in the country he choose to leave. I don't give a rat's behind what he changed his 'name' to in order to make religion an issue. He never left. Who do you have him confused with? He went to draft board, filed as a CO, they refused to grant him CO status. He took it to court, lost, appealed, lost again, and he took it to Supreme Court and won. You can't be more of an American and in the rule of law than that. He was perfectly willing to go to prison for what he believed in. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNRET Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) He never left. Who do you have him confused with? I stand corrected Travis. After reading your post I did some reading and I obviously had a faulty memory as I thought he had left the country. I don't know who I was thinking of. You can't be more of an American This I can do take exception to (and I have read some of the political / social / trends of the times regarding the case) [Edit: to refresh the memories] as I have my own take on what it means to pay for the benefits received. Mike Edited June 5, 2016 by USNRET Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted June 5, 2016 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2016 Here is the case of anyone is interested: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/698/case.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted June 5, 2016 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2016 Conscientious Objectors have been long recognized in this country. He was only vilified because of his color and religion. One of the greatest Americans to have lived in the 60's. How few could ever stand by their beliefs through all the trials society put him through? He took his own path. That amount of courage is rarely seen. CO's have been recognized, officially, by Congress. The hearing officer who originaly heard the case ruled that the Govt. should grant him CO status, the Justice Dept disagreed and tried to screw him over. If you look who was the AG at the time, and who appointed that AG, it explains a lot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The irony is what his religion was, and the group he affiliated with. Clearly it was a peaceful group, (by any means necessary). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 He never left Maybe because he was stripped of his passport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 This I can do take exception to (and I have read some of the political / social / trends of the times regarding the case) [Edit: to refresh the memories] as I have my own take on what it means to pay for the benefits received. The benefits you are talking about was being considered a second class citizen in many parts of the country. Being denied seating in certain restaurants, movie theaters, seeing the National guard attack your people for trying to go to school, ect. I think you may have been living in a different America than some minorities during that time. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 I only saw a man that was fearless both in the ring and out. Sports Illustrated named Ali 'The Greatest Athlete of the 20th Century' in 1999. Sports Illustrated was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Babe Ruth could not only hit, he could pitch too. Jim Thorpe was a multi sport phenomenon. Edited June 5, 2016 by oldtimer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelt Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Ali met his match in a wrestling ring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 That was so real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted June 5, 2016 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2016 He never left. Who do you have him confused with?I stand corrected Travis. After reading your post I did some reading and I obviously had a faulty memory as I thought he had left the country. I don't know who I was thinking of.You can't be more of an AmericanThis I can do take exception to (and I have read some of the political / social / trends of the times regarding the case) [Edit: to refresh the memories] as I have my own take on what it means to pay for the benefits received.Mike Bobby Fischer left the country. He was the greatest chess player ever. After he made his first come back they would stage those fights in foreign lands, Thrilla' in Manilla, Zaire, etc. He did leave boxing, but not on his own accord. Selective Service, which still exists, has lists of agencies where COs can perform alternative services. If you had money you could avoid the whole thing by getting deferments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) I remember wherever I went in the Morocco back in the day, there'd be posters of Mohamed Ali tacked up on the wall in shops and in peoples homes. Fellow travelers told me it was the same all over the Middle East. Now if only this had been real and not in fun, he would have been an ever greater hero to the masses. Edited June 5, 2016 by thebes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted June 5, 2016 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2016 He never left. Who do you have him confused with?I stand corrected Travis. After reading your post I did some reading and I obviously had a faulty memory as I thought he had left the country. I don't know who I was thinking of.You can't be more of an AmericanThis I can do take exception to (and I have read some of the political / social / trends of the times regarding the case) [Edit: to refresh the memories] as I have my own take on what it means to pay for the benefits received.Mike I can understand your viewpoint on that, I was just trying to clarify the frequent confusion between draft "avoidance" and "dodging." So what do you think about someone in that same era that got five deferments until too old because "serving wasn't a priority in my life at the time." My view is that is should be mandatory, no exceptions, two years of service. Men and women, and ""other". If you are a legitimate CO you can do job corp or Peace Corp, or other alternative service for 3 years. Senator's son, too bad, they are in, friend of Ben Barnes, too bad, you are in. You serve your two years and are done, or if you are really good at what you do, they make you an offer and you are free to decide what you want to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNRET Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I can understand your viewpoint on that, I was just trying to clarify the frequent confusion between draft "avoidance" and "dodging." In this context the words are synonymous IMOSo what do you think about someone in that same era that got five deferments until too old because "serving wasn't a priority in my life at the time."See above^^My view is that is should be mandatory, no exceptions, two years of service. Men and women, and ""other". If you are a legitimate CO you can do job corp or Peace Corp, or other alternative service for 3 years.I have held that very view for many years for a myriad of reasonsSenator's son, too bad, they are in, friend of Ben Barnes, too bad, you are in.YepYou serve your two years and are done, or if you are really good at what you do, they make you an offer and you are free to decide what you want to do. Agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.