Cassius the Clown

By H. Lavar Pope

In his new film, Ali, director Michael Mann sweeps the current Ali under the rug, ignoring him like an old relative in a nursing home, and instead memorializes the young Ali on-screen as if the champ had already died.
-Ward Harkavy “The Greatest? Not his Movie.”

[1] I remember seeing Michael Mann’s feature film Ali on its opening day, December 25, 2001. I really enjoyed the film; I thought the fight scenes were excellent, and I thought it was an entertaining picture of a great figure in American culture. Before entering the theater on Christmas day, I thought I knew Ali’s history and personality. I saw his classic fights. I owned Knockout Kings, an incredibly popular boxing game made by gaming manufacturer EA Sports, featuring the greatest boxers in history. In the game, Muhammad Ali is virtually undefeatable, and he is the feature boxer. I also knew of the Muhammad Ali clothing line; F.U.B.U. clothing had recently released a line of clothing bearing quotes and pictures of Muhammad Ali. So, from these representations and the things I saw on television, I thought I understood Muhammad Ali. Leaving the movie theater on December 25, 2001, Michael Mann’s film supported and confirmed the Ali that I was familiar with.

[2] Then, I started to hold the Michael Mann film up against historical evidence.

[3] This history lesson started before I opened a book. My parents, research professor, advisor, and virtually every other person that was alive during the 1960s, remembered a different Muhammad Ali. Many of my professors remembered a rebellious, loud, obnoxious kid that was always in the middle of controversy. My family remembered Ali as a complete clown and jester. Some of my sources remembered the emphasis put on Ali’s draft resistance and the unpatriotic nature of the act. Interestingly, both circles remembered the popular media’s view of Muhammad Ali. Simply put, in the 1960s and early 1970s Muhammad Ali was not generally accepted as a hero in mainstream American culture.

[4] I am amazed by these different Muhammad Alis. To my generation, Ali is presented as a man of dignity, courage, and an American hero. I see the Michael Mann film as the pinnacle of Ali’s immortalization, and I also view the film as a tribute to his dignity and courage as an American or a world hero. This representation of Ali is out of line with the photograph those growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s carried; to them, Ali was packaged as a threat and a clown. What happened?

[5] This is my main question, and there are a few possibilities. First and foremost, one could theorize that Muhammad Ali changed as a person and as an individual. Alternatively, one could conclude that America changed and is now more accepting of Ali. Finally, there is the possibility that with the decline of his health, Ali lost his physical power, became less threatening and dangerous, and was fit to become an American hero.

[6] I chose option four: all the above. All of these theories hold weight; yet, one explanation is the most accurate. America changed. The other two theories are lacking.

[7] Ali did not undergo a huge change. Ali is consistent and unwavering in his values. He was against war in April of 1967 when he refused to serve in the military; he is against war now. In the 1960s, Ali was highly involved with human and civil rightsâ€"especially the rights of black Americans; Muhammad Ali remains an active voice in the black community. One could argue he is milder and more reasonable, and I would retort that the 1980s through the new millennium presents a different social atmosphere for black Americans than the 1960s. In other words, there is less of a need for militancy.

[8] The other theory (Ali fell in social power because of his illness and overall decline in wealth) is also interesting. Yet, there is evidence that Ali was becoming a hero independent of his physical decline. For example, many historians conclude that Ali’s 1974 “Rumble in the Jungle” victory over giant George Foreman really established him as an American icon and hero figure.

[9] As Muhammad Ali continues to be immortalized and recreated in film and other sources, his true complexity is sacrificed. During my research, I realized that I knew one aspect of Muhammad Ali. I knew Ali the champion. There are many other parts of Ali, and by examining these facets of his personality, one can test the media portrayal of Ali today against historical evidence to find out who he really was in the 1960s and 1970s.

[10] The goal of my project is to expose the gaps in what is presented to my generation and to examine a complete picture of Ali. I have found that Cassius Clay/Cassius X/Muhammad Ali has at least four distinct faces; there is Ali the clown or jester, Ali the martyr, Ali the underdog champion, and, finally, Ali the world ambassador. In my project, I will examine these four parts of Ali using four specific events in his lifetime as examples.

[11] First, I will examine Ali as the clown or jester by looking at the weeks surrounding of his world championship bout against Sonny Liston. Jr.. on February 25, 1964. Next, I will look at Ali as martyr by examining publications surrounding his June 20, 1967, conviction of draft resistance. This will include material written before and after the Supreme Court’s final decision. Third, I will dissect Ali the champion by turning to material written around the date of the “Rumble in the Jungle” of October 30, 1974. Finally, I will look to periodicals around Ali’s carrying of the Olympic torch in 1996 to examine Ali as ambassador.

[12] I will turn to magazine resources as historical evidence of the above qualities. I will study Sports Illustrated as a primary source for information. It is arguably the most popular and widely read sports journal and its columns should carry a relatively unbiased, straightforward tone. As another circle of sources, I will turn mostly to popular American magazines Time and Newsweek.

[13] If film director Michael Mann “swept” Muhammad Ali “under the rug,” as film director Harkavy decides, then my goal is to lift the rug off of Ali and try to understand his complete character. If Mann’s film is a burial and memorial service, my goal is to help resurrect and understand some of the real Muhammad Ali.

The Clown

He was like God â€" God with a custard pie up his sleeve
Joseph D. O’Brian describing Muhammad Ali

[14] From his 1960 Olympic Games fame until his February1964 bout against Sonny Liston, Jr., Cassius Clay was seen as a rising star. He was completely newsworthy, and he seemed to enjoy the attention. The press, however, quickly realized that young Cassius Clay was wild, unpredictable, cocky, arrogant, and, most of all, loud. So, the press began to pass his promises and his threats to other boxers as part of one big joke. This all comes to a peak around late February and early March of 1964â€"the period in which Cassius Clay is gearing up to challenge Sonny Liston, Jr., for the heavyweight championship of the world.

[15] Although my concentration is on Sports Illustrated, Time, and Newsweek, I turn to The New Republic for an overall description of Clay. One article says: “Promoters and fight managers saw in Clay one of their animals utterly out of control and were glad to know that soon he would be not just back in line but out of the business.” In one sentence, the author of this article summarizes the pre-fight and post-fight atmosphere; on one side, there was a flamboyant, proud boxer, and, on the other side, there stood a bunch of people that wanted him beaten badly. Also, this sentence captures the intensity and degree of Clay’s clown-like behavior.

[16] How is Cassius Clay/Cassius X/Muhammad Ali clown-like? First and foremost, he captures the attention of his crowd with stunts and pranks. Second, his tone carries some degree of humor or sarcasm. Finally, his antics have an effect on his audience. Yet, this is merely an analysis of the boxer’s overall personality; one has to look at specific descriptions to truly understand this aspect of the boxer’s character. Two specific examples of Clay in action will suffice.

[17] Event one takes at a press conference held in Miami Beach days before the February 25 title-bout. An article in Newsweek describes the start of this media event. It says, “Clay…wanted so badly to win the debate that soon he was shouting almost incoherently, ‘Hold it. Lissen, lissen. Lissen to the king. I am the king.” The first step is to capture an audience’s attention, and, apparently, Clay was set, grabbing and holding the reporter’s attention.

[18] The wild circus continues, and the article in Newsweek continues the description of the press conference scene:

“I’ve been down a few times,” conceded Cassius, glaring at first one camera, then the other. “Which camera am I on?” he asked. Informed, he plunged on…“Now listen. If I lose, I’m gonna crawl across the ring, kiss his feet, and catch the next jet out of the country.” This was a shopworn line and Cassius wasn’t satisfied with it. “Hey, chump,” he demanded of Liston. “If I win, will you crawl across the ring and kiss my feet? Huh? Will you?”

Clay’s inquiry about the camera location makes it clear that he knows that he is on display. In other words, he seems to understand and appreciate the performance aspect of the press conference. However, it is the tone and nature of his comments and promises that makes this moment memorable. As a 5-1 underdog (some sources say 8-1 underdog) in a world championship fight, he is assuring victory in a big way. He is basically betting his pride and honor on a knockout in the eighth round. The press loved it.

[19] This is Clay’s general pre-fight behavior, and, somehow, it is overlooked and often forgotten about in today’s recollections of Muhammad Ali. Throughout his career, Ali took great pride in being able to predict the outcome of his fights. Of course, he would always count on winning by way of knockout.

[20] The boxer’s antics were not limited to pre-fight scenes. Many times Cassius Clay/Cassius X/Muhammad Ali would be as playful and loud in post-fight situations. Accounts of his post-Liston-fight behavior provide an example of such a scene. A Time article documents the following scene:

“Hypocrites” yelled Cassius Clay at the press conference. “Whatcha gonna say now, huh? Huh? Who’s the greatest?” “Cassius”came the faint replyâ€"too faint to satisfy the new champ. “Let’s really hear it,” he hollered. “Who’s the greatest? I’ll give you one more chance. Who’s the greatest?” The chant was loud and clear. “You, Cassius, you. You’re the greatest.”

In the above scene, Clay has just accomplished the inevitable and succeeded in proving most of America wrong. He continues to talk and chide his non-supporters.

[21] It is certain that Cassius Clay was clown-like in tone, language, and character at press conferences; the reporters dwell on the jester-like qualities in Clay, and in writing, Cassius Clay also talks about his clown-like behavior. But the main objective is not to merely examine Clay’s behavior. Instead, one must look at the outcome and effects of such behavior. One must ask: What was Cassius Clay trying to do by playingâ€"or displayingâ€"the court-jester at press conferences?

[22]Most reporters and journalists fail to speculate on the cause or root of Clay’s eccentric behavior. In the works surrounding the February 1964 fight, the authors simply record Clay’s conduct and pass him off as a “show-off” or even a simpleton. The reports offer no explanation for Clay’s behavior. In fact, the only popular article that does suggests a reason for Clay’s madness is in Sports Illustrated; it is written by Clay himself.

[23] In this pre-Liston bout article, young Cassius Clay presents the world with his masterplan. The article is entitled “I’m a Little Special.” Since this article is before the Liston fight, it exhibits a very confident and prepared Cassius Clay. In the article, he discusses the reasons for his eccentric behavior as a celebrity.

[24] Clay makes it known that there is a science behind his actions and behavior. He starts by declaring:

If I were like a lot of guysâ€"a lot of heavyweight boxers, I meanâ€"I’ll bet you a dozen doughnuts you wouldn’t be reading this story right now. If you wonder what the difference between them and me is, I’ll break the news: you never heard of them...And the reason for that is because they cannot throw the jive.

Clay’s claim is simple. He has worked his wayâ€"through press conferences and boxingâ€"to a top-grade fight opportunity. Generally speaking, as an untested and unproved boxer, it is extremely difficult to earn a chance at a championship fight.

[25] Indeed, Clay has already accomplished a certain feat in earning this fight, and the boxer explains:

Jive is the reason…why they took my picture looking at $1 million in cold cash. That’s how much money my fists and my mouth will have earned by the time my fight with Liston is over. Think about that. A southern colored boy has made $1 million just as he turns 22.

It is evident that Cassius Clay has a plan in place. While the press saw his behavior as a display of ignorance and cockiness, Clay passes his actions off as a sort of mastermind plot to play the media and to eventually make money.

[26] Next, Clay presents the other options available to him as a black male in the early 1960s: “I would probably be…in Louisville, Ky., my home town, washing windows or running an elevator and saying ‘yes suh’ and ‘no suh’ and knowing my place.” From this sentence, it is clear that Clay has an understanding of the social climate around him, and that he has done everything in his power to avoid succumbing to such forces.

[27] Clay then begins to discuss the birth of his plan to get a title fight. He says:

One day in Louisville I was riding a bus reading in the paper about [Floyd] Patterson and Ingemar Johanson. It was right after I had won the Olympic gold medal in Rome and had turned professional, and I was confident then I could beat either one of them if I had the chance. But I knew I wouldn’t get the chance because nobody much had ever heard of me. So I said to myself, how am I going to get a crack at [it]? Well, on that bus I realized I’d never get it just sitting around thinking about it. I knew I’d have to start talking about itâ€"I mean really talking, screaming and yelling and acting like some kind of nut.

This text makes it apparent that Clay developed a plan in order to obtain s shot at a world class title fight. His means in obtaining his goal was to attract attention and become a celebrity. He says: “You can see how it has turned outâ€"just the way I wanted it to. I started off slow because I was feeling my way, but pretty soon I caught on to what reporters like to hear and what would make the pubic pay attention.”

[28] At points in this article, Clay comes off as a bit apologetic. He admits: “Part of my plan to get the fight has made me say some pretty insulting things about Sonny Liston, but I might as well tell you I’ve done that mostly to get people to talking about the fight and to build up the gate.” It is well documented that Clay called Liston a host of derogatory and outright controversial names. In this essay, Clay offers a reasonâ€"and sort of apologyâ€"for the slander.

[29] From the above comments, it seems as if Clay simply went to press conferences and purposefully put on a show. Yet, Clay even succeeds in dodging this assessment. Instead, he offers a sort of magnification of his personality. The boxer says:

What I have done is to exaggerate the natural way I am. I wouldn’t sit around my house shouting and carrying on if it was just me and my folds, but I would if there was anybody else to hear me.

So, Clay claims that his shenanigans were ultimately in line with his personality and character. The show was part of him.

[30] The facts of the case establish Cassius Clay as an architect. As mentioned above, there is only one theory provided concerning Clay’s pre-fight behavior during the last weeks of February 1964â€"Cassius Clay’s own article. More importantly, Clay’s explanation for the eccentric behavior is believable, reasonable, and eventually the plan works. It is clear that Cassius Clay has a firm grasp on the media in his early career, and he keeps the media in the palm of his hand throughout the majority of his career.

[31] This part of Muhammad Ali was not portrayed in Ali. In the film, the boxer’s many comedic actions are glossed over or simply ignored. Furthermore, the film offers no explanation for any of Ali’s behavior. Yet, Hollywood is simply part of a society that is currently immortalizing Muhammad Ali, and in the process, risks dropping history.

[32] By looking at Clay’s letter, we can see one of the many dangers of immortalizing and cleansing a revolutionary figure: as we soften the Ali, we run the risk of downplaying the social conditions around Ali. Clay’s letter explains the reasons for his behavior: he was trapped in a society in which he, as a black, had limited options and a general lack of opportunity. This was a major reason he developed and displayed a wild, loud, and bodacious personality. By ignoring Clay’s interaction with the media, we lose an opportunity to deal with real issues of the 1960s. In other words, as Clay’s character is depicted as less intense, so too are the social pressures that he was dealing with in the 1960s.

[33] When we leave parts of his personality and character behind, we are in danger of twisting history. My generation needs to know and understand Ali the clown.

To be continued

When We Were Kings. Dir. Leon Gast. Perf. Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Dvd. Usa Films, 1999.