In the Ring He Was Ali, but in the Newspapers He Was Still Clay

Did the NYT ever refer to him as a "draft dodger," which would really be insulting, because his refusal to be enslaved by Uncle Sam was the most courageous act of the entire Vietnam era. The only dodging Ali ever did was of the punches thrown at him by his opponents in the ring. My guess is the Times did.

i was in my early teens in northern California. white folks were bald-faced and unabashed about expressing racist opinions. one of my jr. high teachers shared his racist views on the subject with us students. it's easy to forget how big a deal it was for Ali not to kowtow. his bravery benefited all of us young men.

One evening in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, my father and uncle spotted a beautiful Bentley convertible. In it sat Mohammed Ali. They, being great boxing fans happily chatted with the gracious Ali. My teasing uncle said, "Champ, I remember when you drove a Cadillac!" Quietly, Ali said to my uncle, "I remember when I drove a VW."

I haven't seen any mention pf Howard Cosell, one of the first broadcasters to begin calling him By Ali. One reason they were such good friends.

It's a shock to learn that the Times took so long to call Ali by his chosen name. I was a bit younger than Ali, and white middle-class. Furthermore, I wasn't exceptional at all in my social awareness. Yet from the time he announced his new name -- and word filtered through somehow that "Cassius Clay" was originally a name selected for Ali's ancestor, a slave, by his master -- I couldn't understand why anyone would continue to call him "Clay." No one called John Wayne "Marion." It was obviously racist.

I worked for The Associated Press back then and Ted Smits, the national sports editor, made us refer to Ali as Clay for what seemed forever. I always thought it was racist.

It's strange that Corbett's justification is, "...you don't want to baffle your readers." I'll let the cat out of the bag here on my age: I was born in 1966. I was a very young girl when Ali was was coming into prominence and so very much in the news. And I was very much baffled by the dual names. I distinctly remember asking my mom one day when I was about five why he was called Cassius Clay *and* Muhammad Ali. To this day I have to give my mom props for explaining it rationally and unemotionally, without racial animus, in a way a five-year-old could understand.

When in 1970 I legally retrieved my own last name and freed myself from the chains of my husband's last name, I, too, met with resistance from other people who wished to keep calling me Mrs. _____ rather than Ms. Russell (now Dr. Russell). More and more women are choosing to function on our own recognizance, refusing to be branded by our husbands. This ancient practice is going the way of the dinosaurs. I wish Hillary Rodham hadn't been saddled with Bill's last name and legacy, but she has been caught in the generational divide. Go, President Rodham!

He was a great boxer, a great performer and a draft dodger. Not a great American. Great Americans served their country when asked.

Heck, I was just a kid, a poor white boy, and I knew the white press did not like this "arrogant" black man who "refused to serve his country." The animus from the press and the establishment was palpable. Anyone who lived through those times with clear eyes and an open mind is not buying this revisionist version of events. They called him Clay because they knew it irked him and they hated and feared the "Black Muslims."

Did I miss "We are sorry" line?

Thank you for these not so fond recollections on the elitist actions of the New York Times.
We must never forget what they have done.

Does anybody know did Ali ever go to Court and legally have his name changed? Just curious.

And to think Shakespeare wrote: ""What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Romeo and Juliet (Act 2, Scene 2)

Why is everybody avoiding the big green elephant in the ring?
I wonder how much the reluctance of the American media including this venerable paper had to do with the fact that Ali choose a Muslim name.
So now you'll have to put the words Muhammad, Ali and world champion in the same sentence. That did not and still and will never work around here.
Maybe if Ali was a criminal or a terrorist or anything bad, then the words Muhammad and Ali would be front and center and for a long time and forever after. Here comes someone who presents again and again a positive and constructive image of those names and all that they stand for and he insists on being called by that name name that was more like a new birth and a new identity for him and the media/ propaganda machine in this country found that too much to stomach, but had to eventually and most likely reluctantly use the name that great athlete chose for himself. Muhammad Ali was not only a great boxer but he also was media savvy and totally understood how the media and PR game is played and was as good at it as he was in the ring. He exactly knew how to throw punches in the face of the white establishment as he did in the ring in the face of his opponents and especially those who needed to be reminded, "What's my name?".

Why not simply say that the New York Times was not always a bastion for liberal causes, especially racial causes. Before Ali there was Jackie Robinson and the New York Times was not especially supportive of him, either. Nor was its record during the 'red scare' something to be proud of. It was more than a matter of names. Thankfully, times have somewhat changed.

In the boxing ring, Ernie Terrell and Floyd Patterson paid a humiliating price for their refusal to call Muhammad Ali by his chosen name. They suffered their professional fate at the hands (quite literally, the padded fists) of Mr. Ali. The New York Times and other publications got off lightly.

But as the media reported, this man changed more than his name. He helped to change the world during tumultuous times, making people uncomfortable - discomfort always being an ingredient in great change.

Not Mark...
Having lived abroad for many years I must say it was the opposite outside the US. I did not know Ali's name was Cassius Clay until my mother told me few years after he was diagnosed with Parkinson's in the late 80s. I was stunned to read he was not born Mohammad Ali. Even today many non-Americans might not know that Mohammad Ali had another name up until the early 1960s. I think newspapers and magazines outside America are far more respectful to people's name as the person-with-the-name-change say it, see it and feel it. I think Ali got it right when he said that his old name was given to him by the slave masters, as was his old religion. It appears newspapers in America, including The Times, behaved like the old slave masters choosing the name for Ali and others they felt comfortable with or preferred. Shame on The Times. But thanks for at least honestly admitting that now.

Now lets see you boldly and honestly write about conversions around the world that use or abuse people's poverty, desperation, confusion, isolation, psychological or social problems. There are churches that behave like Madrasaahs...but nobody wants to admit that. I encourage, or dare, The Times to write, with facts, why men like Ali, Malcolm X, etc. changed not only their names but their religion also in the US. What does that say about religion and slavery, religion and oppression and religion and racism in the US? Please write boldly on this politically delicate topic the world over.

If it is "'much more the norm now not to impose a name on someone'" at the NYT, in addition to "about time," one might add: "apply the same rule to countries and rulers of countries."

What do I mean?

"Myanmar," which the NYT, at least until very recently, has insisted on calling "Burma." Does the NYT believe countries can't name themselves anything the NYT doesn't prefer?

"Saddam Hussein," who news reporters, headline writers, and especially NYT columnists, referred to as "Saddam." What other foreign leader got or gets this treatment? It was clearly going along with those who sought to denigrate and diminish Mr. Hussein and, in doing so, help make the case for war with Iraq a "slam dunk." (Wait, I do remember hearing of someone else who got this treatment. Adolf. Which I would assert, merely reinforces my preceding charge.)

Countries and people deserve to be called by the names they call themselves. And they deserver the same respect the NYT gives to musicians like Prince. Admiration or disgust with individuals and countries does not somehow give the NYT the right to assign them names they don't call themselves.

Comparing Ali's name change to John Wayne's is like compares apples and oranges. Ali changed his name after he won his first heavyweight title, so he had already gained international fame by then. The Times was right to insist that he change his name in a court of law for the new name to be recognized.

No one knew who John Wayne was when he adopted his screen name, so no one cared.

You're giving the Times a free pass on its arrogance by saying that other people did it, too. Howard Cosell began calling Ali by his new name almost immediately; what's your excuse?

My sneaking suspicion is that the Times didn't want an uppity black man telling them what to call him if that name didn't fit with the paper's preconceived notion of what he should be called.

I remember the pettiness of so many, including the Times, as this article makes clear. But to characterize this as a style issue, or a typographical convenience, strains the imagination. Even in death, some of the commenters on Ali’s obituary insisted on referring to him as Cassius Clay, as if insulting his memory would somehow give them an increased sense of worth.

We’ve made some progress since 1965, when a man couldn’t even choose his own name. Yes, today, Chelsea Manning is automatically referred to as ‘her’ or ‘she’. But Chelsea Manning, for an act of conscience not so different from Ali’s, is still in jail. Maybe Bradley Manning should have learned to box.

When did the Gray Lady call Lew Alcindor by his chosen name, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar?
Not to make anything of it, but it's curious that no mention is made of such a prominent example.

"What's my name?" meant so much more.

Hatred of Ali throughout the US was profound in the 60s and 70s, effecting treatment by even the supposedly objective and fair minded news media. Imagine the public outcry if the NYT, Wash Post and other newspapers had chosen to routinely publish/use the given names of movie stars rather than their chosen Hollywood names.

Fred Astaire - Frederick Austerlitz

Lauren Bacall - Betty Joan Perske

Brigitte Bardot - Camille Javal

Red Buttons - Aaron Chwatt

Tony Curtis - Bernard Schwartz

Joan Crawford - Lucille Le Sueur

Kirk Douglas - Issur Danielovitch

Dale Evans - Frances Octavia Smith

Cary Grant - Archibald Leach

Charlton Heston - Charles Carter

Rock Hudson - Roy Scherer Jr.

Danny Kaye - David Kaminsky

Boris Karloff - William Henry Pratt

Marilyn Monroe - Norma Jean Baker

Slim Pickens - Louis Lindley

John Wayne - Marion Michael Morrison