IS ALI RATED HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE 3 YEAR EXILE

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 11 May 2008, 00:00

is ali given the benefit of the doubt of the threee year lay-off did we never really see the best of him or does it get said just to enhance his legacy?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 11 May 2008, 00:04

I don't think so. I highly doubt he would have failed to continue his reign, with the reasonable exception of possibly losing to Frazier in the late 60's. That one match (which is close to even money, for mine) aside, Ali would have slaughtered the bunch.

I do see how you can arrive at your conclusion, though. I will say we did see him at his best, just not as much as we otherwise would have. I don't believe, though, that he was getting any better than the 24, 25-year-old version we did get to see. It was quantity, not quality, that was lacking in the case of Ali's prime.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 11 May 2008, 00:06

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I don't think so. I highly doubt he would have failed to continue his reign, with the reasonable exception of possibly losing to Frazier in the late 60's. That one match (which is close to even money, for mine) aside, Ali would have slaughtered the bunch.

I do see how you can arrive at your conclusion, though. I will say we did see him at his best, just not as much as we otherwise would have. I don't believe, though, that he was getting any better than the 24, 25-year-old version we did get to see. It was quantity, not quality, that was lacking in the case of Ali's prime.

i do not believe that he would of lost between 67-70 to anyone i was curious about other peoples opinions

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 11 May 2008, 01:58

I don't necessarily believe that he is rated higher because of his exile; but I do believe we were denied his best years & I also believe that had he not fought again after 1967, he would not be as highly rated.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 11 May 2008, 02:16

Syntax Error wrote:I don't necessarily believe that he is rated higher because of his exile; but I do believe we were denied his best years & I also believe that had he not fought again after 1967, he would not be as highly rated.

i think the determination and the will he showed in his second career are a big influence on how highly he is rated

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 11 May 2008, 07:11

I don't think he is Rater higher Because of his absence too..

If that is the Case, Mike Tyson should be rated higher too because of his 4 year absence,

IMO Ali deserves to #1.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 11 May 2008, 08:44

p4p1 wrote:
Syntax Error wrote:I don't necessarily believe that he is rated higher because of his exile; but I do believe we were denied his best years & I also believe that had he not fought again after 1967, he would not be as highly rated.
i think the determination and the will he showed in his second career are a big influence on how highly he is rated

That's right.

It was truly remarkable how he returned with diminished skills, yet still dominated the toughest crop of HW's in history.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 May 2008, 09:17

It's a very legit question. I do believe he would have lost to Frazier regardless.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 11 May 2008, 10:53

dempseyfire wrote:It's a very legit question. I do believe he would have lost to Frazier regardless.

My ultimate dream fight would have been Ali -v- Frazier in 1968 (providing Ali had not been banned)!

Frazier was just in his pomp & I believe Ali would have been at his best too.