If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
-
Hagler2002
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3512
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005, 07:04
If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
Would he have become the greatest heavyweight of all time?
-
billythekid
- Heavyweight
Re: If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
If he isn't already?Hagler2002 wrote:Would he have become the greatest heavyweight of all time?
If he did not lose those three years, he would not be the symbol of the 60s that he is now. He would be a very good champion and talked a lot about on this forum in Ali vs. _____ dream match-ups.
However, he would NOT be the celebrity and media darling/icon that he is today if he did not lose those three years.
However, he would NOT be the celebrity and media darling/icon that he is today if he did not lose those three years.
Ali would have not as had such a long career (perhaps a good thing in many ways for him).
In my opinion he'd have had 3 great years of boxing. If Frazier was properly prepared for his challenge I think he'd have beaten Ali. It would have been close either way and a rematch set up.
In terms of the greatest I'm not sure. Ali's chin and endurance against Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, etc, is what makes so many people (like me) sure that he could handle the division's biggest punchers.
If he missed out on those fights or was more faded by the time he fought them (the 3 extra years would have taken their toll) then he might not have looked so great. Ali was so great because he dominated 2 eras of Heavyweights. If he was more worn by the time he got to the 70s HWs then maybe he would not have fared so well.
This is not an exact science but it's worth playing with the basic premise (of course there are holes in the thinking but it's an interesting exercise).
Could Ali 77 (the guy who fought Shavers, and IMO lost) have beaten Foreman 74?
Could Ali 78 (won one and lost one to Spinks) have beaten Frazier 75 in the thrilla?
Could the Ali of 76 (squeezed past Young) have beaten Norton 73 in the rematch?
I'm not sure he could have won these fights.
The 3 years of wear and tear on his body would have had an impact. We'd have seen his greatest athletic ability in the ring but maybe not the results that cement his greatness.
In my opinion he'd have had 3 great years of boxing. If Frazier was properly prepared for his challenge I think he'd have beaten Ali. It would have been close either way and a rematch set up.
In terms of the greatest I'm not sure. Ali's chin and endurance against Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Shavers, etc, is what makes so many people (like me) sure that he could handle the division's biggest punchers.
If he missed out on those fights or was more faded by the time he fought them (the 3 extra years would have taken their toll) then he might not have looked so great. Ali was so great because he dominated 2 eras of Heavyweights. If he was more worn by the time he got to the 70s HWs then maybe he would not have fared so well.
This is not an exact science but it's worth playing with the basic premise (of course there are holes in the thinking but it's an interesting exercise).
Could Ali 77 (the guy who fought Shavers, and IMO lost) have beaten Foreman 74?
Could Ali 78 (won one and lost one to Spinks) have beaten Frazier 75 in the thrilla?
Could the Ali of 76 (squeezed past Young) have beaten Norton 73 in the rematch?
I'm not sure he could have won these fights.
The 3 years of wear and tear on his body would have had an impact. We'd have seen his greatest athletic ability in the ring but maybe not the results that cement his greatness.
Re: If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
The same initial thought came to my mind but this is all subjective. What if Iron Mike wasn't convicted of a crime he didn't even commit in the first place and wasn't away for nearly three years? What about Marciano, and the other greats and where they were when they left the sport?billythekid wrote:If he isn't already?Hagler2002 wrote:Would he have become the greatest heavyweight of all time?
-
billythekid
- Heavyweight
Re: If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
Iron Mike was fraudulent. Ali is one of the best of all time. Period. As long as someone says you are one of the greatst ever that is all you can really hope for. "The best" is very subjective.Exchamp07 wrote:The same initial thought came to my mind but this is all subjective. What if Iron Mike wasn't convicted of a crime he didn't even commit in the first place and wasn't away for nearly three years? What about Marciano, and the other greats and where they were when they left the sport?billythekid wrote:If he isn't already?Hagler2002 wrote:Would he have become the greatest heavyweight of all time?
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
(slightly shorter version)
This thread exposes a lot of misconceptions about Ali that many fans have.
Verballistic's post is a joke. If someone is going to suggest that Ali is not the greatest Heavyweight on the basis that he should have lost to Young, then I would have to say that person is a moron. Ali was not even a shell of his former self against Young. Compare that fight to one of his 60's fights and tell me its the same fighter.
Anyway, there's two prevailing notions in this thread that I disagree with:
The first notion is that if Ali had not had been exiled that he would be less popular, and therefore he was better off with the layoff. My first reaction is; who cares? Boxers can be famous without any of that other stuff. My second reaction is; why do people assume that Ali is the only fighter whose status is effected by his popularity? Are you suggesting that Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano's status' as Heavyweight champions is not effected by their popularity, and the nostalgia surrounding them? Hell, you could even say that of more recent champions like Tyson and Holyfield. My third reaction is; I just disagree. Sure, Ali wouldn't be quite as respected by a certain segment of the population if he hadn't refused induction. But is anyone seriously going to tell me that there aren't thousands-if not millions-of people in this country who don't like Ali because of the draft controversy? His popularity would be more leveled out than actually hurt.
Another thing I disagree with is something Ezzard mentioned, that if there had been no layoff that Ali would have burned out sooner. I don't totally disagree, but I wouldn't go quite as far as Ezzard does. Ali in those years would have faced only one fighter who would have given him a tough fight, and that was Frazier. More importantly this is 60's Ali, and 60's Ali doesn't get hit as much as 70's Ali. So I would say that he'll have less wear and tear and therefore its not safe to assume that without a three year layoff that Ali in 74 would be Ali in 77. He might slow down a little sooner, but not to that extreme.
Now, to the actual point of this thread: Ali is the greatest Heavyweight champion, but if there's any doubt now that Ali is the greatest Heavyweight champion-and again, a majority of the doubt comes from people who don't like Ali, not really because of what he did in his career in comparison to other Heavyweights-there very likely wouldn't be if there was no layoff.
Ali had nine defenses with his defeat of Zora Folley. Who would Ali be fighting if there were no layoff? Bonavena, Ellis, Quarry, Mathis, Foster, etc. In other words, most of the guys he beat in the 70's. The difference would be that Ali would be at his peak, and those guys would still be maturing and gaining ring experience. The idea that Frazier beats Ali in the 60's is, to me, another example of the distorted perception people have of Ali because of the layoff. Ali out boxed Frazier for 6 rounds in the first fight, using his movement and the remnants of the leg speed he had in the 60's; and then hit a wall. He had no energy in the remaining 9 rounds, only fought in spurts which were few and far between, and this was a direct result of the 3 1/2 year layoff. Ali in the 60's would be an active champion without any ring rust, would be able to use his leg speed and movement to their fullest potential, something that he was not able to show in the 70's Frazier fights... and he would be able to do it for 15 rounds, unlike in the first Frazier fight.
So that's another five title defenses. Add likely rematches with Frazier, Quarry, Patterson, Chuvalo, and the occasional stay busy fight, and that puts him close to 25. At that point he might well retire, who else would there be for him to fight? The question to me isn't so much "would Ali be the beat Heavyweight?" He already is. The questions I have are; without a layoff, does he break Louis' defense record? I would say yes, he was on pace. Does he retire before he breaks Marciano's undefeated record? That I'm not sure of. He might figure that he's beaten everyone and retire before reaching his 49th fight. If he doesn't retire before 1973, does he fight Norton and Foreman? There's a good chance. I would say those fights likely go the way the real fights did in the 70's, Ali going 1-1 with Norton and beating Foreman. And so, assuming Ali doesn't retire before 1973, I would say he likely beats most of the guys he beat in his real life career, but he would have the extra accolades of having a long, uninterrupted title reign where he likely breaks Louis' record (and does it against better opponents), and we would have seen him in his best years, defeating his best opposition. The Frazier loss likely wouldn't be there, though the first Norton loss might, and he might even stick around long enough to beat Foreman.
This thread exposes a lot of misconceptions about Ali that many fans have.
Verballistic's post is a joke. If someone is going to suggest that Ali is not the greatest Heavyweight on the basis that he should have lost to Young, then I would have to say that person is a moron. Ali was not even a shell of his former self against Young. Compare that fight to one of his 60's fights and tell me its the same fighter.
Anyway, there's two prevailing notions in this thread that I disagree with:
The first notion is that if Ali had not had been exiled that he would be less popular, and therefore he was better off with the layoff. My first reaction is; who cares? Boxers can be famous without any of that other stuff. My second reaction is; why do people assume that Ali is the only fighter whose status is effected by his popularity? Are you suggesting that Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano's status' as Heavyweight champions is not effected by their popularity, and the nostalgia surrounding them? Hell, you could even say that of more recent champions like Tyson and Holyfield. My third reaction is; I just disagree. Sure, Ali wouldn't be quite as respected by a certain segment of the population if he hadn't refused induction. But is anyone seriously going to tell me that there aren't thousands-if not millions-of people in this country who don't like Ali because of the draft controversy? His popularity would be more leveled out than actually hurt.
Another thing I disagree with is something Ezzard mentioned, that if there had been no layoff that Ali would have burned out sooner. I don't totally disagree, but I wouldn't go quite as far as Ezzard does. Ali in those years would have faced only one fighter who would have given him a tough fight, and that was Frazier. More importantly this is 60's Ali, and 60's Ali doesn't get hit as much as 70's Ali. So I would say that he'll have less wear and tear and therefore its not safe to assume that without a three year layoff that Ali in 74 would be Ali in 77. He might slow down a little sooner, but not to that extreme.
Now, to the actual point of this thread: Ali is the greatest Heavyweight champion, but if there's any doubt now that Ali is the greatest Heavyweight champion-and again, a majority of the doubt comes from people who don't like Ali, not really because of what he did in his career in comparison to other Heavyweights-there very likely wouldn't be if there was no layoff.
Ali had nine defenses with his defeat of Zora Folley. Who would Ali be fighting if there were no layoff? Bonavena, Ellis, Quarry, Mathis, Foster, etc. In other words, most of the guys he beat in the 70's. The difference would be that Ali would be at his peak, and those guys would still be maturing and gaining ring experience. The idea that Frazier beats Ali in the 60's is, to me, another example of the distorted perception people have of Ali because of the layoff. Ali out boxed Frazier for 6 rounds in the first fight, using his movement and the remnants of the leg speed he had in the 60's; and then hit a wall. He had no energy in the remaining 9 rounds, only fought in spurts which were few and far between, and this was a direct result of the 3 1/2 year layoff. Ali in the 60's would be an active champion without any ring rust, would be able to use his leg speed and movement to their fullest potential, something that he was not able to show in the 70's Frazier fights... and he would be able to do it for 15 rounds, unlike in the first Frazier fight.
So that's another five title defenses. Add likely rematches with Frazier, Quarry, Patterson, Chuvalo, and the occasional stay busy fight, and that puts him close to 25. At that point he might well retire, who else would there be for him to fight? The question to me isn't so much "would Ali be the beat Heavyweight?" He already is. The questions I have are; without a layoff, does he break Louis' defense record? I would say yes, he was on pace. Does he retire before he breaks Marciano's undefeated record? That I'm not sure of. He might figure that he's beaten everyone and retire before reaching his 49th fight. If he doesn't retire before 1973, does he fight Norton and Foreman? There's a good chance. I would say those fights likely go the way the real fights did in the 70's, Ali going 1-1 with Norton and beating Foreman. And so, assuming Ali doesn't retire before 1973, I would say he likely beats most of the guys he beat in his real life career, but he would have the extra accolades of having a long, uninterrupted title reign where he likely breaks Louis' record (and does it against better opponents), and we would have seen him in his best years, defeating his best opposition. The Frazier loss likely wouldn't be there, though the first Norton loss might, and he might even stick around long enough to beat Foreman.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 31 Aug 2007, 21:24, edited 2 times in total.
Re: If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years
LOLbillythekid wrote:Iron Mike was fraudulent. Ali is one of the best of all time. Period. As long as someone says you are one of the greatst ever that is all you can really hope for. "The best" is very subjective.Exchamp07 wrote:The same initial thought came to my mind but this is all subjective. What if Iron Mike wasn't convicted of a crime he didn't even commit in the first place and wasn't away for nearly three years? What about Marciano, and the other greats and where they were when they left the sport?billythekid wrote: If he isn't already?
Iron Mike was fraudulent, good one!
A few needed that laugh, thank you.
The three year break robbed Ali of what should have been his best years. He would probably have fought Frazier in 1968 (there was really nobody left for him to fight in 1967) andFrazier would not have had the experience to beat him. Granted, Frazier beat him in 1971, but Joe was not the same fighter after that. Ali would probably have retired before his 30th birthday, leaving an empty shell of a heavyweight division behind him.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
The thing with Ali was, he had to change his style when he came back and lost to Frazier...he simpl realized he did not have the top flight attributes that he once had; he had to condition himself in a whole other way than before...and that helped him beat Foreman, Frazier in rematches, Shavers, etc.
Had he not lost those three years I think he would have been too accoustomed to the way he did things, and eventually someone would have figured him out; just like Fuch did for Frazier when he pointed out that Ali wouldn't throw away all he done and learned for one fight...plus add on another three years of wear and tear to the body and you have to wonder, would he have been as effective as he was from 1975 and onward?
He would have more than likely defeated the majority of the avilable contenders of that period, but I agree with some here that he probably wouldn't have been the star that he was, and would have followed in Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey's foot steps as being the most hated and controversial champion in history...
Overall, I still rank him easily into the top 3, three years inactivity or not.
Had he not lost those three years I think he would have been too accoustomed to the way he did things, and eventually someone would have figured him out; just like Fuch did for Frazier when he pointed out that Ali wouldn't throw away all he done and learned for one fight...plus add on another three years of wear and tear to the body and you have to wonder, would he have been as effective as he was from 1975 and onward?
He would have more than likely defeated the majority of the avilable contenders of that period, but I agree with some here that he probably wouldn't have been the star that he was, and would have followed in Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey's foot steps as being the most hated and controversial champion in history...
Overall, I still rank him easily into the top 3, three years inactivity or not.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I think my "moron" description was dead on.
Ali saved a lot of wear and tear during his three year layoff, yes, but by 1976 he had fought his battles with Foreman, Norton, been hit a lot more because of his loss of leg speed... and, oh yeah, had his Frazier trilogy... not sure how many fighters would have come out of Manila the same. Holyfield, and certainly Hopkins, had a lot more left at 34 than Ali did. You can't really make those kinds of comparisons, some fighters are finished at 29 (Armstrong), some are still going strong at 45 (Foreman). Its not a set thing. Ali was basically finished after Manila, to quote Mark Kram "Ali went into Manila as an is, and left it as a was."
Now, I would agree of course that it was a bad move by Ali to come into the Young fight so heavy, 230 which was the heaviest he had ever been to that point in a fight. That was a big part of why he looked so bad (and that was a point that I made in my post), but that said, the wear and tear on Ali was also there, and he should have retired at that stage. The problem was he was making 10 million dollars a fight, which was a number no prior Heavyweight champion had made in an entire career. The point being, he was an old, out of shape fighter who got a close decision over someone he would have probably knocked out in his prime. Not much else to say.
As for your description of Norton as "ordinary", tell that to Larry Holmes and his razor thin split decision win over an older, less motivated Norton. And Norton, again, never met Ali at his best.
I wonder how many people who claim that Jones won have even seen the fight? I'm guessing not many.
I have no problem with Ali not being put into someone's #1 Heavyweight slot, if they evaluate him as such in an honest, non-biased fashion. You don't seem to be in that category.
Young the glorified journeyman who beat Foreman, arguably beat Norton, beat Lyle?verballistic wrote:never said he SHOULD HAVE lost...just that he had way too much trouble with a glorified journeyman like young!!sure, ali was 34 then, but with 3 years off he saved lot of wear and tear on his body and was a very young 34---an age when BETTER-CONDITIONED guys like hopkins & holyfield were no less than 95% at top of their game!!
Ali saved a lot of wear and tear during his three year layoff, yes, but by 1976 he had fought his battles with Foreman, Norton, been hit a lot more because of his loss of leg speed... and, oh yeah, had his Frazier trilogy... not sure how many fighters would have come out of Manila the same. Holyfield, and certainly Hopkins, had a lot more left at 34 than Ali did. You can't really make those kinds of comparisons, some fighters are finished at 29 (Armstrong), some are still going strong at 45 (Foreman). Its not a set thing. Ali was basically finished after Manila, to quote Mark Kram "Ali went into Manila as an is, and left it as a was."
I think you're failing to distinguish between Ali before and after the third Frazier fight. Ali did have a few fights before Manila that he was not in great shape for, Mathis, Patterson II, Norton I come to mind immediately. He paid the price in the Norton fight, and had to avenge it in the rematch. For the most part, however, I think its an unfair generalization to say that Ali wasn't in shape for the majority of his fights in the 70's.verballistic wrote:problem had more to do with lack of conditioning than age...the extra weight may have given ali more power and better ability to take a punch, but he was not nearly as well-conditioned AFTER the 3-year exile as he was before!!and his 2 split decisions with an athletic but ordinary ken norton were when ali was only 31!!
Now, I would agree of course that it was a bad move by Ali to come into the Young fight so heavy, 230 which was the heaviest he had ever been to that point in a fight. That was a big part of why he looked so bad (and that was a point that I made in my post), but that said, the wear and tear on Ali was also there, and he should have retired at that stage. The problem was he was making 10 million dollars a fight, which was a number no prior Heavyweight champion had made in an entire career. The point being, he was an old, out of shape fighter who got a close decision over someone he would have probably knocked out in his prime. Not much else to say.
As for your description of Norton as "ordinary", tell that to Larry Holmes and his razor thin split decision win over an older, less motivated Norton. And Norton, again, never met Ali at his best.
After having re-watched Clay vs. Jones a few weeks ago for the third or fourth time, and having again come to the conclusion that no logical person could give the fight to Jones, I again maintain that you are indeed a moron.verballistic wrote:since you asked me to compare the young fight with another fight in 1960s, you couldnt pick a better example than ali's GIFT DECISION against tough, but limited doug jones...before he even fought liston!!
I wonder how many people who claim that Jones won have even seen the fight? I'm guessing not many.
As opposed to the hype and nostalgia around Louis and Marciano, who never faced opponents who were as good as Ali's? Ali, along with Louis, beat more Hall of Famer's than any other fighter, besides Robinson. And the difference in quality between the Hall of Famers Ali beat and those Louis beat is pretty wide. Baer vs. Liston, Schmeling vs. Foreman, Walcott vs. Frazier..?verballistic wrote:not saying the guy is not one of the best HWs, just that he had lots of folks suckered with the "i am the greatest" routine & he NEVER was as good as he had folks believing!!
Biggest moron in the thread? That fits you just right.verballistic wrote:greatest showman of alltime? undisputed!!
greatest trash-talker? the grandaddy of the artform!!
greatest inspiration for the birth of hiphop music?!? he's the man!!
greatest HW of alltime?!? top 5!!
I have no problem with Ali not being put into someone's #1 Heavyweight slot, if they evaluate him as such in an honest, non-biased fashion. You don't seem to be in that category.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 01 Sep 2007, 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I agree with decagon here. Lets hear some reasons, rather than the typical tripe.verballistic wrote:joe louis IS the greatest HW we've seen yet & would have beaten ali, marciano, etc in HIS pime!!Decagon wrote:Now this is just a stupid topic. People are saying that Ali isn't the Greatest of All Time without suggesting who is, and I'm sick of hearing this crap over and over again. There are plenty of good arguments why Joe Louis is the Greatest of All Time, but people here seem too stupid to make them. Joe Louis was a great boxer, and I wish that instead of idiots tearing down Ali all the time, they would - for once - say why Joe Louis is the Greatest of All Time.
Excellent point! I believe thats the definitive reason why Ali should be ranked over Louis.As opposed to the hype and nostalgia around Louis and Marciano, who never faced opponents who were as good as Ali's? Ali, along with Louis, beat more Hall of Famer's than any other fighter, besides Robinson. And the difference in quality between the Hall of Famers Ali beat and those Louis beat is pretty wide. Baer vs. Liston, Schmeling vs. Foreman, Walcott vs. Frazier..?
Not only did Ali beat nine World Champions (Archie Moore, Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, Ernie Terrell, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Ken Norton, Bob Foster and Leon Spinks) the only men to beat him were World Champions ( Frazier, Spinks, Norton, Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick). Not many men have a record like that.
Jimmy Young a glourified journeyman???verballistic wrote:just that he hadway too much trouble with a glorified journeyman like young!!
I have to strongly disagree with your opinion on this. before the drink and drugs took their hold on Jimmy Young he was one of the smartest and most skilled Heavyweights of the modern era. He was an outstanding defencive fighter although he did lack power at the top level he could still dig well to the body. His chin was also made of iron.He was thrown to the wolves early in his career and whilst still a novice professional fought the likes of Earnie Shavers and the much avoided Roy 'Tiger' Williams. This may have finished many a fighter but Young learnt from these fights and became a better fighter, sparring many a punishing round with Joe Frazier and taking part in many gym wars in Philly also helped mould Young into a very capable fighter. He later fought a draw with Earnie Shavers and by all acounts (and not for the last time) Young got shafted by the judges that night.
Journeymen fighters do not beat George Foreman, they also don't give near peak fighters like Ron Lyle Boxing lessons. Ron Lyle was a beast of a fighter but Young almost played with him.
Even when Jimmy Young was a drug addict and a shell of the fighter he had been he still had the skills to give many a young, future Champion like Page, Tubbs & Dokes etc a good fight.
Jimmy Young was screwed by Boxing 'politics' then fell to his own demons but he was far, far more than a 'glorified journeyman'.
You also suggest that Ali should have dealt with Ken Norton easier, why is this? Kenny Norton was another excellent fighter who's only clear loss whilst in his prime was to a rampaging George Foreman, no disgrace there. A few years after his 76 fight with Ali a slightly faided Ken Norton gave a near peak Larry Holmes a nightmare of a fight and lost a razor tight decision. Or are you also saying Larry Holmes is overated as well?
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Yeah, it was. They tried a lot of different ways to try to get a fight, they tried to get fights in Indian casinos, they asked permission to go to Mexico and come back right after the fight, but it wasn't possible until Georgia finally let him fight there, where there was no boxing comission, and that's when he fought Quarry.theone wrote:I believe his passport was confiscated.Does anyone know just how the ban was enforced? Could Ali have left the country and fought? Or would he have had to leave his citizenship behind with that move? Or was he banned from even leaving the country?