If Muhammed Ali Hadn't Been Banned For 3 Years

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 02 Sep 2007, 22:10

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.

Oh there's quite a few fighters who either are close, matched or surpassed that, the difference really, is that Ali probably had the highest ratio of victories against the former/current/future champions than any other fighter in history.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 02 Sep 2007, 23:11

Ali's ratio I think spits out to a record of:

Joe Frazier- 2-1-0

Ken Norton- 2-1-0

Larry Holmes 0-1-0

Trevor Berbick 0-1-0

Leon Spinks 1-1-0

Henry Cooper 2-0-0*

Sonny Liston 2-0-0

Karl Mildenberger 1-0-0*

Brian London 1-0-0*

George Chuvalo 2-0-0*

Archie Moore 1-0-0

Jurgen Blin 1-0-0*

That's not including exhibitions with John L Gardner, Ingemar Johansson, etc and it adds up to 15-5-0; but if you take into consideration how Berbick, Spinks and Holmes was when Ali was with Parkinson's and all, that drops the rate to 15-2-0, same as Lewis.

*European/Commonwealth/British/German, etc champions

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 03 Sep 2007, 00:00

Actually I made a mistake:

Joe Frazier- 2-1-0

Ken Norton- 2-1-0

Larry Holmes 0-1-0

Trevor Berbick 0-1-0

Leon Spinks 1-1-0

Henry Cooper 2-0-0*

Sonny Liston 2-0-0

Karl Mildenberger 1-0-0*

Brian London 1-0-0*

George Chuvalo 2-0-0*

Archie Moore 1-0-0

Jurgen Blin 1-0-0*

Floyd Patterson 2-0-0

Ernie Terrell 1-0-0

Richard Dunn 1-0-0*

Alfredo Evangelista 1-0-0*

Jean-Pierre Coopman 1-0-0*

Joe Bugner 2-0-0*

George Foreman 1-0-0

Bob Foster 1-0-0

Buster Mathis 1-0-0

Jimmy Ellis 1-0-0

Oscar Bonavena 1-0-0*

Ruddi Lubbers- 1-0-0*

Chuck Wepner 1-0-0

That adds up to 30-5-0, but again, if you take into account that Spinks, Holmes and Berbick was when Ali had Parkinson's, that drops to 30-2.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Sep 2007, 00:10

Obviously they fought in different era's, there were more titles around when Lewis was champion. The legitimate champions Ali fought were Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman, Spinks and Holmes. The ones Lewis fought were Holyfield, Tyson and Rahman. That would make them 8-3 and 3-1-1. If you add Light Heavyweight champions then Ali is 10-3.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Sep 2007, 00:49

There were, but two of the four "major" ones hadn't been made yet, and the WBA and WBC titles were unified for much of that time.

During Ali's era you had Terrell, Ellis and Norton who had belts but weren't considered "lineal" champions, and later Berbick would win a belt. During Lewis' you had WBO belt holders throughout his career, including Mercer, Morrison, Akinwande and later Briggs. You had McCall and Bruno who won WBC belts that weren't lineal, you had Klitschko who held both WBO and later WBC, you had paper title holders from the 80's like Weaver and Tucker. If there had been WBO belts around in the 70's Quarry, Bonavena, Lyle and some other Ali opponents likely would have won them.

Dempsey1238 · Post by **Dempsey1238** » 03 Sep 2007, 01:25

For these saying Ali retires unbeating, and perhaps over the 49-0 mark, I hate to say it, but Ali was not relly the type to retire when he needed to.
Even with the 3 years, Ali would have fought on, he may not have lost to Fraizer or Norton perhaps. But Larry Holmes would always be there.

Brute · Post by **Brute** » 03 Sep 2007, 07:12

BoxBuzz wrote: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?

He could probably have left the country and taken citizenship in any country before going to court, but chose not to because he never wanted to be any other nationality than American. The reason he refused to be drafted was because he knew the Johnson administration would have used him as an example to young blacks (Your champion accepted the draft, why won't you?) and black men were being killed wholesale in the Vietnam War. There was no way he would have been sent to Vietnam except on a Bob Hope Show.

Loyalty to a country does not have to involve loyalty to an insane chief executive.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 03 Sep 2007, 08:21

I Feel Fine wrote: 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.

I did mention that there were holes in the logic but I wanted to keep the reasoning simple for the sake of debate. I agree that the 3 year lay off does not necessarily translate to adding 3 years on to his career.

My feeling is that had Ali not had the 3 year lay off then the fights with Frazier, Norton, Foreman and Young would have been more difficult for him. Had he lost the 3rd Frazier (just as an example) fight I'd still consider him the greatest HW but would ne be quite as convinced by my own argument as I currently am.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 03 Sep 2007, 08:23

harrygreb wrote:comparing ali in his later years to peak foreman, peak frazier etc doesnt work.
simply put ali at his peak (or when he would have been) '67, '68 and he beats everyone including marciano.

Harry

In a greatness debate of course we wouldn't compare in this way. I was trying to work out the way his career might have gone in order to speculate on how me might percieve him.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 03 Sep 2007, 08:27

Precisely. It's always best to take great care as to how one uses the power of the speculum.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Sep 2007, 12:42

Ezzard wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote: 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.
I did mention that there were holes in the logic but I wanted to keep the reasoning simple for the sake of debate. I agree that the 3 year lay off does not necessarily translate to adding 3 years on to his career.

My feeling is that had Ali not had the 3 year lay off then the fights with Frazier, Norton, Foreman and Young would have been more difficult for him. Had he lost the 3rd Frazier (just as an example) fight I'd still consider him the greatest HW but would ne be quite as convinced by my own argument as I currently am.

Yeah, obviously its impossible to tell. I think the Frazier fights (I assume that even if Ali won the first fight there might still be more than one) might be easier because they would likely happen in that 68-70 period, but I don't know how the Foreman and Norton fights would be different without the layoff. I figure he would still go 1-1 with Norton and would still likely beat Foreman, but who knows? I'm not even sure if he would still be fighting by the time Young was ready for a title shot, though there's a possibility.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 03 Sep 2007, 12:50

So many factors but if Foreman had not blown Frazier and Norton away and had challenged Ali (if he was still champ) the he may have had the initiative, in that he would be more of an unknown quantity.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 03 Sep 2007, 13:02

Yeah. Frazier was supposed to be the big favorite with Foreman, and the idea was he would stop George and then fight Ali again. Maybe if Ali had that attitude about Foreman he might not win, or even if he does it might be a much tougher fight.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 04 Sep 2007, 01:02

all i can think is what did we miss out on seeing?

if he had those 3 years he wouldnt of lost the condition he did during the lay-off... but it impossible to say wot would or wouldnt of happened all we can do is assume all i think we know for sure is we missed out on seein 1 hell of an unbeatable fighter... but to come back from 3 years of not having a fight and beat bonevena and quarry was a super human feat... cus d'mato was amazed and told ali he wouldnt beat quarry with a 3 year lay off

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 04 Sep 2007, 13:06

Ezzard wrote:
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.

(the 3 extra years would have taken their toll)

The 3 years of wear and tear on his body would have had an impact.

I think this is somewhat flawed...What "wear and tear"...how much "wear and tear" did he endure from '64 - '67? Damn little!...How much "wear and tear" would have he suffered from '67 - '70??? Who, other than Frazier...was going to "wear and tear" Ali during those 3 1/2 years?

Ali suffered far more (physically) by the 3 1/2 year layoff than he ever would have by 3 1/2 more years of "wear and tear"...

Ali's layoff resulted in diminished skills (speed and reflexes) that Ali never completely recovered...

Frazier did his best work against Ali while Ali laid on the ropes...a direct result of the layoff induced diminished skills...an Ali who could still move on his feet, like the 1967 version, fights Frazier COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than the 3/8/71 fight, Ali never needed to lay on the ropes in the '60's, he was well conditioned, young and fast...Frazier would have still been his toughest opponent....and Frazier may have looked good a few rounds...but I don't see him winning more than a few rounds in a 1968 fight, watch the '68 Frazier - Mathis fight...Ali wouldn't have run out of gas like Buster...and he wouldn't be laying on the ropes, catching hooks and giving away rounds like the post-layoff Ali...

Ali's "wear and tear" came from the layoff...he didn't have the speed, reflexes & endurance he had earlier...and when he came back, he had to stand and fight (and absorb heavy punishment in the process)...something he rarely had to do to win fights earlier in his career...

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 04 Sep 2007, 14:32

buster mathis always seemed to run out of gas..must have been all that dancing he used to do

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Sep 2007, 16:01

Dec, Have you been hitting the sauce? He is talking about Ali, not Tyson.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Sep 2007, 17:04

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
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.

(the 3 extra years would have taken their toll)

The 3 years of wear and tear on his body would have had an impact.
I think this is somewhat flawed...What "wear and tear"...how much "wear and tear" did he endure from '64 - '67? Damn little!...How much "wear and tear" would have he suffered from '67 - '70??? Who, other than Frazier...was going to "wear and tear" Ali during those..........

I said pretty much all of that already on page 1, though a little less harshly. Ezzard clarified what he was saying on page 2.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Sep 2007, 17:11

Ambling Alp wrote:Dec, Have you been hitting the sauce? He is talking about Ali, not Tyson.

Ali-Douglas was not that well advertized. A lot of people missed it.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 04 Sep 2007, 21:17

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Sep 2007, 22:29

DaveV17 wrote:I feel fine wrote about Ali, "He paid the price in the Norton fight, and had to avenge it in the rematch."

Ali never avenged anything with Norton. Ali lost the first and third fights big, the second one was closer, but Norton probably won it too. Ali and Norton both know who won the fights. Norton always says that he beat Ali all three times. The third fight is the worst decision I have seen in a championship fight.

That's your limited opinion.

Firstly, I thought Ali won the second fight and Norton the third, so to me Norton won the trilogy. However, I was focusing on the first two fights which took place in 1973, because I don't know if Ali is still fighting in 1976 if there is no layoff.

As for the real life Ali-Norton trilogy; a couple of points. First off, Norton was in his prime while Ali was not, so regardless of anything Norton never met Ali at Ali's peak. But more importantly there were the circumstances behind the fights. Norton was a nobody going into the first fight, and Ali trained two weeks for the fight and was clearly not in very good condition. His timing was off, he looked sloppy, and he was a bit over weight. And, possibly because of that reason, he got his jaw broken in the fight. And all of that is Ali's fault. Still, you can't say that was Ali at 100%. Anyway, then Ali won the second fight. If it was closer than some might have expected it was because Ali had a hand injury in the fight and as result threw very few right hands throughout the fight, maybe 2-3 a round. The hand was still injured in his next fight with Lubbers. In the third fight Ali was old and shot, coming off Manila, and he should have been retired at that stage. Still, to claim Ali-Norton III is the worst decision in championship history is blatant bias against Ali. Lewis-Holyfield, Whitaker-Chavez, Louis-Walcott I, Holmes-Spinks II were a bit worse than Ali-Norton III.

I'm sure some will say that these are excuses, but on the other hand people seem to understand that Holyfield wasn't 100% in his losses to Moorer and Bowe III, and that was within a span of three fights for Hoylfield. People accept that Robinson got old in the midst of his Fullmer series, and that he was far past his best when Fullmer won the fourth fight. Ali clearly wasn't 100% for the Norton fights. That's not to say Norton wouldn't always give him difficulties, if Ali had been out of shape or had a hand injury or had been 34 he still would have beaten a Quarry or an Ellis or a Bonavena. Ali clearly had problems with Norton and his style. Still, it wasn't all Norton. But shit happens in sports, and probably boxing in particular, and you have to deal with it. Ali never dodged Norton or quit because of his maladies in their three fights, while many fighters might have. Pep is the greatest fighter of all time to some people and he had to quit in his corner in two of the four Saddler fights.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 05 Sep 2007, 00:18

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Sep 2007, 01:13

DaveV17 wrote:Ali never performed much if any better against Norton than he did in the first fight, so it is hard to make the case that conditioning was the reason he lost the first time. Ali had too much pride to face Norton the second time at anything less than 100% so I doubt the injured hand story. That story might be accepted by certain boxing people, but Ali wanted to win that fight and he wanted to win impressively. He didn't win impressively, and he probably didn't win it at all. The third fight was not even close, Norton was robbed. Ali did not want to have a 4th fight with Norton.

Norton's style was a style that troubled Ali and IMO, it always would.

What a bunch of bull. Ali talked about this in the post fight interview of the Norton rematch. Ali had to get injections in his hand. This was no secret. Ferdie Pacheco has talked about this, he had to inject Ali in the webs of his hands with Novocain. Cosell brought it up during the Lubbers fight. Ali, in the Norton rematch, rarely threw more than four right hands in a single round. He relied almost exclusively on his jab, and its not that there weren't opportunities to throw more right hands, there clearly were. On top of that, he didn't throw any serious right hands for the first six rounds of the Lubbers fight. Going into denial, are we? Anyway, it was closer than it should have been, but Ali won and not many dispute it. I think you're pushing it there.

Ali clearly trained better for the rematches, this would be rather evident to anyone who has seen the fights. And, again, the third fight was a bad decision, I thought Norton won, but suggesting that it is the very worst robbery in championship history shows definite lack of boxing knowledge. Hell, I've encountered people who thought Ali won.

As for Norton's style, I agree that it would always give Ali problems, but it was not the only factor. He never met Ali in his prime nor at 100%.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Sep 2007, 04:29

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
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.

(the 3 extra years would have taken their toll)

The 3 years of wear and tear on his body would have had an impact.
I think this is somewhat flawed...What "wear and tear"...how much "wear and tear" did he endure from '64 - '67? Damn little!...How much "wear and tear" would have he suffered from '67 - '70??? Who, other than Frazier...was going to "wear and tear" Ali during those 3 1/2 years?

Ali suffered far more (physically) by the 3 1/2 year layoff than he ever would have by 3 1/2 more years of "wear and tear"...

Ali's layoff resulted in diminished skills (speed and reflexes) that Ali never completely recovered...

Frazier did his best work against Ali while Ali laid on the ropes...a direct result of the layoff induced diminished skills...an Ali who could still move on his feet, like the 1967 version, fights Frazier COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than the 3/8/71 fight, Ali never needed to lay on the ropes in the '60's, he was well conditioned, young and fast...Frazier would have still been his toughest opponent....and Frazier may have looked good a few rounds...but I don't see him winning more than a few rounds in a 1968 fight, watch the '68 Frazier - Mathis fight...Ali wouldn't have run out of gas like Buster...and he wouldn't be laying on the ropes, catching hooks and giving away rounds like the post-layoff Ali...

Ali's "wear and tear" came from the layoff...he didn't have the speed, reflexes & endurance he had earlier...and when he came back, he had to stand and fight (and absorb heavy punishment in the process)...something he rarely had to do to win fights earlier in his career...

I did point out that I over-simplified the argument for the sake of debate.

You don't seriously think that if Ali had not had the layoff that he would have still been champion in 1977?

Just being in the gym etc... just running the streets and parks wears your body out. These may be minimal but even the slightest changes mean a lot at the very top of sporting excellence.

I over-emphasised the effect but Ali's diminished physical ability was obvious because he hadn't fought for 3 years. Had he fought in those years the fall off would have been more gradual and less obvious.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Sep 2007, 04:32

In the early 1980s footballer Paolo Rossi was banned from playing. In the 1982 world cup he ahdn't kicked a ball in 12 months previous. In his first game he looked rusty.

The commentators all said it was madness even playing a man with no practice. Brian Clough disagreed and pointed out that he'd have an 18 month holiday and should be fresh.

Rossi was top scorer in the tournament and Italy won the world cup.

It does not necessarily translate to Ali but it does prove that there are advantages as well as disadvantages to a layoff.