BoxRec

Posted: **10 Jul 2013, 07:21**

My guess is that he'd have continued to dominate the 1960s. As long as he didn't sustain any serious injuries he'd have racked up probably 6 or 7 more defences...possibly a higher number than that. At the time he was stripped what had he had 9? 10? So that means he'd have an amazingly impressive number of defences.

Eventually he loses to Frazier. Then he loses again to Norton.

At that point he has nothing left to prove. No need to put it to The Man or the government or the draft or anyone... I don't see him as having the same motivation. He might well have retired. He'd have had one of the greatest reigns of all time behind him. Nothing left to prove.

Or he may have stayed on (or retired and comeback). But you can't fight for an extra 7+ title defences and it not have an effect on your longevity. So I'd see his 70s career tapering off sooner than it did.

Posted: **10 Jul 2013, 13:09**

Ali was addicted to the limelight. Can't imagine him making just 6 or 7 more defenses and retiring by the 70's.
Financially, those 3 1/2 lost years did him a favor. He wouldn't have earned anywhere near the same amount of money if his career went uninterrupted and he retired by '74.
Paydays against Frazier and Foreman would have been much less. The draft thing made him a much bigger, iconic figure, and the purses were inflated accordingly. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, et. al should thank him for his draft decision. They profited too.

Posted: **10 Jul 2013, 14:17**

SenorPipino wrote:Ali was addicted to the limelight. Can't imagine him making just 6 or 7 more defenses and retiring by the 70's.
Financially, those 3 1/2 lost years did him a favor. He wouldn't have earned anywhere near the same amount of money if his career went uninterrupted and he retired by '74.
Paydays against Frazier and Foreman would have been much less. The draft thing made him a much bigger, iconic figure, and the purses were inflated accordingly. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, et. al should thank him for his draft decision. They profited too.

Excellent point.

Posted: **11 Jul 2013, 06:15**

SenorPipino wrote:Ali was addicted to the limelight. Can't imagine him making just 6 or 7 more defenses and retiring by the 70's.
Financially, those 3 1/2 lost years did him a favor. He wouldn't have earned anywhere near the same amount of money if his career went uninterrupted and he retired by '74.
Paydays against Frazier and Foreman would have been much less. The draft thing made him a much bigger, iconic figure, and the purses were inflated accordingly. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, et. al should thank him for his draft decision. They profited too.

All good points. Agree with most of it.

But Ali had a lot to prove after the draft. Those fires burnt brightly within him. Without the draft he's not earning as much (like you say). He's not such a big story.

And, does have the same will to win? Does he have as much to prove?

I'm not saying a definite no. But I think it's a reasonable question.

Posted: **11 Jul 2013, 20:54**

The Great John L wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure why being off for 3 and a half years would make someone tougher. If anything, you would think someone would be less tough mentally being out of the ring. He was always tough. You don't beat Sonny Liston without being tough. You certainly don't stand in there almost blind for the better part of a round against Sonny Liston without being tough.

Would Ali have got even better in his late 20's if he was not banned? Possibly, who knows.
You can't understand how taking on the US government as well as the US establishment and beating them at their own game might make him mentally tougher than winning a handful of fights, with possibly none of them really posing a challenge?

No, I don't see how that is going to help him at all once he is in a ring in a boxing match. Besides, he really only "beat the goverment" when the Supreme Court ruled in his favor and he already had several comeback fights by then.

Posted: **11 Jul 2013, 21:04**

Ezzard wrote:What he gained in the 60s he'd have lost in the 70s. That's how I see it.

Probably worked out the best for him.

He certainly had a lot to prove because of the layoff. Made him more determined.

It hurt him in the short run, hard to say in the long run.
Obviously when he first came back after the long layoff, he wasn't the fighter he had once been. His speed, reflexes, and stamina had greatly declined. He had to fight several fights to get rid of the ring rust.

In the long run it is hard to say. Perhaps his body would have worn out faster after taking several fights in those 3 and half years. (He would have had at least 10 fights in that time period.) On the other hand, he was not taking that much punishment during his first title reign and probably would not have taken that much during the years that he missed. He also took more punishment in his first several comeback fights than he would have had he not been rusty.
Hard to say; a lot of speculating on what would have happened.

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 16:38**

BoxBuzz wrote:When Frazier knocked him down, I think it was the back of Ali's head that hit the canvas. So no...not his peak.

Yancey can you confirm?

Ali's ample ass was clocked doing 170 MPH when it hit the Garden canvas that night.

Not sure about the noggin.

Joe Frazier prevailed in far and away the most important fight of the trilogy.

The one with the whole world stopped and watching, the one where both men were closest to their peaks, the fight that was arguably one of the supreme sporting moments of the 20th century, and the fight where both men knew was their ultimate test. The better man won.

Don't believe the hype bullshit that Ali underestimated Joe. He knew what he was getting into that night.

Don't believe the crap that Dundee and others put out later that Ali was not ready. Ali had NINE times more rounds in the ring than Frazier did in the 6 months preceding the fight.

Ali wasn't coming off a fractured ankle suffered less than a year before the match. Frazier was.

Ali wasn't dealing with multiple health issues coming into the fight. Frazier was.

I give Ali credit. Actually I think he did rise to his peak in the FOTC and fought one hell of a fight to go 15 rounds that night.

The Ali that night was tougher and savvier than any version of Ali, before and other. He had to be. There is your answer as to a "peak".

It is to Ali's ADVANTAGE to claim that Williams in '66 was his peak. He and his camp will always spin things for the media and assorted other yokels to swallow.

Interesting that Ali's initial reaction in the unguarded moments after the FOTC was that Frazier took him fair and square. Then the hype machine about the "layoff" took over. What a joke.

The other two fights paled in comparison to the Big One.

Ali's dirty tactics horribly tainted the second fight and the slow motion affair in Manila is basically for folks like Giancarlo to spend time in contemplative reflection reviewing.

Cheers

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 18:01**

Is Saad still around?

Like him or not, he is an astute guy and has a considered and objective take on this Ali "peak" business.

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 18:33**

klompton wrote:Ali did not beat Frazier the first time around.

The second time is debateable and the only reason he can be given an edge is because he was allowed to hold a record amount of times. Any referee worth his salt would have cut that out within the first three rounds and then its the FOTC all over again. For all his bluster Ali clearly did not want to engage Frazier again as he did in the first fight.

Jimmy Ellis had an interesting observation after Ali returned. He stated that the press kept writing about how Ali was now (after his exile) more flat footed as fights wore on. He stated that Ali always set down more as fights wore on but nobody paid much attention to it because he had so few fights that went long and when he did they relatively unchallenging so he won as he pleased. I agree with this. His legs may not have been as fast as he once was after exile (thats debateable as well) but the idea that throughout his entire pre exile career he could dance for 15 rounds against the quality guys he would face in the 1970s I dont think is true.

Another point about Ali's exile: Its pretty overblown. He was not allowed to box professionally (in the United States) but he still boxed exhibitions and sparred on a regular basis with some of the best boxers in the world. This is one of the reason's (on top of just being damn good) that he was able to come back with such success against such a high level of competition so quickly. Its not like the guy was away from boxing for three years without ever lacing up a glove. He weighed only 2 pounds more against Quarry than he did against Folley and half a pound more against Bonavena than he did against Folley.

Finally, it gets tiresome when people hold up Ali's win over Cleveland Williams as the pinnacle of his abilities. Of course he looked great against Williams. Williams was shot, in every sense of the word. He had not fought a legitimate threat in nearly four years since he lost to Ernie Terrell and never beat anyone else worth mentioning. This is matchmaking designed to make a fighter look invincible and surprise Ali looks invincible. Ask Roy Jones, he knows all about it, he built a career on it.

Hopkins-Calzaghe W Calzaghe
Hopkins-Taylor 2 D
Frazier-Ali 1 W Frazier

Younger Guys,

Read this very astute post again if you really care about the truth and not made up myth from the myth machine.

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 19:30**

Where do you get those myth machines at?

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 19:42**

Ambling Alp II wrote:Where do you get those myth machines at?

You start in Louisville, KY, where they were first manufactured.

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 20:05**

gilgamesh wrote:
CrazyHorse wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:Hard to say, I can't imagine that he would've been anything less than phenomenal during the years when he was exiled from the sport, and I also figure if not for his exile he wouldn't have struggled so badly with Bonavena in 1970.

The real question is would Joe Frazier have ever been Champion if not for his absence?
Yeah my dad always keeps telling me he thinks Frazier would never have become champion. He wouldn't have lost to Frazier. And that Ali should have had 1 or 2 more tune ups before his first fight with Frazier because he needed to fully shake off the rust before getting in there with a beast like Frazier
It's hard to say, Ali was always troubled by guys who pressured him and were physically stronger. Frazier fits that bill definitely.

I think Frazier definitely would've always been a handful for him, but considering I think Ali DID in fact beat Frazier all 3 times they fought (including the fight of the century, I had it 9 rounds to 6 for Ali)...I gotta believe without the exile he would've beaten Frazier in 1969 or 1970. Whether or not the fight under these mythical circumstances would've been great enough to merit a rematch is another debate to be had.

9-6 Ali, eh?

Well, you are certainly acquainted with the mythical.

Maybe for your next trick you can tell us all about Vito's draw with Marvin.

Posted: **12 Jul 2013, 20:38**

Must be some reference to Marvin Hart, Jimmy Ellis, or Greg Page.

There is also apparently a machines that gives you excuses for all of your pro losses.

Apparently you can get one that has classics like;

1. I just wasn't right.
2.He held too much (Doesn't matter that he hit me a lot more than I hit him, I was saved in the 2nd round by an imaginary bell, or that Jack Johnson, Lennox Lewis, John Ruiz held more than my opponent did.)
3. "I would have won except my horrible trainer stopped the fight". Doesn't matter that I could not see the other guys punches, that I did not complain about the stoppage at the time, or that had that I had horrible trainer in my corner for my next fight.
4. I am such a dumba$$ that I wore contacts in a fight so that is why I lost.

Another feature is the summation of your career: In all of my losses, I was not at my best. In all of my wins, my opponents were at their best.

Special Tidbit-Beating an opponent once out of three is better than winning two out of three.

As a special bonus the machine will even give you an excuse for a key amateur loss. How about" I lost because my opponent's trunks were too high".

Posted: **13 Jul 2013, 03:26**

yancey wrote: Ali's dirty tactics horribly tainted the second fight

libelous offensive blathering redacted in the spirit of good will toward men

"Abocrombie and Fitch"

Yo.

Posted: **13 Jul 2013, 04:06**

yancey wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:Where do you get those myth machines at?
You start in Louisville, KY, where they were first manufactured.

Was Ali also involved somehow in 9/11?

Honestly Yancey, I love Smokin' Joe, but some people love him so much they develop a cognitive bias against Muhammad Ali and gobble up the most absurd Ali conspiracy theories.

We haven't been brainwashed friend, Ali's career really was extraordinary. So was Frazier's.

Posted: **13 Jul 2013, 11:19**

loaded_gloves wrote:
yancey wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:Where do you get those myth machines at?
You start in Louisville, KY, where they were first manufactured.
Was Ali also involved somehow in 9/11?

Honestly Yancey, I love Smokin' Joe, but some people love him so much they develop a cognitive bias against Muhammad Ali and gobble up the most absurd Ali conspiracy theories.

We haven't been brainwashed friend, Ali's career really was extraordinary. So was Frazier's.

For someone supposedly so rabidly pro-Joe and anti-Ali, how come I've always had Ali either #1 or #2 ATG and Frazier farther down around 6th?

I'm sorry, but some of you are a bit short on critical thinking skills.

I'm perfectly willing to see the crap that comes from both sides, but I KNOW that there was a great deal of spin that came from the Ali camp and media allies to try to explain away his losing the most important fight of his career.

Frazier was never given his proper credit for winning the FOTC, largely due to the efforts of the Ali myth making machine.

That was just plain wrong.

Posted: **13 Jul 2013, 12:07**

yancey wrote:
gilgamesh wrote: It's hard to say, Ali was always troubled by guys who pressured him and were physically stronger. Frazier fits that bill definitely.

I think Frazier definitely would've always been a handful for him, but considering I think Ali DID in fact beat Frazier all 3 times they fought (including the fight of the century, I had it 9 rounds to 6 for Ali)...I gotta believe without the exile he would've beaten Frazier in 1969 or 1970. Whether or not the fight under these mythical circumstances would've been great enough to merit a rematch is another debate to be had.
9-6 Ali, eh?

Well, you are certainly acquainted with the mythical.

Maybe for your next trick you can tell us all about Vito's draw with Marvin.

I'm gonna watch the FOTC again today, I've never seen Antuofermo's fight with Hagler.

Posted: **13 Jul 2013, 12:39**

Would not be that surprised if someone thinks that; I once heard that Ali was in his prime when he lost to Spinks, so not much surprises me anymore.

Over the years, on this forum people have stated I have heard that Ali should not have got decisions vs Doug Jones, Ken Norton twice, Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers,Alfredo Evangelista, Leon Spinks, and Joe Frazier.
Also, he would have lost to Cooper if he had not got way too much time to recover, both of the Liston fights were fixed, Foreman was not really counted out, Lyle should not have been stopped,Frazier's trainer should have allowed his blind fighter to continue because he would have knocked out Ali in the last round.

However, say that Ali was not as his best following a three and half year layoff, and that is just crazy talk. Not mention, that apparently going 1-2 is better than 2-1 as well, because you can just say the fight your guy won is more important.

Yet somehow, some way, it is the pro "Ali myth machine" that must be stopped.

Posted: **13 Jul 2013, 12:57**

I'm still upset about the fact that Ali gets to go home and rest, and come back with new designer gloves to eventually beat Cooper with.

That was just not right.

Posted: **14 Jul 2013, 15:28**

gilgamesh wrote:
yancey wrote:
gilgamesh wrote: It's hard to say, Ali was always troubled by guys who pressured him and were physically stronger. Frazier fits that bill definitely.

I think Frazier definitely would've always been a handful for him, but considering I think Ali DID in fact beat Frazier all 3 times they fought (including the fight of the century, I had it 9 rounds to 6 for Ali)...I gotta believe without the exile he would've beaten Frazier in 1969 or 1970. Whether or not the fight under these mythical circumstances would've been great enough to merit a rematch is another debate to be had.
9-6 Ali, eh?

Well, you are certainly acquainted with the mythical.

Maybe for your next trick you can tell us all about Vito's draw with Marvin.
I'm gonna watch the FOTC again today, I've never seen Antuofermo's fight with Hagler.

Watched the FOTC again this morning, this time I had it 8 rounds to 7 in Frazier's favor...I don't really know how it is I thought Ali got the best of it the first time there are some swing rounds in there, but Frazier definitely lands the more hurtful blows throughout the fight. Ali comes on pretty strong in rounds 12-14 knowing he's not doing so hot, but it wasn't enough to narrow the gap.

Great fight, a pleasure to watch again, and there you have it folks upon rewatching it again in a different state of mind (if you catch my drift

D ) I saw Frazier as the winner. 8 rounds to 7 though, it still was a pretty closely contested bout in my view.

Posted: **14 Jul 2013, 17:21**

Had the FOTC 8-6-1 for Frazier.
Have to chuckle when some opine that Ali having a whole 18 rounds in the previous 4 years was an advantage over Frazier. Yeah sure, that's a lot of activity for a guy who didn't rely on punching power but rather speed and reflexes.
Ali needed at least 2 more fights against durable opponents before taking on the rugged Frazier. He didn't because he was uncertain how the Supreme Court would rule in June 1971 and whether or not he would be imprisoned. He sought the largest purse available to provide for his family in case he languished behind bars for the next 5 years.
Not a myth. The truth.
And somebody thought the Thrilla in Manila was a slow motion affair? Sheesh.

Posted: **14 Jul 2013, 18:13**

SenorPipino wrote:Had the FOTC 8-6-1 for Frazier.
Have to chuckle when some opine that Ali having a whole 18 rounds in the previous 4 years was an advantage over Frazier. Yeah sure, that's a lot of activity for a guy who didn't rely on punching power but rather speed and reflexes.
Ali needed at least 2 more fights against durable opponents before taking on the rugged Frazier. He didn't because he was uncertain how the Supreme Court would rule in June 1971 and whether or not he would be imprisoned. He sought the largest purse available to provide for his family in case he languished behind bars for the next 5 years.
Not a myth. The truth.
And somebody thought the Thrilla in Manila was a slow motion affair? Sheesh.

Let me guess, in your world Ali lost to Holmes because of another "layoff", right?

Those "layoffs" are absolutely devastating to one of such exquisite timing and reflexes, I guess.

I mean, Ali didn't spend one second of time in any gym sparring with not one other boxer between 1967 and 1970,
right?

Next up, I guess it will that sparring in no way remotely resembles actual ring combat and is counter-productive to maintaining one's basic timing and reflexes, right?

If the Ali camp really thought they needed another tune-up or two before the FOTC, it could have been done and the date of the FOTC changed.

The Ali camp felt they were ready and only when the defeat set in did the excuse making start.

Ali was ready on 3/8/71 and just got licked.

And the 1975 fight was in no way fought at the same level as the FOTC.

p.s. Sheesh.

Posted: **14 Jul 2013, 18:40**

yancey wrote:
SenorPipino wrote:Had the FOTC 8-6-1 for Frazier.
Have to chuckle when some opine that Ali having a whole 18 rounds in the previous 4 years was an advantage over Frazier. Yeah sure, that's a lot of activity for a guy who didn't rely on punching power but rather speed and reflexes.
Ali needed at least 2 more fights against durable opponents before taking on the rugged Frazier. He didn't because he was uncertain how the Supreme Court would rule in June 1971 and whether or not he would be imprisoned. He sought the largest purse available to provide for his family in case he languished behind bars for the next 5 years.
Not a myth. The truth.
And somebody thought the Thrilla in Manila was a slow motion affair? Sheesh.

Let me guess, in your world Ali lost to Holmes because of another "layoff", right?

Those "layoffs" are absolutely devastating to one of such exquisite timing and reflexes, I guess.

I mean, Ali didn't spend one second of time in any gym sparring with not one other boxer between 1967 and 1970,
right?

Next up, I guess it will that sparring in no way remotely resembles actual ring combat and is counter-productive to maintaining one's basic timing and reflexes, right?

You don't fool me. Ali was ready on 3/8/71 and just got licked.

And the 1975 fight was in no way fought at the same level as the FOTC.

p.s. Sheesh.

Ali lost to Holmes because he was finished. Being 38, having early stages of Parkinsons, and going up against an ATG, were the reasons he lost.
No, sparring is hardly the same as actual ring combat. I though everyone knew that. You used the correct word though--"resembles." It's might look like actual fight work, but it's not the real thing.
Don't know how much actual sparring Ali had in the 3 1/2 years he laid off (do you?) but in no way did any minimal gym work prepare him fully for an historic comeback.
And why do you deride Ali's layoff and 18 rounds of activity in 1970, yet bemoan Frazier not having had an actual fight for (WOW) 6 months? Actually only 4 months. Was Frazier tainted by a layoff?
Ali was prepared as much as possible in a minimal amount of time. He was in good condition but not good enough. Few fighters could accomplish what he did with so little preparation. Lucky for Frazier he wasn't at his peak level that night.
You're one of the few who actually has something derogatory to say about Manila. Both guys were older but they put on an all-time great classic performance. Only one of the most memorable fights in heavyweight history, and you think it was fought at a "lower level." You should have told that to Ali and Joe.
Sheesh, Sheesh and triple Sheesh.

Posted: **14 Jul 2013, 19:03**

SenorPipino wrote:
yancey wrote:
SenorPipino wrote:Had the FOTC 8-6-1 for Frazier.
Have to chuckle when some opine that Ali having a whole 18 rounds in the previous 4 years was an advantage over Frazier. Yeah sure, that's a lot of activity for a guy who didn't rely on punching power but rather speed and reflexes.
Ali needed at least 2 more fights against durable opponents before taking on the rugged Frazier. He didn't because he was uncertain how the Supreme Court would rule in June 1971 and whether or not he would be imprisoned. He sought the largest purse available to provide for his family in case he languished behind bars for the next 5 years.
Not a myth. The truth.
And somebody thought the Thrilla in Manila was a slow motion affair? Sheesh.

Let me guess, in your world Ali lost to Holmes because of another "layoff", right?

Those "layoffs" are absolutely devastating to one of such exquisite timing and reflexes, I guess.

I mean, Ali didn't spend one second of time in any gym sparring with not one other boxer between 1967 and 1970,
right?

Next up, I guess it will that sparring in no way remotely resembles actual ring combat and is counter-productive to maintaining one's basic timing and reflexes, right?

You don't fool me. Ali was ready on 3/8/71 and just got licked.

And the 1975 fight was in no way fought at the same level as the FOTC.

p.s. Sheesh.

Ali lost to Holmes because he was finished. Being 38, having early stages of Parkinsons, and going up against an ATG, were the reasons he lost.
No, sparring is hardly the same as actual ring combat. I though everyone knew that. You used the correct word though--"resembles." It's might look like actual fight work, but it's not the real thing.
Don't know how much actual sparring Ali had in the 3 1/2 years he laid off (do you?) but in no way did any minimal gym work prepare him fully for an historic comeback.
And why do you deride Ali's layoff and 18 rounds of activity in 1970, yet bemoan Frazier not having had an actual fight for (WOW) 6 months? Actually only 4 months. Was Frazier tainted by a layoff?
Ali was prepared as much as possible in a minimal amount of time. He was in good condition but not good enough. Few fighters could accomplish what he did with so little preparation. Lucky for Frazier he wasn't at his peak level that night.
You're one of the few who actually has something derogatory to say about Manila. Both guys were older but they put on an all-time great classic performance. Only one of the most memorable fights in heavyweight history, and you think it was fought at a "lower level." You should have told that to Ali and Joe.
Sheesh, Sheesh and triple Sheesh.

Of course sparring is not exactly the same as actual rounds in a fight, but it is conducive to maintaining and/or sharpening one's skills leading up to an actual fight.

Have you maybe noticed that sparring is an essential element of training camps leading up to fights?

Ali spent considerable time in the gym during that big, bad layoff. Do you think he could stay away from boxing?

He looked good against Quarry in '70. Bonavena, an awkward but strong guy, was very difficult for anyone to look good against. Had Ali fought '70 Oscar in '67 it still would have been an awkward fight.

Ali was ready on 3/8/71. I'm not fooled by the myth making machine.

And of course I was being sarcastic about the layoff before the Holmes fight.

And Manila was a great fight, but if you really think it was fought at the same level as the FOTC, then you, sir, are a dope.

p.s. Quadruple Sheesh.

Posted: **14 Jul 2013, 21:10**

Il Duce wrote:It was a good thing that Muhammad Ali didn't fight Eduardo Corletti in early 1968.

Duce, I really appreciate your attention to detail. But I've never known you to openly demonstrate a sense of humor. Maybe I have missed something. So I had a hard time with what you were trying to say about Corletti. Wasn't his big moment outpointing Chuvalo a year or two earlier? Was this the "missing match" I was referring to earlier? This would have been Ali's undoing? Corletti?

BoxRec

Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?

Re: Did Ali really hit his "Peak"?