BoxRec

Ali should have retired after the third Norton fight, in 1976. He was lucky to win the decision that nod, as the fight could have been judged in favor of either fighter. Although Ali was still a formidable fighter that night against Norton, it was clear that he was a little less dynamic -- or less speedy and energetic -- compared to how he looked against Frazier a year prior.

So, long story short is this: quitting after beating Norton in 1976 would allowed Ali to get out of the game on top, at a point in time when it his physical decline was apparently beginning.

Noteworthy is that Ali's efforts after Norton III revealed a marked decline in his athletic abilities. Ali was a shadow of his former self in beating Alfredo Evangelista in 1977. Next, Ali struggled to beat Earnie Shavers, and took some very serious punishment in the process. Finally and most shockingly, Ali failed to beat neophyte Leon Spinks, who may not even have been a world-class heavyweight at this best. Ali's victory over Spinks in 1978 was not the least bit impressive either. Ali was clearly getting worse and worse by the year.

A final point I'll make is that, after Norton III, there was talk of a fourth Ali-Norton match, just to clear up the controversy of who really won the third bout. Norton was named the mandatory contender by one of the alphabets too. If I remember correctly, many if not most boxing experts at that point (1976-77) believed Ali would not emerge victorious if a fourth Norton match was held. In other words, after Norton III, Ali wasn't necessarily regarded as the best heavyweight in the world anymore.

So yeah....Ali's ideal exit point would have been after Norton III.

Aesthetically he should have stopped after Foreman.

He should never have fought again though after Frazier 3

I think his win over Spinks was very impressive, especially considering his deteriorated health.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Oct 2019, 06:38 I think his win over Spinks was very impressive, especially considering his deteriorated health.

Yeah, even though it looked and early for him.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Oct 2019, 06:38 I think his win over Spinks was very impressive, especially considering his deteriorated health.

Deteriorated health, yet you say spinks was good in the first fight. SMDH.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 19:03

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑19 Oct 2019, 06:38 I think his win over Spinks was very impressive, especially considering his deteriorated health.

Deteriorated health, yet you say spinks was good in the first fight. SMDH.

He was.

Did you think Norris looked good against Leonard? Maybe if you shake your head hard enough you'll realize both things can, and have, been true many times in a ring.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:11 Did you think Norris looked good against Leonard? Maybe if you shake your head hard enough you'll realize both things can, and have, been true many times in a ring.

Nice try, but not in the case of Ali vs Spinks. At least Norris was a real good fighter. Spinks never was.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:32

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:11 Did you think Norris looked good against Leonard? Maybe if you shake your head hard enough you'll realize both things can, and have, been true many times in a ring.

Nice try, but not in the case of Ali vs Spinks. At least Norris was a real good fighter. Spinks never was.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:32

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:11 Did you think Norris looked good against Leonard? Maybe if you shake your head hard enough you'll realize both things can, and have, been true many times in a ring.

Nice try, but not in the case of Ali vs Spinks. At least Norris was a real good fighter. Spinks never was.

Leon was an excellent amateur.

As a pro? Too bad pot and alcohol don't give you the same results as roadwork and sparring.

I think both Ali and Spinks were worse in the second fight then the first, but Spinks had declined more. You can see that Ali had really lost his coordination, pushing out the telegraph (barely a) left jab and then missing with the right cross time and time again. But he looked thinner, he danced and Spinks couldn't put the pressure on that he did in the first fight.

I thin Ali should have gone out after Manila, or at the latest after the 3rd Norton fight.

..... one minute after shavers hit him with that bomb that shavers hit that was so hard you could hear over the mikes .

it's the guys with chins and stay too long who get damaged...

revporl wrote: ↑16 Feb 2020, 13:03 I think both Ali and Spinks were worse in the second fight then the first, but Spinks had declined more. You can see that Ali had really lost his coordination, pushing out the telegraph (barely a) left jab and then missing with the right cross time and time again. But he looked thinner, he danced and Spinks couldn't put the pressure on that he did in the first fight.

I thin Ali should have gone out after Manila, or at the latest after the 3rd Norton fight.

Really? I had never heard anyone say Ali looked better in the first Spinks fight than the 2nd. Obviously he was way past it by then. But atleast in the 2nd fight, there would occasional flurries here and there.

Angelo Dundee said it too!

I think the state of New York would not issue a boxing licence to anyone over the age of 36.
so that would have been a good age for him and every other boxer.

After Zaire would be best.

Caractacus wrote: ↑18 Feb 2020, 14:30 I think the state of New York would not issue a boxing licence to anyone over the age of 36.
so that would have been a good age for him and every other boxer.

Muhammad Ali would have turned 36 in January 1978,
so that would have been just after the fight with Earnie Shavers.
and he wouldn't have fought Leon Spinks,Holmes or Berbick
( of which he would be 1-3 ).

Caractacus wrote: ↑18 Feb 2020, 16:45

Caractacus wrote: ↑18 Feb 2020, 14:30 I think the state of New York would not issue a boxing licence to anyone over the age of 36.
so that would have been a good age for him and every other boxer.

Muhammad Ali would have turned 36 in January 1978,
so that would have been just after the fight with Earnie Shavers.
and he wouldn't have fought Leon Spinks,Holmes or Berbick
( of which he would be 1-3 ).

NYSAC gave exemptions.

Exemptions? I thought in boxing there were always hard rules with no wiggle room whatsoever.

cfang wrote: ↑18 Feb 2020, 16:22 After Zaire would be best.

Ali-Frazier III just had to happen. It was too big not to.
However, if Ali would retired right after Zaire, it would have been interesting to see what the WBS organizations would have done.
Assuming that Foreman would have been out of the picture, the top contenders would have been Frazier, Lyle, Bonavena, Bugner, and Norton. The WBC probably would have picked two and the WBA probably would have picked another 2 to fight for their vacant titles.

There could have been some interesting matchups. We may have actually got Frazier-Norton.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Feb 2020, 11:38

cfang wrote: ↑18 Feb 2020, 16:22 After Zaire would be best.

Ali-Frazier III just had to happen. It was too big not to.
However, if Ali would retired right after Zaire, it would have been interesting to see what the WBS organizations would have done.
Assuming that Foreman would have been out of the picture, the top contenders would have been Frazier, Lyle, Bonavena, Bugner, and Norton. The WBC probably would have picked two and the WBA probably would have picked another 2 to fight for their vacant titles.

There could have been some interesting matchups. We may have actually got Frazier-Norton.

It would have been interesting especially considering that Norton and Frazier wouldn't want to fight one another. BTW Bonavena was out of the picture at this time.

oogiebe wrote: ↑19 Feb 2020, 12:44

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Feb 2020, 11:38

Ali-Frazier III just had to happen. It was too big not to.
However, if Ali would retired right after Zaire, it would have been interesting to see what the WBS organizations would have done.
Assuming that Foreman would have been out of the picture, the top contenders would have been Frazier, Lyle, Bonavena, Bugner, and Norton. The WBC probably would have picked two and the WBA probably would have picked another 2 to fight for their vacant titles.

There could have been some interesting matchups. We may have actually got Frazier-Norton.

It would have been interesting especially considering that Norton and Frazier wouldn't want to fight one another. BTW Bonavena was out of the picture at this time.

I don't think Ringo was out of the picture. I think Ring rated him 5 or 6 at that time.

Tony1244 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2020, 14:30

oogiebe wrote: ↑19 Feb 2020, 12:44
It would have been interesting especially considering that Norton and Frazier wouldn't want to fight one another. BTW Bonavena was out of the picture at this time.

I don't think Ringo was out of the picture. I think Ring rated him 5 or 6 at that time.

in 1973 Ring had him ranked 7th. For camparisons, Jimmy Ellis was 9th and Chuck Wepner 10th. He was out of the picture.

EDIT: I take it back. He rose in the rankings after that and before he was shot.

oogiebe wrote: ↑10 Oct 2019, 09:51 After Frazier III. Would have been a fantasic ending to a legendary career and he might have kept his health.

His Boxing did not give him Parkinson's disease. If he had never boxed at all he would've still gotten it.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:32

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Nov 2019, 20:11 Did you think Norris looked good against Leonard? Maybe if you shake your head hard enough you'll realize both things can, and have, been true many times in a ring.

Nice try, but not in the case of Ali vs Spinks. At least Norris was a real good fighter. Spinks never was.

Spinks was a Gold Medal Olympian. Lack of discipline meant he didn't get the best out of himself as a Professional, but he had talent.