Muhammad Ali 1970 - 1975; where does he rate in HW history?

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 12 Nov 2006, 08:25

It is generally accepted that Ali was at his peak in 1966/7.

I firmly believe that he would have improved even more & been at his best between 1968 & 1971 had be been allowed to box from 67 - 70.

We also know that he returned in 1970 & went on to dominate the HW division in arguably it's most competitive era with diminished skills.

Question is, where would you rate Ali, just based on his 70's heyday (70 - 75) in HW history?

BO Selecta · Post by **BO Selecta** » 12 Nov 2006, 09:11

Great thread; not conidered this one before.

60's Ali is the best heavyweight ever & like you, I believe we did not see the best of him.

70's Ali was not quite as good, but still formidable.

He seemed to perform well in the calendar year of 1972, particularly the 2nd Quarry fight, where I think he put on one of his finest displays ever, but by 1973, his legs had gone.

I would say that 70's Ali loses to anybody that could double up on on their jab.

Louis, Holmes, Lennox Lewis & maybe even Tunney could have beaten the 70's Ali.

Tyson would have stood little chance; not enough heart, Liston would have had a shot, but maybe his jab was too slow.

Holyfield would have scared him (not literally) to death, but ultimately, 70's Ali may just have nicked it.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Nov 2006, 11:08

The Ali of 70-75 still had great speed but wasnt as fast as the 60's Ali... he also didnt have the stamina of the 60s Ali... but he used his experience and intelligence much more in the ring, psyched his opponents and also showed a iron chin and huge heart... was also physically stronger than the 60s Ali... in many ways his extra experience and strenth compensated for his diminished skills and speed but I think the '67 Ali would have outpointed the '74 Ali... had he not been 'banned' Ali's peak would probably have seen him as a mixture of the '67 and 74 Ali... stronger and more experinced but still with the blinding speed and reflexes... shame we never got to see it!... I think he would have been about 30% better than we ever saw... the Ali of '67 was still about 2 years from his prime...

DonCorleone · Post by **DonCorleone** » 12 Nov 2006, 15:09

This is a good thread! That's saying something, getting a good thread out of Ali is like getting blood from a stone now.

I have to agree that Ali's peak was 66-67, and we probably missed his best due to Vietnam an' shit.

Just got to thinking that maybe the 3 year layoff was actually beneficial to 70's Ali?
Look at it this way - if Ali never had to quit boxing for three years, the reduced mobility would have crept up on him, he would never have been forced to confront the restrictions of age.
As it was, Ali had no choice but to adapt in the '70's.
Maybe Ali would not have survived to the late stages of the decade if it weren't for the 3 year layoff?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 12 Nov 2006, 16:13

Now how does Ali fare against Joe Frazier if he would not have had a three year lapse during his career? Does he still lose to him? I say he would have beaten Norton and Young with ease. Even when he was way past it like against Shavers if you take away the three year layoff it is no contest.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 12 Nov 2006, 16:40

If Ali had fought Frazier in '68 or '69 with no layoff he would have been that much faster and would have outpointed Frazier, but it still would have been a great fight... had Ali not been banned its likely Frazier and Foreman would never have become champs... I can see Ali holding the title right into the late 70s till perhaps being outpointed by a younger and faster Larry Holmes...

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 12 Nov 2006, 19:30

I think if Ali had not been robbed of his 3 best years, neither Frazier nor Foreman wouldl have been champs.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 12 Nov 2006, 20:18

Collins2000 wrote:I think if Ali had not been robbed of his 3 best years, neither Frazier nor Foreman wouldl have been champs.

Laughable.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 12 Nov 2006, 23:09

Tantum wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:I think if Ali had not been robbed of his 3 best years, neither Frazier nor Foreman would have been champs.

Laughable.

Aw, Tanty, don't be so cruel.

It's distressing to find that someone as knowledgable as you considers my posts laughable.

Anyway, how come you've stopped posting those racist cartoons?

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 13 Nov 2006, 03:29

Basically Ali's peak is a mix of his two careers. The speed and possibly greater stamina of the 60's and the experience and durability of the 70's

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 13 Nov 2006, 14:08

silkov wrote:If Ali had fought Frazier in '68 or '69 with no layoff he would have been that much faster and would have outpointed Frazier, but it still would have been a great fight... had Ali not been banned its likely Frazier and Foreman would never have become champs... I can see Ali holding the title right into the late 70s till perhaps being outpointed by a younger and faster Larry Holmes...

Got to agree with your sentiments.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 13 Nov 2006, 23:20

Tantum wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:I think if Ali had not been robbed of his 3 best years, neither Frazier nor Foreman wouldl have been champs.

Laughable.

I'm not laughing...maybe you lack the analytical intelligence to figure it out..or maybe you're just clouded with your typical anti-Ali bias...If Frazier fights him without the layoff Frazier is outpointed...period...Frazier's face was a mess fighting the guy with the layoff, fighting against a guy whose timing was off by a mile...improve the timing and stamina of Ali, that fight result is much, m u c h different...and so would be history, Frazier's legacy, Foreman's legacy, and your opinion...

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 14 Nov 2006, 23:16

Decagon wrote:In 1971, Frazier was at the end of his prime. He'd probably have had a damn good chance at beating Ali in 1968 or 1969. He'd only be a +200 underdog.

Think back now...It was a ring rusty, flat-footed, laying-on-the-ropes-everytime-he-got-tired-Ali that ENDED Frazier's prime...when did Joe Frazier ever look that good again? And...Frazier ducked him for 3 years...no need to rush back into a rematch with a guy who stood to be in better shape next time around...Frazier was at his absolute peak 3/8/71...until the end of the fight...

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 15 Nov 2006, 01:39

The reason it's laughable is...

If Ali was fighting those 3 extra years, he would have decayed sooner, which means by the time 72-74 rolled around, and he fights Big George (At which point Ali would have probably had 55 fights under his belt)...

George would have taken him to the cleaners.

Yes, maybe 67-70 could have been great years for him, but that does not mean that he would not have lost until '78.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 Nov 2006, 07:14

Tantum wrote:The reason it's laughable is...

If Ali was fighting those 3 extra years, he would have decayed sooner, which means by the time 72-74 rolled around, and he fights Big George (At which point Ali would have probably had 55 fights under his belt)...

George would have taken him to the cleaners.

Yes, maybe 67-70 could have been great years for him, but that does not mean that he would not have lost until '78.

I agree. The lay off extended Ali's career, allowed other HWs to make a name for themselves which in turn allowed Ali to then chop them down and so increase his legacy.

I still think Frazier would have beaten him at some point. Foreman would have been a handful if he'd have met a more ring worn Ali. George would have been more of an unknown quantity than he was after destroying Frazier. Ali would still have lost to Norton too, IMO.

There are many things to consider but overall I believe that Ali's career benefitted from the lay off.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 15 Nov 2006, 10:50

Tantum wrote:The reason it's laughable is...

If Ali was fighting those 3 extra years, he would have decayed sooner, which means by the time 72-74 rolled around, and he fights Big George (At which point Ali would have probably had 55 fights under his belt)...

George would have taken him to the cleaners.

Yes, maybe 67-70 could have been great years for him, but that does not mean that he would not have lost until '78.

George should have "taken him to the cleaners" in '74...but he didn't...so, as far as I'm concerned...that theory is somewhat flawed...and Ali "decayed" from a three and a half year layoff...it wasn't a "natural" decay...I don't debate he would have lost before '78...but it would have more likely been to someone you wouldn't expect...an upset...someone he took too lightly and under prepared for...not a Foreman or a Frazier

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 15 Nov 2006, 11:19

Ezzard wrote:
I agree. The lay off extended Ali's career, allowed other HWs to make a name for themselves which in turn allowed Ali to then chop them down and so increase his legacy.

I still think Frazier would have beaten him at some point. Foreman would have been a handful if he'd have met a more ring worn Ali. George would have been more of an unknown quantity than he was after destroying Frazier. Ali would still have lost to Norton too, IMO.

There are many things to consider but overall I believe that Ali's career benefitted from the lay off.

Ali did indeed benefit from the layoff...financially...he and Frazier would NEVER have gotten 2.5 mil each if it weren't for the layoff creating two undefeated champions...and, Ali did more to allow other HW's to make a name for themselves by losing to them...How would Kenny Norton be thought of today had he lost that 1st fight on points to a better prepared Ali? How would Frazier be thought of had he lost that 1st fight on points? There's a very fine line between one legacy and another sometimes...a very fine line...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 Nov 2006, 12:00

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
I agree. The lay off extended Ali's career, allowed other HWs to make a name for themselves which in turn allowed Ali to then chop them down and so increase his legacy.

I still think Frazier would have beaten him at some point. Foreman would have been a handful if he'd have met a more ring worn Ali. George would have been more of an unknown quantity than he was after destroying Frazier. Ali would still have lost to Norton too, IMO.

There are many things to consider but overall I believe that Ali's career benefitted from the lay off.
Ali did indeed benefit from the layoff...financially...he and Frazier would NEVER have gotten 2.5 mil each if it weren't for the layoff creating two undefeated champions...and, Ali did more to allow other HW's to make a name for themselves by losing to them...How would Kenny Norton be thought of today had he lost that 1st fight on points to a better prepared Ali? How would Frazier be thought of had he lost that 1st fight on points? There's a very fine line between one legacy and another sometimes...a very fine line...

Well I think that saying Ali lost to them is affording the great man perhaps a little too much control. Frazier and Norton beat him. How would Ali be thought of today if Frazier had never rematched him, or if Norton had got the decision some feel he deserved in the 3rd bout? The fine line is there for everyone.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 15 Nov 2006, 13:19

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Tantum wrote:The reason it's laughable is...

If Ali was fighting those 3 extra years, he would have decayed sooner, which means by the time 72-74 rolled around, and he fights Big George (At which point Ali would have probably had 55 fights under his belt)...

George would have taken him to the cleaners.

Yes, maybe 67-70 could have been great years for him, but that does not mean that he would not have lost until '78.
George should have "taken him to the cleaners" in '74...but he didn't...so, as far as I'm concerned...that theory is somewhat flawed...and Ali "decayed" from a three and a half year layoff...it wasn't a "natural" decay...I don't debate he would have lost before '78...but it would have more likely been to someone you wouldn't expect...an upset...someone he took too lightly and under prepared for...not a Foreman or a Frazier

Like Ken Norton?

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 15 Nov 2006, 14:02

Ezzard wrote: Well I think that saying Ali lost to them is affording the great man perhaps a little too much control. Frazier and Norton beat him. How would Ali be thought of today if Frazier had never rematched him, or if Norton had got the decision some feel he deserved in the 3rd bout? The fine line is there for everyone.

Yes...the "fine line" IS there for everyone...to answer your direct questions, though...Ali would be thought of the same way today if he lost to Norton in '76...Ali was pretty much shot after '75...his legacy was pretty much cemented at that point...and...Frazier had too much pride (and earning potential) not to want to fight Ali again...especially after losing to Foreman...if Frazier wouldn't have fought Ali again...it may have negatively impacted HIS legacy, more than Ali's...as it turned out, Frazier had nothing to be ashamed of in those defeats, and actually ADDED to HIS legacy by making those fights wars, the way he did...

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 15 Nov 2006, 14:30

The Ali of the 70-75 period is still an impressive fighter, for instance:

-After 3yrs inactivity, he comes out of retirement to stop #2 ranked Jerry Quarry by TKO, it is evident that even though Ali had retained alot of his quickness, he wasn't the fighter he once was. There is seldom any fighter, no matter how great they are, who can come back after 3yrs or more and win over a top ranked contender, let alone regain the title.

-The Norton-Frazier fights were legendary. He avenged the loss to Frazier, and then for good measure beat him again in the Thrilla. He avenged a loss to Norton---I would say his third fight with Norton was a robbery, but then again, it didn't happen in the 70-75 time line.

-He also beat top ranking contenders Oscar Bonavena as well as defeating George Chuvalo again, as well as Floyd Patterson and Joe Bugner.

His over all record of wins/losses from 70-75 is extraordinary, having a ridculously high success rate against the 1970's BEST. And I didn't even mention the win over George Foreman, where Ali was a tremendous under-dog in, and to win the title at his age was no short of phenomenal.

After 75 Ali was on a down-hill spiral with his greatest wins being Ron Lyle (tko 11th) which was the first time that it was clear that Ali was now fighting more flat footed and possibly Earnie Shavers, though Ali was the only one hurt and only won two out of the three cards.

I dont count his win over Leon SPinks for the simple fact that Spinks was only 8-0 and...need I say more? Ali should have retired after Manila, if not after Bugner, he still had his health.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 15 Nov 2006, 14:39

Arguably, he may have been a better fighter prior to his forced layoff, but his accomplishments during his second career are really what established the Ali legacy. I don’t think any other HW in history beat a better group of fighters than Ali beat during the 70’s. Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Bonavena, Shavers, Young, Bugner, etc. There were some close calls in there (it was REALLY hard to list Young), but I don’t think any other HW’s resume comes close.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 15 Nov 2006, 14:46

Top 10 ATG. Top 5? Probably not.

However, the 1960s Ali alone probably wouldn't have made #1 ATG either. Too few memorable fights besides Liston; Joe Louis' overall resumee woud be much more substantial, for example.

Thus, Alis career without either decade is utterly incomplete.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 15 Nov 2006, 23:21

Ali certainly wasn't the same fighter from 1970-1975 as he was from 1964-1967. He had lost some of his incredible speed and reflexes. He was probably 75-80% of the fighter that he was.
As mentioned he had a great chin and a lot of heart. He also still had a great jab, a sneaky left hook and underrated power. He could still occasionally bounce around the ring like the young Ali.
A few of his performances were lackluster.
However if you look at what he did during the period from 1970-1975 it's impressive. He went 20-2 (and avenged the defeats) in by far the best era in heavyweight history. Almost all of his wins were against contenders or the champion. I wouldn't pick any heavyweight in history to match or better that record against that competition.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 05 Dec 2006, 08:39

Ambling Alp wrote:Ali certainly wasn't the same fighter from 1970-1975 as he was from 1964-1967. He had lost some of his incredible speed and reflexes. He was probably 75-80% of the fighter that he was.
As mentioned he had a great chin and a lot of heart. He also still had a great jab, a sneaky left hook and underrated power. He could still occasionally bounce around the ring like the young Ali.
A few of his performances were lackluster.
However if you look at what he did during the period from 1970-1975 it's impressive. He went 20-2 (and avenged the defeats) in by far the best era in heavyweight history. Almost all of his wins were against contenders or the champion. I wouldn't pick any heavyweight in history to match or better that record against that competition.

Think I have to agree with you, very good points.