Whose career is ranked higher: Ali pre-1967 or Ali Post 1970?

I agree, people will defend Tyson for his off night with Douglas but not Muhammad Ali's off night with Doug Jones, or his ballyhooing with Henry Cooper in 1963, but Ali did give Cooper a title shot in his own backyard on May 21 1966, he gave Henry 14 stitches, TKO 6, no knockdown in that one

 

Thanks. Nobody told me he was bailed out awaiting trial. I'll just call it a layoff then because he was banned from boxing for a while

 

Yeah, I followed the whole case, on June 20 1967, Muhammad Ali was found guilty of Draft Evasion, a felony, sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $10,000.00. He filed and appeal, he posted bail. He was out lecturing and like I said, appealing it but he was not champion anymore, his boxing license revoked. But you welcome.

 

Rank him as 2 different fighters. OK.

I would say second career Ali ranks higher in Resume. So if the ranking is done that way he ranks slightly higher than first career Ali.

If ranking the two careers head to head I would go with first career Ali. I think first career Ali would beat second career Ali. I believe he beats everyone second career Ali beat more convincingly and with fewer losses.

 

I agree, I have followed Muhammad Ali since the first Floyd Patterson fight in 1965, he was too vulnerable in his second career which began on Oct 26 1970 against Jerry Quarry, TKO 3. I like skill and grace not vulnerability.

 

If he retired after 1967, he might have been remembered as an athletically dazzling -- but perhaps weak-chinned -- champion who cleaned out the older division...but was lucky to leave before the young monsters of the 70s division took over.

Posters in mythical Ali matchups would ask their interlocutors to imagine what would happen to the guy whom 190 pound Cooper knocked silly, if he had to face Frazier's barrage of left hooks. Ali's style depended so heavily on athleticism, after all. Once his reflexes slowed down, the Wise Men of Boxing would shake their heads sagely, and predict that Ali's unorthodoxy would catch up with him. And you don't even want to THINK about what would happen to poor Ali when Foreman cuts the ring off on him and traps him against the ropes....

Ali would probably be seen as a transitional figure between the prehistoric Marciano era and the start of "real," "modern" boxing. Sure, he finished off an old, poor man's Foreman in Sonny Liston (see below). But Ali never really faced the kind of firepower that the 70s era could bring. His opponents were old, injured, small, and/or in one case a gangly proto-Ruiz. He met the best of his time, and nobody would fault him for that...but it wouldn't shine compared to Ali's successors.

Had he survived into the 70s, he might be expected to have performed roughly as well as Floyd Patterson did. Maybe a little better. He might be considered the first of the new breed of 70s guys, but not really a standout from them. He just lucked out in coming a little earlier.

And since Foreman would have probably done better without Ali, most of the Boomers would probably remember him as the 70s boogeyman of their childhood's heavyweight division. Foreman vs [Other Head-to-Head Favorite Fighter] threads would clog the Classic forum.

 

I have seen many of his first career fights but not when they were actually taking place. I believe I am somewhat limited evaluating fighters that way. I'm glad to see that someone who was there in the time agrees with my reasoning. Thanks again.

 

You welcome, your assessment is right on the money.

 

That's what made me love Ali more; he was such a Superman in the 60s, to see him conquer his vulnerability and win the title twice more made him way more compelling to me. The contrast added up to great positive effect for me.

 

The banishment robbed Muhammad Ali of his prime in 1967, but all fighters have an off night. Why is is it if Tyson has an off night all these excuses come flying off the shelf, but not Ali against Henry Cooper in 1963, he was toying with a bedazzled Cooper who was cut and did get clipped. In 1966, he fought Henry again, no knockdown but 14 stitches for Cooper, TKO 6. In the 1970's Ali was vulnerable, no more 1960's stamina. Unlike other posters, I am not hung up on size and weight, it depends on skill, steroids is not my thing. In my opinion, 1967 Muhammad Ali is better.

 

Can a knocked silly person come back and stop another person?

 

There wasn't really good evidence of Ali's chin in the 60s compared to what he proved in the 70s. Not to the same degree. So lots of fans would probably conclude that he was vulnerable based on the data point of Cooper I. That's my suspicion anyway.

 

True but unfair. Some people get off on vulnerability, I do not. Skill and grace to me outweighs drama any day.

 

Sure, why not?

To be clear, though, I am not claiming that Ali was actually as hurt as I believe conventional wisdom would conclude in a world where he never returned to boxing. We know Ali was ridiculously durable because we got to see him taking bombs from Shavers, Foreman, etc.

But in a world with no 70s Ali, the boxing public never would have seen any of that. What are the odds that this unorthodox boxing wizard who was rarely hit (and had been knocked down by a small heavyweight) would *just happen* to have one of the best chins in history? It's not a conclusion that would immediately press itself on most boxing fans, IMO.

 

Yeah, which just goes to show how much of a role luck plays in building a reputation, IMO.

Well, maybe not just luck, so much as luck and timing.