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

This is a good point.

 

Don't agree. I can't find well over 5 HWs that I'd rank above the 29-0 Ali.

Louis, yes. Only one, avenged, prime loss and a remarkable reign. But besides him?

Holmes? Long reign, yes, but never faced a lot of the top guys. Lewis? Didn't have a win over someone as highly rated at the time of the fight as Liston (even though the Vitaly win really grew in hindsight) and lost his championship twice by KO to fighters that were quite mediocre in the bigger picture. Wlad? A very dominant reign but never faced the other top guy out there (Vitaly) and three KO losses in his physical prime. Tyson? Had an even more dominant reign, but it ended with Douglas and also no Liston equivalent on his record. Rocky? Also undefeated, but not quite as impressive reign, I think. Johnson? Maybe on basis of his great run up until becoming a champ, but lacklustre reign.

I think it would be a stretch to put all these guys ahead of that Ali and after that you really have to be generous. I can't see many objective arguments for keeping 29-0 Ali well outside the top 5.

That would be fantasy match-ups and claim that his chin wouldn't hold up to the bigger guys of modern times, maybe. But personally, I don't think those are any valid argument. It's just guess work and what's the point anyway? Sure, it sounds fairly reasonable to think that Pelé wouldn't be as dominant if time travelled to today as he was in the 60's, maybe not even among the top 20 in the world, but that's in that case because football has evolved not because he wasn't one of the greatest. Same with boxers for me.

 

Marciano puts it in perspective, IMO. He came around not that long before Ali, and also retired before he could pick up losses. His heavyweight division wasn't that far divorced from the 60s one that Ali dominated. But Marciano has a longer undefeated record, and knocked almost all of his opponents out, often after brutal clubbings. I think Ali would basically be in a similar place, ranking wise.

 

I think Ali beat more contenders in the 60's than Rocky did in his whole career and Rocky never beat someone like Liston. So that would put Ali ahead for me. You'd have to do a heavily revisionist take and put the Louis Rocky faced on the level of the Liston Ali faced for it to gain any traction really. And even then Ali would have beat more ranked contenders.

 

I'm not sure I consider Liston such a massive scalp on his own that it overshadows Marciano (who, after all, beat the heavyweight champion of his era just as Ali did.)

Both actually would have similar asterisks on their records. Older opponents, injured opponents, smaller opponents, and knockdowns against opposition they shouldn't have been KD'd by on paper.

 

Liston's standing was certainly higher when Ali faced him than Walcott's was when Rocky faced him. By some margin. I also rank Ali's win over Floyd highly, since Floyd had beaten everyone he'd faced as a HW bar Liston. Add to that there wasn't anyone as highly ranked as Valdes that Ali didn't face during his reign and Ali's higher number of defences and ranked opponents, and it's clearly in Ali's favour imo.

 

The latter half depends on whether we believe Patterson fought Ali with a back injury.

Yes, Sonny was better than Walcott at that stage of both of their careers. But they're not a night and day contrast. Walcott was a very good heavyweight. As to Valdes, I think I remember a thread examining the timeline on that one; it wouldn't have made sense to face Valdes instead of Moore.

Has anyone actually tallied up the ranked opponents both guys faced, and their respective rankings when they faced them?

EDIT 1: Again, it's one of those cases where most of the points against one guy can be used against the other. At least if you're pretending Ali's 70s career never happened in a consistent fashion. Whether you rank Ali or Marciano higher would be a matter of taste under those circumstances, IMO.

EDIT 2: Also notice that one of 60s Ali's best wins even under your assumptions, Patterson 1, is against a fighter who popped up during the later years of Marciano's division. 60s Ali's legacy is closely enmeshed in the 50s/early 60s division that preceded him. It's harder to get the separation necessary to distinguish him from Marciano without that crucial second career.

 

Floyd himself said the back injury kicked up in the fifth, I think, and by then it was already very clear where the fight was heading. And while the injury clearly was bothering Floyd during the latter half there wasn't a change as evident as, say, when Cerdan hit the canvas and injured his arm against LaMotta.

Moore, Jones, Liston, Cooper and all of Ali's challengers were ranked by The Ring when he faced them, as I recall, and at least one before that. So around a dozen. As for Rocky, there's Louis, Walcott, Charles, LaStarza, Cockell and Moore that I know of and it might be one or two more, but not six I think.

And I don't fault Rocky really for not facing Valdes, even though I think he could have faced him instead of Cockell, but the fact is that Valdes was one of the top challengers during Rocky's reign (nr. 1 at one point) and Rocky didn't face him.

 

He beat some guys multiple times because they remained highly ranked. I don't think Marciano's (or Ali's -- see Liston, Cooper) wins over contenders should be given only half credit for fighting the same guy twice.

I don't have the monthly rankings, but I think Marciano would have something like: Layne, LaStarza (?), LaStarza, Charles, Charles, Louis, Walcott, Walcott, Cockell, Moore. Maybe some others like Savold. Somebody who knows the era better can chime in.

 

No, he would not. Stop talking crap.

No he did not. He wouldn't have gotten any better since he relied on speed and reflexes and those wouldn't have improved.

Everyone knows 60s Ali was better, that's not what we are debating here. Make your choice and pick which part of his career do you think would rank higher.

 

That's the other thing I forgot to mention. Ali's heart shined through in his second career because he needed it more. If he'd retired in the 60s, we wouldn't have the same evidence of that unshakable will to win of his.

Ironically, Ali's own self-cultivated persona as a "Gorgeous George"-esque, effete pretty man might color our perceptions more without the reality of his wars in the ring with Frazier, Norton, Foreman, and so on to counter it. Or his delusionally brave beating from Holmes.

 

In the 1970's all of us saw Muhammad Ali's comeback, at least the ones old enough to remember. Sure we were amazed that he retained his speed, look at Ali very closely, his reflexes were gone, he started to get hit more, it was not that his 1970's opponents were far superior than his 1960's opponents, but as I mentioned several times before, 43 months is a long time to be away from a sport. No one can expect an athlete to be the same as before they departed a particular sport, the body changes, it goes through many changes, maturity sets in, sparring is not actual ring combat, even the mentality of an individual changes. Ali was an enigma with his style when he entered the sport of boxing, heavyweights were just flat footed pugs who resembled the toy, Rock Em Sock Em Robots every Friday night on television, they did not boast , just fought and bled. Many others that came after Ali became Enigmas with their particular styles and the results of their fights. Like I have said, if you like Drama, the 1970's version of Ali is for you, but if you like style and grace, the 1960's edition is for you, But in the 1970's you saw some great battles but imagine, close your eyes, imagine Ali of let's say 1966 against Ken Norton on that day in March of 1973, Ali very sharp, weighing 212 lbs very easily with no struggle to make it , firing left jabs, staying off the ropes, dancing for 15 rounds non stop, he would have knocked out Ken, but there would be no controversy of a decision win, or a fame making jaw fracture. as Ali has never been a devastating puncher. A person would have to be old enough to remember watching 1960's Muhammad Ali box live on the airwaves to understand. In the 1970's Ali began to suffer damage to brain cells because his reflexes were gone. Something to think about.

 

He did need to win in the 1960's, a witch hunt started when he became outspoken of various social injustices, if you are very young, you only read about this, and the witch hunt also started because he changed his name from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali and invoked his 3rd Amendment Rights, (Freedom Of Religion). He fought with a chip on his shoulder, against traditional opponents who bought into being Subservient.

 

Beating a ranked contender twice should count, definitely, but they both did so I kind of evened out as I wasn't really sure if LaStarza was ranked the first time around.

Anyhow, I think my point stands. But, yes, if someone has more detailed knowledge, please chime in.

 

Yes, but my point is that he didn't have the kind of physically tough, grueling fights in the 60s that he did in the 70s, where he sustained a lot of punishment and kept on going.