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

Why do you like to see harm inflicted to people? You do know that that later in life there is bound to be damage? So you must not care for Muhammad Ali, and why? Did you have a failing career as a fighter? Or are you a follower? Explain.

 

Um...I don't like to see harm inflicted on people. (At least not more than any other boxing fan, I guess.)

Where in my post did I say that I enjoyed seeing Ali taking punishment? Not sure exactly where you're getting this...

 

You stated that Ali Took Loads Of Punishment And Kept Going On in the 1970's. It explains your desire for punishment to be inflicted on Ali in the 1970's.

 

What a nonsense debate! Are you bored or something?

For me, he would. I think for many others, too

He would not be worse either (not that fast). But maybe a bit heavier, a little stronger, a tad more experienced...

My choice was 50/50.

 

That cannot be. You must choose one, which one would you rather have as a boxer: an undefeated career over weak opposition and 2 ATGs that were not at their best, or a career with wins over ATGs, yet also with losses.
DECIDE !!!

 

No thanks, for me it's still 50/50.
Why should I say anything else if I am not convinced of it?

 

I don't understand how my stating the fact that Ali took loads of punishment in the 70s (which is true) shows that I *WANT* Ali to take that punishment. I'm just stating a historical fact.

The subject under discussion was whether Ali showed evidence of durability in the 60s. Obviously, it would be relevant to know how often Ali took punches in the 60s (and 70s) to answer that question.

 

You make it sound like Muhammad Ali was better in the 1970's because he took punishment and came back. To me that sounds too dramatic, like a soap opera. You like drama, binge watch all the Rocky Balboa movies. Ali's second career resulted in the Brain Damage coupled with the Parkinson's Syndrome, do you know why? It was because the physical gifts that he had in his peak years 1964-1967 were long gone due to the 43 month banishment. I personally would have liked it if Ali decided to retire and never come back like he did in 1970. Ali did not look the same when he returned, way too vulnerable. Sure he had great fights, but at what price? You try and get constantly get hit in the head then tell me if it makes you a great fighter, it is going to hurt like you know what. But your opinion is your opinion. Different strokes for different folks.

 

You've completely and utterly misinterpreted his points and intent Rich.

 

The guy considers both segments equal and is certainly allowed to voice that opinion.

 

Valdez already lost his opportunity to face Marciano long before The Rock fought gockell.
Archie Moore beat the big cuban man literally 14 days before Marciano's comeback fight against don.

 

Again, you're making assumptions about my tastes and beliefs that just aren't accurate, and you're not listening when I tell you what my real views are.

I didn't say 70s Ali was better. I said that if we didn't have the 70s half of Ali's career, we wouldn't know how durable he was. You can't know how durable someone is if you don't see him getting hit by hard punches.

It has nothing to do with me liking Rocky movies (first one was good, but after that, eh). I don't rub my hands together and cackle with glee every time I see Ali get punched. For crying out loud, I made a thread about styles that reduce the likelihood of brain damage recently.

It's about what evidence we would have of Ali's durability in a hypothetical situation where Ali retired early.

It's an answer to a hypothetical historical question. Just like if I said, "Napoleon could have kept control of Europe if he hadn't invaded Russia." That wouldn't mean I hate Europe, or love Napoleon. It's just my best guess about what would happen. Or if you ask me what would happen if Jimmy Wilde fought Mike Tyson, I would say that Mike KOs Wilde. Does that mean I hate Jimmy Wilde and want him to get brain damage? No. Jimmy Wilde isn't even alive any more. Does it mean I love the "drama" of watching a heavyweight beat up poor little Jimmy Wilde? Again, no. I'm just telling you what I think would happen.

 

By then the fight with Cockell was already signed.

But I don't think it's a big deal that he signed with Cockell instead of Valdes, Rocky signed with his nr 1 on every other occasion as far as I know and that's very impressive, but the fact is he was a highly ranked contender throughout Rocky's reign that Rocky didn't face him whereas Ali cleaned house with all his top 5 contenders. Well, Frazier made into the top 5 during the end of his reign, but of the ones that spent years there he beat everyone I think.

 

Would you please source your claim ?

 

That Valdes was highly ranked during Rocky's reign? Here you can see he was Th Ring's nr. 1 for '53 and '54: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s

And he alternated between being nr 1 and 2 contender for NBA from last quarter 1953 throughout '54 and '55: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1953

There were no one as consistently highly ranked during Ali's reign that he didn't beat, although Spencer was ranked nr. 3 by The Ring for 1966.

Again, this is not to suggest that Rocky ducked Valdes. Rocky signed to face his nr. 1 every time except for when he signed with his nr. 2: Cockell. I think it would be unreasonably strict to fault him for this, since he defended twice a year. He had an exemplary reign.