Did Ali have the easiest Heavyweight reign 65'-67'

Are you taking those guys pre prime as Ali was or as prime??
Id pick Liston to give everyone of them hell if he faced them pre prime.
I pick very few of them to have taken the title from 64 Sonny had they had to dethrone him to become champion

 

The common argument I've read is that this period comprised of Ali's prime, that this version of Ali was the most unbeatable, and that he wasn't the same after the layoff so I don't see why one couldn't project the best period of any other heavyweight against the same competition. Going purely by age, I'd peg a younger Tyson to pull off the same 9-0.

I'm not arguing that Ali didn't accomplish alot and isn't an ATG; but Ali's perceived resume of his pre-exile title reign plays as huge a role in why that version of him is viewed as unbeatable. On this board, the sheer dominance of other dominant heavyweights has been dissected and reduced down to fighting other heavyweights that, while ranked, just couldn't cut it. It seems who suffers and who benefits from this depends purely on what historical fighter is trendy to hype up or hate on at any given point in time.

For example, I've seen Sonny Liston go from being unanimously behind Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey by contemporaries for decades before "we" (the current boxing fans) decided that, 40 years after his last fight, Liston deserved to leapfrog them. No new evidence being put in from any of those fighters, just a trend on our parts. I also bring up Liston because I think the pro-Liston agenda also conveniently continues to prop up the "Ali is god" one. The better Sonny ranks, the more unbeatable young Ali can be hyped as being.

I see no reason why Ali's reign here shouldn't get scrutinized from a quality standpoint the same way that gets commonly done for other dominant heavyweights. Nobody else gets that pass- neither should Ali. We routinely write off the praises Dempsey got from his peers and say he's overrated now, but isn't the unbeatable prime Ali worship simply a current version of the exact same phenomena?

 

Ali wasnt the same post layoff, but neither had he reached his peak prior to it. Ali won the title having just turned 22 and was in exile having just turned 25. Ali in 67 was the best he was but was still improving through 64 to that point. The question I was asking is do those first 9 defenses stack up compared to others first 9 and I think it does pretty well. Marciano didnt have 9 but is pretty good but by the OPs observation of Ali not fighting other worthy contenders ie Machen, you could easily argue the likes of Valdes, Baker, Satterfield, Wallace, Walls etc too, Dempsey took 3 years off, Frazier and Patterson didnt even have to beat a champion to get the title, Holmes early defences are below the standard of Alis, Joe Louis had some soft touches amongst his.

Im interested as to who these many Heavyweights are who at a comparative stage, fighting as frequently as Ali was who would clean these guys out the way he did.

 

The issue of immediate return bouts was heavily criticized at the time, and for good reason.
Johansson and Patterson had the rest of the division frozen out for 2 years while they had a trilogy, the Liston-Patterson rematch was a joke.

Dempsey actually had to defeat the top contender Jack Sharkey to be entitled to fight Tunney again, so that example actually illustrates the right alternative to immediate return matches.
I think a deposed champion should have to eliminate a top contender to get his rematch, unless he'd been on the wrong end of a very contentious decision in which case an immediate return is justified. That would be fair way of doing things.

 

AGREE :thumbsup

How bloody funny would it of been if Tyson was forced to fight Tua or Ibeachu after being DESTROYED by OLD 'Vander?! :rofl:rofl


Them 2 would of DESTROYED him too. :deal

 

Good post.
The problem people need to understand is the trade-off between having a "fighting champion" against having a champion who only fights formidable challengers.
There just isn't a supply of formidable challengers that could share the ring with Ali 9 times in 2 years, not in any era.

Joe Louis's first 9 may have been slightly better, Holmes' may have been slightly worse, but only a fool would be expected them to be facing 9 "killers" in 2 - 3 year period. The heavyweight division never produces that amount of quality that quickly.

 

Things is, I have a very hard time coming up with any reign that only included impressive contenders. You can make a similar criticism of most reigns.

Personally, I can't come to think of many reigns that are better. Louis' because of its longevity, but that's about it. And if you look at Louis' first nine defenses, far from everyone will impress that much.

Marciano had a decent reign, but Walcott and Charles were both on the slide and Moore was a LHW. Tyson cleaned house, but against past prime versions of Thomas, Tubbs and Holmes and former LHW Spinks. Holmes best defense was against Cooney; Holyfield defended against ancient versions of Holmes and Foreman etc.

The one I think could have had a pretty impecabble reign is Holmes. He reigned while a new exciting (but in the end disappointing) generation of HWs started to hit their stride. Defenses against Thomas, Page and perhaps also Dokes would have really put a shine on his reign. But they didn't come off.

 

Lets put the Machen thing to bed...

-Ali didn't even win the title until 64.

-Ali/Liston II HAD to be made the following year once both fighters had healed from injuries.

-Patterson beat Machen and Chuvalo to earn the late 65 title shot.

-After some controversy, Ali makes fight with #1 Terrell for 1966.

Machen was unranked in January of 1966 when he agreed to face #5 Mildenberger in Feb.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zlQsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8swEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1975,512913&dq=machen+mildenberger&hl=en[/url]


The unranked Machen loses to the German in Feb. Ali/Terrell falls apart and the still top 10 and available Chuvalo agress to sub on March 12.

[url]http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/933186362.html?dids=933186362:933186362&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Mar+12%2C+1966&author=&pub=Hartford+Courant&desc=Chuvalo+Signs+to+Fight+Clay+in+Toronto&pqatl=google[/url]

 

By the time Ali returned from his 66 European tour to face Williams, Machen was playing gate keeper to Joe Frazier. He was done! Dude, as much Machen/Ali appeals to you...the fight just wasn't meant to happen.

 

For a reign to be any good the most important thing is that the top contenders are taken care. Not facing a long time top contender hurts a reign very seriously in my eyes.

Apart from that, it's also nice with active champions - like Louis and Ali. Being active means that you will by default take on second-raters, but that's alright if you also take on the most deserving challengers.

Things is that both Ali and Louis often get flak for being active. People like to point out the Paychecks and Londons in their respective reigns, but these guys were only bonuses. They both took on the best and then added a string of second-raters. Holmes was also active, but he failed to take on some of the most deserving contenders. That makes it more open to criticism.

 

Active champions can dispose of young up-and-comers before they get the chance to establish themselves as real threats. Active champions can sometimes prevent top contenders from fighting each other, or at least render the eliminators somewhat meaningless, since contenders can just wait their turn.
I don't think the fighting champion was necessarily good thing. I think some of the challengers are too bad even to rate as "bonuses". They are unworthy of contesting the world title.
(None of it is relevant these days because we have 3 or 4 champions each division so those problems are multiplied to a point of absurdity where anyone with two arms and two legs can be a challenger. There are no standards now, so it doesn't matter.)

Ali's first reign wasn't particularly bad though. His really comical challengers came out in his 1975-'78 reign.

 

I see your points, but I like some level of activity from a champion. At least 3-4 defenses a year, which means that all won't be against sterling opposition if he sticks around for a while.

It was good a reign during its first two years. It was really only after the rubber match with Norton it went south. And even then it was still only rematches that the public missed out on.