Did the exile hurt Ali's legacy or did it help it?

Foreman didnt get into the title pic until 73 though, Fraizer still gets a other shot vs Ali in 71 imo.

 

In the long run, probably helped it, though it hurt Ali personally.

 

It added to Muhammad's legacy. Coming back like that. Superb.

 

Excellent post,Bokaj. Very probable :good

 

The exile hurt his legacy plain and simple.
His spring 67-fall 70 reign would have laid to waste a ton of solid fighters, including Frazier. Granted, he wasn't by any means battle worn by the Foreman fight given his layoff but Foreman 73 might have been his Waterloo even tho I consider Ali to be superior to George. A 64-73 Ali reign would have even more cemented him as the ATG HW. At age 60, I now see Ali's second reign in perspective. Inside George's head in Zaire, ruined him, never a rematch. Norton gave the comeback Ali hell, lost the third fight. Bums of the month. Controlled the sport for three solid years after regaining the title. It hurts to say it but he controlled every bout after Foreman with everyone slobbering over his greatness. He still fought like a champion but what we really would have seen wasn't there.

 

hard to say. It helped establish guys who would have been rushed to fight him, but it hurt him because he had some tough fight then. Something can be said for a champion who fights often and having fights quickly before fighters develop, not saying that with Ali, but in general.

 

There can be arguments made either way. But it cost Ali what would have been his prime years according to Angelo Dundee.

Take the prime years away from other legends who actually got to fight in theirs and see what you have left in some cases - no legacy.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Ali would have made as much in some of the bigger bouts if not for the exile. For instance, had he fought Frazier in 1968 or 69, I do not believe each would have been paid two and a half million. His absence from the ring added to the anticipation of the FOTC. That bout was a quantum leap at the time for fighters' purses. Ring Magazine wrote ".... never again will fighters be paid purses of that magnitude." Of course, three years later, Ali and Foreman got 5 million apiece, which is still small alongside some purses of more recent years. The big money certainly would have come along as it did, but I believe Ali's comeback from exile made it happen sooner.

 

Wasn't frazier also out of his prime already by the time of his first Ali fight?
Something with his leg...

 

A pure case of latter day revisionism,in my opinion. Frazier was never better,before or since,than he was on March 8 1971.

 

ali would've had 20 defences by 1970 without exile so it definitely hurt his legacy. we missed ali's peak years - frazier beat a very good ali but he wasn't peak. he would have beaten louis record of 25 defences and maybe called it a day a lot earlier with less losses on his record.

 

Another way of looking at it,is that ego may have tempted Muhammad back when he was already in his thirties,and his comeback would probably not have been so successful as it was in real time.

 

Sooner or later the superstardom that Muhammad Ali enjoyed so much would have led to more slacking off training, the groupies, the over-confidence, loss of focus .... and he would have lost to a hungry fighter, perhaps Frazier or Norton or someone else.

The idea that he would have reigned until 1978 and made 30 defences or more is hard to justify.
Actually the injustice of having his title taken away gave him a ton of motivation in the 1970s, as did his loss to Frazier in '71, and even then he wasn't 100% for every fight like he should have been.
If he had stayed active and dominant in 1967 he would almost certainly have slacked off and lost his title within a few years.