How was Ali rated in 1967 ?

Can't find it, but I'm pretty sure Nat Fleischer had him out of TOP-10.

That being said, Nat Fleischer at that time ranked Corbett over Joe Louis :blood

 

No noted boxing historian rated him top ten until after he rewon the title in 74-75 time frame. Ring was among the first to do so.

 

I imagine where ever that was, at that time Ali was proberbly rated close to Marciano who like Ali until then was also undefeated. Perhaps that's why the computer fight was such a bug deal?

 

Ali certainly was not rated as high as Marciano in 1967.

 

At the time Ali was far from universaly liked, his refusal to enter the army, and being so outspoken almost certainly clouded many's Judgement of him and his talent between the Ropes, Hard biten fight sages, Suspected, or indeed Harboured the hope that if dragged into a tough bitter fight.. some went as far as to say he would quit, perhaps borne of the Liston 'Cut the Gloves off' Incident, Also many old cigar chomping Traditionalists Hated his hands down Style and pulling his head back with his hands by his sides, For many Trainers this is an absolute No-No and flied in the face of the Sound Fundermentals that they were trying to teach, and they were Hoping for an 'I Told You So' Moment.. It never came, so they had to rely on the 'Louis Woulda Killed Him' 'Marciano Woulda Battered Him' Arguments..
Ali was seen as a Chandelier He could Sparle and Shine, Glint and Glow, But some, particularly the elder historian suspected he was More Glass than Diamond.

A big reavaulation seemed to come after the FOC Frazier Loss, Perhaps a Tad rusty and needing another warm up, Ali met a Frazier at the peak of his Powers, Even the old Times Knew and respected the Quality of Frazier, And Many got what the wanted ,,Ali Defeated, but it was quite a Hollow Victory for the Long Term Doubters, Ali Made frazier come through Hell to Win, and Ali took his Lumps and fought back, He was Mauled badly in the 11th ..He Fought back... He took that Thunderous Left Hook in the 15th... He got up at a count of Three.. at the final bell he was attempting to Throw Back..

All those who wanted him beaten had got their moment.. but had to admit, they were wrong..he didnt quit, and yes that Flashy Style masked a Warriers Substance... in 1967 this was not known.

 

Ex-champions Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey thought very highly of Muhammad Ali by 1967.
I think Ali was just starting to get recognized as a great fighter.

 

Well if you dismiss his wins over Liston as tank jobs, there isn't a huge amount of substance to what he did.

He was lightning quick both in feet and hand but he'd been heavily dropped against Cooper, looked very poor against Jones and it was probably easy to imagine him losing to an elite champ of the past. I could picture people saying "If Cooper can drop him imagine what Fitzsimmons or Dempsey could do" and people would be right to think that because there wasn't the readily available footage of rudimentary Fitzsimmons back then just the legend of the one punch ko counter punching great fighter. Similarly you could imagine people saying "if Jones can outbox him imagine what Corbett and Tunney could do" because again without the footage you just have the legend of the master boxers.

But by beating Frazier and Foreman he obviously improved his standing greatly. Ad as footage of Fitz and Corbett became more readily available their standing obviously dropped.

So I've no problem with peple ranking Ali below Fitz and Corbett prior to his exile. I would question people defended such a ranking today though because unless their exists a HD version of Fitz v Corbett that shows fluid movement, it is difficult picturing Fitz having any success against future champions.

 

Good post. Sums up my view. Nobody would dare call Ali a hype job after 1971.

 

There was some all-time great talk as early as 67. some of the old fogies questioned him but, as a previous poster mentioned, Louis and Dempsey sure thought he was special at that time; if he hadn't gotten stripped in 67 imagine where 'they' would have had him by 1970? IMO from the summer of 67 to the summer of 70 he would have had every contender beaten by that point, including Frazier.

 

God, you're good. Spot on, imho, Area 53. That is exactly what I would have liked to say. Cheers.

 

That as well. Not much to add to this thread that hasn't been said better already. It's a great point about what Clay/Ali had achieved in his first reign and the mythical peak of '67-'70 is probably borne of hindsight and seeing what he became in the 70s rather than what expectation would have been back in '67.

And of course, when people spoke of the murderous power of old timers, historians had to go on the words of a few ringside scribes in making their judgements. Hardly cast iron evidence. Two great posts coming from different angles. Thanks fellas.

 

Stevie G @ Eddie E

Thank you Kind Sir's, I well remember those times, In class i should of been reading History, I'm afraid i was to be found at the back slyly reading my Ring Magazine or Boxing Illustrated ! Now i have to Dodge questions on Romans and Ancient Greeks !!

 

i remember an article on Ali after the Frazier fight if he thought Ali was an all time great heavyweight and his words were "emphatically no!"

 

In truth Ali never fought better than he did BEFORE 1967. His best ring performances had already been observed. Ali did not get better AFTER this point.

If he never fought again we would rate Ali lower than we do now. Why is this?

Old timers already knew he was special even then but it was decided Ali was bad for boxing. Clearly it was a different world than it is today.

Clearly Ali's legacy needed his comeback, even though he would never be as good!