How would Frazier and Foreman be considered today if Ali never was exiled?

I do agree that his victories over Frazier and, especially, Foreman had been less important if Ali hadn't been exiled. But I don't think that being active during those years would have meant that Ali would be aging badly already at 30-31. Hell, Marciano was in pretty good shape when he retired, and he had a style that was much tougher for his body. Towards the mid 70's I can see time beginning to catch up with Ali, but up until then I think he would lick just anybody around.

The only loss(es) I seem him possibly suffering before 1975-1976 is if Frazier or Norton catches him on a off night, and even then they would have their work cut out for them. A somewhat depleted and still a bit ring rusty Ali gave Frazier hell in FOTC (ruined him, acccording to many), and an out of shape Ali who suffered a broken jaw on an off night still gave Norton a fight.

To give both of them victories against Ali (and Frazier's win would have had to come when Ali was on his absolute peak) and also throw in Foreman in there (who I think would have to KO Ali to win)... It definitely borders on far fetched IMO.

 

I agree Norton always would've been difficult for Ali, but considering the circumstances when Norton beat him, Ali could well have pulled it off another time. But not necissarily.

First of all, I think they would have met sometime 1968-1970, probably in 1969. This would have been Ali's absolute peak. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that he (especially considering that he rarely got hit) would have been aging at the age of 26-28.

Even if they had met in 1971 Ali still would have only been 29. Not many fighters show any real sign of aging at this age, and especially not someone who rarely got hit and who always took it easy in sparring.

Also, remember that Ali had tremendous recuperation powers. FOTC was one of the most brutal HW-fights ever (Ali got truly hammered at times), but still he turns up just a couple of months later against top contender Jimmy Ellis and puts on one of his best perfomances post-exile. In fact he went on an winning streak that was better than most title reigns. Only after the massacre that was "The Thrilla in Manilla" did his body clearly say no mas.

Considering this, there's not much reason to believe that a dozen or so fights that Ali probably would have breezed through would have made such a difference. On the contrary, since the fights with Frazier probably wouldn't have been wars of the same magnitude if they met in the late 60's and early 70's, he might actually just have lasted longer instead.

He would also have been in better condition for most of the early 70's. His first fight with Frazier wouldn't have been as brutal as FOTC was, and therfore not taken so much out of him.

 

I think that the Ali that faced Foreman looked better than the one who faced Bonavena. In between he moved on the wrong side of 30, had about 15 fights, 4 really tough ones -one of which was truly brutal.

So why would about the same amount of fights, almost all easy and none as tough as FOTC, between the age of 25 and 28 make such a difference?

 

I don't think he declined that fast. He kept up well up until Manilla, but after that it went very quickly downhill. But that's what you would expect when a close to 34 year old heavyweight has a fight like that.

You have a point when it comes to him staying on the ropes and taking punches in sparring, though.

 

It wasn't a "break", it was lay-off. And no, I don't think he necissarily gained anything by it, but he certainly lost something.

 

Sorry. That was unnecissary of me. I think I was a bit tired and cranky when I wrote it.

Doesn't really seem so. Just for the record, I don't mean to say that it's impossible that Ali would have declined earlier if not for the lay-off. I just don't see this as a given, and I don't think he would be past it as early as say 1973 already. I think he still would be a force until around 1975, but, of course, this is all speculation.

 

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? Let's say that he beats Frazier in two tough fights in 1969 and 1971, and outboxes a still somewhat green Foreman in 1972. Frazier would in that case probably just be seen as a very good contender who might have done something in another era (not very much unlike how Quarry is seen today) and as prime Ali's toughest opponent. Foreman's legacy might be even less, maybe not even greater than Cooney's. (If he meets and destroys prime versions of Frazier and Norton, that should elevate him, though).

So on the one hand, Ali only would have wins over one ATG (Liston) instead of three (Liston, Frazier and Foreman). On the other hand, he might have had a title run that even surpassed Louis's (Norton might have upset this, though).

The Ali legend wouldn't be the same, that's for sure. He would probably still be considered as the nr. 1 or nr. 2 HW, though. If he matched, or even surpassed, Louis's title reign, that plus his victory over Liston would give him a very strong argument for the nr. 1 spot, I would say. Possibly stronger than the one he has today.