If Ali retires after Manilla, is he still considered #1 all time?

He would still be the best of the Queensberry era heavies. Indeed if I had the foresight and had the power to do so, I would stop him fighting post Rumble, he did not need Manila, his resume is that strong.

 

Yes @ HW

 

He’s still no. 1 because his title reign post Manila was not great.

He should’ve lost to Jimmy Young and his third fight with Norton was controversial. The HW champion rarely lost his belt via decision back then on principle.

 

Ferdie Pachecco left the team after Manilla and said the same thing.

 

Manilla was Ali's crowning moment. What could the sceptics say now ? That he was just a hit and hop merchant ? That he didn't have heart ? That Angelo Dundee cut the gloves or loosened the ropes ? No. After Manilla all the arguments were settled for good. It was the perfect cue to retire.
Had Ali done so, I think his aura and legacy would be even greater. Nothing he did after Manilla came close to touching those heights.

 

Holmes should have been merciful and beat Ali to the body in the first round and stopped it then, Ali might have had bad indigestion and diarrhea after the fight, but it would have been better than him taking all those punches to the head.

 

They both have wins over fellow ATGs. I consider Holyfield, Tyson and Vitali to be all time greats. Ali was actually younger than Lennox, when they both took their first defeats, he was only 28, was he at his absolute best, no, but near enough. They both cleared out their division. Ali also has gift decisions on his record, if we're honest. Lennox legit beat every man he ever faced despite fighting until the age of 38. Lennox is the only HW I can think of who beat the next dominant Ring Champion in his final bout. It would be like Ali beating Holmes or Holmes beating Tyson

 

Nothing after Manila helped anything - the "three time champ" crown was a bit tarnished by the fact he lost it to a guy with only seven pro fights, and the beating his body and brain took over those years were a heavy price to pay for a few more paydays.

 

I think if you compare the 70's and 90's h2h, all that separates them is nostalgia an rose tinted glasses..Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe even that stage Tyson are a match for Ali Frazier Foreman Norton imo, then imo the contenders are better in the 90's than the 70's

 

im confused about that fight, Holmes if he wanted to be caring should've got him out of there with a sustained assault, he prolonged the beating imo, standing off a lot

 

Doesn't change anything, only Louis has a case over Ali, even without post-Manila career.

 

Tyson from Lewis fight was certainly far from ATG fighter.

 

I don't consider Holy and Tyson to be ATGs when Lennox beat them. The Vitali win is hugely impressive, though.

Ali was way past his prime and his legacy secured when he received what you call gift decisions (I presume you mean Young and Norton III). Lewis was much closer to his prime when he received what I consider to be about as much of a "gift decision" over Mercer.

You can't compare their exact ages since Lewis matured later and hit his peak in his 30's. Ali had defeated an ATG and was world champion at an age when Lewis still was an amateur (or had he just turned pro?). Also, McCall was hardly a Frazier.

Then there's the fact that Lewis has about half the number of wins over ranked opposition and probably not even that when it comes to wins for the undisputed title.

There is no way that their resumes and achievements stacks in Lewis's favour. Ali by a distance. Louis is the only one who compares.

 

And Holy would lose to Ruiz not long after losing to Lewis.

 

You can find arguments for both I guess. I personally can't really be bothered by these hypothetical match-ups, but I can understand if some feel that a late 90's Lewis would beat a late 60's Ali. But not something I find it worthwhile to get into.