Legacies that would be better if a fighter had stayed retired

Disagree strongly. He should have retired on June 27, 1979 after reaching 56-3 with no unavenged defeats.

Following Kinshasa, Ali racked up ten successful HW Title defenses over challengers when no other HW could have beaten them all. Boxing desperately needed a fighting HW Champion, and Ali was one of the absolute best ever. His first defense in Cleveland over Wepner begat the Rocky franchise which continues to this day, and brought Stallone into promotions (beginning with Pete Ranzany showing the nation how good he actually was in exposing exactly what Sean O'Grady was in terms of abilities and limitations).

Ali gave us a legendary 1975, concluding with Manila settling who the better fighter was. Four more defenses in 1976 concluded by winning his rubber match with Norton in Yankee Stadium. (Viewer comments on YouTube express surprise after watching all 15 rounds for themselves marking Ali as the clear winner.) Without the Inoki farce in Japan which damaged his legs enough to take away his KD power, that year could have seen him produce maybe two more defenses. Who? Maybe Urtain, definitely Galindez.

Victor was red hot in 1976, had the best chin at 175, and as with Wepner, Ali would eschew any attempts at drawing blood. Galindez hadn't lost since 1971, would have had an undefeated streak of around 35 bouts depending on when in 1976 or 1977 he might have challenged Ali without struggling to make 175. After Bob Foster's dismal failure against Frazier, I think Ali-Galindez might've restored the LHW Champion as a plausible HW challenger for at least another decade. Knowing what was to come for Victor, a huge payday against Ali would have been a good way for Galindez to retire, and given Ali a South American venue for a fifth continent to compete in (after North America, Europe, Africa and Asia).

A much better conditioned Eddie Mustafa Muhammad than he was for Snipes, then Qawi take shots at Holmes before Michael Spinks if Galindez comports himself well in a 1976 or 1977 challenge of Ali (possibly in place of then novice Evangelista).

He slowed down in 1977, but that gave us Shavers, cementing Ali's status as having an all time ability to take a punch (which Cosell ALWAYS credited him for possessing).

Yes, he lost to Leon in February 1978, then became the first three time linear HW Champion in the process. He should have remained retired after Leon II, unless making a final defense against Rossman (which was briefly discussed between Mike's bouts with Galindez).

What does the HW division look like without Ali from 1974 to 1978? He was the very best during the 1970's the one guy who could and did beat everybody else. What does Jimmy Young do to Foreman? Is there any way Jimmy could have been competitive against the 220 pound Ali who toyed with Dunn?

Norton wanted to be a fighting champion, but if he'd been awarded the title at Yankee Stadium, which slugger wrecks him first, Foreman in a rematch, Lyle or Shavers? That's three 1970's title wins Ali produced which Norton couldn't have prevailed in.

Leon established the precedent for 1976 American Olympians winning championships in the professional ranks, I believe.

So Kinshasa revived boxing, Wepner begat the Rocky franchise, Lyle brought the HW Title back to live network television in unsuccessfully challenging Ali for what was an extremely suspenseful bout to view as it was actually taking place, winning rubber matches with Frazier and Norton, cementing the quality of his chin for all time with Shavers, then validating the quality of the 1976 Olympians in his final defense before dominating the rematch. By winning that then retiring, he'd have left fans wondering how much more he had left in the tank after dominating Leon like that.

 

Reykjavik Douglas would have checkmated Bobby in 10 moves, and Evander would have castled Big King Buster in three.

 

That's a compelling argument but at what cost to his health?

 

But "What if he'd kept going after dominating Leon Spinks II" actually did apply to Ali, and keyed an $8,000,000 payout for Muhammad versus two million less for Larry Holmes, the defending champion.

Ali's exile? Take that away and he retains the athleticism to go from 1964 into the 1980's hypothetically, since he wouldn't have taken all that post exile punishment by maintaining his legs.

Norton II and Frazier II would not have been competitive, and those two bouts most roughly resemble what Ali would've done to them in the 1960's. Following Ali-Folley, Dundee was listing potential next challengers to Don Dunphy, like Frazier (a bad mismatch against Smoke in 1967 or 1968), Eduardo Courletti, Bonavena was signed for Tokyo on May 27th, and a rematch with Chuvalo was discussed as well, since George had taken Ali the Championship Distance. Jerry Quarry was viable in December 1967 after Patterson II that October. (Ali would have been defending against the JQ who handled Spencer so dominantly over 12.) Those six defenses would've surpassed Ali's 1966 total of five.

Muhammad Ali was the only one capable of being a successfully active HW Champion between Marciano (who defended twice a year) and Holmes. (Ezzard went thrice annually from 1949 to 1951. If he'd successfully defended against Walcott in their third bout, we'd have six defenses by Charles in 1951. His pace remained blistering until his first retirement in 1957.)

 

I believe ALL his health issues came from Shavers. Nobody else ever came close to absorbing that many head shots from Earnie. THAT was the cost of proving his chin for all time.

Boxing not only left Frazier undamaged in retirement, that training with bob and weave and chin cited as tops by Bugner actually EXTENDED Joe's life with all his marbles until liver cancer took him out. (Many of Frazier's opponents rated his chin tops.)

As a benefit to long health, Smoke may be one of boxing's greatest success stories, considering the health issues he was born with. Take away boxing, then Frazier is Buster Mathis. (BTW, without boxing, Mathis, Sr. doesn't even reach his 40's.)

 

Hi Buddy.
For me personally, regarding where to rate and position Jeffries on the all time lists, I do not put a lot of credence in his losing fight to Johnson, as we all know he was 5 years retired, woefully out of shape, and mentally weighed down by public expectations, when evaluating the pantheon of HW greats, it's the pre Johnson fighter that I have in mind, not the relic of 1910.
As a follow on from the above, and to you musing as to whether a unbeaten Jeffries would have any impact on Marcianos legacy, I would say very little, The Boilermaker had a short career up to his retirement, and the detractors highlight his fighting Sharkey, Corbett, and Fitzsimmons twice apiece, and to the quality of his opposition leading up to his title winning effort, by sheer coincidence the same argument could be levelled ( and is ) at Marciano fighting the same old fighters twice, you know the names, I believe the 49 fight winning streak carries more weight than the 15 on balance, you are right that if Jim did stay retired, the boxing landscape would have been changed forever by the term " only 2 HWs have retired undefeated " and that would have carried some merit.
enjoy all your contributions, you have good weighted topics and a keen knowledge of our sport, your passages are polite and courteous, other new members would do well to take heed.
stay safe hombre.

 

Ali also got damaged vs Shavers his speech started to slow after that fight. I think retiring after the Thriller In Manilla would've been the best time to retire. The fights vs Young, Norton 3, Spinks 1, actually harm Ali's resume rather than heighten it. Plus Ali would've been in much better health not fighting the likes of Shavers.

 

Muhammad's legacy was sealed after beating George Foreman in Zaire. Manila emphasised it. Anything else from 1976-81,good or bad makes no difference either way. I have a strong feeling that ending his career in Kinshasa would have made all the difference healthwise. And what an exit beating George would have been,eh? As the great man himself said "This is the way I came in and this is the way I'm going out"

 

I've actually expressed my belief that Ali might be alive today without Shavers, that even in Leon II when he dominated 11-4 in rounds, Cosell repeatedly made note of how he was misfiring with his fine timing now off. That only happened after Shavers.

Young? He was grossly out of shape at 230. For Dunn three weeks later, he was down to 220 and toying with the second southpaw to ever challenge for the HW Championship (Mildenberger having been the first). Dunn caused Young to be quickly dismissed as out of shape negligence. We couldn't know what Earnie did to him until Leon I. For me, Dunn redeems Young, Leon II redeems Leon I, and Norton III wins their rubber match while devastating Ken's legacy in a timid challenge unworthy of a champion. Young and Norton III harm the resumes of Jimmy and Ken far more than they detract from Ali's legacy, if indeed they do harm it for Muhammad (which again, I believe not to be the case).

Coopman and Dunn, as inferior as they were, made Ali seem like he'd gotten through Manila unscathed. Evangelista is the bout which most detracts from Muhammad's legacy between Manila and Shavers. (This is because that cheap shooting Inoki took away Ali's ability to plant his legs for driving power to knock Evangelista out.) Alfredo had only 16 bouts going no longer than eight rounds when he challenged Ali. (This is the defense I believe should have gone to Galindez. Nobody would've given Muhammad stick for failing to stop an unbloodied Galindez, which could have been extremely lucrative in Buenos Aires.) Evangelista gained mightily from Ali, and finished with a 62-13-4 dossier eleven years later with three European Title reigns. Respectable.

Does Berbick do anything for Ali? Well Muhammad certainly performed better than John Tate previously had, and it does lend credence to how much his self inflicted Thyrolar OD hindered him against Holmes. I believe the Berbick edition of Ali hears the final bell against Larry, but Leon II definitely should've been his finale in my view.

Leon I was the only challenge after Manila where the challenger went balls to the wall like a champion should (unlike Norton III, a stamina cautious Shavers and Young, something to contemplate before dismissing the gutsy Leon, who had never gone more than ten rounds).

 

Back to Ali Rahman had 12 pro fights? and he has Parkinson's so perhaps there is a genetic component. Also, a lot of damage is occurred in sparring and Ali sparred thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds

 

The thing is though alot of people believe Norton won the 3rd fight vs Ali, its deemed a very controversial fight. And I think that fight hurts Ali's legacy rather than enhances IMO, as people still talk about it regarding controversy.

Ali beat Norton in a good performance in their 2nd fight, I think that fight enchances his reputation rather than their 3rd fight.

As for the Young fight yes Ali was out of shape, but again I don't think this fight does anything for his resume honestly.

Needing 2 fights to beat a 7 pro fight novice in Spinks doesn't enhance is reputation for me either. I don't think either of these fights were needed on his resume.

The Shavers fight is a good win yes but because of the damage Ali took in his fight, again it's another fight I don't think was needed due to that.

For me the perfect ending for Ali would've been retiring after Thriller In Manilla.

 

Weighing it all up,Manila would have been an excellent encore after Zaire. No more after that one.

 

Are you aware of Fischer’s *possible* 2001 online comeback? It could be likened to Big George returning to win the title.

This content is protected

 

Fascinating article.
I hadn't followed Fischer's antics much after the nineties and was unaware of this tale.

I used to think it a pity he had such a ****ed -up attitude as he grew older.

But maybe the madness was partially what contributed to his genius.

Thanks for the link.

 

Couple things. First, since most boxers ring up many of their losses near the end of their careers, you can almost stick anyone in here and it would have some truth to it. So it's a pretty wide open question with a lot of correct answers. But I'll just go with some bigger names.

Also, this is definitely more of a problem for current fighters. A lot of old-time fighters, like Ezzard Charles, could lose to every mope and their brother in their final years, but most of those fights weren't televised and there is no visual record of his awful fights against really bad fighters. So people can easily ignore them.

Since everything in recent decades has been preserved forever, the legacies of modern fighters seem to suffer more when they go on too long. Today's fighters also seem to fight on much longer, whether that's a biproduct of the PEDs or whatever, which doesn't help.

Roy Jones is the glaring example for me. His career went on so long he was bad nearly as long as he was great. And all those bad fights are preserved forever. I'll never look at him like I did when he was on top of the sport. I think he nearly ruined his legacy, for what that's worth. I remember people (old timers) saying Roy Jones was maybe the best fighter who ever lived, or possibly second-best ever. Nobody says that anymore.

For me, you can put Duran in there. When I was a kid, he was a beast. He struck fear in people. If Duran never came back after No Mas, he'd have gone out 72-2, with wins over both guys who had victories over him. And I think the No Mas fight would've been a strange but fitting end. Total shooting star type move. Burned bright, then quickly fizzled out.

When fat Duran quit after getting punched in the armpit by Pat Lawlor, that was the last straw for me (and he still trudged on for another 10 years after that). I know people still praise him, but I watched that guy look like garbage for 20 years after the Leonard fights in 1980. To me, you just can't ignore all that. His 31-16 post-Leonard isn't a good record. And I don't think wins over Moore and Barkley make up for all the garbage in there.

Larry Holmes hasn't been mentioned. Larry would've been better off remaining retired after the second loss to Michael Spinks.

He would've finished 48-2. Most everyone thought he deserved the decision in the return bout with Spinks.

I don't think coming back and going 21-5 ... while losing to Tyson, Holyfield, McCall, Nielsen, getting a gift decision over Maurice Harris, generally looking out of shape and unmotivated while boxing a bunch of set-ups on the USA network, fighting in some old-timer bouts, and somehow managing to win a surprise decision over Ray Mercer ... improved his standing all-time at all.

Like Duran, there was a lot of crap to wade through just to get one decision over Mercer.

Also, like Jones and Duran, Larry didn't look close to great even when he won at the end there. It doesn't seem to have hurt him as badly as it did Jones, though, as Larry didn't get laid out as often.

Overall, though, I think It chipped away at Larry's all-time legacy. If his only loss had been to Spinks, and most thought he deserved the win in his 50th fight, I'm sure that would've gone a long way.