Louis and Ali: would it affect their standings if neither's career was interrupted?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bokaj, Oct 31, 2008.


  1. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,080
    12,994
    Jan 4, 2008
    If there was no WWII or Vietnamn war, and neither Louis's and Ali's had their careers interrupted therefore, do you think it possible that their standings would different today?

    Because what could have stopped Louis besides old age? If he lost the title to Charles when somewhere around 35 with perhaps 40+ defences under his belt no one would hold that against him. His record would in all likelyhood be even more impressive than it is today, while the same wouldn't necissarily be true for Ali.

    Could Ali have amassed as many defenses? He probably would have had to in order to be considered ahead or even equal to Louis, since wins over Frazier and especially Foreman wouldn't have carried the same weight in this scenario.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Addie

    Addie Myung Woo Yuh! Full Member

    42,502
    400
    Jun 14, 2006
    Of course if both fighters had opportunities to fight more fights, get more wins and title defences, things would change shape. By personal view is, it doesn't matter how many fights you have, its who you beat.

    Vietnam or no Vietnam, Ali has the best resume at Heavy.
     
  3. groove

    groove Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,056
    25
    May 16, 2006
    ali was fighting very regular before exile - he was at his peak. 5 defences in 66. 2 defences in 67 and we were only in march (only 6 weeks between terrell and folley defences). if he did 5 defences every year. by the end of the 60s he coulda had an extra 13 defences. he probably woulda fought frazier in 69 or 70 but he woulda fought the likes of quarry, ellis, bonavena in the late 60s.
     
  4. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,950
    24,904
    Jan 3, 2007
    Could have gone either way.

    In the 1940's, the ratings were frozen during WWII. Fighters were able to keep their rankings without necessarily having to update their credentials. The ones who suffered for this were the young talents who never got a chance to emerge during their primes, due to the fact that either A. they were forced to take a seat behind older fighters who had their rankings preserved, or B. Went to go fight in the war, leaving their boxing career hehind.

    If Louis's reign had never been subjected to the interruption of a war, he well may have accumulated as many as 40 title defenses, or he may have found himself facing a higher volume of prime talents, which could also have led to a loss earlier...

    As for Muhammad Ali, I am fairly confident that he would have continued to reign well into the 1970's without a loss, had he never been exiled. From the time he left the game in 1967 to the time he returned in 1970, he was between 25-28 years of age, and in the absolute midst of his prime. In fact, for all we know he might even have missed out on a chance to improve as a result of his abscence during what is typically the peak age of a fighter's career. Additionally, I do not see Frazier beating him under these circumstances. Had Ali continued to box through the end of the 1960's, he and Frazier would have jointly cleared out the division of any available talent, resulting in an earlier matchup between the two of them, perhaps around 1968-69. A lesser experienced Frazier vs a peak Ali with all the momentum in the world at his fingertips, would likely have ended in Frazier never winning the heavyweight title..
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,711
    Mar 21, 2007
    Ali is the most interesting, I think.

    Would Frazier have got him anyway? That's the biggest question, I think.
     
  6. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,080
    12,994
    Jan 4, 2008
    I think Norton would have a bigger chance of beating a somewhat jaded and aging Ali in the early 70's than Frazier would have had against the man at his absolute peak in the late 60's.

    If Norton didn't beat him then Holmes looks a good bet some 5 years down the road.
     
  7. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    I think Ali was at his absolute prime before his career was interrupted. I regard his prime fight as the '66 fight against Cleveland Williams, when he stopped him in 3 rounds. Then he went on to comprehensively beat Terrell, and stop Folley.

    I think if his career wasn't interrupted for 3 years, and he used that time wisely, I think it could of further enhanced his already terrific legacy and all-time standing.
     
  8. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    50,950
    24,904
    Jan 3, 2007
    Agreed,

    He would have likely beaten prime versions of Frazier, Mathis, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena and Martin, plus a few low profile defenses in between. This would have probably given him somewhere between 16-20 defenses before the 1970's even began..
     
  9. kenmore

    kenmore Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,132
    28
    Jan 29, 2008
    In Ali's case, the fact that his career was interrupted sealed his status as one of the greatest of all time. That's because watching how good Ali was when he was past his prime (post-1970) made us realize how great he must have been during the 1960s, when he was at his peak.
     
  10. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,080
    12,994
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yeah, but wins over Frazier and Foreman wouldn't carry as much weight under these circumstances. An Ali win over Foreman might not have been viewed as greater than Holmes's over Cooney, while today it's his biggest win together with the first one over Liston.

    And let's not forget that Louis might well have had an even more impressive record had he not gone to WWII.
     
  11. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,706
    3,541
    Jul 10, 2005
    Perhaps, but Louis was fighting about or close times to 7 times a year, he relly lost that active after the war.

    I feel Louis perhaps may have burn out fast, depends if they give him Godey like problems or gets blown out like Mann, I like to think he could get 40, but I feel better around the 29-35 mark.
    As for Ali, he would have rein right though his exile years, at the time of the exile, there was relly no big fish for Ali. Perhaps he gets the Frazier fight sooner, either way, both would be rated about were they are at regardless of wars/exiles or not.
     
  12. pmfan

    pmfan Active Member Full Member

    1,408
    2
    May 11, 2008
    Both were affected. But they are two of the highest ranked heavyweights anyway, so it didn' t make much difference relative to one another. Ali's prime would have been during his forced hiatus and he may have faced Frazier earlier and outboxed a younger Smokin' Joe (I suspect he would have).
     
  13. punchy

    punchy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,801
    10
    Oct 10, 2005
    Another question is whether the break prolonged their career as so many fighters burn out.
     
  14. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,080
    12,994
    Jan 4, 2008
    This really underscores the fact that these two are in a leaugue of their own at HW. It also makes one wonder why so many p4p top 10-lists only have one or none of them on it.
     
  15. My dinner with Conteh

    My dinner with Conteh Tending Bepi Ros' grave again Full Member

    12,059
    3,559
    Dec 18, 2004

    Yes. Late 1969. Ali in better shape than he would ultimately be in 71 (through activity) but not taking Frazier quite as seriously. Ali's 15th defence or thereabouts.