True or false did we miss out on seeing true peak Ali?

Always thought that was weird. He wasn't the US champion. It wasn't a US belt. He was the World Champ.

But the "world" bodies stripped him for not joining the US military.

 

Hell, they could've revoked his passport because he refused service, and he still could've defended his belt in the U.S.

It's not like he spent a year, or five, or really any time at all in jail during the whole mess.

And the title wasn't exactly being defended AROUND THE GLOBE (which would require a passport) after it was taken from him.

Joe Frazier won his vacant belt in Madison Square Garden in New York. And he defended it another four times in New York, as well as once in Philadelphia, Houston, Detroit, New Orleans and Omaha. If you're a US citizen, you don't exactly need a passport to fight in Omaha.

And six of the seven fights in the WBA tournament took place in the U.S. (either Oakland, Houston or Louisville). Again, if you're a citizen you don't need passports to fight in any of those cities.

So, back to the original question, yes we missed Ali in his prime - from just after he turned 25 until just before his 29th birthday. And we missed him defending the heavyweight title another possibly dozen times while he was in his prime - whether he refused military service or not.

Never should've been stripped by a "world" body for not joining his country's military.

 

We'll never know for sure, but I strongly suspect that we never really saw him at the absolute best he could have been.

Imagine Ali still as fast on his feet, and with his great reflexes, as he had in 1967, with SOME of the confidence and ring smarts he developed early in his second career, and you'll see what I'm aiming at here.

 

False.

Those years would have been great, but he would have been demolished by Frazier. Hence, we see FOTC earlier, and a subsequent rematch which also sees Frazier victorious. It's probably, actually, that a younger Ali is stopped.

As a consequence of those beatings, the guy that was struggling against Shavers, Norton and Spinks is the one that meets Foreman in the early 70's.

We have seen plenty of fighters with long lay-offs return in top form. Look at Fury!

Ali was a big Heavyweight, he was always going to prime in his 30's.

 

And imagine what he would endure against a PRIME Frazier on repeated occasions during those years.

 

Yes. And Frazier had that style that would have always been a problem for Ali. So did Norton, for that matter.

 

You most certainly can play the what if game with most athletes, though granted: saying all is a hyperbole. However, if there were circumstances that dragged them down, you can do it. Period.

My point was that trying to assess a theoretical peak condition for a fighter who supposedly didn't hit his full potential is more often than not a mildly amusing endeavor at best and an exercise in futility at worst. I never made any attempt at differentiating between or giving more validation to any particular scenario based on whether the fighter was responsible for the missed potential or not. It doesn't matter if you ask what if Frazier wasn't half blind and didn't have preexisting health conditions, what if Foreman and Tyson weren't born and raised in a gutter, resulting in an unresolved issues and inner demons affecting their mentality, or what if Sonny Liston wasn't ostracized and persecuted to the point where he hardly cared about boxing. At the end of the day, all those mental gymnastics are pointless in my opinion although I'll admit, some are more enjoyable to ponder on than others.

Bottom line, I was sceptic about theorizing on what could have been in general. Not sure if you took it as an attack or value judgement on Ali's specific circumstances. It wasn't, really.

 

But the choice was not to quit boxing, it was not to go to war. Not being able to box was a consequence he was ready to face, but he didn't want to if he didn't have to. Actually, he fought a long time to get his boxing license back and eventually did.

But by then he had lost the years we are talking about.

 

Well, if you didn't want to answer this hypothetical question, why come to this thread in the first place? Just stay out. Easy as that.

That means staying out on perhaps most of the threads here, since they often are hypothetical, of course, but no one is forcing you do otherwise.

 

I'd guess yes, fractionally. I don't think he would have got much better than he was right on exile.

 

3 1/2 years of his prime was stolen from him for what were purely political reasons. Who knows what he'd have achieved if he hadn't been robbed

 

100% correct Good post

 

I think that we did miss seeing the prime of Muhammad Ali. We saw him at his peak with all of his physical gifts, footwork, speed, stamina, and reflexes. From 1964-1967 we saw a totally different fighter compared to the 1970's version, who was more vulnerable forced into battles which delighted his critics because of his boastfulness, and it caused more damage to his health in his later years. Many will say the competition was better, maybe, but on the other side of the coin, maybe Ali would have had an easier time with them. In 1967 Yank Durham was asked if his fighter Joe Frazier was ready for champion Ali, he replied no. Durham said Joe needed more experience, was too green for Clay (Muhammad Ali) A trainer knows his fighter, and in 1967 Ali did not use Rope A Dope instead he could move for 15 rounds without missing a beat.

 

Bonus question.

Did we miss out on a peak Louis?

He was looking pretty darn good, when the war cut him off.