What if Muhammad Ali wasn't suspended?

The suspension is a bit blown out of proportion,on the flip side 60's ali was more susceptible to hooks and wasn't as strong.He would have ran into a prime Frazier between 68/71 so he would nt be fighting a 73/75 Frazier,who slowed down himself.i think in irony the lay off saved his status because I think frazier would have beat him in the 60's.He beat him in 71.



"The outcome wouldn't have changed from the first time,i think frazier would have won if he had the same managers who brought him along" G.foreman on what if they fought in the 60's.


'There was nothing to handle,Ali claimed he was gonna dive right in had nothing to do with his lay off" Frazier on why he still beat ali in 71.


This will always be an ongoing debate,i would side with Frazier as the better 60's fighter,Ali as the better 70's,only because I think 74 Ali would beat 71 Frazier.

 

Ali would never has been as good as it is now assumed he would have been. In hindsight, it was a great move for his legacy because of the "what if" factor. Even Ali could not beat the mythical 67-69 Ali.

 

I think the time off was a blessing for him because it spared him even more brain damage.

 

Well that is a what if...he may have retired around 71 if that was the case.Losses or wins over Frazier/foreman,or Norton...I think without the lay off he retires sooner and actually saves him from further damage.Thats if Frazier as stated beats him in the 60's in a trilogy.

 

You may be right, but it seems to me that Ali had to be dragged away from the limelight. He was obviously in no condition to fight Berbick and Holmes, yet he did. I see those three years being active ones and damaging ones. If he would have retired earlier if a suspension hadn't occurred, I think that he would have been forced to because of health reasons.

 

I don't think that Muhammad could have got much better than he was circa 1966-67. What we would have seen is him maintaining that crest for a few years longer.


If he'd have carried on into the early/middle seventies he'd have still lost a bit of speed and would have been at his 'seventies best' around 1972-74. The same as he was in real life.

 

Yeah I agree with that. By 1967 he was already 25 years old and with 10 world title fights of experience behind him. Hard to imagine him improving or doing anything different. But I also concur that his peak would have lasted longer than it did, which is precisely why I don't think he would have lost to Joe Frazier had the layoff never occurred.

 

He kept winning ,losses back to back and then Norton may have been the factor,then looking at foreman down the road may have changed his mind.

 

Just like Tyson's exclusion from boxing in the early 90's was????

 

he probably would have remained World Champion, and would have beaten Frazier in 1968 or 1969. The three year layoff affected his movement and timing a bit.

 

Perfectly put. It's the old standby defence for Ali, "But we never saw him in his prime!". It enables him to be undefeated in mythical match ups.

 

We did see Ali at his best. Watch his first fight with sonny liston and fight with cleveland williams. That is Ali at his best. We did not see Ali in his prime.

 

1/Ali never went to prison you imbecile...Tyson did and was not training the entire time!

2/ Tysons style was inside or mid range so it was critical hios timing was on point unlike Ali who could out point guys from the outside.

3/ Tyson didn't have the luxury of having the same trainer,Ali had Dundee and company throughout his prime and after.

4/Tysons didn't step back in the ring more than 5 years later ,ali did in less than 4 years.

5/Read 1 again.....:smooch

 

Hmmm...67-70, would have been Ali's peak years.