what would be Alis standing today if he hadnt come back fron exile?

Ali's best non-controversial ( Liston ) wins were post exile were over Quarry, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, and Norton. If Ali retired in 1967 as an un-defeated champion, I think he's still be a top ten guy, just not a top 1-3 guy.

 

This is how I see it as well. An unbeaten record around 28-0 looks good, but you'd be eliminating about 30 additional wins, including about 5 over all time great competition. Ali's legacy would not have reached very high proportions had he stopped short in the 60's.

 

He may be top10, but in the lower end of that.

Let's face it, his biggest win was against Liston, in which Liston the first time was under conditioned and the second time likely quit or took a dive. The other wins - Williams was shot, Cooper was average but knocked Ali down badly, Jones was a close one, Folley was a good win although he was old too, Terrel may be his second best win. Then there are some nice wins, like Chuvalo and Mildenberger.

Now if you compare him to someone like Tyson, he did a much more impressive job during the same span of time and he ranks in the lower ends of the top10 usually.

 

to a large part what makes ali at the top, was that he was able to span two different eras.

Realistically, there is hardly ever a time when you'll see a huge amount of ATG fighters at one period, it just doesn't happen, especially at heavyweights because of the way the top division is designed. And it doesn't make all that much sense why it would, if it happened all the time, there wouldn't be anything special about any of it.

What you have are a list of good fighters, contenders, and usually (hopefully) one guy ahead of all of them. ATG fighters rarely fight each other, simply because there is usually just one ATG fighter at a given time.

By returning, Ali was able to add a whole list of names to the inevitable question of who did he fight.

If you take just the first group, it gives him a solid, roughly five year era. I would imagine that he would rank around Liston or Frazier, and most people would put them in the mid to lower reaches of the top ten. Frazier would also be lowered, because he wouldn't have that win over Ali. We might all be placing Foreman in the top three.

 

The 70's would have ran with Fraizer being champ until he lost to Foreman, Foreman either holds onto the title for a while or when he loses to Young or some other boxer type of fighter.

I belive Ali would have been a top ten, unbeating and untied. But not relly fighting that great of a comp. Of couse perhaps the Liston fights may have hurt Ali's standed in arugements. Ali would have no back up with out Joe Fraizer or George Foreman kinda of wins. Ali mostly clean up the 1950's fighters in the 60's. Most of these guys seen better days.

Fraizer would be indeed rate lower with out Ali imo.

 

He became "god incarnate" when he KO'd Foreman. Had he not done that his claim of GOAT would be much more hotly debated in this forum.

 

What a horrible post.

 

To a certain degree Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, Norton, and even Bonavena helped create the Ali legend. After the exile Ali had to contend with a division where even some of the 2nd tier fighters bordered on greatness: ie Quarry and Bonavena. In fact Foreman claims that Jerry Quarry was the only guy he ever intentionally avoided. So, I think that we would still remember him as a great champion, but he would certainly not have the status he has now. I have to agree with those who say he would be in the lower part of the top ten, and some people may put him around 12-15.

Boo

 

"What if Ali fought...what if Ali fought...what if Ali fought..."

I think there'd be a lot of unanswered questions.

 

Not necessarily, fundamentally I agree with I AM LEGEND to the extent that Ali in the 70s needed to lose to Frazier in order to establish the level of perceived greatness that he achieved. Had he beaten Fraizer, Foreman and Norton - he would in effect undermine those guys and it would therefore affect his legacy. People tend to prefer guys who struggle out a win; if it looks hard it probably is and therefore credit is due. Its our way of embracing imperfection; its part of human nature.

I disagree to the extent that Foreman, Frazier and Norton were great fighters in thier own right. Thier stars would have shone regardless of whether they beat Ali or not, or for that matter regardless of whether Ali was around or not. But the truth is Ali losing to Frazier and Norton made Foreman's win more impressive. Ali beating those guys in rematches and beating Foreman raised his own stock significantly.

For instance, look at Jack Dempsey. He lost twice to Tunney. Had he beat Tunney the first time around his stock would go up. Had he lost the first fight and beat him the second time around his stock would have gone up even more.

Same Applies to Tyson vs. Holyfield. For Tyson, the second fight would have boosted his legacy more so than the first one had he won.

 

He had a rough time with Cooper,Jones,Mildenburger, had a good but weird win over Liston and an ovious dive in the rematch, he got hit a lot by Moore who I think was very old, 8 yrs after Marciano. His best fight were the loss to Frazier (getting up and being hurt bad in the 11th and 15th, the rematches, Foreman,Bonavena so I think he may have cracked the top 10-15 but the comeback was against the better fighters

 

what would people think of him if he never came back because he chose to go to war and died?(not if he was forced to go, say he was never against it)

 

It must be hard continually trying to take down every heavyweight rated above Tyson in your efforts to get Tyson to number one, somehow. I mean there's only about 10 of em.

 

I'd still rate him ahead of Marciano and, definitely, Dempsey, Tyson and a few others. Unbeaten, like the Rock of course, not as many fights but more title defences, a travelling champion (always scores big with me) and never in danger of losing while champ. Top 5 whichever way you slice it.