When would have been the perfect time for Ali to retire?

Either after Foreman or Manila. After Manila, it was all downhill from there.

 

yeah, i reckon after the 3rd fight with frazier. the fights with holmes and berbick were terrible to watch.

 

After the Thrilla would have been perfect. A controversial decision against Norton would not be a good way to go out. & there's no glory in winning a third Championship against a guy with about ten fights to his credit.

 

After the last Frazier fight.

 

After regaining his title the third time. That's when he should have called it quits. One last winning and record setting effort.

 

I think the perfect time for Muhammad Ali to retire was whenever he wanted to, or had to, and that's what he did. :good

 

I have given this matter a great deal of thought over the years, and read widely on the subject.

For the sake of his health, Ali should have retired after Zaire. If you care for Ali as a person as well as a fighter, that is the sane exit point. It would still be a truly amazing career, and Ali would still have left the sport a rich man.

If you are a diehard boxing fan who wants to see one of the great clashes of ring titans, then you could be excused for wanting to see Ali - Frazier III. It no doubt took a great toll on Ali's health ("I felt close to death", said Ali) but it was also Ali's final great performance.

Anybody saying Ali should have fought on after Manilla has either not studied Ali's drastic decline as a fighter from that point on, or is heartless enough to want to see meaningless fights at the expense of a great man's health.

 

Ali's fights after Manilla, and why they add practically zero to Ali's legacy:

Jean-Pierre Coopman: Ali KOs a nice man, but a terrible boxer in an absolutely meaningless fight. Zero added to Ali's legacy.

Jimmy Young: Ali looked really terrible here; slow, overweight and out of shape. Young would have won with a more aggressive attitude. Zero added to Ali's legacy.

Richard Dunn: Ali scores his final knock out against another poor quality opponent. There is so little interest in this pointless fight that Ali literally has to pay for two thousand tickets to be given away so the stadium doesn't look so empty. Zero added to Ali's legacy.

Ken Norton: Ali now back in shape, and so has no excuse for his clearly diminishing skills. Few combinations thrown by Ali. He still manages to give Norton a tough fight and steal a win, but most see the fight as rightfully belonging to Norton. Very little, if anything added to Ali's legacy.

Alfredo Evangilista: Ali wins a boring, pointless bout against very low quality opposition. Zero added to Ali's legacy.

Earnie Shavers: Ali narrowly beats a dangerous contender, not so much with boxing skills but with every ounce of guts, bluff and ringcraft a rapidly fading warrior can muster. Ali takes a horrific beating in the process from one of boxings heaviest hitters. It adds to Ali's legacy for (yet again) proving his durability and courage...but people in the know see that victory is at far too heavy a cost. Ali's physician, Ferdie Pacheco leaves the Ali camp; his conscience preventing him from being party to any more beatings. Teddy Brenner, the matchmaker at Madison Square Garden publically announces he will never sanction another Ali bout (for fears about Ali's health)

Leon Spinks: Ali loses the title to a mediocre novice with only seven fights worth of professional experience. This greatly damages Ali's legacy.

Leon Spinks II: Ali wins a poor fight against a troubled, partying, hard-drinking, drug taking, recently arrested 'champion' who's hardly trained at all. Ali has trained hard, but his skills have eroded further. The key factor to Ali winning is that Spinks goes into the fight with nothing. Zero added to Ali's legacy.

Larry Holmes and Trevor Berbick: You guys don't need me to explain why these two fights detract from Ali's legacy, do you?

So, that is my definitive account as to why Ali should have quit after Manilla at the very latest. Does anyone disagree with my analysis?

 

After Manilla.

 

Very solid points, Chaney. As far as Norton 3, though the decision should have gone to Norton, I still think that a 2nd win against him looks better on record.

 

Right after Manila, definitely after Manila.

 

He should have quit after Manilla. He was established as the GOAT after attaining supremacy over his one rival.

Beyond that, he should have really bowed out after Norton. That was the fight that should have proven to him and his handlers he was fading.

The Athletic commissions should have refused to license him after Shavers. He survived that fight, won it, but did so on guts and brains, as quite literally everything else had vanished.

That Spinks was allowed to happen is grossly negligent. That Holmes and Berbick were is nigh criminal.

 

After matching Witherspoon, M. Spinks and Tyson.

 

after the triller in manilla.

he didn't do much to improve his legacy after that night.

I had him beating young, evangelista and shavers but how much did each add to his resume in all reality? whilst beating young looks good, the way he looked in the fight didn't.

I'm not sure anyone debating louis vs ali says "yeah but ali has that past prime win over young".

I had ali losing the norton rubber but you can't hold that loss against him. he'd proved in the norton rematch he could beat kenny and imo definitely would prime for prime (i'm not into this stylistic challenge, it was tough for 70's ali but 60's ali chews norton up)

Ali was clearly, for me at his very best against earnie terrell but he has quite a longevity at the top level from 64-74 where by you could call those his prime years. He wasn't electrifying in every one, but he was as close to his best as you could ask for.

Let him defend against frazier and stop him the bow out on a high leaving the likes of young and norton to compete for the belt.

 

after Thrilla In Manilla