How would a post war Joe Louis do against Joe Frazier and George Forman?

Why post war? Because Ali fought Frazier and Forman after his 3 1/2 year lay-off.

How would a post war Joe Louis do against Joe Frazier and George Forman?

Why post war? Because Ali fought Frazier and Forman after his 3 1/2 year lay-off.

You haven't taken into account that Ali was only 29 when he came back and with 29 fights. Louis on the other hand was 32 with almost 50 fights. These things do make a difference.

Louis is a completely different boxer to Ali so while such a long layoff from the ring doesn't suit any boxer very well,It is much more detrimental to the career of someone like an Ali or a roy jones who rely on their physical gifts.Joe Louis was as simple as you could get,he did everything by the textbook and apart from some ring rust(which can quickly be sorted out by three or four warm up bouts)the accuracy should still be there,the power should still be there and even the speed should still be there.The problem is,I don't see a Jou Louis type fighter beating a george foreman as for frazier vs Louis who cares?

You haven't taken into account that Ali was only 29 when he came back and with 29 fights. Louis on the other hand was 32 with almost 50 fights. These things do make a difference.

Ali was 32 when he KO'd George Forman,and 33 when he stopped Joe Frazier.

Didn't you know this?

Well, Joe Louis in his prime was known for his ability to get punches off very quickly in combinations. Louis said that after the layoff he found it increasingly harder to "pull the trigger".

In Louis vs Conn II both men looked slow compared to their former selves. This was the first comeback fight after the Second World War for both.

Against Mauriello, Louis started slowly and got caught with a right hand early but recovered well. He countered Mauriello with a left hook and finished him off. This was the last time, according to Louis, that he felt like his former self.

Walcott truly exposed Louis for what he was, an older fighter whose abilities to counter and put punches together had greatly diminished. Louis' last great moment was in the second Walcott fight when he countered the showboating Walcott with a right hand and finished him with a beautiful combination.

He retired for two years until coming back to face Ezzard Charles because of money problems. Louis was game but he could only find Charles a couple of times. He was simply not able to throw enough punches to win.

Louis thought he had rushed into the fight with Charles after a long layoff and decided to be more active in the ring.

Jimmy Bivins who was one of Louis' opponents during that time said that while Louis still had his power, he did not have the speed or accuracy to catch and finish off his opponents like he did before.

Omelio Agramonte and the recently passed Cesar Brion both went the distance with Louis, twice.

His most notable comeback fight was against Lee Savold, a veteran of the ring himself, and Louis found the similarly aged contender far easier to hit than his previous foes. Louis showed he could still hit as long as the opponent stood right in front of him and knocked the durable Savold out with a left hook in the 6th round.

Louis in his last fight fought the upcoming Rocky Marciano. The fight was even after 6 rounds but Louis didn't have any legs left after the 7th. Marciano finished off the tired Louis and his career in the 8th round.

Marciano said in post-fight interviews that while Louis' left still "hit like a hammer", his right hand felt like nothing. Louis said that he simply couldn't fire the right hand properly anymore and could only use his left jab.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5zkE4BkMgg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5zkE4BkMgg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pbl1ly8vyrE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pbl1ly8vyrE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ali was 32 when he KO'd George Forman,and 33 when he stopped Joe Frazier.

Didn't you know this?

Which means Ali didn't fight them after a 3 and a half year lay off. He had time to recondition his body. Give Louis this same convenience and he's 35 and 36. Don't give it to him and you've changed the scenario to be what you want it to be. Either way it is obvious you are trying to put Louis down in some way.

Ali had his own Louis vs Walcott I when he fought Jimmy Young.

Which means Ali didn't fight them after a 3 and a half year lay off. He had time to recondition his body. Give Louis this same convenience and he's 35 and 36. Don't give it to him and you've changed the scenario to be what you want it to be. Either way it is obvious you are trying to put Louis down in some way.

Ali was 7 years past his prime when he KO'd George Forman.

Ali was 8 years past his prime when he TKO Joe Frazier

Could a Joe Louis that far past his prime stop both Forman and Frazier?

Ali was 7 years past his prime when he KO'd George Forman.

Ali was 8 years past his prime when he TKO Joe Frazier

Could a Joe Louis that far past his prime stop both Forman and Frazier?

You could say that but just how far past his prime was Ali in those fights? He certainly looked to be in great shape, had quick hands and took a punch as well as anybody. In some of his comeback fights he looks close to the prime Ali of 1966/1967.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wvav_wGofKM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wvav_wGofKM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iIwuEqRiraQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iIwuEqRiraQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ali had his own Louis vs Walcott I when he fought Jimmy Young.

No doubrt....I believe Young beat him,and Norton later that year in 1976.

I believe Ali left a piece of himself in the ring in the 1975 Trilla'in Manilla.
Ali was never the same.Nor Joe Frazier.

Ali fought on as a shot fighter against Young,Norton,Shavers,etc. etc.

Ali was 7 years past his prime when he KO'd George Forman.

Ali was 8 years past his prime when he TKO Joe Frazier

Could a Joe Louis that far past his prime stop both Forman and Frazier?

Nobody can say for sure. What I can say for sure is that your agenda is clear. And who are you to determine ali's prime? He may not have been at his absolute best, but he clearly wasn't a shot fighter.

Which means Ali didn't fight them after a 3 and a half year lay off. He had time to recondition his body. Give Louis this same convenience and he's 35 and 36. Don't give it to him and you've changed the scenario to be what you want it to be. Either way it is obvious you are trying to put Louis down in some way.

Hahaha, lads would you look at the paranoia on this lad. "Waaa waaa please stop saying non positive things about my boy!!".

You immediately accuse anyone of having an agenda against Louis just because they don't think they would win in a certain matchup. You need some serious help mate:bottle:

Now, to answer the thread question. No, Louis would crumble badly. He has shown too many vulnerabilities and is simply too overrated.

Nobody can say for sure. What I can say for sure is that your agenda is clear. And who are you to determine ali's prime? He may not have been at his absolute best, but he clearly wasn't a shot fighter.

Did you not read my previous post? It helps you know.

No doubrt....I believe Young beat him,and Norton later that year in 1976.

I believe Ali left a piece of himself in the ring in the 1975 Trilla'in Manilla.
Ali was never the same.Nor Joe Frazier.

Ali fought on as a shot fighter against Young,Norton,Shavers,etc. etc.

I don't think Ali was shot even then. To me a shot fighter is like how Ali was against Holmes and Berbick, unable to do anything really. Against Norton and Shavers he put up a good fights. Against Young he was simply unfocused and found it hard to deal with Young's awkward style.

I still think he should have retired after the Thrilla in Manila though.

I don't think Ali was shot even then. To me a shot fighter is like how Ali was against Holmes and Berbick, unable to do anything really. Against Norton and Shavers he put up a good fights. Against Young he was simply unfocused and found it hard to deal with Young's awkward style.

I still think he should have retired after the Thrilla in Manila though.

Maybe not shot....But badly slipped on the downside.

The Shavers fight left what was left....Afterwards he lost 3 of his last 4 fights.I agree Ali should have reired after the 3rd Frazier fight.He was never the same after that.

BUT.....Could a 32,33 year old Joe Louis stop both Forman and Frazier?

If one thing Jimmy young did,it was force ali to fight as the aggressor something he was simply ineffective as,Something Jimmy Young did not force Ali to do was show up to this fight with a physique that could only be described as a fat controller tribute

Ali had shown up in a few fights a little round for the first two years following his comeback but after Zaire it just got out of control.He showed up to virtually every one of his fights pre-zaire an out of shape whale.

Apart from the second fight with spinks and the third fight with norton,Oh and the fight with holmes where he had been popping pills for a number of weeks after being wrongly diagnosed with a thyroid condition by his doctor.That little exhibition bout he had with Inoki did terrible damage to his legs and this was just three months beore his third fight with norton

As for the third bout with norton,I've never seen any robbery of such in this fight,Perhaps if Norton had kept the pace and attack to the body like he had for the first 8 rounds then yeah fair enough but he got hit cleanly far to often during the last seven rounds and much of it was down to his own doing rather than Ali's,Norton lost that fight as much as Ali won it or atleast to my view

In the war joe took part in a troupe of boxers that did expos all around the world and performing 96 3-4 round expo matches though that dosnt quite account for the rustyness logically but in reallity fightin 96 matches that dont really matter may change things a little bit, also another 96 on to his 50 lets see ali ko foreman after 146 fights or even devide 96 by 4 to get 24 16 round matches so thats like 70 some fights that joes building onto after the war compared to alis 60 something alltogether

it would be an awesome fight but i dont think he would win post war due to obivious diffrences between him and ali.

Did you not read my previous post? It helps you know.

I've read all your posts. It clear the response that you're trying to illicit. What you are not doing is taking all the facts into consideration.

Would Louis beat the Frazier Ali fought in Zaire? I'd give him a fair chance since Joe would be walking into his punches much like he did Foreman. Difference being, Louis was much more accurate.

Would Louis beat the Foreman that Ali beat? No, I don't think post war Louis beats him.

Your problem is, you don't take all the intangibles into consideration. Age, wear and tear and amount of fights. Both Louis and Ali's time away from the ring are two different things. No way can you compare the two objectively.

Hahaha, lads would you look at the paranoia on this lad. "Waaa waaa please stop saying non positive things about my boy!!".

You immediately accuse anyone of having an agenda against Louis just because they don't think they would win in a certain matchup. You need some serious help mate:bottle:

Now, to answer the thread question. No, Louis would crumble badly. He has shown too many vulnerabilities and is simply too overrated.

.......(yawn).......

Your problem is, you don't take all the intangibles into consideration. Age, wear and tear and amount of fights. Both Louis and Ali's time away from the ring are two different things. No way can you compare the two objectively.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Not to mention that primes differ from fighter to fighter and fighters don't "age" at the same pace. Hopkins and Moore could still be considered prime well into their 30s while I've seen damn good fighters that were washed up in their 20s.

Poet

Not to mention that primes differ from fighter to fighter and fighters don't "age" at the same pace. Hopkins and Moore could still be considered prime well into their 30s while I've seen damn good fighters that were washed up in their 20s.

Poet
Benitez probably being the best example..
I think we can safely say that Ali had a much better resume than Louis with regard to comebacks in question, but as already mentioned, Louis had engaged in 21 more contests, so the whole thing bears to insignificance.. I'd say post war, Louis would be lucky to make the top 10...

Not to mention that primes differ from fighter to fighter and fighters don't "age" at the same pace. Hopkins and Moore could still be considered prime well into their 30s while I've seen damn good fighters that were washed up in their 20s.

Poet
Benitez probably being the best example..
I think we can safely say that Ali had a much better resume than Louis with regard to the comebacks in question, but as already mentioned, Louis had engaged in 21 more contests, so the whole thing bears to insignificance.. I'd say post war, Louis would be lucky to make the top 10...

Benitez probably being the best example..
I think we can safely say that Ali had a much better resume than Louis with regard to comebacks in question, but as already mentioned, Louis had engaged in 21 more contests, so the whole thing bears to insignificance.. I'd say post war, Louis would be lucky to make the top 10...

Louis might have had more fights,but Ali was in more wars.

If you do not want to compare post war Joe Louis to Ali after his 3 1/2 year lay-off,then you should stop talking about all the fighters Ali had trouble with after his lay-off.If you want to say Ali had more trouble with more opponents AFTER his lay-off than Louis,then you need to also talk about how Louis would do against Forman and Frazier.You can't have it both ways..

I've read all your posts. It clear the response that you're trying to illicit. What you are not doing is taking all the facts into consideration.

Would Louis beat the Frazier Ali fought in Zaire? I'd give him a fair chance since Joe would be walking into his punches much like he did Foreman. Difference being, Louis was much more accurate.

Would Louis beat the Foreman that Ali beat? No, I don't think post war Louis beats him.

Your problem is, you don't take all the intangibles into consideration. Age, wear and tear and amount of fights. Both Louis and Ali's time away from the ring are two different things. No way can you compare the two objectively.

Louis might have had more fights,but Ali was in more wars.

BTW-Who do you pick in a fight between Prime Ali vs Prime Louis?

Louis might have had more fights,but Ali was in more wars.

If you do not want to compare post war Joe Louis to Ali after his 3 1/2 year lay-off,then you should stop talking about all the fighters Ali had trouble with after his lay-off.If you want to say Ali had more trouble with more opponents AFTER his lay-off than Louis,then you need to also talk about how Louis would do against Forman and Frazier.You can't have it both ways..
In a debate, you discuss every angle inside out if need be.. Comparing the 2 best heavyweights of all time, an argument that's been going on amongst historians for some 50 odd years now, does tend to fall into this category.. I suggest that you broaden your horizons a little..

In a debate, you discuss every angle inside out if need be.. Comparing the 2 best heavyweights of all time, an argument that's been going on amongst historians for some 50 odd years now, does tend to fall into this category.. I suggest that you broaden your horizons a little..

I have read almost all your posts.I'm aware of almost everything you have posted.I look at the BIG picture when comparing Louis and Ali,but it would take me hours to post them.

It's one thing to have the best resume' and another to truly being the GOAT.

BUT,you have been ducking and dodging my comparisons and questions.

After Ali's 3 1/2 year lay-off he got a little lazy in his training at times.He started coming into a fight in the condition he thought would win him the fight.But you to come on here and list fights that gave Ali trouble when he was 6 to 10 years past his prime is hilarious.You listed Young(9 years past his prime),Shavers(10 years past his prime),Spinks(11 years past his prime)Norton(6 to 9 years past his prime)Frazier(4 to 8 years past his prime).Then you use these fights to show Ali had more trouble with more fighters than Louis!! Then I simply ask you how Louis would do against these fighters way past his prime? I also simply ask you how Louis would do against Forman when he was 7 years past his prime? Why? Because Ali KO'd Forman when he was 7 years past his prime! Remember,you started this by listing fights Ali had trouble with AFTER his 4 year lay-off,and 4 to 11 years after his prime.Do you look at all this? Do you put that in the computer,Lol

Yes,it would take me 10 hours to post everything about Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali when comparing them.Louis might have the better resume",but you need to look at other things.... like things I ask you etc. etc.

So far all I get is the run around from you.

I have read almost all your posts.I'm aware of almost everything you have posted.I look at the BIG picture when comparing Louis and Ali,but it would take me hours to post them.

It's one thing to have the best resume' and another to truly being the GOAT.

BUT,you have been ducking and dodging my comparisons and questions.

After Ali's 3 1/2 year lay-off he got a little lazy in his training at times.He started coming into a fight in the condition he thought would win him the fight.But you to come on here and list fights that gave Ali trouble when he was 6 to 10 years past his prime is hilarious.You listed Young(9 years past his prime),Shavers(10 years past his prime),Spinks(11 years past his prime)Norton(6 to 9 years past his prime)Frazier(4 to 8 years past his prime).Then you use these fights to show Ali had more trouble with more fighters than Louis!! Then I simply ask you how Louis would do against these fighters way past his prime? I also simply ask you how Louis would do against Forman when he was 7 years past his prime? Why? Because Ali KO'd Forman when he was 7 years past his prime! Remember,you started this by listing fights Ali had trouble with AFTER his 4 year lay-off,and 4 to 11 years after his prime.Do you look at all this? Do you put that in the computer,Lol

Yes,it would take me 10 hours to post everything about Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali when comparing them.Louis might have the better resume",but you need to look at other things.... like things I ask you etc. etc.

So far all I get is the run around from you.
All I do, is try to be concise.. Like you, I haven't got 10 hours to do a blow by blow account of my opinion on how Louis gets on against all the fighters you throw at me.. And had you studied ALL of my posts, then the answers to ALL of your questions are clearly explained.. Please do enlighten me if I may have left one out, as not all of them will be directly posted to you.. And if I stated that Ali had trouble with certain fighters, so what?.. He did.. Period.. It all comes out in the wash...

All I do, is try to be concise.. Like you, I haven't got 10 hours to do a blow by blow account of my opinion on how Louis gets on against all the fighters you throw at me.. And had you studied ALL of my posts, then the answers to ALL of your questions are clearly explained.. Please do enlighten me if I may have left one out, as not all of them will be directly posted to you.. And if I stated that Ali had trouble with certain fighters, so what?.. He did.. Period.. It all comes out in the wash...

Again....You named fighters Ali had trouble with when he was 6 to 11 years past his prime for crying out loud.

Just to try to elevate Louis over Ali.And you know it.

You want me to name fighters Louis had trouble with when way past his prime? Or right before his prime when he gets KO'd for the 10 count!!

Again....You named fighters Ali had trouble with when he was 6 to 11 years past his prime for crying out loud.

Just to try to elevate Louis over Ali.And you know it.

You want me to name fighters Louis had trouble with when way past his prime? Or right before his prime when he gets KO'd for the 10 count!!

You're starting to sound like Putrid Pommie aka Buttheadpooper.

Poet

You're starting to sound like Putrid Pommie aka Buttheadpooper.

Poet

Again....Using Ali fights when he is 6 to 11 years past his prime is a good practice when comparing fighters?

Ali was 32 when he KO'd Forman,and 33 when he stopped Frazier in Manilla.

Would you mind answering how a 32,33 year old Joe Louis fairs?

Again....Using Ali fights when he is 6 to 11 years past his prime is a good practice when comparing fighters?

Ali was 32 when he KO'd Forman,and 33 when he stopped Frazier in Manilla.

Would you mind answering how a 32,33 year old Joe Louis fairs?

See my previous post about primes not being a fixed period of time and differ from fighter to fighter.

Poet

Again....You named fighters Ali had trouble with when he was 6 to 11 years past his prime for crying out loud.

Just to try to elevate Louis over Ali.And you know it.

You want me to name fighters Louis had trouble with when way past his prime? Or right before his prime when he gets KO'd for the 10 count!!
We've already done that in several debates.. Your trying to create parrot threads like on NBS..

See my previous post about primes not being a fixed period of time and differ from fighter to fighter.

Poet

Yes,I read your post and fully understand what you mean.BUT to list fights of Ali 6 to 11 years past his prime is silly.But the same poster will not answer MY silly post about how a 33 year old Joe Louis would do against Forman and Frazier.I'm just showing how silly his posts are of using Ali fights 6 to 11 years past his prime,and using them when comparing Ali and the Brown Bomber.

Are you guys twins?

Yes,I read your post and fully understand what you mean.BUT to list fights of Ali 6 to 11 years past his prime is silly.But the same poster will not answer MY silly post about how a 33 year old Joe Louis would do against Forman and Frazier.I'm just showing how silly his posts are of using Ali fights 6 to 11 years past his prime,and using them when comparing Ali and the Brown Bomber.

Are you guys twins?

My point is you're comparing apples to oranges when you use the standard of "6 to 11 years". Fighters age differently from one another and 6 to 11 years past prime one fighter may be shot while another may be still competitive.

Poet

Again....Using Ali fights when he is 6 to 11 years past his prime is a good practice when comparing fighters?

Ali was 32 when he KO'd Forman,and 33 when he stopped Frazier in Manilla.

Would you mind answering how a 32,33 year old Joe Louis fairs?

can you tell me how an ali would have faired if he had to defend his title from 67-70 as louis had to from 42-46? but serisouly now he took joe walcott twice in 47 and 48 (33/34 year old) i dont think hes going to have any problem with the likes of forman or fraizer i mean walcott put up a good fight against a decent rocky 4 years later.

My point is you're comparing apples to oranges when you use the standard of "6 to 11 years". Fighters age differently from one another and 6 to 11 years past prime one fighter may be shot while another may be still competitive.

Poet

Exactly....And Ali had more wars than Louis.

Sometimes it's not the most fights but the quality of opossition.

Ali aged ALOT in his 3 wars with Joe Frazier,and his hard 3 fights with Norton.His fight against George Forman was another hard fight.

can you tell me how an ali would have faired if he had to defend his title from 67-70 as louis had to from 42-46? but serisouly now he took joe walcott twice in 47 and 48 (33/34 year old) i dont think hes going to have any problem with the likes of forman or fraizer i mean walcott put up a good fight against a decent rocky 4 years later.

Ali had just turned 25 years old when he was stripped of his title.He was getting stronger,hitting harder,and had more stamina.He would only continue to get better at ages 25,26,27,28 and would have easily defended his title against anyone during those years of 1967,68,69,and 70.

Ali missed his best years.Boyyyyyy,would he have been something to see during his 3 1/2 year absense from the ring.He would have had "no wars" during these years,easily beating everyone.Ali had defended his title 9 times when stripped of his title.If he had not been stripped he would have had around 20 title defenses by 1970.He would not have had any "ring rust" and would have continued to defend his title,and a much easier 1st fight with Joe Frazier.He would still only be 29 years old!! He would be alot more experienced as well!!

You say a post war Joe Louis would have had "no problem" with Forman or Frazier? You site his fights against Walcott as proof.What are you smoking?

[QUOTE=boxingbuff;5794682]Ali had just turned 25 years old when he was stripped of his title.He was getting stronger,hitting harder,and had more stamina.He would only continue to get better at ages 25,26,27,28 and would have easily defended his title against anyone during those years of 1967,68,69,and 70.

Ali missed his best years.Boyyyyyy,would he have been something to see during his 3 1/2 year absense from the ring.He would have had "no wars" during these years,easily beating everyone.Ali had defended his title 9 times when stripped of his title.If he had not been stripped he would have had around 20 title defenses by 1970.He would not have had any "ring rust" and would have continued to defend his title,and a much easier 1st fight with Joe Frazier.He would still only be 29 years old!! He would be alot more experienced as well!!

Everything in bold is conjecture.

[QUOTE]

Everything in bold is conjecture.

I would love to hear your take on everything in bold.

[QUOTE=JAB5239;5794744]

I would love to hear your take on everything in bold.

You've already gotten it. Everything you said is guess work. None of it can be proven. Sure, there is a chance for all that, but none of it is definitive. We don't know if Ali would have had an easier time with Frazier, got side tracked by fame or the NOI or made all those defenses successfully and in easy fashion to boot. Conjecture.

Ali had just turned 25 years old when he was stripped of his title.He was getting stronger,hitting harder,and had more stamina.He would only continue to get better at ages 25,26,27,28 and would have easily defended his title against anyone during those years of 1967,68,69,and 70.

Ali missed his best years.Boyyyyyy,would he have been something to see during his 3 1/2 year absense from the ring.He would have had "no wars" during these years,easily beating everyone.Ali had defended his title 9 times when stripped of his title.If he had not been stripped he would have had around 20 title defenses by 1970.He would not have had any "ring rust" and would have continued to defend his title,and a much easier 1st fight with Joe Frazier.He would still only be 29 years old!! He would be alot more experienced as well!!

You say a post war Joe Louis would have had "no problem" with Forman or Frazier? You site his fights against Walcott as proof.What are you smoking?

Absolutely would have kicked everybodys butt from 67-70.

Missed his best years? definately would have been so good. quite the sight to see no wars what so ever.

so in the 3 years he would have defended his title 11 times im sure against a younger joe fraizer and many other fighters of that time period the best of the best trying for the title and getting destroyed one after another id say 5-8 take him to the decision though.

no ring rust and probably now having a second match with fraizer(the first in reality) and an easy time with him a few years pass and along comes norton now assuming ali hasnt decided to retire by now we would never hear from ali again after the norton match because he just spent the last 10 matches still fighting the best of the best defending his title now up to 30+ times compleatly spent and barely can think straight.

point.

if ali had fought and continued to defend his title there is no way he would have been able to box any where near as long as he did. those 3 years he had to take off probaly added a good 10 years onto his ring carrer. had he taken those 3 yaers after his carrer was allready over we would have never herd of foreman vs ali or the rumbel in the jungle cause ali would have retired by 72 but all thats just conjecture as well

[QUOTE=TheGreatA;5782300]You could say that but just how far past his prime was Ali in those fights? He certainly looked to be in great shape, had quick hands and took a punch as well as anybody. In some of his comeback fights he looks close to the prime Ali of 1966/1967.



I have to disagree with that. While Ali still had the quick hands, his legs and movement were never the same as they were before the lay off. No way can an athlete who depends on reflexes and timing be the same after almost 4 years out of the ring. That is why Ali started fighting flatter footed in his post lay off fights. He could not move as well or as consistently as he did before. By his own admission, his timing didn't come back 100 percent until the second fight with Quarry. You look at Roy Jones jr. who still has the fast hands but no legs. Similar to what happened to Ali.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sEip4mxnhMY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sEip4mxnhMY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7IBUm7rndQs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7IBUm7rndQs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I have to disagree with that. While Ali still had the quick hands, his legs and movement were never the same as they were before the lay off. No way can an athlete who depends on reflexes and timing be the same after almost 4 years out of the ring. That is why Ali started fighting flatter footed in his post lay off fights. He could not move as well or as consistently as he did before. By his own admission, his timing didn't come back 100 percent until the second fight with Quarry. You look at Roy Jones jr. who still has the fast hands but no legs. Similar to what happened to Ali.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sEip4mxnhMY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sEip4mxnhMY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7IBUm7rndQs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7IBUm7rndQs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

His legs weren't the same but I don't think they were bad, not like Roy Jones's atleast. Frazier was simply putting consistent, relentless pressure on him. Even a prime Ali would have had to get some rest against the ropes in a fight vs Frazier, although not as excessively as he did in the FOTC.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xgk3hwUqbyg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xgk3hwUqbyg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In his second fight with Frazier, Ali moves quite consistently, close to what he did in some of his prime fights. He also had a lot of other things going for him aside from his sheer athleticism, unlike Jones.

He was better off after his layoff than Louis after he came back from the army. I don't think Ali would have been as successful had he made his comeback at 32 instead of 28. Their situations aren't comparable in my view.

He was better off after his layoff than Louis after he came back from the army. I don't think Ali would have been as successful had he made his comeback at 32 instead of 28. Their situations aren't comparable in my view.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, going into the Army has traditionally had a debilitating effect on athletes. I remember reading about how when Paul Hornung got out from his Army stint Vince Lombardi was appalled at how out of shape he was ("Run To Daylight" pg. 33-34).

Poet

My point is you're comparing apples to oranges when you use the standard of "6 to 11 years". Fighters age differently from one another and 6 to 11 years past prime one fighter may be shot while another may be still competitive.

Poet

Your correct when saying fighters can be different ages during there primes.

BUT,normally a fighters prime is 25,26,27,and 28.

We never saw Ali during his best years. He just turned 25 when he last fought in 1967,missing most of age 25. He missed all of 26 and 27,and most of age 28.Those were his best years my friend.

Yet Joe Louis was able to fight during his best years.He was able to fight when he was 25,26,27,and 28.

Both won the title at young ages-I believe both were 22 years old.But Joe could continue to fight without interuption from ages 25-28,while Ali could not.

So you see....There is a flip side to the coin to those who say that Ali wouldn't have done as well after his lay-off if he didn't fight from ages 28-32.But then we have to take into equation the "quality" of opossition he would have been fighting.

But one thing is for sure,Ali didn't get to fight basically from ages 25 to 28-His best years! Where Joe Louis got to fight during his best years.

You would have to be an Ali hater to say he would have been weaker,with less stamina,a lighter puncher,slower hands,slower foot work,and slower reflexes during the years he couldn't fight during mostly 1967,68,69,and mostly 1970.You would have to be an Ali hater to say he would stop defending his title less times per year.

You would have to be a Ali hater to say he would have more "wars" during his best years from 1967-1970.The fight with Frazier would have probably took place during 1969,when Ali would have been better(Atleast as good) than in 1967,and would have taken ALOT less punishment than there 3 fights in the 1970's.Ali winning a 15 round UD-10-5.

Please NAME the other "wars" he would have had during 1967 to 1970 please? He beat Elliss,Bonavena,Quarry,and Mathias AFTER his 3 1/2 year lay-off!! You think he would had "wars" with these guys WITHOUT a lay-off? Lol

Muhammad Ali missed his BEST YEARS and would have been just as fast and quick during his Prime years 0f 1967-1970.He would not have had the ring rust and would have hit just as hard or harder.His stamina would have been just as good or better.His strength would have been just as good or better.His EXPERIENCE would have been better!! Only a Ali hater would deny this.

and by 72 he would have been done boxing

and by 72 he would have been done boxing

Yep,after whipping George Forman and retiring undefeated with a ton of title defenses.