View Full Version : Could ali have went undefeated despite the layoff?


Dempsey 1919
12-17-2005, 04:04 PM
i've been thinking about it, and i think all of ali's losses were either because he didn't train properly, or because of something else that messed him up.

1971 - joe frazier/ if ali had fought more than just two fights after the layoff before taking on frazier, he would have been more prepared in fighting frazier. plus he weighed more in the frazier fight than any other fight he ever was in prior (215) the quarry fight he weighed 213 1/2 and the bonavena fight he weighed 212. so he could have been in better shape. besides, frazier never beat him after that, so that had to have been the reason for ali's first pro loss.

1973 - ken norton/ ali certainly did not take the former marine seriously. nobody did! ali weighed 221 for that fight. he was suprised and caught off guard. however in the rematch, he weighed 212 and he won. and the third he beat him too. so that loss was due to a lack of training.

1978 - leon spinks/ again, lack of training. he didn't expect leon to suprise him like he did. however, he trained hard and embarrassed him in the rematch.

1980 - larry holmes/ this time ali was on every pill that was ever made, and it affected his nervous system, so he couldn't even react in the fight. however, if ali waited and trained the right way instead of losing alot of weight quickly with drugs, he would have had a chance. heck, he already shocked the world twice by beating liston and foreman, who's to say he couldn't with holmes?

1981 - trevor berbick/ he weighed 234 1/2lbs. enough said! he never weighed that much, and he could have weighed less if he trained well. it was a split decision, and ali was making it a close fight. proper training would have won him that fight.

just something to think about IMO when you try to downgrade the greatest and say, "well, if he is so great, then how come he lost to this guy?" and so on, and so on hehe. :rolleyes:

http://www.availablelightphoto.com/portraits/1981-MuhammadAli.jpg

Brockton Lip
12-17-2005, 04:25 PM
True dat. :boxing:

kapersky
12-17-2005, 06:10 PM
i've been thinking about it, and i think all of ali's losses were either because he didn't train properly, or because of something else that messed him up.

1971 - joe frazier/ if ali had fought more than just two fights after the layoff before taking on frazier, he would have been more prepared in fighting frazier. plus he weighed more in the frazier fight than any other fight he ever was in prior (215) the quarry fight he weighed 213 1/2 and the bonavena fight he weighed 212. so he could have been in better shape. besides, frazier never beat him after that, so that had to have been the reason for ali's first pro loss.

1973 - ken norton/ ali certainly did not take the former marine seriously. nobody did! ali weighed 221 for that fight. he was suprised and caught off guard. however in the rematch, he weighed 212 and he won. and the third he beat him too. so that loss was due to a lack of training.

1978 - leon spinks/ again, lack of training. he didn't expect leon to suprise him like he did. however, he trained hard and embarrassed him in the rematch.

1980 - larry holmes/ this time ali was on every pill that was ever made, and it affected his nervous system, so he couldn't even react in the fight. however, if ali waited and trained the right way instead of losing alot of weight quickly with drugs, he would have had a chance. heck, he already shocked the world twice by beating liston and foreman, who's to say he couldn't with holmes?

1981 - trevor berbick/ he weighed 234 1/2lbs. enough said! he never weighed that much, and he could have weighed less if he trained well. it was a split decision, and ali was making it a close fight. proper training would have won him that fight.

just something to think about IMO when you try to downgrade the greatest and say, "well, if he is so great, then how come he lost to this guy?" and so on, and so on hehe. :rolleyes:

http://www.availablelightphoto.com/portraits/1981-MuhammadAli.jpg

you can say same about tysons losses, you can make excusess for everyone in history if you wants to.

hellfire508
12-17-2005, 06:56 PM
I think Ali could have gone undefeated if there was NO layoff. He would have fought Frazier in about 69, and beaten him comfortably. He would have beaten all contenders earlier - Norton would be the only problem - and beat Foreman in 73 and then retire.

But with the layoff - no he couldn't go undefeated. He lost fair and square.

Skydog
12-17-2005, 08:59 PM
There's no way Ali could have beat Holmes at the time. You know that, I know that. As for the Frazier fight, that's questionable. I feel he was robbed in the Spinks fight anyway, so he definetly could have beaten Spinks, he could have definetly beaten Norton had he actually realized how good Norton was, and he could have maybe prevented his loss from Berbick.

Gavilan1
12-17-2005, 10:30 PM
This is all speculation. Ali would of never remained undefeated with the competition He faced. Not in a million years.

Dempsey 1919
12-17-2005, 10:31 PM
I think Ali could have gone undefeated if there was NO layoff. He would have fought Frazier in about 69, and beaten him comfortably. He would have beaten all contenders earlier - Norton would be the only problem - and beat Foreman in 73 and then retire.

But with the layoff - no he couldn't go undefeated. He lost fair and square.

well, yeah, definetely if there was no layoff, he would go undefeated, i knew that for quite some time. however, maybe a few days ago i've been thinking about it, and if he was dedicated to training like when he was an amateur, he would have prevented those losses, despite the layoff.

j
12-18-2005, 02:57 AM
do you only post things about ali or topics related to him? i mean there is a lot more to boxing than ali.

Oasis_Lad
12-18-2005, 04:24 AM
I Think He Could Have

kapersky
12-18-2005, 05:30 AM
well, yeah, definetely if there was no layoff, he would go undefeated, i knew that for quite some time. however, maybe a few days ago i've been thinking about it, and if he was dedicated to training like when he was an amateur, he would have prevented those losses, despite the layoff.
maybe not even if there was no layoff, because prime frazier and foreman could beat ali.

Dirt E Gomez
12-18-2005, 05:55 AM
you can say same about tysons losses, you can make excusess for everyone in history if you wants to.

Ding Ding Ding... we have a winner.

Frazier's 15th round
12-18-2005, 01:07 PM
Frazier was better in 67-69 than he was in 1971. By that time, his eyesight was getting poor, and he threw only left hooks. Look at the way he tears up fighters in the late 60's. That was Frazier's best chance to beat Ali, and he would have done it.

Dempsey 1919
12-18-2005, 01:46 PM
Frazier was better in 67-69 than he was in 1971. By that time, his eyesight was getting poor, and he threw only left hooks. Look at the way he tears up fighters in the late 60's. That was Frazier's best chance to beat Ali, and he would have done it.

are you serious? '71 was his prime, anybody knows that. he was 27 years old, and he didn't get the beatings ali and foreman gave him that would have damaged frazier yet. he was still pretty fresh, and he was unstoppable. in 67-69 frazier was still getting better, and stronger. ali would have been in his real prime in '68, and had the same strength in '71 and the same speed as in '67, which is pretty scary! imagine a 213-214lb. man moving that fast and punching that hard! frazier would have been cut to ribbits, and ali would have avoided most of those punches that took a toll on him in fight of the century. so frazier's prme was on the fight of the century! however, i'll give frazier credit for stopping ali's 31 fight winning streak, i mean quarry and bonavena couldn't stop it!

Frazier's 15th round
12-18-2005, 02:35 PM
How could his prime be 1971 if all he threw were left hooks? You should check out Frazier vs Chuvalo in 1967. That was his real prime. And Frazier would have no problem landing punches on Ali, whether it's 67, 68, 69, 70, etc.

Dempsey 1919
12-18-2005, 02:46 PM
How could his prime be 1971 if all he threw were left hooks? You should check out Frazier vs Chuvalo in 1967. That was his real prime. And Frazier would have no problem landing punches on Ali, whether it's 67, 68, 69, 70, etc.

oh, really? patterson is faster than frazier, and he couldn't hit him, so is liston, and he was confused. so what makes frazier any different?

Skydog
12-18-2005, 05:35 PM
are you serious? '71 was his prime, anybody knows that. he was 27 years old, and he didn't get the beatings ali and foreman gave him that would have damaged frazier yet. he was still pretty fresh, and he was unstoppable. in 67-69 frazier was still getting better, and stronger. ali would have been in his real prime in '68, and had the same strength in '71 and the same speed as in '67, which is pretty scary! imagine a 213-214lb. man moving that fast and punching that hard! frazier would have been cut to ribbits, and ali would have avoided most of those punches that took a toll on him in fight of the century. so frazier's prme was on the fight of the century! however, i'll give frazier credit for stopping ali's 31 fight winning streak, i mean quarry and bonavena couldn't stop it!

Have you seen him destroy Chuvalo, Machen, Mathis, Quarry, etc.? Not only was he tearing up people with left hooks, but he was also KO'ing people with straight rights and right uppercuts.

Dempsey 1919
12-18-2005, 05:52 PM
Have you seen him destroy Chuvalo, Machen, Mathis, Quarry, etc.? Not only was he tearing up people with left hooks, but he was also KO'ing people with straight rights and right uppercuts.

i still think he was better in '71. his left hook was way more powerful than in the 60s.

Skydog
12-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Hmmm, ever seen Manuel Ramos get his brains bashed out by his left hook in 1968?

Dempsey 1919
12-18-2005, 05:59 PM
Hmmm, ever seen Manuel Ramos get his brains bashed out by his left hook in 1968?

all those people you mention that got baste dby frazier don't have the chin that ali does, (except chuvalo, but he didn't go down, it was stopped). frazier in 68 couldn't floor ali like he did in '71.

hellfire508
12-18-2005, 06:31 PM
I've seen all of the fights of Frazier's mentioned - and yes, he had a larger arsonal at that time. His right hand was a major factor in plenty of his fights. However - he was still developing. Most historians from my reading agree, the FOTC was Joe Frazier's best fight.

Butterfly - Patterson was faster than Frazier, but Frazier applied a greater deal of pressure, which crowded Ali and allowed him to be hit. A prime Ali is not the unhittable fighter who obviously think he is.

LondonRingRules
12-18-2005, 07:48 PM
Ali easily got a half a dozen gift decisions in his career on top of his 5 losses, so no, he was never on that kind of fast track. Precious few fighters of note escape a loss.

Dempsey 1919
12-18-2005, 07:52 PM
Ali easily got a half a dozen gift decisions in his career on top of his 5 losses, so no, he was never on that kind of fast track. Precious few fighters of note escape a loss.

well, that's your opinion.