The truth is, we can never know. As I've argued previously in other discussions; we have no way to go back in time, redo it with different factors, to compare outcomes. This particular part of the debate is strictly a matter of opinion. IOW, I don't know for sure whether he was better or worse off. And neither does anyone else. But, in my mind, it didn't really matter to him, and thusly, it doesn't really matter to me.
There was nothing great he missed out on during the time he was banned.If anything it allowed other fighters to be built up so he got more credit after he beat them.
He could've upped his number during this hiatus instead of fighting past his prime and racking up losses.
Ali beat 4 all time greats in their prime during heavyweight boxings toughest era,Joe Louis's bum of the month club doesn't compare to that.
http://a.espncdn.com/boxing/columns/kellerman_max/281555.html Heavyweight I know a lot of people like Joe Louis, but believe me, Louis over Muhammad Ali is an argument you will lose. Badly. If you want to debate it, catch me in my weekly chat room sessions on Friday afternoons at 1:30 p.m. ET, and I will be glad to get into it. Ali is the clear-cut top guy at heavy, and Louis is the clear-cut choice for the second slot. After Louis, the next tier includes Jack Johnson, Larry Holmes, George Foreman and Evander Holyfield. To round off the greatest heavyweights ever is the final tier, composed of Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey, Sonny Liston, Jim Jeffries and Ezzard Charles. I am not suggesting that a prime Marciano or Charles would compete with the much larger prime Mike Tyson -- they would not. Marciano, however, proved to be as great a heavyweight in the 1950's as Tyson has been in the 80's and 90's. Should Tyson somehow win back the title, his place among the all-time heavyweight greats will rise.