How do you view '74 Ali?

Did it take him that long to finally shake off the last of his exile rust or was he actually better in the earlier 70s?

 

I guess you could say that being younger he was less deteriorated in the early 70s but there was the exile rust that still had to be shaken off in order to achieve optimal match fitness.

Ali fought a lot during the early 70s to shirk the rust but there was obviously wear/tear and natural age related deteriorations that went along with same.

Frazier came off worse but Ali had to have also lost some measure of himself from the FOTC -
just to cite the extreme damage/wear and tear of just one comeback fight alone.

Come ‘74, factoring gains and losses, I view Ali in net terms as the best he ever was in the 70s.

 

He might not have ever been that good to begin with. But he worked with what God gave him.

 

He wasn't Richard Dunn.

 

74 Ali was the last great version of him.

Post 1974 Ali simply wasn't elite anymore, he only remained champion because he was durable and showed flickers of handspeed + the era was decaying. His loss to spinks is a testament to how far gone he was. He looked very flat against Bugner compared to the first fight, Ali could still operate at the atg level on early 70s

 

Ali was a bit of a marvel. Most great fighters who depend primarily on their athletic gifts (Roy Jones Jr.) are pretty much done at the top level when those gifts deteriorate. A few such as Ali and Floyd Mayweather Jr. find ways to adjust using ring IQ and other skills.

Ali had long ago shaken off the ring rust caused by his three and a half year hiatus but year by year age was catching up with him. As both his hand speed and foot speed slowed down he had to learn to fight in a different way. It took him a while to figure it out. He learned to steal rounds with quick salvos of punches ala Ray Leonard. He perfected holding both as a way to rest and as a survival technique. He used the Rope-a-Dope in numerous fights. It took Ali a few years to perfect these skills and by late 1973 or early 1974 he was a fully different fighter from the man who beat Sonny Liston a decade earlier.

In answer to the thread question I would say 1971 and 1972 Ali would have beaten the Ali of 1974 and beyond because he would not have let the latter Ali get away with his tricks. The Ali of the early 1970s was the better fighter.

 

You really do not think Manilla Ali was great?

Sure Frazier was declined then too, but they still brought out the best in this record H punch output under extreme heat.
li like most fighters gave more or less depending upon the challenge provided.
Manilla proved that he still could conjure Greatness.

 

The fight was great, Ali was not

 

Imho Ali became "The Greatest" in 1974.
He should have lost both Frazier and Norton in order to toughen up physically, tactically and mentally.
He confirmed this the following year in Manila.

 

Maybe you are right-I am no fight watching expert-but I hear no logic offered, just asserting the premise absent evidence.
I'll start a thread & try to present the case briefly & even-handedly.

 

I think the Ali of 74 had regressed physically since FOTC, even allowing for shaking off ring rust, but, by 74 he had had more effectively adapted his style to his diminishing physical gifts.

 

I actually think 74 Ali turned back the clock. His hands were still 98 percent as quick as ever and he still had fast feet. Not as fast as before but still.

 

Just imo, as it happened, following his super tough SD in the 73 Norton rematch, Ali brought two very specific strategies to the table, especially customised for his 74 opposition - Frazier and Foreman.

The second time around vs Frazier, Ali clearly wasn’t interested in getting bogged down in trench warfare.

It was all about taking the path of least resistance, getting the win and making a bee line to Foreman and regaining the title.

Thus, against Frazier, we saw Ali’s punch punch punch hold rinsed repeated throughout 12 rounds.

The periodic clinching was OTT imo but it did allow Ali to secure a relatively easier victory whilst remaining unscathed.

For Foreman, Ali was even more uniquely strategised and would not have found any cause to fight anyone else in anywhere similar fashion.

 

I don’t think Muhammad Ali was prime in 1974. He was able to beat George Foreman largely due to styles, superior stamina and probably a myriad of other factors. I can’t say for sure that he was better or worse than he was in the early 70s. He might have been a tad rusty against Joe Frazier but still very sharp and endured what few other men could have in that grueling fight of the century

 

I think he was really good but not sure that version could have beaten prime Holmes. I think he would have used all his guile and trickery but Holmes had so much going for him. It would have been close but Holmes takes the decision.
The vs Terrell version of Ali might have been too fast on his feet and taken a close decision.