Was Ali in his Prime when he Fought Doug Jones ?

You kind of point it out yourself in the above post but maybe don’t see it: Ali probably came in too light for Jones to be optimal for that fight and that opponent. Why? Because to that point he had been basically a speed merchant and that’s what he know — some in lighter, come in faster of foot and hand. By Liston perhaps he had learned that there’s more to it than that, and to sit down on his punches a bit more — probably to anchor himself for a bigger man and to have a bit more bulk (and strength) to stand up to him, but that made him a better fighter all-around. Something that happened in a short time.

I’m telling you from my experience, I saw it at all stages of development from just-off-the-street beginners to pros with a number of fights … oftentimes improvement is quantum. With a beginner, you show him how to throw a proper jab and he practices and practices and doesn’t get it right … and one day he walks in and it clicks and from then on he can throw a proper jab. Same thing with teaching an older dog newer tricks, how to coordinate hand and feet to avoid being there when the opponent punches back, finding a new rhythm or to better sit down on punches and fight off the back foot … it comes together at some point.

Now you’re saying, it seems to me, ‘No way a guy walks into a gym one day not able to throw his jab properly and a day later he’s throwing it correctly.’ And I’m saying, yes, it happens like that all the time.

Watch a football quarterback in his first start and through the season and you’ll see a point where it starts to come together — as they often put it, ‘the game slows down’ Watch a baseball player who can’t figure out how to hit the curveball and he works on it and works on it and strikes out and strikes out … and then one day he smashes one and then he’s proficient at it. Etc.

 

The authorities robbed him of three years that would have been during his peak.

 

I lived this and know exactly what you mean.
I remember my old trainers always yelling at me "Close that damn door, after the right hand". Or bring the hook after it .
I was always 0ne -two or one-one two , than like a bolt of lightning, I was " closing the door". And being a natural lefty, I was very good at it.
As many times and months of getting cussed out, and extra calisthenics because of my refusal to do that very basic technique. All of a sudden I was doing it. And doing it very well.

 

I think his performance did, and how do we judge prime if not by performance?

And where does hugely come in? We’re talking about an imaginary line here (a subjective one, of course) between pre-prime/prime. So at some point, we’re looking at any fighter and saying ‘his prime began here,’ which means in our estimation it didn’t begin the fight before or the fight after. It doesn’t say there has to be a huge leap for that to happen, just that someone whose career has taken him right up to the point of that line has stepped over it.

Heck, can any of us — presumably all (with the exception of our own Tim Witherspoon who posts here upon occasion) non-athletes or at least not high-level professional athletes — pinpoint when our own physical and mental prime began? Can you?

I’d say my own career prime began when I was promoted into a certain role — I’ve been promoted or moved up from one company to another since in roles that evolved from that, and I stepped in on Day One and really started to shine in that. I was good before, but better in that. Why? Because it was a challenge and I really applied myself to it.

Now I can extrapolate from my own career and where I personally would say my prime began and deduce that maybe an athlete’s prime starts when he steps up to a big challenge and applies himself to it successfully. Ali certainly did that vs. Liston. I wouldn’t say Mike Tyson’s prime started when he KO’d Alonzo Ratliff … he probably could have done that in his debut — just too powerful and fast and hit too hard. But when he shortly thereafter crushed Trevor Berbick, he was stepping up to a much greater challenge. So I’d place it there. But I don’t think Tyson was hugely better vs. Berbick than he was Ratliff.

 

His prime was from 1963 to 1967. When he came back in the 1970's he became a punching bag...he never knew how to fight...he never learned the correct way to block punches...how to block a left hook...kept his hands too low...he had his speed and he was quick enough to pull back just in time! In the '70's...he lost his speed and reflexes...so his "strategy" was to lie on the ropes...and hope his opponents would punch themselves out...no much of a "strategy"...look how he ended up...the worst shape of any other heavyweight champ!

 

Ali didn't just lie on the ropes the entirety of the 70's Jim . Got to disagree with you on that.
Now from 1975- 76 on to the end of his career ok.
But Ali from 1970 until 1975 was still plenty fast of fist, and skilled. What he lost in foot speed, he made up for with punching power and physicality, he had over 20 fights during that time span.
He doesn't get a lot of credit for his physical strength, but he was strong as hell boxing wise, able to push off, direct opponents for better angles of attack, and tie up most of his opponents at will.

 

I love it, love the lingo and the coaching relationship of hammering that nail home until it sticks.

A couple of mine were:

“Don’t wait for the receipt,” which I picked up from Gil Clancy’s commentary — after you throw, move your head or move your feet to change the angle so you’re not standing there as a target when the guy throws back.

“Start the conversation and finish it — you get the first word and the last word” — lead and then be in position to counter their counter

 

Another one, " Put that stick on um".

 

Vic - You’ve put up some very good questions in several threads. Cheers for that.

Although not fully developed, I think a fighter can still encounter styles that are either easier or more difficult to overcome than others, a legacy that can carry even into their prime.

For one specific example, Ali’s vulnerability to being hit with the left hook never completely went away.

Due to styles, both the Jones and Cooper fights relative to the Liston fight might’ve given a partial false read on where Ali was actually at as at 63 and how much he improved by Feb 64.

Not to say he didn’t improve - Ali did and he also filled out more. It seemed he was still growing and therefore, that would require fine ongoing calibrations until he settled into his fully matured, static physique.

To be millimetre perfect, you’ve got to know your body millimetre perfect - that’s not entirely possible when you’re still growing, however slight the increments of growth are as you approach full maturity.

However, all things considered, I think Jones’ style was perhaps always going to be more problematic than Liston’s.

Against Cooper in 63, Ali was also overly complacent, lacked focus and was trying to fight to prediction. Certainly, he wasn’t as on point as he should’ve been and was capable of, on the night.

For Liston, Ali was deadly serious for the most part. He wasn’t never going to **** around with Sonny and his lurking power.

On the flip side, at least as Feb 64, Liston could be viewed as being somewhat made for Ali in terms of their styles and respective stages of their careers - so there is that to consider also.

Compare Ali’s performances against Cooper in 63 and 66 respectively, in the face of the same opponent - Henry being a reasonably static quantity from fight 1 to fight 2.

Was there really that much difference between the two fights save for Ali being completely serious and focused in their rematch?

Personally, I thought the dynamic between the two fighters was more or less the same. Ali was winning but Cooper was still somewhat awkward for him - Ali still didn’t actually hurt Cooper and the fight was again stopped on cuts around the same time the first fight stopped.

Ali boxed an exhibition against Jones in 66 - and again, Ali had likely improved by a fair degree but Jones himself had def. gone back - so things had changed for Doug Jones also - both fighters moving in opposite directions to compound the separation between the two.

Not to debate the point in itself (been there, done that, lol), but unlike others, I don’t believe Tyson himself was as green as was claimed when he faced Tillis.

Mike was on a tear and Tillis was installed as a 10-1 underdog (read: another quick KO for Mike).

I don’t know that Mikes fights thereafter represented the degree of development post Tillis that some perceive.

Of course Mike did develop further, and i underhand that it’s arguable that the improvement was steeper than average.

However, the way I see it, the difficulties that Tillis’ style, abilities and conviction presented were more a substantive issue and interruption to an otherwise unabated tear.

I think that Tillis brought features to the fight that, even if dealt with better by a fully prime Mike, would still present as stylistic issues for a prime Mike in some measure.

Many might disagree on my last points (probably all my points..lol) - and I know that.

If we all agreed on everything, it would be so bloody boring.

 

Agenda

 

Personally I agree with you , especially about Mike Tyson.
Tyson was walking around at 15 at 190lbs. He matured much earlier than most heavyweights, plus the frenetic style he had early on in his career, it was almost a given he'd reach his peak/ prime earlier than most great heavyweights and have a shorter stay there.