Ali - The Great Question

shits crazy...

 

I think 60s Ali was already capable of answering the same questions put to him during his second career in during the 70s.

I think that his post exile deteriorations and improved comp. combined simply saw him forced to materially react to and answer the greater demands.

Covering up, leaning, allowing an opponent to offload on him and tire themselves out was already a contingent strategy Ali was already training for, going as far back as 1965, when Ali was training for the Liston rematch.

I think we got a decent preview of the hybrid, best of all worlds, uber tough, heaviest to date Ali (at 214 1/2 lbs) over the full 15 round distance against Chuvalo in 1966.

During that fight Ali literally invited Chuvalo to take free shots to the body, and they were wicked shots - Cus D’Amato believed that Ali’s show of disdain for Chuvalo’s power basically “removed the bullets” from George’s gun.

 

Liston, Williams, & Terrell had 3 of the best left hands in the division @that time, & look at what Ali did to them.

Not all '60s Alis were the same - he steadily improved over the course of the decade & his durability also improved as he filled out his frame. The Ali that deftly avoided Cooper's left hand in their rematch & gradually broke down Mildenberger was a smarter & better fighter than the one that had his hands full w/ Jones & was almost KO'd by Cooper. There were still times even after winning the title where his overall lack of seasoning or experience was apparent (i.e.: allowing Chuvalo to tee off on his body), but IMO he had virtually perfected his craft by the time of the Williams & Terrell fights, which was the best he ever was at any stage of his career IMO.

 

Idon't think Folley or Mildenberger gave him any particular trouble

I don't think Folley or Mildenberger gave him any particular trouble.
Jones' jab wasn't really a factor in the fight,it was his light heavyweight speed and fast right hand.

 

I think Mildenberger is Ali's most underrated career win in light of the circumstances. He was fighting a southpaw (his 1st as a pro) on foreign soil that was significantly more experienced & hadn't officially lost in several years. IIRC, Mild gave him a few spots of trouble early on & shook him w/ a body shot late in the fight (one of the few, if not only times Ali was ever visibly shaken by a body shot), but overall I thought Ali broke him down quite nicely.

 

Mildenberger won some rounds, but he was well behind when he was stopped. It reeks of an agenda somewhat to compare this to Norton, who broke Ali's jaw and outpointed him, to be completely honest.

And while Jones gave Ali a tough fight, Frazier gave him in one of the most brutal wars in boxing history and beat him. But, yes, I would say that the FOTC version of Ali was better than the one who faced Jones. I don't think many would argue that. He was young and still developing and fought a fight almost every month and clearly not the fighter who faced Jones in an exhibition three years later. Yes, I know, Jones weren't the same etc, etc. Sure, but just look at the footage. 1966 Ali was a different animal to the 1963 version.

And Folley won some rounds as well but was KO'd and dropped for the second time with the same counter. You only make something of this if you want to. Folley was full of praise for Ali's boxing IQ btw, said he fought like he had had a 100 fights instead of 29.

A better, and more honest, take would be to compare the fights he had with the same opponents before and after exile. He did better against both Patterson and Chuvalo before his exile than after and both said he was a better fighter before.

That should really be case closed. But...

 

You just mean early 70's, not the whole 70's right? You can't include the struggles with Young and Shavers nor the loss to Spinks I reckon when you say he struggled less in the 70's.

But even before that he struggled more with Bonavena and Lyle, and arguably even Bob Foster, than he did with Mildenberger and Folley.

And why should we ignore Frazier and Norton? You mean that they were so superior to his 60's opposition? Then what do you base that on beside that they beat 70's Ali? Exclude Ali and Liston's resume is way superior to Frazier's. And Norton's without Ali isn't better than, say, Patterson or Terrell when Ali beat him. You can use Nortons fight against Holmes to claim that he was a particular nightmare for non-punchers (and that's fair), but that's it.

Thie whole line of reasoning is quite labored.

All Ali's losses were in the 70's. And besides going life and death with Frazier and Norton he also had a tough fight with Bonavena and was behind against Lyle. And this isn't including all his struggles in the second half of the 70's.

In the 60's he beat everyone, including the then dominant Liston, without much trouble, except for Jones and Cooper (first fight). But he beat them as well.

Just how does the 70's come off better here?

 

Yeah I don’t think highly of Norton. I think he was rather average but had the right style to annoy Ali and Holmes. Frazier is on another level to the rest of the competition. He is just better. But yeah even though he struggles w some he still beat them in the 60s and yes I don’t hold the late comers of the 70s against him.

 

Yeah, Frazier was a level above anyone Ali faced in the 60's except Liston.

But people make way too much about the difference between his 60's comp and 70's. Yes, only Liston was on the level of Frazier and Foreman, but Folley beat Bonavena (arguably twice), Chuvalo beat Quarry, Patterson beat Quarry and Ellis on most scorecards and the same with Cooper against Bugner. So I fail to see the qualitative difference there.

 

I lean towards older Ali - he stated himself that, while he was quicker and had more stamina in the 60s, he was more confident as an older fighter; personally, I think he was also tougher because of that ... which also may have contributed to his decline. He discovered he could take punishment like few other fighters around, so he used that to offset slowed reflexes and reduced stamina. He was still faster than most, and every fight is a learning opportunity - so, it depends on how you define best. Athletically, the young Ali was better - but as a boxer, older Ali had more tools in his toolbox

 

He picked up some of his best wins in the 70s. But honestly, he looks sharper, faster and busier on film in the 60s.

 

Yes, and he said that the younger Ali would beat the older because of that speed and stamina.

 

Smooch. I like U brother. U know ur sh*t.

 

Not to mention that young Ali had better defensive head movement, better use of the ring and spatial awareness (see Liston I when he comes off his toes and boxes off the jab and pivot) and whilst flashy at times, his footwork was better balanced, more educated and 'sharper' than his later self. Ali of young would dance to the ropes, spin, duck, weave and escape with a consistent ease. Later Ali didn't have the footwork and leg speed to do this - of course, I do recognise that he was fighting a high quality of fighters more regularly (72 - 74/5 is probably an underrated run).

I struggle with the notion that Ali became a better boxer when the tape shows more skill aligned with athleticism than the older version displayed. The older still had great handspeed combined with resilient confidence and experience, however, I think he noticeably slipped - the decline in footspeed and footwork takes away a big part of his game; it removes his trusty jab to the stomach and meant that he was in the danger zone a lot more than what we saw in the 60s.

 

Agree 100% It's staggering to think what Ali could have been in 1967-70 had he been allowed to continue his career uninterrupted. I honestly don't think ANY other fighter in ANY weight class in history would compare to that level of all around greatness!!