Did Muhammad Ali only ever lose a match during the 70`s because of the 3 year lay off?

One you are perfectly entitled to.

 

Eighteen rounds in nearly 4 years ,get real!

 

No, it's just Frazier had slid by then.

 

The only fight I see him winning is FOTC. But that's not written in gold. The Spinks,Holmes ,and Berbick losses where to father time, and father time is undefeated from the beginning of time until this very second, because at this very second something is losing to father time in the universe.

 

Its possible Ali would have won FOTC if not for his layoff. I don't think its a foregone conclusion though. Frazier's style would always be hell for Ali. He would always have to come down off his toes to rest by the midrounds certainly. Frazier brought too much pressure and pace.

I think that Ali underestimated Joe Frazier. Joe didnt pass the eyetest to Ali. That would of happened layoff or not.
Joe administered a painful lesson but Ali did learn from that loss and cameback and won with some different tactics. But he paid to learn.

 

Prime Frazier vs Gut-shot Williams would probably been a similar result......especially with Frazier going to the body repetitively.

 

In 1971 he would be better and in all probability beat Frazier, imo. It's quite clear to the naked eye that he lost speed, agility and stamina to the lay-off. Some like to claim that this was more than compensated by increased strength and power. But he was the same weight as he was for Chuvalo in 1966 but with a softer body, and was six months back after letting the muscles go to waste for 3,5 years so I can't see where that extra strength would have come from. It's also quite contradictory to on the other hand say that the heavier version of Frazier in the second and third fight was declined because a loss of speed. Why on earth would Ali suffer much less from loss of speed (which his whole style evolved around), than Frazier would? Makes no sense at all.

For the Norton fight age and wear and tear would probably have started to set in on Ali regardless. Some might say it would have set in earlier since the lay-off had a preserving effect on Ali. There is some sense to that, but I'm doubtful that the possible preservation of the lay-off was equal to what he lost during that time, and since I also think that his fight with Frazier in 1971 was much tougher for him because of the lay-off I'm not even sure that he would have had more wear and tear by 1973 without the lay-off. So my guess is that he would have edged Norton, but taking Norton lightly would be a huge mistake with or without a lay-off, so I'm less sure about this one.

For Spinks, my answer is more or less the same as it is for Norton.

 

I agree that it's an underrated performance. All the holding wasn't very elegant, but his legs probably looked better that night than they did at any other time in the 70's. Nine months later in Zaire he was already quite a bit slower. The humidity and slow canvas had something to do with it, but his bounce wasn't at all the same.

 

The big diffetence during the 70s was that Ali wasn’t fighting the likes of timid London, shot Williams, old Foley, or bleeding Cooper any more.

 

And he was bigger, stronger and better able to take a punch in the 70s.