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

His weight was a bit higher against Chuvalo since it was a very short camp (only about 3 weeks), but I think he carried his weight very well regardless in that fight. Ali was 210-212 for his best performances in the 60's, while he was 2015 in FOTC, 2012 for the rematches with Frazier and Norton and 216 for Foreman. So he was only marginally bigger if bigger at all when in shape and it's not like his body underwent a transformation with bigger traps etc like Holy's did in his 30's.

 

Why do people keep saying that when it isn't true? When in top shape in the 70's he was at the same weight as what many thought was his best weight in the 60's, 212 lbs, or a couple of punds heavier. There was no body development except that he got fatter in the 70's, due to age and because he was less disciplined in training. Ali never put on defined muscle mass in his 30's like Holy did.

 

Ok, thanks.

 

Because it is.

1) Strength athletes, even if their weight remains constant, don't peak at 25. Muscles can get stronger over time even if more mass isn't added.

2) In Ali's case, the weight he added wasn't just fat; there was muscle there, too.

3) Being heavier, even if some of the additional weight is fat, increases punch resistance as long as you don't neglect conditioning to get there. Heavyweight James Toney had a far superior chin in real terms than the 160 version. Middleweight Toney isn't standing up to full fledged heavyweight power, but much of the weight he put on was fat along with muscle.

Ali added more size and was more mature physically. It's natural to conclude he was stronger and took a better punch as a result.

 

Certainly not when those muscles are wasting away to inactivity.

I think it's quote possibly that he would be a bit stronger if he had stayed active, though. Dundee said that his body still was developing in 1967 but sitting on his ass for 3,5 years can't have done much for that development.

We are hardly speaking about any weight gain, though. He was 212 in 1967, 215 for FOTC, 2012 for the Norton and Frazier rematches and 216 for Foreman. And even with that small amount of added weight he was clearly softer in his body.

Toney as a HW took steroids and was about 70-80 lbs heavier than he was at MW. Even with the extra fat, at least half of that should have been pure muscle. How does this compare to Ali who was 0-4 lbs heavier at his best in the 70's than at his best in the 60's?

Why is it so hard to take in that Ali didn't really put on any significant weight when he was in good shape in the '70s?

Louis did, though. He carried about 15 lbs more late in his career than in his prime without being the least bit fat. Didn't make him anything close to the fighter he had been, though.

 

1) Wasting away due to inactivity seems pretty melodramatic, don't you think? It's not like Ali was banned from working out, and it's not like he wasn't back to the grind fighting regularly once he was out.

A trained athlete's strength doesn't peak at 25, even if their weight remains stable, if they continue to train. I don't think either one of us is changing the other's mind on that one.

2) Toney put on fat and muscle, and did steroids, and Ali did look a little softer as he put weight on. His punch resistance also increased accordingly as time went on. What ratio of that is due to maturity and what to added weight, I can't quantify and don't care to. I only feel confident saying Ali was in fact stronger and took a better punch in the '70's.

Certain aspect's of Ali's game peaked in the 60's. Others didn't until later. That's the cycle that happens with all fighters. A balancing act between which qualities are improving and declining over time.

 

He didn't train, though. He was out speaking at colleges, but he wasn't training.

Toney put on much more mass in total and much more muscle than Ali (who put on none to negible amounts), so that isn't in any way comparable.

For every other fighter - whether it be Dempsey, Louis, Tyson whomever - we accept that they declined overall once their speed, reflexes and stamina did. It just escapes me why this should apply less to Ali - someone who relied to a very, very high extent on his speed, reflexes and agility.

 

I know a guy who sparred with Ali at Mack Lewis' Gym in Baltimore during the time Ali was away from the ring. The guy was a big middleweight who sparred regularly with Larry Middleton. I don't know of any other sparring that Ali did, but I would be surprised if this was the only time Ali sparred while he was barred from boxing.

 

He sparred Ellis for a week sometime early 1970, but it seems like the first work he'd done for a while because he says "I'm nothing like I was 3 years ago": (from 20:20)

This content is protected

 

I've written this before but, had he not been exiled, he would have continued taking apart anyone you put in front of him and...would have retired MUCH earlier. IMO he would have fought Frazier much earlier earning a hard fought clear UD. Those 'lost' 67-70 years would have taken a toll on him despite the continuing victories. I don't know how long he would have continued; perhaps Foreman circa 74 could have been his 'Waterloo' who knows? One thing about Muhammad (unlike today's fighters) is that, had he not been stripped, IMO he would have been an every 4-6 month defending Champion throughout that period. With that being said, had he met his match circa 74 or so and retired thereafter, he may have had close to just as many fights as he did.
Maybe he'd go longer in my scenario maybe not.
Had it played out that way IMO it wouldn't tarnish his ATG status in ANY way!
My $0.02

 

This question doesn't even begin to exercise any of my little grey brain cells. Ali beats everyone without any question, no fights even close.