How was Ali rated in 1967 ?

Why wouldn't expectations of a 25-year old be that he'd improve over the coming 3-4 years? Ali was a dedicated professional during his first career (less so during his second) and took very little punishment in his fights. If he kept that up, the normal expectation would be for him to improve until his late 20's and then start a gradual decline in his 30's.

That's the normal development for an athlete. No hindsight about it.

 

No, I think what we saw was his best. What we missed was the continuation of Alis best for a bit longer.

The Folley fight was a more mature performance. He was not dancing the whole time even by then. Dancing for dancing sake was beginning to be a more measured activity within a round. A period of toning down and balancing out the spells defence and offence more economically appeared to be beginning.

After 1967, the first two comeback fights took him back to where Ali would have been had he not been exiled by the first Frazier fight. He was still great.

Until then I dont think Ali ever threw as many punches in an opening round as he did against Frazier.

 

Nor had he faded so quickly either...

But as I said, athletes typically continue improve until they get to 30. Ali was dedicated and had no wear and tear so the natural assumption is that he would continue to improve somewhat. According to Dundee he was still developing physically even.

Sure, he could start to slack in training and have fights that were tougher than they needed to be, like Bowe for example. We can never know for sure. Then he could have been past his prime in 1971 even without the lay-off.

But looking at the trajectory he had, his dedication in the 60's and the small amount of punishment he received, the most likely conclusion is that he would be around his absolute peak at 29 years old, even a bit better than he was at 25. At the very least as good. A year or so later the decline would start to set in.

This only becomes controversial if you want to tell yourself that Frazier didn't beat a somewhat declined version of Ali.

EDIT: Jack Johnson was 32 when he beat Jeffries (30 when he beat Burns), Schmeling was 33 when he beat Louis, Holyfield was 31 when he regained the title from Bowe, Douglas was 30 when he beat Tyson, Spinks was 29 when he beat Holmes etc, etc.

(Ps. they got to that age the same year they had the fights - haven't bothered with the exact dates.)

There are loads of examples of HWs that had some of their best wins and performances at 29 and older. The ones who had their best years before that had either had long lay-offs (Dempsey, Louis, Ali and Tyson) or been in wars and/or lost dedication (Frazier, Bowe and lots of the 80's top contenders).

I can't come to think of one fighter who stayed dedicated, didn't have wars in the ring or suffer injuries that was past his peak at 29.

 

I don't think Louis ever thought much of Ali. I don't know about Dempsey.
Louis said several times he could have beaten him. He said his strategy would have been to work Ali into a corner.
I saw an old TV talk show Louis and Ali were on where Louis told Ali he would have been on his "Bum of the month" tour.
Ali and Louis didn't like each other.

 

This is true. One thing the exile did was cause an arrested development in Ali. The natural slowing of pace within an active fighter is very subtle as he ages. Experience compensates for pace, the fighter might not even be aware. so the start of a prime can show faster performances but produce the same end result nearer the end of the same prime. The fighter is no less efficient. He's slowing down but in a good way. More haste later less waste.

This is true as a whole but that depends at what age the athlete hits elite level. Competition brings the best out of a fighter. If the athlete starts at top level like Ali did, like Joe Louis, Dempsey and Patterson did that's where the prime starts. With a slower development where a fighter is kept within a lower level to gain seasoning a prime is moth balled until he steps up into elite level.

of course he would be developing physically but improving physically is not the same as improving fistically. Ali's reflexes Were not going to be getting faster after 1967

Joe Louis and Ali both showed incredible consistency as champions but why was this? Could it have something to do with them wanting to get so many defences in before they were drafted?

It's unusual for a champion to adopt the schedule of a prospect but in doing so perhaps this "being so active as champions" Ali and Joe Louis developed a level rarely achieved?

Without the shadow of the draft over them, without the high championship schedule, constant training with one camp starting right after the next one ended Ali and Louis might not have been quite so dedicated. It might have taken them longer to achieve such levels with more rusty performances and more time between fights to off the rails.

By comparison I think Ali was about as good against Frazier as Larry Holmes was against ****ey. In relation to prime this was Ali's edge of prime. He had built up to edge of prime level with the rust breaking Bonevena fight as a tune up.

Absolute peak had already been achieved by 1965. It was not getting better. Realistically this prime could be maintained to about 1969 then would evolve into a slower but just as efficient prime before an actual start of a decline in 1973.
,

How do you define better? As good for longer or another level?

I dont want to tell myself it because the way I see it Ali's two performances (whilst not aesthetically as pleasing) were phenomenal results on paper. Bonevena KO rnd 15, Quarry TKO rnd3 look better than what anyone else could achieve at that time. Frazier included.

but How long had Johnson been beating world level opponents?

so the prime starts at 30.

But didn't he look a faster more fluent boxer versus Qawi?

Douglas is the epitome of possessing a moth balled prime. It was all there ready to come out but a combination of desire issues and career momentum prevented it from blossoming at any earlier moment.

yes indeed but If a fighter hits the big time at a younger age the prime starts earlier. It's not going to continue to 30 if it starts at 20.

Floyd Patterson. Mike Tyson.

 

I agree Bokaj. You would expect an athlete to improve after the age of 25 though there are exceptions notably Tyson and numerous lower weight fellas.

What I meant was that we view that period 67-70 with slight rose-tinted glasses. This was, after all, the man who went on to beat Frazier and Foreman when thought to be past prime. So we extrapolate what he would have been from 1967 on with an exaggerated upward curve.

However, as LUFCrazy said, in 67 he was not long after failing to put Terrell away and hadn't convinced vs Patterson or Chuvalo. So looking forward from that point, expectation wouldn't have been so high as it is for us in 2016 with the benefit of knowing the heights he went on to scale. As such, a view in 67 of what he would have become doesn't factor in what he actually did become. So looking back historically, we have a vantage point to assess his potential in 67 that wasn't afforded to his contemporaries.

Bit waffly that, if I'm honest, but I hope it makes sense. If not Area53 and LUFCrazy might be able to lend a hand. Cheers anyway.

 

I don't think Ali looked good at all against Bonavena. He looked past his best, and that's probably why Frazier was a favorite against him.

According to himself he was gassed after only 3 rds against Quarry. That could be why he started flat-footed against Bonavena.

Tyson showed lacking dedication even before his forced lay-off so he doesn't fill the criteria.

And I don't think Patterson was past his prime at 29.

So if those are all you have in answer to which HWs that were past their peak at 29 without having lost their dedication or suffered injuries or lay-offs, you don't have a lot.

On the other hand, you have Fitz, Johnson, Tunney, Schmeling, Liston, Spinks, Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis and the Klit brothers among those who had their arguably best wins/performances at 29 or older.

 

If I'm understanding you chok, you're wrong!
No one saw Ali from 67-70; his comeback was impressive but, after Zaire, in retrospect, he treated us like trained bears and the press went along for the ride.
But, that being said, we HAD NOT seen his best performances after Folley. He would have cleaned out the division 67-70.

 

Great post!

 

That it was, and spot on in soooo many ways.