Is there anything '74 Ali was better at than '67 Ali?

Efficiency, boxing IQ, pacing, knowing when to sit down on his punches, basically the game from the neck up.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Holmes.

I think that Ali was definitely faster in the 60's, but otherwise, I think that the 70's Ali was better.

I don't think that he learned to clinch or take a punch as he aged, but just that he perfected his arts as he aged. Speed and movement were the only things I think he lost by then, but he improved on other traits to support these losses.

 

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on both. And you also disagree with the men who faced Ali and with Ali himself, but I'm sure they agree to disagree as well.

These discussions always end like this, that the other guy thinks Ali improved somehow in unclear ways while declining in his main assets. For me this is a viewpoint that is counterintuitive to begin with and that has been as utterly disproven in every discussion about it, but still manages to still pop up somehow.

 

I said clearly what I thought he improved on since my original post on this thread, I also don't think that speed is his "main asset"- It's what he's known for, but his speed isn't what won him fights, not even back in the 60's.

 

Ok, so that would fall into the debunked category for me then. I think we in this thread has showed how that his punch resistance and inside game really improved in his 20's, just that he had to show it less often. As for punch sharpness I can't even begin to understand how you came to that conclusion. And the ones who actually faced him before and after don't agree with you. You're so clearly wrong, so I just don't understand why you, or anyone else, continues with this to death debunked argument.

And speed certainly won him fights. Had that been average he wouldn't have seen the end of the first round against Liston. But his fight IQ and resilience were also crucial assets for sure, but again they were already there. Look up what Folley said about his fight IQ, for instance.

This argument is just so weak tbh. No one thinks Dempsey, Tyson or Louis peaked once they slowed down. This argument is for some reason reserved for a fighter who relied on his speed more than any of them. It really escapes me why.

 

Yes, you talked about how his punch resistance and inside game improved in his 20's. Quoting Cooper and saying how he improved pre-exile, but none of this disproves anything about what I'm saying- I'm simply saying that he improved past his already apparent evolution in the '60s.

It's very simple to see that Ali sat down on his punches more and threw more effective single shots due to his speed becoming less of a main factor for him. Instead of throwing those big, beautiful combinations to the head and body, he'd simply sit down on his single shots and punch real sharp. See the Bonavena stoppage, see the Foreman stoppage, see the Lyle stoppage (past his best by this fight, but it gets the point across). You keep saying that the fighters who fought him don't agree with me, but who exactly are you talking about?

So, he would've been knocked out against Liston had he not had his speed, but he didn't improve his punch resistance at all in the 70's? As you said, responding to ThatOne saying that he improved his resilience to damage in the 70's- "Far from sure about that actually. In the first Chuvalo fight he was only two pounds lighter than in Zaire and had a better muscle tone to his body, and invited Chuvalo to beat on his midsection without showing any effects. By that point he already practiced those tactics at least since the first Liston fight." I know that his IQ and resilience were already part of his repertoire, all I'm saying is that he improved on them with time.

No one thinks that Dempsey, Tyson, or Louis peaked after they lost their speed because they didn't beat any H2H nightmares past their generally agreed upon peak. Speed wasn't what made Ali, all it did was slightly change his gameplan and style when fighting.

 

The ones I named by name of course: Chuvalo and Patterson.

And sit down on punches and blah, blah, blah - the fact his that his KO ratio plummeted. And against the same fighters he didn't do as well. Even though they were aged and declined when he met them the second time.

Yes, those should increase incrementally with time. But that is true for every ageing fighter, but no one thinks they improve as a whole package for that sake. Even though they - like Dempsey, Louis and Tyson - weren't as reliant on speed and stamina, since they had one punch KO power,

Louis arguably beat the best opponent he won over in Walcott at a time where no one thinks he was at his best.

Tyson also arguably beat the same calibre of opponents as in the 80's with the same ease, just lost when he stepped up (Holyfield). It wasn't until McBride when he started losing to lower levels of fighters, but most would have him 15 years removed from his prime at that point.

Dempsey also had never faced anyone on the level of Tunney before.

And Ali could go on to beat great fighters because he was better than Dempsey and Tyson. It's not complicated. So why make it so?

Ali had three stoppage over two top 20 ATGs without much trouble years before he went life and death with Frazier and Norton. He had a better KO ratio before the exile. He most importantly was better according to those who faced him both before and after, and according to himself.

I think that is quite a bit stronger than "just like everyone else he gained experience but declined physically, but unlike everyone else only he improved in total for some unspecified reason".

We're not talking a Hopkins here. Someone who had little amateur experience, a late start in the pros and took exceptional well care of himself. Ali had top amateur pedigree, turned pro at 18 and did not take care of himself well at all after the exile.

 

Chuvalo and Patterson were both much better than they were in the initial encounters with Ali. Chuvalo took the first fight on just over 2 weeks notice, and got vastly better in the time of Ali's exile, as he had matches with many named fighters which made him better. Bonavena, Mathis, Ellis, Quarry, etc. The same goes for Patterson, who had his encounters with Quarry, Ellis, and Bonavena as well, and in the eyes of most fans arguably should've WON the WBA title from Ellis.

Quarry x2, Bonavena, Ellis, Blin, Lewis, Patterson, Foster, and Foreman all never made it the distance against Ali, with most of the fighters that he beat by decision being too durable for him. Foster, Mathis, Chuvalo, and Bugner would not have been stopped had they faced the younger version of Ali, so your "point" about KO ratio is pretty much moot.

And I didn't say that he improved his entire package, I said that he lost some and gained more.

Louis' best win is unanimously known as Schmeling II, where he was at his utmost peak.

And the arguments about Tyson and Dempsey here really don't matter, they didn't beat a H2H nightmare while past their best, that is what I said, and it still stands.

Both the Liston and Patterson wins are good, but they don't discredit any of what I'm saying. He would've went life and death with Norton if he had fought the same versions of them in the '60s, they will always be tough fights for The Greatest.

 

What is happening here? You can't be serious. Patterson was 37 in his last fight. He had not improved, quite the opposite. Neither had unranked Chuvalo at 34. Are you just saying whatever right now?

And for the fourth time, their clear and simple testimony was that the 60's Ali was clearly better. Were they wrong, you mean? Please answer that.

But you just say thing with nothing to back it up... At least it is not as completely ludicrous as Patterson having improved.

Whatevet you think might have happened against X opponent, the simple fact is that his KO ratio declined. Even against ranked opponents.

That is improving the total package. For ****s sake.

He was at his best then, yes, but Schmeling as an opponent is not unanimously known as his best by any means. He's up there for sure, but so is Walcott.

But it means nothing. They didn't at their best either.

But you base this on nothing. You haven't had a single argument yet. You just claim things with no basis whatsoever.

Answer this or just admit that you are wrong:

Why doubt Patterson and Chuvalo and Ali himself when they said the 60's version was better?

Why would he improve when his speed ans stamina declined, when fighters like Dempsey Louis and Tyson - who was less reliant on speed and stamina - not only not improved but became worse?

 

He was worse in most but not all aspects of the game, the competition was better, and yet he still found a way to win.

 

74 Ali probably had a higher ring IQ, developed through experience and necessity, but on the whole was an inferior fighter to 67 Ali.

 

His skill set improved some, partly due to experiences he had in his second career. Ring Generalship was better.

Overall, I believe he was at his personal best in his first career (right before his exile).

 

I thought Ali sat into his punches more in the 70s.

 

What already said: 74 Ali was able to take a punch.

I don't see that late version of Ali being floored as the young version was by Cooper or Frazier.

 

Was it really better? Or did he have to show it more often?